For years, “Jayne’s Baby Bank” has presented itself as a community lifeline. But insider leaks, FOI disclosures, and social media evidence paint a different picture. At the heart of the issue is food — supermarket surplus intended for redistribution to vulnerable families but diverted, restricted, or consumed by volunteers. This account lays out, step by step, what the insider evidence shows.


Trading Standards: Missed Opportunity

According to the whistleblower:

“Yes, the officer from Trading Standards was well aware of all the claims about JBB and desperately wanted for myself and the vulnerable person to go on record for the ‘higher ups’ to agree to a more in-depth investigation. When the signed witness statements were refused (I gave a lot of evidence from the vulnerable person, which should’ve been sufficient for investigation), TS became uninterested.”

The whistleblower then pursued their own complaints:

“So I made a complaint in my name only as a consumer about the use of charity on her stores and online. I also called Action Fraud with the same complaint. And I complained to Social Services about her claim to refer and support people get help for historic sexual abuse. Nothing was ever taken seriously, in my opinion.”

Banned from Olio and FareShare

The whistleblower confirms they intervened to cut off JBB’s food collection channels:

“I did get her banned as ‘Jayne’ on Olio and stopped from claiming Fareshare Go collections via Fareshare directly.”

The Olio–Facebook Contradiction

The leak highlights how food listed on Olio (2023–2024) was also shown on Facebook posts (2024–2025) with a different narrative. On Olio, collections appeared under Jayne’s own name. On Facebook, near-identical food was described in tiles such as “Iceland pick-up – You can’t give it out to the public yet.”

“Attaching the Olio evidence, all yours to compile against what is/was readily available on her Facebook profile. It shows her taking Olio food collections, diverting the food and claiming on Facebook to be from Fareshare, even when she was asked multiple times was it Olio food – she always deleted those comments very quickly.”

This practice risked misleading the public and may constitute misrepresentation under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and potentially the Fraud Act 2006 (s.2 false representation).

Recruiting Volunteers as “Food Fairies”

The whistleblower describes a deliberate strategy to enlist others into this practice:

“It also shows her trying to recruit volunteers to collect the Olio food on her behalf even though the collection slots were claimed by ‘Jayne’ and that food should’ve been listed on Olio – she would merely list one listing on Olio not to trigger a warning. Trying to get unsuspecting volunteers to collect food they legitimately thought was charity/fareshare while it was meant for Olio, makes them unwitting accomplices.”

Her own posts (September 2024) explicitly use the phrase “Food Fairy” to describe these volunteers.

Volunteer Skim / Built-In Diversion

Alongside the recruitment drive, public posts set rules that legitimised diversion of donations. One recruitment tile instructed:

“Volunteers can take 20% or a green tray full.”

This “skim” policy shows that food was systematically diverted to volunteers for personal use before families in need ever saw it.

Supermarket Awareness and Risks to Volunteers

The insider further noted:

“I am aware that a few stores were warned about what she was doing and those poor volunteers could well have been apprehended by store staff for trying to steal the food. And they would never have known they had been conned into doing so.”

This highlights the potential harm not only to families missing out on food, but also to individuals unknowingly put in jeopardy by following her instructions. Innocent volunteers could have been treated as shoplifters if challenged in-store.

The “Breads and Cakes” Example

One clear contradiction is documented:

“Check the Olio listing attached for ‘Breads and cakes’ – you can see the same image used on her Facebook page claiming it’s a collection that they ‘can’t give out to the public yet.’ You’ll notice the Olio listing is in her name, not the volunteer she claims collected it.”

This example demonstrates the recycling of identical food images across platforms to disguise the true origin of the collections.

Community Backlash

Screenshots from Olio chat groups (2023–2024) reveal that the wider volunteer community caught on and reported the behaviour. Several users discuss how collections were stopped due to complaints:

“She runs a food bank and baby bank charity shop and she was collecting and on her posts saying it was for her mums saying it was fareshare but took olio slots.”

“Yes they stopped them altogether as they had complaints about her… she did a live video on her Facebook doing the collection… of course no one in shop knew as it’s olio.”

Another chat explicitly states:

“Normally food banks use Fareshare. I think she was banned from Fareshare last time she done it… She is using Olio just to get into the shops.”

Further posts confirm supermarkets were aware and volunteers were anxious about reputational fallout:

“Bargoed Iceland it was yeah it’s olio… she been collecting Newport, Risca, Newbridge, Bargoed… Tesco, Pontypool, One Stop. No wonder she’s been reported.”

This community evidence corroborates the whistleblower’s account, showing how Jayne’s misuse of Olio slots directly triggered restrictions and bans across multiple supermarkets.

Why It Matters

The leaked insider account reveals how Olio collections were rebranded in Facebook posts, comments questioning this were deleted, and volunteers were misled into acting as Food Fairies.” The recruitment scheme even permitted volunteers to keep a set percentage of donations. Families who should have received the food were sidelined, while those collecting risked being seen as shoplifters.

This activity undermines legitimate redistribution networks and jeopardises trust in community food supply chains.

Full leak archive


Disclaimer: This article is based on leaked insider testimony, FOI records, and social media evidence. It does not constitute legal advice. For interpretation of food safety or consumer law, consult a qualified solicitor.

– Sherlock

Avatar photo

By Sherlock

The Full Report: Carrie-Anne Ridsdale and Jayne’s Baby Bank examines allegations involving deception, the use of false identities, unverified nursing credentials, unregistered charitable operations, potential financial misconduct, and concerns regarding public safety in South Wales. The report is compiled from official records, Freedom of Information disclosures, publicly available video content, and statements made by the individuals concerned. Read the report →

2 thought on “Whistleblower Files: Jayne’s Baby Bank, Olio, and the Hidden Food Skim”
  1. https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=785049770949777&id=100083342834915

    Pennywise is a sinister clown who targets children, using tricks, illusions, and fear to lure its victims and feed on their terror.

    It was defeated when the children, later as adults, stood together. By overcoming their fear and denying its power, they drained its strength until it could no longer hold its form and was destroyed.

    She poses as Pennywise for effect, but the real fright is a phantom charity funding a cartomancer con — terror traded for trickery.

    https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=784934270961327&id=100083342834915

    Sherlock

  2. The Illusion of “Free” Goods – A Closer Look at Jayne’s Baby Bank

    A TikTok video shared by Jayne’s Baby Bank shows boxes of donated baby items labelled “Free to Customers + Donators.” Source:

    https://www.tiktok.com/@jaynesbabybank1_tm/video/7556947947657710870

    This wording is legally problematic. UK law — including the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and Advertising Standards Authority guidance — mandates that “free” means exactly that: no payment, no hidden conditions, and no strings attached.

    By conditioning “free” items on being a customer or donator, the claim misleads. It suggests universal availability while hiding eligibility constraints. This practice risks breaching consumer protection law and misleading the public.

    Charitable intent does not remove the obligation for transparency. Donors and families deserve clarity, not marketing dressed as kindness.

    – Sherlock

Leave a Reply to Sherlock Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *