Overview
Carrie-Anne Ridsdale (Carrie), who presents publicly as Jayne Price repeatedly claims police involvement and support, including warnings and investigations, but official records and council denials contradict many of these assertions, raising concerns about safeguarding and regulatory compliance.
From early 2022, Carrie, Carrie-Anne Ridsdale (also known as Jayne Price), frequently referenced police involvement in her operations, including claims of police warnings issued to individuals accused of harassment and theft. She asserted that the police were aware of and supported her activities, including monitoring CCTV footage and taking statements from staff and volunteers. These claims extended to allegations of police backing for her shop and baby bank operations, as well as assertions that the police were actively investigating and prosecuting those she identified as harassers or thieves.
Throughout 2023 and into 2024, Carrie escalated her narrative, stating that the police had issued official warnings to multiple individuals and that they were involved in ongoing investigations related to harassment and malicious communications against her and her organisation. She also claimed police instructions to call 999 in cases of intoxicated or disruptive individuals at her premises. However, these claims were contradicted by council and regulatory denials, which stated no formal endorsement or partnership existed with Jayne's Baby Bank. Carrie also made repeated threats involving police action against critics and alleged that police had taken CCTV footage and were preparing arrests.
In 2025, Carrie-Anne Ridsdale continued to assert police involvement, including claims of arrests, bail conditions, and community resolution orders against individuals she accused of harassment. She also stated that the police had taken statements and evidence from her and her staff, and that they were investigating malicious communications and harassment cases. Despite these claims, she simultaneously asserted that she did not answer to the police or other regulatory bodies, indicating a complex and sometimes contradictory stance towards law enforcement.
Carrie also made specific claims about police authorisation for activities such as knife amnesties and the operation of her shops, which were not supported by official records. She alleged that the police had warned certain individuals to stay away from her premises due to the presence of children, and that they had intervened in various disputes. However, these claims often lacked corroboration from independent sources or were directly refuted by council and police statements.
In early 2026, Carrie described multiple police visits, statements taken, and ongoing investigations related to harassment and malicious communications. She claimed that police had issued verbal warnings and were preparing arrests, while also stating that she herself had never been arrested or charged. Notably, she reported an incident where police officers allegedly left her bleeding with a head injury despite knowing she was a vulnerable adult, raising safeguarding concerns. Carrie also encouraged her followers to report critics to the police and claimed that several individuals opposing her had been arrested or were on bail pending investigation.
Overall, Carrie-Anne Ridsdale's narrative presents a pattern of asserting extensive police involvement and support, often framing herself as a victim of harassment and malicious attacks. However, these claims are frequently contradicted by official denials from councils, regulatory bodies, and police records. Carrie's simultaneous rejection of accountability to police and regulatory authorities, combined with her public threats and accusations, complicates the safeguarding landscape. The documented incident of police allegedly neglecting a vulnerable adult with a head injury is particularly concerning from a safeguarding perspective.
In conclusion, while Carrie portrays a scenario of active police engagement and victimisation, the lack of corroboration and official denials undermine the credibility of many claims. The case raises significant safeguarding and regulatory risks, especially regarding Carrie's conduct, the treatment of vulnerable individuals, and the veracity of her representations about police support and investigations.
