Before we share Helen and Graham Lomax’s testimony, we want to make something absolutely clear. Helen and Graham are involved in animal rescue and are the founders of Pawsitive Futures UK, a registered charity that rescues, rehabilitates, and rehomes disabled dogs and cats. Graham is a Chartered Accountant, while Helen has an academic background in psychology. Between them, they bring professional experience and a commitment to animal welfare that has informed the questions they have raised about Pumpkin & Friends Charity.
AND THAT IS WHERE THEIR DIFFICULTIES APPEAR TO HAVE BEGUN
For more than a year, Helen and Graham had been following the activities of Pumpkin & Friends Charity and its trustees, Tammie Fox and Richard Blogg. Their concerns included aspects of the charity’s financial reporting, governance, public statements, the specialist care of disabled dogs and the support provided to foster carers.
These were matters they believed deserved proper scrutiny.
But what happens when people involved in animal welfare begin asking questions that others would rather not answer? According to Helen and Graham, the response they experienced went far beyond ordinary disagreement.
APDAWG MEETING ‘STATE OF UK RESCUE’
In February 2026, Helen and Graham attended the APDAWG State of UK Rescue event at Parliament. They knew that Tammie Fox would be speaking, but they attended as representatives of their own rescue, intending to learn from others and contribute positively to discussions about animal welfare. They maintain that they deliberately avoided interaction with Tammie Fox and Richard Blogg to avoid accusation of improper behaviour.
Following the event, however, a Facebook Live broadcast by Tammie Fox suggested that their attendance had been intended to intimidate. Helen and Graham strongly dispute that suggestion. Although they were not directly named, subsequent posts and Social Media Lives made their identities apparent.
BLAMED FOR A FACEBOOK PAGE THEY DID NOT CREATE
When we launched the Pumpkin and Friends Only Facts Facebook page, Helen and Graham found themselves facing a fresh wave of accusations from Tammie Fox and Richard Blogg. They were blamed for establishing and operating our page.
Both Helen and Graham, and we ourselves, made clear that the allegations about their involvement were incorrect. Yet the accusations and hostile commentary from Pumpkin & Friends Charity and their followers, continued, particularly directed towards Helen.
Let us put the record straight, once and for all. Helen and Graham Lomax had absolutely no involvement whatsoever in the establishment of Pumpkin and Friends Only Facts. They did not create our Facebook page. They did not establish this investigation. They are not responsible for our editorial decisions. We created Pumpkin and Friends Only Facts independently.
PERSONAL ATTACKS AND PUBLIC RIDICULE
The screenshots we have reviewed show just how personal some of the online commentary became.
We consider remarks of this nature deeply inappropriate. There is a substantial difference between challenging someone’s views and making personal insinuations about their mental wellbeing or identity.
What possible relevance do such remarks have to charitable governance, fundraising transparency or the welfare of disabled animals? Although concerns had been raised regarding certain aspects of Pumpkin & Friends Charity, the questions that became the subject of public criticism were not those being asked by the individuals concerned. The attribution of comments, motives or lines of enquiry that did not originate from them is both misleading and unfair. Why should anyone be subjected to public commentary on the basis of allegations about actions they did not take?
AN ATTEMPT TO ACCESS THEIR FACEBOOK ACCOUNT
Helen and Graham have also told us that, following the launch of Pumpkin & Friends Only Facts, there was an attempt to change the password associated with the Pawsitive Futures UK Facebook account. They found the timing particularly concerning, given the accusations already being directed towards them. Helen and Graham describe the incident as another source of anxiety during an already difficult period.
THE ANONYMOUS LETTER
Before these later events, Helen and Graham received an anonymous letter purporting to come from neighbours. The letter complained about barking dogs, questioned the suitability of operating an animal rescue from a residential property and threatened complaints to the local council and Charity Commission. It also contained allegations about animal welfare.
Helen and Graham say they approached their neighbours about the letter and that none acknowledged sending it. We cannot independently establish who wrote or delivered the letter. However, its anonymous nature, the allegations it contained, and the circumstances in which it was received understandably raised concerns for Helen and Graham.
Helen and Graham also considered the general nature of the complaints to be unusual. Whilst the letter referred to alleged nuisance and disturbance, it did not contain the sort of specific details that might ordinarily be expected from someone directly affected, such as particular dates, times or incidents. For example, there was no reference to barking at a specific hour, disturbance on a particular night, or any other first-hand experience that would suggest the author had personally witnessed the matters complained of. Whilst this does not establish that the letter was not written by a neighbour, it contributed to their doubts as to whether it represented a genuine local complaint.
THE REMOVAL COMPANY ENQUIRIES
Helen and Graham also discovered that enquiries had been submitted to numerous removal companies. This caused an enormous amount of phone calls and stress at a time when they were dealing with a number of very sick animals in their care. One of the removal quotes was to the city of one of our investigators.
Helen and Graham say they had not requested these services. These enquiries were deliberately submitted without permission, representing an intrusive misuse of personal information.
THE DONATIONS QUESTION
Another incident raises questions about the way Pawsitive Futures UK was being discussed on Pumpkin & Friends Charity’s social media. At the relevant time, Pawsitive Futures UK had not yet obtained charitable status and was therefore unable to maintain a bank account in the charity’s name. Donations were received through an account held in Helen’s name and designated exclusively for the charity’s activities. An individual left a comment on one of Pawsitive Futures UK’s Facebook posts about ways to donate, questioning why donations appeared to be going to an individual rather than a business or charity.
But what happened next is particularly interesting.
Rather than simply waiting for a response from Pawsitive Futures UK, the individual went over to Pumpkin & Friends Charity’s social media page and publicly announced what they had done.
Why was it necessary to report this interaction to Pumpkin & Friends Charity? Asking questions about donations is perfectly legitimate. But why take that question to another charity’s social media page before even receiving an answer?
Asking how donations are collected is, in itself, a legitimate question. What concerns us is the apparent movement of that exchange into a separate discussion in which Pawsitive Futures UK was already being criticised.
PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE MADE PUBLIC
Helen and Graham have also described an incident in which a private exchange between Helen and a Pumpkin & Friends Charity volunteer was passed to Tammie Fox, which she subsequently published. They regard the disclosure of these communications as wholly inappropriate and a matter of significant concern.
Private correspondence can sometimes raise legitimate matters of public interest. However, the decision to circulate someone’s private messages publicly should not be taken lightly, particularly where that person is already experiencing hostile attention. We believe the circumstances surrounding the disclosure deserve an explanation.
THE RESPONSE TO PUBLIC ABUSE
One of the most troubling aspects is not simply the language used by some commenters, but the responses appearing beneath those comments.
In one exchange, a commenter described Helen & Graham Lomax as “Vile sub-human garbage.” Another participant praised the comment, describing it as: “Perfect words.”
It raises an important question.
When personal abuse becomes a feature of discussions relating to a charity, what responsibility rests with those managing the account hosting those discussions to challenge such behaviour, rather than allow it to continue unchecked?
THE HUMAN COST
It is easy to look at screenshots and forget that there are real people behind them. A recurring feature of the matters described in this statement is that allegations, speculation and personal criticism were often made in circumstances where Helen and Graham had no realistic opportunity to respond. Their concern is not the existence of disagreement, but the fact that assertions could be made publicly while access to the relevant platforms was restricted, preventing any effective right of reply. They consider this contrary to the principles of fairness and open discussion.
They have spent time gathering evidence, reporting concerns and defending themselves – time they believe should have been devoted to rescuing and rehabilitating vulnerable animals. And that, perhaps, is one of the saddest aspects of this entire situation.
Two people who want to dedicate their time to helping disabled animals instead describe finding themselves consumed by conflict, accusations and the need to protect their reputations.
Helen and Graham acknowledge that they have sometimes responded robustly to criticism. They do not claim that every disagreement has been one-sided. But they maintain that their underlying concerns have always centred on animal welfare, transparency, accountability and defending victims.
Indeed, in their own impact statement sent with our evidence pack to the Charity Commission, they make a point that deserves particular attention:
They do not regard themselves as victims. They regard themselves as people who have asked questions they believe needed to be asked.
A FINAL WORD
Helen and Graham have made clear that they do not want their lives to be defined by this dispute. They want to return their attention to the animals who depend upon them.
We believe they should be able to raise legitimate questions, challenge public statements and advocate for disabled animals without becoming the subject of personal ridicule or unfounded accusations.
And we believe the same principle should apply to everyone involved in animal welfare, regardless of which charity they support.
If you’d like to support Pawsitive Futures UK, click here.