Welcome to the Wall of Shame.
Below is a collection of notable social media posts from the self-proclaimed “most qualified person” to operate a Baby Bank in the UK. Some of these have been featured by us before, while others are new. We believe it is our responsibility to revisit and highlight past statements made by the Baby Bank, in hopes that parents and donors make more informed decisions.
Ask yourself: Why does Miss Ridsdale avoid linking directly to our website or addressing each of our documented claims point by point? The answer is simple—we present fully sourced data from verified agencies, platforms, and other credible outlets.
Let’s begin:
To be eligible for a Biochemistry degree in the UK, applicants typically need a strong academic foundation in science subjects—particularly Biology and Chemistry at A-level or equivalent. Many universities also expect good results in related subjects such as Mathematics or Physics, along with solid GCSE grades across the board.
It’s also worth noting that neither Carrie-Anne Ridsdale nor Jayne Price are listed as registered nurses or midwives with the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) in the UK. Furthermore, our sources indicate that neither individual possesses an NHS email address, which would ordinarily be expected for someone working within the NHS.
Previous claims have already been addressed and debunked. However, it’s worth highlighting that Carrie-Anne would have been just 16 years old at the time she claimed to be overseeing the profits of multi-million-pound companies. In reality, she was employed at B&Q.
We have thoroughly examined the subject access request, which has revealed a range of significant details—including her real name, personal email address, and confirmations of conditions such as dyslexia, ADHD, and other disclosed health issues. Additionally, internal communications from local councils and Trading Standards confirm that there have been hundreds of pages of complaints and documentation concerning the “Baby Bank,” including the existence of an internal investigation. You can read our full breakdown here.
We have already been in contact with social services who have refuted her claims. You can view our previous post about it here.
There appears to be a conflation of hypertension and heart failure here, with grading systems from both being misapplied to create a kind of self-fulfilling diagnosis. Given that JBB is clearly morbidly obese, elevated blood pressure is unsurprising. However, it’s important to clarify that there is no formal “heart attack register” in the UK for hypertension. The NHS does not maintain a public registry that assigns grades for heart attack risk in this way. It’s likely she is confusing this with a cardiovascular risk assessment tool—such as QRISK3, which estimates 10-year heart disease risk—or with the stages of hypertension, where Grade 3 indicates severe elevation in blood pressure.
In the UK, posting images of individuals on platforms like Facebook and accusing them of being thieves without solid proof can violate several laws, including the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. Under these laws, photographs of identifiable people are considered personal data, and sharing them without a lawful basis—especially in a way that could cause harm—can be unlawful. Additionally, such posts may breach Facebook’s community standards, which prohibit sharing personal information or making harmful allegations without evidence.
More seriously, making public accusations without proof could also lead to a defamation claim (libel), where the accused can sue for damage to their reputation. Furthermore, if the post causes distress or is part of a pattern of targeting someone, it may fall under criminal laws such as the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. It’s always safer and legally appropriate to report suspected theft to the police rather than taking matters into your own hands online.
Recently, The Baby Bank took to Facebook to accuse an unrelated charity—specifically a church—of trademark infringement. This claim is unfounded, as the registered trademark in question relates only to an image, not the term “Baby Bank.” In fact, Jayne’s Baby Bank does not own a trademark for the name and is itself using an unlicensed image while promoting the business under the label “Charity Shop.”
Jayne has since contradicted her own branding by stating that the business is not a charity and that “anyone can open a charity shop”—a claim that is not accurate under UK charity regulations. She is now attempting to rebrand the Blackwood store as an antique shop, distancing it from its original portrayal as a food bank.
This Facebook post also followed her direct contact with all organisations listed on our Find a Registered Baby Bank page. We can confirm this through emails received from several of the individuals she targeted.
Operating a baby or food bank carries an inherent responsibility to act charitably—especially when trading under a name like “Jayne’s Mother & Baby Bank, Food Bank & Charity Shop.” However, in the case of Jayne’s Baby Bank, there appears to be a shift away from charitable intent, with instances of greed and misdirection taking precedence. Notably, even basic essentials such as nappies—advertised as free—seem to come with conditions.
AI Analysis:
Based on the transcript from the video linked here, we consulted an impartial AI to evaluate the content. The following observations were made:
Analyzing the transcript, this individual’s speech reveals several concerning patterns—both in content and communication style—that may support suspicions about disingenuous or manipulative behavior, including potentially running a fraudulent charity or not-for-profit.
1. Defensive and Combative Tone
She repeatedly frames herself as under cyber attack, using emotionally charged language like “idiots,” “Karens,” “cretins,” and “waste of space.”
She presents herself as a martyr figure—ill, overwhelmed, under siege—yet heroically continuing her work. This victim-hero dichotomy is common in manipulative narratives.
2. Lack of Transparency
Despite speaking at length, she avoids offering concrete details about her organization’s operations, finances, or structure.
She explicitly states: “I’m not a registered charity. I’m a not-for-profit business,” which allows her to operate without the oversight charities are subject to. This distinction is crucial and often exploited to mislead the public.
3. Aggressive Reframing of Criticism
All critics are labeled as jealous, malicious, or involved in conspiracies. This tactic discredits legitimate concerns without addressing them.
She implies that complaints are malicious communications and threatens legal or reputational retaliation, which could intimidate whistleblowers.
4. Shifting Focus to Health and Emotion
She discusses serious medical conditions—blood pressure, tumors, anemia, knee injections—in extensive detail. This may serve as a sympathy ploy or distraction from organizational concerns.
References to her sacrifices (“seven days a week,” “not taking wages”) reinforce a narrative of sainthood, deflecting criticism.
5. Lack of Professionalism
Profanity (“fuck off”), rambling structure, and personal vendettas do not align with the demeanor of a professional running a legitimate operation.
Statements like “I started this to take down these groups” suggest a vengeful, self-centered motivation, not charitable goals.
6. Boasting About Attention and Monetization
She admits to being paid by Facebook and TikTok, and seems proud of the drama fueling the algorithm:
“You’ve got us where we are today because none of you understand how an algorithm works.”This may imply that controversy is being weaponized for reach and income.
7. Deflection from Accountability
She consistently blames others—rival groups, schools, councils, other charities—and never takes ownership of problems.
Suggests that repeated council and police complaints are meaningless or result in free training—this glosses over the frequency of complaints as a red flag.
Conclusion
The overall impression is of someone:
Using emotional manipulation and aggressive rhetoric to deflect criticism,
Operating outside formal regulatory frameworks,
Possibly misrepresenting their organization’s legitimacy or intent,
Creating a hostile environment for oversight, transparency, or dissent.
This kind of language and behavior raises serious concerns about ethics, accountability, and public trust.
To ensure complete balance in our coverage, we also provided our AI with the following transcript from this video for analysis.
This response is emotionally charged and defensive in tone. The speaker frequently shifts between sarcasm, accusations, and dismissiveness, undermining the potential for constructive dialogue. Key elements observed include:
Aggressive and Accusatory Language: The speaker repeatedly accuses the other party of dishonesty, malicious intent, and misconduct (e.g., website defamation, police involvement, attempts to evict, and trademark breaches), often without providing concrete evidence.
Disregard for Formal Process: There is open dismissal of legal norms, such as the importance of formal documentation, grammar, and letterhead use, while simultaneously insisting on legal compliance from the opposing party.
Tone of Mockery and Dismissal: The speaker mocks the recipient’s disappointment, qualifications, and salary, and trivializes serious claims, such as defamation and distress, using sarcasm and rhetorical questions.
Legal Threats and Justification: Multiple threats of legal action are made, with assertions that defamation or malicious communications are only valid if the claims are false — a partial and legally risky interpretation.
Emotional Appeals and Deflections: The speaker justifies unprofessional communication by referencing possible disabilities (e.g., dyslexia), calls for equality training, and attempts to undermine the other party’s professionalism.
Undermining Credibility: There are repeated references to alleged past misconduct (e.g., financial issues, mistreatment of the elderly), intended to discredit the opposing organization.
Contradictions and Inconsistencies: While claiming not to be a charity and thus not accountable to certain standards, the speaker references legal and regulatory frameworks that typically apply to formal entities.
Finally, the last entry in our Hall of Shame for May 2025 is Carrie-Anne, who was caught driving under the influence of morphine. Based on her slurred “uhhhh” description of how the drug made her feel, the NHS notes that morphine can cause drowsiness, confusion, and impaired coordination.
Do not drive a car or ride a bike if morphine makes you sleepy, gives you blurred vision or makes you feel dizzy, clumsy or unable to concentrate or make decisions. This may be more likely when you first start taking morphine but could happen at any time, for example, when starting another medicine.
Historical Data:
We have compiled a collection of videos—both public and previously unpublished—that have been used within our content. A corresponding transcript is available in the table feed below. It’s important to note that some of these videos have since been deleted from her Facebook page in what appears to be an attempt to conceal specific content. Fortunately, we have archived thousands of images and videos as part of our backup.
Sherlock.