Marketing is an essential tool in business. Some individuals understand how to market effectively, while others do not. Marketing, much like life, operates according to a set of principles and guidelines. There are laws that regulate marketing conduct, yet not all individuals appear to adhere to them.
This becomes particularly relevant when examining recent content shared by Jayne’s Baby Bank, an entity historically presented as a charitable or community-based organisation. Two recent videos, circulated via Facebook and TikTok, appear to employ deceptive marketing tactics. These materials warrant closer scrutiny.
VIDEO CONTENT ANALYSIS
Video number one features the Baby Bank branding prominently acting as a large watermark, one can vaguely discern what appears to be a shop interior. The accompanying audio states it is a “Giant Charity Shop.” This video was sourced from Becky’s Bazaar and originally shared on 2 July 2023.
Video number two contains footage from inside various Jayne’s Baby Bank locations, both past and present, with audio taken from the TikTok account carbootisfull, dated 16 April 2024. The narration describes the location as one of those “massive charity stores.” This further highlights what appears to be a deliberate attempt to promote the organisation as a charity shop while allegedly not operating as one.
SOURCE LINKS:
SOURCE: JBB Facebook – Original Video
SOURCE: JBB Facebook – Original Video
COMMENTARY FROM TEAM SHERLOCK
These two videos, disseminated across public social media platforms, raise concerns regarding false representation. In both cases, the video content strongly implies that the establishment is a registered charity or charity shop, a claim that, according to existing documentation, is unsubstantiated.
1. False or Misleading Advertising
According to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (UK), it is illegal to present false or misleading information that influences consumer decisions. This includes implying that a business has charitable status when it does not.
📌 Legal Reference:
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, Regulation 5 and Regulation 6 – prohibits “misleading actions” and “misleading omissions” in commercial practice.
Advertising rules also apply. Ads and promotions must not mislead, and charity-linked promotions have specific disclosure requirements under the ASA/CAP Code. Breaches can trigger enforcement action by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).
This raises questions about whether Jayne’s Baby Bank is unlawfully advertising itself as a charity to gain consumer trust or increase donations. Furthermore, it is a specific offence under section 63 of the Charities Act 1992 to solicit money or other property while representing that an organisation is a registered charity when it is not. This is exactly the situation when trading “under the pretence it’s a registered charity.”
These combined legal provisions significantly increase the seriousness of the misleading representations seen in the social media content.
MISREPRESENTATION OF STATUS
The phrases “Giant Charity Shop” and “massive charity stores” appear inconsistent with publicly available information. According to Charity Commission UK records (as of 15 September 2025), there is no registered charity under the names Jayne’s Baby Bank, Carrie Anne Ridsdale, or Jayne Price.
📌 Reference:
Charity Commission UK – Search: https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/
This directly contradicts the charitable impression conveyed in the aforementioned videos and may constitute both regulatory and criminal breaches.
QUESTIONS RAISED
- Why is Jayne’s Baby Bank consistently described or branded as a charity in media if it is not legally registered as one?
- Has trading under this impression influenced donations or public support under false pretences?
- Are there consumer protection violations given the misleading terminology in video content?
- What regulatory oversight exists to prevent continued misrepresentation across social media platforms?
CONCLUSION
Carrie Anne Ridsdale’s activities under the guise of Jayne’s Baby Bank appear to exhibit a pattern of contradictory public behaviour, unverified claims, and potentially unlawful trading practices.
Sherlock’s findings suggest this warrants the attention of:
- Charity Commission for England and Wales
- Advertising Standards Authority (ASA)
Further public transparency is required to ensure community safety and to prevent ongoing reputational harm or consumer deception.
Sherlock
PUBLIC REMINDER: Current alleged credential claims exposed.
Automated notice: New Transcript Alert
Issue Identified:
Jayne’s Baby Bank has published images and video footage of identifiable children online, directly accusing them of theft and damage. While recording for evidential purposes can be lawful, the act of posting children’s faces with allegations of criminal behaviour amounts to a serious safeguarding and legal concern.
Legal Framework:
Health / Safety Concerns:
Past UK Enforcement:
Enforcement Remedy:
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) may investigate Jayne’s Baby Bank for unlawful handling of children’s data. Police have powers under harassment and communications laws to intervene. Parents also retain the right to pursue a civil defamation claim. At minimum, Facebook may be required to remove the content as a safeguarding breach.
– Sherlock
Source:
Facebook Post
– Sherlock
Automated notice: New Transcript Alert
📌 Key Quotes (CCTV & Group Incident)
📌 Additional Quotes (Smearing / Safeguarding Issues)
Commentary:
While Jayne’s Baby Bank references CCTV being passed to police — which is the appropriate channel — the transcript is undermined by wider commentary that strays far beyond evidential use. Children are described collectively as a “problem,” parents are threatened with police unless they pay for damage, and minors are labelled as a “nuisance.” This framing risks harassment and defamation.
More troubling still is the introduction of unrelated, highly serious allegations: sexual assault, property damage, and details of a child’s care status. Publishing claims such as “the other one that sexually assaulted somebody” or “that child was actually a care child in a care facility… moved England way” has no relevance to the CCTV incident and instead functions as name-dropping and smearing. This breaches safeguarding obligations, exposes minors to reputational harm, and demonstrates an unprofessional approach to handling incidents.
By aligning legitimate CCTV evidence with inflammatory commentary and unrelated allegations, Jayne’s Baby Bank increases its legal exposure under the Data Protection Act, defamation law, and safeguarding standards.
– Sherlock
🔎 Rebuttal: Meta Payments & Legitimacy Claims
❌ LIE: This is NOT correct, NOT fact.
1. How Meta Payments Actually Work
2. Misleading the Public
Claiming Meta payments equal “legitimacy” is a deliberate attempt to mislead donors and the public.
3. The Real Legal Framework
– Sherlock
Full output of today’s transcripts: 22092025 Transcript
To read more, visit the link above.
– Sherlock
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/2024/07/12/pontypool-unmasked-meet-the-tenant/
Just a reminder that we disclosed the Pontypool store contract last year.
– Sherlock
Automated notice: New Transcript Alert
🔴 Primary Concerns
1. Unsafe Resale of Goods (Product Safety)
– General Product Safety Regulations 2005 – all second-hand goods must be demonstrably safe before resale.
– Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011 – toys must be clean, complete, tested, and compliant with EN71.
– Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 – selling contaminated, broken, or incomplete toys without disclosure is a criminal offence.
—
2. Sale of Toy Weapons (Safety & Public Policy)
– Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011 – toy guns and knives must meet EN71 safety standards.
– Trading Standards prosecutions show councils have acted against unsafe toy weapons (e.g. choking hazards, missing CE/UKCA marks).
– Her own admission (“maybe it would be wise not to…”) demonstrates knowledge of potential risk.
—
🟠 Secondary Concerns (Grey Areas)
Volunteer Training (Compliance Questionable)
– Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 & Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 apply equally to volunteers.
– In-house or improvised “training” may be inadequate if not accredited. Liability sits squarely with the organiser should an incident occur.
—
Misleading Charity Positioning (Resale of Other Charities’ Stock)
– Reselling surplus goods from other charities is not unlawful.
– However, presenting as a registered charity while unregistered risks misrepresentation under the Charities Act 2011 and Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
—
– Sherlock
Is she losing the plot with these new live videos or just scared? The woman needs serious help she is a fruitcake! Unbelievable she is. Carry on Sherlock outing her out for real person she is! She still trying deny it ! After her calling a child a urchin just really shows how nasty and evil she really is!
The live videos are not about community or transparency — they are about control. Every broadcast is crafted to project legitimacy, but their true purpose is self-serving: to frame her in a favourable light while generating income.
Is she afraid? Absolutely.
She was convinced we would fade away, that we were just another group tied to the people she has torn down over the years. She miscalculated. We are still here, standing firm to protect the South Wales valleys.
Why would someone who hid for years behind aliases suddenly step into the spotlight? It isn’t vanity. Each long stream exposes the real Carrie — the same Carrie who harassed neighbours, exploited friends and family, and alienated colleagues.
And what happens when her voice loses its power? Panic.
Panic at the door.
Panic at the window.
Panic echoing inside the shop.
The more you — the public — take these facts and wear them as a shield, the stronger the barrier becomes. It is you who will stop her.
– TEAM Sherlock!
Automated notice: New Transcript Alert
1) Subscriptions & Direct Debits (Financial Regulation)
Running direct debits without FCA authorisation or a regulated provider breaches the Payment Services Regulations 2017. False claims of FCA oversight raise further concerns.
2) Volunteer Benefits & Welfare Risks
This is misleading. Structured rewards (e.g. £20–£50 store credit per shift) can legally reclassify volunteers as workers, triggering obligations under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and tax law. Misreporting volunteering to the DWP risks benefit fraud investigations.
Reference: Volunteering or Paid Work? The Store Credit Controversy at JBB
3) Pricing & Trading Standards (Consumer Law)
Casual and inconsistent pricing breaches transparency requirements under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Price Marking Order 2004.
Overall:
The transcript contains clear legal risks across three key areas: financial regulation, employment/benefit law, and consumer protection.
– Sherlock
JBB: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=773548825433205
Aunty Kathy: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=444578190353774
If you’re going to slap a QR code on someone else’s image and ask for donations through SumUp, at least try to be original.
Sherlock Commentary – FCA claim & “registered” status
Quoted claim:
“We are a regsiteted baby bank and child foodbank with Caerphilly and Torfean Council and the Financial Conduct Authority.”
Why this is misleading
• The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regulates financial services and markets (banks, lenders, investment firms) — not food banks, baby banks, or charity shops.
• Jayne’s Baby Bank is not listed as a registered charity with the Charity Commission. Describing the organisation as “registered” in a way that implies Charity Commission status is misleading to donors and the public.
Potential offences (for misrepresentation)
• Fraud Act 2006, s.2 (Fraud by false representation) — making a false representation dishonestly, intending to make a gain or cause loss. Citation: s.2.
• Charities Act 2011, s.63 — offence to falsely represent that an organisation is a “registered charity.” Citation: s.63.
• Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 — prohibitions on misleading actions/omissions likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision they otherwise wouldn’t. Citations: Reg. 5 (misleading actions), Reg. 6 (misleading omissions).
Notes on councils
• Local authorities (e.g., Caerphilly, Torfaen) do not “register” food banks as regulators. Environmental Health may oversee food hygiene where applicable, but that is not Charity Commission registration or FCA oversight.
Bottom line
• Citing the FCA in this context appears incorrect and raises questions of false representation.
• Stating “registered” status without a Charity Commission entry appears misleading and may engage the offences above.
– Sherlock
Well she’s certainly not the only baby food bank in the UK. There’s one in Bedwas that regularly gives out baby products with their food parcels and has done for years. How she has to differentiate herself between a food bank that gives out baby food, nappies, formula etc., and her own baby bank is unfathomable. They also have their own baby bank which regularly gives out parcels of clothes and baby products to new mothers and those in need and has a huge warehouse in Caerphilly.
She clearly needs to get her facts straight, most people can see straight through her lies.
Transcript Review: Baby Bank Claims
Issue Identified:
Both statements are factually inaccurate and misleading. Evidence shows:
This directly contradicts Jayne’s Baby Bank’s exclusivity and size claims.
Legal Framework:
Enforcement Options:
Trading Standards could investigate and prosecute false “only/largest” claims under CPRs. ASA can require withdrawal/amendment of such claims if made in publicity or fundraising materials. Charity Commission may act if repeated misleading statements damage trust in charitable operations.
– Sherlock
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Watcher.png
How did we know you were watching?
– Sherlock
Automated notice: New Transcript Alert
Health Concerns:
Legal Framework:
Past UK Enforcement:
Enforcement Remedy:
Trading Standards and Environmental Health have the power to test, seize, and prosecute suppliers of unsafe toys — including charities and second-hand sellers. If residues or bacterial contamination were proven, enforcement could result in fines, prosecutions, and mandatory withdrawal from sale.
– Sherlock
Commentary on today’s transcript: some red flags
Police Involvement
• “So police took another statement yesterday…” – repeated reference to filing reports against critics.
• “Although it’s a different person that’s had the warning, they’ve still taken it on board.” – suggests frequent use of police reports as a tool in disputes.
• “Even if they got off with a rule warning or just a basic charge… it still makes you a person of interest to the police.” – troubling misuse of law enforcement language to discredit individuals.
Charity Registration Avoidance
• “Imagine if we had a charity number tomorrow… some places are tight. They can’t support you unless you have a charity number.”
• “That’s why I am bothered registering… you don’t register with them. So what can they do?” – explicit admission of operating outside the Charity Commission to avoid oversight.
Potential Legal / Safety Issues
• “Chocolate fountain thing yesterday… May 2023… Dan might risk it. Otherwise, he would have to bin it. But… could make you ill.” – admission of expired food handling, raising public health concerns.
• “Laughing at your husband and his pathetic dick pics.” – unsafe public commentary involving explicit content, reputational and safeguarding risks.
• References to awards used as “proof” of legitimacy, despite no oversight or inspection, further muddying accountability.
Key Takeaway
This transcript highlights three recurring issues:
• Repeated invocation of police to silence critics.
• Deliberate avoidance of charity regulation and oversight.
• Public statements suggesting unsafe food practices and defamatory remarks.
– Sherlock
Today Carrie Anne live streamed several videos with some concerning commentary
1. Defamation & Harassment
The transcripts repeatedly name and attack individuals, making allegations of criminal or sexual behaviour. Examples include:
These are serious allegations. While quoted directly, they appear legally sensitive if shared publicly.
2. Explicit Sexual Content
Several livestreams describe unsolicited sexual images in detail, often in mocking terms:
This content is unprofessional and unsuitable for public-facing platforms.
3. Unprofessional / Aggressive Language
Examples of dismissive or hostile tone towards customers and critics:
This type of language damages credibility and may alienate supporters.
4. Threatening or Retaliatory Tone
Direct threats or justification of force are present:
Such statements appear inconsistent with later claims of being targeted or harassed.
5. Inconsistencies / Contradictions
The transcripts show contradictions that raise credibility questions:
• One day: car vandalism denied, blamed on broken door handle.
• Next day:
• Pontypool store: Jayne livestreamed that it was harassment by “nasty girls”, but video evidence shows physical pushing and insults exchanged.
6. Publication of Sensitive Information
The livestreams reveal details not usually suitable for public broadcast:
• Police investigations and witness statements.
• Environmental health inspections.
• Names and identifiers of individuals accused of misconduct.
• Mentions of addresses, workplaces, and family members.
This appears to risk breaching privacy and data protection rules.
7. Misleading Legal Claims
This appears to misrepresent the legal position. Trademark misuse in social media disputes is not automatically criminal.
Context of the Pontypool Incident
• Carrie Morgan confronted Jayne Price in the Pontypool shop, accusing her of calling her son an “urchin”.
• Shouting escalated:
/
• Jayne pushed both Carrie Morgan and the filmer in the chest.
• Video evidence exists online.
• Jayne’s livestream later claimed police statements and CCTV evidence supported her account.
This appears to show a reframing of the incident: minimising Jayne’s own actions while amplifying accusations against others.
Summary
The transcripts are problematic due to:
• Defamatory claims made against named individuals.
• Explicit sexual commentary about private messages.
• Aggressive and insulting tone towards customers and rivals.
• Threats of retaliation and justification of force.
• Disclosure of police and personal data.
• Contradictory accounts of events.
• Misleading legal assertions.
– Sherlock
Funny how she has recently put a post up saying that she was diagnosed with autism and now she is calling herself a ‘vulnerable adult’.
She deliberately provokes anyone and everyone to draw attention, sympathy, and ultimately to monetise the resulting traffic. It is a calculated strategy to position herself as a “vulnerable” figure and project the image of a noble defender of mothers. In doing so, she twists every situation so that charities, so-called “haters,” or even fabricated threats are painted as the aggressors, while she alone is portrayed as blameless. This pattern has persisted for at least two decades, marked by sustained verbal and psychological abuse of others. While more people may eventually speak out about her conduct, for now she shields herself behind social media platforms, police threats, and a carousel of aliases.
– Sherlock
She’s just said neurodivergent people love her shops – Carrie if you are reading this NO most neurodivergent people do not like clutter; in fact, many experience heightened sensory and emotional distress from it, which can lead to anxiety, overwhelming feelings and a lack of control. We may struggle with organization due to executive dysfunction, leading to cluttered environments, but a decluttered space often brings a sense of relief, improved focus, and better emotional regulation.
Maybe you should try this sometime it might help as you’re now claiming to be autistic and a vulnerable adult.
You have also been defaming a vulnerable adult online recently yet laugh whilst doing.
Maybe you should think twice before posting such content. You don’t come across as being overtly autistic, but possibly have ODD (loving the acronym) which can co-exist with autism but usually manifests as a stand alone disorder.
Try listening to some of your own advice for a change, leave us genuine vulnerable adults alone for a while and start living your own life instead of constantly berating us.
Your a hoarder nothing more nothing less. Maybe reflect on your past existence and get some some help for any traumas or issues you might have. This might help you move forward as you’re clearly loosing the plot at the moment. 70,000 followers or more yet only a few actually interact with your posts most days, a truer reflection on how others see you.
Rant over for a while Sherlock, letting my neurodivergent brain have a rest for a while.
Full article here
Read our comment in the replies for the full list of conditions publicly claimed by “Jayne”:
– Sherlock
Amen to this. She doesn’t have a clue what it’s truly like to be neurodiverse. As a women diagnosed with asd and adhd I have learnt so much about myself and my conditions and I don’t see her the same as me. My executive functioning would not allow me to manage an organisation as big as JBB, the shops alone would spin me out.
She is riddled with unprocessed and unsolved trauma, personality disorders, narcissistic tendencies and pure evil deep inside her. She isn’t vulnerable what so ever, she inflicts pain and misfortune on others and gets satisfaction from bullying and scamming the most vulnerable in society. She needs to be locked away in a psychiatric unit and deemed an absolute menace to society and a risk to children and vulnerable adults. She’s in a world away from reality. She’s a very dangerous and nasty piece of work.
I know so many people that want to take this monster down. One day she will mess with the wrong person who will happily serve a long prison sentence for her.
Her time is running out, she will not get away with it forever. I will sit back and watch karma take her out.
Carrie – Anne Tick tock the clock is ticking my friend. Stock up on fat jabs because soon you will be living in poverty when your organisation comes crashing down, you lose all your disability benefits and are forced to pay all your debts back into public money.
Why on earth do people donate anything to this vile woman when in her latest video she shows donations and say that they are ‘dirty’, ‘filthy’ and ‘disgusting’. I think she needs to look around her shops, they were probably clean before they went in!
Jaynes baby bank has collected food from supermarkets previously and openly admitted to not been authorised by environmental health to give it to the general public and kept it for herself and the volunteers.
Before her expansion, several “volunteers” contacted us regarding collections for the baby bank. They explained they had been turning up at supermarkets to collect donations, unaware they were not authorised to do so. Once this became clear, they stopped assisting. During this period, they also reported that “Jayne” frequently spoke of various health conditions. The claims were described as so extreme that, if true, she would not be alive. Returning to the original claim of collecting food from supermarkets — this is easily verifiable:
VIDEO: https://www.tiktok.com/@jaynesbabybank1_tm/video/6884447399595494657
– Sherlock
Reference: https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=770787745709313&id=100083342834915
JBB – Facebook Post (Full Quote & Breakdown)
Original quote (Sept 2025):
“Just for clarification- we pay for our foodbanks , nappies and formula we don’t collect from supermarkets – we have small donations from other foodbanks and donations that are collected in OUR shops . Currently all the super markets are giving food to pantrys and churches who are CHARGING for it. This is what our protest is about. All the food should be given to registered foodbanks that give it out for free first not agencies that sell it to people. Our fundraising shops , primarily pay our over heads and then any profit made is spent on Foodbank items which are give for free. No one is paid a wage they are run by volunteer Mothers and Grandmothers and their children and vulnerable adults. I do not take a wage for running the foodbank fundraising shops OR the baby bank. The shops fund the baby bank and the foodbank and the 5 item top up shop. What you see in the shops is our 5 item top up shop not our foodbank or baby bank that is in our warehouse which is not open to the public. Or we buy it and get it straight out. We do run a small shop from our warehouse to help us move items along. This is also how our other warehouses will run.”
Breakdown
Line 1 — Claims “we pay for our foodbanks” yet admits to “small donations” → inconsistent sourcing.
Line 2 — Protests supermarkets giving to pantries/ churches who *charge*, but confirms running “5 item top up shop” and “small shop from our warehouse” which also charge.
Line 3 — Declares “all food should be free” yet simultaneously describes paid models.
Line 4 — “Fundraising shops” said to cover overheads, but also identified as top-up shops — blurring lines between donation-funded vs paid distribution.
—
Key points
• Condemns charging for food while openly admitting to own paid shops.
• Phrasing blends *fundraising*, *top-up shop*, and *foodbank* → confusing for donors/public.
• Public statements stress “free first,” but practice includes £5 sales and warehouse shop schemes.
• Inconsistency highlighted previously: “I have 3 food good to go bags £5 each and some bread which is free at Pontypool shop this morning.” (full report here).
– Sherlock
Good to see that The Pink Pantry HCT have provided clarity on this subject. That is exactly how a Food Bank should be run.
That’s the first time she’s mentioned that the food bank and baby bank is stored at her warehouse. I would say that that warehouse definitely needs a visit from Environmental Health if food is being stored there!
We know physical items are stored there, though we’re not certain about food. Sources close to the location indicate it has not been open for some time. The suspicion is that it is packed from top to bottom with stock. The last time it was reportedly accessible was before the closure of the Blackwood shop. The only way to establish the situation with certainty would be through an inspection — but as it is presented as a “warehouse” rather than a genuine public space, it functions more like a private storage unit.
– Sherlock
But she states ‘for clarity’ that the food bank is situated in her warehouse. If her shops are anything to go by I dread to think what the inside of that warehouse looks like.
That’s fair, I’m just being specific. A video was recently posted about the “foodbank,” where she stated:
“But right now we don’t even do around the street collections because my knees are bad.”
In truth, this had nothing to do with her knees. The collection materials were confiscated after she sent Alison into Blackwood and outside her shop to solicit donations. Street collections are covered by law: a street collection licence is required, and collectors must carry and display identification.
– Sherlock
Wow that women is something else. All this actually blows my mind. I wonder if she’s actually a police informant or something as still no arrests have been made.
It certainly is staggering — the volume of contradictions and the scope of activity would make most people assume intervention was inevitable by now.
But just to clarify: there’s no evidence she is a “police informant.” What the investigation shows is a **pattern of deception, misrepresentation, and avoidance of oversight** across multiple areas (charity registration, licensing, food bank claims, professional credentials).
As highlighted in the full report (31 Aug 2025):
“I don’t answer to the charity commission. I don’t answer to the council. I don’t answer to the police. I don’t answer to nobody, and they know that. And I will take you down if you bother me or you bother anybody else.”
This quote alone helps explain why enforcement looks delayed: her approach has been to play different agencies against each other, exploit regulatory gaps, and intimidate critics.
So while no arrests have been made, multiple regulatory bodies are now aware and engaged. The story isn’t finished.
Full report: The Full Report: Carrie-Anne Ridsdale and Jaynes Baby Bank
– Sherlock
09:16am GMT Statement
Reason provided: Video evidence on file (“https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gli6cBE67ag”).
In the transcript reviewed, the speaker makes multiple unverified and hostile claims, including labelling a man in Risca Library as a “paedophile,” alleging he had previously “used learning difficulties as an excuse” to avoid conviction for raping a 10-year-old girl, and stating her intention was to “make him feel as uncomfortable as I fucking can.” She further refers to him as a “scumbag,” admits she “clocked him as soon as I went in there,” and frames her actions as a supposed “duty of care” while simultaneously conceding that “he hasn’t been convicted” and is entitled to be in a public place. These contradictions highlight the legally unsafe nature of her statements, which combine hostile opinion with unverified allegations.
The subsequent removal of her post following intervention from both police and social services indicates that authorities viewed the public statements as problematic, with concern that the individual could be placed at risk. This sequence reflects a broader behavioural pattern noted in the investigation: highly defamatory claims being broadcast in public forums, later withdrawn or edited under external pressure. Such conduct raises significant questions regarding reliability, safeguarding responsibility, and the misuse of safeguarding narratives for reputational attacks.
Sherlock makes no judgement on the truth of the allegations. We do not endorse or refute the claims. We unequivocally oppose paedophilia in any form; our role is only to document and analyse what is publicly stated and recorded.
– Sherlock
Ive know the person she his referring to and she’s made it all up what an evil person she is
It’s important to keep this grounded in facts.
The transcript shows that **she herself acknowledged the man had not been convicted** and was entitled to be in a public place, yet still publicly labelled him a “paedophile” and broadcast highly inflammatory allegations. Authorities intervened and the post was removed because of the safeguarding risk created by making such unverified claims.
To be clear: Sherlock makes no judgement on the truth of the allegations. We neither endorse nor refute them. Our role is to document what was said publicly, highlight contradictions, and record when statements are later withdrawn under external pressure.
The wider concern is the *pattern*: using safeguarding language in a way that can incite hostility, then deleting or editing posts once challenged. That behaviour raises serious questions about reliability and responsibility.
– Sherlock
“Police said they are going to look into the guy gravitating around public toilets and public spaces that have toilets.”
Source: https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=770910519030369&id=100083342834915
If you have additional information, please email it through.
– Sherlock
Reference: https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=770204682434286&id=100083342834915
JBB – Claimed Numbers Breakdown (May–Sept 2025)
13 May 2025 — $71.32 / ~£56 earnings.
21 May 2025 — 527,850 views; $66 / ~£52.
7 June 2025 — $63.95 / ~£51 earnings.
13 June 2025 — 586,007 views; $77 / ~£61. Publicly claimed half a grand, inconsistent with figures shown.
20 June 2025 — 836,975 views; $82 / ~£65.
11 July 2025 — 3.9M views; $102 / ~£82.
23 July 2025 — 1.5M views; $165 / ~£132.
31 July 2025 — $399.81 / ~£320 payout. ⚠️
25 Aug 2025 — $399.81 / ~£320 estimated payout. ⚠️ exact duplicate.
28 Aug 2025 — 1M views; public claim of shop rent paid despite no earnings figure shown.
9 Sept 2025 — $184.13 / ~£147 earnings; $399.81 / ~£320 again as balance/next payout. ⚠️ repeated a third time.
Mid-Sept 2025 — 1.6M views; $120 / ~£96.
—
Key points
• $399.81 / ~£320 shown three times (Jul, Aug, Sept) → duplicated, not distinct payouts. Normal payout programmes vary month to month, so repetition raises questions.
• Earnings don’t scale with views:
– 3.9M views → $102 / ~£82
– 1.5M views → $165 / ~£132
– 1.6M views → $120 / ~£96
• Based on these, average CPM works out at around $0.07 / ~£0.06 per 1,000 views — industry standards are usually $2–10 CPM, showing a major gap.
• Later public claims (half a grand, shop rent paid, paying bills) contradict the dashboard figures shown.
– Sherlock
URL: https://csrawards.co.uk/the-2024-international-csr-awards-winners/
UK national silver winner for “food & drink” and “healthcare” goes to… Jayne’s Baby Bank.
How does that happen?
In short: lack of due diligence. The first award submission is free, while additional entries require payment. The CSR Awards are run by The CSR Society Ltd, a company incorporated on 16 June 2024. The Society describes itself as a “twin sister” to The Green Organisation, which has operated since 1994.
Verification of Claims
Many CSR awards rely solely on self-submitted case studies or statements. There is no guarantee of independent verification. If, for example, an entrant claims to serve food but does not actually do so, that detail could go unchecked in the absence of site inspections or evidence audits.
This raises concerns about how Jayne’s Baby Bank, which has faced scrutiny for unverified charitable claims, was able to secure a national award in categories such as “food & drink” and “healthcare”.
Contact details
If you wish to raise questions about this award decision, contact details for the CSR Awards team are as follows:
info@csrawards.co.uk
roger@thecsrsociety.com
karl@thegreenorganisation.info
info@thecsrsociety.com
info@thegreenorganisation.info
Regards,
Sherlock
We’ve had replies from the CSR Society, but they highlight inconsistency rather than clarity.
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 at 14:31, Roger Wolens (Founder/CEO, The Green Organisation & The CSR Society) wrote:
“Our CSR Awards are presented in connection with specific projects of a company or individual and this particular campaign relates to recycling and re-using unwanted baby clothes. Do you have more information or evidence that this claim is untrue?”
Later the same day, at 17:38, the explanation changed:
“Any awards we make are in recognition of specific projects; they do not endorse any company as a whole. The project in question is genuine and not without merit, so we will not withdraw the award on this occasion. As the award was made in 2024, it is not readily visible on our website, so I would suggest the chances of further exposure are very limited. We do welcome any input from people like yourself who might question an award, but the campaign is open to nasty people as well as nice ones – and how/who are we to judge anyway?”
The contradiction is clear:
• At 14:31 – the award was said to be for “recycling and re-using unwanted baby clothes.”
• At 17:38 – it was defended as a “genuine project” under national award categories of “food & drink” and “healthcare.”
So which project was actually submitted — baby clothes recycling, or food and healthcare?
When the justification shifts within hours, it reinforces the concern that these awards are based on self-submitted claims without independent verification. Such inconsistencies risk undermining the credibility of the award process itself.
We appreciate a member of the public forwarding this information.
– Sherlock
Re Ms Ridsdales bragging about how much she is paid for her social media videos. I hope HMRC are made aware.
HMRC are cracking down on social media influencers who are not paying the correct amount of tax. HMRC has sent “nudge letters” to thousands of influencers, reminding them of their tax obligations. HMRC has also investigated a number of high-profile influencers for tax evasion.
Social media influencers are people who have a large following on social media platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube. They use their platform to promote products and services to their followers. In return, they receive payment.
HMRC, or Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, is the UK’s tax authority. It is responsible for collecting taxes and duties on behalf of the government. HMRC views social media influencing as a business activity, and therefore, influencers are required to pay tax on their earnings.