Yesterday’s article certainly caused a stir. Claims of sectarianism and accusations of bias have been flying around, sparking a heated debate.
We’re no strangers to a bit of controversy, but the sheer volume of feedback—over 300 comments in under 24 hours—makes it clear we need to address this directly. After going through the comments and reflecting on the discussion, we feel it’s important to set the record straight, share our intentions, and respond to the main concerns people have raised.
Key Takeaways:
Let’s begin with a clear summary of the main accusations and our responses:
- Is Donald sectarian?
Absolutely not. The inclusion of details about the UDA and the flute band was purely to provide context for international readers (40% of our audience) who may not be familiar with Northern Ireland’s history. It was never intended to target or criticise any specific religion or culture. We don’t view things through the lens of religion or political affiliations—that’s not what we’re about. Our focus has always been, and will always be, on accountability. - Is Donald in charge of the legal case?
No, and he legally can’t be anyway—he’s not a client. The legal case against FBABB is fully handled by Phoenix Law, an independent law firm. Our only role is to point people in the right direction and make sure victims know what options are available to them. - Does this site censor dissent?
No. We’ve kept every critical comment about the platform or its articles. The only ones we’ve removed were those targeting individuals, like Darren Campbell’s wife and daughter. - Are the allegations in the article based on evidence?
Yes. The article was based on information from multiple independent sources as well as publicly available material. While some sources have chosen to remain anonymous to protect their privacy and safety, their claims were thoroughly cross-checked for consistency. - Why mention Darren’s past?
Darren’s character and credibility are highly relevant to anyone considering spending thousands of pounds on his mentorship. Alleged connections to paramilitary groups, drug dealing, and dubious financial practices offer important context for potential clients. That's not something you leave in the 'past'.
On Sectarian Accusations: Our Intent vs. Perception
One of the most vocal criticisms of the article was that it targeted Darren Campbell’s religion and cultural affiliations, with some even calling it a “sectarian attack.” That was never our intention, and it’s important to address how and why these accusations have come up.
- Explaining the Context:
For readers outside Northern Ireland, the mention of the UDA and the flute band was included to explain who they are and why they’re relevant to Darren Campbell’s past. These details are essential for understanding the alleged connections to paramilitary groups and how they might impact his credibility as a mentor—not as a critique of his religion or culture. As one commenter rightly pointed out: “If Darren had been linked to a Republican group with similar associations, the article would have been written the same way. It’s not about religion—it’s about the man’s character.” - Acknowledging the Sensitivity:
Having lived outside Northern Ireland for years, we may have underestimated how even a neutral mention of certain organisations can evoke strong emotions. We understand how this could have been misinterpreted and regret if it caused any offence. That said, we stand by including these details, as they’re directly relevant to the topic at hand: Darren Campbell’s suitability to lead a mentorship programme that costs participants thousands of pounds.
Why Darren’s Past Matters
Some have questioned why we looked into Darren Campbell’s past at all, suggesting it’s irrelevant to the issues surrounding FBABB. We disagree.
When clients are spending significant sums—£6,500 or more—they have every right to know who they’re trusting with their business. Darren’s background, including allegations of criminal activity and associations with questionable individuals, offers important context for his current practices.
As one commenter pointed out:
“The article highlights Darren Campbell’s questionable associations and past behavior—not to shame his cultural or religious identity, but to help people understand who they’re dealing with when they sign up for FBABB.”
We’re not here to target Darren Campbell personally. Our goal is to report what’s been shared with us by multiple sources, making sure potential clients have all the information they need to make an informed decision.
On Moderating Comments and Live Edits
Another major criticism has been around the moderation of comments and live edits to the article. Let’s address these points directly:
- Why Some Comments Were Removed:
Over the past few weeks, we’ve removed toxic comments that targeted Darren Campbell’s wife and daughter. As one commenter rightly said: “Going after someone’s family is crossing the line, and Donald was right to take those comments down.” At the same time, comments criticising the article or the platform have been left untouched—even those accusing us of sectarianism or bias. This demonstrates our commitment to fostering open dialogue, even when it challenges us. - Live Edits Are Standard Practice:
Some readers have noted that the article was edited after publication to correct names and details. This is true, and we fully stand by these updates as part of professional practice. Blogs and news outlets regularly make live edits to ensure accuracy, clarity, and fairness—this is no different.
IP Analysis: Spotting Patterns in the Comments
One striking takeaway from analysing yesterday’s 300+ comments is that over 50% came from just four IP addresses. While this doesn’t invalidate the points raised, it strongly suggests a coordinated effort to create the impression of widespread outrage and amplify dissent.
This aligns with comments speculating that the backlash is, at least in part, being driven by Darren Campbell’s supporters or those trying to discredit the platform. As one commenter put it: “It’s pretty obvious Darren and co. are trying to flood the comments… if it were true support, it’d be reflected in the metrics of the site.”
We’re not making this observation to dismiss genuine feedback, but to shed light on the tactics often used to muddy the waters and distract from the core issues.
An Invitation for Constructive Counterarguments
We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: this platform isn’t about silencing opposing viewpoints. In fact, we actively encourage those who disagree with us to submit well-structured counterarguments or corrections.
If anyone can provide evidence that the claims in the article are inaccurate—like proving the Bamber brothers were never connected to Darren Campbell—we’ll not only consider retracting those statements but also publish their response in full.
This isn’t about being right; it’s about fostering a space where facts and dialogue can drive transparency and accountability.
As we’ve already shown, this platform welcomes criticism. The unedited Guestbook speaks for itself—even the loudest dissenting voices are still visible, showcasing a level of openness that’s rare on platforms like ours.
One commenter put it perfectly: “If you suspect misinformation, why not go through it line by line, type up an article, and share it with Donald? The benefit of this page is that everyone gets a voice.”
We agree. Send us your counterarguments. As long as they’re well-reasoned and supported, we’ll publish them unedited—aside from grammar, spelling, or punctuation fixes.
Why We Stand by Yesterday’s Article
Despite the backlash, we stand by the core message of the article. Here’s why:
- It’s About Credibility: Darren Campbell’s past and associations are directly relevant to his role as a mentor. Clients paying £6,500 deserve full transparency.
- The Information Was Checked: We were contacted by a large number of individuals, with many echoing similar messages about Darren Campbell’s past. As a whistleblower website, we run with the information we’re given—but we’re also more than willing to retract or update if we receive similar counterarguments. That’s how platforms like this operate.
- The Proddy Boys’ Statement Was Published in Full: To ensure fairness, we included the Ballymena Protestant Boys’ unedited response to the claims in the article. Their statement distancing themselves from Darren speaks volumes.
While we regret if some readers found the article divisive, we don’t regret providing information that helps potential clients make informed decisions.
Addressing the Sectarian Accusations Again
To those accusing this platform of sectarian bias, let us make it clear once more: this is not about religion, culture, or politics.
- If Darren had been linked to a Catholic group with similar associations, we would have reported it in exactly the same way.
- The mention of the UDA was included to help our international readers understand the context—not to vilify any one group.
This platform isn’t concerned with religion, political affiliations, or cultural traditions. What we care about is exposing unethical business practices and protecting potential clients from harm.
Feedback We Have Received on Mark and Melvyn Bamber:
Among the feedback we’ve received since yesterday’s article, several emails have stood out, passionately defending Mark and Melvyn Bamber. The sender has accused us of publishing false information and has demanded we remove any references to the Bambers, calling the claims “slander.”
Let’s break down the points raised in these emails:
- On Mark and Melvyn’s Alleged Innocence
One email states: “Mark may have got up a bit of mischief in his days but I don't recall anyone ever dying from smoking grass… Mark is not paramilitary and nor has Mark ever been connected to selling cocaine.”Another email claims that:“Mark was the first person to call Darren out for scamming people in Ballymena… and has a very lengthy call recorded of the conversation telling Darren what he was doing to people was completely wrong.”
Our Response: These claims, if true, could offer important context about Mark and Melvyn’s role. However, without evidence to support these statements—like the “recorded call” mentioned—they remain assertions, not verifiable facts. If the sender provides documentation or proof to substantiate these claims, we’ll update or retract the relevant sections as needed.
- On the Accuracy of Our Reporting
Another email reads: “You have stated that you have 3 months of research but yet both the first names and surnames were spelt wrong, and you do not have the facts correct as you have been live editing the post from when I originally read it.”
Our Response: Yes, names were corrected during post-publication edits—a standard practice for any blog or news platform aiming to ensure accuracy. Live edits don’t undermine the content itself. The core information in the article was sourced from multiple individuals, cross-checked for consistency, and remains relevant unless disproven with credible evidence.
- On Allegations of Slander
One email accuses us of engaging in behavior “no better than Darren Campbell,” claiming: “What you’re doing right now is no different to Darren Campbell but selling lies to people… You’ve now turned your page into sectarian bigotry in the process.”
Our Response: Slander is a serious accusation, but so far, no evidence has been provided to show that anything we’ve reported is false. We’ve repeatedly clarified that this platform holds no sectarian bias. Any references to Darren’s connections or alleged past behaviours are directly tied to the character and credibility he brings to his mentorship programme.
The emails, while passionate, fail to provide what’s needed to justify retractions or corrections: credible evidence. To reiterate:
- If you believe we’ve misreported something, provide specific details about what is incorrect.
- Include evidence or documentation to support your claims (e.g., the alleged recorded call, statements, or correspondence).
We remain committed to updating or retracting information if it’s proven inaccurate, but emotional accusations alone don’t count as evidence.
Supporting Victims and Fighting Exploitation
While yesterday’s article focused on Darren Campbell’s past, let’s not forget the bigger picture: why this platform exists.
- We’re Here for Victims: Our main priority is supporting those harmed by FBABB’s predatory practices. The group legal case led by Phoenix Law is a significant step towards justice, and we’re proud to help point victims in the right direction.
- We’re Fighting Exploitation: FBABB has misled countless clients with inflated promises, hidden fees, and irresponsible financial advice. This platform exists to uncover those practices and to warn others before they find themselves in the same position.
This isn’t about “winning” an argument or trying to please everyone. It’s about making sure the voices of victims are heard and that accountability is upheld.
Our Mission Continues...
To everyone who supports this platform and its mission, thank you. To those who criticise us, we hear you and welcome constructive engagement.
This platform doesn’t claim to be perfect, but we do our best to be fair, transparent, and accountable.
- Ongoing Edits: Updating articles after publication to ensure accuracy is standard practice for blogs and news platforms.
- Guestbook Openness: Allowing anonymous comments and counterarguments is rare, and we stand by our choice to keep even the loudest criticisms visible.
- Invitations to Engage: If you disagree with us, send us your counterarguments. As long as they’re well-reasoned, we’ll publish them unedited to encourage meaningful discussion.
As one commenter wisely put it:
“Let’s not lose sight of the larger point: Darren has misled countless people into parting with their money under false pretenses. This alone should be cause for alarm.”
That’s why we’re here. Not to win everyone over. Not to be liked. But to report what’s been shared with us by numerous people and to provide a platform for transparency and accountability.
And Now It’s Over To You
We fully expect a mixed response to this article, and that’s perfectly fine. At the end of the day, as with anything in life, you decide which information matters to you. You form your own opinion. If you see value in the information shared here, that’s great. If you feel the Guestbook or this platform isn’t for you right now, you’re free to ignore it altogether.
We’ve also heard the claim that “Donald is breaking his own rules.” Let’s be clear: this is a whistleblower website, folks. It’s not bound by traditional rules or norms. By Icelandic law—and as Darren’s legal team has probably realised by now—we operate outside the constraints they may have been counting on.
And judging by the 50+ anonymous threat emails we received yesterday from certain groups, it’s clear we’re hitting all the right nerves. While these threats won’t change how we operate, they do confirm one thing: this work matters, and we’re reaching the people who’d prefer we stayed silent.
We’re not about to go nuclear by deleting the Guestbook—it’s staying as an open forum. And as for the threats towards this fictional duck? Well, they’re like water off a duck’s back. It’s also clear that any mention of a flute band in Northern Ireland will ruffle some feathers, while others simply want the information laid out so they can say, “This doesn’t matter to me.” And you know what? That’s perfectly fine too.
As one commenter pointed out, this website’s purpose may no longer be needed now that the legal case is fully underway with Phoenix Law and the clients themselves. We take your point. The end goal for this platform has always been clear: to give clients a voice. Now that action is being taken, it’s possible this website has already served its purpose.
If and when we decide to stop publishing, this website will remain as a relic—a record of what happened, what was exposed, and the community that came together to demand accountability.
As always, we welcome feedback and structured counterarguments. If you believe we’ve misreported anything, head over to the ‘Contact Us’ page and provide a detailed breakdown of what you think is inaccurate. If you have credible evidence disproving the claims in the article, including those referencing the Bamber brothers, we’ll publish your response unedited (aside from spelling, grammar, and punctuation fixes) and retract those claims if they prove to be unfounded.
There’s no user manual for running a whistleblower website—Edward Snowden didn’t leave us instructions—but here we are, doing our best to give silenced voices a platform where they can be heard. We know this isn’t a space everyone will agree with, and that’s fine. Take what’s useful to you, ignore the rest, or ignore it all entirely. This platform will keep running until FBABB comes to an end—and not a moment before.
The ball’s in your court now. Let’s hear what you’ve got—send it our way.