On 27/08/2025, the “Jayne’s Baby Bank” Facebook page posted the following statement:
“Info Sherlock is trying to post next about us. Thank you to Torfean Council for supporting us and giving them the bare minimum. All of which the council are satisfied with and have allowed us to carry on as normal and carry on trading.”
What caught our attention was a specific note—dated 15/12/2023—in which the organisation appears to claim affiliation with the Trussell Trust:
“Compliant on First Inspection – Small charity shop. Food bank. Distributes food supplied by the Trussell Trust to people with food bank vouchers.”
Direct Response from the Trussell Trust
To confirm whether Jayne’s Baby Bank is authorised to distribute Trussell food or issue food bank vouchers, we reached out directly to the Trussell Trust. Their official response was clear:
“I can confirm that Jayne’s Baby Bank is not a Trussell foodbank and has never been. It does not fundraise or distribute food that has been donated to Trussell on behalf of any Trussell foodbanks in Wales, neither does it fundraise or distribute emergency food on behalf of Trussell.”
Public Video Statements Contradict the Trust’s Position
In multiple public videos spanning over two years, Carrie Anne (also known as Jayne) has stated that Jayne’s Baby Bank receives and/or distributes items from the Trussell Trust:
Video Date: 01/07/2023
“Because we’re lucky enough, because the Trussell Trust know us, they’re happy for us to make food bank referrals, you see.”
Video Date: 23/06/2025
“Because the other food banks, see, when they get a new delivery in, the Trussell Trust and all, they give us a shout if they’ve got a pile of stuff that they need gone with shorter dates.”
Video Date: 02/02/2025
“For example, very often a massive charity, the Trussell Trust, you don’t mind being named, often contact us and say we’ve got a pile of baby food, we’ve got a pile of baby milk, I got a pile of nappies and I got another load due in. Do you want to come and get these and can you get them out before the dates go on? We say yes please, we’ll come and pick them up now.”
Analysis: Conflicting Information
There is now a clear and documented conflict between:
- What Carrie Anne Ridsdale (aka Jayne Price) has said publicly in her videos;
- What has been posted in official inspection notes;
- And what the Trussell Trust has now confirmed in writing.
This raises questions about how food bank vouchers were issued, and whether any public perception of an affiliation with Trussell was intentional or based on misinformation.
While we cannot comment on internal communications between Trussell Trust and local food banks, Trussell Trust’s denial is categorical: Jayne’s Baby Bank has never been affiliated, authorised, or permitted to distribute Trussell food or vouchers.
Conclusion: Verifiable Inconsistencies
Once again, we are faced with a recurring pattern: claims that imply formal partnerships or endorsements, contradicted by the very organisations named. When these statements are examined, they do not hold up to scrutiny.
As always, we remind readers that the public is entitled to transparency—especially when it comes to operations that claim to serve vulnerable families. The facts, sourced and documented, speak for themselves.
Sherlock
A response from Trussell Trust.
Hi apologies for the delay – we needed to contact the local food bank to find out more about this. They have confirmed that this donation was given back in 2022. They have not donated to Jayne’s Baby Bank since, and to our knowledge, none of the other food banks in our network have donated to them.
Please be rest assured that food banks in our network would not donate or provide out-of-date food or products.
I have responded advising them of the full circumstances surrounding the current situation.
I feel she has used this post as a means of legitimising her business. It is clear for all to see that it is not a facebook ‘memory’ as she has stated and so do many friends and strangers who have personally messaged me since and who have been very supportive to me regarding her harassment of me via social media. I look forward to seeing her in Court.
Unbeknown to her my background is in law. The Police are fully aware of the incident and confirmed she cannot send anyone a ‘bill for loss of earnings, breach of trademark (for a trademark that doesn’t even exist) [I shall leave that for Carrie to try and work out] regarding a query that was put out on social media. If she could point out her basis for stating the post was defamatory, that would be great, as at the moment from a legal view point, she doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
Is she allowed to give vouchers out for Trussell foodbanks? Might not be registered properly for this either
According to the Trussell Trust, Jayne’s Baby Bank has never been authorised to distribute Trussell food or vouchers. This directly contradicts both the 2023 inspection note, which listed Trussell-supplied food, and Carrie Anne’s own public videos where she claimed to issue referrals and receive items from them. The evidence therefore raises serious questions about how vouchers were being issued and whether the public were led to believe there was a formal link that, in fact, does not exist.
– Sherlock
A recent video circulated by Carrie-Anne Ridsdale (also known as Jayne Price) raises several serious claims relating to probation services, charity shop practices, and offender rehabilitation. While presented as safeguarding commentary, much of the content is factually inaccurate, misleading, or reflects a misunderstanding of lawful obligations under UK legislation.
Below is a breakdown of key concerns:
1. Misrepresentation of Probation and Offender Rehabilitation Law
QUOTE: “Probation turned up… and said, ‘by law you have to take on offenders’… I said, no chance.”
There is no legal obligation under UK law that compels voluntary or charitable organisations to accept individuals on probation. While probation services may reach out to community organisations to facilitate community rehabilitation placements, participation is entirely voluntary on the part of the host organisation.
There is also no provision in the Equality Act 2010 that forces a private individual or group to accept someone with a criminal history into their organisation, especially if it conflicts with safeguarding responsibilities.
REFERENCE:
https://www.gov.uk/rehabilitation-community
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/949516/rehabilitation-activity-requirement-pi.pdf
2. Incorrect Use of the Data Protection Act
QUOTE: “I asked what their offences were… they said, ‘we can’t tell you under data protection’… so I said, I won’t take them.”
This interpretation misrepresents the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018. Criminal offence data is categorised as special category personal data, and is rightly protected. The withholding of a person’s criminal history by a probation officer is not a flaw in the system — it is a legal requirement designed to protect individuals’ rights unless there is a demonstrable safeguarding risk.
Furthermore, suggesting that data protection laws create unsafe environments is both misleading and contrary to the intent of safeguarding regulations.
REFERENCE:
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/lawful-basis/criminal-offence-data/
3. Potentially Defamatory Generalisations About Offenders
QUOTE: “They could be sex offenders, murderers, paedophiles… volunteering in shops.”
While the presence of individuals with previous convictions in voluntary roles is not unlawful, the blanket portrayal of all probationers as dangerous is grossly misleading, and could fall foul of defamation or incitement thresholds if naming or targeting identifiable individuals.
Statements such as “put him on Facebook — weirdo” may also violate platform terms and UK laws around malicious communications or online harassment, especially when linked to identifiable individuals.
REFERENCE:
Malicious Communications Act 1988
Defamation Act 2013
Facebook Community Standards: https://transparency.fb.com/policies/community-standards/
4. Failure to Recognise Legal Safeguarding Duties
QUOTE: “I’ve got elderly volunteers, disabled volunteers, I can’t take the risk.”
Registered charities and community interest companies (CICs) are expected to conduct safeguarding risk assessments, but not all individuals with a criminal record are automatically unsafe. There are clear processes in place, including Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, when roles involve access to vulnerable individuals.
Importantly, safeguarding is a structured, legally defined process — not a matter of personal judgement or anecdotal assumptions.
REFERENCE:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safeguarding-duties-for-charity-trustees-cc3
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dbs-check-eligible-positions-guidance
5. Contradictory Claims About Shop Access and Risk
Throughout the statement, Ridsdale claims to reject all probation involvement — yet simultaneously describes having multiple encounters with inappropriate or threatening individuals in her own premises, raising questions about internal safeguarding controls.
The following contradiction stands out:
QUOTE: “I had to physically block the doorway with my body.”
QUOTE: “We frog-marched him out…”
This conduct raises legal and liability concerns if volunteers or staff are placed in physically confrontational situations without appropriate training or safeguarding protocols.
6. Inflammatory Language That Could Breach Platform Guidelines
Phrases such as:
“Get lost, you minger”
“Sleazy men”, “weirdo”, “sex offenders”, and “paedophiles” used broadly
“Put him on Facebook”
May violate Facebook’s harmful content and bullying policies, especially when referring to unverified allegations or individuals not convicted of any offence.
REFERENCE:
Facebook Community Standards – https://transparency.fb.com/policies/community-standards/
CONCLUSION
While safeguarding is critical, the video presents a deeply flawed and inflammatory understanding of rehabilitation, data protection, and legal responsibilities in the charity/volunteer sector. The narrative misrepresents:
UK laws around rehabilitation and volunteering
Data protection rules
The actual safeguarding obligations of charities
It also leans heavily on personal anecdotes and emotionally charged generalisations, rather than legal fact. Several parts may be viewed as prejudicial, defamatory, or non-compliant with platform and legal standards.
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/sicksense.png
– Sherlock
A Blind React video. https://www.facebook.com/100083342834915/videos/1315521116826618/
The way we treat others in their times of trouble often reflects the way life may treat us if we ever find ourselves in the same circumstances. As humans, none of us are perfect. Each of us carries daily struggles and battles. Many of us put ourselves out there in the hope of building something meaningful. The difference, I believe, between Team Sherlock and Jayne’s Baby Bank lies in this: we act with morals at our core.
I want to remind everyone of something:
– Baby Bank
A baby bank provides essential items for babies and young children—such as nappies, clothes, formula, cots, and prams—to families who are struggling financially. It exists to give children a better start in life and to relieve parents of the heavy burden of going without. At its heart, it is an act of compassion and care.
– Food Bank
A food bank collects, stores, and distributes food to people in crisis who cannot afford to feed themselves or their families. Beyond the food itself, it offers reassurance, dignity, and the knowledge that kindness still exists when times are hardest.
– Charity Shop
A charity shop sells donated items such as clothing, books, toys, and household goods at affordable prices. Every item passed on and every purchase made carries with it the spirit of generosity, because the money raised directly supports charitable work. It is proof that even small everyday actions can make a big difference.
– Fundraising Shop
A fundraising shop raises money for a cause or charity by selling goods or running special sales. The income generated supports projects that bring relief, hope, and opportunity to those who need it most. It is generosity in action, turning community support into lasting help.
**What binds all of these together?**
They are charitable, good-natured efforts built on the simple principle of helping others. Each one is a reminder that kindness, compassion, and moral integrity are the foundation of genuine support for those in need.
When someone claims to run the “largest” of anything in a charitable way, but instead uses their platform to laugh, mock, or tear others down, then the mask slips. A laugh can either show warmth and kindness, or it can reveal contempt. Which one we choose says a lot about who we are.
Some may not understand the deeper meaning of this message, but we should all be guided by a moral compass—one that we strive to sharpen and improve as we grow older.
Because it takes a certain kind of person to present themselves as “good” and “helpful” while using that persona to criticise or belittle others, whether they know them personally or not.
At the end of the day, judgement meets us all.
If only you were not so blind.
– Sherlock
🔍 PUBLIC NOTICE: Online Harassment — Your Rights and Next Steps
We believe that members of the public who have recently been targeted by ongoing online content or repeated public statements may wish to seek formal guidance from their local Citizens Advice Bureau or a qualified solicitor regarding possible legal remedies.
Given the volume and frequency of content posted by Carrie-Anne Ridsdale (also known as Jayne Price) — which regularly names private individuals, charities, and local organisations — it is reasonable to question whether this activity amounts to:
Civil harassment
Defamation
Or offences under malicious communications laws
⚠️ DISCLAIMER
Sherlock is an independent investigative team, not a legal service. We are not qualified solicitors and do not offer legal representation. The following information is presented for public awareness only. It is based on UK law, public records, and existing case studies.
We strongly encourage anyone affected to consult a qualified legal professional or Citizens Advice for personalised guidance.
📚 RELEVANT UK LEGISLATION
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/contents
Malicious Communications Act 1988
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/contents
Defamation Act 2013
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/contents/enacted
🧾 CASE STUDY: Claudia Webbe (2021–2022)
Claudia Webbe, then a sitting MP, was convicted of harassment for abusive behaviour directed at another woman, including threats and controlling conduct via phone and social media.
She received a criminal conviction, a suspended prison sentence, and was ordered to pay compensation to the victim.
The case illustrates how persistent online targeting, even without direct physical contact, can result in prosecution.
🔗 BBC Coverage: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58882960
💬 WHY THIS MATTERS
The UK legal threshold for harassment is not based on whether speech is merely offensive. It focuses on repeated behaviour that causes:
Alarm or distress (Harassment)
Serious reputational harm (Defamation)
Anxiety or emotional suffering (Malicious Communications)
Even content shared from a personal Facebook page — especially when amplified by a large following — can fall within the scope of these laws if it creates harm or distress.
📋 PUBLIC PROTOCOL: What You Can Do If You’re Being Targeted
We recommend the following steps for individuals who believe they are being targeted by persistent online content or commentary:
✅ 1. Document Everything
Screenshot all posts, videos, captions, and messages mentioning you.
Save direct links (URLs), timestamps, and use archiving tools such as https://archive.ph or https://web.archive.org/
✅ 2. Keep a Timeline
Create a private log of when you were mentioned, what was said, and how it affected you. Include any reference to family, workplace, or false accusations.
✅ 3. Report Content to the Platform
Use built-in reporting tools (e.g. “Report post” on Facebook).
Log and screenshot any platform responses, delays, or refusals to act.
✅ 4. Contact Support Services
Citizens Advice Bureau: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/
Law Society Solicitor Finder (for defamation, harassment, or media law): https://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/
✅ 5. Report to Police (If Applicable)
If the behaviour causes serious distress, report it under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Use the non-emergency police contact form or visit your local station.
Request a crime reference number and submit your timeline and evidence.
✅ 6. Do Not Engage Publicly
Avoid replying or responding to abusive posts — even to correct them.
This protects your legal position and credibility.
FINAL NOTE
Even in a country that protects freedom of speech, targeted and repetitive online conduct is not without limits. The UK legal system provides civil and criminal remedies for those subjected to online harassment or false statements.
If you’ve been affected, take action. Documentation, legal advice, and community support are critical tools for accountability.
— Sherlock
Maybe everyone she has slandered on Facebook should start sending her costings for all the harassment and aggravation she causes them.. she’s an absolute tool!
What I don’t get is that she says that she can post people’s photographs and details and slag them off and says she can do it because it’s on Facebook in the public domain, yet when someone posts something about her that is on Facebook it’s malicious communication! Strange don’t you think?
She apparently is getting a photo of me to put up in her shop (so everyone knows I’m banned) from one of my neighbours. She probably said this in her video thinking it would upset me or alienate me from my neighbours,
she is very mistaken. I live in a very close community and am friendly with my neighbours. Police are already aware of her actions and confirmed she cannot claim monetary recompense from me for her having to ‘deal with facebook issues’. The most she could do is ask for the post to be removed. Unfortunately in this regard the admin of the group have already barred and blocked her as she has been harassing them in the past.
It was not them that informed her of my details from an anonymous post, it was probably inadvertently myself as I had private messaged her regarding the Trussel Trust image. She immediately blocked me.
Oh, that maybe because I called her out on the ct scan issue, all the posts she puts up which are really personal, when she is supposed to be running a legitimate business and act professionally and I said she might have ‘bitten off more than she can chew’ with regard to running multiple shops!! I was clearly having a bad day lol.
I’m also contacting the CAB on Monday to double check what the Police said. I shall keep everyone updated.
Well said, so eloquently written.
A reminder to those of us with morals to maintain our dignity and hold our heads up high no matter what is thrown at us.
The truth shall out in the end.
My colleagues this morning had all read or watched her rants over the weekend and, all questioned her sanity and ability to run a business. Her own inability to remain truthful and her constantly showing contemptuous amusement towards others is farcical.
Carrie,
As the operator of a platform presenting itself as charitable in nature, it is important to recognise that livestreaming personal commentary which includes serious and inflammatory allegations may undermine the public image associated with such work. Publicly accusing individuals of being “sex offenders” or “racists” on social media, while simultaneously positioning yourself as an advocate for vulnerable groups, raises legitimate concerns regarding consistency of conduct and the responsibilities expected of those in a charitable role.
In one publicly available livestream, you appear to criticise others for maintaining a positive mindset, despite previously referencing your own use of “manifestation” over a three-year period to obtain a retail space. In another recording, you are heard stating that certain individuals on your Facebook feed give you “raping kids” vibes. These statements are documented and available in the public domain.
George Orwell, in 1984, defined “doublethink” as the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs simultaneously. The pattern of denouncing behaviour in others while exhibiting similar conduct publicly may reflect this dynamic. When serious allegations are made from a public-facing position under the banner of charitable activity, it invites scrutiny not only on ethical grounds but also on the credibility and integrity of such claims.
—Sherlock
Today, content originally submitted anonymously within the Facebook group Caerphilly Information and more was linked to a named individual’s personal Facebook profile and subsequently disclosed to Jayne’s Baby Bank without the individual’s consent.
Following that disclosure, Jayne’s Baby Bank published the individual’s identity and associated profile publicly, posting:
“This is X from Y and she is posting we are giving out out of date baby food because ….. we re posted a fb memory. Thank you to the admins for deleting their ‘anonymous posts’. Thank you to the admins for letting us know who is posting the anonymous posts too. Go and report her profile and her posts please guys. Some people are so thick I don’t know how they get throught the day.”
This incident raises serious concerns regarding:
The potential unlawful disclosure of personal data, which may be in breach of the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018
The undermining of user anonymity within Facebook groups, where contributors may have a reasonable expectation of privacy
Possible violations of Meta’s Community Standards, particularly policies prohibiting the public sharing of identifying information (commonly referred to as “doxxing”) and the targeted harassment of individuals
⚠️ Advisory to Group Members:
Those submitting anonymous content within Facebook groups should be aware that anonymity is not guaranteed. Group administrators may be able to access and disclose identities, potentially resulting in wider public exposure.
If you believe your personal data has been disclosed without your consent, you may wish to:
Report the incident to Meta under Privacy Violations
Submit a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if you believe data protection legislation has been breached
Relevant Links:
Meta – Report a Privacy Violation: https://www.facebook.com/help/181495968648557
Meta Privacy & Safety Reporting: https://www.facebook.com/help/contact/274459462613911
ICO – Report a Data Protection Concern: https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/data-protection-complaints/
—Sherlock
If you or someone you know believes that personal information has been disclosed by a group administrator without consent, you may contact me in confidence at **SherlockJBB@proton.me** for guidance or documentation support.
—Sherlock
Well considering she is supposed to be so high and mighty , and have all these qualifications behind her, her spelling is attrosouse, the woman is deluded and needs psychiatric help .
**Summary of Today’s Transcript**
BEGIN QUOTE:::
So then we would bill for those hours that I had to deal with that because it was false information given because obviously, you know, it was it was an old post that had been shared as a memory and she’s gone around the place telling everybody we’re giving out-to-date baby food when we’re not,
And then B, the admins have told us that it was her on the group.
So we know it’s her.
So we just need to send her the billable hours for me to deal with that.
And also, any costs that were incurred and any damages to our hand.
It would be funny now if they come back because they’re going to work it out.
How much I would be paid on social media.
How much it’s damaged our business.
How much is done blah blah blah.
You know, and all the rest of it.
And obviously, it can affect other mothers in the community from accessing our services because there’s false information that’s been given out.
So by going through Citizens Advice they will work out a reasonable amount that is acceptable for our business It’s a charge for me to deal with it per hour.
Because, you know, it’s just so every time you post about us, not only do we get paid on social media but we’re also going to be claiming costs from you now as well.
Because we are a sustainable business.
We’ve been here five years.
The council support us.
The police don’t arrest us for what we’re doing because we aren’t doing anything wrong.
Trading standards don’t arrest us because we haven’t done anything wrong.
We’re doing what we, you know, what every other secondhand shop in the country does.
Only we’re giving all the profits back into the business and to help others.
:::END QUOTE
Referenced post 1: [ https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1441291987087572 ]
Referenced post 2: [ https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=761467666641321&id=100083342834915 ]
It is notable that both referenced links lead to newly published status updates, not reshares of earlier content. On Facebook, legitimate memory reshares are clearly marked—for example, the post at: [ https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=760199570101464&id=100083342834915 ]
—includes the indicator: *“Jayne’s Baby Bank shared a memory.”*
This distinction is important in assessing the accuracy of claims made regarding the source of the disputed post.
In light of the transcript and the referenced statements, there appears to be a pattern of attempting to assign financial liability to individuals for making public comments or raising concerns. This includes references to billing for “damages” and hourly compensation tied to public criticism on social media. The repeated claim that “we are a sustainable business” and the assertion of institutional support are presented as justification for seeking these charges.
Individuals who believe they have been subjected to defamatory or abusive behaviour are advised to consult with a legal professional. Civil court proceedings may offer appropriate avenues for recourse where warranted.
For clarity, “Jayne Price” is a pseudonym. The individual responsible for the organisation in question is Carrie Anne Ridsdale.
—Sherlock
I feel sorry for her ex landlord from Blackwood. She is putting on Facebook that he is responsible for every illegal operation in Blackwood and Caerphilly! I hope he is going to take her all the way for defamation!
MISDIRECTION: False Links Between Landlords and Human Trafficking Case
Carrie-Anne Ridsdale (a.k.a. Jayne Price) has publicly suggested a link between her former landlord in Blackwood and a recent human trafficking conviction.
This claim is demonstrably false and appears to be a deliberate attempt to smear unrelated individuals.
🚫 THE FACTS
NATIONAL CRIME AGENCY – CONVICTIONS
SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/NCA/posts/two-men-who-ran-a-people-smuggling-ring-from-caerphilly-to-move-thousands-of-mig/992345776266113
BEGIN QUOTE:::
“Two men who ran a people smuggling ring from Caerphilly to move thousands of migrants across Europe have been convicted following a NCA investigation.”
:::END QUOTE
These individuals were convicted following a formal NCA investigation. There is no link between these men and the landlord who took over Jayne’s Baby Bank’s former Blackwood premises.
Sherlock team members have independently witnessed another man — not either of the convicted individuals — entering the premises after Ridsdale vacated it.
🔎 NAMED IN TRANSCRIPTS
The name “Abdullah” was first mentioned by Carrie-Anne in a video dated 10/07/2025, where she appears to refer to the landlord of her former property.
SOURCE: https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search/?search=abdullah&limit=50&sort_order=relevance&search_type=all&open_transcript=20250710_1256078982531241.txt
BEGIN QUOTE:::
“And I mean, Abdullah…
What does he think he’s bought?
What does he think he’s actually bought when he’s bought the lease off the shop?”
:::END QUOTE
This name — “Abdullah” — has no connection to the individuals in the NCA case, nor is there any evidence linking them to the Blackwood or Pontypool locations.
🪦 FALSE LINK TO FUNERAL PARLOUR PLANS
More recently, Carrie-Anne attempted to link the Blackwood landlord to another unrelated story:
QUOTE:
“Why did Blackwood shop landlord want a funeral parlour – because there are no legal regulatory bodies governing funeral parlours and does restro spect mean he already had bodies in there?”
SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=759762353478519&id=100083342834915
However, the article she referenced does not relate to her former property.
SOURCE: https://caerphilly.observer/news/1052337/blackwood-funeral-director-plans-rejected-by-council/
That article refers to Mohammad Jaura, of FM Global, who sought to repurpose 79 High Street, Blackwood as a funeral home — a completely separate address from the former Market Place property occupied by Jayne’s Baby Bank.
🎯 CONCLUSION
There is no evidence linking the named landlord(s) of her former Blackwood premises to the human trafficking case reported by the National Crime Agency.
There is no link between the former Jayne’s Baby Bank unit and the separate funeral parlour application made by FM Global at another address.
Repeatedly inserting serious criminal cases into unrelated personal disputes appears to be an ongoing tactic of misdirection and defamation.
These false associations could be viewed as malicious in nature, and may carry serious legal consequences if continued.
– Sherlock
📷 Image Evidence:
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Truss_FB001.png
🔍 Backup Reference:
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search/?search=trussell&limit=50&sort_order=newest&search_type=all&open_transcript=761467666641321_1756994793_fb.json
The Network Lead for Wales at the Trussell Trust has been notified of this matter.
—Sherlock
I agree with your posts, I have had contact with the personal previously and have always felt uncomfortable about the operations.
However I would say that it could be local Trussell Trust foodbank who are/were giving her food close to expiry, which does happen. For example, some food banks will chuck extra into parcels if they have stuff close to expiry.
She hasn’t said she distributed food on behalf of Trussell Trust, or that she is one of their registered food banks, but that she can make referrals to them, so issuing vouchers to the public to get food from Trussell Trust.
lol Yes she has said she distributes food on their behave maybe search the transcripts. Your comment comes across as your defending her despite feeling uncomfortable about her operations.
You stated: “She hasn’t said she distributed food on behalf of Trussell Trust, or that she is one of their registered food banks, but that she can make referrals to them…”
However, Jayne’s own words indicate otherwise. The following statements—made publicly and on record—directly imply an operational relationship with the Trussell Trust:
“The Trussell Trust know us, they’re happy for us to make food bank referrals” (01/07/2023)
“They give us a shout if they’ve got a pile of stuff that they need gone” (23/06/2025)
“Very often… the Trussell Trust contact us and say… do you want to come and get these?” (02/02/2025)
Additionally, the local council’s FOI inspection report includes the following description:
“Small charity shop. food bank. Distributes food supplied by the Trussell Trust to people with food bank vouchers.”
These claims—made via livestreams and documented in council records—are categorically refuted by the Trussell Trust itself. Their formal statement reads:
“Jayne’s Baby Bank is not a Trussell foodbank and has never been. It does not fundraise or distribute food that has been donated to Trussell on behalf of any Trussell foodbanks in Wales, neither does it fundraise or distribute emergency food on behalf of Trussell.”
📄 Source: https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Trussell.pdf
Taken together, this demonstrates a clear and repeated pattern of representing Jayne’s Baby Bank as affiliated with the Trussell Trust—both in public-facing communications and to regulatory bodies—despite formal confirmation from the Trust that no such relationship has ever existed.
—Sherlock
“the Trussell Trust know us, they’re happy for us to make food bank referrals” (01/07/2023), “they give us a shout if they’ve got a pile of stuff that they need gone” (23/06/2025), and “very often… the Trussell Trust contact us and say… do you want to come and get these?” (02/02/2025).
It says she can issue vouchers and has been given food to give out close to expiry, which is what they usually do. They do this with other organisations too.
I appreciate the FOI inclusion states that she is distributing Trussell Trust food to those with vouchers, again I wonder how this was actually explained or interpreted. I have met her and clarity is not one of her strong points (as you well know).
As I’ve said I have had contact with this person and don’t agree with the way things are run there at all. There is a significant lack of accountability, transparency, the way she conducts herself on social media and in person leaves a lot to be desired, and does not strike me as someone who is the professional with an extensive work history. Specifically as someone who has studied nursing and accompanied health visitors and social workers, the advice to not go to professionals for help is something that is incredibly alarming. This is indoctrinated into you on your training, and the concerns around accessing support and being viewed poorly by agencies needs to outweigh the positives of getting support and improving families’ lives – something she should be promoting
Are we seeking clarity, or is there an active effort to obscure the central facts? The ongoing contradiction between denying key findings and simultaneously recounting unrelated personal grievances creates the impression of narrative management, rather than genuine engagement with the evidence.
Returning to the substantive issue:
There is no indication—either explicit or implied—in any official communication from the Trussell Trust that Jayne’s Baby Bank has been authorised to issue food vouchers or distribute food on their behalf. Any suggestion to the contrary is at odds with a formal written statement issued by the Trussell Trust.
If authorised, Jayne’s Baby Bank would appear on the following public directory of recognised food voucher partners:
🔗 https://www.trussell.org.uk/emergency-food/get-a-food-voucher
It does not. This absence is material and strongly suggests a lack of formal affiliation.
The Trust’s position has been confirmed in writing by its Network Lead for Wales. That correspondence is publicly available here:
📄 https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Trussell.pdf
The relevant excerpt reads:
“I can confirm that Jayne’s Baby Bank is not a Trussell foodbank and has never been. It does not fundraise or distribute food that has been donated to Trussell on behalf of any Trussell foodbanks in Wales, neither does it fundraise or distribute emergency food on behalf of Trussell.”
Based on this clear statement and the absence of any listing in the Trust’s official directory—historically or currently—we must conclude that Jayne’s Baby Bank does not hold any authorised status to distribute vouchers or represent itself as operating under the Trussell Trust’s guidance or endorsement.
This raises an important and unresolved question:
If there is no authorisation, how are these vouchers being obtained—if they are being obtained at all?
Anyone seeking to verify the authenticity of the Trust’s statement is encouraged to contact the signatory directly using the details included in the linked PDF. Independent confirmation is both welcome and encouraged.
—Sherlock
I see Ms Ridsdale has immediately jumped in and put a post up thanking the Trussell Trust for their donations, but look closely, the sell by date on the baby formula is December 2023.
She just does not realise how stupid she is making herself look!
She probably thinks her faithful followers will believe her over the actual truth!
If she is indeed a foodbank how come she never does any videos showing the food in her foodbank. All she ever shows on video is the mountains and mountains of tat in all her shops. I recall a video she did of her son handing over a box of food from her ‘foodbank’outside one of her shops but the recipient was his girlfriend Chloe!
I would say that none of her shops are suitable to store food safely and hygienically.
Is this the picture? https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/485767345_634254882695934_7735729348616944774_n.jpg
S
That’s a student from college as it days on the post not chloe.
(Not defending carrie Anne or her son, i cant stand them.)
That is correct. Chloe is no longer affiliated with either Dan or Jayne’s Baby Bank.
—Sherlock
Glad she’s finally seen sense!
What happened with Chloe?
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/2118a23e-36c6-4665-ad6c-0d1f72572f8f.jpg
This is her mother.
– Sherlock
Funny how after my last comment she is now posting pictures of food allegedly for her food bank. In regards to her post regarding the Trussel Trust she purposely did not post that as a memory which she does on some posts. It was definitely to make people think it was a recent donation from them.
Anyone would think Carrie was watching this page. Since your post she has today posted a video of her sorting out her baby milk and sanitary products. Lo and behold there was a 3 month out of date tub of baby milk which she tries to defend by blaming the new volunteers learning the ropes or mistakes happen.
Being quite blasé regarding out-of-date date products being on shelves is not professional and clearly shows a lack of stock rotation.
Her phone is on here daily.
S