There is an emerging pattern involving the enterprise known as Jayne’s Baby Bank (JBB)—a pattern of responding to investigative reporting with misleading counterclaims. Why is this happening? Simply put, our work is rooted in public accountability. We publish verifiable facts, not speculation. We do not stalk, harass, or engage in discriminatory behaviour. Our objective is clear: to protect the South Wales Valleys from individuals or organisations that misrepresent themselves to the public.
In this most recent case, we sought clarity from Social Services regarding Jayne’s claim that she is “registered” with them and permitted to make referrals. This was stated in a Facebook post from 2022, where Miss Ridsdale made the following assertion:
“Just got off the phone with social service and they have acknowledged we are registered with CCBC and they have asked us to make referrals for anyone in contact with ‘people’ who are not allowed around children unsupervised as a recognised established community group an aspiring charity going through the registration process…”
To verify this, we contacted Social Services directly, and their response—shown below—clearly disputes these claims.
This correspondence indicates that no such relationship exists between Jayne’s Baby Bank and Social Services. In light of this, statements about being authorised to make referrals for safeguarding or child protection purposes appear to be incorrect or misrepresented.
It is not the first time public claims made by the Baby Bank have contradicted official positions. In a prior post, we revealed direct confirmation from Caerphilly County Borough Council that they do not endorse or support the organisation in any official capacity, contrary to what was stated on social media.
When public statements are made in the name of safeguarding, charity operations, or community involvement, accuracy is not optional—it is essential. False information can endanger vulnerable individuals and erode public trust in genuine support services. In such cases, correction is not harassment; it is a civic duty.
There has also been reference to a so-called “Miscommunications Act”, which, to the best of our knowledge, is not a recognised piece of UK legislation. Instead, there are already clear frameworks such as defamation, GDPR, and safeguarding protocols that govern how information should be handled—responsibly and lawfully.
When attempts to control a narrative begin to unravel, it is not uncommon for defensive responses to follow. But truth, unlike opinion, is resilient to pressure. This is why we rely on verifiable sources, public records, and agency confirmation. Our door remains open to anyone who can provide correction or clarification based on evidence, not reaction.
What other agencies are we speaking to? That remains to be seen.
Sherlock
Disclaimer: All statements in this article are based on publicly accessible data and direct correspondence with official bodies. The article is intended for educational and informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice or a definitive judgment on any individual’s character or conduct.