Registered Details and Structure
According to the certificate of incorporation, the company is situated in Wales and falls under SIC code 96090 — “Other service activities not elsewhere classified.” This broad classification allows flexibility for community-based projects, though it does not itself confer charitable or regulatory status.
The founding documents also include a Statement of Guarantee showing Price, Jenkins, and Ridsdale each pledging £1, standard for CICs. However, Jayne Price retains overall control and decision-making authority through her status as majority guarantor and PSC.
Identity and Email Link
While publicly identifying as Jayne Price, the director has been historically associated with the email address carridsdale@gmail.com — incorporating the name Carrie-Anne Ridsdale, which she has publicly denied using. Nevertheless, incorporation records list Daniel-James Ridsdale at the same address, reinforcing documentary links between the Price and Ridsdale identities across multiple filings.
This overlap mirrors previous records where the same individuals have appeared interchangeably under the Ridsdale and Price surnames across tenancy, donation, and social media materials connected to Jayne’s Baby Bank. The inclusion of the Ridsdale name in an official company document, therefore, provides the first direct legal confirmation of the association.
From Unregistered Operation to Registered CIC
Prior to incorporation, the Jayne’s Baby Bank name operated informally across South Wales, presenting itself as a “charity shop” or “baby bank” while remaining absent from the Charity Commission register. Establishing the organisation as a CIC may represent an attempt to formalise those activities under the Companies Act 2006 while avoiding the more stringent oversight and transparency obligations that apply to registered charities.
Under UK law, Community Interest Companies must operate for social benefit and file an annual Community Interest Statement explaining how their activities serve the public good. Failure to maintain transparency or misuse of the CIC structure for private gain may lead to intervention by the Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies.
Directors and Guarantors
- Miss Jayne Price — Director, Person with Significant Control, Welsh national, occupation listed as Company Director.
- Mrs Gail Jenkins — Director, Welsh national, resident of Woodfieldside, Blackwood.
- Mr Daniel-James Ridsdale — Guarantor, address shared with Price at 7 Meadow Road.
All three provided authentication during the electronic filing, confirming awareness and consent under the Companies Act 2006.
Community Benefit and Oversight
As of publication, Jayne’s Baby Bank C.I.C. has not yet published a formal Community Interest Statement outlining its objectives or funding model. The absence of such detail leaves open questions about how the CIC intends to differ from the prior unregistered operations that previously faced scrutiny over transparency, data handling, and financial accountability.
Public oversight of Community Interest Companies is conducted by the CIC Regulator, based in Cardiff. Members of the public can verify filings, officers, and control statements via the official Companies House register.
Legal and Financial Reporting Obligations
Under the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004 and the Community Interest Company Regulations 2005, all CICs must meet ongoing statutory obligations to ensure accountability and prevent misuse of public funds. These include:
- Annual Accounts: Every CIC must submit annual accounts to Companies House within nine months of the financial year-end. Accounts must include a balance sheet, income statement, and explanatory notes.
- CIC Annual Report: A separate annual report to the CIC Regulator must explain how the company’s activities benefited the community, how any surpluses were used, and any dividends or payments to directors. This report is made publicly available.
- Asset Lock: All CICs are legally bound by an asset lock, meaning profits and assets must be used for the community benefit rather than private enrichment. Transfers must be approved by the Regulator.
- Financial Transparency: Where income exceeds £10,200, detailed financial disclosures are mandatory. If turnover surpasses £632,000 or assets exceed £316,000, an audit by a registered accountant is required.
- Public Access to Records: Members of the public have the right to inspect filed accounts, annual reports, and officer details via the Companies House service, ensuring transparency of all community-interest activities.
- Prohibited Misrepresentation: A CIC must not present itself as a registered charity unless it has obtained separate charitable status and Charity Commission registration. Doing so risks breach of the Charities Act 2011 and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
Unlike a registered charity, a CIC does not qualify for Gift Aid or charitable tax exemptions and must operate under general company law. It is required to demonstrate community benefit through its operations and proper financial stewardship each year.
Identity Verification and False Declaration Risk
As of late 2025, Companies House does not yet require photographic identification to be verified at the time of incorporation. Applicants simply self-certify their details. However, providing false or misleading information is a criminal offence under section 1112 of the Companies Act 2006.
The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 introduces new legal duties for ID verification. Once implemented (expected during 2025–2026), every director and person with significant control must have their identity verified either directly with Companies House or via an authorised agent. Incorporations submitted under false names after enforcement begins will be automatically invalidated and subject to criminal sanction.
Summary
The creation of Jayne’s Baby Bank C.I.C. marks the first formal registration of the name after years of informal use. While incorporation as a Community Interest Company can lend legitimacy to social initiatives, the accompanying records reaffirm longstanding connections between Jayne Price and the Ridsdale identity she has publicly disputed. The development represents both an administrative milestone and a potential continuation of a complex history surrounding the project’s true ownership and accountability.
For the public record, this article interprets data filed with Companies House and verified through official documentation. No allegations of wrongdoing are implied beyond the factual scope of the filings.
Disclaimer: This article references public company-registration data under the Companies Act 2006 and CIC Regulations 2005. It is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
— Sherlock
https://www.facebook.com/groups/638417744708312/posts/1172710241279057/
Worth noting;
“I made the heartbreaking decision to step down from the trustee board solely to protect the charity. Sadly, the harassment continued. I have since involved the police and sought legal support. One individual is now on bail awaiting trial. The other has escalated further. I cannot say more at this time, as I fully intend to see justice through — but I will say this: I will never tolerate abuse, not towards me, my family, or our charity.”
– S
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=848703851251035&set=a.107500218704739
PayPal explicitly distinguishes between personal payments, donations, and payments for goods or services under its UK User Agreement:
https://www.paypal.com/uk/legalhub/useragreement-full
PayPal confirms that fees apply to commercial transactions (goods and services). Personal payments, including voluntary contributions and donations where no goods or services are exchanged, are treated differently. Using the “Friends & Family” option is not, in itself, prohibited or fraudulent.
PayPal’s fees structure makes this distinction clear:
https://www.paypal.com/uk/webapps/mpp/paypal-fees
PayPal also expressly supports donations and fundraising via its platform:
https://www.paypal.com/uk/webapps/mpp/donations
Critically, PayPal’s Acceptable Use Policy identifies misconduct as misrepresentation or deception — not the avoidance of fees where no sale of goods or services has occurred: https://www.paypal.com/uk/legalhub/acceptableuse-full
In summary:
• Donations and personal payments are permitted on PayPal.
• Avoiding PayPal fees is not unlawful.
• A policy breach only arises if a payment for goods or services is deliberately misrepresented as a personal payment.
• Allegations of “fraud” require evidence of deception, not assumption.
Absent evidence that payments were for goods or services falsely classified to avoid fees, claims of fraud are inaccurate.
– Sherlock
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/Jaynesbabybank
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/Jaynesbabybank100
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/jaynesbabybankrisca
The PayPal pages shown operate under multiple PayPal profiles and usernames, all presenting similar branding and descriptions associated with “Jayne’s Baby Bank”, “Free Food Bank”, and a “Charity Shop”, while stating that “100% of profits go towards the charity”.
PayPal’s UK User Agreement permits multiple accounts only where there is a legitimate and transparent purpose. Individuals are generally limited to one personal account, and businesses to one business account per legal entity. Additional accounts must represent clearly separate purposes or entities and must not be used to circumvent policies, scrutiny, or accountability: https://www.paypal.com/uk/legalhub/useragreement-full
PayPal’s Acceptable Use Policy further prohibits the use of multiple accounts to misrepresent activity, confuse payers, or obscure who is receiving funds: https://www.paypal.com/uk/legalhub/acceptableuse-full
In this case:
• Multiple PayPal accounts appear to be operated by the same individual.
• Each account uses similar charity or food bank branding.
• Statements such as “100% of profits go towards the charity” imply regulated charitable activity.
• PayPal approval does not confer charity status.
Where charity-related language is used, UK law requires that public representations are accurate and not misleading. Operating multiple payment accounts under similar charity branding, without clear disclosure of legal status, governance, or financial separation, raises legitimate transparency and consumer protection concerns.
PayPal permits donations and payments, but responsibility for lawful, accurate representation rests entirely with the account holder.
– Sherlock
Every attempt by this despicable woman to discredit other CIC’s and charities just brings more of her own deceitful scamming of donations into the public eye.
There was a time I thought she was brazen, but no, she is absolutely blind to the fact she is actually providing the evidence of her own downfall, that is one uneducated idiot.
And it also proves she is definitely stalking Hayley Thomas and HCT so it all adds up to another nail in her coffin!
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search/?search=%22Hayley+Thomas%22&limit=50&sort_order=newest&search_type=all&open_transcript=847644724690281_1766255795_fb.json
– S
Well Carrie Anne has got a very poor memory and absolutely no concept of time. She has stated that she was reported to Social Services by Hayley Thomas when she was a single mother in 2007 and that it somehow is linked to the Pastor at Oakdale Church. Strange that as he didn’t become a vicar until 2013. She is so jealous of Hayley Thomas and the success of HCT it’s unreal. I believe her livestream where she has absolutely decimated Hayley and her family has been sent to Gwent Police and the CIC commission. Enjoy your holiday Carrie Anne, it may be your last for a while.
Upon reviewing a recent transcript, one statement stood out:
“You know, and not paying any rent. Not wrong is it guys? We pay our rent.”
For public disclosure, it is important to note that Jayne’s Baby Bank has been behind on rent payments for several months on a particular property. January will be a critical month. We strongly recommend that the owed funds, starting from June, be paid to the landlord as soon as possible.
– Sherlock
Public notice (for transparency and safeguarding)
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100093714337967
This comment relates to material published on the secondary Facebook account titled “J’armarnis B Outique” (stated publicly as connected with Jayne’s Baby Bank).
For the avoidance of doubt: this is not a restatement of any allegations. Certain details are intentionally obfuscated/modified for legal, safeguarding, and data-protection reasons. The purpose of this comment is to create a clear, time-stamped public record that the content existed and raised serious concerns, in case it is later removed or reframed.
Concerns raised by the publicly posted material include:
Accountability request: If this page is associated with Jayne’s Baby Bank (directly or via linked individuals), a clear statement should be published confirming:
This is a public-interest transparency note intended to protect vulnerable people, uphold standards, and ensure that serious claims are handled through appropriate processes rather than social media commentary.
— Sherlock
Some quotes;
“Look off the Baptist Church in Oakdale.
Is that the one whose husband went to prison and got his priesthood degree in prison?
For smuggling drugs into the country.
Have I got the right church there?
I’ll have to go back and look at that.
But again, bizarre connection.
But there is definitely a church in Oakdale that the vicar got his vicar degree in prison while they were doing a massive stretch for drugs trafficking into the UK.
Not just bringing a couple of drugs over in his bag for personal use.
Drug trafficking.
Directly linked to the helping caring team.
And I’ve got, because I haven’t brought all my evidence out, right?
But I’ve got evidence going back that Hayley had links with this church and this vicar.”
You can read a backup transcript at; https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search/?search=%22Baptist+Church+in+Oakdale%22&limit=50&sort_order=relevance&search_type=all&open_transcript=NA_847088911441175.txt
– Sherlock
She’s not jealous at all is she. Disgusting behaviour from a Director of a CIC.
She’s basically accusing all charity shops who accept cash of dipping their hands in the till, and She’s witnessed it 100’s of times!!
I certainly don’t understand why she thinks HCT can’t sell received donations at their baby bank shop.
”a charity in the UK can sell donated goods, and this is a common and legitimate way to raise funds. The sale of purely donated goods is generally not considered “trading” for direct tax purposes, and the income is exempt from Corporation Tax, provided the profits are applied solely for the charity’s purposes.
I’m sure the HCT are fully aware of their obligations as charity and how their funds are used.
Shows Carrie’s truly vindictive, jealous nature to make such statements about other charities, who all seem to be doing far more for their local communities then she ever will.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1347616343239276
This Jayne sure looks like Carrie Anne.
– Sherlock
So this is her ITV interview!!
Looks more like Christmas night out with her staff and a quick online chat with the pasta people about her CIC.
Talk about bigging yourself up!
I know she supposedly suffers from dyscalculia but surely she knows the difference between 5, 4 and 3.
”We have 5 shops in Risca, Caerphilly, Pontypool and Pontllanfraith = 4
You actually have shops in Caerphilly, Risca and Pontypool = 3.
Pontllanfraith is a donation centre/ foodbank.
There have been indications of outstanding obligations at certain locations. Some narrative adjustment is expected in January.
— S
Jaynes Baby Bank are actively looking for a new property in Pontypool to replace the old one. I would advise future landlords to get the rent paid in full.
– S
Everyone in the interview seems to be smiling — unlike this group. Why is that?
– S
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1741872355833199&id=100000313539647
– S
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DSAXRXhDLMN/
Congratulations to Mama to Mama on raising £20,000 for their Baby Bank.
Founded in March 2023 as a simple local call to action, Mama to Mama has grown into the first and only dedicated baby bank service in Thanet, Kent, responding directly to rising need during the cost of living crisis. Built around clear referral pathways, strong links with maternity, social and care professionals, and a focus on dignity and trust, the organisation supports families with children up to five years old while also prioritising wider family wellbeing.
What stands out is not scale, but structure and substance. With a modest social media presence of around 700 followers, Mama to Mama has focused on delivery rather than optics, embedding itself within local services, operating transparently, and earning recognition such as the Margate Mayor’s Community Award (2023). Their mission is clearly defined around three pillars: giving children the best start in life, empowering caregivers, and championing sustainability through circular living.
Mama to Mama demonstrates that a baby bank is not measured by online reach or inflated numbers, but by impact, governance, community integration, and trust. It is a practical example of how a baby bank should be run: needs-led, locally accountable, and focused on outcomes rather than attention.
– S
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=842174675237286&id=100083342834915
“Like I said – the council, the police, the fire brigade are sick and tired of the malicious complaints made against us -THEY are starting to tell us who has complained so we can make our own report to the police for harrassment and malicious complaints against us.”
Core factual position (UK)
Historical pattern evident from the transcripts
The transcript archive shows this claim is not new, but part of a long-running and repetitive narrative spanning several years:
Complaints are repeatedly characterised as fake, obsessive, bullying, or part of a coordinated attack, regardless of source or substance.
Over time, the alleged “complainants” change (other CICs, named individuals, volunteers, landlords, councils, environmental health, trading standards, the fire service, police, websites, Facebook users). The allegation remains constant: they are known, malicious, and being investigated.
Repeated assertions that councils “know who it is”, police are “investigating them”, complaints are “on record as malicious”, and SARs have revealed identities. These claims do not align with how SARs, council processes, or police investigations operate in practice.
Complaints are alternately described as ignored and laughed at by councils, then so serious they require months of investigation, and simultaneously harmless yet proof of criminal harassment. These positions cannot all be true at once.
Frequent warnings that complainants will be arrested, charged with wasting police time, exposed, or “come after”, despite no evidence of outcomes consistent with those threats.
Followers are urged to write to councils or police to “counteract” complaints, while also asserting authorities already know the truth — another internal inconsistency.
Repeated personal accusations, naming individuals, alleging conspiracies, and claims of council “data-mining” confirmations — none of which is credible under UK public-sector data controls.
Why the current claim matters
The latest statement — that multiple authorities are now identifying complainants so reports can be made against them — is simply the latest escalation of a narrative that appears repeatedly in the historical record.
What does not appear in the archive is any confirmed outcome consistent with the threats:
Plain conclusion
This is not an isolated misunderstanding. It is a recurring claim pattern that conflicts with UK law, data-protection rules, and standard regulatory practice, repeated over time without demonstrable legal resolution in support of it.
The assertion that councils, police, and the fire service are now routinely naming complainants is not credible, not lawful, and not supported by the transcript record.
– S
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/courtserve/
“Just to remind people we are trademarked. Breach of trademark is a criminal offence. We have noticed other baby banks and small businesses copying some of our ideas and intellectual property, and logos, social media content and videos. ”
Worth noting that this trade mark was registered while the entity was not a registered charity, and it still is not a registered charity. The mark itself is branded as a “Baby Bank & Charity Shop” and registered under Class 36 – charitable fundraising, which raises an obvious mismatch between branding, registration class, and legal status. A trade mark does not confer charitable status, exclusivity over community ideas, or immunity from scrutiny — and inaccurate claims around any of those are a separate issue entirely.
https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00003910000
– S
A special night deserves something extra, so we have included material from an older Facebook account that has now been fully archived. This earlier profile contains content that directly contradicts later claims and provides independently verifiable timeline evidence.
Example post recovered from the archive:
Source:
jaynesbabybank.co.uk – archived transcript
Additional material included
Reveals the likely course type and includes the original name
Contradicts the later nursing/clinical training timeline
Matches the earlier account and predates the rebranding
Accurately dated workplace evidence from the pre-charity period
The time line does not add up. We have it all mapped.
– Sherlock
This Risdale woman couldn’t lie straight in bed (literally)
I did see I got a mention on one of her monotonous videos. Don’t know what I’m talking about? Don’t know which shops I’ve been to?
I’ll enlighten you Carrie, everything I’ve commented on is what you’ve put out in the public domain. Your own posts say when and what shops are open and what times. If you had the abundance of volunteers you claim to have, all premises would be open. I’ve only stepped inside ONE of the premises you RENT. The smell made me feel ill, there was probably more room to manoeuvre in a war zone.
I have actually witnessed you rummaging around charity bins, I looked at my dashcam and yes, my dashcam picked it up.
We all had a good laugh at you that morning in the coffee room at a nhs hospital. I didn’t keep the footage because you are insignificant to me and my colleagues. I work with people from all walks of life and who have worked at many hospitals. You are a LIAR, there’s not one person I know who has any recollection of you either training or working in our establishment. As for the ‘birdcage’, if I revealed how I know you have NEVER stepped inside the ‘hospital’ wing or pharmacy, would put my contact at risk.
There’s certain positions you don’t brag about. Protocol is EVERYTHING, and is definitely dangerous when you haven’t got a clue about keeping others safe.
I have also seen this woman rifling through the charity bins in Pontypool Tesco on a Sunday morning at 7.30am whilst walking my dog. This was when she was working/ sleeping at the Pontypool shop earlier this year. I contacted the Red Cross collection and they confirmed to me that she has no authority from them to take any of the donations.
Also in one of her latest livestreams she is now saying she’s a qualified teacher as well as a qualified nurse! Totally mind boggling!
Considering she is always saying that ‘her mothers’ are struggling with day to day living and Christmas, she is throwing it in their faces about her holiday to a 5 star hotel in Feurtaventura over Christmas which is probably costing her in excess of £4,000 for her and Daniel. If you’re wondering Carrie how I know, Google image is a wonderful tool. The Paradisus by Melia has great reviews, but I wonder what review you will give them? You’re not good at giving good reviews are you?
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000313539647
Jayne Price sure does look like Carrie Anne!
– Sherlock
She has deleted the account after revealing her real name and historical profile. Rest assured, we have everything backed up.
– Sherlock
Public Notice: Concerning Conduct, Statements, and Materials Shared in Recent Videos
A recent video contains a handwritten letter, a demonstration involving a cheque, and an extended verbal monologue making a series of serious allegations against another charity and its trustees. These materials raise several significant concerns that are appropriate for public clarification.
1. The Handwritten Letter: Narrative Contradictions and Escalation
The video begins by showing a handwritten letter stating that the writer is responding to a letter alleging harassment, that there has been “harassment and malicious behaviour” for around 18 months, and that a “group of individuals” is conducting a hate campaign.
While the letter presents the writer as the target of hostility, this position contradicts the tone and content of the subsequent video, where the same speaker delivers threats, personal insults, allegations of criminal activity, and explicit warnings directed at named individuals and organisations.
This inconsistency is notable, as it suggests a shifting narrative depending on the intended audience. Publicly, the speaker adopts an aggressive and accusatory posture, whereas the letter frames them as a victim responding to harassment. Such contradictions are relevant for assessing credibility and motive.
2. Repeated Public Allegations of Criminal Conduct
Throughout the video, the speaker repeatedly asserts—presented as fact—that another charity and its trustees have committed fraud, deception, misuse of a charity number, hidden conflicts of interest, misled the council, and engaged in improper contracting.
No evidence is provided for these statements, and none of these allegations appear to come from official findings or regulatory determinations. Publishing unverified criminal accusations can cause serious reputational harm and carries legal consequences under defamation and malicious falsehood law. The frequency and certainty with which these accusations are made is cause for serious concern.
3. Threatening and Intimidating Behaviour
The transcript contains multiple explicit threats, including statements to the effect of having “all the time in the world to come after” the targeted individuals, intentions to “carry on disclosing information” about them, and warnings that if they say anything about the speaker, their family, or volunteers, they should “look out”.
The tone is hostile and confrontational, escalating a personal dispute into public intimidation. Such statements may reasonably be perceived as harassment, particularly when directed towards charity workers, volunteers, or family members.
4. Misrepresentation of Official Body Involvement
The speaker repeatedly implies confirmation or endorsement from official bodies, including the CIC Regulator, the Charity Commission, and a council department. The language suggests that complaints and “correlations” are on record and that these bodies have effectively confirmed concerns about the other charity.
However, no genuine regulatory findings are produced, and the statements are framed ambiguously. Misrepresenting the role or actions of official bodies can mislead the public and damage trust in regulatory processes.
5. Demonstration of Cheque Alteration and Fraud Scenarios
One of the video’s most concerning elements is a demonstration in which the speaker writes example cheques, explains how someone could allegedly misdirect donations, describes how fraudulent deposits might be carried out, and suggests that this is how another charity obtains money.
This is framed as something the targeted individual supposedly does, despite no evidence being presented. Beyond the defamatory implications, the video also publicly explains a method of cheque fraud, which is wholly inappropriate and could be misused by third parties. It also incorrectly suggests that cheque processing relies solely on handwritten names and would not trigger verification, which is not accurate in modern banking systems.
6. Personal Insults and Derogatory Language
The transcript includes personal insults, mocking remarks about appearance and clothing, and dismissive comments about individuals being “dull” or “a nobody”. This tone is inconsistent with legitimate safeguarding concerns or charity sector whistleblowing. It instead indicates a personal dispute escalating into hostile public communication.
7. Evidence of Long-Running Personal Conflict
The speaker refers to disputes going back several years, prior issues, and ongoing attention to the other charity’s actions and social media presence. This pattern suggests a sustained interpersonal conflict rather than a one-off disclosure of wrongdoing.
Such context matters when evaluating the intent behind public allegations and threats. The behaviour described and displayed in the video is more consistent with retaliation and escalation than with neutral reporting of concerns.
Summary
The combination of the handwritten letter, the cheque-demonstration images, and the two-part verbal transcript raises multiple public-interest concerns, including:
This commentary does not assert whether any of the underlying claims are true or false. It highlights the nature of what was said and shown, the risks associated with such public statements, and the impact such behaviour may have on individuals, volunteers, and charities operating in the community.
– S
Public Statement: Concerning Claims Made on the JBB CIC Facebook Page
The remarks in today’s video were published directly on the JBB CIC Facebook page, a platform that represents a registered Community Interest Company. This makes the tone, content, and accuracy of the statements even more significant, as they appear under the banner of an organisation that receives public trust and operates within a regulated framework.
Within the video, the speaker claims she “just drove past” and noticed the HCT charity van with a flat tyre, using this observation to reinforce a wider narrative of hostility towards the individual and organisation she routinely targets. Given the documented history of repeated posts, videos, and accusations directed at the same person, the likelihood that this was a coincidental, innocent passing-by is extremely low. Instead, the timing and presentation strongly suggest the claim was used to support an ongoing personal attack. Broadcasting this to followers from an official CIC page further amplifies the concern.
The video also includes questionable statements regarding the Welsh Assembly, referred to as the “period fraud squad” or “period pants fraud people”. These bodies do not exist under those names. The speaker claims that the Welsh Assembly has confirmed the identity of complainants, that councils have proactively contacted her regarding “malicious complaints”, and that subject access materials can be obtained simply by requesting them from this alleged fraud unit. These claims are highly unlikely to be accurate. Public bodies do not disclose complainant identities, do not operate informal “fraud squads” in this area, and do not release third-party subject access information on request.
The combination of misleading references to official bodies, statements that contradict established procedure, and an ongoing pattern of personalised attacks raises serious concerns about the reliability of the narrative being presented. When these claims are made on a CIC’s official social media page, they risk misleading the public, undermining trust, and misrepresenting how public institutions operate.
This public statement highlights the inaccuracies and implausibilities within the video, the inappropriate use of a CIC platform to target individuals, and the need for transparency when misleading or unverified claims are being shared in a community setting.
– S
HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF CLAIMS MADE BY CARRIE-ANNE REGARDING BLOOD DISORDERS, TUMOURS, NURSING, DIAGNOSES, TRAINING AND MEDICAL HISTORY
(Compiled from long-term public statements and self-described timelines)
===========================================================
1. OVERVIEW OF KEY BIO CLAIMS
===========================================================
Her current Facebook bio states:
“I worked with Heamatolgy and that is how I discovered I had various blood disorders.”
Across earlier posts and videos, however, she has also claimed:
• That she discovered her blood disorders during student nursing placements on haematology wards.
• That she had been seriously unwell with a tumour and aplastic anaemia “since before 2015.”
• That the disorders were caused by a tumour that had been “left growing” after an MRI was allegedly shelved.
• That she spent “a week in the bird cadge at Cardiff Prison administering medication and treatments” as part of nursing training.
• That missing MRI records, sepsis, neutropenia, and a collapse episode each played a role in discovering or developing her conditions.
These accounts conflict significantly depending on the narrative being given.
===========================================================
2. INITIAL DISCOVERY CLAIMS
===========================================================
Across her public history, she gives multiple incompatible explanations for how she allegedly discovered her blood disorders, including:
• While working with haematology.
• During a student nursing placement.
• After locating a “missing” MRI in 2019.
• Following collapse, neutropenia and sepsis in 2020.
• As secondary to a long-standing untreated tumour.
Each of these timelines contradicts the others.
To read the full structured document – including detailed chronological contradictions across haemoglobin claims, tumour narratives, sepsis accounts, nursing qualifications, university pathways, safeguarding authority claims and palliative status statements – click here…
– S
The woman is off her head. I have noticed since her CIC announcement she really thinks she untouchable 😆 Carrie ann you are so nobody 🙄
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/JBB_Unpaid_Volunteers_Finance_Governance_Safeguarding_Claims_Analysis_2025.txt
– S
Today’s video about Tesco trolleys made me laugh. She has used trolleys for quite some time, wheeling them in and out the shops, filled with tat. Now claiming she collects the discarded trolleys and gets Dan to return them, to help Tesco has made her nose grow a few more inches.
She’s probably been approached about helping herself to other people’s property. The fact an employee could have raised the issue with their management will now be blamed on the ‘haters’.
Public Notice: Concerning Conduct and Misrepresentation in Today’s Facebook Post
Today’s Facebook post features an image of an official response letter relating to a Community Empowerment Fund grant, accompanied by a caption that states:
• “When I say fuck off and leave me alone – this is why people should listen.”
• “If you go out of your way to annoy me… it will come crashing down on your heads.”
• “Applying for a grant… knowing you had a volunteer… with links to the bus company… is fraud and deception.”
• “I think you will do well in prison – you are well liked.”
• “Last warning.”
This raises several serious concerns.
1. Misrepresentation of the Content of the Letter
The attached letter, dated 26th November 2025, confirms the following:
• The council received a complaint submitted by Ms Price.
• £1,700 was issued for two trips.
• Quotes were provided by two separate companies.
• The invoice was taken from “the cheapest provider.”
There is nothing in the letter that confirms wrongdoing, fraud, deception, conflicts of interest, undisclosed links, or misconduct by the charity named in the complaint. The document is entirely administrative and neutral. The Facebook caption, however, reframes it as if the council has verified criminal behaviour, which it has not. This is a clear mismatch between the evidence shown and the claims being asserted publicly.
2. Use of Explicit Threats and Coercive Language
The post includes direct threats such as “it will come crashing down on your heads” and “last warning,” which mirror the tone in today’s transcript. These are not the words of a neutral observer reporting a concern; they present as personal retaliation, using fear and intimidation while invoking the authority of the CIC’s public platform.
3. Definitive Criminal Accusations Without Evidence
Terms such as “fraud,” “deception,” and “prison” are stated as factual conclusions. The letter does not support these statements. Making such definitive claims about identifiable individuals or organisations without verified evidence poses clear reputational and legal risks.
4. Problematic Use of a CIC’s Public Page for Personal Disputes
The post is made under the official “Jayne’s Baby Bank” Facebook page, giving the appearance that a regulated CIC is issuing threats, making criminal allegations, and engaging in retaliatory attacks. Using organisational branding in this way undermines public trust, raises safeguarding concerns, and conflicts with expected standards of governance.
5. Escalation Pattern Between Transcript and Post
The language of the post aligns with today’s transcript, which includes similar statements such as:
• “you have committed fraud and deception”
• “I’ve got all the time in the world to come after you”
• “do you want me to carry on disclosing information… because I can”
• “that could send you to prison.”
This demonstrates a continuing and escalating pattern of hostile communication directed at specific individuals.
Summary
The letter published today is neutral and does not substantiate the accusations made alongside it. The accompanying statements are threatening, accusatory, and presented with the authority of a CIC’s public platform. This combination raises concerns about misrepresentation, governance, data protection, and the professional conduct expected of any community-facing organisation.
– S
Would love to know who she thinks has links to the bus company?
I put that grant paperwork in, I know how the system works.
She’s just mad cos no one will entertain the idea of giving her any grant money. Everything is accountable. Receipts, invoices, quotes, social media posts and excel spreadsheets are all needed to apply and monitor grant money.
Fking lost the plot, maybe she should give her head a wobble.
No one cares carrie. We just watch with the popcorn warming, waiting for you to crash down. How’s the customers and volunteers doing? Haven’t seen a few for a while.
She’s also not being entirely truthful/factual regarding the apparent grant she has received for sustainable period products.
CCBC from the Welsh Government Period Dignity Grant – secured funding to support families and young people in Caerphilly County to access free period products.
Schools, Non-Profit Organisations Charities and community organisations located within Caerphilly County can contact the Council and ask for free period product’s for their service users.
These include sustainable alternatives to single use period products which lessen the impact these product can have on the environment.
So realistically CAR has not received a grant from CCBC or any other local authority but has merely contacted CCBC and obtained some free period products.
Her posts recently have therefore been very misleading and not truthful regarding how she obtained these products.
No malicious intent is aimed in your direction but surely you can see it just makes you look bitter towards other organisations that have obtained grant funding for various projects, that you felt the need to portray that grants had been given to you for period products from the Council.
Therefore the email from Jamie Pritchard is correct in stating no grants or funding have been allocated to JBB.
Carrie, maybe before you go on record and state someone has a criminal record because they signed a community resolution order, please do some research.
Who is it issued by and how can I contact them?
Issued by the police
Does it involve guilt?
Yes – you have to make a clear and reliable admission.
Is it recorded on the Police National Computer (PNC)?
Yes (if it relates to a recordable offence). A facility is available on the PNC which allows an entry to be recorded which does not constitute a ‘criminal record’ but is accessible for police information.
Is it classed as a conviction?
No.
How long will it be on my record?
Although a community resolution order does not result in a criminal record, the information can still be used and taken into consideration if further offences are committed.
When does it become spent?
N/A
When do I have to declare it?
It isn’t a caution or a conviction, so isn’t formally covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
Is it disclosed on DBS checks?
Not on a standard check.
It might be disclosed as part of an enhanced check in the ‘relevant information’ section, i.e. the offence has a bearing on the kind of work you are applying for. However, in our experience it is rare for community resolution orders to be disclosed in the ‘other relevant information’ section.
Other information
A ‘community resolution’ resolves a minor offence or anti-social behaviour incident through informal agreement between the parties involved, as opposed to progression through the traditional criminal justice process.
It is primarily aimed at first time offenders where:-
there has been an admission of guilt
the victims views have been taken into account
Community resolution allows police officers to make decisions about how to deal more proportionately with low-level crime.
A little research goes a long way.
A think an apology may be required!!
She should know this as she has one for harassing me.
Now why doesn’t that surprise me.
Deflection is her defense mechanism where she shifts the blame from herself to anyone who speaks out.
Her world is getting smaller and smaller and the more we get the truth out there, the stronger we become. Justice will prevail.
This as got to be a criminal offence and comes under harassment right?
This type of post can fall within harassment or malicious communications law, depending on the wider pattern of behaviour. UK legislation looks at repeated unwanted contact, threats, and public accusations that cause alarm or distress.
Statements such as “last warning,” threats of consequences, and unsupported criminal allegations made about identifiable individuals are the kind of conduct these laws were created to address.
Whether it is a criminal offence can only be decided by the police or a court, but the content is within the scope of what is normally reported as potential harassment.
Anyone affected should keep evidence and seek advice from the police or relevant regulators.
– S
PUBLIC REBUTTAL & EVIDENCE ANALYSIS
Before reading this, the public and any investigating authorities should consult the searchable transcript archive, which contains thousands of primary-source statements made by Jayne herself across Facebook posts, videos, comments and livestreams. Every contradiction below is sourced directly from her own words.
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search
1. Repeated False Claims About a “FREE” Food Bank
Across dozens of recent posts and videos Jayne loudly insists that:
However, the transcript archive shows a consistent, long-term pattern of restricting access to the supposed free services only to paying shoppers:
This directly contradicts her public narrative. A food bank is not free if it requires you to spend money in her shop to access it. The repeated use of the phrase “customers and donators” (over 90 times on record) proves this is a commercial loyalty scheme masquerading as a food bank.
2. Selling Food While Accusing Others of Charging
Jayne regularly attacks legitimate pantries and food hubs for charging £3–£4 for donated food. She calls this “unethical” and claims they should be “investigated”. But her own transcripts show:
This is the same behaviour she accuses others of. The public deserves clarity: these are sales, not free foodbank services. Some are bundled with “free foodbank items”, which is the very practice she condemns elsewhere.
3. Misleading Claims About Council and Regulatory Approval
Jayne repeatedly claims:
These statements are misleading. Councils do not register foodbanks. The Financial Conduct Authority does not regulate foodbanks or baby banks. CICs are regulated by the CIC Regulator and Companies House – neither of which appear in her claims.
Her wording conflates being “known” to a council with being “regulated” by one, which misrepresents authority and oversight.
4. Contradictions on Charging and Donations
She states:
Yet multiple posts confirm the opposite:
This shows a pattern of inconsistent messaging: one day items are “free”, the next they are “£1 minimum donation”, the next they are “not for sale”, and the next they are “available for £1”.
5. The “Customers and Donators” Gatekeeping Rule
This phrase appears more than 99 times in the searchable transcript archive. It is the cornerstone verifying the contradiction:
A foodbank is not “free” if the price of admission is shopping in her commercial retail outlet. This is not a charitable model; it is a pay-to-access scheme.
6. Contradictions Regarding Social Services Referrals
Jayne often claims:
However, her own videos show she uses this claim to discredit legitimate foodbanks and pantries, creating fear among vulnerable mothers. This is a safeguarding concern. Accredited foodbanks have strict duty-of-care obligations, and her claim of avoiding referrals contradicts best practice guidance supplied by councils and safeguarding bodies.
7. Misuse of the Term “Registered”
Jayne frequently states she is “registered” with councils, the FCA, the foodbank network, or other bodies. This wording implies formal recognition, oversight or legal status which does not exist. The public should be aware that:
8. Commercial Activity Presented as Charity Work
Jayne repeatedly advertises:
Yet she simultaneously insists:
The inconsistency between these two narratives is evident. Commercial retail activity is being marketed as charitable provision, which misleads the public, donors, and vulnerable service users.
9. The Pattern: A Loyalty Scheme, Not a Food Bank
Based on the transcript evidence, Jayne’s operation functions as follows:
This model is not equivalent to a foodbank, does not match UK foodbank standards, and contradicts how she publicly describes it.
10. Conclusion for the Public and Authorities
The transcript archive, which the public can search freely using the link above, shows a clear pattern:
The public is encouraged to check the primary-source evidence themselves. Nothing stated here is speculation; it is all quoted directly from her hundreds of recorded posts and videos.
Search the transcript engine:
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search
– Sherlock
Secondary Comment: The “It Doesn’t Say Baby Bank on the Sign” Claim
Before reading further, please verify everything independently using our public transcript archive:
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search
In a recent transcript, Jayne stated:
This is yet another example of a shifting narrative that collapses under its own documentation. The wording on a single shop sign is irrelevant when every official, legal, public, and promotional channel she controls is explicitly branded as a Baby Bank.
Most importantly, according to the official Companies House incorporation:
This is the legal name she chose.
The legal name she filed.
The legal name she is now bound by.
To then argue that a shopfront sign “doesn’t say baby bank” is meaningless when:
Everything she publishes, every livestream, every appeal, every poster, every receipt, and now her own CIC paperwork all confirm the same identity: She trades and presents as a Baby Bank.
The only time this changes is when she is challenged — then the narrative suddenly shifts to whatever is most convenient in that moment. This “it’s not on the sign” line is simply another attempt to distance herself from the consequences of the branding she actively uses everywhere else.
The public record is clear, and searchable in full. The inconsistency is her own.
– Sherlock
“so jealous.
Now look at this, Daniel said, how distasteful is that?
A suicide vest with babies on.
This is the type of caliber of people who are dealing with, like, I just go to the comments now.”
Reference image: https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/2025/10/08/jaynes-baby-banks-facebook-faq-vs-the-official-record/
It’s a suit of armour – or, as those of us with a brain call it, a metaphor. Now, who is it that likes to use children as a shield from criticism? Have a proper think.
– S
Public Disclosure: Concerns Regarding the “CIC Complaint Letter” and Associated Claims
The video segment discussing the alleged CIC complaint contains several inaccuracies and raises legitimate public concerns. The statements made about the complaint process, the regulator, and the individuals allegedly involved do not align with how Community Interest Company oversight operates in the UK.
Firstly, the claim that a complaint would result in the Charity Commission “shutting down” the operation is incorrect. The organisation is not a registered charity and therefore does not fall under the Charity Commission’s jurisdiction. Complaints relating to a CIC are handled by the CIC Regulator, and the regulator does not suspend or shut down operations simply because a complaint has been filed.
The video also asserts that the regulator “told us who it was straight away” and provided a copy of the complaint naming individuals. This is highly unlikely. UK regulators do not disclose complainant identities for safeguarding and fairness reasons. If such information has been disclosed publicly in the video, it raises serious concerns about how official correspondence is being handled and whether personal data has been misused.
It is also notable that the video repeats a series of accusations against named individuals and presents them as fact, despite offering no evidence. Using an alleged complaint letter to bolster personal grievances, or to frame critics as malicious, is inappropriate and undermines the expected conduct of a CIC director. Directors are legally required to act responsibly, maintain transparency, and avoid behaviour that damages public trust.
Furthermore, the transcript shows a pattern of conflicting statements: references to “trustees” despite the organisation not being a charity; suggestions of ongoing police action with no substantiation; and claims that all complaints come from the same “group” without proof. This behaviour, combined with the on-camera display of official correspondence, paints a troubling picture of misunderstanding, exaggeration, and misrepresentation of regulatory processes.
In summary, the claims made about the complaint, the regulator, and the individuals involved are inconsistent with UK law and standard CIC oversight. The handling of the letter and the public commentary surrounding it raise clear questions about governance, accuracy, and the responsible management of a community organisation.
– S
Asking for a friend. What exactly are the police going to do about a letter of complaint, are they going to start knocking on the complaints doors and arrest them??? I don’t think so
Complaints have gone through correct channels and from what I can see on the letter on her video they have probably submitted the evidence to corroborate them.
Miss Ridsdale is using intimidation to stop anyone who does complain by stating C.I.C. or other governing bodies will automatically tell her the name of the reporter and this in turn will go to police as evidence. This is all false and inaccurate and is only being used as said to intimidate people not to complain for fear of being in trouble.
I for one if I feel a complaint is warranted than I will do and I will ensure I have the evidence to corroborate my complaint.
Important Notice to Police and Public: Verified Evidence Contradicts Her Claims
The repeated claims about “police calls”, “councils chasing up websites”, and vague threats of people being “included in investigations” do not withstand scrutiny. These statements are not supported by any verified facts. They follow the same established pattern witnessed across historic livestreams and deleted posts: inflated claims of authority, accusations against innocent parties, and narratives later contradicted by councils, governing bodies, and even her own revised posts.
The suggestion that unnamed trustees in other organisations are stepping down because of her is another fabricated claim. There is no evidence linking those decisions to her behaviour. This fits the long-running cycle: she places herself at the centre of unrelated events, reframes normal organisational changes as personal victories, and attempts to elevate her perceived importance through invention rather than fact.
Her warnings that the police can “download deleted conversations”, that anyone “remotely involved” will be “included”, or that councils “act on her reports” are empty and legally meaningless. These are performative threats used to intimidate, not inform. Police do not act on Facebook allegations, and councils do not investigate fantasies presented as fact.
Even her own admissions now reveal that councils have received complaints about period-product grants, undercutting her claim that all scrutiny is malicious or conspiratorial. This follows the same sequence documented between 2022 and 2025: deny, attack, claim persecution, then quietly acknowledge the substance once confronted with evidence.
For clarity: every relevant piece of information has been preserved — deleted livestreams, contradictory statements, shifting stories, historic TikTok claims, Facebook variations of the Kettle pages, and the numerous posts she later edits or removes. The archive remains openly accessible at this link. The referenced video also remains accessible: Facebook link.
Definitions relevant to her behaviour
Projection: Attributing one’s own actions, motives, or misconduct to others. For example, accusing others of harassment or dishonesty while engaging in those behaviours herself.
Narcissist: A person who consistently displays entitlement, inflated self-importance, defensiveness, and an inability to accept accountability. This includes rewriting narratives, attacking anyone who questions them, and casting themselves as the perpetual victim.
Illusions of grandeur: False beliefs of having special status, authority, or influence. Examples include claiming she caused trustees to resign, declaring that councils and police act on her demands, or inserting herself into decisions made by entirely unrelated organisations.
To police officers and members of the public reading this
We strongly encourage you to visit our website and read the articles. Every claim is supported by verifiable evidence: official responses from teaching associations, statements from councils, governing body documentation, Companies House filings, period-grant criteria, and archived livestreams. These sources directly refute the stories she continues to promote. This is not opinion or speculation — it is open-source fact.
Her narratives consistently collapse when measured against official records. Claims of professional qualifications have been denied by the bodies she cites. Assertions of charity status are contradicted by Companies House. Alleged council support has been disproven by councils themselves. Each contradiction is documented, timestamped, and archived.
We expressly welcome police to use our website and archives. We want the accountability process to be fully informed. Every deleted video, contradictory statement, historic message, and piece of evidence from 2022–2025 has been retained, precisely because her narrative shifts frequently, but the record does not.
There is no conspiracy. There is no coordinated attack. There is no harassment. There is only public documentation, official information, and evidence anyone can check. Her qualifications are as false as her eyelashes — and unlike her threats, the facts are permanent.
– S
So her trip to the hospital today was for her scan?????
Has it shrunk? Ms Risdale, how can something ‘shrink’ when you’re not being treated for it. Have you ever been around a person having treatment for what ailments you claim to have? Let me tell you, whether its hospital based or home medication, you will NOT be doing what you do.
Also no shops open until midday? Where is your army of volunteers? The ones who you claim, must have a DBS check…. Your little empire is falling, it can’t come quick enough for people who have the conditions you speak of.
You are a FRAUDSTER, your arrogance and rudeness knows no boundaries.
When assessing her historic statements, a consistent pattern emerges: every genuine medical clue she provides points to a benign uterine fibroid, not a malignant tumour. The terminology used in her public posts is misleading, medically inconsistent, and frequently exaggerated. Below is a clear summary of the evidence.
Why the evidence strongly indicates a fibroid:
Conclusion:
All available evidence from her own posts — the specific treatments described, the imaging language, the size changes, the long gaps without intervention, and the total absence of cancer-based care — aligns with a uterine fibroid. The repeated portrayal of this as a life-threatening tumour causing multi-organ damage is not supported by any documented medical evidence. This fits the broader pattern of embellishment and inconsistent health claims often seen across her public content.
– S
When any person suffers from the illnesses she claims to have, people have sympathy. I have suffered a benign tumour, it wasn’t going to kill me until it started growing at an alarming rate after suffering a fall. It had to be removed because it started affecting other organs.
This was over 20 years ago.
It infuriates me when she attempts to gain sympathy whilst making a total fool of herself.
The only stomach problem she has is probably indigestion from an overactive knife and fork. Her eating habits are a death sentence in itself, especially as she claims to be diabetic.
SOURCE: https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search/?search=%22cancer%22&limit=50&sort_order=oldest&search_type=all&open_transcript=153290447459049_1671793789_fb.json
This is what happens when the story is stretched too far. If you publicly claim to have “a massive tumour and aplastic anaemia, which is a rare blood and bone marrow cancer”, people will naturally scrutinise it. In reality, it appears far more likely she received a transfusion for severe iron deficiency caused by a fibroid.
EDIT:
SOURCE: https://facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=829970939790993&id=100083342834915
The numbers you’ve shared don’t support the claim of the need for a bone marrow transplant. A haemoglobin of 115 g/L is only mildly low, and a drop to 94 g/L still falls within the range of moderate iron-deficiency anaemia, which is extremely common in women with heavy bleeding from fibroids. Even the previous level you mentioned — 61–63 g/L — is severe anaemia but is typically caused by blood loss, not bone marrow failure.
All of these values fit the pattern of iron deficiency from chronic bleeding, not a rare marrow cancer. None of the readings you’ve shared would prompt a discussion about a bone marrow transplant, and slower clotting at a cannula site is consistent with low haemoglobin, not aplastic anaemia.
The figures point firmly towards anaemia secondary to a fibroid, rather than any form of bone marrow shutdown.
– S
Maybe her shops will be closed for the remainder of the week…….
She’s going to be so tired after having treatment, back and forth hospital etc is very draining and she will need to rest.
After all, these are serious health issues, that will need immediate attention.
I myself suffered with fibroids for years and was told by GP were I was living when I hit menopause they would naturally shrink. They didn’t
In the end I had one size of a watermelon with another one growing on top as well a few others.
The only treatment left was either to cut the stem of blood flow which was no guarantee or have full hysterectomy and opted for the big one. That wasn’t pleasant but it changed my life.
Prior to surgery I was very limited on what I could do or go during certain times of month. Not going into details lol
But I have said from day on she has fibroids as no GP or hospital would leave anyone that long if the had a cancerous tumour.
As stated all the above treatments are there to help fibroids not tumours and if they shrinking that means treatment is working as it should.
When people lie and over exaggerated what they have it is for attention but I think it is disgusting to claim you have cancer when you don’t and any individual that does that needs to take a hard long look at themselves in the mirror. Ms Ridsdale is a pathological liar and she wouldn’t know the truth if it was right in front of her.
The problem about being a liar is you have a good memory to remember all the lies they spin but when caught out everything said will be up scrutiny.
Also doesn’t Miss Ridsdale know there are plenty of woman who have been through and going through the same problems and will know she is telling lies
P.S I only said last night to someone she has fibroids not a tumour.. getting good at calling her out lol
Ms Risdale doesn’t seem to have the capability of thinking other people have had serious health issues and will compare diagnosis and treatment.
The woman deluded.
Post from 2022:
”After a recent MRI, I am still in the palliative category – most of you know that I have a massive tumor and aplastic anemia which is a rare blood and bone marrow cancer”.
Post from today whereby you deny the above:
”Well, apparently now I’ve got bone marrow cancer!
You’ve got fibroids and you’ve got bone marrow cancer”.
Carrie it’s not malicious communication if its factual.
You yourself have said on numerous occasions you have bone marrow cancer.
Also for a civil conspiracy law suit to commence you have to prove that all of us on here know each and/other and have a written signed agreement in place between all of us.
Thereby your case is null and void before the ink is even dry on the paper.
LIVE: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=153290447459049&id=100083342834915
Backup: https://archive.is/Ap1aQ
She still has not deleted the status.
“After a recent MRI, I am still in the palliative category – most of you know that I have a massive tumor and aplastic anemia which is a rare blood and bone marrow cancer.
I think I’m going to have to bite the bullet and get a cleaner 😕 for the house and the Risca shop.
Can I have some names of good cleaning firms guys – thanks
I need a cleaner that will turn up the exact time and day we ask please”
– S
People are victimising her?????
So she doesn’t victimise anyone Miss Ridsdale thinks she holier than though.
Let me see oh yes I found a post from someone called Peter Mal in Caerphillys online boot sale FB page in regards to HCT opening a Baby Bank- Go and smash it the bag HCT
“Another embarrassment for HCT this week. They can’t even come up with their own concept – they have to steal other peoples 🙈“
Approx 3 hours later Miss Ridsdale posts on JBB a passive aggressive comment about them and how the will take strain of her.
Scrolled down to Oct and there is another post about Hayley-
These are the only 2 posts from Peter Mal honestly does not take genius this is Miss Ridsdale and she has the audacity to say she is be victimised.
I for one are not victimising you and speaking only the truth and facts.
What a joke!!!!!
Peter Mal is Carrie. That account has been around since 2020 and has been linked to various names she used at the time.
– S
everyone needs to report her til something is done there’s enough evidence on her page for criminal cases for fraud harassment fake illnesses the list goes on
Ceriann Risdale, Jody Williams, Baby Bank Price, Jodie JD Jones, Joan Payne, Darwin Morris, Jade Freecycle, Baby Bank and Friends, Jaynebaby Bank, Jayne Price, Cerys Williams, Carrie Price, Jayne Louise Price, David Jones and Peter Mal. These are some suspected aliases she has used the past five years on Facebook. Some accounts remain some do not.
S
So she says and claims “everyone’s on benefits” as an insult – when they actually work unlike her, she’s the one on benefits and has a pip car? Make it make sense
How else is she affording to live? if she isn’t on benefits then has she just proven she is cashing in baby bank donations. How else do you get money? You’re the one on benefits CARRIE you also have a free car while you run around lifting heavy boxes working on your feet selling crap all day to the public who don’t want it but claim your too ill to work to the benefit people no one else ..
I see Carrie has received a letter from the CIC Commission with a complaint about her behaviour as a director of a CIC and she straight away blames Hayley Thomas. I know for certain they have received numerous complaints from numerous people that are in no way connected to Hayley Thomas or HCT. Yet again she states that she has been given details by the CIC Commision of every person that has made complaints. This would not happen. Hopefully they will continue to investigate her and finally put an end to the misery she causes to so many people.
She appears to disregard GDPR entirely, as well as the clear, fully disclosed emails presented here, contrasted with her unsteady voice and carefully framed camera work. In her video she claims she has not yet applied for a charity number, yet she previously changed her profile to “charity organisation” while showcasing supposed charity-shop items on a livestream, including the headboard. Pathological liars should at least attempt to maintain a memory better than that of a goldfish.
– S
I do not know anyone who posts on here. My complaints to relevant authorities are my own observations of years of seeing what she’s putting on public forums.
The scale of her deception claiming how ‘ill’ she is, her abundance of donations (where are they coming from) outweigh many legitimate charities put together, her hatred towards genuine people, the venomous way she speaks publicly, and her treatment to previous volunteers, opened my eyes.
I am extremely grateful for Sherlock and every other person who continues to ‘out’ this fraudulent woman.
She is obsessed with this forum, yet continues with her total contempt for authority.
Toggle, obviously isn’t my name, should she ever need to know who i am ,she will discover we have never met. I have never donated to her scam business. I’m merely a person who knows right from wrong.
There is a twist of irony in today’s circulating post. Jayne’s Baby Bank published the following claim:
This is notable because JBB routinely asserts that Caerphilly County Borough Council support and fund the organisation with grants. Yet the official position from the council directly contradicts those repeated claims. For transparency, the relevant correspondence is shown below:
The Leader of the Council, Cllr James Pritchard, confirms unequivocally:
“Jayne’s Baby Bank isn’t regulated by CCBC, and we have not funded the organisation.”
In simple terms:
This makes the original Facebook accusation particularly ironic: criticising a fictional misuse of council grants while simultaneously promoting the long-standing narrative that JBB itself receives council grants. The verified email shows that no such funding has ever existed.
Consistency matters, especially when public claims are used to imply legitimacy, authority, or official backing that does not exist.
Signed,
Sherlock
SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=830574429730644&id=100083342834915
This claim is incorrect when compared with the documented evidence.
The payment shown in the screenshot is a **historic £1,000 foodbank payment from Pontypool Community Council dated 19 December 2024**, not current support and not from Caerphilly.
More importantly, **Caerphilly County Borough Council has confirmed in writing** that:
– Jayne’s Baby Bank is **not regulated by CCBC**
– CCBC has **not funded** the organisation
– The only oversight is standard **Trading Standards** obligations applicable to any high-street operation
There is therefore **no evidence of any council funding “again this year”**, and using an old payment from a different council to imply current support is misleading.
PAGE 6: https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Finance-Governance-Policy-Agenda-Feb-2025.pdf
– Sherlock
If you look at the photo she has doctored it to fit a narrative. It’s is ‘whiteed’ out. You can see the pixelation.
https://29a.ch/photo-forensics/#level-sweep
Useful tool: https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Sweep.png
– S
Congratulations to HCT on Their Civic Award
A well-deserved congratulations to everyone at HCT for receiving a Civic Award at the Blackwood Miners’ Town Council ceremony. Recognition of this kind reflects genuine commitment, consistency, and the hard work carried out by their volunteers.
Janet, Sarah Browne, Ann Peebles and Angela Davies represented the organisation at the event, accepting the award on behalf of the whole team. It is encouraging to see community-focused work acknowledged in a formal setting, and this award highlights the ongoing effort HCT puts into supporting others.
Well done to everyone involved.
Source: https://www.facebook.com/groups/638417744708312/posts/1154161636467251/
– S
Congratulations HCT well deserved for the hard work you all do🎉🎉👏👏
– S
Not only is she not a charity shop as highlighted previously on this page but, she decides to block, an already narrow pavement with a trip hazard (has she not done a health & safety course). Can you imagine the claim she would receive if that fell on someone or they tripped over it. Totally clueless. Her shops are a total **** tip and the pavement outside her shop also, now she has to blight the main road through Caerphilly as well.
She has no shame
Carrie I don’t know who the hell you think you are but you are now telling a vulnerable adult that – you are going to ring physio for me as I can’t seem to manage to circumnavigate around any f***ing where by the look of it – and that I need more training on how to rewalk around the place –
I’m disabled for goodness sake, I have severe arthritis in the spine and hip and struggle daily with mobility. Who the hell do you think you are, you are seriously one sick and twisted individual.
Is this really how the director of a CIC acts online. Your supposed to be working for the community of Caerphilly and that involves people from all walks of life, including people with disabilities.
Its like you saying a blind person (who could have walked into that headboard) should learn how to see again!!!
You have the gall to laugh as well when saying all of this – maybe you should be locked away in a padded cell for the rest of your life, so we don’t have to listen to the sound of your boring monotonous voice any more.
By the way I’ve only ever reported you to health and safety and they have been extremely helpful. They keep me updated regularly. You make out on your lives that your stopping donations until after Xmas because you need to reduce your stock. Why not tell the truth to your followers and customers. You had two notices given to you by CCBC because of the state of your shop, customers cannot navigate freely around them and you had to reduce your stock. Not your choice to do this but you were told to or else further notices would be forthcoming. You were also told not to move stock from one shop to another or bring in stock from your donation centre or anywhere else – you’ve definitely failed to comply with this. When will you learn you have to comply with rules and regulations, otherwise it will literally all come crashing down on top of you.
Well your arthritis can’t be that bad Liz if you can manage to be on the phone complaining all day and managed to get to Pontypool shop, walk from the car park or down the hill from tesco and manage to walk around the 17 rooms of Pontypool shop. Have you updated pip that your mobility is much better. Catch you anywhere near the shops again you can look out.
This account belongs to Carrie (Jayne) posting under her alias David Jones, BTW.
https://facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=828253129962774&id=100083342834915
Sherlock
What has having arthritis got to do with emailing H&S once. They then called me 3 times to update me.
You really need to get your facts right before slating people, who has said I claim PIP? I don’t need to my darling devoted husband earns enough to care for me.
Making threats as well now are we? What do I have to look out for – all the rubbish you’ve accumulated 😄.
Also I’m sure H&S would be really interested to hear about your little hideaway in Rudry.
Truth hurts doesn’t it Carrie, karma is a bitch as you keep saying.
Your new mantra as a CIC should be ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. If your not prepared to be nice to people, show respect, kindness and compassion, then unfortunately no-one is going to be kind to you.
Pot kettle comes to mind Miss Ridsdale aka David Jones.
Maybe you should have look should take a long look in the mirror before making comments
Very threatening behaviour for some claiming to by a man on a woman.
Hopefully they will take your words of advise and report you for your threatening behaviour towards a vulnerable woman as they will be covered under the same law you spout on about
Oh Carrie Anne. No one is scared of you my lovely! We spend our days thinking how pathetic you are. How you think that no one sees past your lies. How your ‘stories’ are debunked time and time again. You hide behind your camera and call the police on your own shadow! Grow up you silly old woman!
See I don’t tell lies:-
15th August 2025
”remind people not to take our signage. Someone took it and the police have told them to return it and reimburse us for the bike lock they cut. Sign has been retuned’
APOLOGISE PLEASE
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search/?search=%22You+are+bloody+fools%22&limit=50&sort_order=relevance&search_type=all&open_transcript=20251124_1362148215391749.txt
Pathetic.
– S
You really are pathetic and an out and out liar.
You don’t even know who I am, yet you claim I’ve stolen your sign and then taken it to the tip. So on top.of everything else you’re now calling me a thief.
Keep it coming please Carrie, .more ammunition to pass onto the authorities.
Note how Carrie changes the narrative on a recent post of hers regarding the pavement incident. Alters her words in her fb post compared to the ones she used on here to make it look as though I was the one using expletives not her.
None of it is factually correct and I don’t intend to give her any more ammunition.
Suffice to say though didn’t know Ponty had 17 rooms as on the only day I’ve ever been there could hardly get through the door! The other entrance was closed due to her using that part of the shop as a dumping ground. The rear of the main entrance up the ramp was nigh on impassable too.
Carrie I’m sure by now your followers can see through you and the laughing emojs are probably people laughing at you not me.
Sherlock Accusation VIDEO https://www.facebook.com/reel/827315166751173
Carrie has live-streamed this website again. To confirm, we did not steal your headboard, but you did livestream a video yesterday at 12pm, writing on a canvas about a “New Charity Shop,” and this appeared within several hours at the end of Pentrebane Street.
Writing on Canvas Video: https://www.facebook.com/100083342834915/videos/1803875673438962/
In regards to some of today’s videos, some concerning comments include:
– S
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=782967907819844
Watch from 0:25s
– S
Firstly why on earth would somebody steal that headboard it’s been in the shop for ages and Miss Risdale couldn’t sell or give it away. Only place that was fit for is the tip
Secondly with all the CCTV and the walking CCTV of Miss Risdale she should be able to see the culprit.
I for one do not believe anyone has taken the headboard sign it’s probably hidden in the piles and piles of stuff in the shop alongside the one she was designing on her live stream yesterday due to being caught out calling herself a charity when she is not
Last time a sign got ‘stolen from outside Caerphilly shop it was infact removed by the Council. They had been told numerous times to move it as it was blocking the pavement and refused to do so. The Council came and removed it.
If I remember correctly in one of her lives Carrie said the Police had been.given cctv of the person who had stolen it and made them return it. Incorrect!!
Also seem to remember something about paying a fine to get it back and that Carrie had to go to the Council office to get it back.
Now who do you think told me all this? That one and only precious son of hers. The same son that told me they had been kicked out of Aberbargoed for not paying their rent!! They didn’t pay their rent because of something to do with lack of toilet facilities and not being given another key to access shared toilet facilities.
I love chatting to people and have this wonderful personality where people seem to open up to me. Well one day her son did – shall I go? Next instalment coming soon to a website near you 🤣.
…….Carrie now spends the rest of the weekend trying to work out who the hell I am, coming up with all sorts of conspiracy theories and getting no further then the end of her very long nose (getting longer by the day due to all the lies she tells).
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Jaynes-baby-bank.pdf
FOI confirms this (sign) from one location.
04.07.2025 “Visit to Trader. Information provided by Caerphilly TS that business had an advertising board in the window claiming to be a charity. (Photograph taken) Poster was displayed in the small wind located in the ally way to the indoor market which states “charity”. Spoke to a young lady in the shop and I requested that the poster is removed. I also had concerns about the amount of stock in the shop. You could not access the room facing commercial street as the room was waist high with goods with no way of accessing the exit. Reported to EH as concerns from a H&S perspective. Requested that the sign is removed”.
– S
I note that Daniel is no longer a director of Jaynes Baby Bank, his name no longer appears on the Companies House website as a director under Jaynes Baby Bank.
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/16838920/filing-history
For clarity, Daniel-James Ridsdale has never been a director of Jayne’s Baby Bank C.I.C. The official incorporation documents list only Jayne Price and Gail Jenkins as directors. Daniel is recorded solely as a member/guarantor with a £1 guarantee, which does not give him any managerial role or authority within the CIC.
– S
What utterly lies. The council had to bring the signs back that you told them to take in their time and at their expense and reimbursement the baby bank for the bike chain they cut off . You are such a liar Liz .
Carrie, we released the Freedom Of Information documents. It’s pointless refuting the councils stance, we have it given to us in an official capacity.
https://facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=828253129962774&id=100083342834915
Probably best not to post off your phone here at the same time as posting on FB if you want to claim you’re not David.
S
Carrie aka David Jones just to confirm I had nothing to do with the Council regarding your sign that was cut from the railings. Again, please get your facts right.
I also don’t tell lies. Have you spoken to your son yet about being loose lipped speaking to customers?
I gather from your biting response that I obviously hit a nerve by telling the truth.
How did your live go on Saturday, get rid of much stock. No one wants used cosmetics, half empty bottles of beauty products etc., even most of the children’s shoes you had just need to be put straight in the bin.
Why not just empty out the contents of the used beauty products and recycle the containers.
Looking forward to the next selling live evening!
Title: Grant Transparency vs Public Claims – What a CIC Must Legally Disclose
Below is a clear, investigative overview contrasting:
1) the legal duties of a Community Interest Company (CIC) to disclose every grant received, and
2) public statements claiming that such grants do not need to be shared or made available for scrutiny.
A CIC must list all grants in its annual accounts filed at Companies House. This includes:
These are mandatory transparency requirements for any CIC operating for public benefit.
This legal framework directly contradicts the following public statements:
These claims are not compatible with CIC legislation.
Likely sources of legitimate grants that would appear in any compliant CIC’s accounts include:
https://www.gov.wales/period-proud-wales
Strategic Action Plan
Cardiff – Cardiff Period Dignity Grant
Rhondda Cynon Taf – RCT Period Dignity Community Scheme
Swansea – Swansea Free Period Products
Caerphilly – Caerphilly Period Dignity
Torfaen – Torfaen Period Dignity
Newport – Newport Period Proud Wales
Blaenau Gwent – Blaenau Gwent Period Dignity
Awards for All Wales
https://wcva.cymru/funding/
https://communityfoundationwales.org.uk/grants/
(Varies by town council; examples include Pontypool, Llanfrechfa, Griffithstown, Caerphilly, etc. Each publishes its own community grant scheme on its website.)
Tesco Community Grants – https://www.tesco.com/communitygrants
Asda Foundation – https://www.asdafoundation.org
Co-op Local Community Fund – https://www.coop.co.uk/communities
Morrisons Foundation – https://www.morrisonsfoundation.com/
If “six grants” were received, they must appear in published accounts. If they do not, it raises questions regarding completeness and compliance.
Signed, S
Urgent Video Transcript Warning
*DISCLAIMER*: The material discussed below is drawn from a video in which Carrie Anne Ridsdale, publicly associated with Jayne’s Baby Bank C.I.C., makes a series of claims and allegations. The statements, accusations, and narratives described here are hers, not mine. They are reproduced and analysed for public interest, safeguarding, regulatory and evidential purposes. No allegation described below is endorsed as fact; all are treated as unverified claims made by the speaker unless independently evidenced elsewhere.
This commentary is provided in good faith to assist regulators, professionals, volunteers, donors and members of the public in understanding the seriousness, tone and content of the video. Readers should bear in mind that some of the claims, if untrue or exaggerated, may be defamatory, misleading and potentially unlawful.
1. Context and Purpose of this Warning
The underlying transcript records an extended monologue in which the speaker, identified as Carrie Anne Ridsdale of Jayne’s Baby Bank, discusses parking issues, traffic wardens, police involvement, complaints, safeguarding, domestic abuse, and a long-running dispute with several named and identifiable individuals and organisations.
The core concerns are:
This is a safeguarding, governance and reputational warning, not a judgement on the personal history of any named individual.
2. Named and Identifiable Individuals Referenced
Within the transcript, the speaker repeatedly names or clearly identifies:
All of these individuals are discussed in connection with serious allegations, some of which could amount to criminal accusations and/or implied safeguarding concerns. None of these allegations are evidenced within the transcript itself.
3. Serious Allegations Directed at Hayley Thomas (HCT)
The speaker makes a long series of claims about Hayley Thomas, including but not limited to:
One of the central narrative devices is the repeated assertion that:
Hayley is “the bully”.
This is set against the speaker’s own conduct in the video, which includes extensive public criticism, hostile commentary, and the airing of historical safeguarding and complaint issues in an open broadcast. The portrayal of Hayley as “the bully” must therefore be viewed critically within the context of the speaker’s own behaviour and language.
4. Serious Allegations Directed at Ian Smith and Others
The speaker also makes extremely serious statements about Ian Smith and others, including:
These are potentially defamatory allegations of the highest seriousness and are presented as fact, not opinion, despite the absence of independent evidence. The speaker asserts that she has “never been arrested” for saying these things and that this proves they are true. That is not how defamation law or police thresholds operate in the UK.
5. Claims of Insider Information from the Council
One of the most troubling aspects of the transcript is the way the speaker claims to hold insider or unofficial information from the local council about complaints, investigations and internal views. Key examples include:
At one point, the speaker explicitly claims:
“The council said unofficially in a meeting that she was the one constantly reporting us.”
If this were true, it would suggest potentially serious breaches of complainant confidentiality and data protection by council officials. If it is not true, then the speaker is misrepresenting the council and providing the public with a false impression of council conduct.
Either way, these statements are highly problematic:
6. Claims of Insider Knowledge of Police Matters
The transcript also contains numerous references to alleged police actions, views, and decisions that are described as if the speaker had privileged access. Examples include:
These kinds of statements create a public impression that:
This is deeply concerning. It risks undermining public trust in impartial policing and may mislead viewers into believing that unverified allegations have official endorsement.
7. Unverified “Investigation” Narratives
Alongside these council and police claims, the speaker regularly states that other people or groups are “under investigation”, “being shut down” or facing some kind of regulatory scrutiny. Examples include:
Again, none of these claims are substantiated in the transcript. Regulatory bodies do not typically provide complainants or rival organisations with real-time updates about ongoing investigations. Publicly stating that named individuals or groups are under investigation, without verifiable and official confirmation, is potentially defamatory and clearly irresponsible.
8. Use of Abusive and Hostile Language
Throughout the video, the speaker uses highly derogatory and inflammatory language aimed at specific individuals and groups, including but not limited to:
This type of rhetoric is incompatible with any serious safeguarding, community, or charitable role. It also significantly increases the legal risk around harassment, malicious communications, and defamation.
9. Safeguarding and Confidentiality Breaches
Particularly alarming are the disclosures of sensitive personal and safeguarding information about third parties, including:
Even when speaking about her own experiences, the inclusion of third-party identifiable data (children, partners, named individuals) raises serious questions about confidentiality, data protection and judgement. For a person connected to a baby bank and to services for vulnerable mothers and children, public handling of sensitive information in this manner will rightly concern regulators and professionals.
10. Misuse of a Community Platform
At several points, the speaker makes it clear that she believes her organisation exists, at least in part, to “take down” other individuals and groups. She states in substance that she started this in order to bring down four specific people and that she has succeeded in three cases already. She then frames resignations or organisational turbulence elsewhere as “victories”.
This admission is entirely at odds with what the public would expect from a community interest company or baby bank. The stated purpose of such an organisation should be support for families, children and vulnerable individuals – not the pursuit of personal vendettas or the public “exposure” of rivals.
11. Highlighted Statements of Special Concern
For clarity, the following statements from the overall narrative are of special concern, both in terms of legality and governance. They are highlighted here exactly as they should appear in any analysis or regulatory escalation:
Each of these highlighted phrases either:
These are likely to be of direct interest to the council, police, Charity Commission, CIC Regulator, Trading Standards and the ICO when assessing whether the conduct of the speaker, and the organisation she front-faces, meets expected standards of honesty, confidentiality, neutrality and safeguarding.
12. Conclusion
The video transcript paints a picture of an individual using the public profile of a baby bank and CIC to:
Readers, regulators and professionals should treat all of her allegations as unverified claims unless supported by independent documentation. The behaviour itself – irrespective of whether any individual allegation is true or false – raises serious concerns about judgement, governance, safeguarding and fitness to operate services that interact with vulnerable mothers, children and families.
This warning is not an endorsement of any individual or organisation mentioned. It is an attempt to accurately document and contextualise what has been said on video so that those with responsibility for public protection and regulation can make informed decisions.
Signed,
Sherlock
Correct me if I’m wrong, but in all the responses to Hayley Thomas’s resignation as a trustee to HCT, I cannot see Ms Ridsdales name or Jaynes Baby Bank mentioned once as being responsible for the absolute disgusting way that Hayley Thomas has been targetted. But as the saying goes, if the cap fits…
May I add I am in no way defending Ms Ridsdale, as her name was not mentioned in the hundreds of comments made in support of Hayley Thomas, but she is literally accepting that she is the one who has caused Hayley Thomas all this awful torment. I really hope justice will be done and Ms Ridsdale is made accountable for all the misery she causes to innocent people.
URGENT PUBLIC SAFETY WARNING
Source of statements:
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1574294573575845
A recent public post issued by Jayne’s Baby Bank contains the following claim regarding the legality of supplying expired baby milk:
This statement is false, dangerous, and contradicts established United Kingdom food safety law. It risks encouraging the distribution of unsafe infant formula to the public.
1. Baby milk uses mandatory USE-BY dates
Infant formula and follow-on milk must carry a Use-By date under:
A Use-By date is a legal safety limit, not a guideline. Baby milk never uses “Best Before” dates.
2. It is illegal to sell, donate, or distribute baby milk after its Use-By date
Once the Use-By date has expired, infant formula becomes illegal to supply in any form:
This is because expired infant formula can:
A reduced sticker does not override a Use-By date. The product must be disposed of, not circulated.
3. Even if she meant something else, the statement is still incorrect
The only foods that may legally be sold after their date (with a reduced label) are those with a Best Before date.
Baby milk never uses Best Before. Therefore, even the most generous interpretation of the statement remains legally wrong.
4. CICs and baby banks are legally classed as Food Business Operators
Under the Food Safety and Hygiene Regulations, a Community Interest Company distributing food must follow the same laws as supermarkets. There are no exemptions for charities, good intentions, or donations.
Supplying infant formula after its Use-By date exposes infants to serious risk and exposes the operator to:
Conclusion
The claim made in the referenced post is dangerously misleading and may result in unsafe expired formula reaching vulnerable babies. United Kingdom law is clear: baby milk past its Use-By date is illegal to sell, donate, or distribute.
For infant safety, all expired formula must be immediately withdrawn and destroyed.
– S
With regards to this large grant she has been given by councils. Am I incorrect in thinking she has been given the money to distribute women’s health products to anyone who needs it surely it didn’t come with terms and conditions that it could only be given to baby bank supporters or donators?
We are unfamiliar with any specifics.
-S
Predictably I note the post has been amended now to say only available to customers and donators! Just out of curiosity how is she obtaining grants from 4 councils when her ‘shops’ are only covered by 2 councils, Caerphilly and Torfaen?
Because she is lexdyslic. 😃
S
Thankyou so much Sherlock for all of your unwavering, dedication, to complie such great evidence. You are doing the people of South Wales a great service, you should be given a medal!
I look forward to the day when this vile individual and her minions are brought to justice.
May I make a suggestion, it might be beneficial if you could compile a link or a page on your website, for those in genuine need to gain access, to legitmate charities and CICS within thier areas, an index maybe.
This needs to be done, because I fear JBB has, like some diseased angel of death. Has infiltrated and corrupted avenues to genuine legitmate services. Especially with her many alias’s and duplicate accounts. She hinders all those who really do need help.
The shops in Pontypool are disgusting, and inaccesable. The hoards of junk now reach the ceilings. The locals are ashamed of her shops, and despise her, she is not a pleasant person at all, and she refers to the locals as “skanky rats”, which is so unprofessional and insulting.
Yes the people of pontypool might be impoverished, by comparrison to some other towns and villages, but these people are good, kind and loving people, who share what little they do have. To refer to us as skanky rats, skruts, peodophiles, and a mirriad of other insults, too vile to mention here. The beligerant mocking of the poor and less fortunate, exploiting poverty and misfortune, to her own end, is beyond evil, Im quite sure there is an alocated place in karmaville for her and her corrupt fraudulent operations.
The single most appauling unprofessional dirty and blatant scam I have ever witnessed.
She will one day answer to a higher authority. Gauranteed.
Keep up the Good work, we are all behind you!
I been asking myself the same question so did a google search. Again I don’t the specifics of the grants offered but thought still needed to check so I did for both Caerphilly and Torfean Councils below is results
No, grants from local councils for period products are intended for the public benefit, specifically to tackle period poverty in the community. You cannot limit the free products to your paying customers or donors only.
Key Reasons
Public Benefit Requirement: A core principle of a CIC, and a condition of most council grants, is that the activities must be for the benefit of the community, not a restricted group of customers or donors.
Grant Terms and Conditions: The grant agreements with councils like Caerphilly and Torfaen specify the terms of distribution. Products are to be available to those who need them within the local authority area, often targeting low-income households or specific public settings like schools, libraries, or community hubs.
Dignified and Accessible Access: The goal of these schemes is to provide products discreetly and without barriers. Requiring someone to be a customer or donor would add a condition and go against the principle of dignified access for anyone who needs them.
I also got the same for Welsh Government’s Period Dignity Grant.
To me Miss Risdale should not be only offering to customers as this is a benefit for the whole community.
If anyone is reading this and you are in need pop onto your local council website and they will give you a list where you can collect products for free without any worries and you are not subjected to be a customer or donator.
This is my opinion only and I don’t know the specifics on Miss Ridsdale grants.. but I do feel everything she does comes with a condition and that is you either buy or donate.
TODAY:
Transcript Review – CIC-Specific Legal and Regulatory Concerns
This comment focuses strictly on what breaches, or potential breaches, of UK CIC law and regulation arise directly from the transcripts. These points relate to the Companies Act 2006, CIC Regulations 2005, CIC asset-lock requirements, fiduciary duties, and general obligations attached to operating a community-interest organisation.
1. Potential misuse of the CIC asset lock
The transcripts repeatedly mix “not for resale” items with acts of selling, pricing, discounting, and commercial activity. Examples include:
Under CIC law, the asset lock requires all assets (including donated stock) to be applied for the community benefit. Selling items designated or donated for free distribution, especially cosmetics and toiletries intended for “mums in need”, may constitute:
If donors gave the items specifically for direct charitable distribution, selling them at any price is potentially unlawful unless clearly disclosed and properly accounted for.
2. Lack of transparent financial controls and accounting
The transcripts show no evidence of recorded pricing policies, stock valuation, donor instructions, or audit trail. Examples:
Under CIC law and the Companies Act, directors must ensure:
Failure to keep adequate records is a statutory offence under the Companies Act 2006 (ss.386–389).
3. Unlawful supply of unsafe goods (Trading Standards + CIC duties)
A CIC must operate to community benefit. The transcripts openly confirm distribution of:
Supplying unsafe cosmetic goods is a breach of:
When a CIC knowingly distributes unsafe items, the regulator may treat it as:
4. Public accusations of theft without evidence
The transcripts repeatedly contain allegations such as:
This creates three CIC-specific legal issues:
The CIC Regulator has repeatedly sanctioned organisations for director behaviour that publicly shames or targets individuals.
5. Blurred boundaries between personal life and CIC operations
The transcripts show personal matters discussed while representing the CIC, including medical disclosures and private conversations:
Whilst illness itself is not an issue, conducting CIC business while mixing personal matters and livestream retail activity reflects:
This falls under the Regulator’s category of “poor governance and director conduct affecting public confidence”.
6. Inconsistent purpose and unlawful blurring of trading vs community interest
The CIC appears to mix:
Examples include:
Under CIC rules, trading is permitted only if profits and assets clearly benefit the community. Mixing personal and CIC activity without clear boundaries or documentation is potentially unlawful.
7. Failure to maintain safeguarding and data protection standards
Livestreaming inside a CIC shop while interacting with members of the public raises several risks:
This can constitute:
A CIC is legally obliged to operate responsibly and safely. Filming customers without proper consents is clearly improper.
8. Poor stock control and inadequate record keeping
Statements such as:
reveal a failure to meet statutory obligations under the Companies Act to:
Failing to keep proper records is illegal for a CIC and for any registered company.
Summary of CIC-Relevant Legal Risks
The following issues from the transcripts are either unlawful or strong indicators of unlawful conduct under CIC regulations:
These are all areas that the CIC Regulator and Trading Standards treat as serious forms of misconduct or misuse of a CIC structure.
– S
Quoted Claim:
“The amount of nurses that give COPD patients too much oxygen is still shocking.”
Context:
This was posted alongside a US emergency-medicine slide stating: “COPD Exacerbation: The Oxygen Trap – SpO₂ goal 88–92%, don’t overcorrect hypoxia.” The graphic lists American ED interventions, including Duonebs, IV methylprednisolone and BiPAP.
Commentary:
The clip does not claim that nurses are administering unsafe levels of oxygen, nor does it attribute COPD risks to nursing practice. It simply highlights the existing principle that COPD exacerbations require controlled oxygen with a target saturation of 88–92 percent. This reflects standard UK care. In NHS settings, oxygen is prescribed with a defined target range, adjusted in line with blood gas results and medical instruction. Nurses do not decide oxygen levels independently, and oxygen delivery is not improvised or discretionary.
The video itself is based on American terminology and protocol structure. Presenting it as evidence of UK nursing error is inaccurate. UK oxygen therapy follows NICE and BTS guidance, and the principles shown in the video are already embedded in routine practice. The clip explains respiratory physiology, not professional misconduct.
Overall Assessment:
The statement misrepresents both the intent of the video and the reality of NHS clinical practice. Nothing in the clip supports the claim that nurses “over-oxygenate” COPD patients, and reframing an American teaching slide as a criticism of UK nurses is misleading.
Disclaimer:
Sherlock is not a registered GP, nurse, or healthcare professional. This commentary is informed using verified clinical guidance and the assistance of medical AI tools. It should not be interpreted as medical advice.
Source: https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=824637156991038&id=100083342834915
Fact Check: https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/2025/06/20/fact-checking-carrie-anne-ridsdales-alleged-ba-hons-nursing-degree/
– S
SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=825123143609106&set=a.107500218704739
Response to the Reply:
Her message confirms the point made earlier: the video she shared is a general American teaching slide about COPD physiology, not evidence that “nurses are giving too much oxygen”. The explanation she now cites—hypercapnia, respiratory acidosis and the Haldane effect—is precisely why controlled oxygen is already used in the NHS. None of it supports her claim about widespread nursing error.
UK guidance has required 88–92 percent oxygen saturation targets for years. Oxygen is prescribed with a defined target range, titrated according to blood gases and adjusted under medical direction. Nurses do not independently decide to “give too much oxygen”, and the physiology she is now quoting is the same physiology taught to the staff she is criticising.
Her shift from saying the comment was “irrelevant” to then providing the exact physiology underpinning controlled oxygen underscores the original issue: the information in the video explains clinical principles, not malpractice. Presenting it as evidence against UK nurses misrepresents both the clip and standard practice.
Irrelevance Claim:
Saying “it’s irrelevant to me running a baby bank” does not alter the fact that the post publicly claimed clinical wrongdoing. Once clinical claims are made, accuracy matters, particularly when the same account repeatedly implies professional expertise that is not supported by any registration record.
Overall Assessment:
Her reply inadvertently reinforces the point: the physiology described explains why controlled oxygen targets exist, not why nurses are doing anything unsafe. None of the material she referenced validates the original accusation.
Disclaimer:
Sherlock is not a registered GP, nurse or healthcare professional. This commentary is informed using verified clinical guidance and medical AI assistance. It is not medical advice.
– S
The woman is deluded. Posted an article that she now says is ‘irrelevant’ then its ‘irrelevant to her’, then her hobby is ‘stalking Sherlock’, because Sherlock is obsessed with her……
Not like she isn’t fuelling the flame as she openly brags about being the one to shut other establishments down, using a multitude of aliases, yet hardly any communication on her posts.
I won’t call her stupid (oh, I just did) she is beyond help.
LINK: https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=824400323681388&id=100083342834915
So it was Sammy visiting the Toy Box rather than JBB. We have heard positive things about the Toy Box, and it appears to be a worthy organisation to support. It is certainly one to consider donating to this Christmas to help children in need. Go show your support!
Website: https://toyboxproject.co.uk/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ToyBoxProjectUK
– S
The toy box project is a fantastic charity. I’ve used it on many occasions for work purposes.
If its all about recycling for JBB and not making money why doesn’t she get rid of most of the toys in her shops by giving them to the toy box.
It’s so organised inside and the staff are fantastic, maybe JBB should take a leaf out of their book.
Where was JBB mention as she quoted I didn’t hear anything.
All I heard was Sammy highly recommended them.
The Toy Project is a fantastic charity and anyone who has toys they would like to donate to please consider them and also if your in need of toys for Christmas get in contact with them you won’t regret it.
Just want to say well done to The Toy Project and the lottery winners for all their hard work to ensure no child goes without this Christmas
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1916145779317147/
Go support ToyBox Project!
– S
We expect forthcoming gloating videos in which certain individuals will mock others and claim to have shut them down for various activities. Unfortunately, while some people genuinely act in the best interests of the local community, those driven by harm and greed will always undermine their efforts.
Ask yourself: do decent people attract daily chaos? Do decent people publish images, videos, and targeted posts about others during difficult periods in their lives? The answer ought to be clear.
We wish those involved well for the future.
S
Context and Commentary
As expected from Carrie: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1831934600744349
HCT Announcement: https://www.facebook.com/groups/638417744708312/posts/1149637666919648/
The original video is a long, confrontational rant directed at the HCT trustees and their resignation statement. The contrast between responses is striking: Carrie struggles to achieve more than a handful of reactions, while HCT receives hundreds of reactions and comments within hours. This disparity raises an obvious concern: how do people still fail to recognise that the individual who attacks others daily cannot sensibly be viewed as the “good guy”? Those who continue to encourage her behaviour will need to answer for their own judgement in future. “How could we have known?” is not an acceptable defence. It is pure negligence.
Extended Summary and Contextual Review of Transcript
This comment assesses a published video transcript that contains serious allegations, derogatory statements, references to police matters, sensitive personal data, admissions relating to charitable service discrimination, and remarks with potential safeguarding implications. The transcript also includes material that may affect compliance with Community Interest Company (CIC) duties.
The following sections set out the concerning quotes, their context, and the associated risks.
1. Harassment, Intimidation and Escalatory Language
The transcript contains multiple statements that appear confrontational or threatening in tone. Examples include:
These comments create an atmosphere of intimidation. They could be interpreted as harassment, especially when directed at a named or identifiable individual.
2. Defamatory Allegations and Inflammatory Claims
The transcript includes numerous unverified and damaging allegations about the conduct of various individuals. Examples include:
These statements constitute serious claims without corroboration. Publishing or repeating accusations of criminal activity or immoral behaviour carries a significant risk of defamation.
3. Police Commentary and Advice to Avoid Cooperation
The speaker repeatedly gives advice about police processes, including discouraging cooperation. Examples include:
This is inappropriate and potentially harmful. Encouraging others to obstruct lawful processes or avoid proper legal advice could be construed as irresponsible or misleading. It also risks misrepresenting police procedure.
4. Safeguarding Concerns and References to Filming Children
The transcript contains repeated commentary about vulnerable children being filmed and uploaded online:
Even expressed as criticism, these passages acknowledge a safeguarding incident. The language used is inflammatory and may exacerbate the distress of those involved. Safeguarding concerns must be raised through appropriate channels rather than discussed publicly in this manner.
5. Discriminatory Access to Charity Services
Several passages describe selective access to charitable resources:
These comments indicate personal judgement being used to determine access to essential goods. This is incompatible with the standards expected of a charity or CIC, where services must be provided fairly, consistently and without discrimination.
6. Disclosure of Personal Data and Historical Allegations
There are multiple references to historic complaints, council interactions, and personal information:
The transcript includes identifiable information about third parties, details about complaints, and sensitive family history. Publicly discussing this information raises potential issues under UK GDPR, as well as basic privacy expectations.
7. Statements Concerning Violence and Property Damage
The transcript references violent incidents and property damage:
These statements create unnecessary alarm and may be interpreted as either condoning or normalising violent behaviour. They also present events in a way that could distress the individuals or families affected.
8. Governance Issues and Conflict with the Role of a CIC or Charity
There are multiple statements describing personal disputes, selective service provision, hostile interactions, and retaliatory behaviour. Examples include:
Such conduct is not compatible with the standards expected of trustees, directors, or representatives of a CIC or charitable organisation. Public behaviour should demonstrate neutrality, professionalism, and fairness.
Final Assessment: Regulatory, Legal and Ethical Concerns for a CIC
A Community Interest Company has a duty to demonstrate integrity, transparency, fair service provision, and responsible governance. The behaviour reflected in this transcript raises concerns in several areas:
Directors and operators of CICs must act in the interests of the community and maintain appropriate professional standards. The statements captured in this transcript do not align with those obligations. They undermine public trust, introduce regulatory risks, and potentially expose the organisation to formal scrutiny.
In summary, the tone, content, and subject matter of this transcript are incompatible with the expectations placed upon a CIC or charitable body. They reflect poorly on governance, safeguarding awareness, and public accountability, and warrant careful consideration in light of regulatory duties.
– S
Wow wow wow what she said about hayley shocked beyond believe evil she is!
Comment: Safeguarding, children’s images and inaccurate legal claims
1. Personal attacks and tone
Opening a public video with this kind of personalised insult about a named individual is not reasonable commentary. It reads as bullying and harassment rather than measured concern. For anyone presenting as a community leader or trustee, this tone undermines public confidence and is difficult to reconcile with duties to act in the public interest and model respectful behaviour.
2. Claim that you “are not allowed to video vulnerable people”
This statement is misleading. In UK law there is no blanket ban on filming “vulnerable people”. The key issues are:
Presenting it as an absolute “not allowed” rule is legally inaccurate and risks confusing the public about how safeguarding and data protection actually work.
3. Claim that parents have no permission until a child is 18
This is not how UK consent and parental responsibility operate. In practice:
Suggesting that no one has valid permission until the child turns 18 overstates the law and may unnecessarily alarm parents. There are serious privacy and safeguarding considerations, but the legal position is more nuanced than implied here.
4. Threat of being “sued” for ordinary posting
In theory, anyone can attempt to sue anyone else. In practice, whether a claim succeeds depends on specific legal grounds, evidence, harm and limitation periods. Stating bluntly that children “can sue you” for any historic posting of images is a sweeping and unqualified assertion. It oversimplifies a complex area of data protection, privacy and civil liability, and again risks misleading viewers about their legal position.
5. Speculation about attackers and “weirdo friends”
Safeguarding absolutely requires thinking about risk, but publicly speculating that unnamed “weirdo family and friends” might target identifiable children is highly emotive and speculative. It increases fear and stigma without evidence, and it is not how risk assessments or safeguarding planning are normally carried out. Coming from someone presenting themselves as experienced in care and safeguarding, the phrasing is especially concerning.
6. Description of an unsafe knife “amnesty”
This passage appears to admit that knives were collected from children in an uncontrolled way, with CCTV deliberately switched off and without proper protective equipment or procedures. While the intention may have been to prevent harm, this is exactly the kind of activity that should be risk assessed and carried out in partnership with police or safeguarding professionals, not improvised and then normalised in a public broadcast. It raises questions about judgement, health and safety, and organisational governance.
7. Use of trustee/charity status as a weapon in an argument
Trustees do have serious responsibilities around safeguarding, communications and use of social media. However, invoking Charity Commission oversight in a public rant aimed at an individual, while yourself making legally incorrect and inflammatory statements, is problematic. It gives the impression that regulatory language is being used as a threat in a personal dispute rather than as part of a measured safeguarding or governance concern.
8. Overall assessment
Taking these comments together, there are several issues of concern:
Source: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1198915508823400
– S
Hang a minute so she is saying it is illegal to put up children’s photos on Facebook under the age of 18 as you don’t have their permission.
Well not so long ago Miss Ridsdale was doing live stream of someone else’s profile and whilst doing this there were lots of images of young children did she have permission to do this from them and one of those children’s family member asked her to remove pictures and was told no unless removed comment in post.
Then the incident in Caerphilly with the young boys did she have permission of them to put their pictures all over Facebook I think not.
She drives her car filming and quotes what she thinks is law to everyone, but she is above the law and can do what she wants.
Fingers crossed the parents see her latest video and decides to sue her for all the same reasons she has quoted
And one last opinion she needs to stop recording whilst driving her warnings on it keep going off due to driving to close. The other day she was behind lorry alarm goes off as to close and then after overtaking she pulls in front again warning going off, no indication either she needs to concentrate as one day she will be side swiped
She is a dangerous hypocrite, made worse by the fact that she was at one point driving while under the influence of morphine.
– S
I’m still waiting for someone to shut her down. All we can do is let people know and hopefully she will lose enough trade to fo.
It’s so sad that a valuable member of the community and her family are getting harassed and stalked by jbb and another idiot but yet our police system isnt great.
I’m waiting for companies house and anyone who gives her grants to hold her accountable. Does she know she can be done for fraud if you misuse grants? Not making a profit whilst on benefits, yet planning an all inclusive holiday at Xmas. What a joke.
I’m warming up the popcorn.
Love how she is asking people to nominate her for an award. Why is it that she thinks she’s a registered charity because she has a CIC number? Does she not know the difference between the two? JBB aka as Carianne Ridsdale…-You are NOT a charity!
In one of her latest TikTok videos tonight she films herself walking past Timpsons and then filling a trolley in Tescos with nappies, stating ‘busy morning already’, intimating that she has done this today as it is not showing as a memory but the date on the Timpson receipt is 17th November 2023. Does she really think everyone is as stupid as her!
I don’t use TikTok. Do you have a link? I would recommend anyone referencing videos to link them here.
S
It’s on her Facebook page.
When viewed as a guest on a mobile device, it displays the original date. The most likely explanation is that different apps and browsing modes handle shared content differently, especially when a post has been reshared from a memory.
A shared video may appear current on one device, while another will show it as a memory or with its original timestamp. This is normal behaviour across Facebook’s various interfaces.
S
Ms Ridsdale has put a post up regarding the people from Pontypool market who she said she banned from her shop for re-selling items they bought from her. She has posted a Wales Online article about a person who has received a prison sentence and she claims this person is the son of the market trader who caused problems for her and that he was the one videoing her and harassing her staff when it all kicked off with the pumpkin saga, which was after 31st October. The report states that the man was sentenced to 40 weeks imprisonment on 4th October, so it doesn’t seem plausible that this is the same person. Yet again she is making ludicrous allegations about people.
They look alike. The man has a Facebook page, appears similar, and seems to resell items, so it is possible, though the timeline in the article and the sentencing make it questionable. Ultimately, stranger things have happened. As for the actual point, it is not something I need to focus on, but if Mary wishes to comment here, she can.
S
SOURCE: https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/16838920_ad01_2025-11-14.pdf
Companies House has recorded an AD01 filing showing that Jayne’s Baby Bank C.I.C. (16838920) has changed its registered office from 7 Meadow Road, Pontllanfraith, Blackwood NP12 2AG to Jaynes Baby Bank, 5 Crane Street, Pontypool NP4 6LY, effective 14 November 2025.
A registered office change is a formal legal act. The new address must satisfy section 86 of the Companies Act 2006, meaning it must be a location where official correspondence can be reliably served. For fourteen days after registration, documents may still be legally served at the previous address.
It is also relevant that the 5 Crane Street premises are subject to a commercial lease due to end on 16 January 2026, less than two months after the registered office was moved there. Unless the lease is renewed, formally extended, or replaced with a new tenancy agreement, the registered office would again need to be relocated before or at the point the lease expires. Under the lease terms, security of tenure is excluded, meaning the tenant has no automatic right to renewal.
Given the CIC’s public obligations, regulatory scrutiny, and the importance of maintaining a valid service address, the short remaining lease term is a material factor for anyone monitoring governance or compliance.
– S
A reminder regarding the property and associated documents:
https://www.acuitus.co.uk/property/4995/
(J. Ridsale, trading as Jayne’s Baby Bank)
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/5-Crane-Street-Lease-2023-Unsigned.pdf
Tenant listed as Miss Jayne Anne Carrie Anne Ridsdale
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/5-crane.pdf
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/license_JP.jpg
(Queries over missing names)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyA39cYvvh4
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Carrie-Anne.png
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/email_number.png
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Background_report_Carrie_Ridsdale.pdf
– S
Public Notice: Undeclared Facebook Pages Linked to the Same CIC Trading Activity
This notice concerns multiple Facebook pages that appear to operate as separate shops, yet each promotes the same retail locations, donation requests and commercial practices. None of the pages declare that they are run by the same operator. Where a Community Interest Company (CIC) is involved in retail activity, UK law requires transparency regarding the identity of the trader.
Identified Pages
Newly uncovered page:
https://www.facebook.com/riscahighstreetecofriendyshopping
Previously identified pages:
https://www.facebook.com/back.up.796391
https://www.facebook.com/jb.287740/
https://www.facebook.com/recyclerightshop/
All four pages promote the same shop addresses, the same donation statements, the same pricing rules and near-identical wording, yet each presents itself as a standalone business. None disclose the operator’s legal identity.
Why This Raises Legal Concerns
It is not unlawful for a CIC to operate multiple social media pages. However, it is unlawful for any trader, including a CIC, to conceal its identity or present commercial activity as if it belongs to several unrelated businesses. Such practices may mislead the public regarding who they are buying from or donating to.
Relevant Legal Frameworks
Why Transparency Matters
Members of the public donating goods or purchasing items should be able to identify:
When multiple pages operate under different names without disclosing a single operator, the public cannot make informed decisions. This undermines lawful transparency requirements and raises concerns regarding compliance with consumer-protection law.
Purpose of This Notice
This notice is issued to ensure that residents, donors and consumers are aware of the existence of these undeclared pages and the legal framework governing commercial transparency in the United Kingdom. Any retail activity carried out by or on behalf of a CIC must be openly connected to the CIC and must not be presented as independent businesses.
– Sherlock
Automated Notice: New Transcript Alert
Issue Identified
These statements indicate a belief that Community Interest Company (CIC) status provides guaranteed funding, automatic access to council property, and the ability to operate without serving the public. This is incorrect and signals potentially intentional misuse of the CIC framework.
Key Concerns
1. Misrepresentation of CIC funding
A CIC does not automatically receive grants, preferential treatment, or special financial status. Funding is competitive and tied to demonstrable public benefit, not entitlement.
2. Disregard for community access
Stating that customers are no longer needed directly contradicts the community-benefit obligation required of CICs.
3. Risk of exploiting CIC status
Statements suggesting that CIC registration brings financial windfalls or operational shortcuts indicate a misuse or misunderstanding of the model.
4. Community Interest Test risks
Publicly stating that the organisation can function without the community undermines the legal requirement to operate for community benefit at all times.
5. Misleading property claims
The suggestion that CICs automatically obtain council premises at peppercorn rent is false. Councils require safeguarding, governance checks, community need assessments, and sustainability evidence.
6. Public trust concerns
Misleading narratives about grants and special privileges harm trust in the CIC model and raise questions about governance integrity.
Relevant Legal and Regulatory Framework
Summary
These quotes strongly suggest that CIC status is being presented as a tool for financial advantage rather than a vehicle for community benefit. Statements about “not needing customers” and guaranteed grants contradict CIC law and the organisation’s public-benefit obligations.
Full Disclosure: Additional Concerning Quotes Extracted from the Transcript
The following quotes are included verbatim for transparency:
Source: https://www.facebook.com/100083342834915/videos/864649822884676/
– Sherlock
Ms Ridsdale seems rather fixated on this couple. Maybe she should upload her multiple cctv and body cam images so everyone can see what actually happened.
Sherlock, surely the police need to investigate these transcripts?
People have been jailed for less on social media. She is inciting hatred, spreading misinformation and promoting violence.
Every area of her ‘charity’ needs examining. Fraud on a large scale, being public donations, money, her bogus health issues, her claiming benefits and her son who can work 7 days a week but unable to work a normal job. Where is his money coming from?
States ‘no donations’, yet saying she’s got house clearances in the coming week.
The relevant authorities are NOT doing their jobs. The premises she rents, not owns, should be shut down with immediate effect.
Done deep dive regarding FB messenger and she would not have been able to see her icon(JBB badge) as recipient of the message only the person sending would see as a read icon.
In Facebook Messenger, a small version of the other person’s profile icon appearing at the end of your conversation means they have seen or read your message.
For You (Sender)
You see the recipient’s profile picture as a “read receipt” to confirm that your message has been viewed.
For the Recipient
The person receiving the message will not see their own icon at the end of the conversation on their screen. They will see status icons next to the messages they send to you, which change as you (the recipient in their view) interact with them.
When you (the original sender) read the message they send back, they will then see your profile icon appear as their read receipt for your conversation.
In my opinion this feels like a set up as I don’t believe anyone would send screenshots of a conversation already taking place with Jayne’s Baby Bank. My thoughts and this is only my thoughts is she has either used one of her other profiles or Dans phone to send message and then taken either photo via her phone or screenshot from the profile/Dans chat without realising that her JBB icon will show her as the recipient.
If screenshot was taken from JBB messenger it would show senders icon if they had seen or responded.
Again this is only my opinion..
So does that mean that Ms Ridsdale probably sent the message herself?
It means the screenshot came from the device belonging to the person who sent the message to her. In Messenger, the small circular profile icon shows that the recipient has opened the message, and that icon only appears on the sender’s screen. Because it is visible in this screenshot, it confirms the image was captured from the sender’s side. In this situation, the sender is the person who claimed to have “shot your window”. How that screenshot was obtained remains unclear.
TLDR:
The bottom right icon (Jayne’s Baby Bank) shows she is in possession of a screenshot taken from the device that sent and admitted to shooting the windows.
– S
The woman is actually crazy, we took no more than 5 steps into the shop when we realised it was clearly a health hazard and unsafe we looked at each other in shock an I said it’s a health hazard come on and we left, to be honest I didn’t even think she heard us until the next day when’s she uploaded a image saying she has CCTV and audio of us being abusive ect yet she won’t post the footage, I sent her a message but she’s blocked me before it sent so I screenshotted it and sent it to her on a new profile, however as for shooting the windows you can see she’s clearly cropped the image in a attempt to make it look I sent the message to the public but anyone looking inbtween the lines can clearly decifier her lies, I just can’t believe the extent and lies she’s gone to because we left the shop and spoke to ourslevels. She obviously can’t take criticism the shop is seriously dangerous and so is she she is using a image of me and a friend in the shop to twist it and say what she likes
Summary of Concern:
This comment documents a now-amended Facebook post published by Jayne’s Baby Bank, operated by Carrie-Anne Ridsdale (also known as Jayne Price). The original post contained inflammatory statements, unverified claims about regulators, derogatory language, references to violent property damage, and encouragement for followers to target an individual. Although the post has since been edited and most attached images removed, the original publication and its implications remain relevant to public safety and accountability.
All images removed during the amendment process have been archived here:
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/JBB_FB_DELETED.zip
1. Contents of the Originally Published Post (Abbreviated for Privacy)
The post originally included statements directed at an individual (referred to as S.) such as:
The original post also included multiple images, such as:
These attachments were later removed during the amendment of the post.
2. Critical Issue: The “Shot Windows” Comment
One of the screenshots later removed from the amended post but preserved in the archive above contained the following message:
This is significant because:
Whether the sender was responsible or not, the decision to publish this content at all is a serious safeguarding issue for a registered Community Interest Company.
3. Why the Amendment Is Significant
The removal of material by Jayne’s Baby Bank (Carrie-Anne Ridsdale / Jayne Price) is notable because the original content:
The amendments obscure the severity and tone of what was originally posted, making documentation essential for public understanding.
4. Timeline of Relevant Events
“Another one threating council and fire chiefs because they were refused entry… Get your facts straight… Do you really think they will shut our operation down because of you? Pleb. Report her profile guys for us.”
5. Public Interest Note
As Jayne’s Baby Bank is registered as a Community Interest Company operated by Carrie-Anne Ridsdale (Jayne Price), the original publication and later amendment of content referencing violent property damage (“shot windows”), combined with hostile language and mobilising followers against an individual, raises legitimate concerns surrounding governance, safeguarding, conduct, and suitability to run a CIC serving vulnerable people.
This record preserves the original context for transparency and accountability.
Original Source: https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=820606230727464&id=100083342834915#
– Sherlock
– Sherlock
Public Update on Recent Video Transcript and Image Leak
This update concerns inconsistencies in the latest video from Jayne’s Baby Bank and the accidental leak of a screenshot last night.
First, the transcript again claims that Hayley has attempted to block both Ian and Jayne’s Baby Bank from collecting supermarket food. This description ignores the documented history already published in October 2025. According to whistleblower evidence, Jayne’s Baby Bank had already been removed from Olio, blocked from FareShare Go, and prevented from picking up collections across several supermarkets because of earlier misuse. The whistleblower article shows that Jayne Price, also known as Carrie-Anne Ridsdale, used multiple false identities to obtain food after bans were issued. This included inventing and operating a persona called “Cerri”, who she presented as her daughter, despite no daughter existing. She told supermarkets and volunteers that “Cerri” would attend collections on her behalf, when in reality “Cerri” was simply herself under another name. These schemes involved collecting Olio food, misrepresenting it as FareShare stock, deleting comments that questioned the source, and recruiting volunteers to act as Food Fairies while keeping a percentage of donations. Given this background, the claim that having Hayley’s number will not stop future collections does not match the documented history. The food-collection dispute in the video therefore does not reflect the independent evidence already on record.
The transcript then shifts away from food collections and attempts to frame an unrelated visitor as being linked to window-smashing incidents, van damage and UPVC units allegedly shot through with an air rifle. No evidence is presented. This appears to be an attempt by Jayne Price to redirect suspicion despite having no factual connection between the visitor and the criminal incidents described.
The transcript also contains repeated threats by Jayne Price to out individuals online, combined with claims that she operates extensive CCTV coverage and audio recording inside and outside the shops, along with threats to publish this material on social media. Audio recording in a retail setting is heavily restricted under data protection law, and the public release of CCTV is unlawful. These threats are significant because they indicate a willingness to use personal footage as a form of punishment rather than for safety or compliance.
A further concern is the repeated claim by Jayne Price that everyone is connected and that others do not want the CIC to succeed, which blends unrelated situations such as food-collection disputes, shop access disagreements and local criminal damage into a single narrative. Jayne Price also admits that she had not even seen the individuals involved and relied solely on a volunteer’s impression, which was later used to justify public shaming. This demonstrates reliance on hearsay rather than any evidence-based assessment.
The most serious issue is the accidental image leak posted last night by Jayne’s Baby Bank. The screenshot contained a private message stating, verbatim: “I’m glad I shot your windows through love you deserved it. Karma is a bitch.” This is a direct claim of involvement in window damage.
In Facebook Messenger, the small circular icon in the bottom-right corner of a message bubble identifies who received and read that message. In the leaked screenshot, this icon clearly displayed the profile image of Jayne’s Baby Bank. This confirms that the confession was sent directly to Jayne Price and was read by her. For the icon to show Jayne’s Baby Bank as the reader, the only way this could occur would be if the person who wrote the confession had taken a screenshot of their own message thread, including their own admission, and then sent that screenshot back to themselves. This makes no practical sense. The only reasonable conclusion is that Jayne Price was the original recipient of the message admitting to shooting windows.
The screenshot and all associated images were deleted without explanation. This removed the only evidence showing a direct admission regarding the window incident. Despite possessing this message, Jayne Price continued to portray an unrelated visitor as suspicious while ignoring the confession already in her possession.
Taken together, these points show a concerning pattern. Unrelated food-collection disputes are being mixed with criminal-damage speculation. There are repeated threats by Jayne Price to publish CCTV and audio of customers. Decisions are being made on hearsay rather than facts. There is a growing conspiratorial framing of events. Most importantly, Jayne Price was in possession of a private message admitting to shooting windows, and this evidence was leaked by accident and then deleted. These inconsistencies require public clarification.
Source: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1202863625041503/
– Sherlock
So incidentally in shop is only hearsay and she states watching via CCTV. So she had a young mother who just had a baby (her words) deal with a situation and never came out from behind her desk to ensure safety of her volunteers.
And they know they were up to no good as the girl was giggling when entered shop. So does that mean if you giggle and are laughing you are up to no good. Who’s to say they weren’t laughing/giggling over something that has been said. Very judgemental if you ask me.
She has changed story of incident by saying they didn’t get up the ramp but I can see image clearly of them in the shop. From first screenshots of them contacting her after she posted them all over FB was to get her story straight.
I seen another post last night which I am assuming got deleted as no longer visible regarding the pumpkin boxes and someone was quoting the would love to have seen CCTV there was also a few comments.
It does seem that Miss Ridsdale loves drama as no matter where she goes there is always something or someone out to get her. She is definitely the narcissist in all that happens.
Speaking of gun shot holes, didn’t Hayley’s mum have gun shot holes in her kitchen window – twice.
Is this related? 🤔
Also does jbb not realise that with grants and funding, you need to justify and show accountability where the funding goes via receipts and posts?
The images posted by Carrie also contained images from Hayley’s mothers kitchen window.
– S
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1600961367739415
Britney Spears is a vulnerable public figure with known mental-health difficulties, so using her image to deliver this kind of message is an unwise and insensitive choice. As a newly registered CIC you are now held to a higher standard, and when half of your daily output is directed at hostility it raises serious questions about what the other half is meant to represent beyond sales pitches and health-related outbursts. Comparing members of the public to patients on a “mental health wing” is stigmatising, and for a CIC with a legal duty to operate for community benefit this language is inappropriate and inconsistent with the standards expected of a regulated community-interest organisation.
– Sherlock
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Screenshot_20251114_144657_Brave1.png
S
New Video Alert – Concerns
Source: Facebook Video
This transcript contains multiple statements that raise serious concerns about unlawful behaviour, misleading claims, threats towards members of the public and improper use of a CIC platform. Key problematic quotes and their implications are outlined below.
1. Threats and intimidation of the public
Concern: These statements appear to threaten physical retaliation and use of safeguarding agencies as punitive tools against critics. A CIC must not intimidate members of the public or imply retaliatory action involving children.
2. Serious allegations about named individuals
Concern: The speaker publicly asserts criminal behaviour, charges and investigations relating to identifiable individuals. If these claims are inaccurate or unverified, they risk being defamatory and misleading to the public.
3. Misrepresentation of police conduct
Concern: These statements depict police officers as partisan, unprofessional and personally aligned with the CIC. If untrue, this misleads the public about police neutrality and may be an improper attempt to use authority to intimidate critics.
4. False or misleading statements about DBS checks and charity law
Concern: The speaker repeatedly refers to “running a charity”, “trustees”, “charity numbers” and DBS rules. Jayne’s Baby Bank is a CIC, not a charity. CICs do not have charity trustees, and DBS requirements are role-specific. These statements risk misleading donors, volunteers and the public.
5. Claims about other charities “losing their number”
Concern: Statements about other organisations’ legal status and alleged misconduct are highly sensitive. If inaccurate, they may defame those charities and mislead the public about regulatory actions.
6. Raffle / lottery compliance concerns
Concern: Paid online raffles must comply with the Gambling Act. A CIC must follow the rules for small society lotteries and provide the required disclosures. None are mentioned here.
7. Use of safeguarding agencies as a threat
Concern: Safeguarding processes must never be weaponised against critics or used as intimidation. This language is inappropriate for an organisation claiming to support families.
This video raises substantial governance, safeguarding and legal concerns, including threats, potential misinformation about police and DBS processes, and possible non-compliance with raffle regulations. Such statements warrant scrutiny from regulators, donors and the wider community.
– Sherlock
IMAGE: https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/FREE_CIC.png
Notice: If a CIC advertises an item as “free”, it cannot be conditional on a purchase or a donation. Under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs), a trader must not describe something as “free” if the customer is required to pay, donate, or provide something of value in order to receive it (see Regulation 5 and Regulation 6). Any conditional promotion must be clearly stated and cannot be marketed as “free”. See this example post: https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=820441610743926&id=100083342834915
– S
So Ms Ridsdale has had yet another visit from Caerphilly Council and she says they have passed her Caerphilly shop. If they have then they are not doing their job properly!
I recently went to her Pontypool shop basically to see of it was as bad as it looks on her livestreams and I must say it is much, much worse! Items are piled way above head height right through the shop, the walkway is barely wide enough to walk through due to items all over the floorspace. You cannot access any area of the shop due to the clutter. How she can say she has mother’s with babies in her shop I don’t know because there is no way a pram or pushchair would fit in there, and as for having mothers breast feeding in there, I can’t think of a more unhygienic place to do that! It is absolutely disgusting in there. Torfaen Council need to visit as soon as possible!
The place is crawling, the clothes are filthy and piled high, i work nights and on my way to work one night have seen rodents walking over the heaps of stuff in her other junk shop in pontypool, i did report it. But the council dont seem to care.
Shes clearly a horder, shes been witnessed rumaging in the bins, pulling donations out and makes a mess then films it saying to people stop doing this! When its actually her.
This woman is a vile sick person, bullies and exploits people. She really needs sectioning. Crazy bint.
I pray the public are taking note of the advice and evidence you provide of this despicable woman.
The tragic events yesterday, of a lost young life, has given her another platform to justify her interference in areas she knows nothing about.
She is blatantly breaking the law on an hourly basis.
Surely the relevant authorities are watching? I’m hoping they are gathering evidence to secure a conviction.
Again another lie regarding getting her C.I.C. number due to her DBS being clear
DBS check is not a mandatory requirement for the registration of a Community Interest Company (CIC) itself. The legal requirement for DBS checks depends specifically on the nature of the activities the CIC will be involved in, and the roles within the organisation
Key points:
Registration does not require a prior DBS check: When you apply to form a CIC with Companies House and the CIC Regulator, you do not need to provide proof of DBS checks.
Activity-based requirement: DBS checks are legally required if the company’s activities involve “regulated activity” with children or vulnerable adults (e.g., providing care, teaching, training, or supervising them frequently or unsupervised).
Employer’s responsibility: As an employer, the CIC is legally responsible for ensuring that any staff or volunteers in eligible roles have the appropriate level of DBS check (basic, standard, enhanced, or enhanced with barred lists) before they start work.
Regulating bodies: If the CIC is in a sector regulated by a body like Ofsted or the Care Quality Commission (CQC), that body may have specific requirements for DBS checks as part of their registration process, which occurs after the CIC is formed.
In summary, you can register your CIC without prior DBS checks, but you must ensure that the necessary checks are carried out for all relevant individuals before they engage in any regulated activities once the business is operational. You can find out more about your obligations by referring to the official
Public Safety Commentary: Today’s Facebook Post
In light of today’s confirmed murder investigation in Cefn Fforest, it is concerning to see Jayne’s Baby Bank publish a post defending its previously criticised knife-handling activities. Although the post does not reference the 17-year-old victim, the timing creates an appearance that the organisation is using heightened public anxiety to legitimise actions already documented as unsafe, unauthorised, and unlawful.
Key Issues Identified:
Relevant Context:
The June 2025 investigation already set out the full safety and legal concerns in detail:
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/2025/06/06/crossing-the-line-how-jbbs-knife-amnesty-ignored-uk-law-and-safeguarding-standards/
That report established that Jayne’s Baby Bank:
The Issue With Today’s Timing:
Gwent Police have confirmed they are not seeking anyone else in connection with today’s incident, and there is no indication that youth knife carrying or anonymous disposal points are relevant. However, by choosing this moment to defend her knife-handling activities, the post inevitably mixes unrelated matters and risks giving the impression that her previous conduct sits within legitimate public-safety practice when it does not.
Safeguarding Concerns:
Public Interest Observation:
Even without direct reference to today’s tragedy, posting a defence of an unauthorised knife-amnesty scheme during a live murder investigation shows poor judgement and risks adding confusion at a time when the public should rely on official information. It highlights the ongoing concerns surrounding governance, accuracy of public claims, and the organisation’s continued position within the community.
– Sherlock
https://caerphilly.observer/news/1054948/murder-investigation-launched-after-girl-17-dies/
My condolences go to the family, friends, and all those affected by such a senseless act. We hope justice is served.
– S
Automated Notice: New Video Transcript Alert
Issue Identified:
This is medically inaccurate. Paracetamol lowers temperature but does not stop any infection from multiplying. Presenting this as fact risks misleading viewers about basic health and symptom management.
Issue Identified:
This suggests police are issuing body-worn cameras directly to a CIC or second-hand shop. UK police do not distribute body cams to private operators. If inaccurate, this misrepresents law-enforcement involvement and may give a false impression of authority.
Issue Identified:
Claims of ongoing police action against named individuals or groups require caution. If overstated or unverified, they may wrongly imply official investigations or misconduct findings.
Issue Identified:
Emergency services do not allow callers to choose or exclude specific police stations. Making this claim publicly may encourage unsafe expectations of 999 response protocols.
Issue Identified:
Stating that another organisation is a “charity” contradicts official filings if they are not registered as such. This also highlights the repeated use of “charity” terminology by a CIC, which may blur the legal distinction for viewers.
Issue Identified:
The speaker confirms commercial sales of donated goods. A CIC may trade, but must not imply charitable status. Transparency is critical when selling donated items to the public.
Issue Identified:
This implies extensive recording of customers, including body-worn footage. Without explicit signage, retention policies, or lawful basis, this raises significant data-protection concerns.
Issue Identified:
This frames customers as threats and promotes an aggressive approach. For any organisation dealing with parents, children, and vulnerable individuals, this raises safeguarding and welfare concerns.
Issue Identified:
Operational inconsistency between “free,” “fill a bag for £1,” and resale for profit can confuse customers and donors. Consumer-protection rules require clear, consistent pricing and transparency.
Issue Identified:
Mystery bags sold at fixed prices fall under standard trading rules. The contradictory wording about delivery versus posting needs clarification to avoid misleading buyers.
Enforcement Remedy:
Depending on the issue, concerns may fall under:
– Sherlock
Miss Ridsdale never ceases to amaze me with all her miscommunication and misinformation. Police supplied body cams and training
Torfaen police (part of Gwent Police) do not issue body cameras to shop owners. The police issue body cameras to their own frontline officers and Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs)
No, Gwent Police (which covers the Torfaen area) does not provide training on using body cameras to shop owners or their staff. Police forces are responsible for training their own officers and staff on the use of force-issued equipment and adherence to police procedures and data protection laws.
Shop owners who choose to use body cameras are doing so under private initiatives and are responsible for procuring their own equipment and ensuring their use complies with relevant legal frameworks, particularly data protection legislation.
Next Jelly Cats and toolboxes- you have shown one image of a Jelly Cat that you probably bought to try and safe face Miss Ridsdale still need to see all 3 which are all different according to your posts and toolboxes still not make an appearance. No one will ever find something that doesn’t exist.
For a recently registered C.I.C. your attitude and hatred towards everyone is less than desirable and you certainly don’t have communities at the heart of what you do. Instead of bad mouthing other organisations maybe ask them how to run a C.I.C. as you have no clue
Why would anyone want to breast feed in you establishments you have no space or private areas and certainly not a calm and safe environment going by all ongoing issues you have in shops that you had to go and buy body cams even though you have cctv.
How come all your customers are rude, horrible and abusive in your words. Oh yes it’s because of you and the way you treat people. No matter where you go it’s the same you cause so much trouble and then blame everyone else as only Miss Ridsdale is right.
Enjoy your C.I.C. while you can
Automated notice: New Post Alert
Issue Identified:
The organisation publicly posted identifiable images of members of the public inside its premises without any lawful basis, alongside commentary portraying individuals as problematic, banned, or suspected of substance misuse.
The post also claims that “the police funded the cameras” and that footage is emailed directly to “our police officers”, which, if inaccurate, is misleading and creates a false impression of official endorsement or surveillance authority.
CCTV audio recording, publishing customer images, and implying police backing all raise significant legal and regulatory concerns for a Community Interest Company.
Legal Framework:
Enforcement Remedy:
Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO): May investigate unlawful CCTV usage, audio recording, publication of personal data, and improper disclosure. Powers include compulsory audits, enforcement notices, monetary penalties, and criminal referral under Section 170 DPA 2018.
CIC Regulator: Can intervene where conduct is incompatible with community benefit, governance expectations, or public trust. Remedies include compliance notices, warnings, and action against directors.
Trading Standards: May act where public-facing statements are misleading, particularly regarding police involvement or implied authority.
Local Police (Non-Emergency): Can address improper use of the police name, false claims of police funding, or any safeguarding concerns regarding children, teenagers, or vulnerable individuals portrayed online.
– Sherlock
Jayne’s Baby Bank Live Stream Raises Regulatory and Transparency Concerns
Date: 12 November 2025
In a recent Facebook Live stream, the operator of Jayne’s Baby Bank made a series of statements that raise fresh concerns about transparency, financial practice, and the true status of the organisation now incorporated as Jayne’s Baby Bank C.I.C. (Company No. 16838920).
Key Concerning Statements
Analysis
Summary
The live stream blurs the line between retail trading, charitable activity, and community aid. Phrases such as “take over the world,” “get some grants,” and “we can bring the prices down indefinitely” suggest an intent to portray expansion and financial legitimacy not yet evidenced in public filings.
Further scrutiny may be warranted to ensure compliance with CIC operational standards, consumer law, and truthful advertising obligations.
– S
Hope the petrol receipts and bus tickets that get handed in don’t then get passed off as expenses claim.
Just before live stream cut off you can hear her saying maybe can claim some tax back
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2651204781912830&id=100083342834915
She once said, outside the courts while live streaming her tantrum, that she was going to bill me for the petrol used in her electric car. Perhaps she can reclaim that on her tax return. She is amusing, albeit unintentionally.
S
As a matter of course. Her articles of association are just a template that many CICs use.
The difference is other CICs amend the template to suit their legal standing.
If Miss Risdale is stalking this site (bound to be – classic narcissistic behaviour). Have it known that local statutory authorities are aware of these inconsistencies.
Financial judiciary is what’s expected of company directors – if not followed, criminal proceedings are started.
Concern: Jayne’s Baby Bank is a Community Interest Company (CIC), not a registered charity, yet continues to describe itself publicly as one.
Source: Facebook post evidence
Quick email links
Email CIC Regulator
Email Companies House
Email Trading Standards (edit address)
Example email text
Tip: Replace the Trading Standards email with your local council address before sending. Keep all reports factual and include screenshots.
Backup 1: https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/581188861_818201114301309_6303251250344675890_n.jpg
Backup 2: https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/581301280_818206807634073_6630497213932982443_n.jpg
– S
I have literally come online to say I have sent a complaint to the CIC Regulator.
Ms Risdale, her contempt, and abuse of the public needs to be stopped.
What a disgraceful person she is. I can’t begin to imagine how scared vulnerable mothers may feel in her presence.
BEGIN QUOTE:::
Oh no.
Oh no guys.
He’s gonna ring Health and Safety.
He’s gonna ring Health and Safety.
He’s gonna ring the Fire Brigade.
Oh no.
Can you imagine the Fire Brigade?
Adda!
Fucking hell!
What?
Don’t fucking ring us unless she’s on fire!
We’re busy!
Great.
Now we’ve got to go down there this week and give her another fire extinguisher for free.
Brilliant.
That’s 15 she’s had, I know of.
What the police should do, right?
What the police should do is say, right, come on.
Right, come on then.
In there.
Volunteer now, right?
Volunteer in here now, right?
For two weeks.
Get in there.
Get in there for fortnight now.
Clean up all our fucking baby clothes, right?
And then you report us.
Okay?
Then you ring the police.
After you’ve done a shift of work here.
What is he blubbing on about this guy?
He’s an absolute nut job.
He just sent me another load of messages now and I can’t even decipher what he’s saying.
Like, can you imagine the fire brigade?
What the fuck?
Don’t ring us unless she’s on fire!
:::END QUOTE
https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?ref=watch_permalink&v=740805202364178
– S
Report Inappropriate Conduct by a Registered Community Interest Company (CIC)
Members of the public who witnessed concerning or inappropriate livestream activity by a registered Community Interest Company can report it directly to the CIC Regulator or Companies House. Use the following factual template:
Note: This template is for factual reporting only. Avoid personal commentary or speculation—submit evidence such as URLs, transcripts, or screenshots to assist investigators.
For further guidance, see the official CIC Regulator page.
Public Notice — Safeguarding and Conduct Concerns: Jayne’s Baby Bank C.I.C.
On 11 November 2025, the recently incorporated Jayne’s Baby Bank C.I.C. (Company No. 16838920) published a series of live-streams containing multiple statements and admissions that raise concerns about its legality, governance, and conduct as a newly registered Community Interest Company.
The director repeatedly used threatening and inflammatory language toward members of the public and rival organisations, warning that “it doesn’t end well for people that come up against us,” and “you’ll be sorry.” Such remarks, made under a registered CIC platform, may constitute verbal intimidation under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and are wholly inconsistent with the public-safety and community-benefit principles required of a CIC. She also described physical altercations — “staff were threatened with a brush” and “I was prodded in the chest” — which point to unresolved safeguarding incidents that should have been formally reported in line with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
Additional comments accused other food banks and charities of criminal conduct: “The food is their cash cow… half of them charge for it… a quarter of them keep it for themselves and their friends… only 15% of food banks give it out for free.” Such sweeping allegations against unnamed groups risk breaching the Defamation Act 2013 and could constitute harassment if perceived as directed at identifiable organisations or volunteers. The inclusion of comments such as “I really don’t know how some of these people don’t get sectioned themselves” and “I haven’t got time for all these dickheads creating and causing problems” show open hostility toward members of the public, contrary to expected community standards and potentially discriminatory under the Equality Act 2010.
Equally concerning are operational admissions that may amount to offences. The director openly stated, “We picked up Easter eggs that were out of date… it was brilliant,” indicating unlawful distribution of expired food in violation of the Food Safety and Hygiene (Wales) Regulations 2013. She described storing excess goods in “places the staff don’t even know about,” confirming poor inventory control and possible health-and-safety breaches. The declaration, “I didn’t want the number, but we needed it to employ people and get funding,” further implies that the CIC registration was used for financial or administrative advantage rather than public benefit, which may breach the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Regulations 2005 and, if misleading funders, could constitute false representation under the Fraud Act 2006.
In context, the worst elements of the broadcast combine threatening language, admissions of distributing out-of-date food, derogatory comments about the public, and acknowledgement that the CIC registration was obtained primarily for funding. Together, these statements suggest potential violations in harassment, food safety, trading conduct, and corporate honesty. The use of religious justification for retaliation — “God is watching down on us… the karma that comes back on these people is tenfold” — further undermines public trust and professionalism expected from a regulated community organisation.
Community Advisory: As this CIC has been active for less than a week since its registration on 7 November 2025, the community, donors, and partner groups are urged to approach with caution until regulators assess the matter. Anyone subject to threats, harassment, or misleading appeals for donations should retain evidence and file formal reports using the channels below.
Recommended Reporting Channels:
Filed for community safeguarding and documentation purposes — 11 November 2025.
– S
It is inaccurate to place the collapse of every retailer solely on landlords. Commercial rent is one factor, but it is not the root cause of the current retail crisis. The Office for National Statistics reports that over 13,000 retail outlets closed across the UK in 2024, with the main drivers being declining consumer spending, rising import costs, and online competition.
SilkFred’s own statement confirms this. They attributed their failure to the cost-of-living crisis and pressure from overseas fast-fashion competitors, not landlords. Even if rents were cut by 20%, the typical UK mid-sized retailer still faces operational overheads exceeding £1.2 million per year, with logistics, wages, and digital marketing consuming over 70% of that. Rent typically accounts for only 10 to 15% of total outgoings.
In 2025 alone, several large and mid-sized retail chains have entered administration or ceased trading entirely, including Wilko, The Body Shop (UK division), Ted Baker, The Works, Paperchase, Joules, Cath Kidston, M&Co, Mountain Warehouse, and Select Fashion. The common factors have been reduced consumer confidence, inflationary costs, and online competition, not rent.
In short, landlords did not collapse SilkFred or the wider retail sector. The shift in consumer behaviour and the cost pressures from inflation and imports are the real causes. Blaming property owners ignores the reality that most high streets are suffering because customers are spending less, not because rents increased.
Sources: ONS Business Demography 2024, Quantuma Administration Report (SilkFred), British Retail Consortium Retail Outlook 2025.
Note: Jayne’s Baby Bank frequently cites landlords as the main reason for the closure of shops, yet the data and examples above show that financial and consumer factors are far more significant contributors.
Original reference post
– S
Automated notice: New Transcript Alert
Issue Identified:
Multiple statements include direct accusations against other local charities or community groups, implying corruption and misuse of donated goods. The same transcript also contains references to commercial resale, staff benefits, and expansion of premises, all of which raise governance, transparency, and regulatory issues for a newly registered Community Interest Company (CIC). These claims, if false or misleading, may be defamatory and contrary to community-interest obligations.
Legal Framework:
Enforcement Remedy:
The CIC Regulator may investigate misuse of the company structure and apply sanctions, including enforcement notices or dissolution. Trading Standards may intervene for misleading sales or unsafe resale of goods. Environmental Health can inspect or seize perishable food under hygiene law. The Police can act if defamatory or false electronic communications cause harm or distress. Affected parties may also pursue civil defamation proceedings.
– Sherlock
Another issue would be even though she has registered as a CIC, it would be 18 months till anything would need to be filed. In that time, anything can happen.
We wait, and we wonder
Fiction:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=817438204377600&id=100083342834915
Fact 1:
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/2025/10/03/whistleblower-files-jaynes-baby-bank-olio-and-the-hidden-food-skim/
Fact 2:
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/2025/08/12/jaynes-baby-bank-hypocrisy-at-5-a-bag/
Be a better person.
– S
Definitely not current photographs, the sell by date on the bottom picture of baby milk is 01/25!
She is saying in her latest video that she will have to move her shops around to accommodate a foodbank, I thought she already claimed to be a foodbank, and if that is the case where did she store the 17 carrier bags of food, 14 packs of nappies and the ‘countless’ top up foodbank that she showed in the pictures yesterday? This CIC number has turned her into an even more power crazy person! She thinks this CIC number will answer all her prayers, but I’m happy to say I think this may well be her downfall.
The CIC will be her downfall. She can send as many emails and private messages as she likes to anyone she believes will give her free items, but she will not secure lottery funding like HCT, nor will she ever become a household name except perhaps when a journalist eventually publishes the exposé as an “exclusive”. The so-called food bank is just the “warehouse”. Do not mistake old photographs for current ones, it is all an illusion. What she says and shows bears little resemblance to reality.
Those still enabling her will face the consequences of their actions. “How could I be so stupid?” Quite simply, by failing to do your due diligence. Wait and see, Pontypool will prove a major obstacle in January. That month will determine much of what follows, whether she lashes out at landlords, refuses to renew leases, or relies on local councils’ protection. I hold extensive documentation I could release now, but I am holding back. January will be telling.
S
I note that here CIC Registration is under Jayne Price???????, not Carrie Anne Ridsdale.
Sure illegal
IMAGE (Driver’s Licence): https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/LICENSE001.jpg
Business listings, council rates, and other records are registered under the name Carrie Anne Ridsdale, as confirmed through FOI disclosures provided to me. Her personal email address and related documentation are also listed under Carrie Anne Ridsdale, as shown in the registration file. However, court bills issued by Torfaen are addressed to Carrie Anne Ridsdale, while she possesses a driver’s licence in a different name. If a legal name change by deed poll has occurred without notifying the relevant authorities, this may warrant further scrutiny.
Her father is listed as Alan J. Ridsdale, her son as Daniel Ridsdale, and her mother’s surname is Jenkins. A court record also identifies her as Ridsdale: https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/COURT_01.jpeg
– S
For someone who claims her and her son don’t take a wage, how on earth can they afford to stay in the Paradisus by Melia 5 star hotel in Feurtaventura over Christmas! Makes you wonder!! The average cost is over £2,000 per person. If she didn’t want people to know she shouldn’t have put pictures on Facebook, but as she says, the pictures are in the public domain.
Or she is trolling you for a reaction 🙂 I’ve not seen any comments about any locations she intends to stay at.
– S
I don’t think she knows people can do Google search on pictures😀.
Image 1: https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/SAC_013.png
Image 2: https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/SAC_009.png
Image 3: https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Carrie-Anne.png
Who is Ridsdale, and why is she live streaming on the “Jayne’s Baby Bank” profile? Why is Carrie listed as the registered trader?
– S
Do we know what the court record is linked to and when the first hearing was? Would love for us all to attend the hearing. Now that would be interesting.
It was from an older incident involving property damage. I am sure she will be more than happy to tell you all about it if you make enough noise.
– S
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/JBB_CIC_16838920.pdf
S
Can I ask. If she owes a considerable amount of money to past landlords and utility companies. How would it work as her son is a guarantor.
Good question, Watson.
– S
If funding is applied for – 9 out of 10 times having someone with SC on the board will act as a straight red card.
Funders (and councils) will also only pay into the account in the name of the CIC. The CIC would require two separate non related people on the bank account – as far as I can tell this is the case for JBB. But having to apply for a bank account in the name of the CIC with specific people could be an issue is there’s CCJs or any other kind of financial irregularities.
Having the misfortune of passing the Pontypool “shop”. I’d rather have vape shops or a barbers in town than this sorry mess.
Oh, plus the latest sorry effort of a social post with the pumpkins. Do hope the Tesco trolleys were returned.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=814609604660460&id=100083342834915
Careful — every bang’s another paragraph in your downfall.
S
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=815403021247785&id=100083342834915
You didn’t even make it 24 hours after registering your CIC before starting the nonsense. Best of luck.
S
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/CIC_Charit.png
A Community Interest Company (CIC) is not a charity organisation. While a CIC may operate for community benefit, it remains a limited company regulated by the Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies, not the Charity Commission. It does not hold charitable status, cannot describe itself as a registered charity, and does not qualify for the tax exemptions or governance rules that apply to charities. Claiming to be a charity while registered only as a CIC is therefore misleading and inaccurate.
S
For anyone concerned about this post: link. If you wish to report it regarding Jayne’s Baby Bank C.I.C. (No. 16838920):
S
I honestly thought Miss Ridsdale was going to turn over a new leaf now she is C.I.C.. but a leopard never changes its spots.
What have those businesses done to her to make such an accusation when they haven’t even got foot in the door.
She accused Bon Marche of being money launderers too when she done live stream to compare prices. Not sure how you can compare high street prices for new items against used items.
Now she has C.I.C. she is going to be under so much scrutiny and being transparent is not something she likes to do..looking forward to Nov 26 when we can see it all..well that is if she is still C.I.C. by then
There is no way Ms Risdale will be able to contain her hatred for people who don’t agree with what she says and does.
A narcissist will always claim to be the victim and she’s shown this many times over recent years.
The multitude of scams ongoing, her total disregard for the public and her blatant lies about her health will now come under close scrutiny.
She’s probably put the final nail in her own coffin.
Her latest scam is the Jellyvat/toolkit prize that no one has been able to find. Only Miss Ridsdale knows were they are hidden and pictures she has up are stock images The toolkit ones are just what has been put in a basket but not completed purchase. It is just another ploy to try and get people in her shops.. you also have to be a customer to enter doesn’t advise min spend. Might pop to PP tomorrow grab few free toys then I am a customer and have good rummage around. Nah these items don’t exist, but if Miss Ridsdale would like to prove me wrong then put photo up of exact jellycat and toolkit unopened on shop counter as in your images and then I may believe you
It’s worth noting that each Makita HP488DAEX1 drill set is currently priced at around £149.93. If three were hidden in the shop that totals roughly £449.79. At an average of £5 per pack this amount could instead facilitate the purchase of around 90 packs of nappies for local families.
Given the ongoing claims about selling donated items for £1 and the inconsistency of previous posts it seems very likely that this story is false. It appears to be more about creating attention than genuinely helping those in need.
– S
She’ll say the jelly cat and tools were hidden in a trolley, unfortunately Tesco came and took their property (trolleys) back while the prizes were still hidden. Hahaha 😆
How to Report Slander, Abuse, or Misconduct by a Community Interest Company (CIC)
Purpose: A public notice explaining, in plain English, how to report abusive or misleading conduct connected to a Community Interest Company operating in Wales/England.
Prepared by: Sherlock • Version: 1.0 • Date: 7 November 2025
Summary
If you experience online abuse, defamation, intimidation, misuse of personal data, or misleading trading/“charity” claims by a CIC or its officers:
What Conduct Should Be Reported
Save Evidence First
Where to Report
1) Police and Action Fraud
Use for: Threats, harassment, malicious communications, fraud.
2) Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)
Use for: Unlawful disclosure/processing of personal data, doxxing, publishing private info.
3) Trading Standards (via Citizens Advice)
Use for: Misleading “charity shop” claims, unfair trading, aggressive practices, prize draws/raffles concerns.
4) Advertising Standards Authority (ASA)
Use for: Misleading ads or social posts claiming charity status, accreditation, or partnerships that do not exist.
5) CIC Regulator
Use for: Behaviour inconsistent with community benefit, misuse of assets, or concerns about the CIC’s conduct.
6) Companies House (Accuracy/Integrity of the Register)
Use for: False officer names, inaccurate PSC details, bogus registered office, or suspicious filings.
7) Platforms (Facebook, TikTok, X, YouTube)
Use for: Abuse, harassment, impersonation, doxxing, or misleading claims.
Templates You Can Copy
A) Police / Action Fraud
B) ICO (Data Protection Complaint)
C) CIC Regulator
D) Companies House (Register Accuracy)
E) Trading Standards (via Citizens Advice)
F) ASA (Advertising Complaint)
Basic Incident Log
FAQs
Do I have to be named personally to complain? No. Provide what you have and explain the impact. Anonymous tips are accepted by some bodies, but identified reports carry more weight.
Can a CIC’s legal status block a complaint? No. CIC status does not immunise abuse, harassment, fraud, or data breaches.
Should I send a legal “letter of claim”? For defamation/harassment injunctions, consider solicitors and the Pre-Action Protocol for Media and Communications Claims before court.
Good Practice
Legal Note
This notice refers to UK law including the Defamation Act 2013, Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Malicious Communications Act 1988, Communications Act 2003 s.127, Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, Charities Act 2011, Companies Act 2006, CIC Regulations 2005, UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.
Let’s hope everyone she has abused, ridiculed and harassed will complete these templates and let Companies House see the horrible, vile, disturbed woman she is.