But I tried not too be too judgmental, so didn't put in my review that I felt that stealing food from the village shop is always wrong: I gave her the benefit of the doubt, their finances were tight, she was worried that her sick husband was weak from lack of food etc. But now I learn that they own a plot of land in France, and that there are serious doubts about his diagnosis of a terminal illness.
Winn was very critical of other people, who apparently dismissed the pair as "tramps, down and outs, or addicts". There are numerous episodes where they are treated badly at campsites and little shops. Since Chloe's article, a number of Cornish people have come forward and spoken of their distress at recognising their shops and sites described in the book - with totally false reports of what happened. Some are local traders who lost business because of the way they have been very inaccurately portrayed in the book.
It is all really sickening. I wonder how Gillian Anderson feels now, having played the lead character in the film?
I recognised that directors claim "dramatic licence" when they alter the details of a story for the film - to make it easier to follow etc. But it seems to be the case that a high percentage of the original book was based on economies with the truth - and yet it claims to be a true story.
"What would happen to us, if we suddenly became homeless and without any income?" I said to Bob - and he said that our friends would rally round and help. [As they did for us in 1985] "Well where were her friends?" I responded. And I found myself wondering if the fact that Raynor claimed that nobody seemed to be friendly towards to them was because she herself wasn't a particularly friendly character. Maybe she did not have any friends to support her.