Over the years, Pumpkin and Friends Charity, its founders, trustees, volunteers and supporters have made numerous public statements concerning Pumpkin’s backstory, the narrative surrounding their relationship with other charities and organisations, individuals and organisations who have questioned or raised concerns about the charity, police investigations, Charity Commission cases and an alleged “Hate Group”.
Many of these accounts have subsequently been shared, repeated or amplified through social media, news publications, interviews and podcasts.
Having spent considerable time examining original posts, recordings, correspondence and other available material, we have identified apparent contradictions, changes in accounts and statements that raise questions requiring further clarification. We have also gathered substantial supporting evidence, which we intend to address in separate, carefully documented posts.
However, today our questions are directed at the journalists, publications, podcasters, interviewers and others who have provided a platform for these accounts – both here in the UK and Internationally including in the USA.
WHAT DUE DILIGENCE DID YOU UNDERTAKE?
Before publishing, broadcasting or repeating these claims, did you independently verify the information you were given? Did you request or examine any supporting evidence? Did you check the original sources and establish the chronology of events? Did you identify and investigate any inconsistencies between different accounts? Where allegations concerned identifiable individuals, businesses or charities, did you approach those concerned and give them an opportunity to respond? Did you distinguish between independently established facts and the personal accounts or allegations of those you interviewed? Or did you rely primarily on information supplied by Pumpkin and Friends Charity and those associated with it?
These are reasonable questions to ask of anyone who has presented or repeated serious claims to a wider audience.
A claim does not become an established fact simply because it has been repeated in a newspaper, discussed on a podcast or shared thousands of times on social media. Nor does repetition by multiple outlets necessarily constitute independent corroboration if those accounts all originate from the same source.
VAL TALKS PETS – WHO CHECKED THE CLAIMS
On 14th February 2025, during the first US Val Talks Pets podcast, CEO Tammie Fox claimed that she worked approximately 120 hours per week for the charity, adding that she no longer had days off. That equates to an average of more than 17 hours every day, seven days a week. We could not identify any follow-up question from the host challenging or seeking clarification of this extraordinary claim.
Was the claim independently verified, or simply accepted at face value?
During the second podcast on 23rd May 2025, Val Cairney expressed her admiration for Tammie Fox and Richard Blogg and referred to alleged trolling, threats, sabotage and vandalism directed towards the charity.
“I would also like to comment on the trolling, threats, sabotage and vandalism they have faced. This heinous, delusional behavior by one person and her minions demonstrates the lowest someone can go. My suggestion to this person is to seek professional help and realize the Pumpkin team and followers are stronger than any malcontent.”
These were serious and potentially damaging allegations. What independent evidence had Val Cairney examined before publicly endorsing these claims?
SPINAL SURGERY. BUT FOR WHO?
Another example comes from a VIDEO interview published by The Sun centred around their appearance on Ant & Dec’s Saturday Night Takeaway. We will be returning to this in a separate investigation, particularly in relation to the petition Tammie Fox launched after TUI refused to allow Pumpkin to accompany them on holiday.
In that petition, Tammie Fox stated:
“Pumpkin is completely dependent and bonded to me, she never leaves me. Her anxiety without me would make her incredibly poorly.”
So here’s our question: If Pumpkin never leaves Tammie Fox’s side, and separation would make her incredibly poorly, how does that account fit with their appearance on Saturday Night Takeaway, during which Pumpkin did not appear to be in the studio audience? If arrangements could be made for Pumpkin’s care during the television appearance, what were the circumstances that made similar arrangements unsuitable for the TUI holiday?
At the very end of The Sun interview, Tammie Fox discusses the possibility of an all-inclusive TUI holiday for four people being donated to the charity, raffled, and the proceeds being used to “pay for spinal surgery.”
Who was this spinal surgery for? We know from Tammie Fox’s own statements including in her RSPCA petition, that Pumpkin’s spine had fused in such a way that corrective surgery was not possible, alongside claims that her spinal cord had been completely severed. If this spinal surgery wasn’t for Pumpkin, then who?
UPDATE: During a live video on 14th October 2026, while discussing Pumpkin & Friends Only Facts, CEO Tammie Fox stated that Pumpkin’s spine had “fused back together, so nothing could be done.” So, once again, we ask: If nothing could be done, who exactly was the “spinal surgery” for?