Safeguarding Update
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.
Screenshots of five people’s Facebook profiles and a “Dank Drangon” Messenger chat are taken on one phone in a twelve-minute window.
The Baby Bank page posts the images: “None of these should be around children.” Facebook marks the post as AI content.
Dank Dragon goes live: the page is fake, “we are not the person sending out messages threatening people”, and anyone with a concern for a child should ring 999.
The Baby Bank edits the post to add a sixth image and the line “Not nice being called a peado is it. So don’t call me one.”
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, in the past 24 hours, 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. 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 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 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.png |
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”
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.
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. 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, and a stated threat to “come to their door”, 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. 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 and the follow-up comments naming the same people are separate acts within 24 hours. 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. Vigilante violence following online naming is well documented and has resulted in deaths in the UK.
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. 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.
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.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
- Screenshot the 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Report the Baby Bank post for bullying and harassment and for false information about a named individual. Report the “Dank Drangon” page for impersonation. 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 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.
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 both this post and the earlier article.
The sequence is short and it is documented.
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”.
No evidence of any kind has been offered against any of the five 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. 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