We have identified a County Court Judgment (CCJ) that is recorded as being against a person named “Ceri-Ann Ridsdale” and explicitly noted as trading as “Jayne’s Baby Bank”. The record indicates the judgment is unsatisfied (unpaid) as at the date of the record.
What the court record indicates
The court-registered entry we have reviewed indicates:
- Name shown on the record: Ceri-Ann Ridsdale
- Trading style shown on the record: Jayne’s Baby Bank
- Court shown on the record: County Court Online
- Case reference shown on the record: 521MC287
- Date shown on the record: 23 May 2024
- Amount shown on the record: £7,141
- Status shown on the record: Unsatisfied
In plain terms: this is a court-registered civil judgment linked to the Jayne’s Baby Bank trading identity, and it is shown as unpaid on the record reviewed.
Name variation and why it matters
The judgment is not recorded under the name most commonly used in public-facing fundraising and promotion. Instead, it is registered under the name “Ceri-Ann Ridsdale”, while the same individual publicly trades and presents herself primarily as “Jayne Price”.
At the same time, Electoral Roll records show the name Carrie Anne Ridsdale registered at her residential address. In addition, a driving licence image that has been publicly posted shows the name Jayne-Anne Price.
This creates a multi-name pattern connected to the same operation and/or public persona:
- Jayne Price – used publicly as a trading and promotional identity
- Jayne-Anne Price – shown on the publicly posted driving licence
- Carrie Anne Ridsdale – shown on Electoral Roll records at the residential address
- Ceri-Ann Ridsdale – shown on the County Court Judgment trading as Jayne’s Baby Bank
- Ceri-Anne Ridsdale – shown on the Aberbargoed enforcement / eviction notice
People can lawfully change names, use preferred names, or adopt different spellings. However, where a person is soliciting donations, applying for registrations, and trading under a public-benefit identity, consistent identity presentation is a governance expectation.
Multiple similar-but-different names across civil liability records, tenancy enforcement, electoral registration, and public trading materially affect:
- Public due diligence
- Donor background checks
- Searchability of judgments and liabilities
- Accountability and transparency expectations
Where name variations exist, the straightforward safeguard is simple: publish clear confirmation of the legal name used for liabilities and registrations, and the relationship (if any) to any trading names used to solicit public donations.
Commercial lease: composite legal identity
A commercial lease for retail premises signed in January 2023 further reinforces the identity-variation pattern.
The lease document lists the tenant as:
- Tenant name: Miss Jayne-Anne Carrie-Anne Ridsdale
- Tenant address: 7 Meadow Road, Springfield, Blackwood, NP12 2AG
- Property: 5 Crane Street, Pontypool, NP4 6LY
- Lease start date: 17 January 2023
This is relevant because it combines the Price-style forename identity (“Jayne-Anne”) with the Ridsdale surname and the Carrie-Anne variant used in Electoral Roll records into a single composite legal name.
In other words, the lease directly links:
- The Price-style public identity (Jayne / Jayne-Anne)
- The Ridsdale legal surname
- The Carrie-Anne name used on residential records
into one formal commercial tenancy instrument.
This document materially undermines any suggestion that the Price and Ridsdale identities relate to different people. It shows they are being used interchangeably by the same individual in formal legal contexts.
This strengthens the due-diligence relevance of the CCJ and eviction records being registered under Ridsdale variants while public fundraising and trading are conducted under the “Jayne Price” identity.
Historical regulatory filing under the “Jayne Price” identity
A historical regulatory filing further illustrates the identity inconsistency pattern.
A food business registration submitted to Caerphilly County Borough Council in early 2024 lists:
- Contact representative name: Jayne Price
- Contact representative role: CEO / trustee
- Operator charity name: Jayne’s Mother and Baby Bank and Foodbank Fundraising Shop
- Operator type: A charity (registered by a representative)
- Charity number: Awaiting
- Establishment trading name: Jayne’s Mother and Baby Bank and Foodbank Fundraising Shop
- Establishment address: 68 Tredegar Street, Risca, NP11
- Establishment opening date: 01 January 2024
This filing is relevant because it shows the same operation being presented to a local authority regulator under the name Jayne Price, while:
- Electoral Roll records show Carrie Anne Ridsdale at the residential address
- A County Court Judgment is recorded under Ceri-Ann Ridsdale trading as Jayne’s Baby Bank
- An Aberbargoed enforcement / eviction notice is addressed to Ceri-Anne Ridsdale
- A publicly posted driving licence image shows the name Jayne-Anne Price
For donors, regulators, platforms, and partner bodies, the ability to trace liabilities, enforcement actions, and regulatory filings to a single, consistent legal identity is a basic due-diligence requirement.
This filing therefore forms part of a wider pattern of identity variation across:
- Regulatory registrations
- Public trading activity
- Residential records
- Court-registered civil liabilities
- Commercial tenancy enforcement
- Government-issued identification
PayPal donation page: hybrid identity used for fundraising
A live PayPal donation page used to solicit money for Jayne’s Baby Bank introduces a further identity variant.
The PayPal.me listing at:
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/jaynesbabybank
is titled:
- Account name shown: Jayne R-Price
- Handle: @jaynesbabybank
- Description: “Jayne’s Mother and Baby, Food Bank and Charity shop. 100% of profit goes towards the charity”
The surname format “R-Price” does not appear on any formal record. It is a hybrid construction combining the Ridsdale surname used on court, tenancy, and Electoral Roll records with the Price surname used in public trading and branding.
This means donations are being solicited under yet another personal identity variant that does not match:
- The CCJ debtor name (Ceri-Ann Ridsdale)
- The Electoral Roll name (Carrie Anne Ridsdale)
- The driving licence name (Jayne-Anne Price)
- The commercial lease name (Jayne-Anne Carrie-Anne Ridsdale)
- The regulatory filing name (Jayne Price)
This further compounds the identity inconsistency already documented and extends it into a live fundraising instrument used to collect money from the public.
Prior disclosure: “Carrie Anne” revealed on livestream
This identity pattern is not newly discovered.
In August 2025, during a livestream, the operator inadvertently revealed documentation showing the legal name Carrie Anne Ridsdale in connection with council fines and enforcement correspondence.
That incident was documented in detail in:
Carrie Anne Slips Up Live: Real Name, Real Fines, and a Baby Bank in Trouble
That episode independently corroborates:
- The Electoral Roll name (Carrie Anne Ridsdale)
- The lease composite identity (Jayne-Anne Carrie-Anne Ridsdale)
- The CCJ debtor name (Ceri-Ann Ridsdale)
It shows the same identity variation appearing repeatedly across enforcement, tenancy, regulatory, and financial liability contexts.
Eviction notice: identity continuity across properties
An enforcement / eviction notice was previously served at the former Aberbargoed premises. That notice is addressed to “Ms Ceri-Anne Ridsdale”.
This shows that the Ridsdale surname is not incidental or historical. It remains tied to:
- Her residential records
- Her former commercial premises
- Her court-registered financial liabilities
Driving licence name posted publicly
The individual has publicly posted an image of a driving licence. The visible name shown on that licence is Jayne-Anne Price.
In combination with:
- Electoral Roll records showing Carrie Anne Ridsdale at the residence,
- the CCJ recorded under Ceri-Ann Ridsdale trading as Jayne’s Baby Bank, and
- the Aberbargoed enforcement notice addressed to Ceri-Anne Ridsdale,
the overall picture is not “one spelling difference”, but a repeated pattern of identity variation across contexts where the public would reasonably expect clarity and consistency.
Why this pattern is a public-interest concern
One name variation might be dismissed as clerical or cosmetic. Multiple different names used across:
- Public trading activity
- Residential records
- Court proceedings
- Commercial tenancy enforcement
- Government-issued identification
creates a materially higher risk profile.
Where donations are being solicited and public trust is being invoked, the use of multiple personal identities and trading names associated with the same individual:
- Undermines informed consent by donors
- Complicates due diligence
- Obscures accountability
- Creates avoidable regulatory and safeguarding risk
Fairness, accuracy, and scope
- This post is limited to what is shown on formal records and publicly available materials.
- We make no allegation of criminal conduct.
- We do not assert intent or motive.
- We describe what the records and materials show and why the pattern matters for public due diligence.
Sherlock
I am sure people will have already done it, but the more reports the better.
Gwent Police have contacted me back regarding the MARAC outcome posted online (these are EXCEPTIONALLY sensitive meetings) and confirmed these are not to be posted online.
As a CIC, she is answerable to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO), so the more reports made to them with screenshots, the better.
I am sure it’s been reported they will probably log in tomorrow and inboxes going crazy
Carrie accidently shared a screenshot of content logged in as David Jones. We already knew it was her but this publicly confirms.
– S
In a recent Facebook livestream, Carrie-Anne Ridsdale (Jayne’s Baby Bank) made a series of statements that further escalate the ongoing narrative around alleged “targeting” and organised opposition.
Early in the clip, she states:
No supporting detail is provided within the excerpt to explain what the £80,000 refers to, who it belongs to, or what evidence supports the claim. The comment is presented as an insinuation rather than a verifiable disclosure.
She then frames events in dramatised terms, referencing a viewer’s comment and adding:
The livestream repeatedly references police involvement. Ridsdale states:
These remarks are presented as reassurance to her audience that official action is imminent, without any evidence shown on-screen in the excerpt.
The clip also contains broad accusations aimed at unnamed third parties. She claims:
She then escalates the tone further with extreme language, stating:
Such wording is inflammatory and appears intended to portray routine online criticism as an organised and dangerous campaign, without providing any substantiation in the excerpt.
Source references:
Note: This commentary addresses only statements made publicly by Ridsdale in her own posts and livestream, and does not republish the detailed third-party allegations contained in the earlier status update.
– S
This disclosure is based on publicly accessible filings and a standard platform account recovery search.
1) Source: Public CIC filing (verifiable)
Jayne’s Baby Bank’s CIC filing includes a personal email address and a mobile telephone number as contact details.
Source document:
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/JBB_CIC_16838920.pdf
2) Cross-check: Facebook account recovery search (verifiable)
Using the same telephone number shown in the filing, a Facebook “Identify your account” search returns multiple matching account entries.
Facebook displays abbreviated account names, including entries that appear consistent with:
Screenshot evidence:
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/ACCOUNT_PHONE.png
What this indicates
This suggests the contact number used within the CIC filing is associated, via Facebook’s own matching system, with accounts connected to the individuals and pages publicly linked to Jayne’s Baby Bank.
– S
OLD ARTICLE: https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/2024/02/12/beware-the-hidden-charges-free-nappies-exposed/
STATUS NOW: https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=884484614339625&id=100083342834915
Interesting timing, don’t you think?
– S
Summary for the record: This livestream contains multiple red flags that undermine credibility and raises safeguarding and legal concerns. The issues are not “people disagreeing”, they are contradictions, unsubstantiated allegations, and remarks that are plainly inappropriate for a platform that claims to support vulnerable families.
1) Explicit violence and evidence-avoidance language (most serious)
At one point the speaker gives what they describe as a “tip” about crime documentaries, stating that if someone “plans on killing somebody” they should buy items “now” rather than “after”, including references to a “spade” and “bleach”.
Regardless of how it is framed, that is reckless content to broadcast publicly. It normalises violence and casually introduces “how to” style thinking around concealment and planning. A baby bank and food bank audience should not be hearing that from a public-facing figure.
2) Serious allegations presented as fact, with no evidence shown
Across the livestream, the speaker repeatedly alleges blackmail, criminal histories, harassment warnings, sabotage, and coordinated targeting, attaching those claims to identifiable groups and individuals.
These are not framed as “concerns” or “questions”. They are delivered as statements of fact, without any documentary proof shown during the live. That is a major credibility issue, and also a legal risk.
3) The Nicola Williams and “monetise the bird rescue after Ray died” claim
One of the most disturbing allegations in the livestream is the claim that, after Ray died suddenly, Nicola Williams allegedly rang and said “keep that bird rescue on, don’t shut it down, I can show you how to monetise it”.
This is not a casual remark. It is an allegation of opportunism and profiteering in the immediate aftermath of a death, involving a named individual and a rescue brand with local community ties.
Issues with this claim:
If you are going to accuse someone of trying to monetise a rescue in the wake of a death, you need more than a story told on a livestream. Otherwise it reads as inflammatory narrative-building.
4) “Police are coming” rhetoric used as an authority shield
The speaker repeatedly asserts police involvement and imminent action, including references to monitoring, collecting information, and arrests. This is used rhetorically to validate the speaker’s position and intimidate critics, but viewers are not shown verifiable detail.
5) Contradictions over baby milk and charging
The livestream cycles through mutually inconsistent positions:
This is not a clear policy explanation. It reads as moving goalposts: deny, speculate, admit a related scenario, then return to outright denial.
6) “Food bank” language while describing pay-to-access stipulations
The speaker states they are “not a charity” and describes their model as “private sector”, with a stipulation that people must be a “customer or donator” (and not merely “on the day”, but “regularly”).
Whatever label is used, the practical effect described is that access is conditional on spending or donating. That directly conflicts with many people’s understanding of what “baby bank” and “food bank” provision means, and it helps explain why the public queries keep arising.
7) Condemning fake accounts, then admitting to using them
The speaker mocks critics for using fake profiles, then states: “we’ve all got a fake Facebook account… two or three… multiple accounts for [the organisation]… different niches”.
You cannot credibly denounce others for behaviour you openly admit doing yourself.
8) Surveillance and intimidation posture
The livestream repeatedly references monitoring viewers, identifying “non followers”, clicking names, tracking who is watching, and sending content “to the police”. Even if exaggerated, this is the language of intimidation, not transparency.
9) Misleading or confused claims about regulation and accounts
The speaker makes sweeping statements about charities and CICs needing “audited accountants” and implies strict accounting constraints while also using that as a way to disparage other groups.
These claims are delivered as certainty but are not evidenced, and appear inaccurate or oversimplified.
10) Escalation rhetoric and intent to harm reputations
The speaker uses language about people “hanging themselves”, invites escalation (“crack on”), and claims they could “pull the rug from under” others’ businesses with a single post. This is not de-escalation or responsible safeguarding behaviour.
11) Incoherent, digressive delivery around serious accusations
The livestream jumps between colouring books, pets, shop offers, and highly serious allegations. That does not make the allegations true or false by itself, but it does make the overall narrative unreliable and difficult to treat as a credible “factual account”.
Why this matters: When an organisation trades on public trust and claims to support mothers and families, it must be especially careful with language, evidence, and consistency. This livestream contains multiple points that are either contradictory, unsubstantiated, or plainly inappropriate for any audience, let alone one that includes vulnerable people.
Readers can watch the source and decide for themselves: https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=879663668019798
– S
Why is there a sign saying ‘New Charity Shop’ when the business is registered as a CIC? Miss Risdale aka Jayne Price and this shop are not on the Charity Commission register. Local residents deserve transparency—a CIC is a company, not a charity. #BuyerBeware #Caerphilly #Transparency”
This document presents a chronological, source-led timeline of publicly stated health claims, nursing/work status assertions, and documented activities made by the founder of Jayne’s Baby Bank between 2015 and 2025. It collates direct quotations from social media posts, videos, and archived transcripts, placing them side-by-side with contemporaneous actions such as education claims, return-to-work references, and the operation of multiple shops.
The purpose is transparency. By aligning statements with dates and observable activity, the document highlights where claims of severe illness, shielding, or inability to work overlap with periods of sustained public, operational, or commercial activity. No medical, legal, or personal conclusions are drawn. All material is presented verbatim and cited so readers can independently assess consistency and form their own view.
Download: https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Timeline-of-Health-Claims-vs.-Activities-of-Jaynes-Baby-Bank-Founder.pdf
– S
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=882493147872105&id=100083342834915
Jayne’s Baby Bank has asserted that criticism has been “debunked” by claiming they were “on the tail end of the budget” for period dignity products. That claim is directly contradicted by the Council’s own written position.
For transparency, the following are verbatim quotations from the official guidance supplied by Caerphilly County Borough Council, now disclosed publicly:
1) “Tail end of the budget” / “bottom of the list” claim
There is no statement in the guidance indicating that Jayne’s Baby Bank is placed “at the bottom of the list”, restricted to “tail-end” stock, or deprioritised due to budget exhaustion.
2) Accessibility and distribution requirements
The only caveat mentioned relates to higher-cost reusable items, which:
This is a fairness and safeguarding measure — not a rationing policy, and not a justification for claims of scarcity or preferential treatment.
3) Conclusion
The email excerpt previously shared by Jayne’s Baby Bank refers to routine financial-year budgeting and potential future re-orders. It does not state, imply, or support the narrative that the organisation was disadvantaged or operating on “leftovers”.
This rebuttal is issued solely to correct the public record using the Council’s own words. Readers are invited to review the quoted guidance and form their own conclusions.
– S
https://www.facebook.com/100083342834915/videos/4204647813197733/
Follow-up (re: livestream transcript and false associations)
Following the above rebuttal, Jayne’s Baby Bank has now posted a livestream transcript attempting to reinforce the same “tail end of the budget” narrative.
However, in that same transcript, the speaker openly acknowledges they do not actually know what the email says:
This is precisely why the Council’s formal FOI response matters: it is clear, written, and unambiguous. The Council’s position remains:
Separately, the same livestream attempts to associate Sherlock with alleged criticism of unrelated community organisations, including Waste Not Want Not Charity Warehouse and The Magic Cottage.
To be absolutely clear: these organisations have nothing to do with our investigation. Any suggestion by Jayne’s Baby Bank that Sherlock is “behind” criticism of these groups is 100% factually wrong.
This appears to be another attempt to create division in the community and redirect attention away from the documented issues concerning Jayne’s Baby Bank itself.
As always, readers are encouraged to consider the Council’s own wording and form their own conclusions.
– S
Response to Claims by Jayne’s Baby Bank
Regarding the recent claims made by Miss Ridsdale/Jayne’s Baby Bank, I am setting the record straight:
1. False Associations Firstly, I am not associated with Caerphilly Bird Rescue and never have been. Any attempt to link me to other groups is incorrect and irrelevant to the facts regarding public funding.
2. Accuracy of Information I have nothing to apologize for. The information I shared was provided directly by Caerphilly Council in response to a formal request. These are the Council’s own records. If the accuracy of this information is being challenged, the dispute is with the Council’s official data, not with me for sharing it.
3. Official Record of Products Received To be fully transparent, Council records show that Jayne’s Baby Bank has received £432.48 worth of products since September 2025. Further details are shown below:
Reusable products:
Teen stretch pants x 4 pairs
Adult stretch x 2
Ultimate boxer shorts x 6
Adult stretch high waist brief x 3
Reusable pads x 8
Menstrual cups x 8
Disposable products:
Disposable pads x 2 cartons (20 boxes in each carton)
Tampons x 2 cartons (12 boxes in each carton)
4. The “Priority” Claim The Council has officially stated that all organisations are given equal opportunities and that no “priority list” exists that puts community groups at the bottom. They also confirmed that the organisation was not advised they were restricted to a “tail end” budget.
Public resources belong to the community. When claims are made that contradict official records, the public has a right to see the actual quantities involved. My only goal is to ensure that the facts regarding these Welsh Government-funded resources are clear.
Carrie denies that her name is Carrie-Anne Ridsdale. However, it is relevant to document how her name was used historically across her own platforms.
In the early years of Jayne’s Baby Bank, she publicly used the name Carrie on Facebook and associated profiles. This included personal posts, interactions with supporters, and early Baby Bank–related activity where the name Carrie was openly used and not disputed.
This is further supported by an early TikTok video from 2020:
https://www.tiktok.com/@jaynesbabybank1_tm/video/6911693171411995906
Backup: https://web.archive.org/web/20260204085137/https://www.tiktok.com/@jaynesbabybank1_tm/video/6911693171411995906
Backup: https://archive.ph/jQEty
In that video, the account itself uses hashtags referencing both her real name and an alias, including #carrieanneridsdale and #stifflersmam. This predates the later adoption of the name Jayne Price.
Around 2022, a clear rebranding takes place. From that point onward, the name Jayne Price begins to be used consistently across social media, while earlier references to Carrie are increasingly denied or minimised. This change is observable across Facebook activity, livestreams, and branding, rather than originating from third-party claims.
It is anticipated that this may be dismissed as hacking or account misuse; however, the material referenced is dated, contemporaneous, and originates from her own accounts. Readers may wish to consider the timeline and form their own conclusions based on the historical record.
– S
I have previously seen posts where a photograph of her was shared, she denied categorically it was her.
Yesterday she actually shared a picture of herself!!!!! It wouldn’t surprise me if she now claims previous pics were of an identical twin stolen at birth……
Surely the authorities will act now.
How much longer can they ignore the evidence of scamming and fraudulent use of public money.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/jaynesbabybank
Some unreleased footage of various public encounters and altercations connected to JBB can be found here.
– S
The Welsh Government announced the start of their baby bundles being delivered to Welsh mothers from today. I wonder if Ms Ridsdale is going to accuse them of copying her ideas?
After receiving information via a Freedom of Information request, it is important to share the verified facts regarding Period Dignity products in our community. There are significant discrepancies between the public claims made by Jayne’s Baby Bank (JBB) and the official data provided by Caerphilly Council.
The Massive Grants Claim In November 2025, JBB claimed to have received massive grants to stock these products. However, official Council records show that the total value of items supplied to JBB between September 2025 and January 2026 was only £432.48. There is a clear contradiction between the public claim of massive funding and the actual receipt of less than £440 in stock.
The Tail End of the Budget Claim In January 2026, JBB informed the public they were on the tail end of the budget or at the back of the list for stock. The Council has confirmed this is not true and stated that JBB was never given that information. In reality, the Council provides all organisations with equal access to stock, and no partner is pushed to the bottom of the list or restricted to surplus items.
Mandatory Guidelines and Public Access There is a specific set of guidelines that every organisation is required to follow to participate in this scheme. These products are public resources funded by the Welsh Government for the entire community. Any organisation that accepts this stock must agree to these guidelines, which mandate that items are available to anyone who needs them. The agreement strictly states that organisations must not question or discriminate against individuals seeking these products, ensuring fair and open access for all.
The Bottom Line It is essential that public resources are managed transparently. The data shows that access to these products is not restricted by the Council, nor have there been massive financial grants issued to this specific organisation. These items are for the whole community, and every organisation involved is required to abide by the same fair and equal-access rules.
Confirming FOI and what has been written. Thank you Foxy
– S
The public encounters and alterations continues. She antagonises individuals with an emoji, but anyone dare to return the favour gets a barage of insults. She’s so predictable, her alleged ‘health problems’ are in the first sentence of her one woman battle for adoration.
She’s certainly brainwashed her own son with her lies of illnesses.
Very few, if any, liking the content of lies in her deception posts. Desperate times when her Jarmanis B Outique also carries the same CIC number as the mother and baby fraud.
I’m just hopeful that Sammy is seeing through the scam and distancing herself from the inevitable collapse of this despicable woman.
Carrie has publicly denied the existence of a County Court Judgment (CCJ). For members of the public who wish to independently verify the facts and understand how straightforward this process is, the judgment can be confirmed directly via the official public registry.
Verification details:
Website: https://www.trustonline.org.uk/
Case number: 521MC287
Search fee: £5
The following is a verbatim extract from a public video in which the existence of any such judgment is denied:
If a County Court Judgment remains unpaid, the court may authorise enforcement action. This can include enforcement agents (bailiffs), an attachment of earnings, a charging order against property, or an order to obtain financial information. An unpaid CCJ is recorded on the Register of Judgments for six years and may adversely affect creditworthiness, access to banking facilities, insurance, commercial leasing, and business relationships. Non-payment does not invalidate a judgment and may increase the total amount owed through enforcement fees and associated costs.
A search using the details above returns an official court record confirming that the CCJ does exist. The record shows the judgment registered by the courts at the relevant address, under a trading name connected with Jayne’s Baby Bank.
– S
More misinformation from Ms Ridsdale. Community Interest Companies pay business rates because they are not registered charities and do not automatically qualify for mandatory 80% charitable rate relief. However, they may apply for up to 20% discretionary relief from their local council. CICs are treated as limited companies for tax purposes, meaning they are liable for business rates on non-domestic properties.
Source: https://www.facebook.com/reel/923791926999605
This promotional reel appears to use imagery that is not original to the operation being advertised. At least some of the images shown in the description/video are sourced from other baby banks.
Example (image sourcing):
* The first still image matches a photograph from **Hartlepool Baby Bank**: https://hartlepoolbabybank.co.uk/
* Direct image file: https://hartlepoolbabybank.co.uk/assets/images/shelves-nappies.jpg
* Our archived backup screenshot: https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Stolen_Image.png
This raises obvious concerns about accuracy and authenticity in promotional materials, particularly where third-party imagery is presented in a way that may imply it reflects local stock, premises, or operations.
Concerning quotes from the reel (transcript excerpts):
“If they don’t know the locations then they can’t report it.”
“I’m not going to be giving out loads of locations.”
“We’re the only child and baby food bank in the UK.”
“There is no other food bank fundraising shops in the UK. It’s only us…”
Public note: Using third-party images alongside sweeping exclusivity claims and admissions about withholding locations to avoid reports is a serious credibility issue, especially when the content is used to promote donations, fundraising, or public trust.
– S
Also need to add stated CCJ not in her name and Pontypool shop gets lots of letters in different names. CJJ at her home address and t/s Jayne’s Baby Bank…
Haven’t posted for a while as I’ve been learning to walk again (sarcastic undertone) as Miss Ridsdale has suggested I do.
Does she really expect her followers to believe a word she says anymore.
The above photo of Hartlepool Baby Bank is the 5th photo this week to have been proven as being used to deceive the general public.
Your live last night had enough holes (lies) in it for you to start your own ‘Swiss Cheese’ production line.
I’m sure CCBC would love to learn of all these other places you are hiding your hoards. CCBC do not work ‘with you’ they work for the local community to ensure your operation meets legal requirements. They have been trying to get into your donation centre for a while now to check it meets health and safety standards. The only reason you hide your hoard elsewhere is to bypass your obligation as a CIC to meet strict protocol. As you’ve said previously, ‘nobody tells you what to do, not the Police, the Council, Social Services, nobody”.
You even stated last night that the CCJ wasn’t yours because its in the name of Carrie Anne Ridsdale. I mean do we have to add personality disorder to your many ailments as well now. Sherlock has enough proof of your true identity.
Please stop lying to yourself, your son, your mother, your followers.
If the photo with all the neatly lined up and labelled boxes is indeed your baby bank go and stand in front of them today, do one of your live feeds and own it!!
We’ve all seen what your really like through your live videos over the years and it’s definitely not organised or tidy.
Sorry you’ve worn me out now with all your lies, I need to rest. Think I’ll go and spend all my supposed UC and PIP that you claim I get on a nice relaxing holiday in the sun. Two weeks all inclusive should do it!
Public Note
Carrie Anne Ridsdale (also known as Jayne Price) of Jayne’s Baby Bank frequently claims that we have accused her of being a money launderer. This is false. At no point have we made such an allegation. A search of our articles and public comments confirms that we have never stated this.
Her counter-argument is that she only accepts payments by card (via SumUp), therefore laundering would be impossible. The earliest and only reference we have recorded to any mention of laundering originates from a now-deleted video posted by her.
Source:
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search/FB_Videos/DELETED_Jealous_Rant.mp4
Quote:
Transcript history:
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/search/?search=%22launder%22+%22laundering%22+%22launderer%22&limit=50&sort_order=oldest&search_type=all
Final clarification: under no circumstances have we accused Jayne’s Baby Bank of laundering money. What we do document is the repeated historical and ongoing representation, including in selective private group posts, of being a “charity” or “charity shop”. It is important to note that a CIC is not a charity.
– S
Notice
The Facebook profile qualifications have been amended, changing from BA (Hons) Nursing to BSc (Hons) Adult Nursing.
Original article:
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/2025/06/20/fact-checking-carrie-anne-ridsdales-alleged-ba-hons-nursing-degree/
Archived copy of the old profile:
https://archive.ph/zyAmu
Archived copy of the current profile:
https://archive.ph/gLBLF
Additionally, claims were made last night of working towards a PhD:
Screenshot evidence:
https://jaynesbabybank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/PHD_2026.png
– S
https://www.facebook.com/61577835621243/videos/25241425045528851/
In this video, Carrie (also known as Jayne) describes herself as a student nurse who was unable to work on the wards during the pandemic. However, in other public posts, Carrie/Jayne states that she obtained a degree and diploma in nursing and biochemistry and that she is currently undertaking a PhD.
In the UK, a student nurse is someone studying towards their nursing qualification, not someone who has already completed it. As presented, these statements cannot all apply at the same time and may therefore be confusing to the public.
If the degree referenced is in a different subject, or if the nursing course was not completed, that distinction is not made clear in the public statements.
– S
Public Notice – Limited FOI Release
Today we are publishing two documents obtained from Caerphilly County Borough Council under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The exemption notice confirms that certain information has been withheld by the council on the basis that it relates to an ongoing Environmental Health investigation, and that disclosure of further material at this stage could prejudice that investigation or any potential future legal proceedings.
📄 FOI Exemption Notice (PDF):
View Section 30(1)(a)(i) FOI Exemption Document
No additional documents, inspection reports, outcomes, or conclusions are being released by us at this time. This publication does not allege wrongdoing or assert any outcome. It simply reproduces the limited material provided and the council’s stated reason for withholding further information.
All documents are published as received, with personal data redacted where applicable, in the interests of transparency and public record.
– Sherlock
Does she really think council will stop listening to public complaints just because she threw her toys out of her pram.
They were asking a reasonable question due to email she sent them stating not selling food from anywhere then was she giving food away for free from shops and if so where is it stored and what kind of food- nothing wrong with that question to me.
It was email in response to what she stated doesn’t look like someone complained to council, but what a response
Proposal for Public Transparency and Open Scrutiny
If the website is, as claimed, fake or full of nonsense, a straightforward solution exists: share a direct link to it on the verified (blue-tick) Jayne’s Baby Bank page and invite public questions. Allow the general public to assess the content directly and query it openly, rather than filtering the narrative.
Doing so would demonstrate two things:
1. That you are not afraid of the content and believe you can address it openly.
2. That your stated position—that criticism is unfounded and that you are acting in good faith—can withstand public scrutiny.
This proposal does not involve curated videos, restricted comments, limited scrolling, performative behaviour, or controlled messaging. Simply share the website and allow the audience to read, verify, and judge the material for themselves.
However, this would also expose readers to documented rebuttals and responses from councils, charities, governing bodies, teaching associations, and other relevant organisations. That context matters.
It is also worth noting that any pending Community Interest Company (CIC) registration will require formal identity verification. Existing Companies House filings must be validated within the required timeframe, and new registrations must align precisely with official identification.
Sharing the website is a reasonable and fair proposal. Transparency is fundamental. If the existence of extensive historical material—spanning many years—is a concern, refusal would be understandable, but telling.
We expect a video response, as is typical. Nevertheless, the public deserves the opportunity to review the evidence directly and reach their own conclusions.
Open source. Open scrutiny. Public judgement.
– S
This has been ignored by Carrie. It’ll be very obvious why in upcoming months.
Enjoy the show.
– S
Surely this is illegal to one give a different name to the electoral roll and to the court?
She is definitely hiding from things.
Short answer: no, it is not automatically illegal. But it is a serious red flag.
In the UK, you can use different names socially or as a trading name. You can also change your name legally without a deed poll. However, court proceedings are supposed to use your true legal identity. Giving a materially different name to a court can obstruct enforcement, mislead creditors, and create due-diligence problems.
So using different names is not, by itself, a criminal offence.
But when the same person is on the Electoral Roll as Carrie Anne Ridsdale, on a CCJ as Ceri-Ann Ridsdale, fundraising as Jayne Price, leasing property as Jayne-Anne Carrie-Anne Ridsdale, and collecting donations as Jayne R-Price, that is not normal name usage.
It strongly suggests deliberate identity fragmentation to complicate traceability, enforcement, and accountability.
Whether it crosses into criminality depends on intent and what was gained or avoided by using those different names.
But as a matter of governance, enforcement, and public trust, it is highly irregular and deeply concerning.
– S
Can I also remind Ms Ridsdale that a CIC DOES have to pay business rates.
Community Interest Companies (CICs) generally pay business rates because they are not registered charities and do not automatically qualify for mandatory 80% charitable rate relief. However, they may apply for up to 20% discretionary relief from their local council. CICs are treated as limited companies for tax purposes, meaning they are liable for business rates on non-domestic properties.
Looks like she knows about the debt as I couldn’t see it stating business rates. Bit of time coincidence from when Ms Ridsdale put video up “Jayne’s Baby Bank Wins Again” regarding business rates video posted in Aug then CCJ. No coincidence.. Probs go and delete post but already have save
What names are being hidden under the redacted driving licence. I can take a guess at Carrie-Ann Ridsdale.
I’m sure it’s a legal requirement to have the correct credentials on certain documentation. The driving licence is a major red flag. How has she got a disability car if Jayne Price is on it, Carrie-Ann Risdale on utility bills, and on the electoral register. What name is on her passport?
This would be interesting to know because certain documents are needed for security issues, obtaining a passport needs birth certificate, driving licence etc. How is she managing to get leases, funding, attempting to secure another CIC for her ‘animal sanctuary’. It seems to me that someone is not ticking the correct boxes while she stamps through life scamming, destroying and insulting anyone she’s fixated with.
I’m sure the police need to look a bit deeper, there’s a multitude of evidence waiting to be brought before the courts.
You can easily change the name on a photo of your driving license on photoshop.