Sep 042015

Kelly Cable of Northfield Animal Haven (Northfield Farm. Glasslaw. New Pitsligo. Aberdeenshire. AB43 6PX) juggles a host of moral dilemmas:

  •  Raises funds to save ‘all farm animals’
  •  Claims to be wholly dependent on public support.
  •  Sells animals destined for slaughter.
  •  Refused to let other animal shelters rescue ponies free of charge – but she is seeking £5,000 from the public to rescue.
  •  A former bankrupt, once denied signing for a £5,000 loan: foiled by forensic handwriting expert.

By Suzanne Kelly.

Northfield Animal Haven Sign

Kelly Cable of Northfield Animal Shelter, Aberdeenshire, seeks funds cap in hand “to provide a rescue/re-homing centre for any unwanted, neglected, abused or retired equine, farm and small animals.”
This laudable aim appears on at least one internet site seeking donations.

A sign for the organisation depicts a wide range of animals including sheep.

What the sign and many fundraising websites didn’t make clear was that Cable also wears a very different hat: she makes money from other farm animals – selling them at auction where they are likely to end up on plates, not in rescue pens.

Websites which initially sought donations for Northfield to save farm animals now have long explanations from the Cables as to their other business. Long, rambling posts by Cable attempt to justify why they save some animals and sell off others at market. Much of this newly-added prose is down to a recent article in Aberdeen Voice.

The article clarified Kelly Cable’s method of doing business: funds from the animals sold at market are used to support the animals they choose to save.

Despite images of sheep clearly shown on Northfield’s various rescue appeals, the Cables are now adamant they don’t save sheep. Those who look at the pictures and read the initial posts were hardly likely to know that.

On a social media page for the Haven, Cable claimed ‘everyone’ knows about the working farm side of the business. As to using photographs of animals destined for slaughter, not sanctuary, Cable offers this explanation:

“The only reason we post pics of the sheep/cows etc. is because we’ve been asked to. Some of the people who donate and live far away love seeing pictures of all the animals.”

The assertion that people who donate to save animals also want to see photos of the cow destined to become steak and the lamb that’s for the chop is an odd one.

Kelly recently posted on social media:

“all of our supporters are aware of what we do with our sheep”

When questioned in detail about whether or not the sold animals are killed she replied:

“I don’t send them [sheep] for slaughter the people who buy them after me probably do but I don’t personally so what I stated was fact….”

The interest in Cable’s working farm and rescue operations were sparked by her online Go Fund Me page asking for £5,000 to rescue Shetland ponies. Two other area animal shelters came forward ready to rescue the animals without raising the £5,000 for the purpose. These were turned away by Cable, who wrote of a ‘vendetta’ and said the ponies’ owner only wanted Cable to get the animals.

The owner of the Shetlands is unknown at present. The ‘vendetta’ referred to seems to be nothing more than a voluntary regulatory body, REACH, being formed to provide a code of ethics for animal rescue. The Cable school of thought falls far short of this ideology, which says breeding animals is wrong for anyone in the rescue business, as is selling animals, especially for slaughter.

One donor who discovered that the Cables also raise lambs and other animals to sell at local auction market (Thainstone’s) commented:

“Disappointed an ‘animal haven’ sends animals to slaughter. Did you read their reply re. refusing help from Hillside? Sounds odd to me.”

Unhappy donors who learned of the sales, concerned animal welfare organisations, and people who have had past dealings with Cable came forward with serious concerns on her business model and details of a decidedly sketchy financial past.

The Haven is a voluntary organisation, and as such there is little visibility of the organisation’s structure or finance. Transparency, honesty, and clarity are what many potential donors expect of those they support. Potential Northfield donors might be interested to know that Cable was made bankrupt in 2009. Not all of her creditors were paid.

However, when it comes to transparency and honesty, one particular episode in Kelly Cable’s colourful career stands out. She and a former partner were lent £10,000 with which to buy a home together. This money came from her partner’s parents and his pensioner grandparents. The couple each signed a loan agreement for the money in August of 2000. The couple split up after buying the Aberdeenshire home.

When asked to repay her £5,000 share of this loan, Kelly Cable astonishingly tried to claim she had never received the money – claiming the signature on the handwritten loan and repayment agreement were not hers.

A forensic handwriting expert put paid to that claim by examining the document and samples of Cable’s writing. The expert concluded the writing was by the same person, or as the report put it, there were:

“overwhelming similarities indicating they [the loan document and Kelly Cable’s writing] are of common authorship”

It is understood that fundraising regulatory authorities are interested in Northfield’s fundraising activities.

Northfield have announced on social media that they are seeking legal advice concerning Aberdeen Voice’s article by Suzanne Kelly, which can be found here

It is strongly recommended that anyone who wants to donate money to an animal rescue or any other charity should research it thoroughly beforehand, and not rely solely on pictures and testimonials written by the operators.

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

[Aberdeen Voice accepts and welcomes contributions from all sides/angles pertaining to any issue. Views and opinions expressed in any article are entirely those of the writer/contributor, and inclusion in our publication does not constitute support or endorsement of these by Aberdeen Voice as an organisation or any of its team members.]

  25 Responses to “Animal Shelter Operator Is A Smooth Operator”

  1. I think you should get all the facts before posting this!. Half of the things ive read here are wrong and missinformation. Your speaking about a previous partner you know nothing about and the dates are wrong also!. It seems you are set out to destory someone who has saved hundreds of animals. No one that wrote these articles has came and seen the farm dont you think you should come and look around?. And putting her full address on it wrong it is compromising her saftey!.

    • Aberdeen Voice has documentation for the article. If you would care to explain what you believe is wrong that would be helpful. You may want to do an internet search on Northfield; you would find the address is widely publicised. If anyone is concerned about safety they should contact the police, although it is hard to see where the perceived danger is.

      • Well the 2009 date is wrong to start with!. Im her daughter believe me i know all the facts of this and you sadly do not. I would like to know what documentaion you have and how you recieved this?. This is a vendetta nothing more. Youve not once came to the farm or acknowledged the fact of how many animals my mum has saved, she does a brilliant job and i couldnt be prouder!!

      • I have seen a ‘determination of trustees remuneration’ which has the date of 2009 on it; it covers a period in 2008. I will be happy to change to precise bankruptcy dates when you supply with backup documentation if this is of crucial importance to you. Is that the most important thing you have come away with from the article?

        As to asking how I received the documentation (a large and growing collection), I think you will find that writers keep their sources confidential. I can tell you though that there are now so many people with serious concerns about past financial issues that I’m being called to a meeting with them.

        I have some questions for you. Why did your mother try to claim her signature on a loan document was not her signature? Was that an honest thing to do? Would you expect that kind of behaviour from someone seeking donations? Do you accept that some people have been misled into donating to you because they believed you were saving farm animals not sending them to market from reading your sign and your web appeals? Do you understand why people have ethical concerns about breeding for sale animals which will undoubtedly end up in the food chain and using their lives to pay for rescuing other animals? Why should some animals be saved and other animal should be sold – what do you do to determine which animals deserve sale? Would you personally donate money to someone who operates like this, when they also have past form for trying to get out of a loan agreement? Why did your mother try to deny getting this sizeable loan (in part from pensioners) – a loan which has not been returned? And one more question for now – has anyone connected with your operations been involved in any financial scandal or fraud in the past? I look forward to the answers.

        I have never made any assertion about how animals are treated by the way. If I’ve stopped any further people from being mislead about what your operation is like, then I couldn’t be prouder.

  2. More gutter filth from a gutter “publication”, whom I had never even heard of until two weeks ago !

    I suppose you spat your dummies out as Northfield Animal Haven responded to your original “article” which you didn’t like !

    But then again I don’t suppose this comment will ever get published will it !

  3. Neither myself nor my daughter will be answering your stupid questions and as for providing you with documentation think you would have more chance of winnng the lottery than that happening, I dont care what you think you have in documentation ways but I know for a fact I wasnt made bankrupt in 2009 and as for what went on in a previous personal relationship 15 years certainly has nothing to do with you

    • I remain happy to clarify the actual date if you supply factual information, and I remain confident of the contents of the document I have. The date is not of importance to the bigger picture: the facts are that you have supplied conflicting statements about your operations, people have approached me to say they felt misled by your initial claims to rescue ‘all farm animals’ which you later changed. How you historically treated money, and the attempted deception to renege on a loan (never repaid as far as I am told) is extremely relevant. Clarifying that your rescue is funded by sales of animals you have deemed not worthy of rescue, and your past attempt at deception for the would-be donor is definitely in the public’s interest.

      I did forget one question that people are asking: Who is the owner of these Shetlands, and did they really prefer not to let the animals be rescued by other organisations and insist that only you should have them? I can’t think of any similar case anywhere, ever, and I would love to hear from them.

  4. Having read and previously commented on this article and looked over the past comments on both the Northfield havens face-book pages and the AV posts, it appears that there is a bigger story within the story and seemingly some background with the reporter concerned. A can of worms within a can of worms! I am looking forward to hearing more of this. Somebody should contact Jeremy Kyle!

    Situations like this seem to fall into 3 distinct categories –
    Response no 1 – All accusations are denied, counter accusations are made and the threat of legal reprisals are voiced.(but not acted upon)
    Response no 2 – The accusations are answered and the ‘accuser’ is shown up to be a ‘vile piece of shit’ who will feel the full response of both the public and the legal system.
    Response 3 – The people who are accused can not answer the questions and admit al or are ‘outed’ as fakes!

    As a result, I have looked back over the past statements by both parties and have these questions to ask?

    Suzanne Kelly – You claim to have documentary ‘back up’ to your claims? Do you have actual copies of the paperwork or is this verbal / second hand information?

    It has been claimed that you have a vegan/ veggie agenda? Is that true?

    It has been claimed that you are an ‘alcoholic’. Is this true?

    There seems to be some confusion over the dates you have quoted? Why?

    Northfield animal have been asked a number of questions which to date have also been unanswered, so I will put forward some questions to them.

    It is almost a month since you launched your appeal to save these ponies from being turned into dog meat.
    If you have not been able to raise the £5,000.00 (or half that as you have indicated) needed on your ‘Go fund me’ page.

    Where are the ponies at this moment?
    What veterinary attention have they received?
    What veterinary attention will they need in future?
    When will they arrive at you centre?
    Why has there been no updates on their condition?
    Why has there been no photos since you got them into your safe place?

    Why are you refusing help that could have had these ponies in care 3 weeks ago?

    • Dear Pete, I am happy to answer your questions; we shall see if Northfield are as happy as I am to comply. I respond as follows;-

      Suzanne Kelly – You claim to have documentary ‘back up’ to your claims? Do you have actual copies of the paperwork or is this verbal / second hand information? My information for this second article came to me directly from those involved. I have seen the documentation, and have copies of the loan agreement, documentation of bankruptcy – see my clarification as to the title of the document with the december 2009 date on it (there is quite a bit on the bankruptcy which seems to have stretched over a fair period of time), evidence of denial the signature on the loan was hers, and the three page letter from the forensic handwriting expert saying that the signatures match: Cable had signed for the loan she promised to repay, and her assertion the signature was not hers was false. Right now other people are coming forward to say they want to give me evidence of other financial improprieties – watch this space. For me how a charity’s fundraisers deal with money – particularly in the attempt to get money for nothing from her then partner’s parents and pensioner grandparents – raises serious questions about whether or not these people, already shown to be deceptive about the farm animal income stream, are trustworthy.

      It has been claimed that you have a vegan/ veggie agenda? Is that true? I am a vegetarian – but I don’t know anything about an ‘agenda’. My acquaintances know my stance has unchanged – I am vegetarian, but what other people want to do is not my business. If they ask me, I’ll tell them why I am one. My agenda here is to: a. let people know that despite the signs, the many online appeals promising to rescue ‘all farm animals’ – the other side of their business, kept quiet until the first article, is to sell animals to slaughter with the left hand, while asking the public for money because they want to save animals with their right hand. One person who approached me confronted them on Facebook after being sickened to find out about the killing animal a to support saving animal b was told ‘everyone’ knows that’s how they operate. Again, that’s another statement from them not backed by fact.

      It has been claimed that you are an ‘alcoholic’. Is this true? Absolutely not! Nor are the claims I am a liar their administrator, Fiona Manclark, makes on Twitter which she refuses to remove. She’s told me to ‘go ahead and sue’ – well, because my reputation means a lot to people who come to me with stories, I am considering doing just that. Alcoholism is a serious disease; if I thought someone were suffering from it, whatever their business ethics (or lack thereof) – I would not be accusing them of it publicly or privately.

      So, I hope this clears things up from my side to your satisfaction; if not – let me know. Over to you Ms Cable

      • PS – I’d still like answers to the questions I posted for Kelly Cable, which she calls stupid. Pete – please let me know what you think of those questions – and Kelly – we’re waiting. I was approached by the people who gave me the story of trying to renege on the loan; I met with them, rifled through reams of paperwork, and that’s how this article came about. More people have since approached me – and when I see their paperwork, we may well see some further developments.

    • Dear Peter – while Northfield’s Facebook page administrator Fiona Manclark has found her way to this article and the comments section, it is starting to look as if Northfield are not going to reply to either your or my questions.

  5. Suzanne, please do take me to court. Your reputation means everything to you? You haven’t even been to visit Kelly even though you have been invited many times.
    And you have been seen coming out (or should I say falling out) of brewdog on many occasions. So until you remove your rubbish about Kelly, I will not be removing my truths about you.

    • for the benefit of readers, Fiona Manclark has used Twitter and Facebook to say I am a liar and an alcoholic. You will not be surprised to hear that I consider this libel and am taking advice. Manclark refuses to remove the posts. There is no point in visiting this farm. I don’t care if the animals that are being saved live in luxury. The original fundraising and sign for the ‘rescue’ claims that Cable rescues ‘ALL’ farm animals. When the truth came out – that they breed and sell animals which are sold for slaughter/meat/whatever at Thainstone to support the rescue work, that spoke volumes. Subsequent claims that ‘everyone’ knows they sell animals, that they don’t personally kill the sold animals so it’s OK, etc. etc. coupled with what looks to many (including those currently investigating from other news providers) like attempt to gain by deception (ie signing for a loan, then claiming the signature was a forgery, then having an expert prove the signature was genuine) are the relevant points. If Manclark or Cable answer the questions put by myself or other posters on this article, we can address issues they raise. Don’t worry Fiona – you will be hearing from legal representatives in the near future, although I would ask you one last time to remove your remarks which I consider libel damaging to my reputation and earning prospects. Just so you are in the loop, I am not the only person interested in how this operation at Northfield has solicited funds.

      • I can’t wait to hear from your solicitor. You have been seen on many occasions falling out of brewdog, so that’s not libel, that’s the truth.

      • readers – while this post fails to meet the usual criteria for acceptable commentary on an article, it is being approved to demonstrate the libel continues. BrewDog staff will be surprised to hear that I have ever fallen out of the doors; and probably be miffed at the suggestion they are allowing me to get regularly inebriated in contravention of existing licensing laws. I’d quite like to know who it is who’s watching me; it’s just a tad stalky and creepy – Suzanne

        Fiona – the questions put to Northfield by Peter Steven and by me still await something a bit more relevant by way of reply. By now, there may well be one or two other journalists asking the same questions…

  6. I think that you will find that I also keep my sources confidential. As for the questions put forward re the sanctuary, the solicitor has advised Kelly not to answer any questions on here.

    • You have a solicitor who has no issue if you publish accusations that someone is an alcoholic and a liar – but who thinks it might somehow be risky to say where the Shetlands are coming from, where they are, or to answer any of the other questions? Happy to pass that on.

  7. It appears that the conversation has moved at speed since I last logged in, not only here but on Northfields face book page where a variety of interesting reasons for non compliance are being put forward in response to a request for further information.
    I find myself becoming increasingly confused, if not rather annoyed by some of the responses.
    Cries of ‘Liar’, ‘alcoholic’, ‘fraudster’ etc. seem to be getting thrown freely about along with the threat of ‘solicitors’ and ‘legal action’.
    That aside I appreciate that the questions I put forward to both parties have at least elicited a response from Suzanne Kelly who has answered in great detail. Thank you for your response Suzanne.

    Unfortunately not one of the questions I have posted regarding Northfield Animal haven have yet been answered or even acknowledged by them?

    1. It is almost a month since you launched your appeal to save these ponies from being turned into dog meat.
    If you have not been able to raise the £5,000.00 (or half that as you have indicated) needed on your ‘Go fund me’ page.
    Where are the ponies at this moment?
    What veterinary attention have they received?
    What veterinary attention will they need in future?
    When will they arrive at you centre?
    Why has there been no updates on their condition?
    Why has there been no photos since you got them into your safe place?
    Why are you refusing help that could have had these ponies in care 3 weeks ago?

    I have to admit that I have found being ignored rather annoying and that the vague replies given by Northfield are simply another attempt to ‘muddy the waters’, so this made me look at some of the posts and answers on the NAH face book pages. What I found was rather surprising and even alarming.

    In the interest of fairness, I would welcome response from Northfield animal haven to the comments I post below, so long as you are happy to answer the questions posted above.

    ‘Most of our lambs are over 6 months of age before they go the ram lambs normally go for meat and the ewe lambs normally are bought by other farmers.’ I don’t know about anyone else but, (despite the grammar) that seems to indicate that they DO knowingly sell animals to slaughter?

    A staggering reply to a comment about charity status is as follows – Northfield Animal Haven ‘Frederick I am a registered non profit organisation, which has the same rules and laws with being a registered charity only difference is we don’t have an sco number, accounts etc all have to be done legally same as a charity.’

    My personal opinion is that this is just a downright lie! I think somebody needs to get their ‘legal eagles’ to check this out because I think there is a bit more of a difference between being a ‘Scottish registered charity’ and a ‘non profit organisation’ than an SCVO number? This takes me back to their previous posts where they like to promote their SCVO number which is about as legitimate as a Labour party membership card at the moment.

    With regard to the counter accusations made against the author of this article, I am not sure that even if she were an alcoholic if that would invalidate her observations. The replies given seem to be just a diversion from actually answering any of the questions asked.

    The most important question in my mind is ‘Where are the ponies?’ It is now2 weeks since this was posted
    ‘Northfield Animal Haven
    August 28 at 11:26am •
    Just another wee update about the ponies, due to the weather yesterday they didn’t get moved so we will be going for transport this week on the first good day without wind and rain will keep you posted. Kelly’

    I had not realised the weather has been that bad but perhaps this simple question might elicit a response? Over to you Northfield.

    • Dear Pete, Thank you for cutting to the important issue – where are these ponies? I’d like to hear from the owner (very odd they have stayed silent I think). I’d like to know if the animals need veterinary care, and what their condition is.

      As to the various claims about the integrity of my data, I think I’m going to publish the documents I have (with addresses blocked out) to end all doubt.

      It seems Kelly Cable is saying she has a brain tumour (mentioned on Facebook). This would in her case seem to be a condition going back to 2001 at least. I wish her a speedy and full recovery. It’s a bit surprising you can run a working farm, an animal sanctuary – even get a mortgage– with such a physical impediment, but there you go. It’s even more surprising that Northfield, run by someone apparently with a serious illness, wants to publicly insist that I have a serious illness (which thankfully I don’t) in order to discredit me. It is almost as if she is asking for compassion by revealing this illness, while at the same time having no compassion for someone believed to be ill. (The comments about my being a liar and alcoholic are not made directly by Kelly, but by her acquaintance. They are made on Twitter and on Facebook by a Northfield Animal Haven administrator, so you can conclude Northfield shares these sentiments).

      If not for this (non-materialised) threat of legal action, and if not for the people who have come forward since with interesting tales of fdealing with Cable, I’d probably just let things lie, and let the various regulatory bodies do their work. However, it seems I’m being challenged, so it looks like a further article is coming with new revelations as to past financial dealings and images to back up my claims. Again, how someone obtains money, how they pay back (or don’t pay back) loans is definitely in the public interest if they are seeking donations for a charity for which the fundamental claims keep shifting (are they solely dependent on donations as sometimes claimed? No. Do they rescue ‘all farm animals’ as sometimes claimed? no). Potential donors have a right to this information.

      So Pete thanks for your excellent questions, I for one am happy to answer any further questions, and I await Northfield’s answers to questions you and I posed. There will be quite a few more questions coming along, just from the people who got in touch with me this past week. And the articles are of course staying up.

      If anyone else would like to contact me in confidence with details of relevant dealings with Northfield / Cable, please contact Aberdeen Voice.

  8. Kelly Cable
    Northfield Animal Haven
    Northfield Farm
    AB43 6PX

    10th September 2015

    To Suzanne Kelly and The Aberdeen Voice

    This correspondence is with regards to the articles printed in your online publication of which legal advice has been sought.

    I have been left with no choice but to demand you to take these articles down and also print a retraction confirming that errors have been made under the Defamation Act and Human Rights Act.

    Your articles contain false information.
    Your articles contain defamatory statements designed to cause harm to reputation.
    Your articles contain information that should not be printed under the Human Rights Act for Privacy.
    Your articles have caused threatening phone calls i.e. death threats, which are not acceptable; these have been reported to the Police.

    If this action is not done within 10 days of receipt of this letter then I may be left with no other option but to raise a court action against you.

    As the Press Complaints Commission does not regulate you this avenue cannot be pursued.
    As you have no business address available to the public this has to be printed on your site as a comment, due to your sites moderation of comments, this will also be printed publicly on social media.

    While I am confident that this matter can be resolved, I shall not hesitate to legal action to resolve this matter.


    Kelly Cable
    Northfield Animal Haven

  9. A somewhat predictable response from Kelly. All bull and bluster designed to distract and throw you off the scent.

    As she is obviously still following your articles she has again avoided answering any of the questions posed to her regarding the whereabouts of the ponies and their condition. Perhaps more surprising is that there has been no further mention of them on the Northfield face book page either.

    Whilst I am confident you will indeed print a retraction and an apology should you have unwittingly made any errors, regardless of the threat of the Defamation or Human Rights acts. Perhaps she should clarify her demands as to exactly which part of the articles contain the ‘false information’ she is specifically claiming to be false?

    Which specific statement you have made that was ‘designed to cause harm to reputation’?

    Which information you printed that ‘should not be printed under the Human Rights act for Privacy’ and to which part of the act she is referring to?

    How you are responsible for any third parties behaviour and show proof of how these supposed claims of ‘death threats’ are directly attributable to your articles? I am surprised that you have not already been contacted by the police in this case? Perhaps Kelly could forward you the incident number and you could contact the police yourself regarding this? I always feel it goes better for the guilty party when they turn themselves in.

    Looking forward to your next article, that is if you are allowed access to computers in your police cell.

    • Human Rights Act,eh? I don’t know what legal advice has been sought, but it certainly isn’t from a competent professional and she should ask for her money back. Dearie me.

  10. Ms. Cable also stole the use of a photo of a _healthy_ Shetland pony in her plea for money. Now she’s in trouble with the owner of the photo’s copyright. Lawsuit all around her.

  11. Leave Kelly alone!!!!! Your rag of a publication is a disgrace. Go and hound someone else!!!! And no, I’m not related to her, just visited her property a few times and adopted 2 rabbits.

    • Suzanne writes: thank you Mrs Duncan for your opinions. I will be writing more about Northfield Animal Haven and resuming investigations in the near future – a little legal matter I started will conclude soon, and then I am free to investigate and I can barely wait. I think it’s wonderful that an old article of mine still commands comments. You think AV is a ‘disgrace;’ I’m equally convinced that benefit fraud, using photos of other people’s animals (without permission) claiming you need money to rescue the animals pictued, and claiming to ‘rescue all farm animals’ while part of your business is sending some to market and all that implies, etc. is rather disgraceful, but there you go. Next time you visit, have a look at the animals being raised for sale, and let us know how it is morally possible to ‘rescue’ one animal and sell others (which will likely end up in the food chain). People who were donating money based on ads which omitted this little fact were shocked when they found this out You might also ask the Cables when you visit about the father’s Facebook post in which the ‘problem’ of my articles is something he’d solve with an AK-47. Have a good day.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>