Unlike some of the other testimonies featured on this website, we believe it is important that Cassie’s experiences are shared in her own words, allowing her to tell her story in her own voice and from her own perspective.

What follows is Cassie’s personal account of her experiences. We believe her story deserves to be heard, without interpretation or unnecessary interference, so that readers can understand what she has been through directly from the person who experienced it.

For five years, what has happened to Broken Biscuits has repeatedly been portrayed as a dispute between two people or two organisations.

There has never been a dispute.

We have never engaged in an ongoing argument, public feud or campaign against Pumpkin and Friends. We have not spent five years attacking them online, contacting their supporters, interfering with their business relationships or encouraging people to harass them.

What we have experienced is something entirely different.

A progressively escalating pattern of copied work, damaging allegations, public ridicule, interference with professional relationships and accusations of criminal behaviour.

And when you look at the entire five-year history rather than treating each incident as an isolated event, the pattern becomes impossible to ignore.

It began with copying our work and taking credit for it.

Posts I had written about animals in our care, veterinary emergencies, specialist treatments and the work being carried out by Broken Biscuits began appearing on another organisation’s platform.

Sometimes entire passages were copied, including my wording and spelling mistakes, with little more than the photograph changed. Other times the same activities were described in slightly different words, as though they were happening within that organisation.

One particularly striking example involved accounts of veterinary practices contacting us about dogs with ruptured spinal discs and life-threatening IVDD emergencies. These were animals we were actually taking into our care, often at the point of crisis, after veterinary surgeons had contacted us asking whether we could help save them. Yet descriptions of this work appeared on another organisation’s page in a way that led followers to believe they were receiving those emergency referrals and rescuing those animals themselves.

People then congratulated and thanked them for work that was ours.

This wasn’t simply about somebody copying a social media post. It created a misleading impression of the services, experience and rescue work being provided, using our actual experiences to build another organisation’s reputation.

We have retained examples of the original posts and the subsequent reproductions.

At the time, we found it irritating and dishonest, but it wasn’t something we intended to involve the police or solicitors in.

Then the focus shifted from taking credit for our work to undermining the organisation actually doing it. Claims began circulating that Broken Biscuits was being investigated by the Charity Commission, that the RSPCA would remove our animals and that our charity was going to be shut down.

We were not, we are not, and we have never been under investigation by the Charity Commission. These allegations are false.

There were allegations of animal cruelty, including claims that we were keeping dogs in an outdoor cattle shed that does not exist. Complaints were made to the council and the RSPCA. Businesses and other contacts received allegations about us, including messages from accounts using false identities.

These weren’t harmless rumours.

Telling a potential supporter that a charity is under investigation, mistreats animals or is about to be closed gives that person a very obvious reason not to become involved. These claims were repeated over a prolonged period, despite the predicted closures and removal of our animals never taking place.

And that’s one of the most extraordinary things about this entire situation.

People hear an allegation, react to it, repeat it and move on. But how many ever return to check whether the alleged investigation resulted in anything? Whether the animals were removed? Whether the charity was shut down?

None of those predicted events happened. Yet the damage caused by repeating those allegations remains.

Then came interference with the relationships that allow us to care for disabled dogs. Other rescues, businesses, supporters and equipment suppliers were approached. We lost access to a wheelchair supplier for more than two years following allegations made about us. That relationship has since been repaired, but for two years an important source of mobility equipment was unavailable to us.

And then came something I find particularly disturbing.

Veterinary surgeons treating our animals were contacted and sent allegations about us, discouraging them from continuing to work with Broken Biscuits. These are the specialists treating dogs with ruptured spinal discs, severe IVDD, neurological conditions and complex disabilities. These are the professionals we depend upon to provide specialist surgery, treatment and ongoing medical care.

Think about what it means to contact the very doctors treating vulnerable animals and attempt to discourage them from continuing that care.

What happens if a specialist veterinary practice decides it no longer wants to be associated with our charity because of allegations somebody has sent them? What happens to the animals requiring those specialists?

This goes far beyond making unpleasant comments about somebody online. It threatens the professional relationships that allow disabled animals to receive the medical treatment they need. And for an organisation that publicly presents itself as caring about disabled dogs, I find that particularly difficult to comprehend.

Then came attempts to undermine our financial integrity.

Claims circulated that we had taken or stolen money, that we were dishonest and that our charity’s finances could not be trusted. The amounts alleged have varied, from several thousand pounds to claims involving £30,000. We received messages from followers accusing us of stealing donations, fiddling accounts and running a fraudulent charity.

People associated with Pumpkin and Friends, including individuals involved with its shop, have publicly repeated allegations about my husband and me. We have retained the messages, comments and screenshots.

These allegations have real consequences.

If somebody believes a charity is stealing donations or being investigated for financial misconduct, why would they donate to it? Why would a business sponsor it? Why would another organisation want to be associated with it?

Then came attempts to discredit me personally.

Public livestreams and comments have portrayed me as mentally unstable, obsessive and supposedly responsible for stalking or harassing others. There have been comments mocking my mental health, including references to psychiatric admission and being taken away in a straitjacket.

The effect of these statements is to portray me as irrational, untrustworthy and unfit to be responsible for animals. Those accusations have contributed to discussions questioning whether I should be responsible for my daughter or the animals in our care.

And once again, look at how the allegations work together.

If people believe I’m mentally unstable, they may question my judgement.

If they believe I’m dishonest, they may stop donating.

If they believe I’m cruel to animals, they may stop referring dogs to us.

If they believe we’re under investigation, they may avoid professional association with Broken Biscuits.

Different accusations, but the same damaging effect: making people question whether they should trust, support or work with us.

And then the allegations escalated to criminal damage.

I was accused of going onto somebody else’s property and deliberately damaging their vehicle, supposedly because I was jealous of it. Allegations concerning vehicle damage arose on two separate occasions. I did not do this. My husband did not do this. My mother did not do this. And I did not organise anybody else to do it. Repeated public statements claimed that CCTV footage existed and that the police were investigating.

So we contacted the police ourselves.

The officer we spoke to told us there was no such investigation, no corresponding report and no CCTV footage submitted concerning the alleged incident in that area. We have retained the officer’s details, the date of the conversation and the case reference.

Yet these accusations continued to circulate.

Where is the CCTV? Where is the police report? Why has nobody demanded to see the evidence before accepting such serious accusations? This is particularly striking when CCTV footage of far less serious incidents has been readily shared on the same social media platform. People have been shown footage relating to incidents involving parked vehicles or items allegedly being taken from a charity shop.

Yet when I am publicly accused of serious criminal behaviour, with repeated claims that CCTV evidence exists, that evidence has not been produced publicly.

Why?

And why are people prepared to repeat those allegations without asking?

There is also the repeated attempt to make me responsible for everybody else’s disputes. Individuals, businesses, rescues and former supporters who have their own complaints about Pumpkin and Friends Charity have been presented as members of a supposed hate group that I am accused of organising. Many of these people I have never met. Some I had never heard of until my name was attached to their disagreements.

I am not organising them. I am not instructing them. I am not responsible for their actions.

Yet when another person publicly criticises Pumpkin and Friends, my name repeatedly becomes part of the story. I am accused of being behind their actions, directing their behaviour or encouraging them to cause trouble. I have absolutely nothing to do with those disputes. And I refuse to accept responsibility for the actions of people I don’t even know.

Now look at the progression.

First, our work is copied and presented as somebody else’s.

Then our credibility as a rescue is attacked.

Then allegations are circulated that could discourage people from donating, referring animals or working with us.

Then our suppliers and veterinary relationships are affected.

Then our honesty, mental stability and ability to care for animals are questioned.

Then I am publicly accused of criminal acts and of organising other people to commit harassment.

And whenever somebody else has a disagreement with Pumpkin and Friends, my name is brought into that too.

Each stage attacks another part of what allows Broken Biscuits to exist.

Our reputation. Our supporters. Our professional relationships. Our access to specialist equipment. Our ability to receive referrals. The trust of the disabled dog community.

These aren’t five years of isolated incidents. They form a sustained pattern of allegations and interference affecting almost every aspect of our personal and professional lives. And the cumulative effect is to isolate us from the very community Broken Biscuits was established to support.

When you damage a charity’s reputation, discourage people from approaching it for help, interfere with its suppliers and undermine its professional relationships, you threaten its ability to function.

I regard this pattern as a deliberate attempt to marginalise Broken Biscuits, drive us out of the disabled dog community and ultimately force our organisation to close. That is why I refuse to have five years of documented conduct reduced to a disagreement between two charities.

And there is another element that cannot be ignored: the financial incentive behind a monetised social media account.

When your family’s income depends on your dog’s popularity, keeping that audience engaged becomes your livelihood.

A lovely video of a disabled dog enjoying a field of bluebells might make somebody smile and scroll on. But tell those same followers that you’re being bullied, threatened or persecuted, and suddenly they’re emotionally invested. They rally around you, comment, share, donate, send gifts and sometimes turn their anger on the people you’ve accused.

This is why rage bait and repeated claims of victimhood are so effective on monetised platforms. And it’s why followers need to ask themselves whether they’re being shown evidence of genuine wrongdoing or simply being encouraged to participate in another controversy. Because when that outrage turns into harassment, threats and interference with another charity’s work, the consequences are very real.

Before you become somebody else’s weapon, ask to see the evidence.

Broken Biscuits already operates a rescue and respite service for disabled dogs in Lincolnshire. Pumpkin and Friends has publicly fundraised towards developing its own facilities offering similar services in the same county. That overlap is relevant when considering the repeated allegations and interference affecting our ability to operate.

And I want to make something absolutely clear about our professional reputation.

I have worked in animal welfare and the veterinary sector for more than 30 years.

Throughout that time, I have built professional relationships with veterinary surgeons, specialists, practices and animal welfare organisations who know me, know our work and continue to trust us with animals requiring some of the most complex medical care.

These are professionals whose reputations and responsibilities depend on animal welfare. They continue to refer animals to us, work alongside us and entrust us with dogs requiring specialist treatment.

If there were genuine concerns about animal cruelty or neglect, do you seriously think these veterinary professionals would continue to refer animals to us, treat the dogs in our care and associate their professional reputations with Broken Biscuits?

Our professional history is not a social media opinion. It is a record of decades of work and relationships that can be independently verified.

And I want to make something else absolutely clear. I am not asking anybody to believe me. I am not standing on social media begging strangers to take my side, defend my character or decide which person they like more.

This is not a popularity contest.

It is not a friendship dispute.

And it is certainly not a matter of choosing who tells the most convincing story.

There are facts. There are records. There is evidence.

There are original posts and copied posts. There are screenshots of allegations. There are messages, correspondence, professional relationships and police enquiries that can be checked.

I did not commit the acts I have been accused of.

I am not organising a hate group.

I am not responsible for other people’s disagreements.

And I am not orchestrating harassment against anybody.

I am not going to spend the rest of my life defending myself against one accusation after another simply because somebody has an audience willing to believe and repeat them.

We have now initiated legal proceedings ourselves. We have followed the appropriate channels, contacted the police and instructed solicitors because this cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. We are the ones who initiated those proceedings. We are the ones paying to pursue them. And we have preserved the evidence relating to the conduct and allegations that brought us to this point.

To the people who have participated in this, I want you to understand something. You are responsible for your own behaviour. Being somebody’s friend, supporter, follower or donor does not give you permission to threaten, harass or make damaging accusations against another person. If you repeat an allegation of fraud, animal cruelty or criminal behaviour without checking whether it is true, you are choosing to spread that allegation.

If you contact a business, veterinary practice, supplier or supporter to discourage them from working with us on the strength of those accusations, you are choosing to interfere with our organisation. And if you send abusive or threatening messages because somebody online has told you that we deserve them, that is your decision and your responsibility. You cannot simply excuse that conduct by saying you believed somebody else’s story.

The person who originates a false allegation is responsible for their actions. Those who knowingly or recklessly spread it, or use it to justify harassment, must also answer for their own conduct. You do not get to participate in damaging somebody’s reputation, livelihood or charity and then pretend you had no part in the consequences.

This is my life’s work.

This is a charity caring for vulnerable animals.

These are real professional relationships, real veterinary treatments and real services that people and animals depend upon. And I will not allow five years of documented conduct to be reduced to a social media argument about who is more popular.

Stop asking people whose side they’re on. Start asking for the evidence.

Because the truth isn’t determined by followers, friendships, donations, livestreams or the number of people repeating a story. And nobody should have to prove their innocence to an online audience every time somebody decides to accuse them of another crime.

I want people to stop treating each new accusation as an isolated event and start recognising the entire five-year pattern.

The evidence matters.

And so do the consequences for the people and animals caught in the middle.