We’ve posted a new comment here regarding today’s claims and previous claims.

– Sherlock

It’s been a busy week overseeing my ebay empire, I could do with a good laugh 🤣

Well said! A much more accurate description of this despicable, vile woman’s rip off shops.

You’re going to make her manifest a live video response. 😃

– Sherlock

A tongue in cheek look at Carrie Anne Ridsdale’s new website – ‘Recycle Wrong Shops’ are located at:-
5 Crane Street Pontypool
14 Pentrebane Street Caerphilly and 68 Tredegar Street Risca
Located by following the detritus on the pavement outside.
All sorts of vintage and retro crap can be found thrown on the floor or in overcrowded cabinets. Selected Clothes and shoes reduced to £1 (because no one else wants them). Card and contactless only we do not accept cash (as we cannot be trusted) and we don’t trust our volunteers not to steal it.
We take all donations, (due to an uncurable hoarding disorder). We do not collect or deliver (we now make other people do it for us) . We do not take offers – prices are set (in a totally random and ad-hoc fashion, whilst doing live feeds, talking BS for hours on end and defaming all and sundry).
Re – sellers pay the full price not offer prices (I’m telepathetic and can immediately tell the difference between a reseller from any other customer) and we don’t tolerate rude customers (but I myself can be as rude as I like). Thank you in advance for not believing any of my lies or BS.

How would she know if we’re resellers? I bought some china from the Pontypool shop last year. Priced at £25 for the bundle. When I got the set out of the cabinet they were priced at £2 each (£12 in total – 50% off = £6). I refused to pay the £25 and told the lady in the shop you can’t price things individually and then bundle them together and double the price. She tried to phone the manager to no avail. I got them for the bargain price of £6. Sold them on ebay for £60 as 1840’s antique plates. JBB stick that up your proverbial ****!!
Also been in the shops since my apparent ban and bought some Delft plates, also sold at a £10 profit. How on earth is she going to stop resellers. We don’t go in the shops with a tattoo on our forehead. What she seems to forget is the baby bank gets their money and once sold becomes the property of the buyer. What we choose to do with it after that is none of her business.

“Yeah, and then they tried to silence that boy again. From the Snug that tried to out him for what had happened. And he lost his apprenticeship over it, you know. They tried to silence him. They won’t silence me.”

Issue Identified:

Civil employment dispute reframed as a safeguarding cover-up. Suggests an apprentice was silenced for raising concerns and lost his role. This appears to inflate an ACAS/tribunal matter into a criminal safeguarding allegation.

“I can’t sit here and let somebody go in that cafe and they might be… What if they got sexually assaulted again? What if these animals of sons that she’s got, right? What if they go out with a girl now, sexually assault and rape her and end up murdering her?”

Issue Identified:

Unverified allegation of sexual assault escalated into hypothetical rape and murder scenarios. Severe reputational harm risk. High exposure under the Defamation Act 2013.

“If the police say all about arrest, they’ll say, well, what are you arresting me for? It’s true. And it’s, you know, it’s slander. But it’s only going to be proved as slander if it’s not true and it is true. We know it’s true, you know. The kids wouldn’t lie. These 18-year-olds on apprenticeships wouldn’t lie. He wouldn’t risk his job to come out with the truth.”

Issue Identified:

Misrepresents UK defamation law. Truth is a defence only if supported by evidence. Broadcast claims of apprentices “not lying” do not meet the evidential standard in civil law.

“Her son was screaming at me on the lane calling me a little woman in my face, and the father stood there and did nothing. I don’t know if he’s the father, maybe the stepfather.”

Issue Identified:

Recounting of a hostile public altercation. Names family members, questions paternity, and portrays them as abusive. Risks falling under Protection from Harassment Act 1997 if repeated.

“You shouldn’t piss off the person who contains all the knowledge, should you?”

Issue Identified:

Threatening undertone. Implies retaliation against critics by exposing damaging information. This coercive style mirrors prior confrontations (e.g. Pontypool incident). May amount to intimidation or harassment.

“The girls we had the problem with. The one they’re going to prosecute for assault. And then they also, that’s under Torfaen. Because it happened in Torfaen. And then the other the Blackwood. They’ve forwarded stuff. We’ve already forwarded it. Forwarded stuff. For harassment.”

Issue Identified:

Publicly states individuals are “going to be prosecuted” for assault/harassment. Prejudicial unless confirmed by CPS. Risk of contempt of court and reputational harm.

“They turned up at the shops after they harassed us at the house. And uploaded the videos onto Facebook themselves. Because they’re thick. So they’re going to have them for harassment as well. Under two different police forces. So that’s good.”

Issue Identified:

Admits to multiple altercations at home and shops, then insults individuals publicly. Hostile targeting of families and repeated online exposure risks breaching Malicious Communications Act 1988.

“I know what you did when you were in that ambulance hall and you stole our money and blamed it on other people.”

Issue Identified:

Historic allegation of theft tied to the same individuals. Adds to a pattern of criminal claims without evidence. High risk under Defamation Act 2013.

Legal Framework:

• Defamation Act 2013 — Allegations of sexual assault, paedophilia, theft, and cover-ups are “serious harm” statements if unproven.
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997 — Repeated hostile commentary directed at families, minors, and staff may constitute harassment.
• Malicious Communications Act 1988 — Broadcast designed to cause distress, alarm, or reputational damage.
• Contempt of Court — Statements about prosecutions or pending police actions risk prejudicing legal proceedings.
• Data Protection Act 2018 / UK GDPR — Filming and livestreaming private individuals (including children) during altercations raises privacy issues.

Health / Safety Concerns:

• Public warnings that cafés are unsafe for families or pregnant women risk unnecessary alarm without evidence.
• Livestreaming altercations with minors present risks safeguarding breaches.
• Escalating disputes into threats of violence (“reasonable force”) undermines public trust in a community shop setting.

Past UK Enforcement:

• Monroe v Hopkins (2017) — Twitter defamation claim established serious harm from false allegations.
• Stocker v Stocker (2019) — Supreme Court held Facebook post alleging attempted murder defamatory.
• Fearn v Board of Trustees (2023) — Clarified harassment liability where repeated conduct created hostile environment.

Enforcement Remedy:

Potential action from Police (harassment, malicious communications), Crown Prosecution Service (if contempt arises), Charity Commission (if misrepresentation threatens charitable status), and Trading Standards (misleading trading practices presented as charitable activity).

– Sherlock

“Thank you Aldi UK who have sent us a Lacura bundle for our Beauty Bank Giveaways! Like, share and tag two friends in this post for a chance of winning this bundle. Must be able to collect within 5 days please.
Collection post used for social media purpose*
Car seat not included *”

What Aldi Actually Says

Aldi runs routine Lacura product giveaways via its Cult Beauty Club. According to Aldi’s press centre, the intent is:

• Beauty enthusiasts can apply to receive Lacura products before they land on shelves in summer.
• Winners are asked to provide honest reviews on social media, with feedback guiding Aldi’s 2025 beauty range.

Julie Ashfield, Managing Director of Aldi UK: “Our health and beauty brand, Lacura, is hugely popular with shoppers, but it’s important we continue to excite our loyal fan base with an innovative offering. That’s why we’re returning our Cult Beauty Club. Shopper feedback helps us ensure we’re giving customers quality, on-trend products at affordable prices.”

The Issue

Instead of following Aldi’s review-led guidelines, the bundle has been used to drive personal social media engagement (likes, shares, tags) and platform growth. That’s a shift from product feedback to self-promotion, and it undermines the original purpose of the giveaway.

Why This Matters

• Transparency: Audiences should know whether a giveaway is for independent feedback or for boosting a profile.
• Integrity: Review programmes rely on genuine testing and honest commentary, not engagement bait.
• Trust: Blurring lines between charity, promotion and review obligations erodes public confidence.

Bottom Line

The Lacura bundle appears to have been repurposed for personal promotion rather than compliant, feedback-driven reviewing as set out by Aldi.

— Sherlock

5 Crane Street Mon- Sat 10-4
Pontypool open Sunday

14 Pentrebane Streer Mon- Sat 10-4
CAERPHILLY closed this Saturday

68 Tredegar Street Mon – Friday 10-4 approx
RISCA High Street

All sorts of vintage and retro items. Selected Clothes and shoes reduced to £1. Card and contactless only we do not accept cash.

We take all donations. We do not collect or deliver. We do not take offers – prices are set. Re – sellers pay the full price not offer prices and we don’t tolerate rude customers. Thanks in advance.

Ms Ridsdale is now callng her shops Recycle Right Shops. She is advertising on a Pontypool Facebook site. No mention of it being a baby bank or foodbank.