Overview
Over time Carrie-Anne Ridsdale (Carrie), who presents publicly as Jayne Price shifts from telling followers to report critics to police to making legal threats, issuing bans, and inviting confrontations at people’s homes and her own.
Early material frames threats through a safeguarding lens and urges formal reporting. Carrie warns in the first months that harmful behaviour toward children will be passed to agencies as a duty of care, and tells followers to forward problem posts to police. Within weeks she is also setting hard shop rules, saying those who upset staff will be asked to leave and that ‘haters’ should be reported, keeping the emphasis on authorities and internal discipline rather than retaliation.
Through late 2023 the posture hardens from policy to sanction. She warns specific individuals that leaving rubbish will lead to a ban from the shop and states negative commenters will be blocked. The rhetoric remains administrative (blocking, banning) rather than personal, though it targets identifiable people and groups.
By mid 2024 the language extends beyond shop rules. A published piece records threats directed at the residence of a competing charity after a pricing row, moving the conflict to private space. Around the same time she positions herself as a safety gatekeeper for children and volunteers, but also begins to depict opponents as risks to the community, priming followers to see enforcement actions as necessary self-defence.
In early 2025 the tone escalates. She publicly threatens to report a rival to regulators, adding that she could go to the Charity Commission and the council. Weeks later comes a sharper line: “Upset me at your own risk,” and then a warning that posting about her “is going to cost you,” signposting legal or financial jeopardy for critics. These statements mark a shift from moderation to deterrence.
Late 2025 brings a split message. On one hand she claims “the police have taken it on… leave it to us now,” and elsewhere says police awareness exists but the matter is low priority. On the other hand, she vows to “mirror” public attacks and “do it back,” and invites adversaries to “come to my door… sort it out the old-fashioned way,” recounting a tale of others “yelping up the street” after being “beaten to death by a health and safety sign.” The approach moves from referral to authorities to implied willingness for physical confrontation.
Into early 2026 the posture includes explicit home-visit threats: “You watch I don’t come to your house and take the devices myself. And hand them in to the police.” A contemporaneous article notes she invoked child-abuse allegations as leverage in an online dispute, signalling the use of safeguarding topics as pressure in conflicts rather than solely for protection. At the same time she still tells followers to forward anything that bothers them to the police, keeping both lines active.
Across the same period she repeatedly situates children, including those on the at-risk register, as present in her shops, while issuing threats and inviting confrontations. That juxtaposition heightens potential harm: the places she claims are for babies and vulnerable adults become the backdrop for public disputes, bans, and threats of cost or force.
The most recent position combines all three modes, administrative exclusion (bans/blocks), legal threats (costs, convictions), and physical or domestic confrontation (home visits, “old-fashioned” sorting), alongside repeated claims of police engagement. This mixed messaging creates uncertainty about whether disputes will be handled by authorities, by platform moderation, or by direct confrontation.
Verdict: The corpus shows a sustained, escalating pattern of threats toward others, critics, rival groups, and some customers, ranging from bans and blocking to legal jeopardy and implied or explicit physical confrontation. Carrie’s own words underpin this finding across multiple years, and are inconsistent with her parallel claims to provide a safe, child-centred environment. The inconsistency between “leave it to the police” statements and invitations to confront or visit private homes undermines credibility and increases risk for targeted individuals and bystanders.
