The Sherlock Dossier
Exposed · Documented · On record · Exposed · Documented · On record · Exposed, documented, on record.

01Charities Act 1992 s.63Operating as a charity shop without registration

Social media posts, Facebook descriptions, video content, and physical signage have described the operation as a "charity shop," "charity boutique," and "food bank charity" across multiple premises for years. The primary brand logo — used continuously across all platforms, printed drop-off signs, and internal shop signage until the Facebook ban — explicitly names the operation Jayne's Baby Bank & Charity Shops. Internal shop premises additionally displayed permanent painted and applied signage reading "Charity SHOP" and "Jarmani's Charity Boutique". These physical displays confirm that the charitable branding extended into the permanent fixtures of the physical shops, not only to online platforms and advertising. A post dated 10 May 2023 states: “Just spent £1,018 of our aspiring charity money on two Disney Princess castles for the children to play in.” The operator’s own description of £1,018 as “aspiring charity money” confirms that donated funds were treated as charitable income and spent on soft play installations — a use not disclosable as a charitable purpose under either Charity Commission application, and not reflected in any CIC filing or annual return. The original Facebook profile bio for the operation read: “I have ovarian cancer, I launched a food bank, womens aid and baby bank to help as people in 2020” — embedding a health claim directly into the permanent public-facing identity of the operation from launch. A Facebook group was created on 21 May 2022 under the name "Jayne's Baby Bank & Charity Shop Newport Free Page" — using the word "charity" from day one, before being renamed "Jayne's Baby Bank SOUTH WALES Free Page" on 27 July 2022.

Private written admission of charitable status — Facebook Messenger. A Facebook Messenger exchange between the operator and a contact (referred to here as S##### Alice###) captures the operator responding to a challenge about unregistered shops. In the exchange the operator states in her own outgoing message: “Now we are a charity. Foodbank. Baby bank. And foodbank fundraising shop!” The message is private, not a public post — making it an unguarded written admission of the charitable claim rather than a public-facing marketing statement. In a private context, with no audience to perform for, the operator characterises the operation as a charity in plain terms. This is consistent with the broader pattern of using charitable language across all contexts — public posts, physical signage, logos, and private correspondence — while maintaining that the operation is not legally a charity when challenged by regulatory bodies. The exchange is archived as primary evidence.

In May 2026 — under the confirmed KnowledgeableEagle3954 alias, the operator made a series of statements reframing the operation's identity in direct response to public scrutiny. These include: “They are not charity shops they are not baby bank shops the sign is on the front in big letters 'Foodbank Fundraising Shops' run by Jaynes Baby Bank”; “We provide pantry food bags £5 the same as thousands of other pantry outlets in the UK AND we provide free foodbanks to relevant criteria”; and “We provide free items via request of letter not walk ins to relevant criteria.” These statements directly contradict: five years of documented "charity shop" signage, trading descriptions, and public representations; the documented policy of advertising items as free while restricting access to paying customers and donators; and the FSA food business registration declaring the operation as "A charity." The claim that signage has always read "Foodbank Fundraising Shops" is inconsistent with photographic evidence, inspection records, council enforcement notices, and the operation's own archived Facebook descriptions. The £5 food pantry bag admission further contradicts the repeated claim that all food is provided free of charge.

Contradiction — “free for the first year” claim. In a broadcast dated 12 September 2025, the operator stated: “for the first year we gave everything out for free, but we were fleeced and we were ripped off and people were selling it on left, right and centre. So that's when we said we need a better system.” This account directly contradicts the documented evidence: the "free items for customers and donators only" policy is recorded across 105 unique source documents spanning from April 2023 back to the earliest archived trading period — well within what the operator describes as the original "free" phase. The policy of restricting free items to paying customers was not introduced as a response to being "ripped off". It is the foundational operating model documented from the operation's earliest archived records. The same broadcast was the operator's first public disclosure of an autism diagnosis, and frames the move to shops and paid access as a natural operational evolution — a reframing inconsistent with the documented regulatory and enforcement history.

In the 6 October 2025 broadcast, the operator confirmed the restricted access model in her own words while simultaneously defending it:

This admission — made by the operator herself in the same broadcast as the decoy admission. Confirms that access to the operation requires either a cash payment or a physical donation of goods. The framing of a minimum card payment as simply "all a card machine will take" does not negate the documented payment requirement: the effect is identical regardless of the framing. This directly contradicts the operation's public positioning as a free service for families in need.

No Charity Commission registration has ever existed. Both formal applications failed — the full registration history, application reference numbers, refusal dates, and correspondence is documented in Finding 02. Despite formal notification of refusal in October 2023, the operation continued to use "charity" in its branding, signage, and online presence.

In February 2024, the operator submitted an official food business registration at Risca falsely declaring herself "CEO/trustee" of a "charity" with registration "Awaiting". Despite both Charity Commission applications having been refused. The food business registration filing, the absence of 68 Tredegar Street from the business rates register, and the Risca FOI listing the premises as a charity are documented together in Finding 09. In March 2026, despite Caerphilly CBC actively working to have false charity branding removed, the operator was personally photographed placing new "charity shop" signage on street corners in Caerphilly town centre.

“Charity pending shop“ — trading descriptor used after both Charity Commission applications failed, 26 October 2023. In a public broadcast dated 26 October 2023, the operator described the operation's donation processing procedures while referring to the premises as “our shop, charity pending shop.” This is significant for two reasons. First, the phrase "charity pending" was being used as a live trading descriptor six days after the operator received formal written notification of the second Charity Commission refusal (20 October 2023) — meaning she was publicly describing the operation as a charity-in-waiting on her follower platform at the precise moment she had just been told, in writing, that it would not be registered. Second, the same language — "charity pending" — appears across multiple other archived broadcasts as a standard descriptor for the operation, confirming it was a deliberate and sustained framing choice rather than a one-off slip. The Charity Commission had by this date refused both applications. No third application has been made.

March 2025 — attempted rebranding and physical sign cover-up. On 18 March 2025, the operation publicly declared: “We are not a charity shop. We are a non-profit vintage, antique, and collectable shop.” This statement directly contradicts years of documented "charity shop" branding, signage, and trading descriptions. In the same period, a post from the JBB account stated: “Before any conspiracy theory's start — signs are down because I'm adding our trade mark to our signage by hand not to have to order more signage.” Photographic evidence documents Daniel physically covering existing "charity shop" signage at the premises. The registered trademark at this date remained “JAYNE'S BABY BANK & CHARITY SHOP” (UK00003910000, Class 36 — charitable fundraising), meaning the operation was physically removing charity shop signage while the registered trademark continued to explicitly reference a charity shop. The Blackwood premises was simultaneously officially classified as “Type of Premises: Charity shop” in Caerphilly County Borough Council's food hygiene inspection records dated October 2023, an independent regulatory classification the operator had no means to retroactively alter. The March 2025 rebranding therefore does not extinguish the documented history: it represents a reactive attempt to distance the operation from its established identity in anticipation of regulatory and legal consequences, not a genuine change in its foundational operating model.

Third charity registration attempt — “Jayne’s FREE Pet Cafe.” A screenshot of a charity registration portal records a third charitable registration attempt under the name “Jayne’s FREE Pet Cafe”, operator address 6 Commercial Street, Pontypool, Torfaen NP4 6JJ — the Pontypool shop address — with charity number listed as PENDING and designated contact recorded as Jayne price, Owner. The portal and framework are consistent with a local authority or sector-specific registration scheme rather than the Charity Commission for England and Wales. No registration number has been confirmed as issued for this application, and no entry appears in Charity Commission records. Its existence confirms that charitable registration continued to be actively pursued at the same premises and under the same operator following both Charity Commission refusals, and for an operation entirely separate from the stated baby bank and food bank purposes of the CIC.

"Like a charity shop but not a charity shop" — operator awareness of charitable misrepresentation, 6 July 2025. A public Facebook post dated 6 July 2025 states: "We are thinking of a rebrand to annoy the haters: 'Like a charity shop but not a charity shop!'" The framing as deliberate provocation of critics does not diminish the disclosure. It is a direct public acknowledgement that the operation was presenting as a charity shop in appearance while knowing it was not a charity shop in status. Published to tens of thousands of followers on the operation's primary platform.

"We tried doing it for free for the 1st year" — commercial reframing, 1 May 2025. A Facebook post dated 1 May 2025 states: "We tried doing it for free for the 1st year and people were just greedy and sold stuff straight on." The adjacent context is equally significant. The same post describes the operation as requiring "skill to sell vintage and antique and vintage designer items," states Dan "sold 1 book for £50 on Monday," and describes training volunteers in "transferable skills for employment" via "sales skills." This framing — vintage retail, high-value individual sales, commercial skills training, which directly contradicts the public presentation of the operation as a charitable food bank and baby bank. The post simultaneously refers to training mothers for employment through sales work while appealing to the public on a charitable welfare basis.

"It's my job, right, as the trustee of the charity" — self-identification as charity trustee while unregistered, 10 May 2024. In a broadcast dated 10 May 2024, the operator stated: "it's my job, right, as the trustee of the charity, right, and the owner of the charity to do the right, the best thing possible for the charity pending, or the course that I'm in charge of." This statement was made in the context of justifying commercial pricing decisions — framing the setting of retail prices as a fiduciary duty owed to the "charity pending." By 10 May 2024, both Charity Commission applications had been refused (the second formally rejected in October 2023). Self-identification as "trustee" and "owner" of a charity the Charity Commission had confirmed did not exist, and using that framing to govern commercial retail pricing, directly relevant to the false representation analysis under the Fraud Act 2006 s.2.

"See all the money we make from the charity pending. I spend it all on luxury goods" — 30 January 2024. In a broadcast dated 30 January 2024, three months after the Charity Commission formally refused the second application. The operator stated, in sequence: "I spend all my money on my luxury goods", followed by: "See all the money we make from the charity pending", followed by: "I spend it all on luxury goods." The charity pending framing was used as an active commercial trading description months after it was legally foreclosed. The surrounding statements explicitly link the revenue generated under that framing to personal expenditure on luxury items, in the operator's own words, on a public broadcast.

“Under #SarahsLaw and #ClairesLaw we have been permitted to request such information by Gwent Police due to the nature of our aspiring charity and community group” — 8 May 2022. A public post on 8 May 2022, within weeks of the operation’s earliest documented activity — claims police authorisation under two specific safeguarding disclosure laws to conduct background checks on individuals associated with the operation. The claim deploys “aspiring charity and community group” as justification for access to information ordinarily reserved for regulated safeguarding organisations. Sarah’s Law (Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme) and Clare’s Law (Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme) are formal police processes operated by Gwent Police. No charity registration, CIC, or formal safeguarding body status existed at this date. The post constitutes a false public claim of police-authorised safeguarding powers deployed to solicit volunteers under a regulated-body framing.

“Thanks everyone for supporting our aspiring charity over the last 2 years” — 14 July 2022. A public Facebook post uses the phrase “aspiring charity” in a donor-facing context, framing followers’ contributions as support for a charitable purpose in progress. No registration was in place at this date and none was ever successfully completed.

“We are a family run charity and me and my son do not take a wage” — 22 November 2022. Identical language to the TikTok description documented in Finding 03. Published simultaneously across two separate platforms. The Facebook post version is independently dated as post ID 145262481595179 and forms part of boilerplate used across multiple posts. The no-wage claim and the family-run charity description appear together as a single standardised public statement deployed to solicit donations under a claimed charitable framing that no registration supports.

“We are non-profit even though we are classed as a business until we register as a charity” — 20 July 2024. A broadcast dated 20 July 2024 includes the admission: “So they know, the public know, your businesses, other organisations know that we are non-profit even though we are classed as a business until we register as a charity.” The statement was made to a public audience of 71,000+ followers over a year after both Charity Commission applications had failed — while continuing to present the operation as non-profit on a charitable registration path. The admission that the operation is “classed as a business” contradicts the non-profit framing in the same sentence.

02DeliberateRegistration avoided and applications failed

Two formal applications to the Charity Commission were made and both failed. The first, under "Jayne's Mother and Baby Bank, Food Bank & Charity Shop" (org. 5223055), did not proceed due to incomplete information. The second, under "Jayne's Baby Bank" (org. 5223411), was formally refused in August 2023 for failing to meet the threshold of being a charity — with declared income of £3,000 and £500 respectively, both below the registration threshold. Jayne Price was notified of the refusal on 20 October 2023. Nothing prevents a further application.

The Charity Commission correspondence also directly addresses the FCA authorisation claim, stating: “In regards to the claim that the Commission had provided authorisation to use 'charity' in the business names… I think this is unlikely, but in any case I would have thought the onus would be on the person making the claim to demonstrate that had been the case.” This official response predates the FCA's own July 2025 confirmation and represents a second statutory body dismissing the same false claim.

In a video recorded 13 February 2024 and subsequently deleted, the operator explicitly stated that charity registration was being avoided so that critics could not report the organisation to regulators. When the CIC was incorporated in November 2025, the operator immediately and falsely claimed it conferred registered charity status.

CIC and charity registration claimed publicly — September 2022, three years before incorporation. A public Facebook post dated 28 September 2022, two years and ten months before the CIC was incorporated — states: "Just to remind all our followers that we are a community group going through the CIC and Charity Registration process which can take up to a year." The same post adds: "you do not need to be a registered charity to be charitable or kind." By September 2022, no CIC application had been made and no Charity Commission application had yet been submitted. The post claims an active registration process for both structures simultaneously. The CIC was not incorporated until 7 November 2025, and both Charity Commission applications were refused (the second formally in October 2023). The qualifier that you do not need to be registered to be "charitable or kind" directly pre-adapts the defence deployed across the subsequent three years of regulatory correspondence and public challenge.

Public denial of ever having claimed charity status — SAR broadcast, January 2025. In a broadcast from the Subject Access Request material (believed January 2025), the operator stated directly: "Well, number one, we're not a charity and we've never said we are." In the same broadcast she added: "We're not one of these charities to get thousands and thousands of pounds, because we're not a charity." Both statements were made to a public audience. The first is directly contradicted by thousands of archived posts, broadcasts, and official documents in which the operation is described as a charity, a registered charity, a charity shop, or a charity pending. The second is contradicted by the PayPal accounts carrying "100% of profit goes towards the charity" descriptions, the documented public funding receipts totalling at least £10,528 in confirmed grants, and the wider pattern of charitable framing deployed to solicit donations from the public.

“CCBC are aware we have submitted CIC application, and awaiting to submit full charity registration” — 9 July 2022. A public Facebook post states: “CCBC are aware we are running a non profit shop and they are aware we have submitted CIC application, and awaiting to submit full charity registration but are waiting on 2 items from DVLA for identification, (DVLA have been in contact with me), all applications have been completed.” No CIC application had been filed by July 2022 — the CIC was not incorporated until November 2025. The DVLA identification excuse is unverifiable. The specific claim that CCBC was “aware” of an active CIC application constitutes a false representation to the public about council endorsement of the registration process.

“The Charity Commission and the CIC Governing bodies have decided to investigate the bullying we have received” — 19 October 2022. A public post states: “The Charity Commission and the CIC Governing bodies have decided the investigate the bullying we have received over the last 12 months plus by the two registered charities and the CIC charity.” The Charity Commission does not investigate inter-organisational disputes of this type. No such investigation was ever confirmed by either regulatory body. The post deploys the names of two statutory regulators as apparent endorsements of the operator’s position in a commercial dispute with competitors.

“Once we are a charity and CIC both of which have been applied for we will change our name accordingly” — 24 October 2022. A public post states: “Once we are a charity and CIC both of which have been applied for we will change our name accordingly.” As of 24 October 2022, only the first Charity Commission application had been submitted (and it did not proceed due to incomplete information). No CIC application had been made at this date. The post simultaneously misrepresents both registration processes as simultaneously active. The name-change commitment was never honoured.

“We are currently awaiting Charity registration and started the Baby Bank during the pandemic” — 22 November 2022. The same post as the F01 “family run charity” entry above contains a second false representation: “We are currently awaiting Charity registration and started the Baby Bank during the pandemic to help families and keyworkers.” No successful registration was ever obtained. The pandemic-origin framing was deployed in November 2022 to anchor the charitable narrative in a period of public goodwill, four months after the Facebook group’s creation and well before any formal registration attempt succeeded.

22Charities Act 1992 s.63 / Fraud Act 2006 s.2Charitable framing deployed from operational launch — July 2022 — predating both charity commission applications and both refusals

A post dated 25 July 2022, within weeks of the Facebook group creation on 21 May 2022. The post states in plain terms: “We are a family run charity that empowers women.” This is an unambiguous public claim of charitable status made before any registration application had been submitted or considered. The phrase is used in a post to the full audience of the nascent operation, deploying the word “charity” as a descriptor of the organisation, not as an aspiration or a future goal. The earliest recoverable dated public posts from Jayne’s Baby Bank. Confirmed from July 2022 across multiple independently dated post IDs at the Aberbargoed single-premises operation — use the following standard boilerplate in post footers: “Our aim is to help families by being cheaper than charity shops. All proceeds go towards running costs, nappies and formula, foodbanks and things specific families may need.” The same posts claim the operation "helped with several Ukraine appeals" and assists "families all over South East Wales, others in the UK, Africa."

Why this matters — timeline of applications and refusals. The first Charity Commission application (org. 5223055, under "Jayne's Mother and Baby Bank, Food Bank & Charity Shop") did not proceed as submitted information was incomplete. The second application (org. 5223411) was refused in August 2023, with formal notification on 20 October 2023. The July 2022 posts therefore predate both applications and both refusals by months and over a year respectively. Charitable framing was deployed to solicit public donations and volunteers before any registration attempt had been made, and the same "all proceeds" language continued in use after both applications failed. This is the earliest confirmed evidential anchor for the sustained use of charitable language on a public platform to solicit support for an operation that the Charity Commission subsequently confirmed twice did not qualify as a charity.

Systematic and deliberate. The boilerplate appears consistently across at least six independently dated post IDs within the first weeks of operation — embedded as a standard footer rather than appearing in isolated posts. This establishes that charitable framing was a deliberate and systematic feature of the operation's public presentation from its earliest days, not an error, an oversight, or a later development introduced once the operation grew. Soliciting donations while representing an organisation as operating for charitable purposes when it does not qualify as a charity may constitute an offence under Section 63 of the Charities Act 1992 and a false representation under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.

The operation was presented publicly as a registered charity or charity-pending entity for over three years. The combined evidence in this finding and in Finding 02 establishes that between July 2022 and at least November 2025 — spanning the Facebook group’s creation, the two failed Charity Commission applications, and the eventual CIC incorporation — the operation was systematically presented to donors, volunteers, service users, councils, and the public as an entity with registered or pending charitable status. The phrase “family run charity” appears in July 2022 posts, standard boilerplate descriptions, TikTok video captions (independently documented in Finding 03), and private Messenger exchanges. The phrase “aspiring charity” is used across a further tranche of the same material. At no point during this three-year period did any Charity Commission registration exist. The sustained gap between the public representation and the documented legal status is the central finding of this investigation, corroborated independently across 34 Tier 1 evidence items in the investigation dataset.

10TrademarkTrademarking "charity" without charitable status, and false legal threats

Trademark portfolio, four UK marks filed across three years under three owner-name variants and two registered addresses. The Intellectual Property Office register shows four UK trademark applications connected to the operator: UK00003910000 (10 May 2023, Registered) "JAYNE’S BABY BANK & CHARITY SHOP" — figurative, Class 36, owner recorded as "Jayne’s Mother & Baby Bank, FREE Food Bank & Charity Shops" at 35 Bowen Industrial Estate, Aberbargoed, Blackwood (the address from which the operator was evicted in November 2023); UK00004010499 (3 February 2024, Refused) "Foodbank Fundraising Shop" — word mark, Class 36, owner Jayne Price at 7 Meadow Road, Pontllanfraith; UK00004013198 (10 February 2024, Withdrawn) "TIN ON A WALL COLLECTION" — word mark, Class 1, owner "Jayne price"; and UK00004316067 (26 December 2025, Registered 1 May 2026) "The New Caerphilly Bird and Small Animal Rescue Sanctuary" — figurative, Class 36, owner "Jayne price" (full chronology in Finding 25).

What the portfolio shows. First, the May 2023 mark was filed for a brand explicitly containing the word "charity" at a time when no Charity Commission registration existed and the second application had not yet been submitted — trademarking charitable language without any legal basis to use it. The IPO owner record for that mark is itself an unregistered trading description, "Jayne’s Mother & Baby Bank, FREE Food Bank & Charity Shops," a name that simultaneously embedded the charitable claim into the trademark register. Second, two further marks were filed in the same week of February 2024 — the "Foodbank Fundraising Shop" word mark refused on 3 February 2024 and the "TIN ON A WALL COLLECTION" word mark withdrawn one week later on 10 February 2024, indicating a rapid-sequence attempt to lock in fundraising-specific branding, both of which failed. Third, the IPO register documents three distinct owner-name variants in use for filings linked to the same individual: the unregistered trading-name owner ("Jayne’s Mother & Baby Bank, FREE Food Bank & Charity Shops") in 2023; "Jayne Price" in February 2024; and "Jayne price" (lowercase) on the two more recent filings. The address change between the 2023 and 2024 filings (Aberbargoed → Pontllanfraith) coincides with the period of the documented eviction and operational relocation. The refused "Foodbank Fundraising Shop" word mark is notable: the IPO declined to register that exact wording while the operator continued to use language describing the operation as a foodbank and fundraising shop in public posts, in council inspection records, and in shop signage.

On 10 May 2023, the first trademark application (UK00003910000) was filed for "JAYNE'S BABY BANK & CHARITY SHOP." At the time of application, no Charity Commission registration existed and the second application had not yet been submitted. The word "charity" was being trademarked while no legal basis existed for its use in the name.

The trademark has been used repeatedly to issue false legal threats. A public Facebook post stated: “Can I remind people that the Baby Bank is TRADEMARKED. Breach of Trademark Law is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE. No unauthorised photos/videos/usage without my permission.” A separate post demanded: “Breach of our trademark — settle out of court will be £2,500 and a public letter of apology on to social media. I think that's fair.” Both claims are legally false. Trademark infringement in the UK is a civil matter, not a criminal offence in most circumstances. A pending trademark application, which had not been registered at the time of these posts — confers no exclusive rights and cannot form the basis of any settlement demand. These public statements appear designed to intimidate critics and the public from documenting or discussing the operation. The casual deployment of cease and desist instruments is confirmed by the operator’s own words in a broadcast dated September 2024: “I can send out cease and desist like sweets.” This public admission that legal instruments are issued routinely and without discrimination is consistent with the broader documented pattern of using the appearance of legal proceedings to intimidate critics rather than to address genuine legal wrongs.

Public solicitation of law students to build a litigation case against critics, archived deleted broadcast. In an archived deleted broadcast — recorded while driving to a shop location. The operator described having received what she characterised as free legal advice from Citizens Advice regarding claims for damages against critics, then made the following public appeal: “if there's anybody out there now studying law in university and college, if you want to talk to your professors and your tutors and your lecturers about our case going forward, the people who have damaged our brand, because consistently the people we are looking to take to court, consistently they have proved that their characters are not the best either, in general. So if you wanted to look at that, and contact me, and ask your tutors and lecturers to appoint us as an advice, because we are looking to take people to court to claim damages and retractions.” Soliciting law students to work on live litigation cases via their university tutors, on a public broadcast — is not a recognised legal process. No university legal clinic operates on the basis of a public Facebook appeal. This conduct is consistent with the documented pattern of using the appearance of legal proceedings and official channels to intimidate and harass critics, while deploying non-expert sources to create the impression of a credible legal threat. The broadcast also states: “We have contacted the Charity Commission and the CIC Commission… about some other charities and groups that's out there, also the AFC because there's a couple of groups out there that are sport related and they've had a go as well”. A further documented instance of complaint filing against named third parties across multiple regulatory bodies simultaneously.

“We are also trademarked which is a criminal offence to copy cat or replicate including intellectual property theft” — 21 October 2023. A public post states: “We are also trademarked which is a criminal offence to copy cat or replicate including intellectual property theft. We are lucky I have a good mentor and an amazing team.” Trademark infringement in the UK is a civil matter under the Trade Marks Act 1994, not a criminal offence in ordinary circumstances. The post makes a false legal claim directed at individuals using similar names or concepts, misrepresenting civil IP law as criminal to deter critics and similar operations. This post was published in October 2023 while the trademark application was under active review.

“My trademark law is criminal” — 20 May 2024. A broadcast states: “Can I just remind people that our name, our concept, our logos are all trademarked and you cannot use them, write about them, produce anything about them, reproduce them without my permission. My trademark law is criminal. And if a criminal case is dealt with, then I have more levity in a court of law to take it up civilly as well.” The statement that trademark infringement is a criminal matter is legally incorrect and was made to a public audience of approximately 71,000 followers. It was deployed to deter the publication of critical commentary, screenshots, and investigative reporting.

“I can send out cease and desist all day long if I want” — 19 September 2024. A broadcast dated 19 September 2024 contains a formulation distinct from the “like sweets” quote already documented: “I can send out cease and desist all day long if I want.” The immediately preceding context line is: “Okay we’ve got business insurance.” The phrase “all day long if I want” confirms the deliberate and unlimited nature of the instrument’s deployment — establishing it as policy, not isolated incident.

11Lottery / Licensing Act 2003Unlicensed raffles continued after registration lapsed

JBB formerly held a Small Society Lottery registration tied to the Aberbargoed premises from which the operator was evicted in November 2023. A Caerphilly Council FOI response confirmed no active raffle or lottery licence existed during relevant periods of 2025 and 2026. The operator publicly admitted she had never renewed the prior licence. Despite this, "grand raffles" and "football cards" at £5 per stake continued to be promoted online without required statutory disclosures.

Marie Curie collection pot present in JBB premises — 17 August 2025. Observers documented the presence of a Marie Curie collection pot inside JBB premises. Marie Curie is a registered charity. Conducting collections on behalf of a named charity without authorisation from that charity raises concerns under the Charities Act 2011 and, if funds collected were not remitted to Marie Curie, potentially the Theft Act 1968. The presence of a third-party charity collection vessel in premises that simultaneously restricts free access to paying customers and donators — while publicly presenting itself as a charity — adds a further dimension to the documented fundraising concerns. Whether Marie Curie had any knowledge of or gave authorisation for the use of their branded collection equipment at JBB premises has not been confirmed.

Alcohol raffle across three shops simultaneously — August 2023. A public Facebook post dated 27 August 2023 promoted an "Au magic colour change VODKA raffle" at £2 per ticket across the Pontypool, Risca, and Blackwood shops simultaneously, with proceeds stated as going towards the food bank. This post predates the November 2023 eviction from Aberbargoed but the lottery registration was site-specific to that address. Raffling alcohol without a Premises Licence or relevant permission engages the Licensing Act 2003 in addition to the Gambling Act 2005 — a bottle of spirits constitutes a licensable article for prize purposes. The post confirms three concurrent trading locations as of August 2023 operating the same unlicensed prize draw activity.

03IdentityMultiple names across legal and operational contexts

The operator's legal birth name is confirmed by the England and Wales Civil Registration Birth Index as Carrie-anne Ridsdale, registered in Newport in the April–June quarter of 1980, with mother's maiden name recorded as Jenkins. This is directly significant: Director 2 on the CIC filing is Mrs Gail Jenkins. The same surname as the operator's mother. The public-facing persona is Jayne Price. Official documents, including the CIC36 contact field, Trading Standards papers, and Torfaen Council enforcement records — all reference Carrie-Anne Ridsdale. A Caerphilly CBC Subject Access Request of 398 pages documents at least seven name variants. A lease for the Pontypool premises (17 January 2023) lists the tenant as "Miss Jayne-Anne Carrie-Anne Ridsdale" — combining both identities in a single legal document. The £7,141 CCJ (case ref. 521MC287) was registered against "Ceri-Ann Ridsdale T/A Jayne's Baby Bank." The Aberbargoed eviction notice was addressed to "Ms Ceri-Anne Ridsdale." A publicly posted driving licence shows the name "Jayne-Anne Price." Additionally, a TikTok post from the official JBB account (tiktok.com/@jaynesbabybank1_tm) dated 29 December 2020 uses the hashtag #carrieanneridsdale, meaning the operator herself publicly linked the Carrie-Anne Ridsdale identity to the JBB account in the operation's first year, predating by years the repeated public denials that this name had any connection to her.

TikTok account network — multiple accounts, prior username, and cross-platform alias confirmations. Two primary TikTok accounts are documented: tiktok.com/@jaynesbabybank and tiktok.com/@jaynesbabybank1_tm. A video on @jaynesbabybank (tiktok.com/@jaynesbabybank/video/7026188989606497542) shows the TikTok display name as @jayneceriprice — a prior username predating the account rename, combining the public-facing given name Jayne with the Ceri variant of the legal surname Ridsdale. This is an independently documented hybrid identity on a third-party platform, predating the JBB operation’s main expansion. A further video on @jaynesbabybank (tiktok.com/@jaynesbabybank/video/7141874599314181381) features the account @alchemistmagician — directly linking the TheAlchemistMagician alias to the primary JBB TikTok account within the video content itself. On @jaynesbabybank1_tm, videos show the usernames @stiflersmam and @stiflersmam_1 — corroborating the Kik alias of the same name documented above, and establishing it as an active TikTok identity used concurrently with the operational accounts. The @jaynesbabybank1_tm account additionally contains images of the operator in a state of undress. For an operation presenting itself as a welfare and safeguarding service for vulnerable mothers, and whose operator publicly claims professional nursing and health qualifications as the basis for working with families — the presence of inappropriate personal images on a partially operational account represents a professional conduct inconsistency documented here as part of the broader platform conduct record.

Civil registration birth index — Daniel-James Ridsdale. The England and Wales Civil Registration Birth Index additionally records the birth of Daniel-james Henry G Stockwood, Registration Date October 2000, Registration District Cardiff, Inferred County Glamorganshire, with Mother’s Maiden Name: Ridsdale. This is a public civil registration entry and independently corroborates the Ridsdale surname as the operator’s legal maiden name via a second registration document — separate from and additional to the operator’s own birth index entry. The CIC subscriber listed at the registered office address is Daniel-James Ridsdale. Multiple independent witnesses from the Oakdale Comprehensive School peer group confirm that the operator was known as Carrie-Anne Ridsdale throughout her school years (approximately 1991–1996). A search of the Oakdale Comprehensive School Facebook group by a third party additionally surfaces a Daniel James account, consistent with the CIC subscriber. Oakdale Comprehensive School is the independently confirmed school of attendance, directly contradicting the “Friends of Blackwood Comprehensive School” entry added to the operator’s Facebook profile in the March 2026 Wayback snapshot.

Archived Google+ account — Carrie Ridsdale identity confirmed via independent pre-JBB record. The email address caridsdale@gmail.com, documented in the public CIC36 filing and in SAR correspondence as detailed above — is independently linked to a Google+ account archived by the Wayback Machine on 25 March 2019, three years before the JBB Facebook group was created. The archived profile displays the account name Carrie Ridsdale. The archived URL is plus.google.com/104319803074054520708 (single capture, 25 March 2019). This constitutes an independent third-party archive record confirming that the caridsdale email address was in active use under the Carrie Ridsdale identity in 2019 — predating any claimed name change and predating the JBB operation entirely. The Google+ archive is not sourced from investigation correspondence or SAR material; it is an independently preserved public record held by the Internet Archive. The same Google account identifier — 104319803074054520708 — additionally appears as a Google Maps contributor profile under the alias “The Alchemist” (105 contributions), using the same teal Buddha profile image as the archived Google+ account. This confirms the Google+ account and the Google Maps contributor profile are the same underlying Google account, both linked to caridsdale@gmail.com. The single visible Google Maps review — posted approximately eight years ago (circa 2016–17), predating JBB by several years — gives a 1-star rating to a hospitality business on the Isle of Wight with the sole text: “Owners are racist.” The owner responded publicly: “No. They’re not. We welcome everyone here. If you’d ever met us you would know that.” This is an early documented instance of the same false review pattern — a serious unsubstantiated allegation against a named business, publicly denied by the owner. From the same account, predating the JBB operation by approximately five years and predating the documented coordinated review attacks by the same period.

Public records chain — parental identity and lineage independently verified. A complete two-generation identity chain is independently established through publicly available civil registration records. The England and Wales Marriage Index records Gail L Jenkins marrying Alan J Ridsdale in Q2 1974 at Newport (Monmouthshire) — the marriage through which the Ridsdale surname entered the family. The England and Wales Birth Index records Gail L Jenkins born Q1 1953 in Caerleon, Monmouthshire, mother’s maiden name Bushell. The England and Wales Birth Index independently records Carrie-Anne Ridsdale born Q2 1980 in Newport (Monmouthshire), with mother’s maiden name: Jenkins — directly linking Gail L Jenkins (later Ridsdale) to Carrie-Anne Ridsdale as mother and daughter via civil registration. The UK Electoral Register records Alan J Ridsdale and Gail L Ridsdale at Brooklyn Bungalow, Blackwood, Gwent, NP12 2AR across electoral rolls from 2002 to 2013, placing the parental household in the same Blackwood, Gwent postcode district as the operator’s own registered address at 7 Meadow Road, NP12 2AG (confirmed on electoral rolls 2013–2016). The Ridsdale surname was acquired through marriage in 1974 and was not a prior family name on either parental side. This public records chain — marriage → birth → electoral registration across two generations — establishes the legal identity of Carrie-Anne Ridsdale from civil registration through to the address used in the first County Court Judgment, without reliance on any single investigative source. All records cited are publicly available via the England and Wales civil registration indices and the UK Electoral Register.

On-camera identity denial — 12 June 2025. During a documented confrontation at a JBB shop premises (archived to YouTube by the Sherlock investigation at youtube.com/shorts/690cpSTuMbs), a member of the public directly addressed the operator by the name "Carrie" and stated "your real name is Carrie." The operator denied this on camera, stating: “No it's not, it's Jayne.” This denial was made publicly, in the operator's own shop, on video. It directly contradicts the birth index record, the commercial lease, the two CCJs, the electoral register entry, the enforcement notices, and the operator's own TikTok hashtag — all of which confirm the Carrie-Anne Ridsdale identity. The denial is archived as primary evidence. See Finding 20 for the full context of this incident.

At least three PayPal accounts have been used to solicit donations: @jaynesbabybank, @Jaynesbabybank100, and @jaynesbabybankrisca. The primary account is held under the name “Jayne R-Price” — a hybrid surname that does not appear on any formal legal record, combining the Ridsdale surname used in court and enforcement records with the Price surname used publicly. This name variant matches neither the CCJ debtor names (Ceri-Ann Ridsdale; Miss Carrie-Anne Ridsdale), the commercial lease name (Jayne-Anne Carrie-Anne Ridsdale), nor the CIC filing name (Jayne Price). The account description explicitly states "100% of profit goes towards the charity". A false claim, as no charity registration has ever existed. The full PayPal fundraising analysis is documented in Finding 17.

Earlier trading identity — "Baby Bank and Friends" (pre-JBB Facebook page). Prior to the establishment of Jayne's Baby Bank, the operator ran an earlier operation under the name Baby Bank and Friends. Confirmed by archived Facebook posts in which items are described as "on loan from the Baby Bank and Friends," and by archived screenshots of the page's public About section and Messenger interface. The page listed categories including Baby goods/children's goods, Product/service, and Charitable organisation, with the short description "Baby Bank for the community." The About text — the permanent public-facing biography, not a passing post — stated verbatim:

The biography deploys two narrative elements that recur throughout the later operation: a claimed health care professional identity, and personal medical hardship presented as the reason community support exists. The infertility and childbirth-complication framing predates the ovarian-cancer profile on the successor JaynesBaby Bank Price account documented in Finding 08. The page category Charitable organisation sits alongside documented Messenger conduct from the same period: families requesting donated items were told they would need official ID, proof of address, a signed hire agreement, and a refundable deposit, and when a member of the public questioned why a charity would require payment and documentation, the page responded in writing: “You are borrowing it from us. You will need to sign documentation. I am not a charity.” That explicit denial is documented on the same pre-JBB profile whose public categories included charitable organisation. The hire-and-ID conditions are analysed below; the health claims in the About bio are documented in Finding 08.

Documented alias network — at least 18 confirmed or suspected identities. Investigative records compiled from archived posts, whistleblower evidence, IP address tracking, and platform records confirm the following alias accounts in addition to the primary Jayne Price and Carrie-Anne Ridsdale identities:

Email addresses — further identity confirmations. The operator's own submitted legal complaints and SAR correspondence with CCBC contain two significant email addresses. First, caridsdale@gmail.com, an address directly incorporating the Ridsdale surname — appears in documents authored and submitted by the operator herself, independently confirming the Carrie Ridsdale identity in self-generated correspondence. Second, Ridsdale1952@btinternet.com. Confirmed as belonging to the operator's mother — was used in connection with the JBB PayPal donation accounts. Routing a public-facing donation instrument through a family member's personal email account adds a further layer of identity and financial accountability obscuration to the PayPal infrastructure already documented in Finding 17. The existence of these two email addresses in official submitted documents was confirmed via the SAR broadcast analysis published at jaynesbabybank.co.uk on 15 January 2025. Two further email addresses have been identified in connection with the operation: Jaynesbabybankandfreefoodbank@yahoo.com and Jaynesbabybank20@yahoo.co.uk. The use of four distinct email addresses across the operation, two under the Ridsdale identity (caridsdale@gmail.com and Ridsdale1952@btinternet.com) and two under the JBB operational name, consistent with the broader pattern of identity fragmentation documented across accounts, payment instruments, and trading names throughout this record. The Ridsdale1952@btinternet.com address is additionally linked to a Google Maps account displaying the name gail ridsdale — independently corroborating via a third platform that the email belongs to the operator’s mother, Gail Ridsdale, whose identity is separately confirmed through the civil marriage and birth index records documented above. The numeral 1952 in the email address is consistent with Gail L Jenkins’ birth registration year of 1953 — a single-digit variance common in self-chosen email addresses. This constitutes a third independent source confirming the email’s ownership, alongside the electoral register and civil registration records.

Investigative reports conclude that this multi-name pattern is not a standard use of a preferred name but a deliberate strategy to obscure accountability across multiple platforms simultaneously. The Peter Mal account's coordinated posting with the main JBB page and the practice of requesting critics' home addresses and employer details from community groups represents a documented pattern of using alias accounts for targeted harassment and intelligence gathering.

Phone number cross-check — verifiable from public filing. The contact telephone number listed on the public CIC36 filing (Companies House ref. 16838920) is 07521789261. A Facebook "Identify your account" recovery search using this number returns three abbreviated account entries: one consistent with C… R… (Carrie-Anne Ridsdale), one consistent with J… B… (Jayne's Baby Bank), and one consistent with D… J… This cross-check is reproducible by any member of the public using the number as published in the official filing. The presence of multiple accounts linked to a single CIC contact number is consistent with the broader documented pattern of parallel identity operation.

David Jones. Confirmed by screenshot, 8 February 2026. On 8 February 2026, the operator accidentally shared a screenshot of content while visibly logged into the David Jones profile — publicly confirming the attribution. The screenshot is archived and preserved. The D… J… entry returned in the Facebook account recovery result described above is consistent with either David Jones or Daniel-James Ridsdale. Both individuals whose initials match and both of whom are documented in connection with this operation. No definitive attribution of the D… J… phone entry is made on initials alone.

Daniel Ridsdale — Facebook URL confirms Ridsdale surname independently. The Facebook profile used by Daniel James — the operator's son, listed as a subscriber on the CIC incorporation documents (Companies House ref. 16838920) at the same address as Director 1 — carries the public profile URL facebook.com/daniel.ridsdale.96. The URL slug is assigned by Facebook at account creation and reflects the name under which the account was registered. The use of Ridsdale as the registered surname on this profile independently confirms the Ridsdale family name at the same address and CIC filing — entirely separate from the operator's own identity records. This is significant in the context of repeated public denials that "Ridsdale" is the operator's name or has any connection to the operation: a second named individual at the same household, on the same CIC incorporation document, is publicly registered on Facebook under the Ridsdale surname. The profile URL constitutes an independently verifiable public record requiring no investigative assertion.

Identity document collection from vulnerable families. No lawful basis established. A documented private Messenger exchange on the pre-JBB Baby Bank and Friends page shows the operator responding to a member of the public requesting a pram for a young child. The response states: “Yes no worries i would need to see official i.d. and official proof of name and address/bill etc and then you could hire one from us and the full deposit is paid/refunded when you collect/return. I will give you a letter and receipt.” When the requester questioned why a charity would require ID and payment, the page replied: “You are borrowing it from us. You will need to sign documentation. I am not a charity.” The same hire-and-ID conditions appear in a later leaked Messenger exchange attributed to the JBB account — establishing continuity of access policy from the pre-JBB page through to the formal operation. This message raises four distinct concerns. First, a CIC operating a baby bank has no statutory authority to require official government-issued identity documents or proof of address as a condition of accessing donated goods. This is the verification standard applied by regulated financial services, housing providers, and statutory bodies, not community goods-sharing operations. Second, collecting names, addresses, and copies of official documents from members of the public without ICO registration as a data controller, without a published privacy policy, and without a documented lawful basis under UK GDPR constitutes a potential data protection violation. Third, the operation is documented throughout this record as using fabricated identities, multiple aliases, and fake profiles to target individuals — in that context, the collection of real identity documents from vulnerable families who believed they were accessing a charitable service warrants scrutiny as to the purpose for which those documents were retained and used. Fourth, charging a refundable deposit for a donated pram converts a charitable donation into a commercial hire transaction on an operation simultaneously presenting itself as a free baby bank for families in need. No date is available for this exchange but it is documented as a primary source record of the access conditions applied to families approaching the operation for assistance.

TikTok account @jaynesbabybank1_tm — significant video descriptions. The account published 240+ videos. The descriptions below are curated from the full archive for evidentiary significance — each is a verbatim public caption from the platform, cited by TikTok video ID.

Lemon8 — same _tm handle replicated on a second ByteDance platform. The handle @jaynesbabybank1_tm documented above on TikTok also appears on Lemon8. A separate ByteDance-operated short-form content platform at lemon8-app.com — at content ID 7555247755354997281 (listed in the alias table above). Lemon8 is owned by the same parent company as TikTok but is a distinct platform with its own community, trust, safety, and content rules. The _tm suffix mirroring the May 2023 trademark application has been carried across to this additional platform under the same JBB branding, extending the cross-platform identity footprint beyond Facebook and TikTok to a third public-facing surface operated under the same handle.

04CPUTR 2008 Reg. 5FareShare misrepresentation and Olio ban

FareShare confirmed in writing on 16 October 2025 that Jayne's Baby Bank has never been a member or received food via FareShare Go, directly contradicting repeated public claims. The operator's Olio account ("Cerii") was terminated in April 2022 following misuse. Food collected via Olio was publicly described on Facebook as FareShare-sourced. The operator was subsequently banned from the Olio Food Waste Hero programme following complaints from stores and volunteers. The full mechanics of the Olio operation, including the use of a fabricated identity and a food diversion scheme — are documented in Finding 04a below. Multiple broadcasts additionally claim that the operation distributed "a quarter of a million Tesco meals"; specifically attributed to "Tesco FareShare food, the end of day food." Tesco's end-of-day surplus redistribution operates through FareShare Go and approved partner organisations. FareShare has confirmed JBB was never a member or approved partner. The specific attribution of 250,000 meals to Tesco FareShare food therefore directly contradicts the confirmed absence of any FareShare membership, and is inconsistent with the OLIO food collection scheme, which operated under fabricated identities and was terminated for misuse. The quarter-million meals claim also appears as a written public declaration in a separate post: "We have given out over a quarter of a million meals since 2020." No independent verification of this figure exists. The figure is additionally notable in the context of Cwtch-Up (registered charity no. 1194295), the organisation the operator has publicly claimed credit for shutting down. Cwtch-Up’s own platform data, published on their Facebook page on 8 February 2022, records 252,784 meals equivalent, 106,167 kg of collected food, and 2,950 total collections at that date. This independently verified figure — 252,784 meals. This is the origin of the “quarter of a million meals” figure. At the time Cwtch-Up published this data, JBB had been operating for under two years from a single Aberbargoed premises with no FareShare membership and no verified food distribution infrastructure. The operator’s subsequent public claim to have distributed “a quarter of a million meals” appears to be a direct appropriation of Cwtch-Up’s own verified achievement. From an organisation she was simultaneously campaigning to destroy. Information received by the investigation from a source with direct knowledge of the operation’s early period corroborates this pattern: during the Covid period, the operator approached at least one local business to propose a Tesco surplus food collection arrangement, explicitly advising that uncollected food could be retained personally by those doing the collecting. This account is consistent with the documented OLIO food diversion scheme and the personal retention of donated goods described by former volunteers, and suggests the food retention dynamic was present from the earliest stages of the operation rather than developing later.

“Never in my 3 years of fareshare and olio” — 10 June 2023. A public Facebook post states: “Never in my 3 years of fareshare and olio and working for foodbanks have I ever seen this practice. As a qualified health and social care professional I would advise anyo…” This directly claims three years of active FareShare membership, a claim FareShare formally denied in October 2025, confirming JBB was never a member or approved partner. The same post simultaneously claims the status of a “qualified health and social care professional,” combining two unverified credential claims in a single publication.

“The donation centre isn’t for customers anyway, it’s never has been for customers” — 26 May 2026 on-record contradiction. In a public livestream dated 26 May 2026, defending the operation against critics, the operator states verbatim: “We’re allowed in the donation centre, the donation centre isn’t for customers anyway, it’s never has been for customers.” This statement is in direct, unambiguous contradiction of the “free items for customers and donators only” positioning that is recorded across 105 unique source documents in the JBB corpus (see §06 pattern table) — the pattern that is the central pillar of the operation’s public framing as a customer-and-donor mutual benefit operation. Either the long-standing “customers and donators only” framing or the 26 May 2026 “never has been for customers” framing must be false; both cannot be true simultaneously. The contradiction is on-record, in the operator’s own words, from a primary public broadcast, and is recorded in the timeline at tl-2026-05-26-2. The statement is also in tension with the documented pattern of selling items to the general public across all five shops (see Finding 09 trading-in-violation paragraph and the 7 April 2026 spot check at 5 Crane Street.

04aFraud Act 2006 s.2 / CPUTR 2008The "Cerri" scheme — fabricated identity, food diversion, and volunteer exploitation on OLIO

Following scrutiny and bans of her primary accounts on the food-sharing platform OLIO, the operator created the alias “Cerri“ / ”Cerii“ / ”Cerri Price” to continue securing food collection slots from supermarkets including Iceland and Tesco. The account was presented to supermarkets and volunteers as belonging to the operator's daughter, who would attend collections in person. Whistleblower evidence and investigative records confirm that no such daughter exists — a pattern that also appears in the pre-JBB period, when printed defamatory cards in August 2014 falsely claimed Ridsdale had a daughter who died by suicide (Finding 27). In a 2022 public post, the operator explicitly listed "Cerri Price" as one of her children's names alongside other names — the fabricated child was given a public family identity to make the deception sustainable across multiple supermarket relationships.

A documented message thread from 12 July 2021 records the "Cerii" account actively coordinating collection slots with messages including "Yes I can collect" and "Ready." The OLIO account "Cerii" was officially terminated with immediate effect in April 2022 following multiple reports of misuse. The misuse consisted of "snagging" collection slots allocated under OLIO's food-sharing terms — under which food is required to be distributed freely, and diverting the collected food to JBB shops or for personal and volunteer use rather than free distribution through the platform.

The food rebranding scheme. Food collected under the Cerri/Cerii OLIO account was subsequently presented on the Jayne's Baby Bank Facebook page as being from "FareShare" or described as "charity donations." When members of the public asked in comments whether the food shown was actually from OLIO, those comments were deleted. This deletion practice was documented by investigators and is consistent with a deliberate effort to maintain the false FareShare narrative. The same narrative that FareShare formally denied in October 2025.

Volunteer exploitation — the “Food Fairies” scheme. The operator recruited volunteers under the title "Food Fairies" to collect food under the Cerri/Cerii account and similar arrangements. Internal instructions permitted these volunteers to "take 20% or a green tray full" of collected food for personal use before the remainder was processed. Investigators note that these volunteers were recruited in good faith and may not have understood that the collection arrangement violated OLIO's terms of service — making them unwitting participants in a scheme that misrepresented the source and destination of donated food to the public.

Following the April 2022 termination of the Cerii account, the operator continued to create new alias accounts on OLIO to re-access food collection slots. A public comment from an independent witness confirms: “She had tried to set up a FareShare Go account. She hasn't stopped stealing food — she just keeps making fake accounts on OLIO and claiming that it's FareShare food.” This witness reported the activity directly to OLIO and FareShare and had the account banned, but observed further fake accounts continuing to operate. The accounts operated under a fabricated family structure: the operator presented "Jayne" as an older mother and Carrie, Daniel, and associated names as her children — creating a network of nominally distinct identities all controlled by the same individual.

The Cerri scheme illustrates the operational relationship between the alias network documented in Finding 03 and the food sourcing misrepresentations documented in Finding 04. The false FareShare claims were not simply opportunistic — they were the public-facing layer of a documented food collection operation that relied on fabricated identities, circumvented platform bans, and diverted donated food away from the free distribution it was sourced under.

Documented FareShare claim timeline — 17 October 2022 to 16 October 2025. Public FareShare claims span exactly three years to the month. A public Facebook post dated 17 October 2022, five months into the operation's public life — carried the following header text: "Bare with us as there is a massive scope for human error but these are our preliminary figures on the spreadsheet for what we have helped people with for free since Jan 2020." The post lists 255,598 FareShare meals as the leading figure. The same statistics were republished in a second post dated 28 December 2022. The claim of records "since Jan 2020" is significant: the JBB Facebook group was created on 21 May 2022 — the operation had no confirmed public presence before that date, and no independent record of food distribution predating it has been produced. The post closes with: "thank you to my mother for recording it all" — a reference that independently corroborates the operational involvement of the operator's mother, who is Director 2 on the CIC incorporation document filed in November 2025. The 17 October 2022 post is the earliest documented instance of the FareShare affiliation claim. FareShare subsequently confirmed in writing on 16 October 2025 that JBB "is not, and has never been, a member of FareShare."

05Brand rotationDeliberate successor brands after scrutiny

New trading identities have emerged after each episode of scrutiny: Jarmani's Charity Boutique (Caerphilly, June 2025), Second-Hand Land, and Community Shop One — linked by shared social media content, shop interiors, and staff. On 1 October 2025, a Jarmani's sign was found illegally attached to a Salvation Army clothing bank in Morrisons Caerphilly car park. In April 2026, following a Facebook page ban, operations were renamed "Jaynes BabyBank (Baby Jayne)" to bypass the platform ban. By 6 May 2026, a Facebook account titled "South Wales Largest Baby Bank & Foodbank Fundraising Shops" was in active use (including the Hb 5 g/dL health claim); after a documented ban on 8 May 2026, the same display name was re-established on a new profile (ID 61589841172921, observed 21 May 2026) — see Findings 03 and 14. As of May 2026, the Caerphilly unit has been reclaimed by the landlord. The investigation has additionally identified that a specific metric claim — describing the operation as moving “thousands of tons of stock” — was taken verbatim from the promotional material of Cwtch-Up, the registered charity (no. 1194295) operated by whistleblower N####A W########, whose charity number and name were also used without authorisation in JBB fundraising material.

The operator has made two separate public admissions, across two distinct broadcasts, that Jayne's Baby Bank was created deliberately as a decoy to divert regulatory and public scrutiny away from the underlying operation:

These admissions establish that the baby bank brand was not a genuine charitable response to the pandemic but a calculated instrument of misdirection — designed to absorb scrutiny from regulators, critics, and the public while a separate operation continued in parallel. The 9 January 2026 broadcast was recorded abroad during what the operator described as a working holiday, during which she states she had already set up a SumUp account, bank account, web domain, and website for the rescue operation before the trademark was registered, confirming the successor venture was pre-planned infrastructure, not a new idea. The "decoy" framing directly undermines over five years of public charity claims, donation solicitation, and public funding applications made in the JBB name: if the baby bank was the decoy, the charitable representations made under that name were made in the context of an operation the operator herself describes as designed to mislead.

False public allegations against T##### W###### and O#### W###### — repeated across multiple broadcasts. Across multiple broadcasts and posts, the operator publicly and repeatedly identified O#### W###### by name, describing him as a “software designer” or “software engineer” and asserting he personally built the Sherlock investigation website, created fake profiles and bots, and is the operational intelligence behind the investigation group. T##### W###### and O#### W###### are a married couple documented as named targets of the operator’s harassment campaign and in her pre-written police complaint template (see Finding 12). Representative examples include: “O#### W###### is a software engineer… All 3 of these individuals have been involved in criminal convictions and made the website and Facebook groups and fake profiles”; and “O#### W###### is making up all of these… he’s a software designer. He is the one with the brains to do it”. No evidence supporting any of these claims has been produced. O#### W###### is a named private individual against whom these allegations were made publicly and repeatedly to audiences of tens of thousands across multiple dates.

Third decoy admission — most explicit, 5 February 2026. In a broadcast dated 5 February 2026, the operator provided the most detailed account of the baby bank's origin as a deliberate decoy, naming her son Dan as a co-decision maker and identifying the specific organisations they anticipated would target the rescue operation:

This is the most operationally specific of the three documented decoy admissions. Unlike the October 2025 and January 2026 broadcasts, which reference the decoy in general terms. This account names the co-decision maker (Dan), identifies the organisations anticipated to interfere (Community Volunteers Wales, HCT, and a bird rescue), and explicitly states the baby bank was created so those organisations would have "no idea about the rescue." The admission was made in the same broadcast in which she states: “I started this baby bank, okay, I didn't start it to be a baby bank. We started it as a rescue and immediately we were targeted.” The three decoy admissions now span October 2025, January 2026, and February 2026 — each progressively more specific, and are made by the operator herself, in her own words, across three separately archived public broadcasts.

“I started this because I was bored and wanted to take them down“, archived deleted broadcast. In an archived deleted broadcast, the operator stated: “I've started this because I was bored and wanted to take them down and there's two of them that's been taken down and two outstanding and they're not looking too good, I'll be honest with you.” This is a direct public statement, in the operator's own words, that the operation was founded out of boredom and with the stated purpose of taking down specific organisations, not as a charitable response to community need. It is the most concise single-sentence encapsulation of the operation's true purpose in the investigation corpus. The same broadcast confirms Facebook monetisation — “Facebook are paying us now. There's not many people around you that's being paid by Facebook to put out content”, and states: “hashtag away haters because we get paid every time you do it.” In a separate archived deleted broadcast, the same admission is repeated in expanded form: “My goal was to take you down before I died because that's how ill I was, right? So that decent charities could actually get a look in. And then it backfired on myself and then you blew up our profile beyond belief… It was never supposed to be this big. We were never supposed to have all these shops and looking for more shops. My sole goal was to take you wasteless down, which I've done.” Both broadcasts confirm the operation's origin as a targeted campaign against competitor organisations, not a charitable impulse.

“I could rebrand tomorrow. I could call myself something else tomorrow“, archived deleted broadcast. In an archived deleted broadcast, the operator stated publicly: “I could rebrand tomorrow. I could call myself something else tomorrow. I could do something else tomorrow. A different name, different logo. People had still come here shopping because people like us.” This statement — made from a public platform to tens of thousands of followers; a direct public admission of the brand rotation strategy documented in this finding. It confirms that the operator regarded the JBB brand as fungible and replaceable, not as a fixed charitable identity; that she anticipated rebranding as a viable response to scrutiny; and that she expected the same audience to follow regardless of name or logo. The statement is consistent with the documented succession of brands. From JBB to Community Volunteers Wales references, to Jarmani's Boutique, to Community Shop One — each representing a new identity deployed as regulatory and public pressure on the previous brand increased.

Rescue-brand sequence — see Finding 25. Across at least a decade the operator has cycled through rescue-branded public donation operations. From the now-deleted "The Forever Home Rescue and Sanctuary" Facebook page (active c. 2016-2021, sharing the same Amazon wishlist URL as Jayne's Baby Bank), to the 2026 "The New Caerphilly Bird and Small Animal Rescue Sanctuary" launch, with no rescue charity, CIC, or company registration at any stage. The full sequence, the 33-year original Caerphilly Bird Rescue history of Carol and Ray Gravenor, the trademark UK00004316067 chronology, the two stolen fox images, the JustGiving fraud appeal, and the original co-founders’ verbatim public refutations are documented as a self-contained case study in Finding 25.

Animal rescue claimed as the origin of the JBB operation — March 2025. A public Facebook post dated 24 March 2025 from the JBB account stated: “As you know we rescue animals from our followers at our own costs in our spare time. We have rescued several animals over the years and it's how we first started helping families.” This claim, that animal rescue predates and underpins the baby bank operation, inconsistent with the established history of JBB launching during lockdown 2020 as a food bank and baby bank. The same post makes an unverified claim that "documented evidence" exists of social services threatening families to "get rid" of pets, without any source being cited or produced. The post also references pet food donation baskets in the shops, an additional undisclosed collection activity not covered by any food business or charitable registration.

"We are the designated collectors of many charity shops and cash for clothes bins" — 11 August 2025. A broadcast dated 11 August 2025 states: "the other thing I wanted to mention was that we are the designated collectors of many charity shops and cash for clothes bins. We have certain times that we pick up every day of the week, once a week, one-offs, usually turn into two or three-offs." A related broadcast (29 August 2025) describes plans for high-visibility vests reading "designated collectors on the back… so that if you drive past you can see that we are a designated collector." The Salvation Army (SATCoL) confirmed in writing on 6 October 2025 that JBB were "not authorised to collect our donations" and that a documented incident in which a Jarmani's sign was found attached to a Salvation Army clothing bank in a Caerphilly supermarket car park had been "escalated." The designated collector broadcasts predate that written denial and provide the public operational framing in which the Salvation Army incident occurred.

“It made me laugh as well with our decoy pages” — 6 October 2025. A broadcast dated 6 October 2025 contains the following statement: “It made me laugh as well with our decoy pages that we had up for a while.” Context: “I just think, well, compared to you lot, I must look like an angel to the public.” The casual, amused reference to multiple plural “decoy pages” as a historical fact confirms that the decoy strategy extended to a network of pages beyond the baby bank name, treated by the operator as an unremarkable operational detail.

“It was a legitimate decoy” — 9 January 2026. A January 2026 broadcast contains the passage: “And the baby bank was helping people anyway. So, you know, it was a legitimate decoy.” The oxymoron “legitimate decoy”, an instrument of deliberate misdirection qualified as legitimate — captures the cognitive dissonance of the decoy admissions in a single phrase. It is the most compressed self-contradicting formulation in the corpus.

14Platform conductFacebook ban, immediate profile rename, and TikTok conduct during active investigations

On 21 April 2026, the primary Jayne's Baby Bank Facebook page was removed by Meta. At the same time, the account of Daniel James, also known as Daniel Ridsdale, was observed to go temporarily offline. A statement appeared on the J'armarnis B Outique profile claiming the main account had been voluntarily deactivated due to "stalking" and "harassment" — framing a probable enforcement outcome as a deliberate choice. The 26 April 2026 Sherlock investigation article documents two visibly distinct Facebook profiles operating simultaneously under near-identical display names — “Jaynesbabybank Registered - cic” (with space and dash) and “Jaynesbabybank Registeredcic” (no space, no dash). Both refreshing profile assets within approximately six minutes of each other (one updated its cover photo 10 minutes prior to observation, the other its profile picture 4 minutes prior). Both used the official JBB™ logo with an autism infinity ribbon overlay. One of these profiles (the “Registered - cic” / space-and-dash variant, profile ID 61567483332952) was subsequently confirmed via Facebook PDF export on 26 May 2026 as the active operational profile carrying the “karma has struck another hater” harassment post (24 May 2026 — see Finding 21). The other (the “Registeredcic” / no-space variant, recorded as profile ID 615567483332952 at observation) functioned as a parallel reserve identity. The simultaneous activation of two near-identically-named profiles within minutes of each other — at the same hour the primary JBB page was being taken down by Meta. This is the documented structural feature: redundant reserve accounts pre-positioned and ready to absorb traffic when enforcement action removed the main page. See Finding 03 for the full alias network. On 24 April 2026, a new account titled "Jaynes BabyBank" was created and removed within approximately two hours. On 26 April 2026, the J'armarnis B Outique profile was renamed to "Jaynes BabyBank (Baby Jayne)" — repurposing an established account with an existing audience to restore the brand within five days of the ban. On 3 May 2026, a further account — "South Wales Largest Baby Bank & Foodbank Fundraising Shops" — was created, described by the Sherlock investigation as a return to the platform following a claimed "mental health break." As of 8 May 2026, this account was also banned. On 21 May 2026, a fresh Facebook profile under the same display name — "South Wales Largest Baby Bank & Foodbank Fundraising Shops" (profile ID 61589841172921) — was observed publicly active with Jayne's Baby Bank™ branding, listed as a non-profit organisation, and showing minimal engagement (1 like, 1 follower, 8 posts at observation). The re-establishment occurred in the same period as continued TikTok health-content posting on @communityshopone. See Finding 03 for the profile record. Attempts were also made to present the J'armarnis account as being managed by a separate staff member referred to as "H." However, archived livestreams show the operator directly navigating and interacting with the J'armarnis profile during late-night broadcasts, indicating direct personal control rather than independent management. The TikTok account @communityshopone was separately renamed to "Jayne's Baby Bank CIC TM" during this same period — a parallel consolidation of platform identity. Within the investigation's corpus, this sequence represents the most compressed and documented example of the identity-switching pattern described in Finding 05.

The associated TikTok account (@communityshopone) has continued posting throughout this period. In the week of 12 May 2026 — while the operator is subject to an active Caerphilly CBC criminal investigation, a live fire safety Enforcement Notice, and two unsatisfied CCJs totalling £7,418 — content was published on the TikTok account that mocked the deaths of workers associated with HCT, a registered charity. No retraction or apology has been issued.

This conduct sits within a documented pattern of public attacks on HCT and its operator H##### T###### spanning from at least March 2023 — recorded across 74 unique source documents in the investigation corpus, with named references to H##### T###### appearing in 74 files and HCT referenced in 103 files. Attacks include allegations about charity vehicle use, personal benefit claims, and coordinated attempts to associate HCT with unrelated controversies. The corpus also records 78 harassment-related references across 49 unique source files, with the operator repeatedly threatening critics and members of the public with malicious communications complaints and police referrals — a pattern of using legal threats to deter documentation of the operation. The full analysis of the sustained campaign against HCT, including the Charity Commission's decision not to open a statutory investigation, the Civic Award HCT received in November 2025, and the documented false allegations against its personnel, is set out in Finding 21.

The investigation has further confirmed through archived livestream footage that alias accounts including David Jones and Peter Mal — attributed to the operator — have been used to publish content targeting HCT, H##### T######, and individuals who have left or criticised the operation. The use of alias accounts for this purpose is consistent with the identity-switching pattern documented in Finding 03 and the platform ban evasion documented above.

“Ours wasn’t originally called that, but that was a decoy page as well and a decoy name” — 9 January 2026. A January 2026 broadcast contains the following: “But there’s still a need for it, is what we’ve seen. Ours wasn’t originally called that, but that was a decoy page as well and a decoy name. So, yes, we’ve decided that we’re going to call our rescue the new Caerphilly bird and small animal rescue sanctuary.” This confirms that Caerphilly Bird Rescue was itself operated as a decoy page and name, extending the documented decoy network beyond Jayne’s Baby Bank to the animal rescue brand. This is the primary evidential basis for treating the bird rescue as part of the same deliberate platform rotation strategy, rather than a separate independently motivated venture.

06Credentials / Fraud Act 2006 s.2False credentials displayed publicly for over two years — degree type changed twice, employer fabricated, independently verified via internet archive

Four archived snapshots of the operator’s public Facebook profile, independently preserved by the Wayback Machine (archive.org), document the systematic evolution of credential claims across a 25-month period. The profile URL facebook.com/people/JaynesBaby-Bank/100083342834915/ was in continuous public use throughout. The snapshots, dated 13 February 2024, 1 July 2025, 13 January 2026, and 28 March 2026, establish the following documented sequence:

13 February 2024 (44K followers): The profile lists only “Studied at Cardiff University”. No qualification type, no degree name, no field of study. No nursing credential is explicitly stated at this stage.

1 July 2025 (71K followers): The profile has been substantially expanded. The following new entries appear: Studied BA Hons Nursing at Cardiff University; Nursing at NHS Professionals (listed under current employment); Works at Bio-chemistry diploma (listed under employment, not education); Teaching Assistant level 3 at Aspergers & Autistic Spectrum Disorder & Behavioural Resource Base; Profit Protection advisor at Retail and Profit Protection Management (listed twice, identically). The NHS Professionals listing is significant: NHS Professionals is the NHS’s own temporary staffing agency for clinical personnel. Registration with NHS Professionals as a nurse requires an active, current NMC PIN. No NMC registration exists for either documented name. The listing therefore constitutes a public claim of active clinical employment at an NHS body, a claim that requires NMC registration the operator does not hold.

13 January 2026 (76K followers): NHS Professionals has been removed. The Bio-chemistry diploma entry has been removed. The Teaching Assistant entry has been removed. BA Hons Nursing at Cardiff University is retained. The profile type has changed from “Digital creator” to “Thrift & Consignment Store.” The removal of the Teaching Assistant entry is consistent with the period during which the investigation was querying named schools and the EWC confirmed no registration for this individual.

28 March 2026 (77K followers): The degree entry has been changed from BA Hons Nursing to BSC Hons Adult Nursing — silently, without correction or acknowledgement. The change is material: Cardiff University does not award nursing degrees as BA (Bachelor of Arts); their programmes are delivered as BN (Hons) or BSc (Hons). The original “BA Hons Nursing” therefore described a qualification that does not exist at the claimed institution under that designation. The replacement “BSC Hons Adult Nursing” more closely approximates an actual Cardiff programme, but Cardiff University has confirmed no record of either qualification for this individual. The profile also adds Chief Executive Officer (CEO) & Founder at The New Caerphilly Bird & Small Animal Rescue Sanctuary as a new employment entry, and lists the relationship status as Married. Despite a publicly archived post stating: “I have been single since — forever.” The March 2026 snapshot also adds Went to Friends of Blackwood Comprehensive School. A new secondary school entry not previously disclosed, and one that is directly contradicted by independent evidence. Multiple witnesses posting anonymously to a public Facebook group on 19 April 2026, confirmed as former schoolmates, independently state that the operator attended Oakdale Comprehensive School from approximately 1991 to 1996, not Blackwood Comprehensive. The witnesses confirm the Carrie-Anne Ridsdale identity and Oakdale attendance consistently and without coordination. The addition of Blackwood Comprehensive to the profile — a school she did not attend according to multiple independent accounts, consistent with the broader documented pattern of using the public-facing Jayne Price identity to obscure the Carrie-Anne Ridsdale identity, and with the active denial of that identity documented in Finding 19.

Summary of credential evolution across the four snapshots: The nursing degree designation changed twice (unspecified → BA Hons → BSC Hons), neither version corresponding to a qualification Cardiff University awards or holds on record for this individual. An active NHS clinical employment claim was added and subsequently removed. A specialist teaching assistant role was added and subsequently removed. A Bio-chemistry diploma was listed under employment and subsequently removed. The relationship status changed from Single to Married between January and March 2026. The operator has never been married — independently confirmed. The Married status on the March 2026 profile is a confirmed false statement. The public statement of having been single “forever” is consistent with the confirmed position. All four changes occurred silently, with no correction or acknowledgement published to the 44,000–77,000 followers who saw the profile throughout this period. No registration was found on the NMC, SCWOnline, or Education Workforce Council Wales for either name. A Freedom of Information response from the Education Workforce Council additionally confirms that Carrie-Anne Ridsdale has never been registered as a classroom assistant in Wales, directly contradicting her repeated public assertions of having served in a Special Educational Needs role for twelve years.

A Facebook post in October 2022 claimed “30 year careers” in child protection and safeguarding. A separate broadcast provides a contrasting version of the pre-JBB employment narrative:

“I used to get up in the morning, I’d clean the school. Then I’d go and work in a classroom assistant all day. Then I’d come home and do a night… before I had Daniel. Then I’d go and do the evening shift cleaning in the comprehensive school. And then I’d work in retail on the weekends.”

This account places her working as a classroom assistant alongside school cleaning and weekend retail simultaneously, and specifically states these activities preceded Daniel’s birth. It is inconsistent with a concurrent 25-year senior retail career and undermines the claimed professional seniority of both roles by framing them as simultaneous casual positions.

Independent records establish the actual pre-JBB employment history. Documentary records from 2013 list her role as “Support Worker (Care)” with Pride In Care — a support worker role, not nursing or child protection. This is corroborated by two former colleagues who contacted the investigation independently:

The verified part-time twilight-shift carer role directly contradicts any claim of a nursing, clinical, or senior professional career during these years.

Educational pathway — established record. The investigation has established that the operator attended Crosskeys College (Coleg Gwent) taking a GNVQ in Health and Social Care — a vocational qualification roughly equivalent to two A-levels at Advanced level, and not a direct or guaranteed route into nursing at Cardiff University. The operator has additionally confirmed attendance at Ystrad Mynach College, a further education college. Neither is a degree-awarding institution.

No evidence of any registered professional nursing or clinical career has been produced.

2016 — dissertation and “nursing degree” claim directly contradicted. A pre-JBB Facebook post dated 11 May 2016 from an account in the name "Carrie Anne" shows a bound college submission titled "Is Man Flu An Urban Myth?" with the name Carrie-Anne Ridsdale visible on the cover sheet, captioned with a claim of "6 distinctions." This is consistent with a GNVQ or BTEC Health and Social Care assignment at Crosskeys College, not a university nursing degree. In a separate archived livestream comment from the JBB account dated 14 January 2026, the operator states: "I did my nursing degree in 2016." Cardiff University has confirmed no nursing degree record for this individual. The 2016 document is a college-level submission, not a university degree. The juxtaposition of the archived college work from 2016 and the claim of a 2016 nursing degree, in the context of Cardiff University's formal denial, which directly contradicts the nursing credential claim in its own timeframe.

Additional specific claims documented across hundreds of archived transcripts and publicly fact-checked include: being "accepted to every university applied to with unconditional offers" — nursing unconditional offers are essentially impossible due to mandatory DBS checks, occupational health screening, and interview requirements; being "offered a Learning Difficulties nurse position during a university interview" — universities do not offer employment during admissions interviews; completing "mandatory midwifery hours" and "labour ward and theatre hours" as part of nursing training. No verified record of any such placement exists; and in a publicly archived written post (July 2023), stating in her own words: “now I’m doing a PHD.” In a separate broadcast (September 2025) she corrected this in her own words: “I did a diploma in biochem and passed with distinction.” The contradiction is entirely self-referential — the PhD claim appears in her own published post, and its correction appears in her own later broadcast. No evidence of any PhD enrolment, registration, or institutional affiliation has been produced. Cardiff University, which the operator claimed as her undergraduate institution, has already confirmed no record of a nursing degree for this individual.

“You don’t need to be registered with the NMC to be a nurse” — public reframing of the registration requirement. In a broadcast dated June 2025, the operator advanced a public argument that NMC registration is only required to practise as a nurse in the UK, and that holding a nursing degree without maintaining registration (for example, after retirement or long-term illness) does not mean a person is “not a nurse.” This is technically accurate as a general proposition but is deployed here to reframe the investigation’s documented finding: the NMC confirmed no registration has ever existed for either documented name, and Cardiff University confirmed no nursing degree record. The argument that a person with a degree need not be registered therefore cannot apply to someone for whom no degree record exists at the awarding institution. The reframing attempts to shift the evidential basis from the specific NMC check, which returned no result, to a general principle about retired nurses, which is irrelevant to the documented facts. It represents a sophisticated but ultimately inapplicable public defence of a position that the institutional record does not support.

Autism diagnosis claim — 12 September 2025 broadcast. In a broadcast dated 12 September 2025, the operator publicly disclosed an autism diagnosis for the first time, stating she was assessed by an educational psychologist at Cardiff University in 2016 during what she describes as her nursing enrolment, and subsequently referred to the NHS for a formal diagnosis. Several elements of this account require examination. In the UK, educational psychologists working within university disability services can diagnose specific learning difficulties including dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dyspraxia. This is within their professional scope. However, a formal autism diagnosis in the UK requires a multi-disciplinary NHS assessment team; a university educational psychologist referral is a step in the process, not the diagnosis itself. The operator implies Cardiff University facilitated both the educational psychology assessment and the NHS referral as part of her nursing programme. Cardiff University has already confirmed in writing that no nursing degree record exists for either documented name, meaning the entire institutional context she describes for the diagnosis pathway is unverifiable against the institution's own records. The operator's account cannot be independently verified and is not disputed here as a matter of personal medical history; it is documented because the institutional framing — Cardiff University, nursing programme, 2016, which directly contradicts the documented record.

NHS bursary claim. The same broadcast states: “I was paid to study nursing as well. I had a bursary, a good bursary.” NHS bursaries for nursing students in Wales are means-tested and require confirmed active enrolment on an approved programme at a recognised institution. Cardiff University's confirmation that no nursing degree record exists for either documented name is directly inconsistent with the claim that a bursary was received for nursing study at that institution. An NHS bursary claimed without genuine enrolment would raise questions under the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and the Fraud Act 2006. This cannot be verified from public sources alone and is documented as an unverified claim that is inconsistent with the existing institutional denial.

Haematology placement narrative. The broadcast describes collapsing on a haematology ward during a nursing placement, with the operator's haemoglobin recorded at 62–63 g/L by ward staff, prompting emergency intervention. If accurate, this event would be documented in NHS occupational health records, university placement records, and a Datix incident report. Active placement on an NHS ward requires NMC student registration and university enrolment. Both of which the NMC and Cardiff University have denied for either documented name. The specificity of the clinical detail cannot be independently verified and is noted without further assertion.

Cardiff Prison nursing placement claim. In a broadcast dated January 2026, the operator stated: “bearing in mind I did a week in Cardiff Prison as a student nurse as well.” A nursing placement at Cardiff Prison, or any HM Prison Service establishment: requires verified NMC student registration, formal university placement documentation, and separate vetting clearance from HM Prison Service. No NMC student registration, university placement record, or prison service clearance has been confirmed for either documented name. Cardiff University has confirmed no nursing degree record for this individual. This placement claim is consistent with the broader pattern of adding specific institutional and clinical details — Cardiff Prison, haematology wards, health visitor training in Brynmawr, labour ward and theatre hours — none of which are verifiable against any official record.

NMC complaint filed against a named individual — operator presents as having professional standing. An archived Messenger exchange documents the JBB account contacting the Nursing and Midwifery Council to make a formal complaint against a named Caerphilly individual, alleging she had "slandered my trademarked registered cic on social media." The same exchange includes the JBB account stating: “NMC are aware you are slandering me and my registered cic and refusing your pin”, and separately asking the recipient: “What's your pin please you have to give it.” NMC PIN numbers are the unique registration identifiers held by qualified nurses and midwives. Filing a formal complaint with a professional regulator and demanding a registrant's PIN number implies both that the complainant has standing as a registrant and that the recipient has obligations to comply. Neither claim is established: the NMC has confirmed no registration exists for either documented name for this individual, and private individuals have no obligation to disclose their NMC PIN to third parties on demand. The conduct constitutes a further instance of using official-looking regulatory engagement to intimidate and harass critics.

Publicly filmed interview — multiple false claims in a single sitting. A professionally filmed sit-down interview posted to the Facebook page of Oh My Pasta. A local business whose social media was being managed at the time by the same content creator who conducted the interview, and subsequently archived to YouTube by the Sherlock investigation (youtube.com/watch?v=n_3vMcO2ih0), presents the following claims in a single broadcast: “Prior to the pandemic, I was a student nurse, and I got ill, and I wasn't able to work on the wards because I was considered high risk.” No nursing registration exists on the NMC, no placement record has been produced, and Cardiff University has confirmed no nursing degree record for either documented name. The "student nurse on wards" narrative serves as the founding origin story of JBB, meaning the entire public account of why the operation was created is built on an unverifiable credential claim. The same interview states: “We've registered as the CIC” — deploying the November 2025 CIC registration as legitimacy for the full five-year operation history. The interview was filmed at the premises of a local business ("Oh My Pasta"), that business subsequently confirmed in writing: “We would like to clarify that we do not have any direct affiliation with Jane's Bank.” The business additionally disclosed that their Facebook page was being managed by the same social media content creator who conducted the interview, explaining why comments on the relevant post were disabled — a fact the business stated it had not previously been aware of.

B&Q employment, claimed executive role contradicted by photographic and witness evidence. The operator's Facebook profile listed "Profit Protection advisor at Retail and Profit Protection Management" — a role she has described in broadcasts as being "second to CEO," involving telling "the company how to make profits and where they were losing them" for "one of the largest companies in the world," with 20 to 25 years of claimed experience across sales, marketing, and profit protection. A public Facebook post dated 13 November 2022 repeats this claim verbatim: “I worked as a profit protection officer (which is second to CEO - I told the company how to make profits and where they were losing them), for one of the largest companies in the world for 25 years plus I work in the social and health care systems.” Archived photographs show her wearing a standard orange B&Q retail apron at a B&Q store during what appears to be a community or seasonal event. Former colleagues and local residents who worked with her have publicly recalled her as Carrie-Anne Ridsdale and as a sales assistant, not a senior manager. Separately, the pre-JBB harassment campaign documented in Finding 27 includes a reported incident in which Ridsdale followed victims Alice and Lewis out of a B&Q store in Pontypridd — an incident reported to have resulted in immediate termination of her employment there. The Facebook profile lists this role as beginning in 1996 — when, given her confirmed birth date of 16 May 1980, she would have been 16 years old. A 16-year-old in a position described as "second to CEO" of a major multinational retailer is not credible. The cumulative arithmetic of her claimed work history is additionally irreconcilable: claimed 25 years in retail combined with claimed 12 years as a teaching assistant would represent 37 years of professional experience prior to university — placing the start of that career in her early childhood.

“I worked in a school for 12 years, special needs school, for 12 years as a teaching assistant“, archived deleted broadcast. In an archived deleted broadcast, the operator stated verbatim: “You need to be a qualified teaching assistant or an NEB. If you're training, you can volunteer… I worked in a school for 12 years, special needs school, for 12 years as a teaching assistant.” This claim is directly contradicted by a Freedom of Information response from the Education Workforce Council Wales, which confirms that Carrie-Anne Ridsdale has never been registered as a classroom assistant in Wales. The EWC registration check is the authoritative public record for Wales. The claim of a 12-year special needs school career is additionally irreconcilable with the simultaneously claimed 25-year retail career, the claimed nursing degree, and the claimed biochemistry diploma. The "12 years in a special needs school" claim has been deployed publicly to assert professional expertise in child development, autism, and special educational needs — fields in which the operator holds no confirmed registration, qualification, or employment record. In separate broadcasts the operator has named specific schools and specialist educational units as her former employers. No employment, volunteer, or placement record at any of the named institutions has been produced, and no EWC registration for a teaching assistant or learning support role at any school in Wales exists for either documented name. In a subsequent post, the operator publicly denied the teaching assistant claim: “I have never said I was a teacher.” This denial is directly contradicted by the archived deleted broadcast above, multiple publicly archived posts stating “I worked in a school for 12 years” and “I was a classroom assistant,” and the operator’s own Facebook profile which listed “Teaching Assistant Level 3 at Aspergers & Autistic Spectrum Disorder & Behavioural Resource Base.” The denial is therefore contradicted by the operator’s own prior public record across multiple sources.

Use of “BA” as a post-nominal on public pages — flagged by a witness with direct knowledge. A former colleague who contacted the investigation independently — having since completed a law degree and working in a local authority; specifically noted that the operator was displaying “BA” as a post-nominal credential on her social media page. The witness stated: “It did strike a particular chord with me when she used BA in her page. I’ve recently completed a law degree and we are told what credentials we can use. I suspect she hasn’t done a degree, coupled with the ‘placement’ at Pride not being normal, I don’t think she ever did anything of the sort.” Post-nominal letters in the UK are governed by convention and, in professional fields, by regulatory bodies. Displaying “BA” as a post-nominal where no conferring institution has confirmed the award is a misrepresentation of academic standing. The Wayback Machine snapshots document the progression from no named qualification (February 2024) through “BA Hons Nursing” (July 2025) to “BSC Hons Adult Nursing” (March 2026) — neither version corresponding to a qualification held or confirmed by Cardiff University. The witness’s observation, made independently and before the Wayback evidence was compiled, is consistent with the documented profile evolution.

Movement for Good award nomination — July 2025. The archived July 2025 snapshot includes a post soliciting nominations for a Movement for Good award (Benefact Group, closing date 27 July 2025), which offers a £2,000 donation to the nominated organisation. The Movement for Good scheme is designed for registered charities. Jayne’s Baby Bank C.I.C. is not and has never been a registered charity. Both Charity Commission applications were refused. Nominating a non-charitable CIC for a scheme designed to award registered charities, to a public audience, is consistent with the broader pattern of presenting the operation as charitable in contexts where charitable status confers benefit. The post was published during the same period the “BA Hons Nursing” credential was displayed on the profile.

Scrubs photograph — operator’s own correction self-undermines the defence. A photograph published on 16 November 2015 shows the operator in surgical scrubs captioned “Loved my day in theatre! Decisions, decisions!” and has been used publicly to imply formal clinical nursing training. In a subsequent post, the operator attempted to rebut the investigation’s analysis of this photograph by stating: “Green scrubs are used for theatre my darling not students. Students wear purple which incidently the Queen Elizabeth picked the colour for student nurses.” This correction is self-undermining. By asserting that green scrubs indicate theatre rather than student placement, she inadvertently corroborates the investigation’s position, that the photograph documents a theatre visit or observation day, not a nursing placement. The caption “Decisions, decisions!” is inconsistent with a formal clinical placement; it is consistent with an informal observation. The operator’s own gloss on the scrubs colour confirms, rather than refutes, the evidential significance of the photograph.

“Qualified health care practitioner” self-identification, 98% exam claim, and use of an obsolete safeguarding term. Across multiple broadcasts and posts the operator has identified herself as a “qualified health care professional” and “health care practitioner,” deploying these labels to assert clinical authority over decisions affecting vulnerable individuals. The earliest documented instance is the pre-JBB Baby Bank and Friends Facebook page About bio, which opens: “Hello, I am health care professional with long standing infertility.” — a permanent profile-level claim predating Jayne's Baby Bank, the ovarian-cancer bio on JaynesBaby Bank Price, and every subsequent NMC or nursing credential assertion. In support of the later nursing narrative she has cited a specific exam result — publicly stating she scored 98% on an assessment relating to the digestive system as part of her nursing studies. No verified academic transcript, examination record, or institutional confirmation of any such result exists for either documented name. The claim functions as a precision detail designed to lend credibility to a nursing narrative that Cardiff University, the NMC, and the EWC have each separately been unable to confirm.

“Employed by social services to work with thousands of individuals” — undocumented employment claim. A public post dated September 2024 states: “I was also employed by social services to work and care with thousands of individuals with mental health and disabilities with complex care needs. All these qualifications are certified.” No record of any social services employment has been identified for either documented name across any official database, FOI disclosure, or employment record available to the investigation. The DBS confirmation of her role as “Support Worker (Care)” at Pride In Care in 2013. A private residential care company, not a statutory social services body. This is the only verified employment record for this period. Employment by a local authority social services department would generate verifiable records including payroll, contract documentation, and DBS records under the employer’s own reference. None of these have been produced. The phrase “thousands of individuals” is also implausible on its face for a part-time twilight shift carer working at a single residential care provider, as confirmed by former colleagues.

The operator has additionally stated she acts in a “professional capacity” as a witness in POVA — Protection of Vulnerable Adults, and safeguarding meetings at “Ty Penallta,” including giving evidence against named third parties. This claim contains two independently verifiable errors. First, POVA as a statutory framework was replaced in Wales by the Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults provisions under the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, and before that by the All Wales Adult Protection guidance from 2012 onwards; in England the equivalent shift occurred under the Care Act 2014. A professional operating within Welsh adult safeguarding frameworks in any current or recent capacity would be expected to use “Safeguarding Adults” or reference the relevant statutory framework, not POVA, which has been obsolete in practice for over a decade. Second, a former colleague with direct knowledge of Caerphilly adult safeguarding arrangements has confirmed to the investigation that adult safeguarding meetings have not been held at Ty Penallta for some time — they are now conducted either virtually or at Ty Tredomen, sometimes in hybrid format. The specific venue named by the operator is therefore incorrect as a matter of current practice, independently of the outdated terminology. The combination of an obsolete statutory term and a wrong venue is consistent with the claim being constructed without genuine professional familiarity with current safeguarding frameworks. No record of the operator being authorised, accredited, or formally appointed as a safeguarding witness in any official capacity has been produced. It is additionally notable that a Mother and Baby Bank operation — dealing with donated goods and food distribution — would have no established basis for attending adult safeguarding meetings in any professional capacity in the first place, a point independently raised by the same former colleague. A further claim appears in a separate public post : “I have had accredited children and safeguarding training from Cardiff University and Caerphilly Council.” Cardiff University has confirmed no record of the operator’s attendance on any programme. No accredited safeguarding qualification from Cardiff University or Caerphilly Council has been produced or verified for either documented name. The claim of accredited safeguarding training from a university whose own records do not reflect her attendance is consistent with the broader pattern of citing institutional endorsement that the named institutions have not confirmed.

“Childcare qualifications and I have received a great deal of training via the NMC and the local health and education boards” — 9 July 2022. A public post dated 9 July 2022 states: “Childcare qualifications and I have received a great deal of training via the NMC and the local health and education boards in South East Wales. (Both know and support and are aware of us.)” The NMC — the Nursing and Midwifery Council. This is the statutory regulator for nurses and midwives in the UK. It does not provide training to individuals who are not NMC-registered. Claiming training “via the NMC” without NMC registration implies a professional nursing or midwifery credential the operator does not hold. The parenthetical “Both know and support and are aware of us” additionally implies that named health regulators endorsed the operation, a claim the NMC has since denied in writing.

False trustee structure — November 2022. A public post dated 13 November 2022 stated: “Me and my son are the owners and trustees and we have one silent trustee.” At this date JBB had no CIC registration, no Charity Commission registration, and no legal trustee structure of any kind — the CIC was not incorporated until November 2025. Describing a family member arrangement as a formal trustee structure on a public volunteer-facing post is a misrepresentation of the operation's legal status. The same post claimed "over 100 registered Volunteers" operating across multiple sites, all without employers liability insurance, health and safety documentation, or safeguarding policies, as confirmed by the October 2023 Caerphilly CBC inspection.

Four credentials claimed in one broadcast — 24 June 2024. In a video broadcast dated 24 June 2024, the operator states in a single passage: “But I am qualified. I am a qualified retailer and I am also a qualified health and social care practitioner. I’ve got qualifications in education and I’ve also studied nursing. So, you know, I am qualified to discuss things like that.” Four distinct credential claims are made consecutively: a “qualified retailer” status (no recognised UK certification for that designation has been produced), a “qualified health and social care practitioner” (no professional body registration exists), “qualifications in education” (Cardiff University has confirmed no record of attendance and the EWC holds no registration), and “studied nursing” (no NMC registration exists for either documented name). The June 2024 broadcast predates by approximately one year the 1 July 2025 Wayback snapshot in which BA Hons Nursing, NHS Professionals, and Profit Protection were first added to the profile, confirming that the credential claims were made publicly on broadcast platforms before being added to the profile in writing. The compressed format, four credentials in three sentences — captures the standard public-presentation pattern of the operator’s claimed qualifications.

Family-member credential claim — “qualified handwriting interpreter” — 28 August 2022 and 13 May 2023. Two dated public Facebook posts publish an identical rate card titled “Tarot and other Readings and Analysis Price List,” including the entry: “Handwriting and horoscope analysis by qualified handwrtting interpretater (my Mum not me). £15 (1 week turnaround and handwriting submission required to be annalysised).” The rate card additionally advertises lucky-dip card readings (£5), three-card tarot readings (£15), and a lovers’ tarot and horoscope compatibility reading (£25), with the footer: “100% of the profits go to Jayne’s Mother & Baby Bank, Food Bank & Charity Shop.” Three issues arise. First, “qualified handwriting interpreter” is not a recognised UK professional designation — there is no statutory or self-regulatory registration body for graphology in the United Kingdom, and no UK protected title attaches to handwriting interpretation. Second, the family member referenced as the “qualified” practitioner is the operator’s mother. The same individual who appears as Director 2 on the November 2025 CIC filing (Gail Jenkins, Brooklyn Bungalow, Woodfieldside) and whose surname Jenkins is recorded on the operator’s own birth index entry as the mother’s maiden name. The CIC director’s commercial involvement in pre-CIC fundraising under a claimed professional designation has not been disclosed in any CIC36 declaration or annual return. Third, the credential claim was deployed to set a price (£15 per reading) and to solicit public payment; independent witness accounts provided to the wider investigation indicate the family member’s actual occupational background is unrelated to graphology. The rate card is published under the early operating name “Jayne’s Mother & Baby Bank, Food Bank & Charity Shop,” the same name later refused by the Charity Commission as the first failed registration application (org. 5223055).

07False authorityFalsely claiming FCA authorisation and regulatory accreditation

Between February 2023 and July 2025, the operator made repeated public claims that Jayne's Baby Bank had been authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority to use the word "charity" in its name. A deleted June 2025 video stated: "We're the only charity in Great Britain that's been authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority to use the word charity in our title." This claim is demonstrably false. The FCA does not regulate charities, does not authorise charitable status, and plays no role in approving the use of "charity" in a business name, that function rests with the Charity Commission and Companies House. The FCA confirmed in July 2025 that JBB is not on the Financial Services Register. Misrepresenting authorisation by a statutory regulator in a fundraising context may constitute a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

Bank of England / FCA letter — October 2022. An archived letter dated 25 October 2022 from the Bank of England/FCA — addressed "Dear Jayne" at 7 Meadow Road, Blackwood NP12 — documents that the operator had written to the FCA asking for permission to use the word "bank" in the charity name, and was directed to the FCA's Sensitive Business Names process. The letter explains the steps she would need to take to obtain approval and copies the Sensitive Business Names request form. This is the direct opposite of FCA authorisation. It is a letter explaining that approval had not been granted and setting out what would be required to seek it. The first public FCA authorisation claim followed in February 2023, less than four months after receiving this letter. The letter establishes that the operator was fully aware the FCA had not authorised her use of "bank" in the name at the point she began publicly claiming it had.

Separately, across multiple Facebook posts from December 2024 through September 2025, the operator repeatedly claimed JBB had "won a sustainability award by the CRS Accreditation." No body called "CRS Accreditation" exists. The reference is to a commercial self-submitted project award from The Green Organisation (CSR Awards), which does not constitute organisational accreditation, carries no regulatory standing, and is not connected to the Charity Commission or any regulatory body. When the award organiser was contacted for clarification, the justification for the award changed within hours in written correspondence, shifting from "recycling baby clothes" to "food and drink and healthcare" — demonstrating the absence of consistent verification criteria.

08Health claims38 documented conditions — pattern of deployment in fundraising contexts

The ovarian cancer claim was embedded into the permanent public-facing identity of the operation from its founding. The original Facebook profile for "JaynesBaby Bank Price" carried the bio: “I have ovarian cancer, I launched a food bank, womens aid and baby bank to help as people in 2020.” This statement — appearing in the profile description, not a passing post — means that every person who visited the page, every donor, and every organisation that considered partnering with JBB encountered this claim as a foundational fact about the operator. It was not a claim made once; it was the permanent stated identity of the operation from launch.

Pre-JBB health narrative — "Baby Bank and Friends" About bio. The earliest documented health-and-professional framing in the operation's public identity predates both Jayne's Baby Bank and the JaynesBaby Bank Price ovarian-cancer profile. The pre-JBB Facebook page Baby Bank and Friends carried a permanent About-section biography stating the operator was a "health care professional" with "long standing infertility," describing a pregnancy complicated by medical conditions and asserting "I did not have a stich for my baby!" — a surgical-delivery claim presented as foundational context for why the baby bank was created. This narrative layer, claimed professional healthcare identity plus personal medical hardship — is structurally identical to the later permanent-profile health claims documented across JBB, but uses infertility and childbirth complications rather than ovarian cancer. The page simultaneously listed Charitable organisation as a public category while Messenger responses from the same profile explicitly denied charitable status when access conditions were questioned. No independent clinical verification of infertility, the stated medical conditions, or the surgical claim has been produced. The full About text and page metadata are documented in Finding 03.

Across Facebook, livestreams, and FOI-related correspondence, 38 distinct medical conditions have been documented, including aplastic anaemia, blood cancer, bone marrow cancer, leukaemia, bowel cancer, ovarian cancer, womb tumour, brain tumour, bilateral knee replacement, epilepsy, sepsis, neutropenia, endometriosis, sleep apnoea, diabetes, hypothyroidism, panniculitis, pica disorder, kidney cysts, ADHD, autism, dyslexia, dyscalculia, dyspraxia, and suicidal ideation, among others. No independent clinical verification of any of these conditions has been produced in the public domain.

Deployment alongside fundraising. Health claims are consistently deployed in direct proximity to fundraising appeals — framing illness and incapacity while soliciting donations, premises, or operational support in the same publication or broadcast. Representative examples include the October 2022 founding narrative (shielding, tumour, and aplastic anaemia presented as the reason JBB was created) and a September 2025 livestream that moved directly from discussing illnesses to: “Unless somebody wants to fund us for a big massive warehouse, what am I going to do?” Further dated examples appear in the chronological sequence below.

Chronological escalation of health claims, documented by investigation. The health narrative has escalated consistently over time in a documented pattern:

Pre-2015–2015: The operator asserts she was "seriously unwell" with a tumour and aplastic anaemia "well before 2015." She claims a 2015 MRI found a "massive tumour" in her womb, but her GP "shelved" the result for four years. During this same period, official records place her as a Support Worker at Pride In Care (2013–2018) and she was simultaneously claiming to be entering nursing education in 2016.

2019: She claims to have personally discovered the "missing" 2015 scan in her medical records and states she was diagnosed with blood cancer and a 6cm tumour this year. She asserts doctors began using "tumour suppressors" in 2019. In a broadcast, she also stated she returned to university "at age 39" for a nursing and biochemistry degree.

2020 — the founding contradiction: The operator claimed to be "shielding" throughout the first lockdown because she was immunocompromised with a "massive tumour" and blood disorder, having collapsed and developed sepsis due to neutropenia requiring a triple blood transfusion and four iron infusions. At the exact same time, she physically founded, stocked, and operated Jayne's Baby Bank from her driveway and subsequently expanded to multiple retail premises — working, in her own words, "7 days a week."

2021: She claims to have undergone a procedure to stop the blood supply to her tumour due to "angiogenesis." In late 2021, she began using the "palliative" label publicly, asserting she would "never be cured."

2022: A December 2022 post states: “After a recent MRI, I am still in the palliative category — most of you know that I have a massive tumor and aplastic anemia which is a rare blood and bone marrow cancer.” The tumour is described as having grown to 11cm at this stage. Separately, in correspondence with Caerphilly County Borough Council the same year, the operator self-declared dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dyspraxia (listed in the 38-condition inventory above) to explain “difficulties with accounts and correspondence.” Analysis of the Subject Access Request confirms these were submitted by the operator herself, not assessed by any clinical or official body. Investigators noted they functioned as “rhetorical tools” to excuse hostility and unprofessional behaviour toward the council — distinct from any documented clinical diagnosis.

2023: A public post announces a reduction in tumour size — “Tumor has shrunk to 7.8 cm from 9cm from 11cm since 2021!” — presenting a three-year shrinkage sequence as a public health update. A further post shortly after records an updated consultant measurement of 6.8cm alongside disclosure that she was commencing “a course of tumor injections that put you in a state of suspended menopause for 6 weeks.” Both posts were published to the full JBB audience alongside routine operational content.

2024: In April 2024, the operator claimed to be a "grade 3 on the heart attack register" — a non-standard medical classification that does not correspond to any recognised NHS or clinical risk stratification system, after recording a blood pressure of 179/102. Separately, a broadcast from the same month discloses that a nurse had “let slip that the tumour had grown… quite rapidly since the last time” she had been checked — reversing the documented shrinkage sequence of 2023 (7.8cm, then 6.8cm) and reintroducing escalation to the health narrative. The same content appears in a later 2026 file, consistent with a Facebook memory or reshare; the earliest and most reliable archive date is April 2024.

2025: Across 2025, she also claimed to have lost 10 stone in weight, which she attributed in part to her health conditions. Former volunteers have publicly reported that the operator told them privately she had an "incurable brain tumour." When challenged on this claim during a livestream, she denied ever having said it. Both accounts are in the public record. In March 2025, she attributed a "bowel obstruction" to tumour pressure — later, an endoscopy reportedly found no abnormalities, no lesions, and nothing of clinical concern, directly contradicting the claim. She also publicly attributed an obsession with eating "buckets of ice" to blood deficiencies — a reference to pica disorder, which she includes in her self-declared condition list. In a November 2025 broadcast, the operator directly addressed claims circulating online that she had bone marrow cancer, stating: “apparently now I’ve got bone marrow cancer… Read what it says on Google… Shut up, you bloody fools.” In the same broadcast she stated: “You’ve got fibroids and you’ve got bone marrow cancer. Shut up.” These dismissals were made to a live audience. Yet the document of record shows the operator herself used the phrase “rare blood and bone marrow cancer” in a public December 2022 post. The November 2025 denials are therefore inconsistent with her own prior published characterisation.

April 2026 — brain tumour claim denied on camera. In an April 2026 broadcast, the operator emphatically denied ever having claimed to have a brain tumour: “Where do I say I got a brain tumour? When have I ever said I got a brain tumour? I’ve never said I got a brain tumour.” This denial is made across multiple exchanges within the same broadcast. The document records former volunteers reporting that the operator privately told them she had an “incurable brain tumour”, a claim she had already denied in an earlier livestream. The April 2026 broadcast represents a further documented instance of that denial, made with escalating emphasis, while the original claim remains in the public record via volunteer testimony.

6 May 2026 — critical haemoglobin claim deployed in harassment context. A post published on 6 May 2026 from the account "South Wales Largest Baby Bank & Foodbank Fundraising Shops" — the Facebook identity in the documented post-ban rename sequence (subsequently banned 8 May 2026; re-established on profile ID 61589841172921 from 21 May 2026 — see Finding 14) — states: “my hemoglobin (Hb) level has dropped from 15 g/dL to 5 g/dL which can be critical for a blood transfusion and iron infusion.” A haemoglobin level of 5 g/dL represents a critically low value that would typically require emergency hospital admission and immediate clinical intervention, not a Facebook post. Normal adult Hb range is approximately 12–17.5 g/dL. The post frames this claimed medical emergency in the context of "all the harassment and stalking and abuse going on", consistent with the documented pattern of deploying health claims as contextual framing to deflect scrutiny. A further endoscopy ("stomach camera") is also referenced, consistent with the March 2025 bowel obstruction claim that reportedly returned normal findings. This post was made through a renamed account operating under a new name following the May 2026 Facebook bans, establishing that the operation continued posting under a further alias name as of the date of publication.

18–20 May 2026 — @communityshopone TikTok: Amazon oxygen cans framed as transfusion / infusion (not NHS). Before the 21 May hospital attendance, the JBB TikTok alias posted repeatedly (comments disabled) showing retail portable-oxygen cans — goX, OXY, and “CLEAR OXYGEN ENERGY” types available on Amazon, not NHS prescription cylinders — with overlays including “Roll on this blood transfusion if i make it to Thursday” and “Roll on this blood transfusion and iron fusion” (sic). Supplemental oxygen tins have no role in blood transfusion or IV iron infusion. Archived example: tiktok.com/@communityshopone/photo/7640878050720124182.

21 May 2026 — transfusion and iron infusion claimed together; attendance at YYF inconsistent with dual-treatment claim and prior “critical” Hb framing. On 21 May 2026 the operator attended YYF (Ystrad Fawr Hospital) for approximately one hour and subsequently published a further tranche of “proof” content across @communityshopone TikTok and the re-established Facebook profile "South Wales Largest Baby Bank & Foodbank Fundraising Shops" (profile ID 61589841172921). TikTok overlay text stated: “Funny how haters havn't mentioned I was telling the truth about being ill on their pathetic group” and “Feeling better this eveing” (sic). The shared Facebook caption read, verbatim: “Obviously I was lying again about a transfusion and infusion.” — sarcastic framing directed at critics, while simultaneously asserting both treatments occurred on the same attendance. The post paired (a) a wide clinical-room photograph showing a trolley labelled “Blood & Cannulation” and (b) a forearm close-up with an IV cannula and dark fluid in the line (morning archive: tiktok.com/@communityshopone/photo/7642244007023627542). That duration is materially inconsistent with a same-day blood transfusion (NHS practice and published clinical guidance: typically approximately 1–4 hours per unit, plus pre-transfusion checks and monitoring) while still allowing a single intravenous iron infusion (commonly approximately 15–60 minutes infusion time, plus observation). Where both treatments are medically indicated, standard practice is ordinarily to schedule them sequentially — transfusion first for immediate severe anaemia, iron replacement at a later date, not to administer both in a single one-hour outpatient window, partly because each carries distinct adverse-reaction risks that are harder to attribute when combined. The investigation does not assert which product was in the line from imagery alone: iron preparations are often dark brown or black and can resemble blood in a still photograph; a departmental “Blood & Cannulation” label denotes capability, not that a transfusion was performed on that attendance. The discrepancy is therefore between the dual treatment claim she chose to publish and the documented ~one-hour attendance at YYF, which aligns more closely with an iron infusion appointment than with a completed blood transfusion, let alone transfusion plus infusion on the same day. This sits fifteen days after the 6 May 2026 public claim that Hb had fallen to 5 g/dL — a value that, if accurate, would ordinarily trigger emergency assessment and inpatient transfusion pathways, not a short outpatient-style visit later presented on social media as vindication. The document records the inconsistency; it does not conclude clinical malpractice by any named clinician. The more supportable inference from the public record is that the operator has again deployed transfusion language in a context that does not match standard treatment timelines — whether through exaggeration, conflation of separate appointments, or incomplete disclosure of what was actually administered.

The aplastic anaemia cancer claim and retraction. In a Facebook post in 2022, the operator stated she had "aplastic anaemia which is a rare blood and bone marrow cancer." Aplastic anaemia is a bone marrow failure disorder. It is not classified as a cancer. When later challenged by critics on this misclassification, the operator stated on video: "Aplastic Anaemia isn't bone marrow cancer… a quick Google search will tell you that Aplastic Anaemia is not cancer." Both statements are on the public record. The condition was first presented as cancer to the public in a fundraising context, then disowned as "not cancer" when challenged, with no public correction issued to those who had originally been told it was cancer.

The operator has also repeatedly invoked the Cancer Act 1939 as conferring personal legal protection and "registered vulnerable adult" status. The Cancer Act 1939 restricts advertising of cancer treatments and confers no personal protection of any kind. These claims are legally false.

Blood transfusion claims, documented rolling pattern, December 2021 to May 2026 (regular claims escalating from August 2024). The claim of awaiting or undergoing a blood transfusion is one of the most frequently deployed health statements across the archived record. A broadcast dated 23 August 2024 documents the operator attempting to schedule a transfusion around operational hours: “Can’t I come in on a night shift? Because you haven’t got to have a bed, see, for a transfusion. You can sit in one of the chairs. The comfy chairs. I'm happy to sit in a comfy chair.” — the transfusion appointment is presented as a scheduling problem to work around, not a clinical emergency. The documented sequence across an approximately six-month span (November 2025 – May 2026) is as follows: November 2025 (bone marrow transplant and transfusion stated as needed, Hb at 94); 7 January 2026 (re-signing a three-year lease and a separate two-year lease for new premises in the same broadcast as “I am still waiting on a blood transfusion”); 10 January 2026 (blood transfusion needed due to aplastic anaemia — same post used to recruit unpaid leaflet deliverers offering store credit or cash); 20 February 2026 (claims transfusion complete: “I’ve had the blood transfusion. So I don’t know what they’re on about.” Same broadcast: “Then somebody’s changed it to bone marrow transfusion. And now somebody’s changed it on the group that I’ve got bone cancer.”. The operator describes in real time how the claim mutated across public platforms); 13 March 2026 (blood transfusion appointment pending for approximately 13 April); 18 April 2026 (“Then I nearly died. Then I had the triple blood transfusion. I remember lying on my deathbed authorising the food pick-up. It’s going, hang on, hang on, let me do this. There’s people relying on this food. Right now you can inject me or whatever.”); 6 May 2026 (Hb claimed at 5 g/dL — already documented above); [note: on 13 May 2026, seven days later, the operator was photographed physically active at the donation-centre unit with Daniel Ridsdale, not a transfusion claim, but a contradicting activity record]; 18–20 May 2026 (@communityshopone TikTok: Amazon retail oxygen cans — goX, OXY, “CLEAR OXYGEN ENERGY” — captioned as transfusion/infusion; not NHS equipment; comments disabled); 21 May 2026 (YYF/Ystrad Fawr Hospital: ~one-hour attendance; morning @communityshopone cannula post; evening “proof” post sarcastically claiming both “a transfusion and infusion” — dual-treatment claim inconsistent with reported duration; 28th entry in the rolling pattern; see analysis paragraph above); 26 May 2026 (livestream from donation centre during physical stock-sorting and retail pricing of donated stock: “I’ve had my blood transfusion. I’ve had my iron transfusion. I might need another one” — forward-projection priming the next iteration of the claim, broadcast concurrent with the “Haters: I’m phoning dwp!” financial-extraction post (see Finding 26); 29th entry). The pattern is consistent across approximately six months: transfusion claimed as imminent, then completed, then imminent again within weeks, with simultaneous business lease signings, leaflet recruitment campaigns, and physical operational activity documented throughout.

The operator presents herself as "fully work-limited" and eligible for Personal Independence Payment (PIP), while declaring no salary from JBB. A Motability Finance Ltd lease agreement (ref. 96182837, commenced 6 September 2023, 36-month term) has been documented against the operator's details. Confirmed via an Experian outstanding finance check showing "Record Found." Motability vehicles are exclusively available to recipients of the higher rate mobility component of PIP or equivalent qualifying disability benefit. The vehicle was therefore financed directly through a disability benefit entitlement, while the operator was simultaneously managing multiple retail premises and describing working "20 plus hours a day." She has stated that taking a formal wage would require JBB to pay sick pay during her frequent illnesses, which would result in "less mothers being helped." In a separate broadcast she described herself as: "Retired. Director of one of the largest children's charities in Wales and an influencer." The use of health status to simultaneously justify benefit reliance, explain non-payment of a director salary, and solicit public donations represents a documented pattern across the full period of the investigation. Commercial use of the Motability vehicle is documented separately in Finding 09.

Visible personal spending during benefit period — noted by alias account. In an archived post, the Peter Mal alias account highlighted an apparent contradiction between the operator's claimed disability benefit status and visible personal expenditure, commenting on a JBB post about a council funding meeting that included: "Hope you all like my new top and nails." The Peter Mal post stated: “she is bragging about a new set of nails and a new top while you donate her cash… She's on disability benefit how is she affording it all.” Whilst this commentary originates from an alias account operated by the investigation, and is therefore a self-referential artefact of the alias network — it demonstrates that the financial contradiction was sufficiently visible from publicly available posts to be documented and highlighted. The underlying JBB post confirming personal expenditure following a council funding meeting is independently archived.

Documented consumption of alcohol alongside prescribed morphine — December 2023 and January 2026. On 25 December 2023, a post was published on the official JBB Facebook page reading: “Drop a photos of your Christmas tipple! Mines a lidl Bayleys and morphine pill!” The post was published to the public JBB page, an account followed by 70,000+ people including donors, volunteers, and vulnerable mothers. On 12 January 2026, following public commentary about the safety of this combination, the operator addressed the post in a livestream: “So I'm still alive. Can I not have a night off and get shitfaced in a hot tub with a Baileys and a morphine pill that I'm prescribed?” and “I do apologize that I was drunk in a hot tub on Morphine guys.” Morphine is a Class A controlled drug. Combining opioids with alcohol is medically contraindicated and carries documented risks of respiratory depression. The same January 2026 broadcast included a comment mocking addiction services: “And then we'll start an Alcoholics Anonymous group, because, you know, in the last five years of me doing this, I've had one Baileys and a hot tub and a morphine tablet” — made by the operator of a platform that publicly positions itself as a support service for vulnerable mothers and families. The same operator simultaneously claims PIP disability benefits on the basis of serious health conditions that would be significantly contraindicated by alcohol consumption alongside opioid medication. This conduct is documented separately in Finding 12 in respect of the advice given to vulnerable individuals.

Bone marrow transplant, stem cell treatment, claimed then walked back, corroborated by Daniel Ridsdale. A written Facebook post states: “Update from consultant, I need a bone marrow transplant, blood transfusion and series of iron infusions. Aplastic anemia has caused a dip from 115 heams to 94.” Two days later, a broadcast walks this back: “If not I might need to have bone marrow transplant… we’ll be looking at in the new year looking for a donor.” The progression from confirmed consultant recommendation to conditional possibility within 48 hours is consistent with the broader escalation-and-retreat pattern documented in the tumour shrinkage sequence above. A September 2025 broadcast references stem cells in the operator’s own words: “With those stem cells I know and the red blood cells not the stem cells get released from the bone marrow area down where the tumor is situated.” In November 2025, the operator read aloud a medical educational explainer about aplastic anaemia to her audience, describing in third-person clinical terms the stem cell and bone marrow transplant treatment pathway, before posting a DKMS stem cell donor appeal the same day. These primary sources establish that stem cell treatment and bone marrow transplant were referenced in the operator’s own public content before Daniel Ridsdale’s independent public corroboration. A publicly visible comment exchange on Daniel’s personal Facebook profile (facebook.com/daniel.ridsdale.96) includes a reply from Daniel to a family friend, referred to here as S##### Lewis###### — stating: “Yes my Mum has been seriously ill for a long time. Back and forth haematology, blood and iron transfusions and stem cell treatment.” This constitutes independent family corroboration of the haematological treatment narrative from a source separate from the operator’s own broadcasts. The operational activity documented throughout this record — running multiple retail premises, conducting daily public broadcasts, and travelling between shops — spans the same period. This document does not assert the operator’s health claims are entirely fabricated; the documented position is that health claims have been systematically deployed to deflect scrutiny and frame critics as targeting a seriously ill person.

Documented health claims inventory — at least 31 distinct conditions claimed across Facebook posts and broadcasts. The following conditions have been publicly claimed across archived Facebook posts and broadcast transcripts. Primary source references are available via Sources on each row (searchable in the transcript archive):

Additional claimed conditions documented in broadcasts: The following are documented in posts and broadcasts but are not yet listed in the inventory above. Further sources are available in the transcript archive. The following have not yet been matched to a specific source file: ADHD (referenced in operational teaching context but no confirmed self-claim transcript located), fatigue (referenced across hundreds of files but no isolated self-claim file), and hypothyroidism (listed in SAR and operator self-declarations but no broadcast source located). Blood cancer, brain tumour, gabapentin, ovarian cancer, immunocompromised status, and sleep apnoea have now been added to the inventory above with primary source references. No single official medical record, NHS discharge summary, or clinical letter has been produced in evidence of any of the above conditions. The document does not assert the operator has no medical conditions; it documents the pattern of their public deployment.

“Britain’s most stalked woman” — repeated self-description across at least 15 documented broadcasts. From May 2025 onward, the operator repeatedly used the phrase “Britain’s most stalked woman” as a public self-identifier, deploying it as an opening greeting in broadcasts and as a framing device before naming critics or dismissing scrutiny. Representative examples include: “So, as you are fully aware, I am Britain’s most stalked woman”; “Good evening from Britain’s most stalked woman”; “Afternoon, guys. It’s Britain’s most stalked woman”; and “I’m the most stalked woman in Britain” (January 2026). The phrase continued in use through at least March 2026. The claim is additionally attributed to a named police officer: “The most stalked woman in Britain. The police said that to me. The main police officer from [Ystrad] said that to me. He said you’re the most stalked woman in Britain.” No official police statement, crime statistics report, victim assessment, or press release confirms this claim. “Britain’s most stalked woman” is not a designation issued by Gwent Police, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, or any official body. The phrase functions as a recurring rhetorical device deployed to frame all criticism, scrutiny, and public interest documentation as criminal stalking — pre-emptively characterising the investigation and its sources as a criminal enterprise rather than a public interest record.

09EnforcementCCJs, council fines, fire prohibition orders, trading in violation

A County Court Judgment for £7,141 (case ref. 521MC287, County Court Online) was registered on 23 May 2024 against "Ceri-Ann Ridsdale T/A Jayne's Baby Bank" at 7 Meadow Road. As of 26 January 2026, court records confirm the judgment remains unsatisfied. The use of the "Ceri-Ann" name variant in this formal financial liability directly contrasts with the "Jayne Price" persona used for public fundraising, and was publicly dismissed with claims the name was not hers and there were "no legal documents" connected to the operation.

A second County Court Judgment was subsequently registered on 27 January 2026 (case ref. M3DP9X7A, Civil National Business Centre). This time directly under the name Miss Carrie-Anne Ridsdale, at the same address: 7 Meadow Road, Pontllanfraith, Blackwood, NP12 2AG. The amount is £277 and the judgment remains unsatisfied. Unlike the first judgment, this record does not use a variant spelling — it uses the exact Carrie-Anne Ridsdale identity that had been publicly challenged, denied, and minimised. Both judgments appear on the same TrustOnline Register of Judgments, Orders and Fines report. See Finding 19 for a full analysis of the identity significance.

Cumulative outstanding liabilities across multiple creditors. Beyond the two unsatisfied CCJs (£7,418 combined), the following additional liabilities have been documented: a Torfaen business rates summons for £1,105 (accidentally displayed on camera, August 2025, addressed to Miss Carrie Anne Ridsdale); and community witness testimony — publicly corroborated by A### O######, the Blackwood Market Place manager, that the operation left that premises in July 2025 owing over £8,000 to the landlord and with an outstanding £6,000 electric bill, the latter attributed to the operation rerouting electrics and fitting floodlights in breach of lease obligations rather than using a qualified electrician as required. Across documented sources, claimed and outstanding financial liabilities total in excess of £22,000 across multiple creditors.

Torfaen County Borough Council has issued fines to Carrie-Anne Ridsdale. A court summons for £1,105 in unpaid business rates was accidentally displayed live on camera in August 2025. A witness statement documents rent unpaid for over one year at the Pontypool premises, with landlords attempting to locate the operator.

Motability vehicle used for commercial purposes. The vehicle consistently used for JBB operations, documented at car boot sales, stock collection runs, and commercial activities — has been confirmed as a Motability Finance Ltd vehicle. Under the Motability Scheme's terms, vehicles must be used for the disabled person's benefit; use for business, deliveries, or commercial transport is explicitly prohibited and constitutes misuse. Motability Operations confirmed it investigated nearly 36,000 possible misuse cases in a single year, terminating vehicles in approximately 5,300 cases including unauthorised commercial use. On 26 May 2026, the operator implicitly confirmed Motability use in a public livestream: “They’re saying I’m using my mobility car to deliver, I’m not. I’m too busy to deliver.” The denial of using the “mobility car” to deliver is itself confirmation that the operator holds a Motability vehicle, a scheme issued exclusively to claimants of qualifying disability benefits, primarily PIP at the enhanced mobility rate. On the same date the operator published a public Facebook post articulating intent to “claim pip, and get a company car with fuel expenses” (see Finding 26). The combination establishes a documented Motability vehicle, public articulation of PIP claims, and contemporaneous documented operational activity across multiple commercial premises. Whether a formal misuse report has been made to Motability Operations in respect of this vehicle is not publicly known.

Documented reporting chain — Gwent Police signposting and Operation SNAP submission, June 2025. On 6 June 2025, a member of the public reported to Gwent Police a livestream broadcast from the operator’s Facebook account, in which she was observed live streaming while driving, in what appears to be holding the phone on multiple occasions, while actively promoting a newly-opened premises at 14 Pentrebane Street, Caerphilly. The report was logged by Gwent Police Force Contact & Control under reference Gwent Police log ###/06.06.2025 (full reference held on file). Gwent Police responded the same day, signposting the reporter to two channels: Trading Standards for the wider commercial concerns, and Operation SNAP (the Welsh Road Casualty Reduction Partnership’s public-evidence submission system at gosafesnap.wales) for the driving offence. Operation SNAP is the standard Welsh-policing pathway for citizen-submitted video evidence of driving offences. The reporter submitted the broadcast footage to Operation SNAP the same day, generating GoSafe SNAP reference 2e3…d85a (full reference held on file), with confirmation acknowledged at 18:19 the same evening.

SNAP outcome — evidential threshold not met on this specific submission. On 11 June 2025, GoSafe issued an update on the submission, with the decision recorded as “No Further Action Taken.” The reasoning given by GoSafe was strictly evidential, quoted verbatim: “To prove an offence to the evidential threshold required we need to prove the following beyond all reasonable doubt: 1. Date 2. Time 3. Vehicle registration. If we cannot confirm the above from the evidence provided, we’re unable to take action.” The SNAP outcome is not a finding that no offence took place; it is a finding that the livestream footage as submitted did not establish the vehicle’s registration plate to the criminal evidential threshold required for prosecution. In Operation SNAP cases generally, footage that lacks a clearly visible registration plate cannot proceed to enforcement regardless of the conduct depicted. This is documented here as a matter of investigative completeness: the reporting pathway recommended by Gwent Police was followed in full, the institutional record exists at both Gwent Police and GoSafe, and the SNAP outcome reflects a limitation of the specific footage rather than an exoneration of the conduct broadcast.

An independent Fire Risk Assessment at 5 Crane Street, Pontypool (September 2025) graded the overall risk to life as “Substantial Risk” with potential consequences described as “Extreme harm.” Documented failures included extreme fire loading blocking escape routes, no valid electrical installation report, PAT testing carried out by an unqualified volunteer, a fire door found damaged and propped open, a faulty fire alarm panel described as "not operational," and zero evacuation procedures or staff training records. South Wales Fire and Rescue Service spent 15 months attempting to bring the premises into compliance. A return visit in September 2025 found more stock than on both previous visits with zero actions taken from an April 2025 Schedule of Works. SWFRS issued Prohibition Notice PNO1/0151 on 3 March 2026. On 7 April 2026, a spot check confirmed the shop was trading in violation, two members of the public were observed entering the premises, with stock and advertising boards on the pavement. Separately, an AD01 filing at Companies House dated 14 November 2025 records that the CIC's registered office was formally changed from 7 Meadow Road, Blackwood to 5 Crane Street, Pontypool NP4 6LY. The same premises that was subsequently subject to Prohibition Notice PNO1/0151 from 3 March 2026. As of the date of prohibition, the CIC's own registered office was an address where members of the public were legally prohibited from entering. The enforcement register was subsequently updated to “Enforced” and the premises remains subject to an Article 30 Enforcement Notice for ongoing breaches of Articles 8, 13, and 17 of the Fire Safety Order.

The Newbridge Road warehouse (The Donation Centre) was separately prohibited after SWFRS officers attending in March 2026 found the premises completely inaccessible — officers reported being “unable to enter without climbing onto a wooden unit and over stacked materials.” Access was restricted solely to removal of materials. Management had previously refused officers entry in November 2025, claiming the site was not in use.

Pontypool Community Council declined a 2026 funding request after due diligence (Minute 468(vii), 4 February 2026), with the committee recording that JBB is "not the type of organisation that should receive funding." Caerphilly Social Services have formally stated JBB is "NOT endorsed and NOT allowed to make referrals" on their behalf. Following publication of the council minutes by the investigation, the operator sent a direct message to Pontypool Community Council advising them: "Ok don't correspond with them because the police have people on bail in regards to this website and the fb group." This is a documented attempt to discourage a statutory public body from corresponding with a public interest investigation by making an unverifiable claim about criminal proceedings. The council had already confirmed the minutes were published from their own publicly available governance records (Minute 468, February Finance Governance and Policy).

Ongoing criminal investigation — Caerphilly. A Freedom of Information request for Environmental Health records relating to 14 Pentrebane Street, Caerphilly (FOI 25/1498) was refused by Caerphilly CBC on 9 January 2026 under Section 30(1)(a)(i) — investigations a public authority has a duty to conduct with a view to ascertaining whether a person should be charged with an offence. The council's decision states: “Part of the information requested is in relation to an ongoing investigation which the authority may be required to rely upon should it be necessary to instigate legal proceedings.” The exemption was applied to protect the integrity of that investigation. This confirms that as of 9 January 2026, Caerphilly CBC had an active ongoing investigation at 14 Pentrebane Street with potential criminal proceedings in view.

A separate FOI request (ref. FOI 25/1318, Caerphilly CBC) sought confirmation of whether charitable rate relief (80%) or discretionary relief had been applied to three JBB premises — the Newbridge Road HQ, 68 Tredegar Street Risca, and 14 Pentrebane Street Caerphilly. Caerphilly CBC refused to confirm or deny under Section 41. The question of whether charitable rate relief — applicable only to registered charities or qualifying organisations — was applied to any of these premises therefore remains publicly unresolved.

A further FOI request to Torfaen CBC (ref. 25/418) sought confirmation of whether charitable rate relief or discretionary relief had been applied to the Pontypool premises. In the internal review, the Head of Legal Services confirmed the refusal under Section 40(2) personal data — noting: “The requested information is personal data as it relates to an individual as the entity known as Jaynes Baby Bank is not a registered company.” This is a formal legal confirmation from Torfaen's own legal services that JBB, as an unregistered entity, is treated in rates law as an individual rather than a corporate entity.

68 Tredegar Street, Risca absent from the public business rates register. A search of the VOA business rates database at gov.uk/find-business-rates for Tredegar Street, Risca returns every numbered property on the street with the exception of number 68 — the address registered on the food business registration, and the address listed in the Risca FOI documentation as a JBB premises. Absence from the business rates register at a commercial address can indicate that the premises was either rated as domestic, exempt, or that charitable rate relief had been applied and the property was removed from the active liability register. The Caerphilly CBC FOI refusal under Section 41 (referenced above) declined to confirm or deny whether charitable rate relief had been applied to 68 Tredegar Street specifically. The combination of these three records — absence from the public rates register, a food business registration filed at that address declaring the operator as "A charity (registered by a representative)" with charity number "Awaiting", and a Risca FOI document listing it as a charity premises, consistent with charitable rate relief having been applied to an organisation that held no charity registration at any point during the period of occupation.

13Offensive Weapons Act 2019Unsanctioned knife amnesty. No police authorisation, CCTV disabled

In April and May 2024, the operator announced and ran a knife and weapon surrender scheme for young people from the Pontypool premises. In her own words on a public livestream: "We're gonna turn the CCTV off. I'm not interested in your name." A follow-up video showed her handling a surrendered knife in a bag, stating: "I grabbed a bag because I thought, well, I don't want my fingerprints all over it." She also publicly stated: "If you feel like you wanna stab somebody… can you go in contact with us? We can give you a number and set up counselling."

Under UK law, knife amnesty schemes may only be run by police or organisations formally coordinated and authorised by police forces. Private collection, handling, or storage of surrendered weapons without such authorisation may constitute an offence under the Offensive Weapons Act 2019. Deliberately disabling CCTV during collection of potentially illegal weapons could obstruct future investigations. Handling weapons without proper protocols compromises forensic integrity. Offering unqualified counselling referrals to young people experiencing violent ideation — without clinical training, safeguarding clearance, or a formal partnership with a qualified mental health organisation — places vulnerable young people at significant risk. The operator claimed this was "the first time anybody's ever done this in the UK for children", a claim implying official endorsement that did not exist.

13aTheft Act 1968 s.1 / Fraud Act 2006 s.2Unauthorised vehicle disposal — false representation to scrappers and public admission of legal consequences

On 22 January 2023, the JBB Facebook page published a post stating there was a "KA car outside 35 Bowen Industrial Estate" — the Aberbargoed operational address, and invited scrappers to collect it. The post claimed the operation had "inherited it from the previous owner" and that there was no paperwork because "the fella has died." The post explicitly stated: "on the ground that we rent so I have inherited it from the previous owner. We don't have paper work because the fella has died you have my permission to tow it." No legal basis for this claimed authority has been established. Inheritance of a tenancy does not transfer ownership of a third party's vehicle, and the stated justification, that the previous occupant had died — is unverifiable and was used to circumvent the requirement for title documentation. Screenshots of the exchange were subsequently shared publicly within the investigation group, where members of the public described them as evidence of prior historical concerns about the operation's conduct at this address.

Documented exchange with a scrapper — vehicle confirmed removed. Archived Facebook Messenger exchanges show a scrapper responding to the post and being instructed: "Yep you will need to get it on the truck no key or logbook fella has died." The scrapper confirmed collection the same day: "Yeah it's gone seen loads of people turn up for it." JBB responded: "Thank you." A further exchange shows JBB directing the same scrapper to the Bowen Industrial Estate landlord for additional vehicles, at which point the scrapper declined, stating: "We do not take illegally parked cars only scrap we collect your have to contact someone else about them being illegally parked that's not my job."

Operator's own admission of legal consequences. Following the scrapper's refusal to collect further vehicles, JBB responded: “I'm getting done for taking the last one your mad you've coursed me trouble.” This statement, made in the same Messenger thread; a direct admission by the operator that the removal of the first vehicle had generated legal consequences, and that the scrapper's refusal on the second collection frustrated a further attempt. The admission is archived as part of the investigation corpus.

Directing a third party to remove a vehicle that does not belong to the operator — by means of a false public post asserting inherited authority and fabricating a deceased-owner narrative — may constitute dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another under Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968, and a false representation made to obtain the removal under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. The vehicle's registered keeper would have had no notice of, or consent to, its disposal. This incident occurred at the Aberbargoed premises and predates the November 2023 eviction from that site.

15Environmental Protection Act 1990Fly-tipping at St David's Hospice Care, and a false partnership claim denied in writing

Residents and members of the public raised concerns about repeated fly-tipping outside the St David's Hospice Care charity shop in Newbridge. Video footage and CCTV images, sourced from the investigation group and the Newbridge premises, document waste being deposited outside the shop during late evening hours when the premises was closed. Items observed include multiple black refuse sacks, donation bags, and bulky household goods including duvets. The individual responsible has been identified by those familiar with him as Daniel-James Ridsdale — listed as a subscriber on the Jayne's Baby Bank C.I.C. incorporation documents (Companies House ref. 16838920) at the same address as Director 1. A silver Honda vehicle, registration WF11 TZH, is consistently seen at the location during the relevant incidents.

Fly-tipping is a criminal offence under Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Local authorities are empowered to investigate, issue fixed penalty notices of up to £1,000, and pursue prosecution — with a maximum penalty on conviction of an unlimited fine and/or 12 months imprisonment on summary conviction, or up to 5 years on indictment for the most serious commercial cases. The identification of both the individual and the associated vehicle provides a clear evidential basis for referral to the local authority environmental enforcement team and, where applicable, Gwent Police.

False partnership claim, denied in writing, circa April 2025. In a public social media post dated circa 16 April 2025, the operator claimed JBB were “the designated collectors at 430pm daily of whatever St David's doesn't want or can not use themselves… We only have 3 designated collectors. Myself and 2 senior staff who use cars and are there from 4–5pm approximately. We do this in partnerships to cut down on waste… We work with multiple charities and shops with their permission. We take everything the charity shop gets ready for us.” St David's Hospice Care (registered charity no. 1010576, Blackett Avenue, Newport NP20 6NH) responded in writing via their enquiries address: “We can confirm that St David's Hospice Care does not work collaboratively with Jaynes Baby Bank.” No partnership, designated collector arrangement, or permission to attend the premises exists. This is the 14th documented instance of a claimed affiliation or partnership being formally denied in writing by a named organisation, and one of the most specific: the claim identifies a named time, named collector roles, and named permission, all of which are directly contradicted by the written denial. In the same post the operator states it is “actually an illegal offence to take items from outside a charity shop or clothes bin” — a statement she made publicly while her own son was being identified in CCTV and video footage depositing waste outside St David's Hospice Care's Newbridge premises.

Separately, Carrie-Anne Ridsdale herself has been observed engaging in fly-tipping during a livestream on her private Instagram account "TheAlchemistMagician," recorded and archived as part of the investigation. This represents fly-tipping conduct documented across two members of the same household, both named in the CIC incorporation documents. The TheAlchemistMagician username has additionally been confirmed on Kik at kik.me/thealchemistmagician, registered under the display name "Carrie Anne" — further establishing the cross-platform use of this alias identity across private messaging and social platforms. A second Kik account has been identified at kik.me/stiflersmam — the username “stiflersmam” being a cultural reference. Confirmed via profile image as belonging to the same individual. This constitutes a sixth identified messaging or social alias in addition to the primary JBB Facebook account, the TheAlchemistMagician Instagram, the Jarmani’s Boutique channel, the Community Shop One TikTok, and the Cerri / Cerii food collection identity.

15aEnvironmental Protection Act 1990 / Protection from Harassment Act 1997Retaliatory fly-tipping — on-camera admission, targeted at a registered charity's premises

In approximately April–May 2023, waste was deposited at Station Place, Risca — immediately adjacent to the Big Risca shop, and subsequently moved to the doorstep of The Pantri, the premises of Community Volunteers Wales (CVW), a registered charity (Charity Commission no. 1191383). Photographs dated 27 April and 4 May 2023 document both the waste at Station Place, where a Jayne's Baby Bank & Charity Shop A-board is visible in the foreground, and the waste deposited outside The Pantri the following morning, which included mixed refuse, cardboard, and rusting paint tins constituting controlled waste under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. A delivery receipt found in the dumped waste was traced to items previously donated to Jayne's Baby Bank.

On-camera admission, made in advance. The operator filmed herself on her private Instagram account (TheAlchemistMagician) outside the Big Risca shop while the waste was lined up, making an explicit verbal announcement of what she was about to do and why. The videos were subsequently leaked to the investigation and published on the Sherlock YouTube channel on 23 February 2026. The verbatim transcripts of the two clips are as follows:

Context and motivation. The transcripts make the motivation explicit: the fly-tipping was a direct response to a council fly-tipping report made against the operator by the recipient. The statement “even the council told me you were reporting me” — if accurate, raising a separate concern about the disclosure of complainant identity by a local authority, noted here without assertion. The waste outside the Big Risca shop is described in the video as items the operator no longer needed, presented as material for the retaliatory dump.

Police response. Gwent Police were contacted following the incident. Despite the videos, photographs, and provenance receipt, police advised that prosecution was not possible on the available evidence — stating that the operator cannot be clearly seen in the footage (only her shadow, voice, and vehicle) and that the advance announcement combined with the next-morning fulfilment was not considered sufficient proof of responsibility. Police recommended installation of additional security cameras and noted that direct intervention in similar situations had in some cases led to escalation including arson. No charges were brought.

This incident predates the Newbridge fly-tipping documented in Finding 15 by approximately three years and involves the operator herself rather than an associate. The targeting of a registered charity's premises — announced on camera, executed overnight, and confirmed by photographic evidence the following morning, representing a documented pattern of using physical environmental offences as a tool of intimidation against organisations that have made formal complaints about JBB.

12GovernanceProtection from Harassment Act 1997 / UK GDPRGovernance failures, safeguarding concerns, and documented harassment of private individuals

The sole PSC holds over 75% of voting rights and the right to appoint or remove the majority of the board. The surplus use and asset-locked body fields on the CIC36 were submitted blank. The Articles permit directors to set their own remuneration including pension, sickness, and disability benefits. A member expulsion clause grants unilateral power to remove critics or whistleblowers where directors deem continued membership "harmful to the interests of the Company."

A Torfaen CBC FOI internal review (ref. PE/23245, 8 September 2025) confirmed that the council notified Jayne's Baby Bank of the content of an FOI request, including the specific documents to be disclosed, before the statutory recipient received the response. The council sent the full request details and a list of intended disclosures to the subject of the investigation on 22 August 2025, giving the operation advance notice of what official inspection records were about to be released. The internal review upheld this as standard third-party consultation practice. No consultation log was found to exist.

A separate internal review by Torfaen CBC (ref. 25/418, 6 October 2025) confirmed that JBB is not a registered company, and that business rates information therefore attaches personally to the individual operator rather than to a corporate entity. The Head of Legal Services stated: “The requested information is personal data as it relates to an individual as the entity known as Jaynes Baby Bank is not a registered company.” This formal legal determination has implications for the accountability of any financial liabilities, rate reliefs, or public obligations connected to the operation.

Facebook creator monetisation income has been documented as being used to fund commercial premises costs. In a publicly archived transcript, the operator stated: “Dan set it up now so that the money that we earn from the Facebook goes straight into the money that we'll pay for the rent for the shop. So that's brilliant, isn't it? Because this month we've paid for at least one shop rent out of the Facebook money.” The same transcript includes: “I am the influencer for it. So, you know, technically it should be my wage, but I don't…”, an admission that social media income is being treated as personal income while simultaneously claiming no wages are taken. In a separate broadcast, the operator publicly stated that critical engagement from those opposed to the operation directly increases her income: “Facebook pays me to put up with these people. By unblocking them, we should triple how much we're going to get paid for all their comments on Facebook.”

Documented ad revenue figures vs public claims — May to September 2025. Dashboard screenshots shared publicly during this period allow a partial reconstruction of actual Meta creator earnings. Documented figures (all USD, approximate GBP conversion at prevailing rates): 13 May 2025 — $71.32 (~£56); 21 May 2025 — $66 (~£52) on 527,850 views; 7 June 2025 — $63.95 (~£51); 13 June 2025 — $77 (~£61) on 586,007 views. Despite a concurrent public claim of approximately £500 earned that period; 20 June 2025 — $82 (~£65) on 836,975 views; 11 July 2025 — $102 (~£82) on 3.9 million views; 23 July 2025 — $165 (~£132) on 1.5 million views; 31 July 2025 — $399.81 (~£320) payout; 25 August 2025 — $399.81 (~£320), an identical figure to the July payout; 9 September 2025 — $184.13 (~£147) alongside a third appearance of the $399.81 (~£320) figure; mid-September 2025 — $120 (~£96) on 1.6 million views. The figure of $399.81 (~£320) appears three times across July, August, and September, suggesting the same screenshot was reused across separate claimed payment periods rather than representing three independent payouts. The estimated average CPM across the documented period is approximately $0.07 (~£0.06) per 1,000 views, significantly below the typical industry range of $2 to $10 per 1,000 views. Public claims during the same period included statements about earning "half a grand," paying shop rent from Facebook income, and covering household bills from platform earnings. These claims are not supported by the documented earnings figures. The operator has separately stated: “When you are running a 6 figure business with no business plans, out here winging it 7 days a week, giving all the profits to Mothers and babies in need.” A claimed six-figure turnover is inconsistent with the documented creator income above and the financial picture presented to regulators and the public.

No-wages claim made in a publicly filmed interview. The filmed interview, posted to the Oh My Pasta Facebook page and archived to YouTube by the Sherlock investigation (youtube.com/watch?v=n_3vMcO2ih0), includes the explicit statement: “I don't take a wage. Dan don't take a wage. S##### doesn't take a wage. It's all voluntary. All our other volunteers, it's all voluntary. Nobody takes a wage. It's all about recycling.” This claim — made on camera to a public audience, directly contradicted by the documented volunteer rate card (£40 for an eight-hour day shift, £50 for a 5pm–10pm evening shift), the Facebook monetisation admission above, and the operator's own statement that social media income "technically should be my wage." The same interview states that "any profits that we make go back into helping mothers" — the use of the word "profits" in a charitable framing context is inconsistent with not-for-profit operation.

Volunteers were offered structured store credit payments across a documented rate card: £40 for an 8-hour day shift, £50 for a 5pm–10pm evening shift, and £20–£25 for shorter weekday shifts. The operator publicly described these as a "gesture of goodwill" declared to HMRC and DWP. Under HMRC guidance, calling a structured payment "goodwill" does not alter its legal classification — if it functions as payment, it will be treated as such. This may reclassify volunteers as workers entitled to the National Minimum Wage, holiday pay, and employer tax obligations, and may expose benefit-claiming volunteers to undeclared income sanctions.

St John's Ambulance Hall, Risca — pre-JBB financial conduct. Prior to the formal establishment of Jayne's Baby Bank, the operator ran activities from St John's Ambulance Hall in Risca during the pandemic period. Multiple archived livestream transcripts place her directly inside the operations, including the statements: “Me and my cousin used to do that when we were down the ambulance hall working” and “When we were in the ambulance hall we used to rent out tables to small business a day.” Community witness testimony, published in the investigation group, states that she took over an existing jumble sale on a 50% profit-share agreement with the hall's owners, and never paid the agreed share. The same witness states she was additionally renting out tables to third parties and retaining the income, which was strictly not permitted under the hall's insurance arrangements. According to community witness testimony corroborated by a separate account from RCV.uk (now operating as Community Volunteers Wales / CVW), St John's discovered the unauthorised subletting and told the operator to leave. The operator's own archived posts claim "she got the old people thrown out" — a characterisation the community witness directly contradicts, stating the group in question found larger premises and left on good terms. The significance of this pre-JBB period is twofold: it establishes the pattern of financial conduct predates JBB, and it is the period during which the operator simultaneously promoted the hall under a named alias while publicly denying any connection to it (see Finding 03).

Unlicensed collection jar activity — vulnerable volunteer. The investigation documented a case in which a volunteer described by observers as having cognitive impairments was sent out to solicit public donations using unlicensed collection jars. A Freedom of Information response confirmed that no active raffle or lottery licence existed during the relevant period. Street and public collections require a licence under the Charities Act 1992; directing a vulnerable individual to conduct unlicensed collections without legal oversight raises concerns under both charitable fundraising law and the duty of care owed to volunteers.

House fire donation collection — pattern of conduct. On at least one documented occasion, Jayne's Baby Bank publicly announced itself as "the only official collection point" for donations intended to support a local family who had lost everything in a house fire. Following the collection, the affected family confronted JBB regarding items they had not received. The family was subsequently blocked and publicly ridiculed on social media. This pattern — public charitable appeal, disputed distribution, blocking and dismissal of those who challenged the outcome, consistent with the conduct documented in the Ukraine appeal material in Finding 18 and the Cerri food diversion scheme in Finding 04a.

Council enforcement — reported arrest of official. The operator publicly broadcast an incident in which she claimed to have had a council representative arrested at her doorstep while the individual was attempting to carry out official duties. Following the incident, she stated publicly that she was protected from such actions by virtue of her status as a cancer patient and as the director of a charity. Both of those claimed statuses are contested throughout this document. Separately, Gwent Police confirmed they had no knowledge of a subsequent police-related claim she made on her public platform in connection with the same period, indicating a pattern of misrepresenting official engagement.

Morphine — public promotion and driving concern. In a January 2026 livestream, responding to an investigation commentary about a post referencing alcohol combined with prescription morphine, the operator stated: “Can I not have a night off and get shitfaced in a hot tub with a Baileys and a morphine pill that I'm prescribed?” and later in the same broadcast: “Any donations that go in the box go to my Baileys hot tub and morphine fund.” The operator has referenced morphine use across multiple broadcasts and transcripts. The archived deleted video contains the following verbatim statement, made while driving: “I'm not very good because I've had morphine, guys. I'm a bit like, oh my god. But, oh, driving is killing me. I think I'm gonna have to give up driving until I get my knees, you know, have the injections again on my knees. Because, I just, driving is killing me.” The admission of driving while having taken morphine, made in her own words on a public broadcast, raising concerns under Section 5A of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which makes it an offence to drive with a specified controlled drug above the legal threshold in the blood, regardless of prescription. The vehicle used for operational activities has been confirmed as a Motability Finance Ltd vehicle (see Finding 09).

Documented instances exist of the operator publicly advising vulnerable mothers not to engage with social services, in a context where Caerphilly Social Services have formally confirmed JBB is not endorsed and is not authorised to make referrals on their behalf. A Facebook post dated 3 October 2022 made the opposite claim — stating that social services had "acknowledged we are registered with CCBC" and had "asked us to make referrals." This is directly contradicted by the formal denial from Caerphilly Social Services. Directing vulnerable individuals away from statutory services without professional qualification or oversight, while simultaneously claiming false endorsement from those same services, represents a serious safeguarding concern.

Social services likened to “the Gestapo” — 3 June 2025. In a public broadcast dated 3 June 2025, the operator deployed the following language to discourage vulnerable mothers from accessing statutory safeguarding support through other baby banks or health practitioners:

This statement was made in the context of a wider post. Published 1 June 2025 — in which the operator claimed to be a qualified health practitioner capable of making clinical decisions about whether mothers needed help, explicitly framing the self-referral model as an alternative to engaging with health professionals who might trigger social services involvement. The comparison of Children's Social Services to the Gestapo — the Nazi secret police — was made to a public audience of tens of thousands of followers, many of whom are the vulnerable mothers the operation purports to serve. The effect of this framing is to associate statutory child protection with persecution and fear, discouraging at-risk families from accessing professional, regulated support. This constitutes the most extreme documented instance of the anti-social services narrative in the corpus. Caerphilly Social Services have formally confirmed the operator holds no referral authority. Cardiff University has confirmed no nursing registration. The NMC and SCWOnline databases yield no results for this individual. The basis on which she claimed clinical authority to substitute for regulated health practitioners is entirely unsubstantiated.

Advice to vulnerable mothers to consume alcohol — January 2026. During the 12 January 2026 livestream addressed to approximately 71,000 followers, including donors, volunteers, and mothers seeking support. The operator explicitly recommended alcohol consumption to mothers in distress: “But what I would suggest any mothers out there that are struggling, get yourself a Baileys. Get in a hot tub, get yourself a Baileys and chill out.” This advice was given in a broadcast that also documented the operator's own consumption of alcohol alongside prescribed morphine. Advising vulnerable mothers experiencing distress to drink alcohol. From a platform that publicly presents itself as a welfare and support resource, directly contraindicated by basic safeguarding principles. The Mental Health Foundation and NHS guidance specifically caution against alcohol use as a coping mechanism for stress and mental health difficulties. The advice engages no professional standard, is inconsistent with any recognised support framework, and is the opposite of what a regulated support service would provide. The conduct is documented in full in Finding 08.

Offering to accompany sexual abuse survivors to police and court — without qualification or authorisation. A public post from the JBB account stated: “We can support you with reporting historic sexual abuse or other behaviour. We can attend with you when you make the statements or attend court with you as support.” The post was accompanied by a South Wales Police image about reporting rape and sexual assault. Independent Sexual Violence Advisers (ISVAs) and court support workers who perform this role must hold recognised training, operate under formal referral pathways, and be accountable to regulated organisations. The JBB operation has no NMC registration, no accredited safeguarding qualification, no formal partnership with South Wales Police or any victim support service, and operates from premises found in serial breach of basic safety regulations. Publicly offering this service to survivors of sexual violence — without the qualifications, oversight, or legal framework that governs it, representing a significant safeguarding risk to highly vulnerable individuals.

Naloxone distributed to untrained volunteers — medically incorrect instructions broadcast publicly — 22 January 2024. In a broadcast dated 22 January 2024, the operator described receiving naloxone (a prescription opioid reversal medication) from GDAS (Gwent Drug and Alcohol Service) and distributing it across her shops for use by volunteers. The broadcast contains at least two medically inaccurate statements that were published to a large audience and repeated as instruction to volunteers: (1) “This blocks drugs, alcohol, opioids for up to 20 minutes” — naloxone has no effect on alcohol intoxication whatsoever. It is an opioid antagonist only. Instructing volunteers that naloxone reverses alcohol overdose is a potentially dangerous medical falsehood that could result in a delayed emergency response; (2) the broadcast includes the instruction “if they say no, then I would still do it” in reference to administering the medication to a conscious, refusing patient — administering any medication to a person who has refused consent constitutes assault regardless of good intent. While lay administration of naloxone is lawful in Wales under the Naloxone (Wales) Regulations 2023, and stocking it from community premises is permitted, those provisions do not authorise overriding a patient's refusal of treatment. The operator has no verified NMC registration, no confirmed nursing qualification, and no accredited clinical training — yet presented herself as competent to train others in administering prescription medication and interpreting patient capacity. The naloxone items were subsequently removed from the operation's possession. The broadcast was published to thousands of followers and volunteers who may have acted on the instructions given.

Confirmed real-world naloxone administration — safeguarding response concerns. In a broadcast dated 19 February 2026, the operator described administering naloxone to a member of the public who attended one of the JBB shops visibly impaired. The individual was described as accompanied by what may have been a child, and was purchasing toys described as being "for a child." The operator states she administered naloxone and then allowed the individual to leave the premises, subsequently making a CCTV referral to police due to concern about the child's welfare. Under Welsh safeguarding guidance, where a child may be in the immediate care of a visibly impaired adult, the appropriate response is to contact emergency services directly and, where possible, prevent the individual from leaving with the child until welfare can be assessed. The operator's account describes the reverse sequence — administering medication, releasing the individual, and later making a referral. The operator is not a qualified social worker, ISVA, healthcare professional, or safeguarding officer, and the shop has no formal agreement with any statutory safeguarding body. Making retrospective CCTV referrals after releasing an individual of concern is not equivalent to a real-time safeguarding response. The incident is documented from the operator's own public broadcast.

Distribution of contraception to under-18s. No registration, no oversight. A public Facebook post, shared from the operator's personal TikTok account (@alchemistmagician), stated that JBB distributes free contraception to under-18s from vases at the front of each shop, explicitly adding: “You don't need to ask staff for them” and “no registration or details needed.” For young people under 16, contraception provision requires compliance with the Fraser Guidelines — a qualified professional must assess that the individual understands the advice given, cannot be persuaded to involve a parent or guardian, and that their physical or mental health would be likely to suffer without provision. Anonymous self-service dispensing from a shop display by an unqualified, unregistered operation satisfies none of these requirements. The post also stated that "Wales has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the world" — a factually incorrect claim. The distribution of contraception to minors without any safeguarding framework, parental consent mechanism, or qualified professional oversight, from premises that were subsequently subject to fire prohibition notices and had no employer liability insurance, represents a documented safeguarding concern that should have been referred to the relevant local authority designated officer (LADO) and public health authority.

FSA food hygiene rating — exempt, no inspection. The FSA food hygiene database lists "Jayne's Mother and Baby Bank, FREE Food Bank and Charity Shops" at 5 Crane Street, Pontypool NP4 6LY with a status of EXEMPT and last inspection recorded as N/A. The registered business name on the official food authority database contains both "FREE Food Bank" and "Charity Shops". Both false claims embedded in the formal food business registration name. The exempt status confirms that no food hygiene inspection has ever been conducted at the Pontypool premises despite a food bank operation running from a site that a September 2025 independent fire risk assessment rated as "Substantial Risk" with "Extreme harm" potential consequences. Independent information received by the investigation from a source with direct knowledge of the Pontypool premises confirms that the fire safety system has a known fault, and that the original lease places fire system maintenance as the tenant’s contractual responsibility. The cost of the required rewiring has been acknowledged as unaffordable. An eviction notice was served on the Pontypool premises in or around December 2025; the tenancy terms provide a protection period, though the landlord is actively working with the relevant fire officer to accelerate removal. The fire system defect therefore exists in a context where the tenant has acknowledged the liability, cannot meet the cost, and is simultaneously resisting removal.

A documented pattern exists of serious public allegations against individuals who questioned the organisation or left its operation. In one documented case in 2022, a member of the public who challenged whether JBB was a registered charity was publicly labelled a paedophile and compared to Jimmy Savile on the JBB Facebook page, his DBS certificate, published in response, showed "NONE RECORDED." In a separate incident, a former volunteer, referred to here as P##### — was publicly named on Facebook and accused of stealing approximately £5,000 in cash and stock, lying about a prison record on his DBS form, making female staff uncomfortable, and refusing to use the card machine. The post was publicly visible, unredacted, and included his photograph. Making serious criminal allegations against named individuals on a public social media platform raises significant concerns under defamation law and UK GDPR. In a separate post, the operator additionally claimed that she personally injected £4,500 from her own savings to cover the shortfall and keep the baby bank operational. This claim is notable in the context of her repeated public statements that she takes no wage from JBB: the existence of £4,500 in accessible personal savings available to replenish a commercial till float — drawn from a person simultaneously claiming PIP disability benefits and zero operational income — is not reconciled in any public filing or financial disclosure.

Prescription medication with patient details displayed publicly on livestream — approximately 2025. Prescription medication boxes were photographed and posted publicly — apparently from within the operation's stock — with patient names, medication names, dosages, pharmacy details, and dispensing dates clearly visible. Archived images published to the investigation group on 19 April 2026 as part of a review of historical material confirm two items: a box of Citalopram 20mg tablets (dispensing date 01/10/2024) and a box of Sandrena 1mg gel (dispensing date 24/11/2023). Each item bore a named patient's prescription details. The original post in which the images were published has not been located; the items and their details are confirmed from the archived images. A member of the investigation group with pharmaceutical professional knowledge identified and publicly confirmed the dispensing signature on one of the labels as their own — independently verifying the label as genuine. Prescription dispensing labels constitute special category personal data under Article 9 of UK GDPR — they disclose an identifiable individual's health information, medication, and dispensing history without their consent. Broadcasting such details to thousands of followers, in the context of criticising the named patient, constitutes a serious UK GDPR violation. Patient names, pharmacy names, and the identity of the professional who confirmed the label are all redacted in this document. How these prescription items came to be present within the operation's donated stock is not established by the archived evidence.

Pre-JBB conduct, archived personal post. Digital archives recovered from the operator's personal account contain a post, dated approximately mid-2010s and predating the JBB operation, in which she described a prank involving a pregnant woman: “Mwhahahaha STILL the funniest thing ever — he fed you dog food that I cooked, when you were pregnant!” This post predates JBB and is not connected to the operation's activities. It is documented here as part of the broader evidential record on conduct and attitude toward vulnerable individuals; specifically expectant mothers — given that JBB's stated primary beneficiary group is pregnant women and new mothers. The post is archived from personal digital records and its date cannot be confirmed with precision.

Defamatory allegation against the Blackwood Market Place landlord — May 2026. In a post from the KnowledgeableEagle3954 alias account. Confirmed as the operator — the Blackwood Market Place landlord was publicly referred to as a "money launderer" with the assertion that the business currently occupying the vacated unit is a "money laundering clothes shop." No evidence has been produced for either allegation. A### O######, the Blackwood Market Place manager, is referenced in the same post as the individual whose public rebuttal of the departure narrative the operator was responding to, but the money laundering allegation is directed at the landlord and current tenant, not at O###### personally. Publishing false allegations of money laundering against a named private individual and their business constitutes a serious defamatory publication under the Defamation Act 2013. The same post includes the admission: “we removed the barrel lock”, confirming that the operation changed the locks on the Blackwood premises, directly corroborating A### O######'s statement about the keys and consistent with the documented tenancy dispute.

Public profile-trawling livestreams. Multiple archived livestreams document the operator scrolling through the public Facebook profiles of named critics in real time, broadcasting commentary on their appearance, relationships, business activities, and personal circumstances to thousands of followers. Documented conduct in a single archived broadcast (12 September 2025) includes: reading out names of individuals from comment threads, commenting on their physical appearance and cosmetic procedures, publishing and zooming in on profile photographs, and describing critics collectively as known to the operation. In the same broadcast, when challenged by a viewer about her conduct toward others, the operator responded: “Fucking ruthless. That's what you label somebody as.” — a self-description made publicly in direct response to being called "heartless." The broadcast also includes the statement: “it's only slander if it's not true. They can't charge me for saying something malicious if it isn't malicious and it is true. Otherwise I'd have been charged by now. You can't go around calling people a paedo if they're not, unless they are”. A public assertion that her paedophile allegations against named individuals are legally protected as true. This claim is documented in Finding 16.

Targeted business harassment campaign — N#####E / S#### 4 H####. Following a documented shop confrontation on 12 June 2025 (see Finding 20), the operator used her platform of approximately 72,000 followers to conduct a sustained campaign targeting a local business owner referred to here as N#####E. Documented conduct includes: publicly and falsely identifying N#####E as the creator of the jaynesbabybank.co.uk investigation website; publicly alleging her business was "not a registered business or registered with HMRC"; threatening to report her to Trading Standards for running a business from a council property; encouraging mass reporting of her business page; and boasting of maintaining a named complaint file on N#####E. In the same broadcast the operator made multiple public comments about N#####E's child custody history — deploying personal vulnerability information as a rhetorical weapon in a business dispute. The coordinated use of a disproportionate public platform to damage an individual's livelihood and reputation engages the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Defamation Act 2013. N#####E's business name is partially redacted here to prevent further amplification of the reputational damage.

Full home address and postcode published as cease and desist threat — B##### S##### (May 2025). In a separate documented instance, a public post published the full name and home address including postcode of a private individual, referred to here as B##### S##### — alongside a public declaration that a cease and desist would be sent that week in response to comments she had made. Publishing a private individual’s complete home address and postcode to a public audience of tens of thousands of followers as part of a legal threat compounds the intimidatory effect of the cease and desist mechanism: the address publication itself functions as a signal to followers of the individual’s location, independently of any legal instrument. This instance is separate from and additional to the B###### S#### address publication documented below. Both engage the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and UK GDPR.

Full home address published publicly — B###### S#### (May 2025). In one of the most severe documented instances of address publication, the JBB account posted an image in large white text on a black background stating the full name and home address of a disabled mother who had commented critically on JBB posts — accompanied by an explicit threat to send her a cease and desist that week. Publishing a disabled private individual's complete home address to thousands of followers as a form of intimidation directly engages the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and UK GDPR. The individual named is referred to here as B###### S#### to prevent further amplification of the doxxing.

Public targeting of a local business owner — A## B#### / A# B##### (March 2026). In March 2026, the JBB account published a photograph of a named local business owner, referred to here as A## B#### — taken outside her shop in Caerphilly, accusing her of "stalking" and uploading photographs to a "bullying website." The post warned the operator's followers: “be careful what photos she takes of you ladies when you are in there.” Publishing a private individual's photograph alongside a stalking accusation and a warning to thousands of followers to be wary of them in their place of business constitutes targeted public harassment of a local business owner, engaging the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Defamation Act 2013. The business name is partially redacted here.

Full address, phone number and email published — N#####E J####. In a separate incident, the JBB account published the full Facebook profile, home address, phone number, and business email of a named individual, referred to here as N#####E J#### — alongside allegations of harassment, stalking, and scamming. The same post offered £1,000 to anyone who screenshotted a private group chat and claimed the individual's business was "not a registered business or registered with HMRC." The post also stated the operation was "authorised to trade for 5 years under 3 different councils". A new specific false authority claim directly contradicted by multiple documented written denials from local councils. Publishing complete contact and location details of a private individual to a large public audience, alongside criminal allegations and a financial inducement to surveil their private communications, engages the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, UK GDPR, and potentially the Computer Misuse Act 1990.

Public solicitation of private individuals' home addresses. Two archived posts from the verified JBB account document the operator publicly soliciting the home addresses of named critics. In one post, the full name, profile link, and personal details of a named individual were published to the JBB audience with the explicit request: “does anyone know where she lives please.” A second post states: “Dm me her address please” — accompanied by a photograph of the individual captioned "This is the woman" and a false allegation that she had shouted at staff members with learning difficulties. Publicly publishing an individual's identity alongside a photograph and soliciting their home address from thousands of followers — particularly where the operator has a documented history of retaliatory physical conduct at addresses (see Finding 15a), raising serious concerns under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and UK GDPR. This conduct on the primary JBB account is separate from and additional to the same behaviour documented via the Peter Mal alias account.

Public admission of obtaining a private individual's home address. In the 15 June 2025 voice-over broadcast, the operator stated directly: “it wasn't that person that gave me your address. Somebody else had to do.” This is a direct public admission that she obtained the home address of the individual she was addressing, made in a broadcast to thousands of followers, while conducting a campaign against that individual's business and reputation. The admission establishes not only that the address was obtained, but that the operator was aware of who had provided it and chose to publicly attribute it to a different source.

£1,000 cash bounty — conditional on withholding information from police. An archived deleted video (backup: youtube.com/shorts/jcyVidec0ao) documents the operator offering £1,000 in cash to anyone providing screenshots of members of the Sherlock investigation group, with explicit conditions: “I want everybody who's in the group because the online stalker and the paedophile have both less slip than it's a group… £1,000 cash, no questions asked and you won't be reported to the police.” The offer was framed as a financial inducement with police non-reporting as a stated reward, an implicit acknowledgement that the individuals approached might themselves have concerns about contact with police. Offering a financial inducement conditional on withholding information from police raises concerns under the Criminal Law Act 1967 s.5 (concealing an offence for consideration) and the Contempt of Court Act 1981 in any context where police investigations were active. The same broadcast confirms the operator attended council offices that morning to collect SAR data specifically to identify complainants for malicious communications filings — documenting the bounty offer and the SAR misuse in a single archived source.

Employer targeting, archived comments from the primary JBB account. In a separate documented incident, the JBB account publicly stated: “I've got S######'s address” followed immediately by: “Or where they work because I can send the documentations to where they work or their employers.” The same comment thread included a published screenshot of the named individual's Facebook profile showing her employer (Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust), home town, and date of birth — confirming her age as approximately 20 years old at the time. Publishing an NHS worker's employer details, home location, and date of birth on a public platform while simultaneously threatening to contact their employer constitutes a serious data protection violation under UK GDPR and engages the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. This conduct is documented as part of the broader systematic targeting of the W########## family — see below.

Systematic targeting of a family — September 2025 to February 2026. The W########## family, referred to here as Alice# W., R####### W., and S###### W. — were the subject of a sustained, multi-month public harassment campaign conducted across the JBB platform and associated alias accounts. S###### W. was first named publicly on 18 September 2025, when the operator published posts and livestreams labelling her a "stalker" and a "weirdo," sharing screenshots of her private profile, and stating on record: “There’s S###### W. She’s friends with a pedo look”, an attempt to link her by association to individuals the operator had labelled as paedophiles. On the same date, a screenshot of S###### W.'s employer profile — showing her employment at Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust — was shared publicly, with a threat to send "documentations" to her employer and to her home address. The campaign escalated in mid-January 2026, when a three-day window (16–18 January) saw repeated public naming of Alice# W. as the alleged source of over 70 abusive messages. On 17 January 2026, harassment cases involving the family were reported to be under active review by Gwent and Torfaen police officers. On 18 January 2026, the operator publicly requested Alice# W.'s home address from her 71,000 followers, stating verbatim: “Can someone provide me with Alice# W########## address please so I can pass on to police and solicitor.” A Sherlock forensic analysis published on 23 January 2026 confirmed that, after removing commercial sales posts. The primary remaining content on the JBB Facebook feed at that time was a fixation on the W########## family, with R####### W. and S###### W. being "publicly named via screenshots and tagged." Contemporaneous posts also included unverified allegations against Alice# W.'s son-in-law of damaging shop windows and CCTV cameras. The campaign against the W########## family represents the most extensively documented sustained targeting of private individuals in the investigation corpus, spanning over five months across the platform.

Electoral Register used to research critics' addresses. A public post from the verified JBB account included a screenshot of a response from the Electoral Register confirming that two named individuals at the operator's address had opted out of third-party data sharing, establishing that the operator had submitted a formal Electoral Register enquiry about individuals she suspected of investigating her. The same post named RCV.uk (now operating as Community Volunteers Wales / CVW) and Hope No Bus CIC, accusing them of "trying to stalk my home address," and stated: "Thank you to all the other charities, CICs and businesses and Councils that support and work with Jayne's Baby Bank" — a blanket false claim directly contradicted by 14 documented written denials from named agencies. Using the Electoral Register to research the residential details of critics, and then publishing the enquiry outcome publicly, representing a further documented instance of address-intelligence gathering targeting individuals who questioned the operation. A separate post dated 6 April 2026 states: “We are a Trademarked Registered CIC authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority for Great Britian and audited by audited accounts.” This repeats the false FCA authorisation claim documented in Finding 07, with the addition of “audit” language. The same post includes a screenshot of a private individual’s Facebook profile, referred to here as S##### W###### — showing his location (New Tredegar), mutual connections, and a list of his Facebook friends published to the JBB audience. The pretext for publishing his profile is his mutual friendship with critics of the operation. Publishing a private individual’s personal profile, location, and social connections to tens of thousands of followers constitutes targeted exposure conduct consistent with the wider harassment pattern documented throughout this finding.

Caerphilly Bird Rescue brand hijack — see Finding 25. The 20 January 2026 public launch post for "The New Caerphilly Bird and Small Animal Rescue Sanctuary TM" mischaracterised a 2024 animal-welfare keeping ban against original co-founder Carol Gravenor as a finding of "animal cruelty"; the post was publicly refuted twice by Carol Gravenor herself (25 January 2026, and again on 6 February 2026 in an explicit donor warning post). Engages the Defamation Act 2013 (for the cruelty mischaracterisation directed at named individuals) and the Fraud Act 2006 s.2 (for soliciting donations under a takeover narrative known to be false). The full evidential sequence, including trademark UK00004316067, two stolen fox images, the JustGiving £1,000 appeal, and the false review left by the operator on the original rescue page — is documented as Finding 25.

A further documented instance involves the Blackwood shop landlord. A public post from the verified JBB account linked the landlord — by name and business connection, to a news story about car wash operators convicted of people smuggling, implying criminal association without any evidential basis. The same post made additional unverified claims about a planning refusal for a morgue and referenced a "massive Government investigation" into funeral parlours, presented as if connected to the landlord. No evidence supporting these claims has been produced. Publishing material that implies a named individual has criminal connections or is the subject of government investigation — without factual basis — may constitute defamatory publication under the Defamation Act 2013. This post is consistent with a documented pattern of using the public JBB platform to make serious reputational allegations against landlords, council officers, and others in positions of authority over the operation.

Private written admission of creating a fabricated social media profile in a named individual’s identity. A leaked private Messenger exchange from the JBB account contains the following statement: “I made up a fake david evans one and posted his shit everywhere.” This is a direct private written admission of creating a fabricated social media profile using a real individual’s name, referred to here as D##### E####, and posting content attributed to that person. Creating and operating a false identity profile in another person’s name without their consent engages the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and potentially the Computer Misuse Act 1990 depending on the platforms used. The same exchange also contains the statement: “I told the police he is making up profiles on people.” Read together, these two statements establish that the operator simultaneously reported to police the conduct of creating fake profiles — while privately admitting to having done the same thing herself. This pattern of accusing critics of conduct she was herself engaged in is consistent with the documented use of false reporting as a harassment mechanism throughout this finding. No date is available for the exchange but it is documented as a primary source record.

Public accusation of waxing a minor directed at a named beauty business — February 2026. A broadcast dated February 2026 contains a direct public accusation against the operator of a local beauty salon, referred to throughout this document as E###### M####### — stating: “She’s just yesterday accused me of my beauty business. I’ve waxed and prided flowers of a child and explained it on my page.” The accusation, that E###### M####### had performed intimate waxing on a child — was made to a broadcast audience of tens of thousands. The operator simultaneously questioned why a beauty business would display images of intimate waxing on its public page, describing the images as attracting “weirdos” and comparing the business practice to displaying a “foof” publicly. The broadcast additionally states that the operator “will put my review on” E###### M#######’s business page and refers to existing negative reviews as “honest review of how you behaved yesterday.” Making a public accusation of performing intimate treatments on a minor against a named business — to an audience of tens of thousands, constituting a serious false allegation that could foreseeably damage the business’s reputation and regulatory standing. The operator also claimed in the same broadcast that E###### M####### is related to O##### W######, though this familial connection has not been independently verified. Separately, a later broadcast states: “[operator’s nickname for T##### W######] and O#### W######, [name], (as you are their auntie).” The relationship claim is documented as stated by the operator without independent corroboration.

Repeated public broadcasts naming critics’ partners — “dick pics” claims used as deflection and retaliation mechanism. Across multiple broadcasts from September 2025 to January 2026, the operator repeatedly and publicly claimed that the partner of S###### W. — already documented in this finding as the individual whose home address was publicly stated on camera — had sent her unsolicited “dick pics” via Facebook. The claim is made on camera, using those words verbatim, addressing S###### W. directly by first name in multiple broadcast sessions. A separate broadcast dated January 2026 adds a second individual, referred to here as C####### Lewis# — whose partner is named in the same context. The primary function of the claim in each instance is deflection: when challenged publicly about laughing at an autistic child, the response across every broadcast is that the laughter was directed at the alleged images, not the child. The claim therefore operates simultaneously as a reputational attack on the partners of two female critics, a deflection from a safeguarding-adjacent criticism, and a public humiliation mechanism directed at named individuals to a broadcast audience of tens of thousands. A January 2026 broadcast additionally states: “We’ve still got that by the way. And the police came out and spoke to him. And he got in trouble over it for sending indecent images.” The public declaration of retaining the alleged images — combined with the repeated on-camera broadcasts referencing them by name to a large audience — functions as an implied ongoing threat. The underlying allegation is unverifiable from the archived material; what is documented is the pattern of its deployment.

TripAdvisor review identified as false by named restaurant owner — reviewer identified as “Ceriann of Jaynes Baby Bank.” A TripAdvisor review of a restaurant referred to here as Flamin’ Joe’s BBQ Co received a public owner response dated 12 December 2023, in which the owner, referred to here as J##### M##### — addressed the reviewer directly: “Hi Ceriann of Jaynes Baby Bank… thanks for the false review.” The owner publicly identified the reviewer as “Ceriann of Jaynes Baby Bank” and characterised the review as false. This is an independent third-party identification of the operator under the name “Ceriann” in a context the operator did not control — confirming both the name variant and the JBB association via a named business owner’s public response. The review conduct is consistent with the documented pattern of using review platforms as a tool against individuals and businesses. In this instance the target was a commercial restaurant rather than a competitor or critic, indicating the review conduct extended beyond targeted harassment of known adversaries to general commercial interactions.

Named individuals at public car boot — 29 March 2026. A post dated 29 March 2026 (deleted, captured via transcript backup) names two individuals by full name who attended a JBB car boot sale at Newport, referred to here as K##### R####### and his mother — describing them as “our regular stalker” and stating they “showed off in front of a child.” The post alleges K##### R####### had been “reported to the organisers for smoking weed on the premises by other stall holders” and that the pair “showed themselves up.” Publishing the full names of private individuals alongside public accusations of drug use and harassment, to a large audience, on a deleted post, is consistent with the documented pattern of using the JBB platform to publicly target named individuals who challenge or attend JBB operations.

“We pay our managers £30 in stock a week so it won’t affect tax or benefits” — 5 October 2024. A public Facebook post states: “We are in need of volunteer managers. We pay our managers £30 in stock a week so it won’t affect tax or benefits. You will need to declare it as a gesture of goodwill. T&Cs apply.” The explicit framing “won’t affect tax or benefits” confirms the operator was aware the payments engaged tax and benefits law while deploying language designed to neutralise that exposure. The “gesture of goodwill” designation obscures a structured weekly payment to volunteers.

“We reward our volunteer managers with £30 store credit per week. This will not affect benefits or tax”, 28 December 2024. A post two months later confirms the same policy: “We reward our volunteer managers with £30 store credit per week. This will not affect benefits or tax as its is a gesture of goodwill. We need weekday and weekend volunteer managers.” Identical language across two separate posts confirms the £30/week scheme was standard operating procedure. Combined with the TikTok corroboration documented in Finding 03, this represents three independent published sources for the same payment scheme.

“Me and Dan don’t take a wage but I have to run a business so that we can all carry on doing this” — 25 April 2025. A public Facebook post states: “Me and Dan don’t take a wage but I have to run a business so that we can all carry on doing this.” The no-wage claim and the explicit business admission appear in the same sentence. This written post is a separate instance of the pairing documented in the Oh My Pasta filmed interview. Confirmed here in the operator’s own written words on a public post.

Infant death information censored from platform — 24 June 2024. In the same 24 June 2024 broadcast, the operator describes removing a follower post containing factual statistics about infant death: “Somebody posted something with facts and figures about infant death earlier. So I took it off because the person isn’t qualified to discuss that, you know, on our platform.” She positions her own claimed credentials as the basis for who is permitted to discuss safety information on the platform: “I am qualified to discuss things like that. Don’t post stuff because it can trigger.” On a platform self-described as supporting vulnerable mothers and openly soliciting referrals of “mothers in need,” the suppression of factual safety information — on the basis of unverified personal credentials, representing a documented safeguarding concern. The operator simultaneously states the platform reaches “over 70,000 followers” and that the audience includes “mothers that are still grieving over children that they’ve lost,” directly acknowledging the safeguarding-sensitive nature of the audience whose access to factual content she was unilaterally curating.

Public-shaming threat against donors — 24 June 2024. The same broadcast contains an explicit threat directed at donors: “We don’t want dirty donations like we had again. If you do that again, we’re going to post your picture on Facebook if you drop them off because they were stinking.” Publicly threatening to publish the photographs of identifiable donors on a 70,000-follower platform — over a contested judgement about the cleanliness of donated goods — establishes a documented pattern of using audience reach as a coercive instrument against the operation’s own supporters, not only against external critics. The threat carries reputational consequences for individuals delivering free goods to an operation publicly presented as a charity.

26 May 2026, documented public threat of civil action against volunteers who speak out. In a public livestream dated 26 May 2026 the operator broadcasts the following statement to her audience, directly addressing volunteers: “Volunteers signed a contract. You all signed a contract when you started. So, you know, if they say anything, then you will be sueable.” The statement is significant on three independent dimensions. First, it confirms the existence of signed contracts between the operator and individuals understood by the operator to be volunteers, raising questions as to whether those signing such contracts were unpaid volunteers (in which case the contract may engage employment-status considerations under HMRC and HMC&TS guidance) or whether they were paid workers in fact, in which case the labelling as “volunteers” in public materials is itself a misrepresentation. Second, the broadcast deploys the threat of civil action (“sueable”) as an instrument of suppression directed at people who may have direct knowledge of operational conduct documented across this dossier. The use of contractual non-disclosure mechanisms to suppress disclosure of matters of public interest engages section 43A and following of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Public Interest Disclosure protections), regardless of the contractual wording. Whistleblowing protections cannot be contracted out. Third, the threat operates as internal suppression alongside the documented external harassment patterns recorded in this finding and in Findings 16, 21, and 23, completing a picture in which audience reach is deployed both to discipline critics and to silence the operation’s own workforce.

26 May 2026 — public naming of “Deb Furey” with allegation of fake-name use. In the same broadcast the operator publicly names “Deb Furey” and alleges she has been “identified this morning under a fake name, a fake partridge name or whatever it is.” The naming and accompanying allegation are broadcast publicly to the operator’s follower base. This adds to the documented pattern of publicly naming private individuals on the JBB platform (compare the documented naming of S###### W., Alice# W., R####### W., N#####E, B###### S####, and others recorded across this finding and Findings 16, 21, and 23). The naming follows a broadcast pattern consistent with the documented use of public identification as a precursor to follower-base reporting campaigns, employer-contact threats, and the harassment escalation patterns recorded throughout this dossier.

16Police contactTheft Act 1968 s.21 / Malicious Communications Act 1988Counter-group, coercive public posts targeting named individuals, and 18 documented public denials

Multiple sources from early 2026 reference reported police contact in connection with the operation's online conduct. In February 2026, whistleblowers noted that police were actively monitoring the operator following a series of criminal accusations she had published online. On 25 March 2026, the operator publicly posted that content had been "passed onto the police as continued malicious communications from the SAME CHARITIES AGAIN" — one of multiple documented instances in which the operator referenced active police files. In a separate undated broadcast, the operator stated: “because as soon as we got the number, we sent in a document to say, these police files are open on these people for malicious communications, and harassment, and all the rest of it.”

“I don't answer to nobody“ — explicit rejection of all regulatory authority, 18 January 2025. In a public broadcast dated 18 January 2025 — over a year before the fire Prohibition Notice, both CCJs, and the Facebook ban. The operator stated directly to her audience:

This statement is significant across three dimensions. First, it is an explicit, unprompted public rejection of the Charity Commission, council, and police as bodies with any authority over the operation — made while simultaneously claiming charity registration, council recognition, and FCA authorisation on public-facing platforms. Second, it constitutes a direct public threat against charities and community groups: “you are the ones that we're going to take down.” Third, the date places this statement in context: within 14 months of this broadcast, the operation had received a fire Prohibition Notice (3 March 2026), a second unsatisfied CCJ (27 January 2026), a Caerphilly CBC enforcement investigation confirmation (9 January 2026), and a permanent Facebook ban (21 April 2026). The statement that regulatory bodies have no authority over the operation was made before each of those outcomes, and each outcome represents a regulatory body exercising precisely the authority she publicly denied.

Counter-group — "Jayne's Baby Bank STALKERS & HATERS Exposed.” A public Facebook group under this name (583 members) was created as a direct counter to the JBB investigation group, used to target critics and publish content about those who questioned the operation. In May 2026, the @communityshopone TikTok account published a screenshot taken from within this group showing the Facebook interface with the user logged in as KnowledgeableEagle3954. A further confirmed alias account. Since the TikTok post was made from the operator's own confirmed account, the screenshot establishes that the same person was simultaneously logged into the counter-group under an alias identity, directly contradicting the presentation of the group as independently operated by a separate community of supporters. This is the third documented accidental self-exposure in the investigation corpus. See Finding 03.

Coercive public post — child abuse allegations used as leverage, 16 February 2026. A post published from the verified JBB account on 16 February 2026 addressed named private individuals directly, including T######a W####n (referred to by a derogatory nickname), her husband O##n, and the operator of a local business trading as "E#####y" — stating: “delete the groups, fake profiles and websites about me or I will upload more videos of the abuse you have caused to children.” This post makes a public allegation of child abuse against named private individuals as an explicit condition of non-disclosure — i.e. the allegation will be withheld if the recipients comply, and published if they do not. Making an unwarranted demand with menaces, where the demand is to suppress lawful investigative activity and the menace is public accusation of child abuse, may constitute blackmail under Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968. The post is dated the same day as two other written denials documented in this finding. Gwent Police are confirmed to be involved with at least two of the individuals named in this post. The "E#####y" business had previously been subjected to false public accusations by the operation — accusations that are not true and are a matter of public record.

From March 2026, investigative monitors noted a 24-hour period during which the operator was absent from her home, with the property in total darkness while her vehicle remained parked outside — described by community observers as inconsistent with her established patterns. This period coincided with community reports of a possible police detention. The name "H#####" — previously associated with a named JBB worker who left the operation in 2023 — reappears in two signed posts dated 9 and 17 March 2026, after an absence of over two years from the corpus. An archived broadcast dated late October 2023 confirms H##### is referenced as manager of the Little Risca shop at that time: “H##### hasn't been very well and obviously we need someone to take her place for the time being.” This anchors her last documented active role to late 2023 — establishing the two-year gap before the name reappears in March 2026 posts as a signed author. Whether this represents a coincidental reuse of a staff name or has any connection to the reported absence is a matter for official record. The investigation notes the timing without asserting any conclusion.

Alias accounts used to amplify health claims. The Daniel James alias account has been documented deploying the same illness narrative used by the operator herself — posting in response to critics on third-party pages that the operator has "a massive tumor and aplastic anemia and has to have regular treatments of tumor suppressors and blood transfusions." This represents the health claim apparatus operating across multiple nominally separate accounts simultaneously. The operator making the claims in her own name, and alias accounts repeating and defending them in external forums where the operator's own account may not be present or credible.

A specific archived post from the Daniel James account — attributed to Daniel-James Ridsdale, the third subscriber on the CIC incorporation documents at the same address as Director 1 — elaborates the health narrative in detail, stating the operator was diagnosed with blood cancer and a tumour in 2019, that a 6cm tumour was missed on an MRI scan in 2015, that by 2019 it had grown to 11cm, that she had a procedure in 2021, and that she remains on tumour-shrinking medication and has blood disorders. The post also states: “Neither of us take a wage or claim petrol. We are going through the charity registration process and the cic process at the moment.” This single post simultaneously advances the illness narrative, the no-wages claim, and the charity registration claim — all three of which are either unverifiable, contradicted by other evidence, or directly refuted by official records. The post is archived as part of the investigation corpus.

Public assertion that paedophile allegations are legally protected as true. In a broadcast dated 12 September 2025, while commenting on critics of the operation, the operator stated: “It's only slander if it's not true. They can't charge me for saying something malicious if it isn't malicious and it is true. Otherwise I'd have been charged by now. You can't go around calling people a paedo if they're not, unless they are.” This is a direct public statement that the operator believes her paedophile allegations against named individuals are accurate and legally defensible — made to thousands of followers on a public livestream. No conviction, caution, or official finding has been produced in support of any paedophile allegation made against any of the individuals she has publicly labelled in this way. The statement that she would "have been charged by now" if the allegations were false misrepresents the law: the test for a criminal charge is not whether the allegations are true, but whether the communications are malicious. Under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003 s.127, the absence of a charge does not constitute legal endorsement of the content. The public assertion that her allegations are true — made without any official finding, constituting a further defamatory publication under the Defamation Act 2013.

18 documented public denials. Across 16 video transcripts and 2 written posts, the operator has made at least 18 distinct public statements denying arrest, charge, or interview by police. These span multiple specific categories of allegation — assault, bank card theft, criminal damage, scamming, baby bank operations, and statements made about named individuals online. Two written denials are dated 16 February 2026. The remainder are undated video transcript entries from archived broadcasts. The volume, specificity, and repetition of these denials — each responding to a different specific allegation — is itself a matter of public record.

False statement to police — “I don't have a Facebook account,” June 2025. According to verified reports documented by the Sherlock investigation (article dated 3 June 2025), during police questioning in connection with allegations of online abuse directed toward a disabled mother and her child. The same incident in which B###### S####'s full home address was published publicly on the JBB page (May 2025, see Finding 12). The operator reportedly told police she did not have a Facebook account. Authorities subsequently reviewed a publicly accessible Facebook livestream in which the operator herself referenced the police visit, directly contradicting her statement to officers. Knowingly providing false information to police in the course of an investigation may constitute an offence under the Criminal Law Act 1967 s.5(2) or, where it obstructs an investigation, the Police Act 1996 s.89. The matter was confirmed as remaining under active police investigation at the time of the report.

1 July 2025 — elected councillor reported arrested at operator's property; operator's own public admission. A public post from the verified JBB account stated verbatim: “Now this myth isn't a myth, Councillor Adams did get his self arrested on my driveway peering through my kitchen window and following me about with a clipboard. I believe two other councillors were spoken to by the head of fhe Council and the police too on the grounds or harrassing a baby bank owner.” The councillor named in the post is Councillor Michael Adams — Labour Ward Member for Pontllanfraith on Caerphilly County Borough Council, the local authority area in which several of the JBB premises operate. The post is the operator's own published account of the incident; no contemporaneous statement from Cllr Adams, Caerphilly CBC, or Gwent Police has been published confirming her characterisation of events, and no court list entry or charging record has been produced in connection with the alleged arrest. What the post documents as a matter of public record is the operator's own statement that an elected councillor was arrested at her property, and that — by her account, two further councillors were officially spoken to by the Head of Council and police about contact with the operation. The same post includes a self-listed enumeration of bodies the operator states had previously contacted her: “the council, counsellors, NMC, DWP, action fraud, police, Charity commission”, an unprompted aggregate admission, on the operator's own platform, of the regulatory and law-enforcement bodies engaged with the operation during that period. The publication is documented for the pattern it evidences: a public-platform allegation that an elected councillor performing apparent oversight activity (described in the operator's own words as “following me about with a clipboard”) was the subject of police arrest at the operator's address, made without supporting documentation and in the same paragraph as a broader enumeration of the agencies in regulatory contact with the operation.

Selected documented denials from the corpus: “I've never been arrested or interviewed by anything, by the police whatsoever” — “That's why I've never been arrested because there is nothing to be arrested for” — “The police have never arrested us on anything to do with anything going on here in our baby banks, anything, or our rescues” — “I've never been arrested for scamming any money” — “I was never arrested or charged for assault or theft and use of her bank card. I have never even been interviewed over it” (written post, 16 February 2026). Whether any of these statements remains accurate is a matter for official record. What is documented is that they were made — repeatedly, publicly, and on specific dates.

31 August 2025 — cluster of false claims in a single post. A public post dated 31 August 2025 contains multiple demonstrably false statements within a single publication: (1) "There is no report or investigation into the Baby Bank" — directly contradicted by the Caerphilly CBC FOI refusal dated 9 January 2026, which refused disclosure under S30(1)(a)(i) on the grounds that information was held for the purposes of an investigation with a view to ascertaining whether a person should be charged with an offence; (2) "The police are fully aware, and are investigating and looking to arrest them". A false claim about investigators; (3) "The Sherlock account is run by 4 charities, two of which I have personally got shut down for life". No charitable shutdown attributable to this operation has been officially recorded; (4) "We are a registered baby bank and foodbank… with THREE councils". No such registration exists with any council. The same post also claims recognition "across the UK and other Ireland and other countries", a claim unsupported by any official record, and directly contradicted by 14 agency written denials.

29 September 2025 — operator-published arrest claim against two individuals; no corroborating record produced. A public post from the verified JBB account named two individuals, referred to here as K### and a relative, and asserted that they had been “arrested over robbing donations off my driveway and 3 of my charity pots and food.” No accompanying crime reference number, court list entry, charging document, or contemporaneous corroborating source has been produced in connection with this allegation. The post is documented for the pattern it evidences: public assignment of criminal status to identifiable private individuals on the operator's platform without any official finding having been produced, consistent with the documented pattern across this finding of attributing arrests, charges, and enforcement outcomes to named critics without supporting documentation, and with the false “Criminal Record Orders” claims made in early 2026. The named individuals are redacted in this report to prevent further amplification of an allegation that has not been substantiated by any official body; the post is treated as the operator's stated claim rather than as evidence of any underlying offence.

Jeffrey Dahmer imagery used to label critics — TikTok. Content published on the @communityshopone TikTok account (subsequently renamed "Jayne's Baby Bank CIC TM") used the likeness of Jeffrey Dahmer — a convicted American serial killer and sex offender whose crimes are widely known, made further prominent by the 2022 Netflix dramatisation — to represent members of the public who had criticised JBB. The image was captioned "My Stalkers: I can't stand her!" and "Also, My Stalkers: 'GLUED TO THEIR SCREENS'." Jeffrey Dahmer murdered 17 people, targeting vulnerable individuals. Using his image to represent critics on a public platform, in the context of an ongoing pattern of publicly identifying, targeting, and publishing the details of private individuals — carries a threatening and intimidatory connotation that goes beyond ordinary harassment content. The content was published on a platform accessible to the operation's full follower base and engages the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Mass report solicitation and false fire service affiliation — November 2025. Following a member of the public flagging a JBB shop as a "health hazard" with "no fire standards in place," the operator published a public post mocking the complaint and ending: “Report her profile guys for us.” The same post claimed the fire service “said we can use their clothes bank as an overflow if needed plus access their grants and provide us with free fire equipment”, a claim directly contradicted by the documented fire Prohibition Notices issued against two JBB premises and the written denial from the Salvation Army (SATCoL) regarding the unauthorised use of their clothing banks. The post also claimed councils had "given us grants and discounts," referencing public funding in the context of dismissing a legitimate safety complaint. Publicly soliciting thousands of followers to mass-report a private individual's profile because they reported a fire safety concern to a regulator engages the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and is consistent with the documented pattern of using the follower base as an enforcement instrument against critics.

“That's 15 she's had, I know of“ — fire extinguisher admission of unknown provenance, 11 November 2025. In a public broadcast dated 11 November 2025. The same month as the mass report solicitation above. The operator publicly mocked a member of the public who had threatened to report fire safety concerns to Health and Safety and the Fire Brigade: “Oh no. He's gonna ring Health and Safety. He's gonna ring the Fire Brigade. Oh no. Can you imagine the Fire Brigade? What the fuck? Don't ring us unless she's on fire!” In the same broadcast she stated: “Now we've got to go down there this week and give her another fire extinguisher for free. Brilliant. That's 15 she's had, I know of.” This admission is significant on two grounds. First, it places 15 fire extinguishers on the premises as of November 2025, four months before the Prohibition Notice of 3 March 2026, which cited fire safety breaches including inadequate fire suppression provisions and blocked escape routes. If 15 extinguishers were present and the premises still failed enforcement inspection, this speaks to the broader state of the premises beyond equipment alone. Second, no verifiable source for 15 fire extinguishers has been identified: the fire service has not confirmed supplying them, the Salvation Army has denied any affiliation, and no donation or supplier record appears in any public filing. The public claim, made in the same period, that the fire service provided free fire equipment is directly contradicted by SWFRS enforcement records. The extinguishers' provenance is undocumented. The broadcast also demonstrates that fire safety complaints were being publicly mocked to the full follower base in November 2025, at a time when SWFRS had already been engaged in a 15-month compliance process with the premises.

Gwent Police crime reference — 2600068214, incident date 4 March 2026. In a private Messenger exchange with F### M### (archived 17 March 2026 — shared publicly by F### M### to the JBB Exposed group), the operator sent a photograph of a Gwent Police letter addressed “Dear Jayne-Anne” bearing crime number 2600068214, crime type CR37 (a Gwent Police harassment/malicious communications category), and incident date 4 March 2026. She presented this as her criminal case against investigators: “You have damaged my business and my criminal case against them.” When F### M### responded “That ain't your name is it — who is Carry Anne,” the operator replied “Good knows” — a deflection rather than any explanation of the Carrie-Anne Ridsdale identity. This exchange is significant on two levels: first, the letter is addressed to Jayne-Anne, independently corroborating the Jayne-Anne name variant at the same period as the Gwent Police were engaged with the operation; second, the "Good knows" response to a direct identity challenge, made in a private conversation where there was no public audience to perform for — represents the most candid documented instance of the operator declining to explain the Carrie-Anne Ridsdale name. The crime reference number is an independently verifiable Gwent Police record.

“My business" — private admission, 17 March 2026. In the same Messenger exchange with F### M###, the operator refers to JBB in the following terms on two separate occasions: “You can't volunteer after this as you have damaged our business” and “You have damaged my business and my criminal case against them.” The repeated use of “my business” in a private message, where there was no public audience and no charitable framing to maintain. This is the operator's own unguarded characterisation of the operation. This directly contradicts the repeated public claim that she takes no wage, that the operation is run for community benefit, and that it functions as a charitable enterprise rather than a personal commercial business. It is consistent with the "flog stuff and keep the money" equivalence statement (12 September 2025, Finding 17) and the Facebook monetisation "daily income" admission (Finding 24).

False claims of “Criminal Record Orders” against critics. Throughout early 2026, the operator repeatedly told followers that critics were being issued with "Criminal Record Orders" (CROs) and summoned for "voluntary interviews" by Torfaen and Gwent police. A "Criminal Record Order" is not a recognised category of enforcement action in English or Welsh law. No such instrument exists in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, or any other relevant statute. Despite repeated public claims of enforcement victories against critics — framed as vindication. The operator has not published a single verified court order, police outcome notice, or enforcement document to substantiate that any such action has been taken against any named individual. This claim is consistent with the documented pattern of using invented or misrepresented legal terminology to intimidate critics and project a false impression of official support. This misuse of legal terminology stands in contrast to the operator’s own reported historical outcome from the pre-JBB period: following the August 2014 defamation-card incident, she is reported to have received a criminal record and a non-molestation order protecting the victims of that campaign — documented outcomes that are distinct from the invented “Criminal Record Order” instrument she deploys against critics in 2026. See Finding 27.

Trademark infringement threat — £2,500 demand and public apology, Trade Marks Act 1994. The operation published a public post asserting: “A breach of our trademark can be settled out of court for £2,500 and a public apology on social media. I think that's fair.” A separate post stated: “Can I remind people that the Baby Bank is TRADEMARKED. Breach of Trademark Law is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE. No unauthorised photos/videos/usage with my permission.” Both statements misrepresent UK trademark law. Under the Trade Marks Act 1994, trademark owners cannot unilaterally impose settlement terms or financial demands without legal due process — courts, not individuals, determine infringement and appropriate remedies. The characterisation of trademark breach as a "criminal offence" in this context is also a misrepresentation: criminal trademark offences under s.92 TMA 1994 require deliberate fraudulent use of a registered mark on goods, not general reference to a business name. Furthermore, since the registered trademark (UK00003910000) is a figurative mark, protection applies to the full graphic and phrase "JAYNE'S BABY BANK & CHARITY SHOP", not to "Baby Bank" in isolation, which remains unregistered and publicly searchable. The use of legal-sounding demands to suppress public discussion of the operation is consistent with the documented pattern of misrepresenting official authority as a means of intimidation. Under s.21 TMA 1994, unjustified threats of trademark infringement proceedings may expose the claimant to counterclaims.

False claim that investigators accessed medical records. An archived post from the JBB account states: “And… they have tried to access my medical records. There has to be an investigation by the NHS into it.” No evidence of any attempt to access the operator's medical records by any investigator has been produced or documented anywhere in the investigation archive. Formally requesting an NHS investigation into a fabricated data breach is consistent with the documented pattern of using institutional complaints to deflect scrutiny, including the FCA, NMC, Charity Commission, and police complaint filings documented throughout this report.

“Bumped off" and murder allegation posts. Two archived JBB posts document the operator publicly claiming that critics were attempting to have her killed: “Are they arranging to have me killed now? I don't know I don't really bother checking in daily.” Followed by: “They can't even rustle up 10 grand between them to get me bumped off.” The posts were made in response to an online antagonist making escalating financial "offers" for a confrontation — provocative content that does not constitute any credible threat. Publishing murder allegations against named or identifiable critics as if they were credible is consistent with the documented pattern of making extreme public allegations to discredit and intimidate those who questioned the operation. The thread additionally shows the name "Jayne Ridsdale" in the replies. A further live identity confirmation in the same thread as the murder claims.

Grim Reaper post following the death of an HCT volunteer — May 2026. See Finding 21 for full documentation, archive link, and legal analysis. A separate menacing graphic — a weeping clown kneeling over a grave marked “R.I.P.” published on the official JBB CIC page on 2 June 2026 with veiled threat text — is documented in Finding 27 as part of the same pattern of ominous public warnings.

“Karma has struck another hater” post — 24 May 2026, cross-posted Facebook and TikTok. A post published from the Facebook profile "Jaynesbabybank Registered - cic" (profile ID 61567483332952, joined 21 April 2024 — see Finding 03) reads: “Looks like karma has struck another hater. Homeless. Business closing end of month. Relocating elsewhere. bye.” The post is paired with an image of a woman with feathers and a book, overlaid with the text “It's coming for you.” Approximately one hour after the Facebook publication, the same image and identical caption text were republished on the @communityshopone TikTok account (display name "Jayne's Baby Bank CIC TM" — a confirmed JBB alias), with comments disabled, archived at tiktok.com/@communityshopone/photo/7643487020416781590. The published text discloses specific personal information about an unnamed but evidently identifiable third party — housing status, business closure, planned relocation, and frames that hardship as deserved retribution against a critic of the operation. The individual referred to has not been identified in this report. The post is documented for the pattern it evidences: publication of an unnamed critic's personal circumstances across two operator-controlled platforms within hours, paired with menacing overlay text, while presenting the content as community commentary rather than targeted intimidation. Deliberate cross-platform deployment — Facebook reach plus TikTok reach, and the disabling of TikTok comments are consistent with the documented pattern previously observed on the Grim Reaper post (Finding 21), the 18–20 May 2026 Amazon-oxygen series (Finding 08), and the Jeffrey Dahmer “My Stalkers” imagery: targeted content amplified across operator accounts with engagement controls disabled to suppress public reply. Facebook follower metadata on the originating profile at observation: 21 followers / 124 following — a marked increase from 7 followers / 37 following recorded earlier in May 2026, consistent with a transition from low-activity reserve identity to active publication of harassment-adjacent content. The conduct engages the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and is consistent with the documented pattern of using operator-controlled accounts to publish targeted material about critics.

“We just report them to the police for harrassment. The more they post the more evidence we have”, 28 December 2022. A public post states: “We just report them to the police for harrassment. The more they post the more evidence we have.” This is an explicit policy statement: systematically filing police harassment reports against anyone posting negative comments. The framing “the more they post the more evidence we have” confirms the intent to weaponise police complaints as a deterrent against public scrutiny.

“The police are already speaking to one family this week about online harassment and comments” — 18 January 2026. A public post states: “Can I remind people we are trademarked and we have business insurance and I will take legal action against people bad mouthing us. The police are already speaking to one family this week about online harrassment and comments.” Publicly disclosing that police are actively contacting “one family” — without naming them, but ensuring their community knows they are under investigation; a documented use of police contact as a warning instrument to deter others from speaking out.

First dated use of “the paedophile” as a descriptor — 1 July 2023. A broadcast dated 1 July 2023 contains the statement: “Now, you know, we’ve had our signs stolen by the paedophile. So we’re dealing with that, but we are still there.” This is the earliest dated video in the corpus using “the paedophile” as a standard descriptor of an identifiable individual, establishing that the pattern begins in July 2023. At least eight further video instances have been identified across subsequent dates.

21Defamation Act 2013 / Protection from Harassment Act 1997Multi-year campaign of false allegations and digital harassment against helping caring team (HCT) — a verified, award-winning registered charity

Helping Caring Team (HCT), registered charity no. 1184631, based in Blackwood, has been the primary target of a sustained, multi-year campaign of false public allegations and documented harassment conducted via the JBB platform. HCT is a verified registered charity — its status is publicly confirmed on the Charity Commission register. In November 2025, HCT received a Civic Award from Blackwood Miners' Town Council in recognition of its community work. HCT has also successfully secured a £52,400 grant from the National Lottery Community Fund. The operator refers to HCT publicly as "the pink ladies" and, across 103 source documents in the investigation corpus, repeatedly describes HCT as "known scammers", a claim made without evidential basis and in direct contradiction of the organisation's registered charitable status and its regulatory clearance detailed below.

Charity Commission review — statutory investigation not opened. In late 2025, the Charity Commission reviewed information submitted regarding HCT and determined that no statutory investigation was warranted, instead providing only general regulatory advice. This directly contradicts the operator's repeated public claim that HCT is "under investigation", a claim made across multiple broadcasts to audiences of 70,000+ followers. No Charity Commission statutory investigation into HCT exists or has existed. The operator has simultaneously stated in the same broadcasts in which she calls HCT "scammers" that she has "never been arrested for scamming money". A direct self-contradiction that undermines the basis of the allegation.

The 2007 social services claim — weaponising a historic grievance. A central pillar of the operator's hostility toward H##### T###### is a claim that H##### reported the operator to social services in 2007. When the operator was a single mother and Daniel was a young child. The operator asserts that council officials "unofficially" told her H##### was the complainant, and that "two qualified members of staff" confirmed this. This claim is highly implausible on its face: public bodies are legally prohibited from disclosing the identities of complainants, and no official body operates in the manner described. If any such disclosure occurred, it would itself constitute a serious GDPR violation. Yet the operator presents it as fact without any documentary evidence. The sourcing for this claim is entirely the operator's own public statements. This historic grievance is deployed publicly to justify the sustained campaign against HCT as long-standing persecution rather than the operator's own conduct — a reframing inconsistent with the documented evidence.

False fraud allegation — £3,000 council grant. The operator publicly alleged that HCT committed fraud involving a £3,000 council grant for bus trips, claiming that a trustee or volunteer "directly benefited" from the funds via a personal connection to a bus company. No evidence supporting this allegation has been produced. The Charity Commission's decision not to open a statutory investigation. Despite reviewing information about HCT, inconsistent with an organisation engaged in the financial misconduct alleged. Publishing false allegations of charity fraud against a named registered organisation with no evidential basis engages the Defamation Act 2013.

Drug trafficking allegation — December 2025. In a broadcast in December 2025, the operator publicly alleged that HCT was linked to "drug trafficking" involving a church and a vicar. No evidence has been produced, no arrest or charge has been made, and no official body has confirmed any such investigation. This is among the most serious false allegations documented in the corpus — publicly broadcasting a drug trafficking claim about a named registered charity and its associated community institutions, without any evidential basis whatsoever, constitutes a serious defamatory allegation under the Defamation Act 2013.

Additional false allegations. Other unverified claims broadcast publicly against HCT and H##### T###### include: a claim that H##### T###### personally attended the operator's home and left out-of-date baby milk on the doorstep in direct sunlight — framed as a deliberate food hygiene violation; and a sustained "monopoly" narrative asserting that H##### T###### "wants a monopoly on everything" and bullies other organisations to suppress competition. No evidence for either claim has been produced. The monopoly narrative serves to reframe the operator's well-documented pattern of making false regulatory complaints against others as a defensive response to external persecution.

Use of a Subject Access Request as a harassment instrument. The operator has publicly stated that she used a Subject Access Request (SAR) submitted to Caerphilly Council as evidence that HCT was reporting her to authorities for health and safety, food hygiene, and Trading Standards violations. The SAR mechanism exists to enable individuals to access their own personal data, not to identify who has raised concerns about them to regulators. Using SAR results to publicly identify and target those she believes reported her constitutes a misuse of the data access process and represents a chilling effect on legitimate whistleblowing and community safeguarding. An archived deleted video documents the operator attending council offices specifically to collect SAR data for the purpose of filing malicious communications complaints against those making regulatory reports: “I've done the council offices this morning because we've got some information to pick up in regards to our subject access of who is who and why are they complaining about us. So that we can log some malicious communications complaints with the police.” The operator's framing presents regulatory reporting — a lawful and protected act, as a form of attack warranting retaliation.

Filing regulatory complaints against other CICs — H.O.P.E. Bus Community Interest Company. A letter dated 13 June 2023 from the Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies (Ref: 02/23), addressed to Jayne Price, confirms the operator had written to the CIC Regulator raising concerns about H.O.P.E. Bus Community Interest Company (co. no. 12552902). The Regulator's response notes: that bullying allegations had already been reported to police; that "the issue of trafficking vulnerable homeless people is being investigated by the modern day slavery unit"; and that "the issues of stalking, harassment and threatening behaviour have been reported to the police." This letter confirms the operator's documented pattern of filing serious allegations, including trafficking — against other community organisations with regulatory bodies. The Regulator's reference to a modern slavery investigation reflects information provided to it by the operator; it does not constitute confirmation that any such allegation was substantiated. The same letter is consistent with the documented use of official complaints processes as instruments of pressure against organisations the operator perceived as competitors or critics.

Pre-written complaint template distributed to members of the public — 17 March 2026. In a private Messenger exchange with F### M### (archived 17 March 2026, shared publicly by F### M### to the JBB Exposed group), the operator sent a pre-written block of text directing F### M### to report named individuals and organisations to Gwent Police and the Charity Commission. The template named: T##### W###### and O#### W###### (Caerphilly Bird Rescue, described as "not a registered anything"); T### H##### S#### and D### D###### (Community Volunteers Wales, charity no. 1191383); N####A W######## (charity no. 1194295, described as "convicted for harassment of I### S####"); and Alice## T##### H###. The template provided the contact address for Gwent Police (contact@gwent.police.uk or 101) and directed the recipient to state the complaint was against "Jayne's Baby Bank Registered CIC 16838920." It also directed the recipient to contact the Charity Commission. Distributing a pre-written police complaint template to a member of the public — naming specific individuals and directing them to file reports on the operator's behalf; a documented extension of the complaint-as-harassment instrument described throughout this finding. The named individuals and organisations have not been charged with any offence in connection with this investigation. Community Volunteers Wales (charity no. 1191383) is a registered charity with no regulatory findings against it.

False attribution of the investigation website. Across multiple broadcasts, the operator has publicly identified H##### T###### — HCT's founder and former trustee, as the individual responsible for the jaynesbabybank.co.uk investigation website, claiming she is "the one behind the website" and that she "manipulates" others into feeding it information. This claim is false. Publishing a false attribution of the investigation website to a named charity founder, to an audience of 70,000+ followers, constitutes a serious defamatory allegation without evidential basis.

Targeting of HCT personnel and family. The campaign extended beyond HCT as an organisation to its personnel and their families. Documented conduct includes: offering £1,000 cash rewards for screenshots from private group chats linked to HCT; encouraging 71,000 followers to mass-report H##### T######'s pages; making public allegations against H##### T######'s son, J##### T######, by name; and sharing images purporting to show gunshot damage to H##### T######'s mother's property. The sharing of images of alleged criminal damage to a private individual's family home, in the context of an ongoing harassment campaign, raising serious concerns under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. None of these allegations against HCT personnel have been substantiated by any official body.

Grim Reaper post following the death of an HCT volunteer — May 2026. Following the death of a named HCT volunteer, the @communityshopone TikTok account — operating under the name "Jayne's Baby Bank CIC TM". Published a post featuring an image of the Grim Reaper carrying a scythe, captioned: “Thats one of the haters down.” The post was set to "spooky, quiet, scary atmosphere piano songs" audio and comments were disabled, indicating awareness of the likely public reaction. Publishing content that directly associates the death of a real person with celebratory or mocking imagery, directed at a community of people who knew the deceased, in the context of a multi-year harassment campaign against the organisation the deceased was associated with, constitutes one of the most severe documented instances of conduct in this investigation corpus. The post has been archived at tiktok.com/@communityshopone/photo/7639066192455421206. A second post from the same account stated "Thats one of the haters down" explicitly. The operator subsequently attempted to reframe public reaction to this content by claiming that the JBB Exposed group had accused her of murder. A false characterisation designed to deflect from the nature of her own published post. Under the KnowledgeableEagle3954 alias, the operator later dismissed the public reaction with the statement: “What happened to the campaign about us killing a HCT staff member? That fell flat.” — publicly acknowledging awareness of the controversy while minimising it, under a confirmed alias account. The conduct engages the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Corpus scale. HCT is referenced across 103 unique source documents in the investigation corpus, with named references to H##### T###### appearing in 74 source files. The campaign spans from at least March 2023 to the date of publication — over two years of documented targeting of a single registered charity across a public platform, using alias accounts, reward offers, false regulatory allegations, drug trafficking claims, and the operator's own personal platform. The contrast between HCT's documented status — a Charity Commission-registered organisation that received both a civic award and a six-figure community grant, and the operator's repeated characterisation of it as a criminal enterprise is stark and evidentially significant.

CCBC internal correspondence — council confirms JBB targeting of community groups. Internal communications from Caerphilly County Borough Council's Food and Network Support Team, visible at timestamp 07:50 of the SAR broadcast, confirm that multiple community groups had been targeted by Jayne's Baby Bank — described internally as a growing concern within the local authority. This constitutes an independent official acknowledgement, within council correspondence, of the pattern of targeting that this finding documents across public broadcasts and social media. The same SAR broadcast also reveals, at timestamp 07:54, an internal email from Caerphilly Social Services Department explicitly stating that they have no direct affiliation with Jayne's Baby Bank and that the operator should not be claiming to act on their behalf, directly contradicting repeated public claims that social services had "acknowledged" JBB, asked JBB to make referrals, and were actively supporting the operation. These two pieces of internal council correspondence. Both inadvertently disclosed by the operator herself during a public broadcast of her own SAR — constitute official documentary evidence of both the targeting pattern and the false social services affiliation claim, sourced from the council's own files.

Voluntary police interview linked to H##### T###### and the “paedophile” label — 9 January 2025. A broadcast dated 9 January 2025 contains the statement: “It was a voluntary interview, and they told me it was [H#####] that was reporting me on a regular basis. Now, we know the paedophile reports me, but we also know the paedophile is an idiot, sort of the council, right?” This quote directly connects three elements not previously linked in a single quoted source: the voluntary police interview, the identification of H##### (consistent with H##### T######, HCT operator) as the reporting party, and the simultaneous deployment of the “paedophile” label in the same breath. The claim that police disclosed the complainant’s identity during a voluntary interview is inconsistent with standard police procedure and is presented without corroborating evidence.

23Computer Misuse Act 1990 s.1 / defamation act 2013 / Protection from Harassment Act 1997Fake "Peter mal" account used to infiltrate HCT Facebook group — captured in published Jarmani's boutique video, january 2026

The Jarmani’s Boutique identity was not solely an online alias. Photographic evidence confirms that a section of the Pontypool shop interior was permanently labelled “Jarmani’s Charity Boutique” in painted lettering applied to the shop wall — a physical installation present at the operational premises. This directly connects the Jarmani’s Boutique Facebook channel to the physical Pontypool operation. A pre-recorded video published to the Jarmani’s Boutique Facebook channel in January 2026 shows the operator screen-sharing the Helping Caring Team Charity (HCT, registered charity no. 1184631) Facebook group. During the video, public allegations are made against named HCT volunteers and trustees, including that a named individual had a criminal record and had been required to step down as trustee, and that a named trustee had directly benefited from a grant in a manner characterised on camera as illegal fraud. No evidence supporting either allegation has been produced, and no official body has confirmed any such findings against any named HCT individual.

The Peter Mal account. Confirmed in the published recording. Within the same published video, at 11 minutes 43 seconds into the recording, the comment input field NA_847088911441175 visible at the bottom left of screen displays the avatar and partial name of a “Peter Mal” Facebook account, confirming the operator was browsing and accessing the HCT group while logged into a false identity account at the time of recording. This is not an accidental live broadcast slip: the video was pre-recorded and published in its final edited form. The Peter Mal account identity is therefore visible in content that was reviewed and distributed to the channel's audience, representing an oversight in editing that permanently captures the false identity in the published record at a specific, independently verifiable point in the footage.

Legal and evidentiary significance. Accessing a Facebook group under a fabricated identity for the purpose of gathering content to use against the group's members engages the Computer Misuse Act 1990 s.1, unauthorised access to computer material, where access is obtained other than as authorised. The content gathered under the Peter Mal false identity was then broadcast publicly and used to make defamatory allegations against named individuals associated with HCT. Publishing false allegations of criminal conduct and fraud against named private individuals, including that a named person holds a criminal record and that another committed charity fraud — without any evidential basis, to the channel's full audience, engages the Defamation Act 2013. The conduct is consistent with the documented pattern across Finding 16 and Finding 21 of using fake or proxy accounts to surveil, infiltrate, and publicly attack organisations and individuals perceived as critics or rivals. This finding adds a further confirmed alias account — "Peter Mal" — to the documented list of false identities used in connection with this operation.

17Fraud Act 2006 s.2 / Charities Act 1992 s.63PayPal fundraising — false charitable claims, multiple accounts, and identity concealment on live donation platforms

At least three distinct PayPal accounts have been used to solicit public donations for Jayne's Baby Bank: paypal.me/Jaynesbabybank, paypal.me/Jaynesbabybank100, and paypal.me/jaynesbabybankrisca. All three operated under charity-adjacent branding while no Charity Commission registration existed. PayPal's UK User Agreement generally limits individuals to one personal and one business account; operating multiple accounts under similar charity branding without clear disclosure as to which legal entity receives funds materially complicates financial accountability. In addition to the three PayPal accounts and SumUp instrument documented above, at least three JustGiving crowdfunding pages have been identified operating under JBB branding: jaynesbabybankrunningcostsappeal, jaynesbabybankstokennappiesappeal, and jaynesbabybankwashingmachines. Each solicits public donations under the JBB name for specific operational purposes. None of these campaigns appear in any CIC filing, annual return, or public financial disclosure. A fourth JustGiving page has additionally been identified: a campaign titled “Food Share Baby Bank”, organised by Jayne PRICE, with a target of £1,000 per month to “support the local communities with nappies and foodbanks.” The campaign branding incorporates a Green World Award logo and the JBB trademark symbol. At the time of capture, £20 had been raised from one supporter against the £1,000 target. This is a further public donation instrument operating under JBB branding not reflected in any CIC filing, annual return, or financial disclosure. Combined with the three PayPal accounts, the SumUp gift card, the rescue JustGiving page documented in Finding 05, and the three operational JustGiving pages noted above, this brings the total identified public donation instruments operating under JBB-related branding to at least nine — each operating under a different name or platform, with no consolidated disclosure of funds received or disbursed across any of them.

SumUp gift card — registered to residential address. A SumUp online gift card page has been identified registered under the name "Jayne's Baby Bank & Free Food Bank" at 7 Meadow Road, NP12 2AG, Blackwood — the operator's residential address. SumUp is a commercial card payment processing platform. Registering an active commercial payment instrument to a residential address is consistent with operating an unlicensed commercial activity from home. The registered business name — "Free Food Bank", which directly contradicts the documented policy of restricting items to paying customers and donators only, as evidenced across 105 unique source documents. The gift card instrument represents a further undisclosed donation and payment channel, operating under a name that misrepresents the access policy of the operation.

False charitable claims on live fundraising accounts. PayPal profile descriptions have explicitly stated: “Jayne's Mother and Baby, Food Bank and Charity shop. 100% of profit goes towards the charity” and “We run charity shops and foodbanks in Wales… 100% of the profits go back into helping and feeding families.” Both statements were made under a charity framing on a live fundraising instrument at a time when the Charity Commission had already confirmed — following two failed applications, that JBB does not meet the threshold of being a charity. Soliciting donations while representing an organisation as a charity when it is not may constitute an offence under Section 63 of the Charities Act 1992.

Identity concealment on the primary donation account. The primary account (@jaynesbabybank) is held under the name "Jayne R-Price" — a hybrid surname constructed from the Ridsdale surname appearing in court records and the Price surname used for public branding. This name appears on no formal legal record. It does not match the CCJ debtor names (Ceri-Ann Ridsdale; Miss Carrie-Anne Ridsdale), the commercial lease name (Jayne-Anne Carrie-Anne Ridsdale), the CIC filing name (Jayne Price), or any of the seven name variants documented in official records. A person donating via this link has no straightforward means of identifying the legal entity or individual who has received their money, or of connecting that recipient to outstanding liabilities including two unsatisfied County Court Judgments totalling £7,418.

“Friends and Family" payment instruction. The operator has publicly encouraged donors to use the PayPal "Friends and Family" option when making payments. While voluntary gifts via this mechanism are not inherently improper, directing payments for goods or services, including shop stock — through the Friends and Family route avoids commercial transaction fees and removes standard buyer protections. Where this instruction was applied to payments that were not genuine voluntary gifts, it would constitute a breach of PayPal's terms of service and potentially misrepresent the nature of the transaction.

The operator has stated publicly that using digital payment methods makes the operation transparent: “not a money launderer because it's traceable.” This claim is made in the context of operating multiple PayPal accounts under a name that appears on no formal record, linked to an organisation whose two Charity Commission applications both failed, and whose two CCJs remain unsatisfied. The traceability of individual transactions does not address the accountability questions raised by the identity and charitable status issues documented above.

Mother's personal email used on JBB PayPal accounts — Ridsdale1952@btinternet.com. The email address Ridsdale1952@btinternet.com. Confirmed as belonging to the operator's mother — was used as the registered contact address on PayPal donation accounts operated under the JBB name. Routing a public-facing charitable fundraising instrument through a third party's personal email account; specifically a family member's — adds a further layer of identity and financial accountability obscuration beyond the "Jayne R-Price" account name discrepancy already documented above. A donor making a payment to the JBB PayPal account would have no means of identifying that the registered contact email belonged to a separate individual entirely. The address additionally constitutes a further independent confirmation of the Ridsdale surname in connection with the operation's financial infrastructure.

Single phone number — multiple Facebook accounts confirmed, March 2026. A Facebook account recovery screen, captured March 2026, documents that a phone number search returns three Facebook accounts simultaneously: C… R…, J… B…, and D… J…, consistent with the Carrie Ridsdale identity, a Jarmani's Boutique or JBB-related account, and a third account whose attribution cannot be definitively confirmed from initials alone. The return of three distinct accounts against a single registered phone number is consistent with multi-account operation from one device or contact number. This directly contradicts repeated public claims that the operator runs only one account and has no connection to associated pages or alias identities. This evidence corroborates the multi-account pattern documented across Findings 03, 16, and 23 and adds a further independently captured data point — Facebook's own account recovery system — to the documented identity network.

“Flog stuff and keep the money“ — self-incriminating equivalence statement, 12 September 2025. In a public broadcast dated 12 September 2025, the operator stated, while responding to critics who sell items online: “It's all right for you guys to flog stuff then and keep the money for yourselves, but not for me.” The statement is framed as a grievance about a double standard, but the equivalence is the operator's own. By asserting that critics flog stock and keep the money in direct comparison to her own conduct, she implicitly confirms that she does the same — selling donated goods and retaining the proceeds. This is not an isolated remark: it is made in her own words, on a public platform, in direct response to scrutiny of the operation's financial conduct. The admission is consistent with the documented pay-to-access model (Finding 01), the £5 food bag sales (Finding 04), and the "80% free, 20% profit" CIC framing captured in corpus transcript evidence.

“See all the money we make from the charity pending. I spend it all on luxury goods.“ — December 2023. In a public broadcast dated December 2023, the operator stated while sorting stock: “See all the money we make from the charity pending. I spend it all on luxury goods.” The remark is delivered sarcastically — pre-empting criticism, but the framing is her own. It constitutes a public acknowledgement that the operation generates money and that personal spending follows from it, delivered in the same breath as the "charity pending" descriptor. The sarcastic register does not change the underlying admission: she is publicly connecting charity pending income to personal expenditure, in a broadcast to her full follower base, at a time when both Charity Commission applications had already been refused. The remark is consistent with the "flog stuff and keep the money" equivalence statement (12 September 2025) and the May 2024 self-allocation of £50 per month from takings documented below.

“I allocate myself up to 50 pound a month from the takings“ — self-directed spending authority, 9 May 2024. In a public broadcast dated 9 May 2024, the operator disclosed a personal spending policy applied to the operation's takings: “written into our policies that we haven't published yet because we're in the process of setting them up and we're doing it already to become a registered charity, that I've got in there that I allow myself to spend 50 pound on items that I think are going to benefit the charity.” She further stated: “I don't go over 50 pound because obviously, you know, these little five pound trades can add up.” This admission is significant on three grounds. First, she confirms policies had not been published as of May 2024. Despite the operation having been active for four years and having applied twice to the Charity Commission. Second, she confirms a personal monthly spending allocation drawn from operational takings — a financial arrangement with no CIC regulatory disclosure and no equivalent entry in any published policy or filing. Third, she references "becoming a registered charity" in May 2024, after both Charity Commission applications had already failed. The broadcast also confirms: “Our running costs are quite high with having four shops and a donation centre now” — corroborating the four-shop premises record in Section 07, and states: “Please remember, you need to be a customer or a donator to access any of our services. Because then you're helping another mother further down the line” — the pay-to-access policy stated verbatim on a public broadcast in May 2024.

PayPal charity listings confirmed still active — 22 August 2025. As of 22 August 2025, both PayPal accounts were confirmed still live and actively soliciting donations under charity-adjacent descriptions, seven weeks after the FCA formally denied the authorisation claim in writing (16 July 2025), and ten months after the Charity Commission's second refusal notification (20 October 2023). The continued operation of these accounts after both denials were on record materially undermines any claim that the charitable framing was inadvertent or historical. A further discrepancy is documented on the @jaynesbabybankrisca account: despite "risca" in the handle, the registered location is listed as Blackwood, GB, not Risca — inconsistent with the geographic identity implied by the account name and adding a further layer of ambiguity to the donation infrastructure.

“We designed the shops to be cheaper than charity shops and help us make a good hard earned revenue” — 10 September 2022. A public post states: “We designed the shops to be cheaper than charity shops and help us make a good hard earned revenue to support our charity journey so we don’t have to rely on grants and hand outs ourself.” This is an explicit admission that the shops were designed to generate revenue for the operator. The phrase “good hard earned revenue” directly contradicts the no-wage, all-profits-to-charity framing deployed across the same period.

“We are non-profit even though we are classed as a business until we register as a charity” — 20 July 2024. See Finding 02 for the verbatim admission and analysis.

“We pay the bills … and then whatever’s left goes into the food bank” — 14 September 2024. A broadcast dated 14 September 2024 contains two significant admissions in the same session. The operator first states the operation is “classed as a non-profit business until we get a charity number or CIC number or whatever” and separately admits: “we pay the bills we pay all of the bills the running costs and then whatever’s left goes into the food bank etc.” The latter directly contradicts the repeated public claim that 100% of profits go to beneficiaries, confirming that bills and running costs are extracted from takings first, with only the residual reaching the food bank.

18Fraud Act 2006 s.2 / Charities Act 1992Donation diversion, charity number misuse, and the ukraine appeal — whistleblower account

N####A W########, founder of the now-closed registered charity Cwtch-Up (no. 1194295), has provided documented evidence of a series of incidents spanning 2022–2023 in which the operator used Cwtch-Up’s name and charity registration number without consent in JBB fundraising material.

Fabricated correspondence on Cwtch-Up letterheaded paper. W######## alleges that the operator produced letters on Cwtch-Up headed paper to present to businesses as authorisation for donation collections — without W########'s knowledge or consent. These letters were used to solicit items from businesses under the false impression that Cwtch-Up was involved. W######## states: “She had made letter headed paper and written a letter to give to businesses to collect stuff for me to take to Ukraine. I told her countless times to stop because she was using my charity number and keeping the donations herself.”

Ukraine appeal — donations disputed, counter-narrative refuted by video evidence. JBB has repeatedly claimed, across multiple broadcasts from 2024 through September 2025, that W######## ran a "fake Ukraine appeal" and stole JBB donations. W######## categorically denies this and has provided video footage recorded at the refugee centre in Przemyśl, Poland — approximately 10km from the Ukrainian border — showing her delivering aid to a midwife operating a Polish Red Cross ambulance evacuating Ukrainians in urgent medical need. This footage, archived and published by the investigation in September 2025, directly contradicts JBB's repeated "fake Ukraine" claims. The investigation notes that JBB continued to repeat the fake Ukraine narrative in public broadcasts after this counter-evidence was published.

Uganda container claim. The operator publicly solicited sponsorship for a shipping container to support "Mothers in Uganda," claiming to have been doing this "unofficially for 5 years", a claim that predates the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. W######## alleges the Uganda appeal was introduced after the Ukraine appeal came under scrutiny, as a means of diverting attention from the destination of collected goods. She states: “I don't believe she had any contacts or sent anything to Uganda. She said it to one up Ukraine. She needed shipping containers to fill with the stuff she was hoarding.” The operator was at the relevant time in possession of a 7.5-tonne box lorry parked at her home address.

Police and social services reference — operator's own words. In a transcript of message exchanges, the operator herself wrote: “Police have referred me to social services. Do you think that's because they arrested me and fucked up big time?” This statement, made in private correspondence, not a public broadcast, inconsistent with the repeated public claim of no police involvement in connection with the operation.

Cwtch-Up (registered charity no. 1194295) closed in early 2023. W######## has attributed the closure to sustained harassment, reputational damage, and investigation pressure resulting from her association with JBB activity. During its period of operation, the charity documented delivery of over 200,000 meals locally. The investigation notes that the operator has publicly claimed credit for "shutting down" Cwtch-Up, a claim that is directly contested by W######## and is unsupported by any regulatory decision. However, in the 6 October 2025 broadcast the operator stated: “Kuchat was shut down because she used my name in a false Ukrainian appeal and didn't submit her financial records. And all of the abuse that she was giving people online. Because I sent it all myself.” The phrase "because I sent it all myself", made in the context of explaining why Cwtch-Up was shut down. Separately, across multiple broadcasts and posts spanning 2022 to 2026, the operator made repeated public allegations that N####A W######## ran a “fake Ukraine appeal” using JBB’s name without permission, and that the appeal bus “never left the parking lot.” Representative statements include: “You using our name without permission to get donations for a fake Ukraine appeal that never took place on a bus that never even left the parking lot”; “N####A W######## had a charity shutdown because she failed to submit finances and she used her name in a fake Ukraine appeal on a double-decker bus that was never ever going to leave the UK.” These claims are directly contradicted by the documented record: N####A W######## physically travelled to Poland to deliver aid, as documented in Finding 22. The Charity Commission removed Cwtch-Up from the register for failure to submit annual returns, not for any conduct relating to JBB or Ukraine. The operator’s framing inverts the documented facts entirely. The statement that “shut down” Cwtch-Up, constituting a public admission that the operator personally submitted the complaints and evidence to regulators that contributed to the closure of a registered charity. Whether that evidence was accurate is a separate question; the admission of having "sent it all" is documented as a primary source statement. A separate public comment on the JBB page states verbatim: “We have shut down 3 other charities over this abuse. Cwtch up, Caerphilly bird rescue and hope bus cic.” This is the most comprehensive public admission of the shutdown campaign in the documented corpus — naming three specific organisations and framing all three closures as deliberate outcomes of the operator’s own actions. Cwtch-Up (registered charity no. 1194295) is documented above. Caerphilly Bird Rescue and Hope Bus CIC are the two further organisations claimed. No official regulatory decision attributing the closure of any of these three organisations to conduct by JBB has been produced, but the claim of having shut them down, made publicly and repeatedly, is documented as a primary source admission of intent and attributed outcome.

19Fraud Act 2006 s.2 / Companies Act 2006Second unsatisfied CCJ confirms Carrie-Anne Ridsdale identity, directly contradicting public denials

A County Court Judgment registered on 27 January 2026 (case ref. M3DP9X7A, Civil National Business Centre) appears on the TrustOnline Register of Judgments, Orders and Fines under the name MISS CARRIE-ANNE RIDSDALE, address: 7 Meadow Road, Pontllanfraith, Blackwood, NP12 2AG. The same residential address registered as the CIC's official Companies House address. The judgment amount is £277 and remains unsatisfied as of the date of publication.

Why this matters. This is not a variant spelling such as "Ceri-Ann." The court record uses the exact identity — Carrie-Anne Ridsdale, that has been publicly challenged, denied, and minimised across multiple broadcasts. The first CCJ (case ref. 521MC287, £7,141, registered 23 May 2024) was registered under "Ceri-Ann Ridsdale T/A Jayne's Baby Bank" and publicly dismissed with claims the name was "not even my name" and that there were "no legal documents" connected to the operation. The January 2026 judgment materially undermines that position: it places Miss Carrie-Anne Ridsdale on the formal court register, at the same address, through the same judicial system.

Identity continuity — now confirmed across seven formal records and one self-identified platform record. The same TrustOnline report references both judgments, establishing that Ceri-Ann Ridsdale (T/A Jayne's Baby Bank) and Miss Carrie-Anne Ridsdale are recorded on the same official court registry document at the same address. Combined with the commercial lease (Jayne-Anne Carrie-Anne Ridsdale), CIC filing (Jayne Price), PayPal account (Jayne R-Price), electoral records, enforcement notices, and the operator's own use of #carrieanneridsdale on the official JBB TikTok account in December 2020, the court register now anchors the Carrie-Anne Ridsdale identity within official legal record independently of any investigative assertion. There are no fewer than seven formally documented name variants for one individual across court, regulatory, fundraising, and tenancy records — all connected to the same residential address and the same operation. An Electoral Register search confirms Carrie A Ridsdale registered at a Blackwood, Gwent, NP12 address for the period 2013–2016 — providing independent official confirmation of both the Carrie A Ridsdale name variant and the Blackwood NP12 address connection prior to the formation of JBB.

Daniel Ridsdale — Facebook URL provides independent Ridsdale surname confirmation. The Facebook profile operated by Daniel James — the operator's son and CIC subscriber at 7 Meadow Road, Blackwood (Companies House ref. 16838920) — carries the public profile URL facebook.com/daniel.ridsdale.96. Facebook profile URL slugs are assigned at account registration and reflect the name under which the account was created. The surname in the URL is therefore Ridsdale, not James, confirming that "Daniel James" is itself an informal or alias presentation of an individual registered on Facebook as Daniel Ridsdale. This URL constitutes an independently verifiable public record: it requires no document request, no FOI, and no investigative assertion. It is accessible to any member of the public. In the context of repeated public denials that "Ridsdale" is the operator's name or has any connection to the operation, the Facebook URL of her son — the second named individual on the CIC incorporation document at the same address — provides a further independent data point anchoring the Ridsdale surname to this household and this operation.

The significance for donors and regulators is set out in Finding 17: a person donating, contracting, or engaging with this operation has no straightforward means of connecting the public-facing identity ("Jayne Price") to the legal identities under which court liabilities, tenancy agreements, and enforcement notices are held. The January 2026 judgment closes the most publicly repeated gap in that identity chain. The full analysis is published at jaynesbabybank.co.uk.

Criminal damage proceedings — RIDSDALE, CARRIE-ANNE and RIDSDALE, DANIEL (Case No. 61CY0283624). A Magistrates Court listing published via CourtServe confirms that both RIDSDALE, CARRIE-ANNE and RIDSDALE, DANIEL appear on the same court record under case number 61CY0283624, listed for a first hearing under CPS-CYSE. Carrie-Anne faces three counts: criminal damage to property valued under £5,000, attempt criminal damage to property valued under £5,000, and a further count of criminal damage to property valued under £5,000. Daniel faces two counts of criminal damage to property valued under £5,000. This is the first confirmed court record placing both individuals on the same criminal proceedings simultaneously, and the second court document using the exact RIDSDALE, CARRIE-ANNE name form that has been publicly denied. The listing also confirms both use the Ridsdale surname in formal criminal proceedings — further undermining the public position that this is not the operator's legal name. The investigation notes these are charges at first hearing stage; no finding of guilt is asserted or implied.

20Theft Act 1968 s.1 / computer misuse act 1990 s.1 / CJA 1988 s.39Shop confrontation, on-camera identity denial, card pickup, and SumUp access alert — 12 june 2025

On 12 June 2025, N#####E. A local business owner and critic of JBB — attended a JBB shop premises and confronted the operator on video. During the exchange, N#####E addressed the operator by the name "Carrie" and stated publicly that her real name was Carrie. The operator denied this on camera: “No it's not, it's Jayne.” This denial, made in the operator's own shop and publicly archived (youtube.com/shorts/690cpSTuMbs), is the most direct documented instance of the operator verbally denying the Carrie-Anne Ridsdale identity in real time, on a date when both CCJs, the commercial lease, the enforcement notices, the birth index entry, the electoral register, and the operator's own TikTok hashtag all confirmed that identity.

Confrontation transcript, archived deleted broadcast. A separate archived deleted broadcast captures the following verbatim exchange, consistent in location and date with the 12 June 2025 incident. The voice of a member of the public — identified as consistent with N#####E — is heard addressing the operator directly at the 5 Crane Street premises: “Hiya, you Carrie? You keep posting things on Facebook about me. I'm live on Facebook, by the way. Let's just, this is going to the HMRC. Who's Jayne? She's dead, isn't she? Jayne Price? You Carrie? Out. Can I have the police please? Jayne's baby bank on 5 Crane Street. Out please.” This transcript is significant on three grounds. First, the question “Who's Jayne? She's dead, isn't she?” — asked directly to the operator at her own premises — references a claim that the name "Jayne Price" belongs to a deceased individual, consistent with investigative findings documented in Finding 03 regarding the origin of the alias. Second, the public address of the operator as "Carrie" — to her face, at her shop, on video, and the immediate denial that followed is now corroborated by audio from the confronting party's perspective, independently of the video footage already archived. Third, the caller explicitly states she is calling police and referencing the HMRC — placing on the public record that both bodies were being contacted in connection with the Crane Street premises on this date.

Physical removal. The operator has stated in a subsequent public voice-over broadcast that N#####E was "put outside the shop on her arse" during the incident. N#####E alleged she was assaulted during the confrontation, that the operator knocked her phone out of her hand and used physical force against her. The operator denied this account, claiming N#####E was the aggressor and that she had CCTV footage supporting her position. Police were called and attended the premises. The operator stated she provided police statements, as did her staff. Physical removal of a person from premises by force, regardless of the level of force used — may constitute common assault under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The operator's own public account confirms physical contact occurred.

Bank card, documented pickup, subsequent denial, and SumUp access alert. Video footage archived by the Sherlock investigation (youtube.com/shorts/DtYQ1Fh5ejQ) documents N#####E dropping her bank card at the shop entrance, and the operator bending down to retrieve it. In the subsequent public voice-over broadcast (15 June 2025), the operator denied having picked up the card, claiming N#####E had simply dropped it. This denial is directly contradicted by the archived video footage. At 00:26 on 12 June 2025. The same date as the incident — N#####E received a SumUp security notification stating that a new device had logged into her SumUp account. The notification records the login location as Chelmsley Wood, GB (IP 86.2.38.98), device type: iPhone, iOS, Chrome. N#####E did not recognise the device and was advised by SumUp to reset her password. The operator is the only documented person with physical possession of the card at the relevant time. The geographic location recorded in the SumUp notification is inconsistent with South Wales and may reflect VPN use, mobile data routing, or a third party. No definitive attribution to any individual is possible from IP data alone. What is documented is: the card was picked up on video; the operator denied it; the card's associated payment account received an unrecognised login attempt on the same date. These facts raise questions under the Theft Act 1968 s.1 (appropriation of another's property) and Computer Misuse Act 1990 s.1 (unauthorised access to a computer system). The matter was reported to police.

False identification of N#####E as the JBB investigation website creator. In the subsequent broadcast and across multiple public posts, the operator identified N#####E — by name, to an audience of approximately 72,000 followers, as the individual "behind the website" at jaynesbabybank.co.uk. This claim is false. N#####E publicly denied it, stating she was "not tech savvy enough" to run such a site and that she was being publicly slandered. The investigation website was not created by or connected to N#####E. Publishing a false identification of a named private individual as the author of an investigative website to 72,000 followers — in a context where the operator had already demonstrated willingness to encourage mass reporting of that individual's business, constituting a serious reputational allegation without evidential basis, engaging the Defamation Act 2013.

Campaign against N#####E's business — S#### 4 H####. Following the incident the operator used her public platform to target N#####E's wax melt business directly. Documented conduct includes: publicly alleging the business was "not a registered business or registered with HMRC" (an unverified claim); threatening to report N#####E to Trading Standards for "running a business from your council house"; encouraging 72,000 followers to report the business page; and boasting of maintaining a named complaint file on N#####E. These actions collectively constitute a coordinated attempt to damage a private individual's business and livelihood using a disproportionate public platform — engaging the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and potentially the Defamation Act 2013.

24Fraud Act 2006 s.2 / Companies Act 2006Undisclosed Facebook monetisation income, and public contempt directed at a low-income member of the public

A publicly posted screenshot from the JBB Facebook page analytics dashboard confirms the page is enrolled in Meta's monetisation programme, displaying the following figures: 2 million views, approximate earnings of $83.34 listed under a "Today" header, engagement of 95,125 (up 82%), and net followers of +6,210. The screenshot confirms the page is generating direct dollar revenue through Meta's monetisation programme, an income stream that has not been referenced in any publicly available CIC filing, annual return, or financial disclosure. The CIC36 declaration submitted to the CIC Regulator left the surplus use and asset-locked body fields blank. A CIC is legally required under the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004 to demonstrate that its activities serve community benefit — undisclosed commercial revenue generated from a platform presented as a charitable welfare resource raises a direct question for the CIC Regulator as to whether this income has been accounted for and whether it has been applied to community benefit or retained personally.

“Contribute to your daily income" — public admission of personal monetisation. The post accompanying the analytics screenshot states: “When someone who works in the Foresters Blackwood or a chip shop puts a laughing emoji on one of your posts while they earn minimum wage, and I'm on 2 million views, 2 cics, funding pending, 5 shops and a donation centre but they are delusional that the laughing emoji is going to have such a negative effect on you when all they did was contribute to your daily income.” The phrase “contribute to your daily income” is the operator's own characterisation of engagement from her follower base — explicitly framing public interaction with her content as a source of personal daily income. This directly contradicts the repeated public presentation of the JBB platform as a charitable resource operated entirely without personal financial benefit.

Public contempt directed at a low-income member of the public. The same post specifically names two local working-class employers — The Foresters Blackwood and a chip shop — to mock an unnamed member of the public for their occupation and minimum wage earnings. This contempt for low-income workers is published from the platform of an organisation that publicly presents itself as existing to help families in financial hardship. The juxtaposition is the operator's own: she presents her own 2 million views and commercial income as evidence of superiority over a member of the public whose wage she derides. The individuals JBB claims to serve — mothers in financial need — are, by definition, the same demographic being mocked in this post. This conduct is inconsistent with any genuine charitable or community interest purpose and is directly relevant to the CIC Regulator's assessment of whether the operation serves community benefit.

“2 CICs" — second Community Interest Company undisclosed. The post text states: “I'm on 2 million views, 2 cics, funding pending, 5 shops and a donation centre.” Only one CIC — Jayne's Baby Bank C.I.C. (no. 16838920), incorporated 7 November 2025 — is publicly identified in this investigation. The reference to two CICs in a public post is the operator's own statement. No second CIC has been identified at Companies House under any of the documented name variants. If a second CIC exists or is in formation, it would represent an undisclosed parallel entity, consistent with the "decoy" admissions documented in Finding 05 and the broader pattern of operating multiple structures simultaneously to complicate regulatory and financial accountability.

DWP contact regarding influencer income — 8 October 2025. In a public broadcast dated 8 October 2025, the operator disclosed that the Department for Work and Pensions had contacted her regarding influencer income: “Benefit people rang me this morning. They said, oh, Jane, your fan club's been on the phone again. Where is the influencer money being paid? I said, oh, right, I can send you that now, not a problem.” She continued: “the influencer, I am entitled to the money because I am the influencer. Yep. However, I don't want the money. I'd rather it go towards the baby bank. And last month we had quite a bit from the haters, didn't we? And it was used to pay K###### rent.” She further stated: “It's always cashed out straight into the baby bank account. Only one baby bank account we got.” This broadcast is significant across three dimensions. First, it confirms DWP was already making enquiries about influencer income in October 2025, establishing that a government benefits agency had identified the monetisation income as a potential issue against her benefit claims. Second, she confirms influencer earnings were used to pay shop rent. A direct commercial application of platform revenue. Third, the claim that there is “only one baby bank account” directly contradicts the three documented PayPal accounts (@Jaynesbabybank, @Jaynesbabybank100, @jaynesbabybankrisca) and the SumUp gift card account documented in Finding 17 — all of which are separate donation instruments operating under JBB branding. The broadcast was made publicly to tens of thousands of followers and is independently archived at the reference above.

25Defamation Act 2013 / Fraud Act 2006 s.2 / Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 / Animal Welfare Act 2006The Caerphilly Bird Rescue brand hijack — stolen identity, stolen imagery, weaponised trademark, and a documented donor warning from the original co-founder

The original Caerphilly Bird Rescue — a 33-year community legacy. The historic Caerphilly Bird Rescue was founded and operated by Carol Gravenor and her late husband Ray Gravenor over approximately 33 years (established around 1991). The rescue operated from physical premises including market units and retail shops; handled wildlife cases from Cardiff, Penarth, Newport and surrounding areas; worked with veterinarians, vet nurses and police officers; and relied on fundraising to cover rent, utilities, fuel, medication and animal care. Ray Gravenor was publicly known as "The Bird Man." The rescue remained operational until Carol Gravenor’s serious illness and hospitalisation, with a scaled-down continuation still being run by a family member as documented by Carol Gravenor in her own public statements.

January 2024 — Carol Gravenor lifetime animal-keeping ban (welfare offences). In January 2024, Carol Gravenor received a lifetime ban on keeping animals following animal-welfare offences. The ban is an animal-welfare regulatory outcome — a distinct legal classification from "animal cruelty," which has a separate criminal definition under UK law. The ban’s existence is the factual background that the operator later exploited and mischaracterised in her 20 January 2026 launch post.

Long-running rescue-brand pre-history — "The Forever Home Rescue and Sanctuary" (2016-2021). A now-deleted Facebook page for "The Forever Home Rescue and Sanctuary" described itself as "self funded animal rescue established since 2016" and was active at least as recently as May 2021. The page was categorised as a Cause and carried the Amazon wishlist URL amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/2487T22KX3TJC in its about section. The same wishlist linked to the same Amazon customer account also hosting "Jayne’s Baby Bank Wish List." This establishes that a rescue-branded public donation operation was being run under this name from at least 2016 through 2021, using a shared Amazon account simultaneously linked to JBB, and that the page was subsequently deleted — likely following investigative identification. No registration, charity number, or legal entity for "The Forever Home Rescue and Sanctuary" has ever been identified. The shared Amazon account and wishlist URL constitute direct documentary evidence connecting the unregistered rescue brand to the JBB operator. The "rescuing animals since 2016" claim later deployed on JustGiving (see below) broadly aligns with this earlier unregistered manifestation.

26 December 2025 — trademark UK00004316067 filed. A UK trademark application UK00004316067 in the name "The New Caerphilly Bird and Small Animal Rescue Sanctuary" was filed in the name "Jayne price" under Class 36 — fundraising. The Intellectual Property Office register records the following full status history: 26 December 2025 — Application Received, then Examination; 9 January 2026 — Pre-Publication; 15 January 2026 — Application Published; 1 May 2026 — Registered. The mark is a figurative mark depicting a castle silhouette and the rescue name.

20 January 2026 — public launch of "The New Caerphilly Bird and Small Animal Rescue Sanctuary TM". The operator publicly launched the rescue brand and claimed to have "taken over Caerphilly Bird Rescue." The launch post stated that the original Caerphilly Bird Rescue "fell into disrepute and the owner received a lifetime ban due to animal cruelty" — a misrepresentation of the underlying animal-welfare regulatory record (welfare offences, not a finding of cruelty). The post simultaneously announced "a separate payment link and accounts for this CIC" for fundraising purposes. A new donation instrument for an unregistered rescue entity, launched alongside the misleading characterisation of the founders’ regulatory history and the false takeover claim. At the date of launch, the trademark application was still in its pre-publication stage.

The "criminal offence not civil" trademark threat — legally incorrect at both stages of the application. Across multiple public broadcasts from January 2026 onwards, the operator publicly stated, verbatim: "It is Trademarked and breach of Trademarked law is a criminal offence not civil." This statement is legally incorrect at every stage of the application history. During the pending period (26 December 2025 through 30 April 2026), no enforceable trademark rights existed at all — a pending application confers no exclusive rights and creates no criminal liability for third parties. After registration on 1 May 2026, trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act 1994 remains primarily a civil cause of action under sections 14-19; criminal offences under section 92 are narrowly drawn (typically requiring counterfeiting of goods, made or applied with intent to gain or cause loss in the course of trade) and do not apply to factual reporting, journalism, criticism, or ordinary references to a name in the course of public-interest documentation. The "criminal offence not civil" framing was used to threaten members of the public who referenced the name in the course of legitimate scrutiny. A documented misuse of intellectual-property language to suppress public criticism.

What a trademark is not. A trademark registration — even after the 1 May 2026 confirmation — is solely a brand registration. It is not a charity registration; it is not a CIC or company registration for a rescue venture; it does not authorise animal-welfare activity; it does not demonstrate safeguarding, governance, or veterinary compliance; and it does not create criminal offences for third-party references made in the public interest. No rescue CIC, charity, or company registration has ever been identified for "The New Caerphilly Bird and Small Animal Rescue Sanctuary" at Companies House or the Charity Commission as of the date of writing.

24 January 2026 — first stolen fox image posted publicly from the verified JBB profile. On 24 January 2026, the official Jayne’s Baby Bank Facebook profile published a fox image captioned "Look who snook in through the cat flap! Pontypool and Caerphilly fundraising shops open today" with on-image overlay text reading "Pontypool and Caerphilly fundraising shops open today." The post was published alongside fundraising promotion for the rescue venture and created a false impression that the fox had entered a sanctuary or JBB property and that physical rescue premises existed. The image originated from the private TikTok account of D##### L#####, who posted directly to the JBB South Wales Free Page group: "Hi, Just inquiring as to why you would be screen capturing pictures of a fox in my house off my tiktok page, and claiming it to be wandering in through your catflap and trying to beg money off the internet with it." The post was deleted following the challenge. No correction or apology was issued.

"Fake page" deflection — demonstrably false on the documentary record. The operator subsequently claimed the fox image had been posted by a "fake page" or impersonation account, not by the official JBB profile. An independent recorded screen video disproves the claim. From the 1-minute mark onwards, the screen recording shows: the official JBB profile being viewed in real time; the fox image post appearing live on that profile; visible engagement from followers (the post had accrued 22 reactions at the time of capture); and the same post later visible in the profile gallery. Third-party impersonation pages cannot insert content into an official Facebook profile feed, generate engagement from that account’s followers, or appear in the verified profile’s gallery. The "fake page" claim is therefore demonstrably false on the documentary record.

"Selling foxes" counter-narrative + mass-report instruction issued the same day. Within hours of the original image-owner challenge, the operator broadcast a same-day video reframing the documented IP-theft incident as a hostile "cyber attack." Verbatim from the broadcast: "We’ve had another cyber attack tonight… they’ve put up a post saying that we are selling foxes… So if you see stuff report it and can you report it as animal sales because Facebook will take it down quicker." No critic had made any "selling foxes" allegation; the narrative was manufactured to displace the actual issue (stolen imagery and false-premises framing). The mass-report instruction is explicit: report content under a specific category chosen for takedown speed rather than accuracy. The same broadcast continues: "I expect the RSPCA now will turn up… Anybody is welcome to come in and view what we do." The deployment of a false counter-narrative plus a mass-reporting instruction targeting unrelated reporting categories is consistent with the platform-suppression mechanisms documented across Findings 12, 16 and 21.

Concurrent commission-based monetisation admission — same day as the fox incident broadcasts. In the same batch of recordings made on or about 24-25 January 2026, the operator separately stated on camera, verbatim: "TikTok shop purchase. We get commission on it… We got sent one for free… This was sent to us for free to product test and to gain commission from the sales." The admission documents concurrent commission-based commercial promotion through an account branded as a community-interest entity, made in the same news cycle as the stolen-imagery incident and rescue fundraising claims. The juxtaposition raises transparency questions about the separation between charitable messaging and affiliate-style commerce, and is directly relevant to the undisclosed Facebook monetisation income documented in Finding 24.

25 January 2026 — Carol Gravenor’s first public refutation. On 25 January 2026, original co-founder Carol Gravenor issued a public statement directly refuting the takeover claim. Verbatim quotes from the statement include: "PLEASE BE AWARE THIS WOMAN IS NOTHING TO DO WITH CAERPHILLY BIRD RESCUE." and "CAERPHILLY BIRD RESCUE IS RAY’S LEGACY — he was known as ‘The Bird Man’." Carol Gravenor described the operator’s actions as "unscrupulous" and "a way to make money," and confirmed that "Jayne Price" had no lawful connection to Caerphilly Bird Rescue, no transfer of assets, and no legitimate continuity of operation. The statement is the first documented public refutation by a named original founder of the takeover narrative.

25 January 2026 — false review left by the operator on the original Caerphilly Bird Rescue page, falsely attributing the page to a named whistleblower. On the same day as Carol Gravenor’s first public refutation, the operator posted a public review on the "Caerphilly Bird and Small Animal Rescue Sanctuary" page falsely attributing the original rescue’s page to a third party. The review reads verbatim: "this is a fake page created by N####A W######## of Cardiff Ely, currently living in Rhymney. she is a known fraudster and stalker of women and men. do noyT give any money to this women she had her charity cwtch up shut down because of fraud, DO NOT GIVE N####A MONEY FOR ANYTHING." The factual record contradicts the review on each material point: N####A W######## did not create, operate, or control the page; N####A W######## previously founded the registered charity Cwtch-Up (Charity No. 1194295), which closed in early 2023; and no regulatory finding of fraud against Cwtch-Up has been produced. The review re-deploys the same harassment-deflection mechanism documented in Finding 21 against the same named individual. This time deployed in the rescue-hijack context to redirect public scrutiny away from the operator and toward a third party. The review functions simultaneously as defamation against N####A W######## (Defamation Act 2013), donor manipulation through a false direction to withhold support, and platform-level interference with the original rescue brand’s page.

30 January 2026 — JustGiving £1,000 appeal launched under unregistered entity name with false historical claim. A JustGiving crowdfunding page was launched on 30 January 2026 in the name "Jayne PRICE," raising funds specifically for "The New Caerphilly Bird and Small Animal Rescue Sanctuary based in Caerphilly," with a target of £1,000 for "animal food, bedding and vet bills." The appeal description includes the verbatim historical claim: "we have been rescuing animals since 2016." No registered entity, charity, or CIC for any rescue operation linked to the operator has ever existed in that timeframe. The 2016 reference broadly coincides with the unregistered "Forever Home Rescue and Sanctuary" Facebook page documented above. JustGiving’s platform terms require fundraisers to confirm funds will be used for the stated purpose and that the fundraiser is authorised to act on behalf of the named entity. Operating an unregistered rescue brand on a major fundraising platform under a name publicly refuted by the original founders, with a documented false historical claim, engages the Fraud Act 2006 s.2 (fraud by false representation).

6 February 2026 — Carol Gravenor’s second public statement: explicit donor warning, solicitor instructed. Twelve days after her first public refutation, Carol Gravenor posted a second public Facebook statement — sharper, shorter, and addressed directly to the donor public. Verbatim from the post: "DO NOT DONATE / JUST TO CLARIFY CAERPHILLY BIRD RESCUE HAS NOT RE-OPENED. / THE NAME IS BEING USED TO FUNDRAISE ONLY! by Carrie Anne Ridsdale/Jane Price/Janes baby Bank." In a comment reply on the same post, Carol Gravenor added: "She is so disgusting.the history is unbelievable.Ive left it to a solicitor." The post is the most explicit public donor warning issued by the original co-founder against the operator’s use of the Caerphilly Bird Rescue name to solicit donations, and confirms that legal instruction has been given. It also explicitly identifies all three name variants — Carrie Anne Ridsdale, Jane Price, Jayne’s Baby Bank, as a single operating identity behind the unauthorised name use.

April 2026 — second stolen image identified and presented as "Our Venue". A second stolen image was published on JBB-branded platforms labelled "Our Venue" with the caption "Foxy loxy — left on bypass for dead." The image was traced to a January 2026 video published by "The Forest of Dean Picture Book." The original content creator publicly confirmed they did not know the operator and had given no permission for the image to be used. The "Our Venue" framing implied the existence of a physical rescue premises that has never been demonstrated to exist; the underlying material is video footage by an unconnected creator in a different region of the UK.

Wider pattern of appropriated retail imagery used to promote unregistered shop and rescue ventures. Beyond the two stolen fox images, multiple photographs of unconnected legitimate UK charity shops and re-use venues have been documented as being republished on the operator’s platforms to promote the JBB shop and rescue brand. Documented appropriated images include photographs from Llanfoist Re-Use shop, Age UK Leicestershire, Moray Waste Busters, and Age UK Lower House Farm. In each case the photographs depict the interior, shelving, or signage of unrelated charity or re-use operations — repurposed to suggest the JBB-branded venues had stock, premises infrastructure, or community partnerships they did not in fact have. The pattern is consistent with the fox-image conduct: appropriation of another organisation’s visual identity to lend false credibility to JBB / Jarmani’s / rescue-branded fundraising, with no permission, attribution, or correction issued when the original sources have been identified. Engages copyright (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988) and the Fraud Act 2006 s.2 where appropriated imagery is used in donation-soliciting contexts.

1 May 2026 — trademark UK00004316067 formally registered. The IPO register confirms the trademark status changed from "Application Published" to "Registered" on 1 May 2026. The registered status does not retroactively cure any of the underlying conduct documented in this finding: the false takeover narrative refuted twice by the original co-founder; the welfare-offence mischaracterisation as "animal cruelty"; the unregistered rescue CIC/charity status; the documented stolen imagery; the false JustGiving historical claim; the false review against N####A W########; or the legally incorrect "criminal offence not civil" threats made during the pending phase. Registration is a brand-protection mechanism for the trademark holder, not a regulatory licence to conduct animal rescue activity, and not retrospective validation of public statements made between 26 December 2025 and 30 April 2026.

Active animal solicitation without any rescue regulatory framework. Throughout the period covered by this finding, the operator’s account has continued to solicit live animals for rehoming through the unregistered rescue brand. A documented example: a public post seeking two rescue rabbits ("bonded, from the same household") for rehoming via the operation. No home-visit process, no veterinary oversight, no adoption contract, no rescue registration, and no compliance with the framework required to lawfully operate a UK wildlife or small-animal rescue has been demonstrated. The premises from which animals are notionally being received are subject to active fire prohibition notices and remain unregistered as rescue facilities. Soliciting and receiving live animals in those conditions engages concerns under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (s.4 unnecessary suffering; s.9 duty of care).

26CIC Regulator — community benefit test / DWP benefit-claim integrityPublic articulation of financial-extraction intent — with explicit reference to the Captain Tom Foundation scandal as an aspirational benchmark

The post — verbatim. On 26 May 2026, a public post was made to the Jaynesbabybank Registered - cic Facebook page. The post was framed as a defensive response to critics (“Haters: I’m phoning dwp!”) and reads in full as follows:

Why the framing matters. The post is rhetorically structured as sarcasm directed at critics. That framing does not neutralise its evidential value — the specificity of the figures, the explicit benchmark to a publicly documented charity-misappropriation case, and the deliberate enumeration of a multi-instrument extraction structure (CIC director remuneration + Equality Act disability framing + £150k equipment grant + PIP + Motability car with fuel expenses) demonstrate detailed knowledge of, and aspirational reference to, the precise mechanisms by which a CIC can be used as a personal financial vehicle. The defensive framing “haters can ring DWP” does not change the fact that the operator publicly articulated, to her own follower base, the financial structure she would deploy if she were free to do so. The post is properly read as a statement of intent presented under cover of mockery.

The Captain Tom Foundation comparison — figures match almost exactly. The numbers cited by the operator are not arbitrary. They map directly onto figures documented in the Charity Commission’s statutory inquiry into the Captain Tom Foundation (published 21 November 2024), and onto the publicly reported scandal that resulted in the Ingram-Moores’ disqualification:

Why a CIC is structurally different from a charity, and why this still matters. The operator’s post is framed around a Community Interest Company structure rather than a registered charity. CICs do permit director remuneration, and the legal framework that constrained the Ingram-Moores (Charity Commission oversight, charity-trustee disqualification) does not apply in identical form to a CIC. However, the Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies operates a statutory community-benefit test under the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004: a CIC must demonstrate that its activities serve community benefit, and director remuneration must be reasonable and consistent with that test. Annual CIC36 filings require disclosure of director remuneration. A publicly articulated intent to pay a single director £100,000 per year while soliciting public donations under welfare framing, simultaneously claiming a £150,000 “equipment” grant, claiming PIP, and obtaining a Motability vehicle. From an operation with five shops and the documented monetisation income recorded in Finding 24. This is the precise pattern the community-benefit test exists to scrutinise. The CIC Regulator has the statutory authority to investigate, to issue cease-and-correct notices, and ultimately to dissolve a CIC whose activities are found not to be for community benefit.

DWP benefit-claim integrity. Finding 24 already documents that DWP contacted the operator regarding influencer income in October 2025. The 26 May 2026 post explicitly invites DWP scrutiny (“Haters: I’m phoning dwp! Ring them!”) while simultaneously articulating a financial arrangement that would be material to any benefit-entitlement assessment. The combination of an active commercial operation (five shops, donation centre, monetised social-media presence, documented daily commercial activity including the racking and sorting work documented in broadcasts on the same date), CIC directorship, and concurrent claims to disability benefits, Motability, and PIP raises specific factual questions that fall within the jurisdiction of the DWP and HMRC. The operator’s own public articulation of the intended financial structure is itself evidence in any such review.

The same-day broadcast context. The 26 May 2026 post was not made in isolation. On the same date, the operator broadcast at least three livestream segments which collectively show: continued physical operational activity across the donation centre (“I’m over here today… I’ve got to shrink wrap the top… I’m off, guys”); active retail pricing of donated stock including high-value collectibles (“I got that one up for 70”, “75% off”); commercial-scale stock management with claimed verbal contracts with named charity shops (relevant to Finding 25); and a self-disclosure of donations being moved to an undisclosed storage location (“That’s gone to another storage location which we haven’t… disclosed… to anybody yet”). The same-day pattern, an operator broadcasting active physical work across multiple commercial premises while simultaneously publishing aspirational financial-extraction content framed around disability status — is itself a documentary record relevant to any review of disability-benefit entitlement and CIC community-benefit compliance.

The Ingram-Moore precedent is publicly documented and binding context. The Charity Commission’s findings against the Ingram-Moores are not contested by this finding — they are a matter of public record, repeatedly reported by the BBC, the Charity Commission itself, and the wider charity-sector press (Civil Society, UK Fundraising, AOL/PA, The Conversation, and others). The published statutory inquiry report establishes the regulatory architecture of personal-benefit findings, conflict-of-interest failings, and trustee-disqualification outcomes in a comparable case. The operator’s voluntary, public, and specific reference to the scandal as a positive aspirational benchmark, including the most embarrassing single element of the case, the demolished spa; a documentary record that connects the JBB CIC financial-conduct picture to that established regulatory precedent in the operator’s own words.

External references.

Cross-references within this dossier. Finding 09 (decoy admissions and operational intent); Finding 17 (PayPal accounts and donation routing); Finding 22 (charitable framing deployed from launch); Finding 24 (undisclosed Facebook monetisation income and prior DWP contact); §03 (CIC structure and the C.I.C.36 declaration); §04 (CCJs and personal financial conduct).

27Protection from Harassment Act 1997 / Defamation Act 2013Malicious Communications Act 1988 / Firearms Act 1968Pre-JBB harassment campaign — fraudulent profiles, firearm threats, printed defamation, and reported 2014 arrest

The material below is compiled from archived historical screenshots, photographic evidence, and reported police and court outcomes documented in the Sherlock investigation article published 3 June 2026 (jaynesbabybank.co.uk). The couple are referred to as Alice and Lewis throughout — the same investigative aliases used in that article, not their legal names. This is a record of allegations and documented conduct from the pre-JBB period, not a finding of guilt.

Pre-2013 — catalyst and early stalking. The campaign is reported to have begun with a residential dispute: Lewis had been contracted to perform an attic conversion at Carrie-Anne Ridsdale’s residence. During the work, Lewis discovered Ridsdale did not legally own the property and reported the unauthorised building work to the local council. Separately, Ridsdale had developed an unreciprocated fixation on Lewis; upon learning he was engaged to Alice, she is documented as launching a sustained harassment campaign against the couple. Early tactics included maintaining a Facebook profile under her real name, fabricating a friend request to access Alice’s private account, and physical stalking — including following the couple out of a B&Q store in Pontypridd, an incident reported to have resulted in the immediate termination of her employment there (see Finding 07 and tl-pre2013-bq). Ridsdale subsequently published Alice’s home address and personal phone number on adult websites; the resulting targeted attention forced Alice and Lewis to relocate for their safety.

Targeting the family — fraudulent profiles and weaponised authorities. Following the birth of Alice and Lewis’s son, the campaign intensified. Ridsdale created additional fraudulent Facebook profiles — including accounts under the names “Lewis Carroll” and “Alice Liddell” — used solely to contact the couple’s friends and family with false claims of an affair with Lewis. These profiles were confined to this campaign against Alice and Lewis; they are not documented as part of the later JBB-era alias network in Finding 03. Investigative records confirm the messages originated from Ridsdale herself, not from third parties. She additionally contacted Social Services to report Alice, citing a photograph of Alice’s infant son in a baby bouncer near a sleeping kitten; she later used her own profile to taunt Alice publicly about the visit. Representative archived posts include:

Ridsdale posted side-by-side photographic comparisons mocking Alice’s appearance and targeted Alice’s employment, claiming her childhood sweetheart was Alice’s employer and suggesting professional ruin was imminent. The conduct engages the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Defamation Act 2013.

December 2013 — firearm threats and admission of fake profiles. The campaign escalated to overt threats of lethal violence. Ridsdale flooded social media with references to weapons, pairing them with a photograph of herself holding a handgun to her face. Using her business page “Carrie-Annes Christmas Crafts” and associated fake profiles, she uploaded copy-pasted sections of UK statutory law regarding air weapons, firearms certificates, and shotgun storage — paired with hostile direct warnings:

When privately confronted over her “lock and load” statements, Ridsdale explicitly admitted to operating an engineered network of fraudulent profiles:

The “Lewis Carroll” persona — direct physical threats. Ridsdale heavily utilised a fraudulent “Lewis Carroll” profile — masquerading as Lewis — to issue terrifying physical threats while insulating herself from accountability. This profile was used only in the campaign against Alice and Lewis. The fake account posted:

The same persona claimed the family was under active surveillance and, when firearm threats were reported, downplayed UK gun control: “She’s already been reported it was 4 years ago. Anyone can buy a gun.” Ridsdale used her business page to dox Lewis’s physical address and openly call for a crowd-sourced physical assault: “Finish him boys. I’m bored to death with him. Lewis Carroll.”

Mocking the legal system — early 2014. As Alice and Lewis compiled evidence for legal protection, Ridsdale openly mocked the prospect of judicial intervention, posting that a non-molestation order would require Lewis to admit to a relationship with her in court — framing the application as “farcical.” While Alice was pregnant with her daughter, Ridsdale weaponised a real-world tragedy — the local death of a pregnant woman in Tredegar — to express a malicious death wish; Alice publicly warned her network that her stalker had stated the Tredegar victim “should have been me.”

13 August 2014 — printed defamation, CCTV, and arrest. While Alice was heavily pregnant, Ridsdale printed physical cards containing severe falsehoods and distributed them across local pubs in Cardiff and an Asda Supermarket in Caerphilly and Cardiff. The cards featured a photograph of Alice alongside her name, carrying a fabricated narrative:

Carrie-Anne Ridsdale did not have a daughter — the suicide narrative was entirely fabricated. This connects directly to the documented pattern of inventing family members: the later “Cerri” fabricated-daughter scheme (Finding 04a) and the 2014 cards’ false daughter both deploy non-existent children as harassment instruments. Staff at an unnamed location identified Ridsdale on CCTV actively distributing the cards. The physical evidence, combined with the documented history of firearm threats and systemic stalking, resulted in her reported arrest by South Wales Police and subsequent criminal proceedings. The reported outcome was a criminal record and a strict non-molestation order enacted to protect Alice, Lewis, and their children. This historical court outcome — criminal record and non-molestation order — must not be conflated with the operator’s later misuse in 2026 of the invented term “Criminal Record Order” against critics; see Finding 16.

Present-day continuity — grave/R.I.P. graphic (2 June 2026). Although the 2014 outcomes date back over a decade, evidence suggests a continuing pattern of ominous public warnings. On 2 June 2026, operating under the official organisation page “Jaynesbabybank Registered - cic,” Ridsdale published a graphic depicting a weeping clown kneeling over a freshly dug grave marked with an “R.I.P.” tombstone, accompanied by the text:

This update mirrors the historical tactics documented above and is consistent with the menacing-post pattern recorded across Finding 16 — including the Grim Reaper post (Finding 21), the “karma has struck another hater” cross-platform series (24 May 2026), and Jeffrey Dahmer imagery targeting critics.

Pattern bridge — pre-JBB to JBB era. The August 2014 printed defamation cards — physical distribution of false narratives to damage a named individual’s reputation in public spaces — foreshadow the documented 2026 defamatory publications against landlords and local business owners in Finding 12. The admission of fake profiles in December 2013 (“that’s my fake profile with fake friends”) — made in the context of the Alice / Lewis campaign — is structurally similar to the 2025 admission of “decoy pages” (Finding 05) and the 2026 accidental self-exposure of the KnowledgeableEagle3954 counter-group identity (Finding 03), though the 2013 fraudulent profiles were isolated to that campaign and are not counted among the JBB-era aliases in Finding 03.