We recently disclosed, via our public comments, the old Facebook account belonging to the real Jayne Price, Carrie Anne Ridsdale. The material featured included her real name, personal grievances, references to former partners, and posts concerning the feeding of dog food to a pregnant woman. Upon realising that her actual identity had been publicly exposed, Carrie proceeded to delete her Facebook account (while retaining alternative accounts under fabricated aliases) in an apparent attempt to obscure aspects of her past that contradict her current public claims.
With that in mind, let us remind ourselves of what was deleted.
Introducing: Carrie Anne.
Miss Ridsdale claims to have worked for 12 years in a resource base for children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder in Pontllanfraith (which would have been the Trinity Fields Satellite Class for Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders). However, following direct contact with the Education Workforce Council, no record exists of such an individual ever being registered as a teacher or assistant. This further highlights a significant twelve-year gap in the narrative presented.
What can be seen from the image above is Carrie working at B&Q as a sales assistant. She makes only vague reference to this period of her life in various transcripts, often accompanied by substantial embellishment, such as the following (SOURCE):
I worked as a profit protection officer (which is second to CEO – I told the company how to make profits and where they were losing them), for one of the largest companies in the world for 25 years plus I work in the social and health care systems. I know exactly what I am doing.
Evidently, she was not “second to the CEO” of B&Q. This is a claim not supported by any verifiable evidence.
College / University
One of the central pillars of the “Jayne Price” persona is the claim of extensive academic achievement. From holding a degree to possessing a PhD, the narrative suggests a highly qualified background. However, our investigation has produced no verifiable evidence to support these assertions.
When challenged, Carrie presented attendance certificates as proof of university-level qualifications. These were later found to relate to a single open day held at a Cardiff hotel, not to any accredited academic course. It is also notable that the image above clearly displays her real name, Carrie Anne Ridsdale, a name she has repeatedly claimed does not exist, despite it appearing on the electoral roll, rental agreements, and other records.
2015 vs 2016 vs 2019…
The image shared publicly in 2015 predates later claims of university attendance beginning in 2016 and continuing through 2019. However, Carrie’s own transcripts repeatedly conflate being accepted to university, attending open days, or completing short courses with being formally enrolled on, and completing, a regulated nursing degree.
For clarity, an offer or acceptance from a university does not constitute enrolment, attendance, or qualification. Formal study requires registration, student records, assessed coursework, and, for nursing, completion of an NMC-approved programme. No evidence of such enrolment has been produced.
As set out in a detailed evidence-based review, no verifiable record has been produced of enrolment on a recognised nursing programme, and several claimed qualifications, including a “BA (Hons) Nursing”, do not exist within the awarding institutions cited. These inconsistencies, alongside overlapping claims of severe illness during the same period, remain unresolved and undermine the credibility of assertions regarding formal university education. Nursing titles and training pathways in the UK are regulated by the Nursing & Midwifery Council, and misrepresentation of qualifications or protected titles raises clear public-interest concerns.
In summary, 2015 imagery, claims of severe illness from 2015 to 2021, and assertions of intensive university and clinical training between 2016 and 2019 cannot all be simultaneously true without corroborating evidence.
The Icing on the Cake!
Further confirmation that Carrie is, indeed, Carrie.
To keep this post concise while highlighting the nature of the individual acting in a position of authority over vulnerable mothers and children, it is worth revisiting posts made publicly by Carrie Anne, operating as Jayne Price, on Facebook (backup):
Puppy cakes made with dog food. My ex fed them to his pregnant misses! So you could say my puppy dog cakes are tested on humans! #carrieannekarma 😉
Mwhahahaha STILL the funniest thing ever – he fed you dog food that I cooked, when you were pregnant! He didn’t even feed it to his dog ! You complete dick! 😂😂 #youcantplayaplayer
BONUS:
To further illustrate concerns around judgement and safeguarding awareness, this earlier post shows alcohol being referenced alongside morphine on a page presented as supporting vulnerable mothers.
DISCLAIMER:
This content is published in the public interest for safeguarding and transparency. It relies solely on publicly available information and does not assert legal or medical conclusions. Where concerns are raised, they relate to public representations assessed against regulatory standards. Corrections supported by verifiable evidence will be reviewed.
– Sherlock
NOTICE: This article has been amended to refer to college or university rather than a single institution, reflecting the ambiguous and unverified nature of the individual’s educational background.
PUBLIC CONCERN (CIC) — SAFEGUARDING, PRIVACY, AND PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
https://www.facebook.com/100083342834915/videos/1518189946974291
This comment is posted in the public interest and is based on the speaker’s own words in a recent video transcript.
1) PUBLIC ALLEGATIONS ABOUT IDENTIFIABLE PEOPLE
The video includes the statement:
“We had a guy that we know is a sex offender and the police are dealing with him.”
Publicly stating or implying that someone is a sex offender, particularly where they may be identifiable to a local community, is a serious matter.
If incorrect, it may be defamatory. Even if correct, broadcasting such allegations can create safeguarding risks, vigilante behaviour, and legal exposure for a CIC.
2) THREATS / INTENT TO PUBLISH CCTV OR IMAGES ONLINE
The speaker states:
“The only reason I haven’t put the CCTV up is because the police have asked me not to.”
“If it happens again, I’m just going to put it up.”
“We’ll put his picture online.”
Publishing CCTV or images of individuals online as a “warning” raises UK GDPR and privacy concerns and risks inflaming harassment or retaliation.
Being “asked by police not to” is not a lawful basis to publish later.
A CIC should never threaten or encourage public shaming using surveillance footage.
3) “CCTV EVERYWHERE” / MONITORING CLAIMS
The video contains statements such as:
“We’ve got CCTV everywhere.”
“I can see you coming up and down the street… I can see you a mile off.”
This reads as broad surveillance and implies monitoring of people’s movements beyond what is necessary for shop security.
If CCTV coverage extends into public areas or private individuals’ spaces, or is presented as a tool to track people, that raises significant privacy and safeguarding concerns.
4) SAFEGUARDING VS DATA HANDLING (CHILDREN’S INFORMATION)
The speaker states:
“Can we not write… my daughter needs such-and-such… she’s size whatever.”
“We don’t need to discuss them on Facebook at all in front of people.”
“We are an open profile and there are weirdos out there.”
That safeguarding message is reasonable in isolation. However, it directly contradicts a pattern of prior behaviour in which children have been live-streamed, discussed, and name-referenced publicly on social media, and where minors have been drawn into online disputes, commentary, or ridicule.
This inconsistency matters. It is not credible to warn supporters about the dangers of discussing children on an “open profile” while simultaneously:
– broadcasting content involving children,
– referring to minors by name or implication,
– and engaging in hostile public narratives that involve or affect families with children.
In addition, the transcript indicates that sensitive information about children’s ages and needs may be handled via social-media messaging (“age 14, age 12”), rather than through a secure, documented safeguarding process.
If a CIC is processing or handling information relating to children, there should be:
– a clear safeguarding policy,
– defined data-minimisation and retention practices,
– a secure communication channel,
– and a publicly available privacy notice.
Handling children’s personal data ad hoc via Facebook while acknowledging the risks of an “open profile” raises legitimate safeguarding and UK GDPR compliance concerns.
5) NAMING AND DEROGATORY CLAIMS ABOUT A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL
The video names a private individual and asserts they “should never be trusted”, calling them a “leech” and a “stalker”.
Naming a private individual and attaching pejorative labels in a public broadcast creates a foreseeable risk of harassment and defamation, and is not consistent with responsible CIC communications.
6) INFLAMMATORY LANGUAGE / ENCOURAGING ESCALATION
Phrases such as:
“I’m going to drag him out by the scruff of his neck myself”
and repeated references to “weirdos”, “crazies”, and “bastards”
contribute to escalation and can encourage hostile engagement or vigilantism by followers.
WHY THIS MATTERS FOR A CIC
Community Interest Companies are expected to operate responsibly and transparently.
Public communications that:
– make serious allegations about individuals,
– threaten publication of CCTV or images,
– imply extensive surveillance of people,
– contradict safeguarding messages with prior conduct,
– and handle children’s information via open social media
raise legitimate concerns about governance, safeguarding practice, and data protection compliance.
We encourage any CIC to:
– avoid naming individuals and avoid unverified allegations,
– never publish CCTV or images as “warnings”,
– document and publish a proper safeguarding policy,
– document and publish a data protection and privacy policy,
– use secure communication channels for sensitive information,
– and rely on appropriate reporting routes (police, council, regulators) rather than public escalation.
– S
What remains when the sales “noise” is removed
This post accompanies the stripped-down PDF version of the Jayne’s Baby Bank CIC Facebook profile. All sales content, promotional sharing, and unrelated material has been removed.
Source PDF: JBB_FACEBOOK_NoNoise.pdf
What remains is not community support content. It is a sustained pattern of hostility, intimidation, fixation on named individuals, and repeated use of legal/police language as a public weapon.
Named individuals repeatedly targeted
The stripped-down feed shows repeated focus on specific private individuals who are publicly named or identifiable via screenshots and profile captures.
Examples shown include:
These individuals are framed within posts that imply wrongdoing, harassment, stalking, or criminal behaviour without due process or substantiated outcomes.
Hostility and “enemy” framing
Several posts explicitly frame critics and named individuals as enemies:
This framing is not isolated. It appears alongside posts showing screenshots of private profiles and insinuations of harassment.
Threats to publish CCTV and audio
The feed contains explicit threats to publicly release surveillance material:
This is not safeguarding communication. It is retaliation and intimidation language aimed at critics and perceived enemies.
Offering money for people’s addresses
One of the most serious posts seeks private location data:
Offering money for addresses is not a safeguarding practice. It is escalation towards doxxing and intimidation.
Use of legal and police language as a public weapon
The profile repeatedly claims enforcement outcomes against critics:
These claims are presented as victories over critics.
Historical rebuttal: Despite repeated references to CROs, police interviews, and legal action across the archive, no court orders, police outcomes, or verified enforcement actions have ever been published to substantiate these claims. The same individuals continue to be publicly named and targeted long after these statements.
Authority signalling framed as attack content
Several posts use official-sounding language as part of a grievance narrative:
This positions council activity and safeguarding terminology as leverage in a conflict narrative.
Historical rebuttal: There is no public evidence of any safeguarding findings, sanctions, or actions taken against any other charity as a result of these claims.
Surveillance framing and doxxing-adjacent behaviour
The feed repeatedly publishes CCTV-style stills and night-time footage, framed as evidence against unnamed or named individuals.
It also publishes screenshots of private Facebook profiles belonging to:
This is presented as proof of wrongdoing, without judicial process or independent verification.
Operational content is minimal once the noise is removed
Once stripped down, the genuinely operational updates are sparse:
These are normal operational notices. The issue is the ratio: grievance-driven posts dominate once sales and promo content is removed.
Influencer / “fame” narrative (context from transcripts)
Independent of the PDF, transcript searches show repeated framing of criticism as fame and monetised attention.
Source:
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search/?search=%22famous%22&limit=50&sort_order=relevance&search_type=all
Examples include:
This language shows a consistent incentive structure: critics are treated as fuel for attention, reach, and monetised engagement.
Key public-interest concerns highlighted by the PDF
Conclusion
Community Interest Company status is not a costume you wear while running a personal grievance and attention platform.
Once the sales noise is removed, the remaining content does not resemble neutral safeguarding or community benefit. It resembles a single individual cultivating attention, conflict, and notoriety through the sustained targeting of named individuals.
If you are a supporter, donor, volunteer, sponsor, or partner organisation: this is what the profile looks like when it is stripped down to its underlying behaviour.
Supporting document: JBB_FACEBOOK_NoNoise.pdf
– S
Wild foxes are not pets.
https://caerphillybirdandanimalrescue.co.uk/
This website can be expanded into a full public page if required. If matters become serious, it will be opened to the community for safeguarding purposes.
https://madebyredrose.co.uk/?name=RICHARD+COYLE
– S
For clarity and transparency:
The fox image used in your deleted post (“Look who snook in through the cat flap” / “Pontypool and Caerphilly fundraising shops open today”) was not taken at any Jayne’s Baby Bank property.
It was screen-captured from a private individual’s TikTok account. The original owner, David Lovett, has publicly confirmed the image is of a fox in his home and has challenged its misuse.
Evidence is preserved here:
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Stolen_001.jpg
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Stolen_002.jpg
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Stolen_003.png
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Stolen_004.png
The image was:
• taken without permission
• falsely presented as belonging to Jayne’s Baby Bank
• used to imply premises / a venue
• used for promotional and fundraising purposes
The post was deleted after this was raised.
Deletion does not change what was posted or how it was used.
This is documented misrepresentation and image misuse.
TIME: 22:33 GMT — ETA for refutation video: 3, 2 … ?
– S
TIME: 22:48 GMT
RESPONSE:
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/FOX_FOLLOWUp.png
You are now inventing a “selling animals” claim that nobody made, in an attempt to deflect from the fact you were caught using a stolen image and misrepresenting it as your own.
The original owner publicly challenged the misuse.
You deleted the post once exposed.
You are now posting a false counter-narrative instead of addressing the actual issue.
Good luck.
You exposed this to 70,000+ followers yourself.
– S
https://facebook.com/watch/?v=1413127993546645
It’s Saturday, not Friday.
– s
Public clarification (safeguarding / “POVA meeting” claims)
A public post has been made stating:
“So I’m here today, guys, in my professional capacity as a health care, qualified health care professional for a POVA meeting to give my opinion as a witness against another charity…”
And:
“Now that should speak volumes really…”
For clarity, safeguarding terminology should not be used as a social-media shield or as “proof” of legitimacy. Attendance at any meeting does not validate conduct, disprove concerns, or establish professional authority.
If someone is presenting themselves as a “qualified health care professional”, the public is entitled to ask what regulated role that refers to and which UK regulator (GMC / NMC / HCPC / etc.) they are registered with. “Professional capacity” is not something you declare into existence — it is something that can be verified.
Likewise, safeguarding processes are not intended for public narrative control. Broadcasting insinuations about “another charity” while relying on safeguarding language can mislead the public and may create unnecessary risk for all parties.
If there is a genuine safeguarding matter, the appropriate route is the relevant safeguarding teams and regulators — not Facebook posts framed as official endorsement.
– S
Just to add , at the beginning of any safeguarding meeting a confidentiality statement is read out by the chair
… carrie has breached this already by stating there and whats it regarding. Shes making herself look a fool.
I have stated previously, that Ms Risdale should know better in her (imaginary) role of ‘professional health care worker’.
Her attempts to show how knowledgeable she is, is an embarrassment. She’s hasn’t got a clue about protocol.
It seems like something is happening. I’ve glanced at her page earlier and noticed the post for payment to the animal rescue and baby bank not emphasise the CIC number.
Her ‘working from home’ is the biggest headliner, she doesn’t trust anyone, plus throughout all her illnesses she has never shut these shops.
I’m still waiting to see who found the hidden power tools and jelly cats. They were NEVER there.
She’d be better off keeping her mouth shut, she is instigating her own downfall, and she’s too stupid to see it.
So Ms Ridsdale, in her latest live, now claims to be the first person in the UK to host a baby shower ten years ago! For your information Ms Ridsdale, we had a baby shower for my granddaughter in 2007 so I don’t think you were the first person to introduce this to the UK!
Also I’ve noticed another of her traits during a livestream. Just before she starts banging on about ‘the haters’ she reaches out and starts stroking the necklaces she has hanging up everywhere. Has anyone else noticed this?
POVA is terminology no longer used. There is no such thing as POVA for local authorities anymore. But of course, Carrie-Anne would be aware of that if she had attended any meeting related to social services…
And claiming she’s attending as a “witness” no less. This is not typical behaviour of such a meeting. A DTR would suffice. The meeting she claims to have attended (not putting the proper name here for it to be later used) is a multi agency decision, which she would not have had any capacity in. They are not criminal proceedings and certainly not adversarial in nature.
Sherlock – could you possibly have a look into the “Peter Mal” Facebook page. The screenshots posted to that page have the exact same phone top banner as JBB…
Seems a bit sus to me that she’s claiming it isn’t her when it clearly is. Also, looking at Peter Mal’s followers, they are mostly bots and they all follow JBB also… such a coincidence…
It is “Jayne”. Here is a list of known and suspected accounts Facebook accounts.
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100083342834915
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100093714337967
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100089316177332
https://www.facebook.com/riscahighstreetecofriendyshopping/
https://www.facebook.com/back.up.796391/
https://www.facebook.com/jb.287740/
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100093521373153
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61583198760031
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61585925972456
– S
I think you can also add ‘Molly Jones’ to her list of fake profiles.
Check out her recent post re Moi Moi Sian and then see the recent image attached in ‘Images’.
This is a screen shot from Peter Mal’s ‘about’ section and the ‘reviews’ in which a Facebook group apparently run by Moi Moi Sian is discredited as a scam.
The personal details section of the Peter Mal account have been deleted this afternoon. I wonder why!!!
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/jaynes-baby-bank-images/
– S
Last weekend, a post was shared numerous times by friends of a person who had their tools stolen from a break-in.
Ms Risdale thought it clever to put a laughing emoji on some comments. When called out on it, she responded with her usual rants. She has changed some of the emojis to a ‘care’ one. They had already been screenshot by some contributors, before she changed them. Again the usual rabble of the ‘law’ according to this despicable woman. Why does she feel the need to even respond is beyond me. Inciting trouble, getting a reaction on something that has nothing to do with her.
Maybe she could have used the time to organise her volunteers, so the needed revenue could have helped those mothers and babies with the amount of help she claims to give them.
Overheads, utility bills, rents and leafleting to be paid for, yet shops are not open, or only one open for a few hours.
Her self diagnosed illnesses are being mentioned again….
Something is amiss, is she really ‘working’ from home? Has her CIC been suspended, pending an investigation with the amount of complaints and evidence they could be receiving from the amount of people she continues to bully.
Just watched het lastesy clip…. shes so outdated with her knowledge. She says shes at POVA meeting at ccbc. 2 issues here. Firstly POVA is an old term that isn’t used anymore and seconding all safeguarding strat meetings are over teams as most Council workers WFH. Silly carrie need refresher training
We just call it Safeguarding nowadays and add child, adolescent or adult as required.
I can’t believe she considers herself to be a healthcare professional. The audacity of the woman.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/2763548077332714
Public Safeguarding Clarification & Factual Rebuttal
This clarification is issued in the interests of public safeguarding, accuracy, and responsible discourse, following recent public statements regarding medical emergencies, legal duties, and the conduct of other organisations.
Several assertions made require correction.
1) Claims of medical authority and legal power
The speaker states (verbatim):
There is no automatic legal authority for an individual or organisation to override consent in this way, nor is there a universal statutory duty created simply because someone enters a building. Statements framed as “by law” without reference to legislation are misleading and risk confusing the public on safeguarding responsibilities.
Medical decision-making, compulsory treatment, and sectioning powers sit with appropriately authorised professionals, not charity representatives or volunteers.
2) Misrepresentation of legal duties
The speaker further claims (verbatim):
This is factually incorrect. UK law does not impose a general legal duty on passers-by. Duties arise only in specific, defined circumstances (such as where responsibility has been formally assumed), not by default.
3) Claims about other organisations being “unqualified”
The speaker states (verbatim):
There is no statutory concept of a “qualified” or “unqualified” baby bank. Such statements risk unfairly discrediting community organisations without evidence, and should not be presented as fact in a safeguarding context.
Safeguarding is strengthened through cooperation and proper reporting channels, not public accusations.
4) DBS and safeguarding law inaccuracies
The speaker claims (verbatim):
These statements are historically and legally inaccurate. DBS requirements vary by role and sector, and “rolling DBS” is not a statutory legal requirement.
5) Disclosure and speculation about individuals
The transcript includes speculation and commentary about individuals’ personal circumstances, including (verbatim):
Public speculation of this nature is inappropriate, unverifiable, and contrary to safeguarding best practice. Such matters should never be aired via livestreams or social media.
Safeguarding position
Where genuine welfare concerns arise, the correct course of action is:
Public misstatement of medical authority, legal obligations, or safeguarding law does not protect vulnerable people and risks causing harm through misinformation.
This clarification is issued solely in the interests of public understanding, safeguarding integrity, and factual accuracy.
– S
Public clarification and safeguarding statement (consolidated)
This post consolidates and clarifies statements made across multiple recent video transcripts. It is written for the purposes of public accuracy, safeguarding, and legal clarity. It relies on verbatim quotes and established legal principles. It does not allege guilt or innocence.
1. Claims of harassment and message volume
The following statements appear across the transcripts:
For clarity, UK harassment law does not operate on a fixed numerical threshold. Harassment is assessed based on a course of conduct, context, intent, and whether the behaviour would reasonably cause alarm or distress. Publicly fluctuating figures, combined with incorrect statements of law, risk creating an inaccurate public and legal record.
2. Public posts versus private communications
The transcripts contain contradictory assertions regarding evidential relevance:
While private messages are often central to harassment assessments, public posts may still be relevant where they form part of a wider pattern, escalate a dispute, or encourage third-party involvement. It is inaccurate to suggest that public statements are automatically irrelevant.
3. Address requests and safeguarding risks
Address-related conduct is repeatedly referenced:
Public or crowd-sourced requests for residential addresses raise serious safeguarding concerns, particularly where children or vulnerable adults are mentioned. Formal legal processes exist that do not require public disclosure of private addresses. Mixing address requests with accusatory or emotive commentary risks escalation and misinterpretation.
4. Statements attributed to police action
The transcripts present definitive claims about police involvement and outcomes:
Police assessments are contextual and ongoing. Publicly asserting conclusions or enforcement outcomes as settled fact risks misleading the public and weakening the reliability of the record.
5. Sexually explicit allegations and high-risk content
The transcripts include sexually explicit references about third parties:
Publicly repeating sexually explicit allegations about identifiable individuals or their partners is one of the highest-risk elements of the material. Such statements:
Where unsolicited sexual images are alleged, appropriate handling is via private reporting to the platform and, where relevant, the police — not public repetition.
Derogatory commentary accompanying such claims, for example:
undermines the seriousness of safeguarding concerns and blurs the line between reporting misconduct and public shaming.
6. Tone, escalation, and inconsistency
The following statements illustrate conflicting positions:
Inviting engagement while alleging harassment creates inconsistency and weakens any claim of genuine distress. For safeguarding and evidential clarity, restraint, consistency, and avoidance of provocation are expected.
7. Financial and operational explanations
Extended financial justifications appear throughout the transcripts, including:
While transparency is important, financial and governance matters are distinct from harassment allegations. Combining these issues in reactive video commentary risks conflating separate topics and complicating objective review.
Conclusion
For public and legal safeguarding, it is important to:
This consolidated clarification records what has been publicly stated and highlights where accuracy, proportionality, and safeguarding are most relevant.
— S
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/2024/06/02/the-brynmawr-store-and-the-mismanaged-funds/
Public clarification – funding statements and inconsistencies
The link above shows a public post dated 29 April stating:
The same post is accompanied by images stating:
Taken together, this publicly represents council funding totalling approximately £8,850.
This is notable when compared with later statements claiming:
Those two positions are plainly inconsistent. One narrative acknowledges receiving multiple council grants totalling close to £10,000, while the other minimises funding to approximately £1,000.
For clarity and public record accuracy, funding disclosures should be consistent, precise, and reflective of what has already been publicly stated. Council grants, once publicly acknowledged, cannot reasonably be reframed as minimal or nominal without explanation.
This clarification does not criticise the receipt of public funding. It highlights the importance of consistency where funding figures are used in public statements, particularly when responding to scrutiny or complaint.
— S
Transcripts: https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search/?search=%22anita%22&limit=50&sort_order=relevance&search_type=all
Public record review – inconsistencies, coordinated targeting, and linked account behaviour
Over a sustained period, repeated public posts and videos from Jayne’s Baby Bank have named Anita as the alleged source of harassment, criminal behaviour, and third-party actions. These claims warrant scrutiny when reviewed together.
In multiple posts and videos, the following assertions are made:
At the same time, responsibility for alleged criminal damage is attributed elsewhere:
This creates an immediate and material inconsistency.
If the allegation is that a third party carried out the act, then the repeated public requests for Anita’s home address raise an obvious question:
Why would an address be required if the individual alleged to have committed the act already knew the location?
That contradiction becomes more pronounced when viewed alongside the later statement:
This reframes the allegation again, shifting from son-in-law to Anita herself, without explanation, evidence, or retraction of earlier claims.
Further, family members are publicly named, accused, and encouraged to be targeted:
Publicly requesting personal addresses, naming relatives, and encouraging third-party action is not neutral reporting. It demonstrates a pattern of fixation on a specific individual and her family, rather than a proportionate or evidenced approach.
Direct safeguarding objection raised by a family member
In direct response to the public requests for an address, a private message was sent to Jayne’s Baby Bank by Anita’s daughter. The message explicitly objected to address-sharing on safeguarding grounds and stated:
This message is contemporaneous with the public posts requesting an address and demonstrates that:
No threats were made in that message, and no allegation involving children was raised. The reference was limited solely to protecting privacy and safety.
Linked posting behaviour and reinforcing accounts
During the same timeframe, posts from an account using the name “Peter Mal” repeat the same themes, targets, and language seen on the Jayne’s Baby Bank page. This includes:
In addition, reactions and engagement activity show that the page “J’armarnis B Outique (Baby Jayne)” reacts to and amplifies posts made by the Peter Mal account.
The J’armarnis B Outique page publicly displays the same CIC number and is directly linked to the Jayne’s Baby Bank online ecosystem. This provides a further observable connection between:
When considered together, shared targets, synchronised timing, mutual engagement, and shared organisational identifiers indicate coordinated or centrally reinforced account activity, rather than independent users acting coincidentally.
As part of ongoing background analysis, an additional account name, “Newydd Dda Olai”, has emerged within the same linkage context. No conclusion is drawn at this stage. The account is noted for monitoring due to its appearance alongside previously identified activity.
Taken together, the material shows:
All of which point to a targeted and coordinated narrative rather than a consistent, evidenced account.
This post does not assert guilt or innocence. It documents what has been publicly said and how those statements align or conflict when reviewed collectively.
– S
Today’s campaign of falsehoods and hostility will not alter the public record. Perhaps it is time for another livestreamed “profile review” to attempt to construct yet another grand conspiracy.
For clarity: while Carrie appears to be attempting to obtain private addresses through intimidation, the CIC incorporation document already publicly discloses her own home address. This information is lawfully available within the original Incorporation of a Community Interest Company, dated 07 November 2025 (page 2).
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/16838920/filing-history
– S
https://facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=868421839279236&id=100083342834915
Quick, factual clarification (UK):
Bottom line: UK law doesn’t support the idea that being trade marked / a CIC / insured makes criticism “criminal”. If there are genuine issues, the correct route is evidence and due process — not threats or requests for private details.
– S
For police officers reviewing the current harassment cases involving Carrie Anne Ridsdale against several individuals (it has been a busy week for the boys in blue), we hold full backups of all video content. Should any material be removed or deleted, we can be contacted at SherlockJBB@proton.me.
Some public videos are available at:
https://www.youtube.com/@SherlockJBB
Some archived material is available at:
https://archive.org/details/20250603-1294720275163169-sherlock/
We’ve not uploaded everything. We also have historical backups of old Facebook profiles and TikTok.
– S
For the record Ms Ridsdale is guilty of every post that constitutes harassment and malicious communication on Facebook.
What Constitutes Harassment on Facebook (UK)
Persistent Unwanted Contact: Repeatedly messaging, commenting, tagging, or sending friend requests to someone who has indicated they do not want to interact.
Threatening/Abusive Messages: Sending messages that are threatening, intimidating, or violent in nature.
Malicious Communications: Posting content that is grossly offensive, indecent, or obscene.
Spreading False Information/Rumours: Posting malicious, defamatory, or false information to damage someone’s reputation.
Cyberstalking: Monitoring a person’s activity, tracking their location, or using fake profiles to watch them.
Doxxing: Publishing private, personal details about someone without their consent.
Image-Based Abuse: Posting embarrassing, humiliating, or private, sexually explicit photos/videos without consent.
Virtual Mobbing/Dog-piling: Encouraging others to join in with bullying or harassing a specific individual.
Impersonation: Creating a fake profile (catfishing) to damage a person’s reputation or to trick them.
Legal Thresholds and Key Acts
Protection from Harassment Act 1997: Requires at least two incidents to constitute a “course of conduct”.
Malicious Communications Act 1988: Deals with single or multiple messages that are “indecent, grossly offensive, obscene, threatening or menacing”.
Online Safety Act 2023 (from 31 Jan 2024): Introduces new offenses including intentionally sending false information to cause non-trivial harm, threatening communications, “cyber-flashing” (sharing images of genitals), and encouragement of serious self-harm.
Distinction Between Public and Private
Private Individuals: Facebook has stricter rules for private individuals, removing content meant to degrade or shame.
Public Figures: Attacks on public figures (politicians, celebrities) are generally only removed if they are “severe” or if the person is directly tagged.
What to Do If You Are Being Harassed
Do Not Respond: Do not retaliate or engage with the harasser.
Document Everything: Take screenshots of all messages, comments, and posts, including dates and usernames, before they are deleted.
Use Platform Tools: Report the user and block them on Facebook.
Report to Police: If you feel in danger or are being persistently targeted, contact your local police on 101 or report via http://www.report-it.org.uk.
JBB: https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=867748366013250&id=100083342834915
Public clarification
Community baby showers are not novel, proprietary, or exclusive to any single organisation. They are a long-established form of community support delivered by councils, health departments, charities, hospitals, and community groups across the UK and internationally.
This is demonstrable through numerous publicly documented examples, including:
These examples demonstrate that community baby showers are routinely organised by individuals, charities, health departments, and community organisations, and commonly involve donations, giveaways, partnerships, volunteers, and public participation. These activities are neither unique nor exclusive to any one organisation.
A trade mark does not prevent other charities or groups from hosting similar community events. Trade marks protect specific registered names or logos within defined classes; they do not grant ownership over generic ideas, activities, or long-established community practices.
Likewise, CIC registration does not confer exclusivity, nor does it provide authority to discourage other charities or groups from lawfully delivering comparable community support.
Established and reputable organisations deliver these events collaboratively, without asserting ownership over shared community concepts or attempting to restrict others from doing the same.
This clarification is provided solely in the interest of public understanding, accuracy, and safeguarding the integrity of community and charitable work.
SOURCES:
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10241301135973683&id=1481116882
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10233073453164031&id=1399380127
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=25565053333162906&id=100002547718783
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1364701902365375&id=100064767338214
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1486037320197609&id=100063740643055
– Sherlock
https://youtube.com/@SherlockJBB/videos
Congratulations on your contract renewal. However, livestreaming and targeting children and individuals connected to them via Facebook is unwise—particularly now that you are a registered CIC. This carries heightened responsibilities and scrutiny.
It is especially important, when attempting to use money to discredit or invalidate the content on this website, that you do not make it obvious that Peter Mal and numerous other alternative accounts are controlled by the same person. Using multiple devices does not mitigate this.
It is also worth noting that the police have been informed regarding Carrie on three separate occasions this week alone.
https://www.nhs.uk/nhs-services/mental-health-services/where-to-get-urgent-help-for-mental-health/
– S
Public information notice – Tesco Stronger Starts
The Tesco Stronger Starts customer voting scheme is currently running in selected stores between mid January and mid March.
When shopping during this period, customers may receive a blue token at the checkout. Placing a blue token into the relevant in-store collection box supports the HCT charity.
The scheme is active at the following local Tesco locations:
This post is shared solely for public awareness, to inform local shoppers that the scheme is active and which option the blue token supports.
– S
Public Awareness Note (Names Removed)
This post highlights safeguarding, professionalism, and governance concerns arising from a publicly shared livestream transcript connected to the CIC “Jayne’s Baby Bank” (Company number 16838920). All private individuals’ names have been removed. Quotes are included solely to illustrate the nature of what was said.
Specific safeguarding concern: explicit sexual comments
One of the most serious issues in the transcript is the public discussion, repetition, and mockery of alleged sexual images during a livestream associated with a service linked to mothers and babies.
Direct excerpts (redacted):
These comments are explicit, repeated, and delivered in a mocking tone. Given the surrounding context — including references to mothers with babies present — this raises clear safeguarding and professionalism concerns.
Related conduct concerns observed in the same transcript
Why this matters (UK context)
Additional context: response from a family member
Following the publication of the above claims, the daughter of one of the individuals who was publicly accused and targeted responded publicly. Her reply directly challenges the narrative that “70+ threatening messages” exist.
Excerpt from her public response (verbatim, emphasis added):
This response is relevant because it:
Source material
The original transcript referenced above can be reviewed here:
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search/?search=anita&limit=50&sort_order=relevance&search_type=all
Public-safety reminder
Disclaimer: This post quotes and summarises a publicly available transcript and public responses to highlight safeguarding and conduct concerns. It does not assert guilt or make legal determinations. All private individuals have been anonymised.
– S
Transparency Disclosure
Following a review of today’s transcripts, site interactions, and log entries, we identified activity that stood out due to the same technical fingerprint appearing across multiple interactions.
For clarity, we are not attributing this to any individual. People will naturally post strong opinions given the nature of the topic. The purpose of this disclosure is simply to document the technical overlap for open review.
What we observed
Device information extracted from the log entries
Timestamp log (public record)
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/TRANSPARENCY_TIMESTAMP.txt
In the interest of open-source transparency and legitimacy, we are publishing this note alongside the raw timestamp record.
— S
Follow-up Transparency Note – Why This Matters
This follow-up is provided to explain why the above technical disclosure is relevant in light of today’s transcript claims.
In the transcript, it is claimed that a telephone call was made anonymously, while at the same time information was allegedly shared that referenced or identified “Sherlock”. These two positions are logically inconsistent.
Further to this, the commentator using the name “KT” explicitly states:
Once an individual voluntarily discloses their place of work and location, the interaction can no longer reasonably be described as anonymous. That disclosure alone removes anonymity.
Additionally, the suggestion that identifying or contextual information could have been obtained via an “anonymous call” is undermined by the fact that any call which conveys identifiable details inherently ceases to be anonymous. Passing information that singles out an individual or group contradicts the premise of anonymity.
This note does not allege identity and does not attribute intent. It simply highlights internal inconsistencies between what has been publicly claimed and what has been voluntarily disclosed.
These logical conflicts are documented here purely for the purposes of clarity, transparency, and accurate public record-keeping.
— S
I see her Peter Mal account is active again. She’s totally obsessed with Hayley and HCT. I find it hillarious that she’s posting about the state of HCT shops but in reality she’s describing the cess pit of shops she’s actually polluting the high street with… she posts the same stuff day in and day out for years.. there’s no break in pattern . She’s so predictable!
I do believe in this very obsessed behaviour that Carrie Ann is very very jealous of Hayley Thomas. Why i wonder 🤔
Whilst she has recently claimed that Hayley reported her to social services when Daniel was just a child, and that this forms the basis of her hatred, it is likely far more simple: shutting down rivals and anyone associated with them.
During the pandemic, and throughout her trial run as a self-imposed authority figure, Carrie aligned herself with individuals who later chose to distance themselves from JBB. Envy, jealousy, or simple name-calling gradually escalated into the situation we see now.
Judging this as a neutral party, it appears to be a matter of burning loose ends she believes have wronged her. After all, she was caught using false names to claim food items for personal use, as well as claiming to be a charity or “charity pending”, without even accounting for the claims made about her educational credentials.
A clear trend emerges: if anyone is associated with a former associate, they become the subject of abuse. Nicola is a clear example. We released footage from the Ukraine border, yet Jayne’s Baby Bank dismissed it as a scam, despite the existence of videos, messages, and other supporting material.
To me, it seems obvious that Carrie is willing to go down in flames if it means taking others with her. She operated for a long period despite police involvement, council scrutiny, and other forms of oversight, yet continued regardless. She played a calculated game. If she were arrested tomorrow, she could still reflect on how far the scheme went. In another life, she could have been a very successful person. She may still have time, depending on how the law ultimately plays out.
– S
Saw those three posts, disgusting comments from the Director of a CIC. Hopefully HCT have reported this to the relevant authorities!
Carrie is also joining local community facebook groups using the Peter Mal profile and other pseudonyms. Keep letting the admin of these groups know as there is no other reason to do this other than for malicious intent.
It’s so obvious who’s behind these fake accounts.
I’ve also noted her ’boutique’ account liking her own posts.
I’m waiting for the ‘bots’ to reappear. Her funds must be very low with last week’s shop closures.
It was also interesting to see her actually admit there’s 3 full time staff, the rest are part-time/casual…… It doesn’t need a rocket scientist to work out who they are.
I’ve said previously that something is happening, her fraud, lies and deceitful ways are hopefully coming to an end.
The other thing that annoys me is that she plays victim. Says she has autism and learning difficulties and she’s single mother! She isn’t a single mother… Dan is a fully grown adult!!
SOURCE: Facebook live stream transcript (Jayne’s Baby Bank). The speaker is communicating publicly while representing an organisation trading under CIC governance and interacting with followers, volunteers, and service users.
https://www.facebook.com/100083342834915/videos/891354846825709/
VERBATIM QUOTES (unaltered):
WHY THIS IS A SAFEGUARDING RISK (CIC CONTEXT):
is not neutral “personal life” talk. It is a direct suggestion to mothers who may be under stress, in crisis, or dealing with mental health and substance vulnerabilities. That creates foreseeable harm pathways (encouraging alcohol as coping; normalising intoxication; encouraging risky self-medication narratives).
If the organisation is delivering items into healthcare settings or interacting with vulnerable families, this tone signals poor risk awareness and weak safeguarding culture.
DUTY OF CARE WHILE LIVE (THIS IS NOT “PRIVATE SPEECH”):
POTENTIAL LEGAL / REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES (UK):
WHY THIS IS A DANGER (PRACTICAL RISK PATHWAYS):
PUBLIC QUESTIONS (EVIDENCE-LED, NON-DEFAMATORY):
what safeguarding policy exists for communications aimed at vulnerable service users?
Transcript: https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search/?search=%22morphine%22&limit=50&sort_order=relevance&search_type=all&open_transcript=20260112_891354846825709.txt
– S
For those who wish to contact the appropriate parties, the email template is provided below, along with the correct and relevant recipients. This organisation operates within Caerphilly County Borough, so reports should be directed accordingly, alongside the CIC regulator using their prescribed process.
RECOMMENDED RECIPIENTS (FOCUSED – CAERPHILLY & CIC ONLY):
CIC Concerns mailbox (official route):
cicconcerns@companieshouse.gov.uk
Companies House have confirmed that CIC complaints should be submitted to this address using the official pro-forma.
CIC Complaints Pro-Forma (PDF):
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6544d4c5d36c91000d935d37/cic-complaints-pro-forma.pdf
Contact and Referral Team:
contactandreferral@caerphilly.gov.uk
(Correct route for safeguarding risk referrals in Caerphilly)
EMAIL TEMPLATE (copy/paste in full):
Subject: Safeguarding and governance concern – Jayne’s Baby Bank (public live video content)
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to raise a formal safeguarding and governance concern regarding Jayne’s Baby Bank, which presents itself as operating under Community Interest Company (CIC) governance and supporting vulnerable mothers and families.
This concern relates to a public Facebook live video broadcast on the organisation’s page, in which the speaker repeatedly references intoxication, combines alcohol with prescription morphine, and explicitly encourages alcohol use as a coping mechanism to “mothers… struggling”.
SOURCE VIDEO (Facebook):
https://www.facebook.com/100083342834915/videos/891354846825709/
BACKUP TRANSCRIPT (verbatim):
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search/?search=%22morphine%22&limit=50&sort_order=relevance&search_type=all&open_transcript=20260112_891354846825709.txt
BACKUP VIDEO COPY (in case of deletion):
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search/FB_Videos/URGENT_Alcohol_Morphine.mp4
Verbatim excerpts (quoted exactly):
Reason for concern
These statements were made during a live broadcast representing the organisation, not as private speech. In that context, they raise serious concerns regarding safeguarding culture, leadership judgement, encouragement of alcohol use as coping for vulnerable mothers, and reputational and governance risk for a CIC operating in the public interest.
This report is submitted in good faith, with full source material provided so the content can be reviewed in its original context.
Kind regards,
[Your name]
– Sherlock
You should not drive while under the influence of morphine.
– S
https://www.facebook.com/100083342834915/videos/1046115524358646
Public safeguarding concern (based on the speaker’s own words)
This video contains multiple statements that raise serious safeguarding, harassment, and data-protection concerns. In particular, it appears to encourage third parties to assist in identifying a private individual’s home address, and it normalises the idea of publicly shaming people using CCTV footage.
Verbatim quotes:
Why this is concerning:
Public interest questions that need answering:
Safeguarding note: Encouraging people to provide private addresses, and threatening “legal notices” while crowd-sourcing someone’s location, is not normal or appropriate conduct for any organisation presenting itself as community-facing. If this content remains live, it risks causing real-world harm.
This comment is made for safeguarding and public-interest purposes, based solely on the speaker’s own published statements quoted above.
– S
Well I’m absolutely gobsmacked after watching Ms Ridsdales latest video. Apparently I stole her headboard in Caerphilly and I was seen on her friends cctv doing this. That’s amazing because I have never been to Caerphilly! And also I am not disabled in any way and I do not claim PIP! I have also never been in any of her shops so I think she owes me an apology. I have been in contact with the CIC complaints previously and they will be getting a copy of this video tomorrow. I would comment on her page but surprise surprise comments are blocked!
Sorry Lindalou that you’ve received such backlash from CAR.
It was me that reported the headboard but I certainly didn’t steal it. The Council probably took it away as it was blocking the pavement and dangerous with the legs of the headboard protruding out.
Not sure why a legal notice would be relevant anyway as its not illegal to report an obstruction on a pavement.
You don’t have to apologise. She doesn’t scare me. I just love the way her narrative changes with every rant she puts on her Facebook page. She is so deluded and in my opinion mentally unhinged. She seems to think she is some super hero but in reality she is a pathetic liar who wouldn’t know the truth if it slapped her in the face! I really really hope that the relevant authorities will finally step in and stop this dreadful woman from continuing with her farcical antics.
Her constant attempts to belittle others just makes these rants more embarrassing, proving how deluded and unhinged she actually is.
Considering she has CCTV with audio inside and outside, why is she asking for help.
There are far more people aware of her scam than we realise.
Okay this is actually quite funny. Who is Lindalou and what has she got to do with the headboard?
Carrie dear you are loosing the plot. Do you think anyone on here actually uses their real names.
Why would someone who has written to the council about you blocking the pavement with a headboard get a ‘legal notice’ from you. Please explain, I’m desperate to know. Your recent video, which by the way I haven’t watched (only read a transcript) is so fabricated with lies, and more exaggerated each time you bring this particular incident to the fore its quite laughable.
How are people going to give you an address for Lindalou if it wasn’t even Lindalou who reported you? I’m trying not to pee my pants right now but this is so, so funny.
You need to be careful Carrie, very careful as the real me knows your legal name and address to contact the relative authorities about. You on the other hand haven’t a clue who I really am 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I work in new look. I can’t wait for her to put her rubbish outside our shop. I’ll be taking it straight out back into the bin. She thinks she can do what she wants well she can’t. She’s a nusense all the shops moan about her, we’ve never seen anyone go in her shop either let alone buy her junk. She makes the street look a state with all the stuff outside her shop she’s not doing that to mine
https://facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=864164513038302&id=100083342834915
We have never made any telephone calls to anyone in relation to Jayne’s Baby Bank. All communication is conducted exclusively via our website and the email address published on our contact page. Any suggestion that a telephone number was shared by someone working for the shop would raise serious concerns, as this would constitute a potential GDPR breach.
– S
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=862791776508909&id=100083342834915
We do not recognise the location or address shown, and it has no connection to us.
The door-camera image displayed is dated yesterday. Local authority complaints departments, including CCBC, do not operate at weekends. In addition, formal complaints follow a defined process, with an approximate 20 working-day period from submission to outcome (where upheld). On that basis, the narrative presented does not align with standard council procedure or timescales.
More concerning is the public sharing of imagery and implied location data relating to a private individual, coupled with claims that this information originates from a council complaint. Local authorities do not disclose personal or identifying information relating to complainants or third parties due to strict data protection obligations under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. Any suggestion that such material was released by a council is therefore misleading.
If this organisation is operating as a Community Interest Company (CIC), there are potential legal ramifications. Publishing or soliciting identification of a private individual may amount to unlawful disclosure of personal data, misuse of private information, or harassment. A CIC is expected to operate transparently, lawfully, and in the public interest; facilitating or encouraging doxxing behaviour is incompatible with those obligations and may expose the organisation and its officers to regulatory scrutiny, civil liability, and potential referral to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
In light of the above, the post appears to target an unrelated private individual rather than reflect any legitimate or evidenced council process. Based on previous, documented patterns, this may instead stem from a personal grievance, an adverse comment, or perceived association with another charity, rather than any lawful complaint outcome.
– S
We can now confirm that the material shared by Carrie (Jayne) of Jayne’s Baby Bank relates to a former charity and an individual who has previously been subjected to hostility and abuse by Carrie.
Contrary to the implication made, the image in question was voluntarily published by the individual on their own Facebook page as a routine personal post referencing local weather conditions. It was not obtained via a council complaint, not supplied by any local authority, and not connected to any disclosure submitted by “Sherlock”.
It is important to state clearly that local authorities do not release personal images, locations, or identifying information relating to complainants or third parties due to strict data protection obligations. Any suggestion that such material originated from a council process is therefore misleading.
We are concerned that this content has been retrospectively reframed to imply wrongdoing, doxxing, or official involvement where none exists. This has the effect of publicly targeting a private individual and risks encouraging identification or harassment.
Once again, this follows a documented pattern whereby events are reinterpreted in a manner that undermines or discredits individuals who have made positive and legitimate contributions within the charitable sector, including those who have previously raised concerns in good faith.
For the avoidance of doubt, we will not identify or disclose the individual involved. However, we can confirm that the narrative presented is inaccurate and that the claims made in relation to councils, complaints, and disclosure do not align with established process or fact.
– S
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=868523939269026&id=100083342834915
For clarity and accuracy, the image being referenced did not originate from any council, complaint process, or official disclosure.
It was publicly claimed today:
This statement is inaccurate.
The image was publicly posted by Nicola Williams on her own Facebook account as a routine personal update relating to local weather conditions. It was not obtained via a council complaint, not supplied by any local authority or police force, and not connected in any way to “Sherlock”.
Any suggestion that a council or police authority disclosed, confirmed, or leaked images, location data, or identifying information is false. Such disclosure would be unlawful under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, and no evidence has been produced to support that claim.
More seriously, the repeated publication of a private individual’s imagery, coupled with assertions of official confirmation and requests or implications that others identify an address, may amount to a course of conduct capable of causing alarm or distress.
Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, harassment can include repeated acts which a reasonable person would consider oppressive or intrusive. Behaviour that involves monitoring, targeting, or encouraging identification of an individual’s location may also engage the legal definition of stalking under section 2A of the Act.
These risks are heightened where allegations are framed as involving police or council confirmation, as this may lend false authority to the claims and exacerbate the impact on the individual concerned.
Where an organisation operating as a Community Interest Company is involved, there are additional governance and regulatory considerations. CICs are required to act lawfully and in the public interest. Conduct that facilitates or encourages targeting, intimidation, or misuse of personal data is incompatible with those obligations and may expose the organisation and its officers to regulatory or legal scrutiny.
For the avoidance of doubt: the image was self-published by the individual; no authority confirmed any address; no lawful disclosure occurred; and the narrative presented does not reflect established legal process or fact.
– S
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=862233473231406&id=100083342834915
This argument is based on a misunderstanding of basic retail and charity shop economics.
Items donated to charity have a cost basis of £0. Selling a donated item for £1 is not a “£9 loss” simply because someone assigns it a £10 retail value. If an item does not sell, its realised value is £0, not £10.
Using the example given:
14 rails × 40 items = 560 items.
At £1 each, that is £560 in actual revenue, not a £5k “loss”. Unsold stock sitting on rails for months generates no income at all, while still requiring sorting, storing, re-handling and space.
High turnover at lower prices often reduces long-term workload, improves cashflow, and prevents stock stagnation. Claiming that selling more items is inherently worse because it creates work ignores the reality that unsold stock creates repeated work with no return.
Finally, invoking volunteer wellbeing does not correct flawed maths. Many charity shops price affordably precisely to reduce repeated handling and maximise sell-through.
The issue here is not effort — it is a misunderstanding of value versus revenue.
– S
PUBLIC RECORD CLARIFICATION (UK IPO)
According to the UK Intellectual Property Office, the following is the current and correct position:
This is a pending application only. It does not confer registered trade mark rights, exclusivity, or enforcement powers at this stage.
VERBATIM PUBLIC STATEMENTS (SOURCE: FACEBOOK POST & VIDEO)
The following are direct, unaltered quotes published publicly:
PUBLIC INTEREST & SAFEGUARDING OBSERVATIONS
The above statements raise legitimate and reasonable questions for public clarification:
LEGAL & GOVERNANCE NOTE
This comment does not allege wrongdoing. It simply records:
All quotations originate from the organisation’s own published materials. No inference beyond those statements is made.
Keyword “Decoy”: https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search/?search=%22decoy%22&limit=50&sort_order=newest&search_type=all
— Sherlock
ADDENDUM: RELEVANT LEGAL AND REGULATORY CONTEXT
This addendum follows the previously posted public-record clarification and addresses the legal framework engaged by the operator’s own statements describing the Baby Bank as a deliberate “decoy”.
VERBATIM ADMISSIONS (FOR CONTEXT)
WHY THESE STATEMENTS ENGAGE STATUTORY OVERSIGHT
A Community Interest Company (CIC) is not a casual or informal structure. It is governed by specific legislation intended to protect the public, donors, and beneficiaries.
Key frameworks engaged include:
Directors must act in good faith, for proper purposes, and not misrepresent the nature of an undertaking.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/contents
CICs must operate for community benefit and are subject to oversight by the CIC Regulator. Use of a CIC vehicle for tactical or deceptive purposes is inconsistent with this framework.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1788/contents
The Regulator exists specifically to intervene where CICs are not acting transparently or in the community interest.
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-of-the-regulator-of-community-interest-companies
These regulations prohibit misleading actions or omissions likely to cause the average person to make a transactional decision they would not otherwise have made (including donations).
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/contents
PUBLIC SAFETY AND DONOR PROTECTION
If an organisation:
then it is reasonable for members of the public to question whether donations, volunteer time, and trust were obtained on a fully informed basis.
This is particularly sensitive where:
SCOPE AND INTENT OF THIS ADDENDUM
This add-on comment:
All references above point to official legislation or .gov regulatory bodies. The purpose is transparency, safeguarding, and public understanding — nothing more.
— Sherlock
SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=862273129894107&id=100083342834915
The post linked above actively promotes fundraising and a monetised purchasing link. This is difficult to reconcile with prior statements that parts of the operation were a “decoy”. If fundraising, monetisation, and revenue-generation are publicly encouraged, it raises a reasonable question as to what was a decoy, and what was not.
There is also a clear inconsistency between repeated claims that “nobody takes a wage” and numerous statements acknowledging income, monetisation, or wages in practice. For example, verbatim:
Alongside repeated public assertions such as, verbatim:
In addition, posts state, verbatim:
These positions cannot all be true at the same time. If income is generated through fundraising links, Facebook monetisation, influencer payments, or payments in kind, it is misleading to present the operation as involving no wages or paid income at all.
This comment is not a criticism of volunteers or the assistance they may provide. It is a straightforward issue of transparency and consistency in public statements about fundraising, monetisation, and wages.
– S
I don’t understand why anyone would want to volunteer for this woman. She’s asking for people to take on apprenticeships with her yet this is a recent post of her:-
” apprenticeships – get your cv in please guys. We asked over 2 weeks ago. Not a good start to us taking you on if you can’t follow a simple instruction”.
Wow, just wow!!!
The degree is an easy one – BA is a Bachelor of Arts. If she was a nurse, especially one attending surgery, it would be a BSc… because science…
Article: https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/2025/06/20/fact-checking-carrie-anne-ridsdales-alleged-ba-hons-nursing-degree/
– S
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=861176473337106&id=100083342834915
For the avoidance of doubt, several statements made above require clarification.
First, UK trademark law does not protect ideas, concepts, or general charitable activities. Trademark protection applies only to specific registered marks in defined classes and is enforced primarily through civil proceedings, not criminal charges. Simply operating similar services, supporting families, or engaging with public bodies does not constitute trademark infringement.
Secondly, there is no statutory or legal register for “baby banks” or “foodbanks” in the UK. These are descriptive terms used widely across the voluntary sector. Registration as a CIC does not grant exclusivity over service models, partnerships, or methods of support.
Thirdly, publicly suggesting that other charities or groups have acted improperly towards the NHS, or have “taken” resources unlawfully, is a serious allegation. Such claims should only be made where clear, verifiable evidence exists. Without that, statements of this nature risk being misleading and damaging.
Charitable and community organisations routinely work alongside the NHS, councils, and other partners in a variety of legitimate ways. Collaboration is not ownership, and shared objectives are not “copying”.
Finally, community-interest organisations have a responsibility to communicate accurately, professionally, and without intimidation. The sector exists to support vulnerable people, not to assert ownership over ideas or to undermine others through legally incorrect or inflammatory claims.
Constructive cooperation benefits communities. Misrepresentation of the law and public accusations do not.
— Sherlock
I’m pretty sure you cannot rock up at a hospital and just drop random books in areas the staff use. You have to go through infection control and security. If the staff could see the state of her shops and donation centre where the books have come from they definitely would not be allowed inside a hospital! The videos of her wandering around the hospital the day she went on holiday was quite concerning. Also she must have filled her luggage with the free tea and coffee sachets from the hotel, as I have stayed in several hotels in Feurtaventura and they are the exact same sachets used in the hotels. You cannot buy the Mama Innes coffee sachets in the UK!
It’s the thank you on each of the cheap crap coffee and teabags 🤔Throw them in the bin Carrie like the hospital worker’s will have too now. Silly silly bully women 🤪 🙄 Be gone as you like to say.
She’s basically dumped the books in patient waiting areas. These areas are not staff rooms. Housekeeping staff may very well meet up in these areas when clinics have finished for the day.
I can also confirm that these books would NOT have been taken by staff for use on wards or clinician areas. They would have been collected and binned.
Ms Risdale should know this with the ‘training’ she claims to have completed.
All She’s done is ‘fly-tip’ on NHS property.
I have also seen the coffee, teabag and sugar sachets abroad.
As normal people know, they are for guests, not for public gifting.
Her web of lies and over inflated grandiose delusions are so conflated I really think this woman is deranged. The obsession with HCT borders limerance. Her disgusting beration of anyone who dares to challenge her clearly is either psychopathy or narcissism. I feel truly bereft of her treatment of Hayley Thomas, that woman must be stoical and made of wrought iron, because by now if I had suffered years of this abuse by Jayne Carrie Anne worzel gummage I would have done time. She is so utterly devoid of any humanity or accountability that words fail me, but on the plus side she is mortal, and one day she will get hers. Karma is coming for that one!
Nem, I totally agree with everything you have said.
I don’t know any of the people Ms Risdale continually berates, but the documented evidence more than provides the nasty piece of work she is.
I’m sure by now she’s attracted the attention of the relevant authorities to close her scam down once and for all.
Although the weather has contributed to the closure of the shops at the beginning of the week, she has managed to attempt some sort of organising of the so-called ‘donation centre’.
If these shops are shut, there’s is no revenue, overheads will still need to be paid. She is already in rent arrears with the pontypridd shop, the lease expires very soon. Asking for volunteers, asking for favours to collect for her.
As I’ve previously said, if she had the abundance of volunteers and following she claims to have, why were the shops shut so long while she was away? Where is her documented evidence of helping the mothers and children? Where is the CCTV footage she continues to claim has caught shoplifting, staff abuse, damage to ‘her’ signs etc.
Why is she no longer shouting about being a registered CIC?
She so predictable, let’s get ready for her illnesses, hospital/doctor appointments, landlords not renting the properties to standard, raising the rents, or the ‘haters’ making her self diagnosed problems worse. She is insanely jealous of their hard work at being successful, whilst she destroys everything she touches.
You’ve hit the nail on the head. Prior to Christmas she made several comments about how damp the Pontypool shop is. My guess is she’s not opened them for two weeks and her next rant will be that all ‘her stock’ is ruined by the damp and she needs to move out of the Pontypool shop as it isn’t fit for purpose. Not the fact that her lease on the shop is up on 16th January and is unlikely to be renewed as she is behind on the rent and has broken several of the clauses in her agreement.
Iv just come across this page and need to state that jaynes baby bank really doesn’t help mothers. I asked for help with nappies and baby milk, she tried to charge me £5 a tin of milk and £3 for nappies which are only £2 odd in asda newborn sizes. I asked about foodbank help and was told unless I donate items regularly then I can’t have anything. I was looking at a pram that was there asked the price and it was £150 how is this helping people. The shop also stank so bad really stale and sweaty.
Emily, well done on speaking out.
Her lies, bullying, harassment and stalking of registered charities has been well documented, thanks to Sherlock and the work put in to reveal the fraudulent ways of this despicable woman. She is also stalking this site and has claimed it is run by ‘haters’ (her words for anyone who speaks against her).
There are credible charities who genuinely help mothers, babies, homeless, veterans and animals.
I wish you all the very best and hope a hard time in your life is easing. Many people, including myself have been through times of hardship, especially when children are young. Things usually improve and we come out stronger the other side. Without doubt, you will look back and know that you did your very best.
Status: https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=864047336383353&id=100083342834915
Counter: https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=602498302538259&id=100083342834915
“Nappies- FREE to Mothers who are customers and donators .”
Transcript: https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search/?search=%22free+to+mothers%22+%22free+to+customers%22&limit=50&sort_order=relevance&search_type=all
Old article: https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/2024/02/12/beware-the-hidden-charges-free-nappies-exposed/
Historically, item’s have been limited to a minimum donation limit.
– S
Utterly agree, this deranged woman is about to reap all the cruelty liable slander, fraud and exploitation of everyone she has duped.
I work for a legitimate Nationally recognised Food bank, and fortunately we have not had the misfortune of any interactions with her, the thought of such makes my toes curl. All our women in need are supported by legitimate Baby banks which ensure all thier donations are hygienic sanitised and fit for purpose, Her disgusting shops are a hygiene nightmare, dust mites, which can cause scabies and ring worm, rodent droppings, her shops are inaccessible to anyone who dares to tread, they are devoid of cleanliness and hygiene procedures, piled high with disorganised chaos. Sanitation is zero! Utterly shameful and truly awful to behold. Unprofessional and Unsanitary. Do not support this woman and her lucrative bin raiding schemes, please do seek out legitimate well respected services I your area.
The following addresses a series of public claims made by Carrie Anne Ridsdale, using her own statements, archived material, and supporting documentation. Our focus is on factual accuracy, internal consistency, and verifiable records.
1. Use of Photographs
Photos were posted of “someone fundraising and helping other charities and groups in need”.
Response: The individual referenced is Carrie Anne Ridsdale.
Source:
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/ITV_004.png
2. Pontypool Shop & Lease Claims
That leaving the Pontypool shop would require 12 months’ notice or 12 months’ compensation, citing Aberbargoed, Big Risca and Blackwood.
Response: The lease for 5 Crane Street, Pontypool explicitly excludes security of tenure under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954. There is no legal requirement for 12 months’ notice and no entitlement to compensation.
This is a fixed-term lease:
While it may take a long time to clear the premises, the legal claim regarding notice and compensation is incorrect.
Source:
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/5-Crane-Street-Lease-2023-Unsigned.pdf
3 & 4. Teaching / Trinity Fields Employment
“I have never said I was a teacher.” / “I have never said I worked for Trinity Fields.”
Response: Archived public statements contradict this.
QUOTE (verbatim):
Source:
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search/?search=%22teaching%22&limit=50&sort_order=oldest&search_type=all&open_transcript=400942049360553_1712101372_fb.json
Further references to Autism Resource Base work:
Source (2):
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search/?search=%22Autistic+Spectrum+Disorder%22&limit=50&sort_order=relevance&search_type=all
Methodology Note: The specific location was identifiable from her former public profile prior to deletion. When region and role are disclosed publicly, identification is straightforward. The wording later shifted from “teaching assistant” to “resource base work”, but the employment context remained consistent.
5. Relationship Claims
“I have been single since forever… what partners you are contacting is beyond me.”
Response: No partners were contacted. The references originate from comments on her own now-deleted Facebook post, as well as images and posts from her personal profile prior to the Jayne Price alias, all of which were public from 2015 onwards.
Source:
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search/?search=%22Puppy+cakes%22+%22complete+dick%22&limit=50&sort_order=relevance&search_type=all
6. Education Timeline (College / University)
“1996 I went to Crosskeys College – why would I be in college in 2016 when I was at Cardiff University studying a nursing degree?”
Response: We archived supporting material, including references described by the claimant as an “Extended Essay”, visibly attributed to Carrie Anne Ridsdale.
Source:
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/ITV_001.png
Attendance claims across Crosskeys College, Ystrad Mynach College, and Cardiff University are not disputed in isolation. The issue is timeline coherence when juxtaposed with other public statements.
7. Green Scrubs & Nursing Claims
“Green scrubs are used for theatre, not students. Students wear purple.”
Response: A 2015 image shared by the claimant is confirmed to be of herself.
Source:
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/ITV_003.png
Given this confirmation, it is reasonable to ask why imagery supporting attendance is not shown from 2016–2019, the period repeatedly cited for Cardiff University nursing studies.
Her current Jayne’s Baby Bank “About Me” states:
8. Hospital Donations
That Jayne’s Baby Bank gives to hospitals, unlike others who “take”.
Response: We welcome transparency and would positively encourage the publication of verifiable evidence showing hospital donations (items, cheques, handovers). This would be beneficial and easily resolved with documentation or footage.
Closing Statement — Qualifications & Biochemistry Claim
A recurring claim states:
Source:
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search/?search=%22university%22&limit=50&sort_order=oldest&search_type=all&open_transcript=20250905_794227406339803.txt
Clarification: Cardiff University does not offer a standalone Diploma in Biochemistry as a routine qualification. Biochemistry is delivered as a full BSc degree, requiring:
As such, claiming to have “studied a diploma in biochemistry at Cardiff University” is ambiguous at best and misleading without clarification of:
When examined alongside the wider timeline and shifting educational claims, the gaps remain unresolved.
Further clarification is invited.
– S
As the saying goes, a good liar must have a good memory, which Ms Ridsdale obviously does not possess. I have also noted that she has made changes to her profile. She was, prior to Christmas, a ‘charity organisation’ but now her profile says ‘charity or second hand shop’.
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/premier-properties.pdf
“The property is not coming available”
– S
https://facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=865065582948195&id=100083342834915
Two hours later.
– S
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/5-Crane-Street-Lease-2023-Unsigned.pdf
Is the racking to store the items from Pontypool? Contract has two weeks left and you’re behind on rent.
– S
My thoughts exactly Sherlock. But in reality she would need a few aircraft hangars to store all the junk in Pontypool shop!
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1360185142572933&id=100057443801284
Why does Jayne’s Baby Bank not receive support or involvement from the University Health Board? Simply placing books in YYF does not constitute affiliation or endorsement. The Jayne’s Baby Bank social media pages are dominated by sales activity and hostile commentary, rather than clear evidence of meaningful community support.
There are repeated fundraising drives, stated to be for nappies, yet there is little to no visible community outreach or practical assistance, particularly when compared with organisations such as HCT.
How is it that the so-called “pink ladies”, operating with fewer than 10% of the viewership and resources, consistently deliver significantly more tangible support to the local community than this newly formed CIC?
– S
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=833428856111868&id=100083342834915
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=143136851807742&id=100083342834915
SOURCE: https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search/?search=%22bursary%22&limit=50&sort_order=newest&search_type=all&open_transcript=20250912_772576032230276.txt
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search/?search=%222019%22&limit=50&sort_order=newest&search_type=all&open_transcript=20251128_869479742320429.txt
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search/?search=%22treatment%22&limit=50&sort_order=newest&search_type=all&open_transcript=131693906285370_1664800883_fb.json
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search/?search=%222021%22&limit=50&sort_order=newest&search_type=all&open_transcript=718271037627651_1752220969_fb.json
NOTES:
The expanded transcript record deepens the internal contradictions rather than resolving them. Across multiple statements, it is repeatedly asserted that there was no medical management prior to 2019, despite an MRI or CT allegedly identifying a tumour in 2015 and this being “shelved”. At the same time, references are made to being in college/university, gaining diagnoses, and being accepted into – and attending elements of – university-linked activity during the 2015–2016 period. This sits uneasily with later claims of being severely unwell “well before 2015”. Shielding, however, is only meaningfully applicable from March 2020 onwards, during the COVID-19 pandemic, and typically required identification as clinically extremely vulnerable by healthcare services, often in the context of active treatment or specialist oversight. Yet the narrative alternates between “no treatment until 2019”, “treated 2019–2020”, “binned off treatment during the pandemic”, and simultaneously being on the shielding list, while also founding, running, and physically operating a public-facing baby bank and multiple shops from 2020 onwards. When these claims are aligned chronologically, they create overlapping and incompatible positions: untreated yet shielding, shielding yet operating community premises, severely ill yet academically and organisationally active, and educational timelines that shift between 2015, 2016, and 2019. Taken together, the volume and repetition of these statements do not clarify the history; they compound the inconsistency and raise legitimate questions about the accuracy and reliability of the timeline as presented.
BONUS: https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search/?search=%22qualified%22&limit=50&sort_order=newest&search_type=all
– S
The stated rationale for establishing the Baby Bank is internally inconsistent when examined against the organisation’s own published statements. On one hand, it is presented as a compassionate response to the COVID-19 pandemic: *“That’s why I started the Baby Bank to help families and keyworkers… who worked through the Global Pandemic and served our country.”* This framing suggests a humanitarian purpose rooted in public service and collective need.
However, this narrative directly conflicts with multiple other statements in which the same initiative is explicitly described as being founded for adversarial and retaliatory reasons. These include, verbatim: *“I started this to take them down!”*; *“I’m coming for you haters – and I’m taking your food slots… I started this to take you down.”*; and *“My goal was to take you down before I died because that’s how ill I was.”* In further statements, the organisation is described as having been created to “highlight” or “take down” specific charities, to break perceived monopolies, and to target named or implied opponents, with beneficiaries described as “a bonus”.
These two positions cannot logically coexist as the primary motivation for the same organisation. One frames the Baby Bank as a pandemic-driven, altruistic support service for families and keyworkers; the other frames it as a personal campaign aimed at undermining others. When assessed together, these contradictory explanations raise legitimate public-interest questions about how the origins, intent, and purpose of the Baby Bank known as Jayne’s Baby Bank are being represented to supporters, donors, volunteers, and the wider public.
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=696212459833509&id=100083342834915
– S
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=460297380091686&id=100083342834915
There is an additional inconsistency worth noting. In a post dated 9 July 2024, it is stated: “WHEN I STARTED THIS I WANTED TO DO THIS ANNONYMOUSLY FROM MY DRIVEWAY – THE HATERS MADE ME FAMOUS.”
This does not sit comfortably alongside earlier statements describing the Baby Bank as having been started to “take down” other organisations or to confront perceived monopolies. A venture begun anonymously for quiet support is fundamentally different from one described, repeatedly, as adversarial in intent. This observation is not directed at volunteers or their efforts, but highlights a clear contradiction in how the origins and motivations of Jayne’s Baby Bank have been publicly described.
– S
Sherlock, today’s revelations are that she’s starting up an animal rescue, it’s going to be another CIC, employ people and offer apprenticeships. That, apparently she’s been doing since 2016. The baby bank was (according to the newest fabrication) to distract the ‘haters’ from stealing her ideas.
Also claiming copyright of a picture she’s taken of Caerphilly Castle!!!!!
I’m convinced her scam empire is about to collapse …….. Clutching at straws comes to mind. The lies are so unbelievably blatant.
I can also confirm the light green colour scrubs were not in use at any South Wales NHS hospitals during 2016. Student nurses wore black trousers, white tunic with yellow stripes to show they were students.
If that photo was taken in a true hospital setting, Ms Risdale would have made sure the background could have been seen.
She was a carer at Pride in care Pontllanfraith in 2015 until 2018. Fact
Records from 2013 indicate that she was listed as a Support Worker with Pride In Care during that year.
– S
Oh dear, hit another nerve have we Ms Risdale. It’s the WRONG colour green for theatre. Apart from the colour hats, all theatre staff INCLUDING anaesthetist, consultants and surgeons wore blue.
You see ‘darling’ the only opportunity you would have had to wear the scrubs you’re wearing would have been in a care setting. NHS attire have the health board they represent embroidered on them. The time you say you did your ‘training’ DID NOT have light green or purple.
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/FB_OriginalFB_PROFILE.zip
Complete backup.
– S
Images shared in 2016 reference *college or university*, indicating the scrubs image dates to 2015 and does not align with the 2016 or 2019 timeline.
– Sherlock
EDIT: This comment/article has been amended to refer to *college or university* rather than a single institution, reflecting the ambiguous and unverified nature of the individual’s educational background.
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/jaynes-baby-bank-images/
Historical images.
S
I believe it has been stated before that if, as she claims, she was a profit protection officer in 1996, then she would have only been 16 years old! Highly unlikely 🤣.
That is correct. It’s on her Facebook profile about me portion.
– S