Overview
Carrie-Anne Ridsdale (Carrie), who presents publicly as Jayne Price repeatedly accuses individuals and groups, especially Community Volunteers Wales and HCT, of running the Sherlock website and orchestrating harassment, but Community Volunteers Wales formally denies any involvement and no independent evidence supports Carrie's claims.
Over the course of two years, Carrie of Jayne's Baby Bank (Carrie-Anne Ridsdale, also known as Jayne Price) has developed and sustained a public narrative centred on the figure of 'Sherlock', a name she uses to refer to an alleged online stalker, critic, or group of critics. Early mentions in mid-2024 frame Sherlock as a persistent online antagonist, with Carrie urging followers to report Sherlock to the police for harassment. This framing quickly escalates, with Sherlock described as orchestrating spam campaigns against Carrie-Anne Ridsdale, her business, and associated charities.
By the summer of 2024, Carrie begins to group Sherlock with other adversaries, notably Ian Smith (referred to by Carrie with hostile epithets), and to suggest that Sherlock is not an individual but a group. This rhetorical grouping is repeated in later posts, where Sherlock is accused of being part of a coordinated effort to undermine Carrie's work and reputation. Carrie-Anne Ridsdale also attributes specific actions to Sherlock, such as reporting her to authorities, criticising her volunteers, and doxxing vulnerable adults by publishing their personal information online.
Throughout 2025, Carrie's narrative becomes more elaborate. She repeatedly claims that Sherlock is connected to Community Volunteers Wales (CVW), its co-founder Tara Holloway, and the registered charity Helping Caring Team (HCT) led by Hayley Thomas. These claims are presented as fact, with Carrie asserting that Sherlock is a known member of HCT and that CVW and its associates are responsible for the Sherlock website and related online activity. Carrie also alleges that subject-access requests and IP address evidence link CVW to the website, and that the husband of a CVW founder is involved due to his profession as a website designer.
Despite these repeated assertions, Community Volunteers Wales issued a formal written response in April 2025, explicitly denying any affiliation with the Sherlock website or Carrie-Anne Ridsdale's brand. The response clarified that CVW's only websites were its own and The Pantri, and that Carrie's cease-and-desist communication failed to identify any infringing website or provide supporting evidence. This denial is contemporaneous and unambiguous, and no independent technical or documentary evidence has been produced to substantiate Carrie's allegations against CVW, HCT, or their associates.
Carrie's claims about Sherlock are not limited to online activity. She attributes a range of negative outcomes to Sherlock and the alleged group behind the website, including business disruption, regulatory complaints, and personal attacks. She also claims that police have requested victim impact statements from her volunteers and customers due to the alleged effects of the Sherlock website and Facebook group. However, these claims are presented without corroborating evidence from law enforcement or regulatory bodies.
At times, Carrie-Anne Ridsdale's narrative shifts tone, with occasional acknowledgements of Sherlock's effectiveness or influence (e.g., 'Well, well done, Sherlock'), but these are quickly overshadowed by renewed accusations and calls for action against Sherlock and associated individuals. Carrie also references hypothetical legal action, suggesting that Sherlock's activities could result in custodial sentences, and encourages mass reporting of the Sherlock website and related social media accounts.
A notable evolution in Carrie's approach is the use of decoy pages, as admitted in a public broadcast in October 2025. This admission indicates a willingness to engage in deceptive online practices, further complicating the narrative around online identities and the attribution of actions to specific individuals or groups.
Carrie's repeated invocation of regulatory and legal language, such as references to doxxing, malicious communications, and court proceedings, serves to lend an air of legitimacy to her claims, but these are not supported by external authorities or documentary evidence. The pattern of escalating accusations, shifting targets, and reliance on unsubstantiated technical claims (such as IP address attribution) is consistent throughout the corpus.
Identity links established in the casefile clarify that the individuals and organisations named by Carrie-Anne Ridsdale, Community Volunteers Wales, HCT, Tara Holloway, Hayley Thomas, and others, are legitimate, independent entities with no documented connection to the Sherlock website or Carrie's online critics. Carrie's allegations against these parties are her own and remain unproven.
In summary, Carrie's narrative regarding Sherlock is characterised by repeated, unsubstantiated accusations against specific individuals and organisations, formal denials from those accused, and a lack of independent evidence to support her claims. The formal response from Community Volunteers Wales stands as the authoritative counterpoint, and the absence of corroborating evidence or regulatory findings further undermines the credibility of Carrie-Anne Ridsdale's allegations. The pattern of behaviour documented here raises concerns about the use of public platforms to target and defame third parties without substantiation, and highlights the importance of distinguishing between attributed claims and established fact in disputes involving private individuals.
