Safeguarding Update. Updated 13 October 2026
Within hours of our 13 September 2026 article reporting that a convicted child sex offender is working and living at Jayne’s Baby Bank, the Baby Bank’s own Facebook page published a fabricated Facebook Messenger screenshot in which five named local people are described as “known paedofiles and sex offenders” and “a child trafficking ring”.
The screenshot was presented as a message from Dank Dragon, a long-established child-protection team with around 200,000 followers. It was not. The page it came from is called “Dank Drangon”, a misspelling. Facebook labelled the Baby Bank’s post as AI content. Dank Dragon went live that evening to say the page is an impersonation, that they have received dozens of messages from worried members of the public, and that police have already told complainants the messages are not from them.
This article records what was posted, when, what Dank Dragon said in reply, what the Baby Bank said afterwards, and which laws are engaged. It follows our earlier report, Convicted Child Sex Offender Working and Living at Jayne’s Baby Bank.
Updated 13 October 2026. The “South Wales Peadofiles Hunters” page has published the second poster again, on its own. Our capture of the page now shows it following one account: the Baby Bank’s own page, “Jaynesbabybank Registered – cic”. The entry.
Updated 21 September 2026. On 20 September both posters were republished by a Facebook page called “South Wales Peadofiles Hunters”, the account name that appeared in the Baby Bank’s own screenshots five days earlier. The matter is with the police. The entry. Everyone named should treat this as urgent and read the action list.
Screenshots of five people’s profiles and a “Dank Drangon” Messenger chat are taken on one phone in twelve minutes, then posted: “None of these should be around children.” Facebook marks the post as AI content.
Dank Dragon goes live to disown the page and tell the public to ring 999. At 22:25 the Baby Bank edits its post rather than removing it: “Not nice being called a peado is it.”
The page publishes N.W.’s own messages about fearing she “could literally be killed”, and mocks them. The screenshots show the poster signed in as “South Wales Peadofiles Hunters”. On 20 September a page of that name publishes both posters itself, and on 13 October it publishes the second poster again.
An AI-generated “Safeguarding Alert” poster with the five people’s faces is posted with the caption “Scum”, then “name and shame you back”. The Facebook page is disabled by about 16:00 and back by 18:00. At 16:20 the TikTok account reposts the poster and adds a second naming two more people. A public group she has run since February carries both posters and an eighth target, and the posting resumes there that evening: “Keep lying – see what happens”.
Why this matters
Jayne’s Baby Bank C.I.C. is a registered company that presents itself as a safeguarding-aware service for families with young children. Its director has, over two days, used the organisation’s official page to circulate an unverified allegation of child sexual offending and child trafficking against five identifiable members of the public, with their towns, and in one case a workplace, attached, and has now turned it into a shareable poster with their faces on it. When the Facebook page was disabled, the same material moved to TikTok within twenty minutes, with two more people added, and was running throughout in a public Facebook group that she and her son have administered since February 2026, set up to give critics “a bit back”. That is not a private dispute. It is a public safeguarding failure by the organisation itself, and it comes from the same premises where, as we reported yesterday, a person with a conviction for child sexual offences works and lives.
Where the material comes from
Everything below was published publicly by the Jayne’s Baby Bank Facebook page, by the Baby Bank’s TikTok account, by the public Facebook group “Jayne’s Baby Bank STALKERS & HATERS Exposed”, by the public Facebook page “South Wales Peadofiles Hunters”, by Dank Dragon’s public Facebook Live, or by members of the Jayne’s Baby Bank Exposed group who reported the post to Dank Dragon. Post edit history is taken from Facebook’s own “edit history” view. Quotations are verbatim, spelling included. The messages from N.W. reproduced in the 15 September entry were published by the Baby Bank page itself; we reproduce them because they record, in her words, the effect of what was done to her. The people named in the fabricated message are referred to by initials. We have not contacted them for comment and nothing here should be read as a statement about them.
What Was Posted
Screenshots
Six images taken on one phone in twelve minutes
Each image in the Baby Bank’s post is a phone screenshot with the status bar visible. The times and battery levels run in sequence:
| File | Content | Phone clock | Battery |
|---|---|---|---|
DK_20260914_05_dlwc_profile_1250.jpg |
Profile of D.L.W.C. (Cardiff) | 12:50 / 12:51 | 9% / 8% |
DK_20260914_04_jg_profile_1249.jpg |
Profile of J.G. (Pontypool) | 12:49 | 9% |
DK_20260914_06_nw_le_profiles_1253.jpg |
Profile of L.E. (Pontypool) and N.W. | 12:53 / 12:55 | 8% |
DK_20260914_02_fake_messenger_message.jpg(inset) |
Profile of K.R., inside the “Dank Drangon” chat | 13:00 | 10% |
DK_20260914_02_fake_messenger_message.jpg |
The “Dank Drangon” Messenger message | 13:01 | 10% |
The post itself went up at 13:06. Whoever took these screenshots did so on a single device in the twelve minutes immediately before the Baby Bank page published them.
The fabricated message
“It appears to be a child trafficking ring”
The central image is a Messenger conversation. The header shows the other party as “Dank Drangon”, with a profile picture copying Dank Dragon’s dragon logo. The message reads:
“Hi Dane
We have evidence that these are known paedofiles and sex offenders and will be tackling them them soon. It appears to be a child trafficking ring.
N.W. Rhymney
L.E. Pontypool
D. – Cardiff
K.R.
J.G. PontypoolThanks Dank Dragon”
Three things about this image are worth stating plainly.
- The page name is misspelled. The real team is Dank Dragon. The page in the screenshot is “Dank Drangon”. Dank Dragon made this the first point of their live broadcast.
- The message is in a blue bubble on the right, marked “Sent”. In Facebook Messenger, blue right-aligned bubbles are messages written by the account holding the phone, and the “Sent” delivery label is only shown to the sender. Messages received from the other party appear in grey on the left. On its face, this screenshot shows the phone’s owner composing the message, not receiving it.
- Facebook pages cannot start a conversation. As Dank Dragon explained, a page can only reply once a person has messaged it first. A genuine unsolicited warning from a page to a member of the public is not possible on the platform.
- Parts of the image are unreadable. The inset profile screenshot inside the chat carries a header of garbled, non-alphabetic characters where a page name should be, and other small text is smeared in the way generative image tools render lettering. Facebook’s own “AI content” label on the post is consistent with this.
The second Messenger screenshot ends with a blue bubble reading “Hi Jane”. The first is addressed “Hi Dane”. Ms Ridsdale posts as Jayne Price. Two different spellings of the same greeting, one of them not a name, is the kind of error generative tools produce when asked to render text.
Original post
“None of these should be around children”
The Jayne’s Baby Bank page published four of the images with this caption:
“Well there you go – even the professions can see it. Talk about projecting. None of these should be around children.”
Facebook’s own label on the post reads “AI content”. This is the same label that Facebook applied to the run of certificate images the page posted the same day, which we examined in our qualifications review.
The words “even the professions can see it” present the message as an independent finding by a recognised child-protection team. The word “projecting” ties it directly to the allegation published against the Baby Bank the previous day.
Dank Dragon’s response
“We are not the person that is sending out messages threatening people”
Members of the Jayne’s Baby Bank Exposed group reported the post to Dank Dragon. That evening Dank Dragon, the genuine page, broadcast a fourteen-minute Facebook Live from its own account, holding up the fabricated screenshot with the names blanked out. By the time it was captured it had 232 reactions, 292 comments and 53 shares. The following is from the transcript of that broadcast.
On the fake page:
“We, over the last 48 hours, have been absolutely bombarded with messages from concerned people, a lot of whom are our followers, who are receiving disturbing content, messages, threats from somebody from within the region, pretending to be us. I don’t know whether they realised when they set the page up that they actually spelt it incorrectly, Dank Drangon.”
On what the messages contained:
“DankDragon or DankDrangon are replying or sending messages to people threatening to come to their door and outing innocent people’s names as part of some form of hate campaign or suggesting that these innocent people or people of the, in the content are part of a pedophile [ring]. It’s just not our, it’s not what we do. We definitely, definitely wouldn’t be writing to people about this and pages actually aren’t able to start a conversation.”
On how the matter reached them:
“We’ve had probably 20, 30 messages in today and last night. With regarding someone in Pontypool, something, someone, James, something, Baity Bank or something, all saying that they have messaged DankDragon and DankDrangon are not interested in helping.”
“We’ve heard how some people have already gone to the police about it and the police are saying that it’s not us.”
On the Baby Bank specifically:
“Dank Dragon and associated people, Page, Jayne, Jayne’s baby boutique or whatever it is, and Pontypool or whatever it is, who’s put a post out threatening us saying that they contacted us and we’ve not done anything about it. And then got the ump that we didn’t reply, whatever, and then have set up a page or whatever it is and pretended to be us. You know, it’s very concerning that you have got that amount of time and hate for people to do that. But don’t bring us into it because the bottom line is you will get yourself into a hell of a lot more shit through doing what you’re doing. And you just can’t go around pretending to be other people and giving people, making people’s lives a misery.”
On the correct route for any concern:
“If you have any concerns for a child, locally, nationally, online, someone that you know, whatever the case may be, the answer is always, always, always 999. Teams like us cannot and will not be able to act on behalf of somebody else’s say so.”
Dank Dragon also said they had been contacted by “Mr C. from South Wales who plays his part with child safety around the UK as well”. Mr C. is the “D. – Cardiff” named in the fabricated message.
Post edited
“Some of them panicking and changing their profile”
Nine hours after the original post, and after Dank Dragon’s live had gone out, the Baby Bank page edited the post. Facebook’s edit history shows one image added and the caption extended:
“Some of them panicking and changing their profile. Not nice being called a peado is it. So don’t call me one . Get my name and details doen immediately. There are no peados living at the baby bank. Keep on .”
The added image is a screenshot of N.W.’s profile taken at 21:36 showing that she had changed her profile picture seven hours earlier. The post was not removed. It was expanded.
The line “Not nice being called a peado is it” is, in our reading, the clearest statement in the whole sequence of what the post was for.
Comments on Dank Dragon’s live
“This was sent to me” and “It’s nothing to do with us”
The Baby Bank page then commented under Dank Dragon’s live broadcast three times. In full:
“Hiya to the Team. This was sent to me earlier and I know for a fact children have been taken off some of these individuals because they have told me themselves. There is a smear campaign about the baby bank so obviously someone retaliating as they have been calling myself a peado lately. It’s nothing to do with us I recieved a message earlier . If the the individuals named don’t like being called peados – maybe they should make up fake posts about people being peados themself. I have learning difficulties and autism and have run the baby bank for over 6 years and these individuals are jealous. All they have left is to falsely abuse people of being peados to try and destroy the work they are doing . When N. had her own charity shut down by the charity commission for fraud and her children removed due to drugs etc. We welcome Dank Dragon to come and investigate the baby bank – not a problem at all. But you can see how fixated these weridos are on myself with all the fake profiles and pages they have made up about me. However – we also have a lot of documentation and evidence against said individuals. Dank Dragon we have no named you this was sent to me and we openly invite you to come and investigate myself and baby bank staff. We all have rolling enhanced dbs checks. Thanks”
“D.C. has falsely called us peado so I don’t know what his game is . But he’s never met us or done any research and threatened to turn up at our premises”
“I have not set up a page ot threatened you at all”
Escalation
“Safeguarding Alert”: a poster with their faces on it
The following afternoon, with the original post still up and this article live, the Baby Bank page published a single image with the caption “Scum”. Facebook again attached its “AI content” label. The image is styled as a public safety poster: red and yellow hazard stripes, a red handprint, warning triangles. The text on it reads, in full:
“SAFEGUARDING ALERT. CHILD SAFETY COMES FIRST. HANGING AROUND BABY OUTLETS AND GROUPS. KNOWN PAEDOPHILES AND SEX OFFENDERS. THEIR OWN CHILDREN HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THEIR OWN CUSTODY FOR SAFETY. Protect Children Speak Out.”
“THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE KNOWN TO HANG AROUND BABY OUTLETS, CHILDREN’S GROUPS, DONATION CENTRES AND FAMILY SERVICES. BE AWARE. STAY ALERT. REPORT ANY SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOUR.”
“LET’S KEEP OUR CHILDREN SAFE. IF YOU SEE THEM, PLEASE REPORT TO THE POLICE AND INFORM SHOP / GROUP STAFF IMMEDIATELY. See Something Say Something. SAFE CHILDREN. STRONGER COMMUNITIES. A BRIGHTER TOMORROW.”
Beneath the headline are seven framed photographs: two of N.W., labelled Rhymney; two of L.E., labelled Pontypool; one of D., labelled Cardiff; one of K.R., labelled Pontypool / Newport; and one of J.G., labelled Pontypool. Every photograph is lifted from the profile screenshots taken on 13 September. The two J.G. and D. photographs are the same ones that appeared in the Messenger images the day before.
Three things distinguish this from the previous day’s post.
- It is no longer presented as somebody else’s message. There is no “Dank Drangon”, no “this was sent to me”. The poster carries no attribution at all. It was generated and published by the Baby Bank page as its own statement.
- It is built to be shared. A Messenger screenshot is a claim about a conversation. A poster with faces, names, towns, and the instruction “if you see them, please report to the police and inform shop / group staff” is a call for members of the public to act against the people pictured.
- It states, as fact, that their children have been removed. The 13 September comment said “I know for a fact children have been taken off some of these individuals”. The poster prints “THEIR OWN CHILDREN HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THEIR OWN CUSTODY FOR SAFETY” beneath all five names.
No evidence of any kind accompanies the poster. Nothing in it identifies a conviction, a court, a date, or an offence.
“Name and shame you back”
The motive, in the page’s own words
Shortly after the poster, the Baby Bank page posted a text update. Comments on it are restricted, which Facebook shows as “limited who can comment on this post”.
“Imagine calling some one a peado when they are not and then getting offended when they name and shame you back. They don’t remove children from parental custody for nothing.”
This is the page’s own account of why the poster exists. The five people were named, in the page’s words, as a response to the Baby Bank being “called a peado”. That is a statement of retaliation, not of safeguarding. It is also the third time in two days that the page has published a claim about the removal of these people’s children.
Facebook page disabled
The page goes down
By about 16:00 the Jaynesbabybank Registered – cic Facebook page was no longer accessible. Whether it was removed by Meta following reports, or deactivated by its administrator, is not visible from outside. Every post described above, including the 13 September screenshots, the edit history, the poster and the “name and shame” follow-up, went with it.
Disabling a page does not delete the evidence. Meta retains content from disabled and deactivated pages, and the police can obtain it. The captures reproduced in this article were made while the page was live.
Escalation
Reposted on TikTok, with two new targets
Twenty minutes after the Facebook page went down, the Baby Bank’s TikTok account, @communityshopone, which carries the Jayne’s Baby Bank logo and name, posted the “Safeguarding Alert” poster from earlier in the afternoon and, alongside it, a second poster in the same style. TikTok attached its own label, “AI-generated content”. The account has turned comments off.
The second poster is headed “WARNING. SAFEGUARDING ALERT. THESE PEOPLE ARE LINKED TO [H.C.T.] CHARITY”. It carries two photographs: one of K.A., captioned “works for [H.C.T.] charity”, and one of J.J., captioned “[H.C.T.] supporter”. A text panel beside them reads:
“K.A. ALLOWED A PEADOPHILE TO STAY IN HER HOUSE AND ABUSE HER CHILDREN. THEN LIED AND SAID WE HAVE A PEADOPHILE LIVING IN OUR BABY BANK.”
Below the photographs: “THESE PEOPLE WORK WITH VULNERABLE CHILDREN AND ADULTS”, “KNOW THE SIGNS, SPEAK OUT”, “SEE SOMETHING SAY SOMETHING”, “REPORT CONCERNS TO THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES”, “CHILD SAFETY MATTERS”. The post description reads:
“J. openly brags about her family being peodofiles and wouldn’t report to the police so God knows how many children were affected.
K.A. allowed pedophile to live in her house and abuse the children. volunteers with vulnerable children and adults and couldn’t even recognise one in her own house”
Three points about this post.
- Two people who had nothing to do with the “Dank Drangon” message are now accused. Neither K.A. nor J.J. appears anywhere in the 13 September material. They have been added because of their connection to a different local charity.
- The allegation against K.A. is the Baby Bank’s own allegation turned around. The poster says she “lied and said we have a peadophile living in our baby bank”. That is the subject of this site’s 13 September article, which rests on the public record, not on anything K.A. said. The poster accuses her of the very thing it does, harbouring an offender, and offers nothing in support.
- The platform changed, the method did not. Within twenty minutes of losing the Facebook page, the same AI-generated format, the same “safeguarding” framing, the same instruction to report people to the authorities, and the same claims about other people’s children were republished on a second platform under the same organisation’s name.
As with the first poster, no conviction, court, date or offence is identified for either person.
The group
“About time they had a bit back from the community”
The posts described above did not appear in a vacuum, and the group that carried them was not created for them. “Jayne’s Baby Bank STALKERS & HATERS Exposed” was created on 13 February 2026, seven months before any of this, and had 675 members at the time of capture. It is public and visible, so anything posted in it can be read by anyone, member or not.
The group’s own description states what it is for:
“exposing the haters and stalkers trying to bring down our Trademarked Registered CIC and Baby Bank – about time they had a bit back from the community”
That is not the description of a baby bank, a support service or a safeguarding page. It is a statement of intent to retaliate against individuals, written in February and still in place in September.
The group lists two administrators: the Jaynesbabybank Registered – cic page, and Ms Ridsdale’s son, D.R. He is not the same person as the D. named on the first poster and in the fabricated message, who is unconnected to the Baby Bank. The group also allows anonymous posts. On Facebook, anonymous posts in a group are submitted to the administrators and appear only once an administrator approves them.
Three posts from 14 September are relevant.
Mid-afternoon, anonymous post, labelled AI content. Caption “Scum of the earth”. Two images: the “Safeguarding Alert” poster of the five people, and a photograph of an eighth person, L.J., taken from his own profile. No text explains why he is included. It went up while the Baby Bank page was still live, shortly before that page was disabled. Because it is anonymous, an administrator approved it.
Early evening, posted by the Baby Bank page as admin, labelled AI content. The second poster, naming K.A. and J.J., with the following text:
“J. openly brags about her family being peodofiles and wouldn’t report to the police so God knows how many children were affected.
We can play this peado bingo all night! Truth is you are the scum bags that support nonce not me. Keep lying – see what happens
K.A. allowed pedophile to live in her house and abuse the children. volunteers with vulnerable children and adults and couldn’t even recognise one in her own house . Police and courts informed.”
The post times here are read from relative age labels rather than clock times, so they are approximate, but they place these posts after the main page came back online rather than during the outage. This version adds two things to the one posted on TikTok: “Keep lying – see what happens”, and the claim “Police and courts informed”.
Early evening, posted by the Baby Bank page as admin, commenting turned off. A text-on-background image:
“Hmmmm who else lied and said we had a peado living in our baby bank???”
Read with the second poster, this is an open question about who else will be added. “Peado bingo” and “who else” describe the naming of people as a game with more rounds to come. “Keep lying – see what happens” is addressed to the people already named.
The main Baby Bank page had come back online by about 18:00. These posts followed it. The outage changed nothing.
A standing platform, not a reaction.
Almost everything the Baby Bank has said over these two days presents the naming of these people as something that happened to it. A message that was “sent to me”. Something “nothing to do with us”. A response to being “called a peado”.
The group answers that. A public Facebook group whose declared purpose is to expose “haters and stalkers” and give them “a bit back”, with an audience of 675 already assembled, has been running since February 2026. The material of 13 and 14 September was not published in the heat of the moment into whatever came to hand. It was published into a venue built for it seven months earlier, in the company’s name, with the director’s son as co-administrator.
Day three
“Hahhahhhahhahahah”: publishing a woman’s fear and laughing at it
On the morning of 15 September, with the poster still circulating, the Baby Bank page posted three screenshots of a public Facebook comment thread, above the following text:
“Hahhahhhahhahahah – arguing with the very person who you tried to get to stage a protest outside the shop. Someone should tell that [D.] you are a born liar before you get him arrested.
Not nice being branded a peado is it [N.]. Especially when everyone knows you had your 3 kids removed from your custody. They don’t take children without a valid reason. Sort your life out you crack head and stop obsessing over me.”
This post does three things the earlier ones did not. It names one of the accused directly rather than through a poster. It states as fact that her three children were removed from her custody, adding “They don’t take children without a valid reason”. And it calls her a “crack head”.
What the screenshots she published actually show. The thread she chose to publish is N.W. describing what the poster has done to her. In her own words, timestamped six to seven hours before the screenshots were taken:
“ive had people messaging me asking if its true i cant believe [D.] has shared this without blurring peoples names. and tag wales online so even more people see it.. i will have vigilantes coming to my door now cos this is all over facebook… theres nothing clarifying that we are innocent just my photo and name front and centre… and you sayig they desrve everythingthey get. people will read half a story and take t upon themselves to come after me. ive got kids and grandkids to i dont want them seeing this shit.”
“you please clarify so people know its not me. im ringing 999 in a min cos im not having him post this to…”
“thank you.. i could get my house burned down now or worse….”
“i could literally be killed tonight cos hes shared my photo and name.”
That is the material the Baby Bank page selected, screenshotted and published under the word “Hahhahhhahhahahah”.
A woman who has been named on a poster as a paedophile is saying publicly that she expects vigilantes at her door, that she is calling 999, that her house may be burned down, and that she may be killed. The organisation that published the poster responded by circulating those messages to its own audience as a joke, and adding an allegation about her children and her drug use.
This is the harm, stated by the person it is happening to.
Everything in the earlier entries describes a risk. This entry records the risk being felt. The fear of vigilante attack that the law on encouraging offences exists to prevent is not hypothetical here, and it is not this site’s characterisation. It is the account of one of the people on the poster, published by the page that made the poster.
A separate point about resharing. N.W.’s complaint in that thread is not only about the Baby Bank. She describes a supporter, D., resharing the poster to criticise it without redacting the faces and names, and tagging a news outlet, which she says widened the audience. Whatever the intention, she is right about the effect. Anyone circulating this material to condemn it should redact the faces and names first. There is guidance on this in the action list.
The screenshots give something away
Signed in as “South Wales Peadofiles Hunters”
All three screenshots in that post were taken on a phone, and all three include the bottom of the Facebook screen. Across that strip, in the box Facebook provides for writing a reply, are the words:
“Comment as South Wales Peadofiles Hunters”
That line is not part of the conversation and it is not visible to anybody else. Facebook displays it only to the person holding the device, and it names the profile or page that person is currently set to post as. It is, in effect, a signature on the screenshot.
The Baby Bank page published these images as its own material, in a post written in the first person, to make a point about a person it has spent two days accusing. On the face of it, the device that produced them was signed in to an account called “South Wales Peadofiles Hunters”.
This site does not assert from a screenshot alone who owns or operates that account. A screenshot can be taken by one person and sent to another. That possibility has to be stated, and it is the same possibility the page relied on when it said the “Dank Drangon” message was “sent to me”.
The account exists, it is branded as a paedophile-hunting group, and material published by a registered company’s official page was produced on a device signed in to it. That is a matter Meta can resolve from its own records in minutes, and the police can require it to.
The account name is spelled “Peadofiles”. The same transposition runs through the page’s own posts: “peado”, “peadophile”, “peodofiles”, and “known paedofiles and sex offenders” in the fabricated message of 13 September. It is an observation, not proof, and it is easily checked against the quotations throughout this article.
This whole episode began with a page impersonating a paedophile-hunting team, misspelled as “Dank Drangon”, whose supposed message the Baby Bank published and then disowned. A second paedophile-hunter-branded account now appears, on the device behind the Baby Bank’s own material. Whether the two are connected is not something this article can determine. It is now a specific question with a specific starting point.
On secondary accounts.
Operating an additional account is not in itself an offence, and many people run pages separately from their personal profile. It becomes a different matter where an account is used to evade enforcement after a page has been restricted or removed, which breaches Meta’s policies and can be an aggravating factor in a criminal investigation, or where it is used to make an accusation appear to come from an independent source.
The account posts the posters itself
“South Wales Peadofiles Hunters” publishes both posters
Five days after that name appeared in the reply box of the Baby Bank’s screenshots, a Facebook page called “South Wales Peadofiles Hunters” published a post containing both posters side by side: the 14 September “Safeguarding Alert” with the five people’s faces, and the second poster naming the two people connected to the other local charity. Facebook labelled the post as AI content.
When we captured it, the page had no followers, followed nobody, had no profile picture beyond the default letter “S”, and was categorised by its creator as a “Personal blog”. Its photo tab held three images: the two posters and the letter. It had published nothing else. A page with no audience of its own has one use, which is to give material a second author. What has changed since is below.
On 15 September the question was whether the device behind the Baby Bank’s post was signed in to an account of this name. That was a signature on a screenshot. This is the account itself, in public, distributing the two posters the Baby Bank page and its TikTok account had already published. The two posters exist nowhere else. Whoever runs this page had them.
This site still does not assert from a page name who operates it. A page can be created by anyone under any name, and that possibility is stated here as it was on 15 September. What has changed is that the possibility now has to explain not a stray line at the foot of a screenshot but a page that exists to circulate the Baby Bank’s own material.
The episode began with a page imitating a real child-protection team under a misspelled name, “Dank Drangon”, whose supposed message the Baby Bank published and then said was “sent to me”. A week later the same accusation is being carried by a second paedophile-hunter-branded page, also misspelled, also with no history, also carrying no evidence. The method is to make an accusation appear to come from a source that does not exist.
The police are involved. Nothing further about that is published here, and this site will not be commenting on it. Anyone who is named on either poster and has not yet reported should do so now and refer to this page by its URL.
The page posts again
Three weeks on, the page republishes the second poster and now follows the Baby Bank
On the morning of 13 October 2026 the “South Wales Peadofiles Hunters” page published a new post. Facebook showed it as one hour old when it was captured. It carries a single image: the second poster, headed “THESE PEOPLE ARE LINKED TO [H.C.T.] CHARITY”, which names K.A. and J.J. and says of K.A.:
“ALLOWED A PEADOPHILE TO STAY IN HER HOUSE AND ABUSE HER CHILDREN. THEN LIED AND SAID WE HAVE A PEADOPHILE LIVING IN OUR BABY BANK.”
The wording is the same as on the poster the Baby Bank’s TikTok account published on 14 September. The five people on the first poster are not in this post.
Three things about this post.
- Comments are limited. Beneath it Facebook shows “South Wales Peadofiles Hunters limited who can comment on this post.” The Baby Bank page placed the same restriction on its “name and shame” follow-up on 14 September, and turned comments off on the TikTok post.
- The image is a phone screenshot of the TikTok post, not the poster file. Across the top is the phone’s status bar: clock 17:53, battery 73%. TikTok’s “Find related content” search bar sits over the poster. The date is not visible, so the screenshot can only be dated to on or after 14 September, when the poster went up on TikTok. It appears to be a different capture from the TikTok one reproduced above. The only TikTok post of this poster known to us is the one on the Baby Bank’s @communityshopone account.
- No “AI content” label shows. The 20 September post carried Facebook’s label. This one, in our capture, carries none. We do not know why. A screenshot does not carry the embedded information of the original file.
The page now follows one account. On 21 September the page had no followers and followed nobody. The capture of 13 October still shows no followers, the same default letter “S” and the same “Personal blog” category. It now also shows one account followed: “Jaynesbabybank Registered – cic”, the Baby Bank’s own page.
Since the page was captured on 21 September it has done two things: it has followed one account, and it has published the second poster again. The account it follows is the page that published the first poster, the “Scum” caption and the “name and shame” follow-up, and that administers the “STALKERS & HATERS” group. It is the only account this page follows.
A follow takes one click, from whoever controls the page. It shows what the page follows, not who runs it, and this site still does not assert who that is. Meta holds the records that answer it, and the police can require them.
A page with no audience, created to carry the Baby Bank’s material, whose image is a screenshot of the Baby Bank’s own TikTok post and which follows only the Baby Bank’s page, is behaving as a relay for that material rather than as an independent source. That is an observation about how the page behaves, not a finding about who is behind it.
The matter is with the police, as stated on 21 September. Nothing further about that is published here. This is a further publication of the same material three weeks after the first, and anyone named who has already reported should add it to the same reference.
What the Record Shows
The screenshots were taken on one phone in the twelve minutes before the Baby Bank page posted them. The message is shown as sent, not received. The post was captioned as the view of “the professions” and edited nine hours later to taunt the people named. None of that is consistent with passively forwarding something that was “sent to me”.
The message is signed “Thanks Dank Dragon” and the post says “even the professions can see it”. Dank Dragon were named by the content, whoever typed it.
Our previous article concerns a person with a conviction for child sexual offences working and living at the Baby Bank. An enhanced DBS check discloses such convictions. It does not remove them. The statement “There are no peados living at the baby bank” is contradicted by the public record cited in that article.
Whether true or not, this is a public statement by a company director about children’s care arrangements, made to attack their parents. Information about family proceedings is protected by law. Publishing it on a company page is a serious matter in itself. On 14 September it was repeated twice more, once printed on the poster and once in the follow-up.
The 13 September position was that the accusation came from elsewhere and the page merely passed it on. The 14 September follow-up abandons that. “They name and shame you back” describes the page choosing to name these people because it had itself been accused. The poster is the act; the follow-up is the explanation.
A genuine safeguarding alert is issued by a police force, a local authority or a court, names an offence, and is not captioned “Scum”. This one was generated by an AI tool, carries no source, and instructs the public to report the people pictured to shop staff. It borrows the format of child protection to do the opposite of it.
The page was shown, in the plainest possible terms, what its poster had done: a woman saying she expected vigilantes, was calling 999, and might be killed. It published those words to its own audience as a joke and added two further allegations about her. Whatever else is disputed, the page cannot say it did not know the effect.
The defence offered on 13 September was that the accusation came from somewhere else and was merely passed on. A dedicated public group for exposing critics, created in February 2026, with 675 members and the director’s son as co-administrator, is not consistent with that. The venue existed seven months before the message that was supposedly received.
If the police and the courts have been informed about K.A., the correct course is to let them act. Publishing a poster calling her a paedophile’s protector, on three outlets, while saying the matter is with the police, is not what a person confident in a report does. No court, reference number or officer is identified.
The “South Wales Peadofiles Hunters” page has no followers, no posts before 20 September and no identifying content. It has published only the two posters, together on 20 September and the second one alone on 13 October, and on 13 October it was following one account: the Baby Bank’s own page. There is no reason for a genuine group to exist in that form. There is an obvious reason for a page created to be a second, apparently independent, source for material already published by the Baby Bank, and to keep it circulating if the Baby Bank’s own outlets are removed.
Five people were accused on 13 September on the strength of a fabricated message. Two more were added on 14 September because of a charity they are connected to, and an eighth through an anonymous post that an administrator approved. In each case the accusation is a child sexual offence, the format is an AI-generated poster, the evidence is nothing, and the stated reason is that the Baby Bank had itself been accused. When one platform removed the page, the material was on another within twenty minutes, and had been running in her own group all along. On 20 September it appeared under a fourth name, and on 13 October that name posted again.
The Laws Engaged
This section is not legal advice. It sets out, for the people named and for readers, which parts of the law of England and Wales are engaged by what was published. Each is a matter for the police, the regulators or the courts, not for this site.
Criminal law
False communications: Online Safety Act 2023, section 179. It is an offence to send a message conveying information the sender knows to be false, intending to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience, without reasonable excuse. This offence replaced the old “false message” limb of the Communications Act in January 2024. A fabricated accusation of child sex offending, published to a following that includes the accused people’s own community, is the paradigm case. The 14 September follow-up, “getting offended when they name and shame you back”, is the publisher’s own statement of purpose, and goes directly to the knowledge and intent elements of the offence. Maximum sentence: 51 weeks’ imprisonment.Threatening communications: Online Safety Act 2023, section 181. A message conveying a threat of serious harm, where the sender intends the recipient to fear it will be carried out or is reckless as to that. “Will be tackling them soon”, sent under the name of a team known for confronting suspects at their homes, a stated threat to “come to their door”, and “Keep lying – see what happens”, posted beneath a poster calling the recipients paedophile protectors, fall within this. Maximum sentence: five years.
Grossly offensive messages: Communications Act 2003, section 127(1), and Malicious Communications Act 1988, section 1. Both remain in force for messages that are grossly offensive or indecent. Describing a named person as a paedophile without basis has repeatedly been treated by the courts as grossly offensive.
Harassment: Protection from Harassment Act 1997, sections 1, 2 and 4. The 15 September post matters here more than any other single item. Section 4, putting a person in fear of violence, requires that the person feared violence on at least two occasions and that the defendant knew or ought to have known their conduct would have that effect. The page published N.W.’s own statements that she expected vigilantes at her door, that her house could be burned down and that she could be killed. Knowledge is not in issue where the publisher has read and republished the victim’s account of her own fear. Two or more incidents amounting to a course of conduct which the person knows, or ought to know, amounts to harassment. The original post, the 22:25 edit, the comments under Dank Dragon’s live, the 14 September poster, the “name and shame” follow-up, the 16:20 TikTok repost and the group posts are separate acts within about 28 hours, and the second poster, posted on TikTok and in the group, is already a course of conduct against two further people. Where the conduct puts a person in fear of violence on at least two occasions, section 4 applies, with a maximum of ten years. Section 3 gives the victim a civil claim and the right to an injunction.
Encouraging an offence: Serious Crime Act 2007, sections 44 to 46. Publishing a list of names and towns under the heading “known paedofiles and sex offenders” to a local audience, with the words “will be tackling them”, is capable of encouraging others to commit offences against the people named. The 14 September poster goes further: it puts faces to the names and instructs readers, “if you see them”, to report them to the police and to shop and group staff. That is a direct call for members of the public to act against identifiable individuals on the strength of a false allegation. Vigilante violence following online naming is well documented and has resulted in deaths in the UK. As of 15 September this is no longer only a general risk: one of the people named has said publicly that she expects it, and the page that named her has published and mocked that statement.
Disclosure of family proceedings: Children Act 1989, section 97, and Administration of Justice Act 1960, section 12. If the statement that “children have been taken off some of these individuals” derives from anything said or done in family court proceedings, publishing it is a criminal contempt. It is also, in every case, a disclosure of a child’s personal information for the purpose of attacking the parent.
Civil law
Defamation: Defamation Act 2013. An allegation that a named person is a child sex offender or child trafficker is among the most serious imputations known to the law. Under section 1 the claimant must show serious harm to reputation; for an allegation of this kind, published to thousands of local followers, that threshold is readily met. Under section 2 the burden is on the publisher to prove the allegation is substantially true. The claim lies against whoever published or republished the statement, which includes the person who posted it on the Baby Bank page regardless of who first “sent” it. Claims must be brought within one year of publication. Facebook’s edit history preserves the exact wording of each version.Data protection: UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018. Jayne’s Baby Bank C.I.C. is a company. Its public page is not covered by the household exemption. Publishing that a named person is a sex offender is processing of “criminal offence data” under Article 10 of the UK GDPR and section 10 of the 2018 Act, which is permitted only on narrow lawful grounds that do not include personal grievance. Naming someone’s employer and town alongside the allegation compounds the breach. The 14 September poster adds each person’s photograph, taken from their private profiles without consent, and a statement about their children. Facial images used to identify a person are personal data, and the assertion that their children were removed is data about the children as well as the parents. Each person named has a right to erasure under Article 17, a right to complain to the Information Commissioner, and a right to compensation for distress under Article 82 and section 168.
Misuse of private information. Statements about a person’s children being removed from their care, and about their alleged drug use, engage a reasonable expectation of privacy. Unlike defamation, the courts will grant interim injunctions to restrain further publication of private information. The poster’s repeated statement that the five people’s children have been removed from their custody is exactly the kind of material an interim injunction is designed to stop.
Evading enforcement and secondary accounts. Meta’s policies prohibit creating or using additional accounts to evade a restriction, removal or ban. Where a secondary account is used to continue conduct that is itself criminal, its use can be treated as evidence of persistence and of an attempt to avoid detection. Only Meta can confirm who operates a given account, and it can be required to do so by the police or by a court order.
Premeditation and course of conduct. Harassment under the 1997 Act turns on a course of conduct and on what the person knew or ought to have known. A standing public group, created seven months earlier for the declared purpose of giving critics “a bit back” and used to publish this material, is evidence of a settled intention rather than an isolated loss of temper. It is relevant to whether the threshold is met, and to whether a restraining order is appropriate.
Group administrators. Facebook group administrators control who posts, approve anonymous posts, and can remove content. An administrator who approves an anonymous post naming a person as “scum of the earth” alongside a poster calling others paedophiles is a publisher of that post for the purposes of defamation and, depending on knowledge, a party to it for the purposes of the communications offences. That applies to both administrators of the group.
Platform terms. TikTok’s Community Guidelines prohibit harassment, doxxing, and content that makes unfounded accusations of serious crimes against identifiable people, and its rules on AI-generated content require that such content not be used to mislead about real people. The 16:20 post engages all of these and can be reported by the people pictured and by anyone else.
Impersonation of Dank Dragon. Operating a page under a near-identical name and logo breaches Meta’s authenticity and impersonation policies and gives Dank Dragon grounds to have the page removed and to seek disclosure of who runs it. Where the impersonation is used to send false messages, the criminal provisions above also apply to the operator. Dank Dragon can apply for a Norwich Pharmacal order against Meta to identify the account holder behind “Dank Drangon”.
Regulatory
The Regulator of Community Interest Companies. A CIC exists for the benefit of the community. The Regulator can investigate complaints that a CIC is being run in a way that is not in the community interest, and has powers under the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004 to remove directors and appoint a manager. Using the CIC’s official page to circulate fabricated sex-offence allegations against members of the public, while a person with a relevant conviction lives at the premises, goes to the core of that test. So does maintaining a public group since February 2026, in the company’s name and with a director’s relative as co-administrator, whose declared purpose is to give members of the community “a bit back”.Companies Act 2006, section 172. A director must act in the way most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members, having regard to the interests of the community and the company’s reputation for high standards of business conduct. A director who exposes the company to defamation, harassment and data-protection liability in the pursuit of a personal grievance is acting outside that duty.
Local authority safeguarding. Under the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, any organisation working with families should have a safeguarding policy and a route for concerns. A children’s service whose director publicly names people as paedophiles on the basis of a message she says she received, rather than reporting it, is not following any recognised safeguarding process. Section 130 of the Act places a duty on relevant partners to report a child at risk to the local authority; it does not permit publication.
What the People Named Can Do
Now, before anything is taken down
- If you are N.W.: the 15 September post is the single most important item in this article for a section 4 harassment report. It shows the page reading your statements that you feared vigilantes and might be killed, republishing them, and laughing. Take it to Gwent Police today and ask specifically that section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act be considered, not only section 2.
- Capture the “South Wales Peadofiles Hunters” page now. Screenshot the page header showing zero followers and “Personal blog”, the post with both posters and its “AI content” label and date, the 13 October post with the second poster and its “limited who can comment” notice, the Followers tab with its Following list (it now shows the Baby Bank’s own page), the Photos tab, the About tab, and the URL, which ends in the page ID 61594407268564. Give it to the officer dealing with your report and ask that it be added to the same reference. If you have already reported, this is a further act in the same course of conduct.
- Capture the reply box. In the screenshots the page published, the bottom strip reads “Comment as South Wales Peadofiles Hunters”. Capture it at full resolution before the post is deleted, and give it to the police and to Meta. Ask Meta to confirm which account produced those screenshots and whether it is linked to the Baby Bank page or to the “Dank Drangon” page.
- Capture the group now. The About page is the single most useful item: it shows the description, the member count, the creation date of 13 February 2026 and both administrators, and it establishes that the group pre-dates the posts by seven months. Screenshot it, along with each post naming you, with its AI label, its timestamp and any “commenting turned off” notice; and the group URL. Screen-record scrolling through it.
- Capture the TikTok post now. Screenshot the post, the full description, the “AI-generated content” label, the account profile showing the Baby Bank name and logo, and the URL. Screen-record scrolling through it as well.
- The Facebook page being disabled does not lose the evidence. Tell the police the page has been disabled and ask them to request the content from Meta. Captures made while it was live, including those in this article, remain usable.
- Capture the poster first. It is the most serious item and the most likely to be deleted. Screenshot the post with the “Scum” caption and AI label visible, the poster at full size, the share count, and the “name and shame” follow-up with its restricted-comments notice.
- Screenshot the 13 September post, its edit history, the comments under Dank Dragon’s live, and the “Dank Drangon” page, with the URL and date visible. Save the page source or use archive.ph. Do this before reporting, because reporting can lead to removal.
- Note who has seen it: friends, employers, family, school contacts. Serious harm is proved by evidence of what people thought and did.
- Keep a note of the effect on you, dated: messages you have received, sleep, work, whether you have changed your routine or felt unsafe at home. That record is what proves fear of violence and what supports a claim for distress.
- Do not reply publicly, do not message the page, and do not contact Ms Ridsdale. Everything you send can be reposted.
Police
- Report to Gwent Police online or on 101, citing the Online Safety Act sections 179 and 181 and the Protection from Harassment Act. Ask for a crime reference number, not just an incident number.
- If you have already reported the 13 September post, contact the police again today and report the poster as an escalation under the same reference. Tell them it contains your photograph, instructs the public to report you, and that the page has stated in writing that it was posted to “name and shame you back”. Ask what steps will be taken to have it removed and to prevent further posts.
- If you feel at risk of being confronted as a result of the poster, say so explicitly to the police. That engages the fear-of-violence limb of the Harassment Act and the threatening communications offence.
- Ask the police to consider a Police Information Notice, and, if the conduct continues, arrest for harassment. The 22:25 edit and the subsequent comments show a course of conduct.
- If you are told the report is “civil”, ask for that decision in writing and ask for a review. Publishing that a named person is a child sex offender is not a civil matter.
- Facebook group: report each post naming you, and report the group itself for harassment and bullying. Reports on a group go to Meta, not to the group’s administrators.
- TikTok: report the 16:20 post for harassment and bullying, for hateful or abusive content, and for misleading AI-generated content about a real person. Report the account itself as well. Ask others to do the same.
- Facebook: report the poster post for bullying and harassment, for false information about a named individual, and for using your image without consent. Ask friends to report it as well; multiple reports on the same post are reviewed faster. Report the 13 September post on the same grounds. Report the “Dank Drangon” page for impersonation. Report the “South Wales Peadofiles Hunters” page for harassment and bullying and for coordinated inauthentic behaviour, and ask Meta to confirm whether it shares an owner, device or login with the Baby Bank page or the “Dank Drangon” page. Dank Dragon can do the latter themselves as the impersonated party and their report carries more weight.
Civil steps
- Send a written request to Jayne’s Baby Bank C.I.C. at its registered office under UK GDPR Article 17 requiring erasure of your personal data from the post and comments, and under Article 15 asking what “documentation and evidence” it holds about you. It has one month to respond.
- Complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office if the material is not removed.
- Consider an urgent solicitor’s letter demanding removal of the poster within 24 hours and an undertaking not to republish. If it is refused, an application for an interim injunction under the Protection from Harassment Act and for misuse of private information is realistic given the poster’s content and the page’s stated intent.
- Consider a solicitor’s letter before claim under the Pre-Action Protocol for Media and Communications Claims. Many media solicitors take defamation claims of this severity on a conditional fee basis. The limitation period is one year from 13 September 2026.
If you are sharing this to condemn it
- Redact the faces and names before you post it, and do not tag news outlets with the unredacted image. One of the people on the poster has said publicly that resharing without redaction widened the audience and increased her risk. Condemning the poster and spreading it are easily confused by anyone who sees it out of context.
If you are L.J.
- You were added by an anonymous post in a group administered by the Baby Bank page and D.R., beside a poster calling five other people paedophiles. Everything above applies. Report to the police, citing this article, and tell them an administrator approved the post.
If you are K.A. or J.J.
- Everything above applies to you. The allegation against you is the same in kind, on a company-branded account, with no evidence, and the page’s stated motive is retaliation. Report to the police today, citing this article and the 16:20 TikTok post, and tell them you were added to an existing campaign against five other people. The “South Wales Peadofiles Hunters” page republished your poster on 13 October: add that to your report as a further act, with a screenshot of the post.
- Tell the charity you are connected to. It is named on the poster and may wish to make its own report and take its own legal advice.
Regulators
- Complain to the Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies about the conduct of Jayne’s Baby Bank C.I.C. and its director.
- Raise a safeguarding concern with Torfaen County Borough Council about the organisation, referring to the poster, the earlier posts and the previous article. If any of the children referred to are known to social services, the department should be told that their parent has been publicly identified in this way.
The sequence is short, it is documented, and it is getting worse.
On 13 September this site reported that a convicted child sex offender is working and living at Jayne’s Baby Bank. The same day the Baby Bank’s page published a fabricated message, under the misspelled name of a real child-protection team, calling five local people a child trafficking ring. Facebook labelled it AI content. The real team went live to disown it. The page’s response was to extend the post, mock the people named for changing their profile pictures, tell them “Not nice being called a peado is it”, and then to say the whole thing was “nothing to do with us”.
The following afternoon the page published a poster with the five people’s faces on it, headed “known paedophiles and sex offenders”, captioned “Scum”, telling the public to report them if seen. Half an hour later it explained why: “name and shame you back”. When the Facebook page was disabled, the poster was on TikTok within twenty minutes, with a second poster accusing two more people. The group used for this was not set up in the heat of the moment. It was created on 13 February 2026 to give critics “a bit back”, and it is where an eighth person was added that same day by an anonymous post, and where the people already named were told “Keep lying – see what happens”.
On the morning of 15 September the page published one of those people’s own words about fearing she would be killed, and laughed at them. The screenshots it used show the poster signed in to an account called “South Wales Peadofiles Hunters”. On 20 September a page of that name, with no followers and no history, published both posters itself. On 13 October it published the second poster again, and its capture showed it following one account: the Baby Bank’s own page.
No evidence of any kind has been offered against any of the eight people named. Corrections supported by verifiable evidence will be reviewed and published.
Archive methodology: Post wording and timing are taken from Facebook’s edit history view, captured 14 September 2026. Updated the afternoon of 14 September 2026 to add the “Safeguarding Alert” poster and the follow-up post; their relative timing is read from the age labels visible on the captures. The poster text is transcribed in full; faces and names in the reproductions have been redacted by this site. Updated again at 16:20 on 14 September 2026 to record the disabling of the Facebook page and the TikTok posts; the TikTok post time is as displayed by the platform. The charity named on the second poster is referred to by initials. Updated at 18:00 on 14 September 2026 to record the reactivation of the page and the posts in the “STALKERS & HATERS” group; group post times are approximate, read from the age labels on the captures, and are given as parts of the day rather than clock times. Only one image from the group is reproduced; the others repeat material already shown or show a person not previously named. Updated on 15 September 2026 to add the post of that morning. The comments quoted in that entry were published by the Baby Bank page itself and are reproduced as it published them, spelling included; the relative ages shown on them place them six to seven hours before the screenshots were taken. The reply box visible at the foot of those screenshots is reproduced in a redacted crop. Updated 21 September 2026 to record the “South Wales Peadofiles Hunters” page; the page was captured on 21 September 2026 and its post is labelled one day old by Facebook, placing it on 20 September. The page URL and ID were recorded at capture. Updated 13 October 2026 to record the page’s second post and its following list; both were captured on the morning of 13 October 2026, the post being labelled one hour old by Facebook. The phone status bar visible at the top of that post’s image shows a clock and battery level but no date. Faces and names on the posters as reproduced, and the charity’s name, are redacted by this site. The involvement of the police is stated as a fact and nothing about it is described. Screenshot timings are read from the phone status bar visible in each image as published by the Baby Bank page. The Dank Dragon quotations are from a transcript of their public Facebook Live of 13 September 2026; timestamps are available. Third parties are identified by initials only. Statutory references are to the law of England and Wales as of September 2026. Nothing here is legal advice; the people named should take their own.
“The Welsh Charity Shop Hoax: Exposed!” is a public interest project examining the public claims and activities of Jayne’s Baby Bank. Factual statements are supported by evidence where available, and opinions are identified as such. Nothing on this site should be interpreted as a legal finding or legal advice.
– Sherlock