Further allegations against charity from ex committee member

I am adding this comment as it raises further allegations which I have requested further information & evidence from the poster (Neil if this is the real name).  The comment originates as a comment made on this page. but I feel due to the detail and raised allegations it deserves its own posting.  I will confirm, that Neil McCall, the author of the following post, is not in control of this website.  He has submitted a little information (that is published) in the same manner as other members have.

I have not edited the following content in any way other than slight reformat for a post as the comments are unformatted.

Over the last few days I’ve had a few messages from people who have seen this site. No I am not the person behind it, and no I do not have any control over it’s content, and no I do not hide behind anonymous messages, I have nothing to hide but it is obvious that some people do.

What has amazed me is a couple of members have said they are not bothered about the accusations and that the evidence is made up. If it is then why are the committee and trustees not responding and asking for the “fake” evidence to be removed?

Others have said that if the committee have removed so many people from the charity, then they must have their reasons and evidence to back up what they have done. Come on committee, here is a challenge, contact those you have removed and produce evidence of them bringing the charity into disrepute or at least give them something more than the reason of they have voiced their opinions. Are members not allowed opinions? Don’t answer that as I was once told my opinion was wrong. Someones understanding of something may be wrong, but their opinions can’t be.

So onto questions I would like to ask of the committee and trustees, just in case they want to answer.
Why did Scott Miller say in an email that all complaints were now to be investigated by an external person, and yet a couple of days later said on tape that he was investigating complaints that had been made. Which one is it Scott, external or are you investigating? Any update on the complaints that you said you were investigating. Just in case you need a reminder, here is a list of irregularities you are looking into.

  • Committee member making inappropriate comments at area meeting
  • Area manager by own admission speeding & using B&2 without appropriate training
  • Area manager authorising riders to falsify dispatch records
  • Committee member sharing private emails without knowledge
  • Committee member ignoring breaches of the charities constitution
  • Committee member over ruling manager to reinstate a member for own benefit and links to freemasonry
  • Committee member failing to inform all the committee members of safety issues
  • Committee member failing to acknowledge he is answerable to the membership
  • Committee member failing to report bike damage to committee
  • Committee member sharing the content of committee emails outside of the committee

The charity were made aware of these complaints on 16th July, so there has been plenty of time for a response to be sent to the outcome of any investigations, or at least acknowledgement that investigations are on going and the member has been suspended and all access to charity documents removed while the investigations take place. You set the precedence on this at the start of July, so no double standards otherwise it may look like funny handshake favouritism.

Why has the chairman of the charity not sent a letter of apology to the member who had made complaint against him? This was promised by the Vice Chairman who investigated the complaint. An apology would be an admission of guilt, and the admission of guilt would prove that the charity was bought into disrepute and could mean instant removal from the charity.

Where is the defibrillator that was donated to the charity by the organisation in Bolton? This was presented to former the former Vice Chairman before left the trustees and committee after starting a business that offered the paid equivalent to what the charity does. The same person also saved a life using a defibrillator recently, well done for that, but personal property or the charities property?

Editors note: Trustee Graham Jones has responded in the comments below. The defibrillator used was his own personal property and not the same make as the one donated to NWBB.

Everyone is allowed to claim for out of pocket expenses while a member of the charity, but what out of pocket expenses does a person who types minutes from tape recordings incur to justify being paid £300 per year. Like everyone else they give their time for free so can’t be payment for time unless all members can claim for their time. They don’t print the minutes when they are done so can’t be a stationary cost. If the cost is to cover fuel for collecting the tape (although it could be sent electronically) then this would be 30p per mile for car use, so must travel around 40 miles round trip to collect the file and then the same to take the recorder back. Seems like there could be something a little bit odd about this payment.

I’m more than happy to discuss things written with anyone who wants to challenge them, but please if you do want to challenge anything I have written, back it up with something rather than just an opinion. We will all have different opinions. If you are ringing, drop a text first as I no longer have any members contact details so won’t have a clue who you are.
Although I am no longer a member, I still want to see the charity providing the same great service in the future. Some people will confirm that I said 6 months ago that the way things are going, the charity will be lucky to see the year out. Changes need to be made to secure the future. What is worrying is that committee members who are starting to make moves to lead the charity next May could have hidden agendas. Yes they may have secured thousands in funding this year, but does that make them leadership material! I know there are plenty of decent members out there who would be capable of forming a committee and making sure the charity continues to grows. These are people who don’t want self acclamation and don’t only appear whenever a camera is pointed in their direction. There may be 7 people voted in (or in most cases in position because no one contested them) but they need to realise that the people who require acknowledgement are those who are on the rota in all weathers, allow them to get the credit and receive awards. Just because someone is on the committee shouldn’t give them the automatic right to attend all the glitz and clamour events the charity are invited to. Without the ones who are classed as “only” riders, controllers, fundraisers, there wouldn’t be camera opportunities.

Right I’m off my soapbox now, some will refer to this as a normal length mail for me.
Alls I will ask is that the members of the charity stand up and be counted. Voice your opinions and concerns and make the committee listen before they destroy things completely. I know it’s difficult as if you don’t agree with the committee views you risk being thrown out, but is this the kind of charity you want in the future? Afraid to speak out for fear of repercussions?


  1. Where is the defibrillator that was donated to the charity by the organisation in Bolton? This was presented to former the former Vice Chairman before left the trustees and committee after starting a business that offered the paid equivalent to what the charity does. The same person also saved a life using a defibrillator recently, well done for that, but personal property or the charities property?

    Before you go around accusing people get your facts straight first. Firstly I resigned from the Committee and Trustees because I had set up a business, there was NO conflict of interest whatsoever to the charity (which I set up).

    The defibs are out and about within the charity. Again get your facts right, the defib I used to successfully save someone’s life was my own personal one not the charities, furthermore it is a completely different make!!!

    Why are you checking Companies House for my business interests and sending me emails asking questions?

    • Hi Graham, glad you could join us. This is Paul, you know, the person you participated in lying about? Remember the article written by your leader, Paul Brooks saying I was convicted of assaulting a minor? You remember, I sent an email to you and you just ignored it yet expect us to respond to you. This has now resulted in a legal claim against the charity due to the conduct of the committee and trustees.

      I have no idea who wrote the article you are whining about, there are quite a few people writing on this website now and this is increasing. I no nothing of what is being written, I only write about the business that affects me. I know of a few active members who do write here though which is great as we get regular updates.

      You say you quit the committee and trustees, yet sat back on your cowardly arse while you watched Paul Brooks and Scott Miller have a go at me while you WERE in the committee/trustees. This is far from over. You and the charity are being watched like a hawk. Time will reveal all.

      Hope to hear from you soon,


  2. Thank you for your response Graham. At least one person who is legally responsible for the charity can respond to questions to help clear things up.
    It’s odd that you mention a conflict of interest regarding your business interest even though it is not raised in this post. For the record, myself and a few others I have spoken to tonight can remember an email sent out at the time which mentioned this. If as you say there was NO conflict of interest then it sounds like you may be another victim of lies and defamation. Welcome to the ever increasing club.
    With regard to the defib, it was a genuine question as to where it was located. People who donate to the charity are entitled to know how their donation is being used and how it is in keeping with the charity objectives. As you probably know, control of charity stock and equipment wasn’t too strict, even Mrs Brooks tried to address this issue in the past. Hopefully there is now a system in place that lists the location and the person who has control of the charities assets.
    I will ask the editors of the website to update the post with your answer that it was your own personal defib.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.