Stolen Fox Image and Misleading Promotion – The New Caerphilly Rescue Claim

On 24 January 2026, Jayne’s Baby Bank published a post under its own Facebook page while branding the content as “The New Caerphilly Bird & Small Animal Rescue Sanctuary”. In that post, Jayne’s Baby Bank was publicly caught using a stolen third-party image of a fox, falsely presented as if it had entered their own property via a cat flap and overlaid with fundraising promotion.

The content was posted by Jayne’s Baby Bank with the stated intent of running a future animal rescue and sanctuary venture, which it has said is awaiting funding and formal CIC registration.

The original owner of the image publicly challenged the misuse. The post was then deleted. No correction or apology was issued.

This article documents that incident, explains why it matters, and places it within the wider context of branding confusion, registration status, and historic claims about rescue and sanctuary operations.

1) The stolen imagery incident

A fox image was posted with the caption:

“Look who snook in through the cat flap! Pontypool and Caerphilly fundraising shops open today.”

The image was also overlaid with promotional text:

“Pontypool and Caerphilly fundraising shops open today.”

This created a false impression that:

• the fox had entered a sanctuary or Jayne’s Baby Bank property;
• a physical venue or rescue premises existed;
• the image was genuine evidence of rescue-related activity.

The image did not originate from any property connected to Jayne’s Baby Bank or any registered rescue venture. It was screen-captured from a private individual’s TikTok account.

The original owner, David Lovett, publicly confirmed that the fox shown was in his home and challenged the misuse of his content.

Following this challenge, the Facebook post was deleted. No correction or apology was issued.

2) Real-time posting verification

Jayne’s Baby Bank subsequently attempted to claim that the fox image originated from a “fake website” or impersonation page and that it had not been posted by their own account.

This claim is false.

A recorded screen video independently verifies that the fox image was posted live from the official Jayne’s Baby Bank Facebook profile.

Video evidence:

From approximately the 1-minute mark onwards, the video shows:

• the Jayne’s Baby Bank profile being viewed in real time;
• the fox image post appearing live on that official profile;
• visible engagement from followers;
• the same post later visible in the profile gallery.

At the time of capture, the fox post had accrued 22 reactions, confirming that it was publicly visible and actively promoted to followers before deletion.

This conclusively disproves any claim that the image was posted by a “fake page”.

A third-party impersonation page cannot insert content into an official Facebook profile feed or generate engagement from that account’s followers.

3) Evidence archive

Additional screenshots preserved for public record:

• Stolen_001.jpg — post using the image
• Stolen_002.jpg — original owner image
• Stolen_003.png — owner challenge
• Stolen_004.png — deflection post
• FOX_FOLLOWUp.png — follow-up screenshot

4) Fabricated counter-narrative

After the misuse was exposed, Jayne’s Baby Bank published a new post claiming that critics were accusing it of “selling animals” and “selling a fox”.

No such allegation had been made.

This false narrative deflected from the actual issue: documented third-party image misuse and misrepresentation of premises and activity.

5) Brand hijacking and public confusion risk

Jayne’s Baby Bank has adopted and promoted the name:

“The New Caerphilly Bird & Small Animal Rescue Sanctuary”

The historic “Caerphilly Bird Rescue” brand is locally known and was shut down following animal welfare enforcement action against its former operator.

Reusing a near-identical name creates material public confusion and falsely implies continuity, endorsement, or regulatory legitimacy.

There is no public evidence that the historic rescue brand or assets were lawfully transferred or licensed to this new venture.

6) Registration status and legal reality

What is verifiable:

• A trade mark application exists: UK00004316067.
• Status: Application Published (not registered).
• Owner: Jayne Price.
• Class: 36 (fundraising only).

What a trade mark is not:

• It is not a charity registration.
• It is not a CIC or company registration for a rescue venture.
• It does not authorise animal welfare activity.
• It does not demonstrate safeguarding, governance, or veterinary compliance.
• It does not create criminal offences for alleged infringement.

Jayne’s Baby Bank publicly claimed:

“It is Trademarked and breach of Trademarked law is a criminal offence not civil.”

This statement is legally incorrect.

A pending trademark application is not “trademarked”, confers no exclusive rights, and does not create criminal liability.

At the time of writing, there is no public evidence of a formally registered rescue entity (charity, CIC, or company) specifically for this “sanctuary”. Jayne’s Baby Bank has stated that the rescue is a future venture and is awaiting funding and formal CIC registration.

7) Same-day audio: “selling foxes” narrative and instructions to mass-report

Following the exposure of the stolen fox image, a same-day video reframed the issue as a hostile “cyber attack” and encouraged followers to report content under a specific category to trigger faster takedowns.

Excerpt (verbatim):

“We’ve had another cyber attack tonight… they’ve put up a post saying that we are selling foxes… So if you see stuff report it and can you report it as animal sales because Facebook will take it down quicker.”

This matters for public record because:

• the documented issue was third-party image misuse and misrepresentation, not any credible “animal sales” allegation;
• the instruction is explicitly to report under a category chosen for speed rather than accuracy;
• it attempts to substitute a new narrative (“selling foxes”) for the evidenced issue (stolen imagery used for promotion).

Further excerpt (verbatim):

“I expect the RSPCA now will turn up… Anybody is welcome to come in and view what we do.”

Note: These excerpts are included for context. They do not validate the “cyber attack” claim, nor do they alter the evidential record of the stolen imagery incident.

8) Same-day monetisation and commission disclosure

In the same batch of recordings, commercial promotion and commission-based activity was described alongside the fox incident narrative.

Excerpt (verbatim):

“TikTok shop purchase. We get commission on it… We got sent one for free… This was sent to us for free to product test and to gain commission from the sales.”

This matters for public due diligence because:

• it shows concurrent monetisation activity while fundraising and sanctuary branding claims were being promoted;
• it demonstrates commission-based promotion using an account branded as a community-interest entity;
• it raises transparency questions about separation between charitable messaging and affiliate-style commerce.

Note: This excerpt is included for context and does not itself allege illegality.

9) Supporting historical context

Across multiple Jayne’s Baby Bank posts and videos, the operator has repeatedly claimed:

• to be running a rescue or sanctuary;
• to be rescuing animals since 2016;
• to be fundraising for a new rescue entity;
• to be taking over Caerphilly Bird Rescue;
• to be opening animal rescue fundraising shops.

These claims are not supported by corresponding public registrations, governance documentation, or regulatory approvals.

They rely on social-media narrative, branding, and promotional posts.

10) Carol Gravenor’s rebuttal and historic legacy of Caerphilly Bird Rescue

The historic Caerphilly Bird Rescue was founded and operated by Carol Gravenor and her late husband Ray over approximately 33 years.

In a public statement issued in response to Jayne’s Baby Bank’s branding claims, Carol Gravenor confirmed:

• the rescue was started decades ago, long before social media;
• it operated through physical premises including market units and retail shops;
• it handled wildlife cases from Cardiff, Penarth, Newport and surrounding areas;
• it worked with veterinarians, vet nurses and police officers;
• it relied on fundraising to cover rent, utilities, fuel, medication and animal care;
• it remained operational until her serious illness and hospitalisation;
• a scaled-down continuation is still being run by a family member.

Carol Gravenor stated unequivocally:

“PLEASE BE AWARE THIS WOMAN IS NOTHING TO DO WITH CAERPHILLY BIRD RESCUE.”
“CAERPHILLY BIRD RESCUE IS RAY’S LEGACY — he was known as ‘The Bird Man’.”

She further confirmed that Jayne’s Baby Bank / Jayne Price has no lawful connection to Caerphilly Bird Rescue, no transfer of assets, and no legitimate continuity of operation.

This directly contradicts Jayne’s Baby Bank’s public claims that it has “taken over” Caerphilly Bird Rescue or is the rightful successor to that historic rescue.

11) Footnote — what is actually required to lawfully operate a wildlife rescue (UK)

For public clarity, a lawful wildlife rescue or sanctuary in the United Kingdom typically requires:

• a registered legal entity (charity, CIC or company);
• local authority licensing for animal-related activity;
• appropriate planning permission for animal housing;
• DEFRA or APHA compliance where applicable;
• veterinary care arrangements;
• animal welfare protocols;
• safeguarding policies;
• insurance covering animal care and public liability;
• biosecurity and disease-control procedures;
• record-keeping for intake, treatment and release.

A pending trade mark application does not satisfy any of the above requirements.

Nor does a Facebook page, a logo, or a “future venture” narrative.

Conclusion

On 24 January 2026, a third-party fox image was stolen, falsely presented as evidence of premises and rescue activity, and used in promotional fundraising content by Jayne’s Baby Bank while branding itself as a future rescue and sanctuary venture.

The original owner publicly challenged the misuse.

The post was deleted once exposed.

Jayne’s Baby Bank then:

• denied responsibility by blaming a “fake page”;
• introduced a fabricated “selling animals” allegation;
• threatened trademark enforcement based on a pending application;
• encouraged mass-reporting under a false category;
• escalated misrepresentation instead of issuing a correction.

The recorded screen video independently verifies that the fox image was posted live from the official Jayne’s Baby Bank profile and later appeared in the profile gallery.

Carol Gravenor’s public rebuttal establishes that Caerphilly Bird Rescue is a decades-old legitimate rescue founded by her and her late husband Ray, and that Jayne’s Baby Bank has no lawful continuity, transfer, or entitlement to that legacy.

This incident materially undermines the credibility of Jayne’s Baby Bank and the venture it styles as “The New Caerphilly Bird & Small Animal Rescue Sanctuary”.

It is a documented example of misrepresentation, deceptive promotion, and unsafe public messaging around animal rescue.

Published for public record, due diligence, and safeguarding awareness. Keep discussion evidence-based and avoid harassment.

— Sherlock