HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF VOLUNTEER-RELATED CLAIMS AT JAYNE’S BABY BANK
(Compiled from posts, videos and self-described narratives across multiple years)

===========================================================
1. SCOPE AND PURPOSE
===========================================================
This document collates and organises the full set of volunteer-related claims made by Jayne’s Baby Bank (“JBB”) and its representatives, based on the material you have supplied.

It focuses on:

• How volunteers are described (unpaid vs compensated).
• The roles and responsibilities volunteers perform.
• How vulnerable and under-18 volunteers are used.
• Misstatements relating to wages, benefits and tax.
• The scale of operations reliant on volunteer labour.
• Health and safety implications.
• Safeguarding and governance issues.
• Evolving narratives used to frame volunteers in public.

The aim is to show how these statements form a pattern of internal contradictions and potential legal and ethical concerns.

===========================================================
2. CORE NARRATIVES ABOUT VOLUNTEERS
===========================================================
Across posts and videos, several key narratives about volunteers are repeated:

1) That the organisation is entirely run by volunteers:
   • “We are a not for profit business run by volunteer Mothers.”
   • “It’s 100% run by volunteers from the CEO down.”
   • “The baby banks and charity shops are run by volunteers.”

2) That nobody, including the CEO, takes a wage:
   • “All our volunteers are unpaid including myself.”
   • “We don’t take a wage or claim fuel expenses.”
   • “Jayne’s Baby Bank CEO – £0.00 yearly wage.”

3) That every penny goes back into the cause:
   • “100% goes back into what we do.”
   • “The profits go back into helping Mothers in the local communities.”
   • “100% of the funds go back into the Baby Bank and no one takes a wage.”

4) That volunteers are mothers and community members:
   • “We are a not for profit business run by volunteer Mothers.”
   • “The shops are run by volunteer mothers and their children.”

These are presented as proof of moral integrity, low overheads and community focus.

===========================================================
3. REPEATED CLAIMS THAT VOLUNTEERS ARE UNPAID
===========================================================
There is a strong, repeated insistence that volunteers receive no wages:

• “All our volunteers are unpaid including myself. We all volunteer to help Mothers.”
• “We are all volunteer mothers… no one takes a wage.”
• “We don’t take a wage or claim fuel expenses and every penny goes back into the Baby Bank.”
• “I don’t get paid a wage, the volunteers don’t even claim expenses because they know every 1p counts.”
• “Delivery guys couldn’t believe it yesterday that the baby banks and Charity Shops are run by volunteers. They said, ‘but you pay yourself a wage, right?!’, nope! When we say 100% goes into what we do we mean it. It’s 100% run by volunteers from the CEO down.”
• “Hi guys if you could vote for us we would be grateful. We are not for profit business. 100% of the funds go back into the Baby Bank and no one takes a wage.”
• “Massive thank you… We don’t take a wage or claim petrol expense. We try and run our shops so that they are cheaper than charity shops…”

These posts leave a clear impression:
– Volunteers receive no financial or material compensation.
– Management, including the CEO, receives no remuneration.
– The operation is effectively a collective of unpaid helpers.

This narrative is central to JBB’s self-presentation.

===========================================================
4. EVIDENCE OF PAYMENTS IN KIND TO VOLUNTEERS
===========================================================
Against the “unpaid” narrative, numerous posts describe structured, predictable benefits given to volunteers in exchange for their labour.

Direct statements include:

• “We pay our volunteers minimum £20 a day in stock.”
• “Me and Gary Barlow will be re-opening Risca Roo today! I need volunteers to run the shop please. We pay our volunteers minimum £20 a day in stock.”
• “I need shop volunteers every shop… Risca shop volunteers managers (we pay our manager £30 a week in stock).”
• “Nnebs / teaching assistants / teacher qualified levels to run lego clubs in the evening in Blackwood/Risca/Pontypool (We can pay you minimum wage in stock. 2–3 hours per evening, 1 hour set up, 1 hour club, 1 hour pack up).”
• “Nappy shop!… 100% goes back into what we do! I don’t get paid a wage the volunteers don’t even claim expenses because they know every 1p counts!” (alongside earlier claims of £20/day stock allowances in other posts).

There are also repeated references (from other parts of the dataset) to:

• Volunteers taking bags of clothes or toys home.
• Volunteers having “rooms in their houses full of pound clothes”.
• Volunteers getting first choice of certain items.
• “End of day” perks for volunteers: bundles, pick of unsold stock, etc.

These describe:

• A daily stock allowance (e.g. £20/day).
• Weekly stock remuneration for manager roles (£30/week).
• Hourly-equivalent compensation in stock (“minimum wage in stock”).
• Non-cash benefits that are clearly tied to time worked and responsibilities held.

In legal and practical terms, this is compensation – not pure volunteering.

===========================================================
5. STOCK-BASED “WAGES” AND MANAGER ROLES
===========================================================
The new material makes clear that there is an internal hierarchy with different levels of compensation:

• Volunteers – “minimum £20 a day in stock.”
• Managers – “we pay our manager £30 a week in stock.”
• Qualified club leaders – “We can pay you minimum wage in stock. 2–3 hours per evening…”

This effectively creates:
– a wage system, denominated in goods instead of money;
– a management tier with regular, expected benefits;
– a reward structure based on duty and time.

This directly contradicts the repeated “no one gets paid” claims.

From an employment perspective:
• Payment in kind is still payment.
• Stock-denominated “minimum wage” is an explicit acknowledgment of work value.
• Managers being “paid” in stock strongly suggests a worker relationship, not a casual volunteer arrangement.

===========================================================
6. VOLUNTEER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
===========================================================
Volunteers are repeatedly described performing core operational tasks, including:

Retail operations:
• Running tills and handling cash.
• Serving customers.
• Managing boutique items and pricing.
• Maintaining “cheap charity shops” / “non-profit shops” across several towns.
• Organising sale events such as “50% off”, “75% off”, “filler bag for a pound”.

Shop management:
• “I need volunteers to run the shop please.”
• “Brynmawr shop is still struggling… Our staff there helped 9 Mothers and babies over the last two weeks.”
• “Shops are open guys… volunteers welcome.”
• “All our shops are open guys – pop in and say hi to us and the volunteers.”

Stock processing:
• Sorting donations in a dedicated “Donation Centre”.
• Pricing, hanging, folding, and preparing items for sale.
• Moving stock between shops (e.g. Blackwood, Pontypool, Risca, Aberbargoed, Brynmawr).
• Cleaning items such as jewellery and packaging them for sale.

Events and outreach:
• Helping at fundraising days and Santa visits.
• Running “lego clubs” and children’s activities.
• Supporting breastfeeding safe spaces and “free coffee shop” sections.

Operational language such as “shop volunteers”, “managers”, “shifts”, and “day shift/night shift” is used routinely, reinforcing the impression that volunteers are being treated as staff.

===========================================================
7. SCALE OF OPERATIONS DEPENDENT ON VOLUNTEERS
===========================================================
Even while insisting the organisation is volunteer-run and wage-free, JBB describes a substantial multi-site retail and support operation:

• “We own four shops to help Mothers in Wales & a donation centre.”
• “Hi guys We own four shops aimed to be cheaper than charity shops to help families, keyworkers and mothers.”
• “Hi guys We own three shops aimed to be cheaper than charity shops…”
• “We are the largest baby bank in South Wales. We’ve attached a food bank and fundraising shops.”
• “Jayne’s Baby Bank and Charity Shop and Free Coffee Shop Risca…”
• “ABERBARGOED RECORD, CD & MEDIA SHOP IS OPEN – Non profit. All proceeds go into the food bank and nappies.”

Throughout, volunteers are positioned as the labour force for:

• Multiple physical shops in different towns (Blackwood, Risca, Pontypool, Aberbargoed, Brynmawr, etc.).
• A donation centre.
• Specialised shop formats (record/media shop, boutique sections, breastfeeding cafés).
• Daily trading hours (often 9:30–4:00 or 10:00–4:00, six days a week).
• Ongoing expansion, including talk of new shops and warehouses.

Given this scale, the claim that everything is run purely on informal, unpaid volunteering is not credible when matched against the operational demands described.

===========================================================
8. SHIFTS, ROTA-STYLE WORKING AND “DOUBLE TIME” LANGUAGE
===========================================================
Some videos and posts go beyond casual volunteering and describe shift-based, long-hour patterns:

• “Morning guys. Me and Helen have done a day shift and now we are doing a night shift. One o’clock in the morning. It’s got to be double time after twelve surely.”
• “Roy and Helen have been here all day. Viv’s been here all day.”
• “I’m in Blackwood today because I’ve got some DIY to do over at Pontypool.”
• “We are literally charity-shop fatigued.”

This language indicates:

• Recognised “day shifts” and “night shifts”.
• Expectations of ongoing, extended work (including into the early hours).
• A culture where long hours are normalised and even joked about (“double time after twelve”).
• A clear distinction between being on and off shift.

The idea of “double time” particularly shows an awareness of wage concepts, despite claims that nobody is paid.

===========================================================
9. RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING OF VOLUNTEERS
===========================================================
Volunteering is depicted as open to almost anyone:

• “Just to remind everyone that anyone can volunteer if you are claiming benefits – we can also liaise with the Job centre and PIP for you. All our volunteers are unpaid including myself.”
• “Hi guys. So hiya guys, I need to just have a quick chat about volunteering again now. If you want to volunteer, you can go into the shops, introduce yourself, make yourself known to the managers. You need to come through me then to make sure that you’re suitable to volunteer. So you can’t just start in the shop without coming through me.”

Other statements refer to:

• Working with Jobcentres.
• Taking people on benefit-linked placements.
• Seeking volunteers for specific posts (shop volunteers, managers, club leaders).

This approach shows:

• A centralised gate-keeping role (“come through me”).
• Informal screening without reference to formal volunteer policies.
• Engagement with benefit-claimant volunteering as a labour pipeline.
• No explicit mention of structured induction, risk assessment or written agreements.

===========================================================
10. VULNERABLE AND UNDER-QUALIFIED VOLUNTEERS
===========================================================
There are several references to vulnerable volunteers or those with additional needs:

• “Young adults with autism and learning difficulties painted the room.”
• “The shops are run by volunteer mothers and their children.”
• “I need volunteers… Nnebs/teaching assistants/teacher qualified levels to run lego clubs…” (implying some more qualified but others not).

In the wider dataset, JBB also describes:

• Volunteers with learning difficulties.
• Volunteers who are vulnerable adults.
• A general framing of the baby bank as a “safe haven” where people can offload and feel part of a team.

Concerns arising:

• Involving young adults with autism and learning difficulties in physical work (such as painting and shop fit-outs) without clear H&S supervision.
• Involving children in running shops and dealing with the public.
• No evidence of tailored risk assessments or support plans.
• The same volunteers being expected to keep operations going despite fatigue and limited capacity.

===========================================================
11. HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPLICATIONS FOR VOLUNTEERS
===========================================================
Posts indicate persistent high workloads and potentially unsafe environments:

• “We are literally charity shop fatigued.”
• “We had a massive clean up today.”
• “I’m in Blackwood today because I’ve got some DIY to do over at Pontypool.”
• “Young adults with autism and learning difficulties painted the room and a lunatic, which is me.”
• “We are on the Sainsbury’s estate… we need more customers… Dan literally has to get in and out of the cars with deliveries.”

In combination with earlier material (unsafe ceilings, heavy lifting, warehouse work), this suggests:

• Manual handling tasks performed by untrained volunteers.
• Maintenance and DIY conducted by volunteers with no reference to H&S procedures.
• Volunteers working late into the night.
• Use of vulnerable volunteers in physically demanding roles.

There is no consistent language about:
– risk assessments;
– H&S training;
– PPE beyond occasional casual mentions;
– insurance cover for volunteers.

===========================================================
12. CLAIMS ABOUT EXPENSES AND PETROL
===========================================================
Financial hardship and sacrifice are emphasised repeatedly:

• “We don’t take a wage or claim petrol expenses.”
• “No one has claimed petrol to date.”
• “Jayne’s Baby Bank CEO – £0.00 yearly wage. Jayne’s Baby Bank CEO – expenses £0.00. Jayne’s Baby Bank CEO – company vehicles £0.00.”
• “Nappy shop!… I don’t get paid a wage the volunteers don’t even claim expenses because they know every 1p counts!”

These statements serve several narrative purposes:

• Reinforcing the “we are selfless” motif.
• Encouraging donations by stressing that money does not go on staff costs.
• Normalising unpaid and unexpensed travel and labour for volunteers.

However, they sit alongside direct acknowledgements of stock-based compensation and structured roles, creating a partial and potentially misleading financial picture.

===========================================================
13. MISSTATEMENTS ABOUT BENEFITS AND TAX (VOLUNTEER CONTEXT)
===========================================================
Earlier material (outside this specific search but within your dataset) includes statements to volunteers such as:

• “You can volunteer if you are on benefits, it won’t affect your benefits.”
• “They cannot tax second-hand goods.”
• “This is not taxable, it’s a goodwill gesture.”

When combined with:

• “We pay our volunteers minimum £20 a day in stock.”
• “We can pay you minimum wage in stock.”

These points emerge:

• Volunteering is explicitly promoted to people on benefits.
• Compensation in kind is explicitly described.
• Volunteers are reassured that this will not affect their benefits or taxation.
• Those reassurances are almost certainly wrong in UK law, where non-cash remuneration can be treated as income.

This exposes volunteers to potential:

• benefit overpayment issues;
• accusations of undeclared income;
• financial harm if their circumstances are later reviewed.

===========================================================
14. VOLUNTEERS AND THE “NO WAGE” / “100% GOES BACK” RHETORIC
===========================================================
The phrase “no one takes a wage” appears frequently alongside references to shop trading and profits:

• “How our Baby Bank Works… The profits go back into helping Mothers in the local communities.”
• “Cheap Charity Shops to help families all over UK… Help us help other families… 100% of the proceeds go back into the food bank and nappies.”
• “Guys – we are all about taking the stigma out of food banks and preventing landfill… 100% of what it cost goes back into what we do no one takes a wage.”
• “Nappy shop!… 100% goes back into what we do! I don’t get paid a wage the volunteers don’t even claim expenses because they know every 1p counts!”

This rhetoric:

• Encourages a perception of total financial purity.
• Claims that every penny spent in the shops goes straight to community support.
• Hides the fact that volunteers and managers are, in reality, compensated with stock.
• Avoids any discussion of how stock compensation is accounted for (or whether it is accounted for at all).

The combined effect is that donors and customers are led to believe no value is extracted by individuals, when in fact a non-cash extraction system is described in other posts.

===========================================================
15. VOLUNTEERS AS PROOF OF LEGITIMACY AND SCALE
===========================================================
Volunteers are used as a rhetorical device to demonstrate legitimacy, scale and popularity:

• “We own four shops aimed to be cheaper than charity shops to help families, keyworkers and mothers.”
• “Jayne’s Baby Bank and Charity Shop and Free Coffee Shop… volunteers welcome.”
• “Hi, everyone. I just wanted to tell you about this amazing thrift shop that I found in Wales. They have quite a few shops… It’s all run by volunteer mothers. Nobody takes a wage.”
• “All our shops are open guys… pop in and say hi to us and the volunteers.”

Here, volunteers are:

• Evidence that the organisation is community-backed.
• Proof of hard work and dedication.
• Used as part of promotion and PR messaging.

However, these same volunteers are also doing the work that, in most organisations, would be paid retail, logistics and support roles.

===========================================================
16. VOLUNTEERS AS AN EMOTIONAL AND DEFENSIVE SHIELD
===========================================================
Volunteers are often invoked when responding to criticism or perceived “haters”:

• Implicit messages that critics hurt volunteers rather than just the founder.
• References to “charity shop fatigue” and “working 7 days a week” to show personal and volunteer sacrifice.
• Statements that the shops would struggle or close without more volunteers.

The narrative becomes:

• “If you criticise us, you are attacking volunteers and mothers.”
• “We work for free; therefore criticism is unjust.”
• “Look at how much volunteers give; therefore our practices cannot be wrong.”

This use of volunteers as a moral shield complicates open discussion of governance, working conditions and legal compliance.

===========================================================
17. INTERNAL CONTRADICTIONS – VOLUNTEER CLAIMS MATRIX
===========================================================
The evidence can be summarised as a set of direct contradictions:

A) UNPAID vs PAID:
   • “All our volunteers are unpaid including myself.”
   vs
   • “We pay our volunteers minimum £20 a day in stock.”
   • “We pay our manager £30 a week in stock.”
   • “We can pay you minimum wage in stock.”

B) CASUAL HELP vs STRUCTURED EMPLOYMENT-LIKE WORK:
   • “Anyone can volunteer if you are claiming benefits.”
   vs
   • “Me and Helen have done a day shift and now we are doing a night shift.”
   • “We need shop volunteers in every shop.”
   • “Volunteer managers” with defined weeks and duties.

C) SELFLESS SACRIFICE vs MATERIAL BENEFIT:
   • “We don’t take a wage or claim petrol expenses.”
   vs
   • Descriptions of volunteers taking home stock, bags of clothes, bundles, toys.

D) SMALL GRASSROOTS HELP vs LARGE RETAIL EMPIRE:
   • “We are a not for profit business run by volunteer Mothers.”
   vs
   • “We own four shops and a donation centre.”
   • “We are the largest baby bank in South Wales.”
   • “ABERBARGOED RECORD, CD & MEDIA SHOP… non profit.”

E) SAFE HAVEN vs HIGH-RISK WORK:
   • “Safe space… free tea and coffee… volunteers and customers welcome.”
   vs
   • Young adults with autism and learning difficulties painting and doing physical work.
   • Night shifts, high workloads, “charity shop fatigued.”
   • DIY and manual handling tasks.

These contradictions are not minor. They go to the heart of how the organisation represents itself, how it treats those who work for it, and how it seeks public support.

===========================================================
18. LEGAL AND REGULATORY RISK OVERVIEW (VOLUNTEER CONTEXT)
===========================================================
Based solely on the statements themselves (not external legal advice), several categories of risk emerge:

1) Employment law / worker status:
   • Structured hours, defined roles, and ongoing obligations.
   • Non-cash remuneration (stock allowances, manager pay).
   • Manager role with stock wages.
   Together, these factors are strongly indicative of “worker” or even “employee” status, not casual volunteers.

2) DWP / benefits and HMRC exposure:
   • Promoting volunteering to benefit claimants while providing in-kind payments.
   • Reassurances about the impact on benefits that are almost certainly incorrect.
   • No evidence of these in-kind “wages” being reported or assessed.

3) Health and safety:
   • Volunteers undertaking DIY, painting, manual handling, late-night shifts, and warehouse-style work.
   • Vulnerable and young volunteers involved in potentially risky tasks.
   • No clear mention of risk assessments, training, or formal H&S policy.

4) Safeguarding:
   • Volunteer mothers and their children involved in shop operations.
   • Vulnerable adults (including those with autism and learning difficulties) used in physical work.
   • Shops also functioning as safe spaces where customers “offload” to volunteers, creating informal support roles without training.

5) Governance and transparency:
   • Repeated claims of zero wages without acknowledging stock-based compensation.
   • Blurring between personal sacrifice narrative and the reality of structured, compensated labour.
   • Large multi-shop structure run on largely undocumented volunteer arrangements.

===========================================================
19. OVERALL CONCLUSION
===========================================================
Taken together, the volunteer-related statements present a deeply inconsistent picture.

On the one hand, JBB repeatedly claims:

• All volunteers, including the CEO, are unpaid.
• Nobody takes a wage or expenses.
• 100% of profits go back into supporting families.
• The organisation is driven purely by volunteer mothers and community goodwill.

On the other hand, the same organisation:

• Explicitly states it pays volunteers “minimum £20 a day in stock”.
• Pays managers “£30 a week in stock” and offers “minimum wage in stock” for certain roles.
• Uses volunteers to staff multiple shops, operate tills, manage stock, carry out DIY, and perform long shifts.
• Relies on vulnerable and young volunteers for physical and customer-facing work.
• Treats what is in effect a multi-location retail enterprise as if it were informal volunteering.

The contradictions between the “unpaid volunteers” narrative and the documented reality of stock-based remuneration, structured roles, and operational dependence are persistent and material. They raise significant concerns about transparency, employment practices, safeguarding, and overall governance.

This document captures those issues as they appear in the organisation’s own words and public claims.

===========================================================
END OF FILE
===========================================================