A First-Person Reflection on Escalation, Accusation Cycles, Vulnerability and the Psychology Behind Them
I didn’t begin examining this behaviour with any particular mission in mind. My awareness was first raised when I was informed by members of the local community about an incident in Aberbargoed that had quickly become hot gossip in the area. The story involved attempts to have vehicles removed by contacting scrap collectors and claiming the cars as personal property, even though they belonged to other people.
At first, it seemed like a simple neighbourhood dispute. But when I examined the wider behaviour, both myself and others in what we call Team Sherlock noticed that it wasn’t an isolated example. The patterns matched dozens of previous disputes across different settings. This was not coincidence. It was behavioural repetition.
Recurring behaviour across unrelated disputes indicates a repeated pattern, not isolated incidents.
As with all of Team Sherlock’s work, we have nothing to gain from this. No rivalry, no reward, no personal motive. Our aim is simple: educate the public about behaviours that damage community trust and create unnecessary hostility.
1. How Small Problems Become Big Problems
Most community conflicts begin quietly. A misunderstanding. A complaint. A disagreement. A clash of personalities. Normally manageable. But when the behaviour shifts from discussion to performance, minor issues are turned into public drama.
A simple disagreement may instead be reframed as obsession:
“They’re obsessed with us.”
2. When Victimhood Becomes a Shield
One recurring feature was the tendency to shift rapidly into emotional collapse during tension.
“They’ve made me ill again, I can’t cope with this.”
“I’m breaking down because of their abuse.”
3. Illness as a Defence Mechanism
Illness was often invoked at moments of accountability.
“My condition has flared up because of what they’re doing.”
“I’m too unwell to deal with them attacking me again.”
4. The Accusation Ladder
Stage 1: “They’re rude.” “They’re causing trouble.”
Stage 2: “They’re harassing us.” “They watch everything we do.”
Stage 3: “They’re dangerous.” “They’re unstable.”
Stage 4: Claims of fraud, cyber attacks, stalking and safeguarding concerns.
Stage 5 (nuclear escalation):
5. Projection and the Mirror Effect
Accusations often mirrored the speaker’s own behaviours.
“They stalk every single thing I post.”
“They’re bullies and they attack us daily.”
“They create drama because they have nothing else in their lives.”
6. The Echo Chamber Effect
Followers amplify and reinforce the narrative.
“Everyone is against us because we tell the truth.”
“They want to shut us down but they’ll never win.”
7. First Impressions and Confirmation Bias
- Contradictions are ignored.
- New events appear to confirm the narrative.
- Critics become enemies.
- Facts are downgraded in favour of emotional impact.
8. Why Drama Spreads: The Economics of Outrage
Online platforms amplify emotionally charged content.
Drama leads to engagement.
Engagement leads to reach.
Reach can lead to income or status.
9. How Conflicts End
1. Burnout – the audience becomes tired.
2. Fragmentation – supporters drift away.
3. Legal consequences – complaints or police contact.
10. The Impact on the Community
- Volunteers withdraw.
- Vulnerable families step back from support.
- Organisations lose credibility.
- Partnerships break down.
- Rumours spread rapidly.
- People become afraid to speak openly.
11. Why Certain Individuals Gain Influence in Deprived Communities
Poverty, stress and isolation make loud, confident figures appear authoritative.
“I’m the only one who fights for you.”
“Nobody else cares what happens to you but me.”
Adults with learning impairments may be drawn into tasks they do not fully understand, believing they are helping someone who appears important.
12. Case Studies: How Ordinary People Became Targets
Different people, different towns, different contexts — yet the same pattern. Below are examples demonstrating how ordinary individuals were recast as villains in manufactured conflicts.
Nicola Williams – From Neighbour to “Rat” and Alleged Fraudster
“We did see that little rat Nicola Williams wandering about the place the other night.”
“So that bloody rat Nicola Williams is following me about.”
“You’re not buying your drugs off our Nicola Williams here because she’s dodgy as well.”
“Nicola Williams cwtch up charity. We’ve got it shut down.”
“You stole them for your fake Ukraine appeal.”
Nicola is not criticised — she is dehumanised, criminalised and publicly humiliated.
Ian Smith – Sexualised Smears and Public Villain Construction
“Ian Smith, the pedo. He’s been shut down.”
“Remember the pedo stole it? Because we know it’s him.”
“Two of the most notorious people in Wales, we’ve shut down.”
This is not disagreement — it is narrative execution. The most socially destructive label is used repeatedly and without evidence.
Hayley Thomas (HCT) – Gendered Abuse, Threats and Obsession Framing
“Grow up you stalker.”
“That old hag, Hayley Thomas… bitchy comments.”
“Do not make complaints, Hayley… I will come after you.”
Hayley is mocked, sexualised, diminished and threatened — all for attempting to raise concerns professionally.
Tara – Collateral Targeting Through Association
“Nicola Williams… and Tara Holloway, whose bottom is falling out of her world.”
Tara is not accused of specific wrongdoing; she is grouped with others as part of a wider narrative of collapse.
What These Examples Show
- Ordinary people are rebranded as “rats”, “pedos”, “stalkers”.
- Accusations escalate far beyond reality.
- Targets are grouped to create the illusion of a conspiracy.
- Public character attacks become the default response to disagreement.
13. The Escalation to Character Assassination
The defining feature of this behavioural pattern is the speed at which criticism escalates into attempts at total character destruction. Once a person is redefined as dangerous or morally corrupt, they are no longer treated as human — only as a threat.
14. What I Learned, and Why I’m Sharing This
The Aberbargoed incident appeared small at first. However, when Team Sherlock recognised the recurring escalation patterns, emotional manipulation, projection, contradictory narratives and targeted hostility toward vulnerable or ordinary individuals, it became clear that remaining silent would not serve the community.
The aim is simple: help people recognise harmful dynamics early, before they escalate further and damage more lives.
15. How We Move Forward
Communities protect themselves by:
- Waiting for verified facts before reacting.
- Avoiding pile-ons and hostile comment chains.
- Supporting vulnerable people drawn into conflicts.
- Discouraging defamatory or abusive posting.
- Keeping personal disputes off public platforms.
Communities thrive through cooperation, clarity and balance — not drama, fear or division.
Team Sherlock produced this article to support and educate a community that deserves stability and truth.
Sherlock
POST: https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=857033153751438&id=100083342834915
The post dated today advertises “£13 per hour in stock allowance” for volunteers, linked to minimum hours, duties, and repeat shifts.
Once operating as a Community Interest Company (CIC), this raises serious legal and governance concerns.
Under UK law, volunteers may only receive reimbursement of genuine, receipted expenses. Fixed hourly allowances, store credit, or stock given in return for labour are not expenses; they are remuneration. When payment (cash or in kind) is tied to hours worked and tasks performed, the individual is likely to be classed as a worker, triggering National Minimum Wage, holiday pay, PAYE, and National Insurance obligations.
The assertion that this “will not affect tax or benefits” is misleading. HMRC and the DWP determine classification, not the organisation. Store credit or stock received in exchange for work can be treated as income or a benefit in kind. Advising volunteers that there will be no impact risks exposing them — particularly benefit claimants — to sanctions or overpayment recovery.
For a CIC, re-labelling pay as a “stock allowance” is not a workaround. CICs are required to operate transparently for community benefit and remain compliant with employment, tax, and reporting law. If individuals are working set hours for defined rewards, those arrangements should be treated and declared as paid work, not volunteering.
This is not a technicality. It goes to public trust, volunteer protection, and legal compliance.
— Sherlock
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search/?search=%22alcohol%22&limit=50&sort_order=newest&search_type=all
Despite claims of not drinking alcohol, the organisation’s own Facebook profile previously posted content showing the consumption of alcohol alongside a reference to mixing alcohol and morphine during the Christmas period. Given that this content was shared via the official Jayne’s Baby Bank page, it raises legitimate welfare, safeguarding, and governance concerns, particularly for an organisation that presents itself as supporting vulnerable people and children.
SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=341519271969498&id=100083342834915
– S
https://www.facebook.com/reel/743372865471444/
Items of this nature are commonly used to support individuals living with dementia. It would therefore be concerning if they were being relied upon as a form of procedural or documentary shield, particularly where there is awareness of the full circumstances. Furthermore, based on the apparent limitations in mobility observed in the video, it seems unlikely that the individual is physically present within the donation centre.
– S
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search/?search=mobility+&limit=50&sort_order=relevance&search_type=all&open_transcript=20241101_467492882426918.txt
“There’s nobody iller than me.
Because I have got conditions that are long-term palliative, yeah, because I’m never going to get cured from my aplastic anemia.
That affects me, that affects my joints, that affects my mobility, it affects my fatigue, it affects my functioning, affects my brain functioning because of the lack of oxygen.
There is nobody out there that’s iller than me.”
We agree, your brain certainly isn’t functioning.
– S
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=856936143761139&id=100083342834915
Example of nonsense in relation to what we posted. If only someone could train the toy parrot to manage a social media account instead. Thank you for the laugh, Carrie.
– S
Our investigative team (Sherlock) has reviewed the publicly available video and transcript referenced below. The content raises material public-interest and safeguarding concerns due to: (1) repeated serious allegations framed as certainty, (2) internal contradictions within the speaker’s own statements, (3) calls for third parties to “report”, “block”, or otherwise act collectively, and (4) an explicit claim of an “assassination attempt” and extreme violence.
This response is written for public clarity and to ensure an evidence-led, legally cautious record, particularly where HCT (Helping Caring Team) is repeatedly referenced while police involvement is implied.
SOURCE / TRANSCRIPT
SOURCE (Facebook Reel):
https://www.facebook.com/reel/865869429700132/
KEY QUOTES (VERBATIM) – “ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT” / VIOLENCE CLAIMS
QUOTE:
QUOTE:
QUOTE:
QUOTE:
QUOTE:
WHY THESE CLAIMS MATTER (PUBLIC INTEREST & LEGAL CONTEXT)
CONTRADICTIONS & INCONSISTENCIES WITHIN THE TRANSCRIPT
1) “No names” request versus continued identification
The transcript includes a request that names should not be mentioned, yet throughout the same recording identifiable individuals and organisations are repeatedly referenced, including HCT. This conflict raises questions about whether the “no names” statement is substantive or merely rhetorical.
QUOTE:
2) “I won’t be commenting further” versus continued commentary
The transcript contains an apparent declaration of withdrawal, followed by continued discussion, further allegations, and additional commentary. This inconsistency is relevant when assessing intent and escalation.
QUOTE:
3) Calls to “block and report” alongside escalation
The transcript repeatedly encourages viewers to “report”, “block”, or otherwise act against others, while simultaneously escalating the dispute through serious allegations. This raises questions about whether reporting mechanisms are being framed as tools for accountability or as instruments to suppress criticism.
QUOTE:
QUOTE:
HCT-SPECIFIC CLAIMS AND IMPLICATIONS
HCT (Helping Caring Team) is repeatedly referenced throughout the transcript in connection with alleged misconduct, alleged fraud, alleged intimidation, and alleged misuse of systems. These references are made without documentary evidence being presented within the video itself.
Where statements are made implying that HCT or its volunteers have committed criminal acts, or that police have reached definitive conclusions, this appears to exceed what can be responsibly asserted without publicly available documentation.
QUOTE:
QUOTE:
NOTE: As a matter of public accuracy, allegations of fraud or criminal liability ordinarily require reference to court findings, regulator determinations, or formal police outcomes. None are cited within this recording.
PATTERN OF ESCALATION (CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS)
This transcript aligns with a documented escalation pattern previously identified in similar disputes: initial criticism → personalisation → safety framing → escalation to criminal allegations → mobilisation of supporters through reporting and boycott language.
This observation does not determine truth or falsity of any allegation. It highlights a communications pattern that predictably intensifies conflict and increases the risk of reputational and real-world harm.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS ARISING (FAIR AND EVIDENCE-BASED)
– S
RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK (UK)
1) Companies Act 2006 – Duties of Directors
Directors of a CIC are bound by the same core duties as directors of any UK company, including duties under Sections 171–177 of the Companies Act 2006.
2) Community Interest Company Regulations 2005 (as amended)
CICs must demonstrably operate for community benefit and avoid activities that undermine public trust in the CIC framework.
3) Defamation Act 2013 (Risk Exposure)
While this commentary does not determine defamation, the video includes statements that appear to assert criminal conduct as fact.
4) Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (Contextual Concern)
The repeated targeting of identifiable individuals and organisations, combined with calls for others to “report”, “block”, or boycott, raises questions under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
A course of conduct need not involve direct contact to be relevant; public communications that encourage collective action or intimidation can be considered within scope depending on facts and frequency.
5) Malicious Communications Act 1988 / Communications Act 2003 (Section 127)
Language invoking violence, threats, or extreme claims (“assassination attempt”, “beaten to death”, “come to my door any day”) may engage scrutiny under:
These provisions relate to communications that are grossly offensive, menacing, or intended to cause distress. Determination rests with authorities, but the risk threshold is relevant.
WHY CIC STATUS MATTERS HERE
A CIC benefits from enhanced public trust due to its stated community purpose. With that comes a higher expectation of restraint, accuracy, and neutrality.
Publishing: unverified criminal allegations, violent rhetoric, and calls for third-party reporting or boycott risks undermining confidence not only in the organisation itself, but in the CIC model more broadly.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS FOR THE CIC REGULATOR & DIRECTORS
POSITION STATEMENT (SHERLOCK TEAM)
CIC status is not a shield against accountability. It increases the obligation to act responsibly, proportionately, and lawfully.
Where serious allegations are believed to exist, the appropriate route is documented reporting to regulators and authorities — not escalation via social media platforms under the banner of community interest.
– S
Her so-called ‘superiority’ continues. Why is a boring video about ‘unsafe’ racking useful to the public? Especially as they are NOT permitted into the donation centre. Surely her handful of loyal volunteers can be told this without the public having to listen to the mundane, boring, monotonous useless information.
Sadly my ears couldn’t listen past 30 seconds, I could very well have missed any important advice.
A Christian time of the year has once again shown her contempt for everything she sees or touches.
Mocking Jesus!!!!! How he hasn’t been damaged? The laughing emoji says it all. This despicable woman belongs in hell.
The pontypool shops are dirty disgusting Hovels, zero access for anyone, piled high with mountains of junk, they absolutely stink, its a fire waiting to happen. How she gets away with such dishevelled chaos is beyond me. Talk about an empire of dirt!
She was spotted rummaging again in the donation bins by Tesco, and clumping through the town with her Trolley, collecting junk. Her future is set, she must have aspirations to be a homeless trolley lady.
Support legitamate charities, churches, and Cics, do not donate a thing to this vile woman.
Well im utterly traumatised, had the misfortune of encountering her makeup tutorial, something I cannot unsee. Akin to colouring in between the Lines, just a lot uglier and way more pungent, as she perches upon her mountain of trash.
As the old adage goes you can roll S!@t in glitter…its still S!@t
.On a more serious note does she have a chromozone missing? Seriously something wrong there,which might expain a lot.
Hayley Thomas you are aware she has learning difficulties and Autism. I can’t believe you would make a statement like that against someone with learning difficulties.
Yet its OK for her to do the same to others via her lives is it?
Seem to remember not so long ago she was telling someone who was disabled that they had to learn how to walk again!!
Here’s a few of her other lovely quotes:-
”or are you totally thick”
”you bloody idiots”
”Haters: havn’t got functioning brain cell between them”
”because you can’t seem to manage to circumnavigate around any fucking way”
”Sherlock and his shit show of flying monkeys”
”He’s nothing but a cunt”
”Smug little bastard”
”smelly urchin”
”you know that I know that you’re a fucking paedophile’
These are just a small percentage of the vile things Carrie says about other people.
Please don’t pull the autism or learning difficulties card as this does not exclude her from being responsible for the way she speaks about and treats other people.
David Jones is Carrie Risdale, aka Jayne Price. She has more aliases and fake profiles than the black widow.
She sees someone has used a plain and simple ‘H’ and her stalking of certain individuals sets the steam coming out of her ears……. Now, now Ms Risdale, play nicely. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Well carrie its ok for you to dish it out! You have made many enemies.
Tick tock Gal!
David Jones aka Carrie Ridsdale aka Jayne Price or whoever you are this week, know that you make enemies everywhere you go, exploit and abuse people you blatantly harrass anyone who dares challenge you. Well time to suck it up buttercup. People have had enough of you. You are a deeply disturbed sick individual and you will reap all the evil you have sown.
Ms Risdale has an issue understanding what she reads. She’s failed miserably in her attempt to change the narrative. She certainly doesn’t understand her contempt for the public is alienating more people on a daily basis.
Shops opening late and closing early is proof her volunteers and support is in rapid decline.
She is certainly way off the mark regarding complaints to either the council or Welsh assembly regarding period products. The whole scenario is a complete fabrication on her part to put the blame firmly at HCT’s door.
Facts: message sent to Jamie Pritchard, Head of CCBC regarding headboard littering the street etc., mention of generalised funding, nothing specific. JP responded by email highlighting the fact that JBB are not registered with CBBC, no grants have ever been issued by CBBC and any further issues regarding JBB’s actions as a CIC need to go through Trading Standards or relevant bodies.
How this has then spiralled into HCT have complained to the Welsh assembly/ Council etc., is complete fabrication on her part. All to fulfill her narrative that HCT are to blame for everything and CAR is beyond contempt.
Also do people actually use cheques anymore, I haven’t written one for Donkey’s years. Again complete fabrication and totally nonsensical.
Her latest live also states loads of donations which she has to sort. Recent live states no donations until after Christmas. Which is it, she keeps changing the narrative to make herself look good.
I’ve been following HCT recently on Facebook and commend them for the fantastic community work they are doing. So many children and families will be helped out over the festive season. Wonderful to see a group of volunteers working so hard together, having fun with such a strong community spirit. Well done the Pink Ladies and Men!
Carrie, you seem to think that all of us on here are connected in some shape or form with HCT and the Blackwood area. You are so wrong.in so many ways.
I’ve only been following HCT online for a short while and the difference between HCT and your own organisation is miles apart. You couldn’t compare the two if you tried. One organisation has a strong focus on community and helping others and the other has loads of good ideas but somehow just doesn’t manage to find the resources or support to put those ideas into practice. Have a lovely holiday Carrie and may 2026 bring peace to us all!!
The apparently live feed on Sunday stating ‘loads of donations’ and having ‘our second shop’ and ‘big Risca’ on it appears to be an old post, once again misleading people.
Also the feed today where she is buying nappies in Abergavenny is an old video as she mentions the Brynmawr shop.
Even today’s rants prove she doesn’t understand plain English.
”There was no headboard litter in the street. It was a headboard with a sign pointing up to my shop that you stole”.
Carrie you can’t just plonk a headboard in the middle of a high street, whether it has a sign on it or not. It’s called littering. The Council deemed it to be littering and probably removed it accordingly. No one stole it, so please stop suggesting someone on this site did.
”I don’t bother reading it now do I? It’s like somebody on speed..It’s like somebody who’s on speed or amphetamine”.
You obviously do read the posts as I don’t think a day goes by when you don’t retaliate. As for someone on speed, pot calling kettle comes to mind. Have you actually listened to yourself lately! Completely incoherent most days.
I’m also the first to admit when I’m wrong. I do believe someone reported you re period products but not for the reasons you suggest.
I think it was the fact that you were dictating who could have them. As a CIC working for the best interests of the community anyone can walk into one of your shops and ask for free period product’s. They don’t have to buy something first or be a donator etc.
In my local foodbank, toiletries, cleaning products and sanitary products are given out to all clients when requested for free.
Ms Risdale is always way off the mark. She seems to have gone quiet the past few days. Hopefully something is happening to end the years of fraud committed by this dreadful person.
On another note, she’s previously implied to the ‘haters’ going on holiday, the need to inform the DWP!!!!! I hope she’s notified the relevant authorities of her pending holiday. Her name, plus aliases, dob, home address, shop addresses, etc are all in the public domain. It would be unfortunate if numerous people notified them of her leaving the country.
Also recently she said she was off skiing!
Thought she couldn’t walk up the hill to Tesco in Ponty.
The PIP people might also need to be made aware of this. Disability car, can’t walk far, yet going skiing hmm………
Clarification on Today’s Video Response
A short video lasting one minute and twenty-nine seconds was posted earlier today in response to the recent article on escalation, accusation cycles and projection within community disputes. The article described several behavioural patterns that appear repeatedly in public conflicts. The response video then reproduced these patterns almost exactly as set out in the text. The points below record this in a factual and neutral way.
1. Personalising a General Explanation of Behaviour
The article described broad behaviour patterns that can occur in many disputes. It did not name individuals. Within seconds, the video reframed the article as a personal attack. This reflects the same pattern described in the section on small issues becoming enlarged through emotional framing and personalisation.
This matches the shift from a general issue to a personalised narrative, which was explained in the article.
2. Victimhood Positioning
The article highlighted that people sometimes reframe criticism as persecution by presenting themselves as under attack or overwhelmed. The video mirrored this pattern immediately.
The article described how this type of framing creates the impression of unfair treatment or suppression, even where none exists.
3. Projection and Reversing the Narrative
The article discussed projection, where behaviour is attributed to others rather than acknowledged in oneself. The video then applied this by assigning motives and intentions that were not present in the article.
This reflects the projection mechanism described in the text, where imagined motives are treated as fact.
4. Rapid Escalation of Accusations
The article detailed how disputes often escalate quickly into more serious accusations. Within the short runtime of the video, the speaker escalated immediately to assumptions about breakdowns and instability.
This mirrors the escalation ladder described in the article, where criticism becomes magnified into serious allegations that shift focus away from behaviour and onto personal attack.
5. Reasserting Control of the Narrative
The article described how individuals sometimes reposition themselves at the centre of events, regardless of the topic. The video demonstrated this pattern by recasting a general behavioural explanation as something aimed solely at the speaker.
This took place throughout the entire one minute and twenty-nine seconds.
6. Why This Observation Matters
The article explained these behaviours in detail because they have been seen repeatedly across many different public disputes. The response video then repeated those same behaviours in sequence. This clarification records the alignment for accuracy. It does not speculate about intention and does not seek further engagement.
Nothing more needs to be added.
– S