- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
This is why Bramley was so quick to defend the chat. Threatening to beat people up who disagree with you, when you work for an organisation fighting to protect women from violence is fine as long as there's context to it.
Attachments
Having just had a quick scan it's encouraging to see how much support Sally-Ann and others are getting on Twitter. The statement from JT about the BPS 'investigation' outcome seems to have had (what I'm sure is an entirely unintended consequence) of...
1) shining a glaring light on how awfully Sally-Ann, and others have been treated.
2) it has given Sally-Ann's situation further online traction, which in turn has put her on the radar of professionals who have the means and expertise to offer her sound advice and support - I am especially pleased to see someone reputable offering legal guidance. I hope this will be pro bono.
3) that the BPSs ethical governance, which many understandably assume provides genuine safeguards, is about as useful - for research participants - as a chocolate teapot (not to mention the accusations/implications of potential bias, corruption and revictimisation of vulnerable people).
4) It has come to the attention of more of us who work in research spaces, sometimes with vulnerable people. This includes researchers who were aware of the unethical way Sally-Ann (and others) have been treated as well as some who are only just hearing about it. Whether they are university-affiliated or independent, the way JT/VF has, and continues, to conduct herself/themselves will/is having a very damaging impact on how research(ers) are viewed. I have read so many tweets that say things like 'let this be a warning don't share your stuff with researchers this is what could happen'. And, yes, I totally understand why people respond this way - I would too. But, for those of us working in research who work ethically and always centre the safety of participants above all else, this is really concerning. More often than not, it is the contributions of victims/survivors in (my area of) research that creates impact, communicates lived reality and drives tangible change. For people to worry, when there is an opportunity to contribute to research, that they might be getting tricked, taken advantage or have to relinquish rights to their data/privacy is just awful. It is so damaging to prospective and present research participants and researchers. When managed with integrity and respect taking part in research can be empowering, enlightening and unburdening - this is, of course, when researchers work ethically, transparently and with participants.
From what I have seen JT did not and does not value people who have shared their experiences with her and she does not value and subscribe to ethical research practice - even at a rudimentary level.
How winners, losers, name calling, insulting mock-up pictures, talk of bullets and knives, stalking, revistimisation, gaslighting etc. etc. was ever introduced into a dynamic where a survivor of abuse shared their experience with a research professional is absolutely beyond me. It's shocking.
That JT cannot honor Sally-Anns request to remove (at the very least) the online/blog content is testament to motivation and who/what is prioritised. Any researcher worth their salt would remove anything they are able to after receiving a request like Sally-Ann's.
This must feel very overwhelming for Sally-Ann, especially given the experiences she has been brave enough to share with us. She is a very impressive woman.
From this researcher and every other researcher I have discussed this with - I'm so sorry Sally-Ann - whether it was a blog, a book, a PhD project, a journal article or a report this should never have happened.
1) shining a glaring light on how awfully Sally-Ann, and others have been treated.
2) it has given Sally-Ann's situation further online traction, which in turn has put her on the radar of professionals who have the means and expertise to offer her sound advice and support - I am especially pleased to see someone reputable offering legal guidance. I hope this will be pro bono.
3) that the BPSs ethical governance, which many understandably assume provides genuine safeguards, is about as useful - for research participants - as a chocolate teapot (not to mention the accusations/implications of potential bias, corruption and revictimisation of vulnerable people).
4) It has come to the attention of more of us who work in research spaces, sometimes with vulnerable people. This includes researchers who were aware of the unethical way Sally-Ann (and others) have been treated as well as some who are only just hearing about it. Whether they are university-affiliated or independent, the way JT/VF has, and continues, to conduct herself/themselves will/is having a very damaging impact on how research(ers) are viewed. I have read so many tweets that say things like 'let this be a warning don't share your stuff with researchers this is what could happen'. And, yes, I totally understand why people respond this way - I would too. But, for those of us working in research who work ethically and always centre the safety of participants above all else, this is really concerning. More often than not, it is the contributions of victims/survivors in (my area of) research that creates impact, communicates lived reality and drives tangible change. For people to worry, when there is an opportunity to contribute to research, that they might be getting tricked, taken advantage or have to relinquish rights to their data/privacy is just awful. It is so damaging to prospective and present research participants and researchers. When managed with integrity and respect taking part in research can be empowering, enlightening and unburdening - this is, of course, when researchers work ethically, transparently and with participants.
From what I have seen JT did not and does not value people who have shared their experiences with her and she does not value and subscribe to ethical research practice - even at a rudimentary level.
How winners, losers, name calling, insulting mock-up pictures, talk of bullets and knives, stalking, revistimisation, gaslighting etc. etc. was ever introduced into a dynamic where a survivor of abuse shared their experience with a research professional is absolutely beyond me. It's shocking.
That JT cannot honor Sally-Anns request to remove (at the very least) the online/blog content is testament to motivation and who/what is prioritised. Any researcher worth their salt would remove anything they are able to after receiving a request like Sally-Ann's.
This must feel very overwhelming for Sally-Ann, especially given the experiences she has been brave enough to share with us. She is a very impressive woman.
From this researcher and every other researcher I have discussed this with - I'm so sorry Sally-Ann - whether it was a blog, a book, a PhD project, a journal article or a report this should never have happened.
New to posting on here. I used to support Jessica, but became increasingly uncomfortable with her content, picking up many of the red flags discussed in these threads. Watching her behaviour towards Sally Ann on Twitter was the point of no return for me. Unprofessional, unethical, defensive, and certainly not feminist.
The gloating, smug, inappropriate posts recently ‘celebrating’ the lack of evidence re: Sally Ann’s case is what has pushed me to the point of coming on here. I have been thinking a lot of Sally Ann and the impact this must be having on her.
I am not alone – many friends and colleagues in the VAWG sector and feminist activism have been uncomfortable with Jessica for some time now and at this stage I’ve struggled to find anyone who supports her anymore within VAWG. Talking to them over the past few months, recurrent topics / areas of concern are her blatant lying and abuse of Sally Ann (no surprise), the lack of connected and co-ordinated work with other organisations – VF operates as lone wolf in the sector, the extortionate cost of training when requested by voluntary women’s orgs – often cancelled at short notice, and the numerous and repeated cancellations of webinars and other events (what happened to the conference?), often with no reason provided, or the excuse that Jessica is overwhelmed and suffering due to the ‘abuse’ she receives online (this in particular leaving many stumped as there is little evidence of this harassment online). The disappearance of MOCRA, her other fundraising activities and her unprofessional and defensive approach to reasonable criticism online have also raised red flags with many feminist activists and VAWG professionals.
I know someone who left VF over the past year. What I know now about the way Jessica operates her business – particularly in relation to the treatment of her employees - is deeply disturbing given her influence and carefully crafted public image as an ethical feminist challenging systemic oppression. The level of hypocrisy, entitlement, poor management and shoddy leadership is actually astounding. Jessica is very much a strong functioning part of the system that she claims to want to dismantle.
The stories that have emerged from ex staff are the tip of the iceberg. Jessica is not even aware herself of some of the worst of her behaviour and the impact it has had – as oblivious as a grandiose narcissist. I note the ex staff on this thread (brave women, thank you!) and their input – completely in line with what I have heard and seen. There is more to be revealed in that regard, if and when those women feel safe enough and ready to do so.
It was my friend who pointed me in the direction of TL. Is it true that this is apparently the vitriolic, misogynistic bullying that Jessica so often highlights she is a victim of? I could never see it on social media (unless from the odd MRA). I certainly don’t see it here. If this is what she considers bullying she has no idea of the very real, damaging, life altering abuse that many women experience online.
If Jessica finds being pressed to be accountable so utterly traumatising, that says a great deal about her character.
The gloating, smug, inappropriate posts recently ‘celebrating’ the lack of evidence re: Sally Ann’s case is what has pushed me to the point of coming on here. I have been thinking a lot of Sally Ann and the impact this must be having on her.
I am not alone – many friends and colleagues in the VAWG sector and feminist activism have been uncomfortable with Jessica for some time now and at this stage I’ve struggled to find anyone who supports her anymore within VAWG. Talking to them over the past few months, recurrent topics / areas of concern are her blatant lying and abuse of Sally Ann (no surprise), the lack of connected and co-ordinated work with other organisations – VF operates as lone wolf in the sector, the extortionate cost of training when requested by voluntary women’s orgs – often cancelled at short notice, and the numerous and repeated cancellations of webinars and other events (what happened to the conference?), often with no reason provided, or the excuse that Jessica is overwhelmed and suffering due to the ‘abuse’ she receives online (this in particular leaving many stumped as there is little evidence of this harassment online). The disappearance of MOCRA, her other fundraising activities and her unprofessional and defensive approach to reasonable criticism online have also raised red flags with many feminist activists and VAWG professionals.
I know someone who left VF over the past year. What I know now about the way Jessica operates her business – particularly in relation to the treatment of her employees - is deeply disturbing given her influence and carefully crafted public image as an ethical feminist challenging systemic oppression. The level of hypocrisy, entitlement, poor management and shoddy leadership is actually astounding. Jessica is very much a strong functioning part of the system that she claims to want to dismantle.
The stories that have emerged from ex staff are the tip of the iceberg. Jessica is not even aware herself of some of the worst of her behaviour and the impact it has had – as oblivious as a grandiose narcissist. I note the ex staff on this thread (brave women, thank you!) and their input – completely in line with what I have heard and seen. There is more to be revealed in that regard, if and when those women feel safe enough and ready to do so.
It was my friend who pointed me in the direction of TL. Is it true that this is apparently the vitriolic, misogynistic bullying that Jessica so often highlights she is a victim of? I could never see it on social media (unless from the odd MRA). I certainly don’t see it here. If this is what she considers bullying she has no idea of the very real, damaging, life altering abuse that many women experience online.
If Jessica finds being pressed to be accountable so utterly traumatising, that says a great deal about her character.
This is absolutely it. This is a "bullying website". Ie her followers think an entire I hate Jess website exists by some desperate disgruntled woman who is a faux feminist and hates and envies Dr Jess and her wife and team.
This group here are some smart, progressive and awake ppl, and also kind.
She's shared posts that have triggered, scared, baffled and dehumanised the most vulnerable, all to make herself look good.
She's beaten suicidality with her know-how, so anyone else who struggles is clearly stupid.
She's brighter and smarter and outlives and outlasts...
This is a space where ppl are processing, and many have been affected by her.
No one here has doxxed her nor cares to.
Many feel unsafe from her, so here felt safe.
This group here are some smart, progressive and awake ppl, and also kind.
She's shared posts that have triggered, scared, baffled and dehumanised the most vulnerable, all to make herself look good.
She's beaten suicidality with her know-how, so anyone else who struggles is clearly stupid.
She's brighter and smarter and outlives and outlasts...
This is a space where ppl are processing, and many have been affected by her.
No one here has doxxed her nor cares to.
Many feel unsafe from her, so here felt safe.
SA has recently posted to Twitter about how her story has also appeared on a website called ‘Research Gate’ within the research report from JT so goodness knows how many other places her story has been shared without her knowledge until now.
ResearchGate is a place where academics can share papers they've written or details of their publications. It's basically a networking site where you can request material direct from the authors if you don't have institutional access to the journals where they've published the work. I think Sally Ann's point is that for Jess to upload this to her ResearchGate account, she must consider it to be academic research, and yet she hasn't abided by the methodological and ethical standards expected of a research psychologist. Parts of Why Women Are Blamed for Everything (the parts copied from her blog) and all of Sexy but Psycho are journalistic in style, and the publisher told Sally Ann that consent wasn't required presumably on this basis (signed consent forms are routinely required for academic work). But Jess can't have it both ways - she's either a researcher adhering to an ethical and methodological protocol, or she's a hack who doesn't need to use that protocol and whose work therefore falls outside the scope of any regulator.
I think @AccidentalAcademic has hit the nail on the head here - after all her attempts to discredit, intimidate and quieten Sally-Ann have failed (and it seems to me she has literally thrown the entire DARVO playbook at her) she is now using the 'but it wasn't research' angle. Indeed, I think one of her team has already rolled this out in defence of her actions to one of her challengers.
But JT, VF and the BPS all understand the implications of saying this, surely!? To say this is to say that it is perfectly ethical for data to be extracted from people when a (BPS chartered) research psychologist is acting in a journalistic or activist capacity, without obtaining informed consent. And then use said data (without consent) in a research output - because despite the lack of peer review or ethical governance that's what the output on Research Gate is presented as - however, the researcher sees fit, whatever the personal cost to the participant and with (it now seems) the full support of the BPS. JT is essentially bypassing any form of ethical governance at any level and by not submitting her work to peer review she never has to.
Just to be clear, the proposition that ethical research/or any form of ethical professional-participant relationship has or ever could have loopholes that support the professional/researcher's right to use participant data (even when shared with full consent!) in any way they choose, in any and all publications/platforms they choose and for however long they choose to is absolutely preposterous.
That this loophole seemingly exists and the BPS are supporting JT to use it in defense of such utterly unethical practice is beyond concerning.
I'd like to think that this experience at the very least could be a valuable lesson for JT, and there could be some growth, but my fear (given her cruel online victory celebrations, intended no doubt to further position SallyAnn as the problem) is that the support JT has received from the BPS will embolden her further and more harm is inevitable.
Generally speaking, peer review is usually an anonymous process whereby reviewers and researcher(s) are not aware of whose work is being reviewed or who is reviewing. My understanding, explained to me by a colleague this week, is that JT only started enlisting 'peer reviewers' (chosen by her) because of criticisms about the lack thereof. Handpicking your own reviewing panel simply does not provide the level of academic scrutiny most academics are subject to. Approaching people to sit on an advisory board for a project - yes. Approaching people to peer review your output - no. This, it seems, is another of JTs loopholes so that she can assert 'I can legitimately say my work is peer reviewed' She understands those without a research background will accept this. And everyone who doesn't can be called a bully...
Yes I was thinking that was the usual process, and in this case the reviewers may not have been aware of the ethical guidelines---indeed I expect any peer reviewers and even academic journals would not be responsible for checking that ethical standards were adhered to, because researchers do normally abide by ethics! My point is if it becomes apparent somewhere down the line that ethics were not adhered to, to the point that one of the 'peer reviewers' makes a complaint to the BPS (as in this case), does that not mean anything? What is the point of ethics then?
Is there an admin on by any chance??
Last edited:
RoseEmpower did not qualify as a psychotherapist until 2021 nor does she have a background in research and has told me she had no idea her name had been put on it as a peer reviewer. She’s quite open about her quals she did a Law with Psychology degree graduated in 2010 a PGCE in 2016 and then the Psychotherapy she finished last year and none of her academic quals were or are read earth based. She was asked to review something over 3 years ago but she can’t remember if she even read it or if JT sent it to her after being asked to review it as she’s been asked to read a fair things by different people.
Surely somebody should be told in what capacity they are being asked to 'read' someone's work? That is just another example of the disingenuous way JT operates.
I see what you mean. If a reviewer made a complaint post-publication because say, they raised concerns about participant safety which were not responded to by the researcher(s) then there would be an expectation that the BPS would investigate - whether anyone had reported harm or otherwise.
Although, it seems from @empowered1 post that at least one reviewer didn't know they were listed as a reviewer (!) - I have to admit the more I read the more incredulous I am. It takes some brass neck to state in a publication that someone has been part of a review process when in reality they might, at best, have just been sent a draft.
In my experience reviewers will usually press for more detail if the methods have not been described in enough depth. This is mainly to ensure the study's rigor (the data can't be relied upon if the methods weren't robust) but it would also highlight any ethical concerns. With my first book I'd included a methodology section in the introduction, but the reviewers asked me to expand on it and possibly turn it into a chapter in its own right. They had a few specific questions they wanted me to clear up. Once I'd made those amendments the editor sent the draft back to the reviewers for a final check. I don't think JT has ever been through academic peer review. I bought a copy of WWBE before the rights were picked up by Constable, back when I still believed her to be a principled feminist activist, and I remember thinking it was a pity she hadn't had peer review or editorial support - it would have made the book more lucid and the argument more compelling. It's very obviously an unvarnished dissertation with a few blog posts included, and that would have been obvious to me if I hadn't previously read portions of the dissertation - the style and structure give it away. The stuff she published later is far weaker, because she hasn't even had input from supervisors. She insists that she avoids academic publishing because it doesn't pay royalties and profiteers at academics' expense, but that's a half-truth at best. If it really were a question of principle and accessibility then she could publish open access with a reputable psychology press, but she won't do it because she can't handle even the possibility of critique or worse, rejection.
And don't forget she recently had a little rant on twitter about the exploitative practices of academic journals, thus providing a convenient explanation for her adoring fans as to why she 'chooses' to not use this route for publication!
Jeez- I took a break and all the avatars have hats on? I don't want a hat on my scone. 
#TattleLife wtf?
A few thoughts from the lions den........
1) More staff are now aghast, although quietly. I mean, talk about being backed into a corner. Fuel prices jumping, a boss who will sack/underpay you at any given moment. And if you leave before you are bullied out or sacked do you put Victim Focus on your CV or consider a gap preferable?.... roll on Christmas I need a brandy.
2) Not surprised by the BPS. Most of these organisations are toothless. I was reading a piece the other day about a DR with a serious DV conviction who faced no consequences via the GMC.
3) There was a comment up thread about feeding the beast. Annoyingly narcs feed off any kind of attention but I have to disagree with the poster. This is our place to collate the catalogue of abusive/exploitative behaviour and get mutual support for the harm Jess and Jaimi caused us and those close to us. In fact strangers too. I hope this thread shows SA that she is not alone, women (are we all women here?) believe her, and women she has never met care about her and her journey of healing. So Jess may well make hay out of it, but although in one sense this is about her, in many other ways it is not. Personally I have a history of being gas lit, via physical abuse and emotional abuse. I'm not sure how long it would have taken me to even begin to recover from the mad tit at work without the support of you lot. At Victim Focus LTD we were silenced by being isolated and coerced in a toxic atmosphere. Now the silencing is more obvious- but more on that another time.
4) There is bomb after bomb after bomb still waiting to come out. I cant say more, but this is far from over. So no Jess, this is not bullying. No one suddenly decided to dislike you for no reason. I think everyone here would prefer to have lived a life without ever having crossed paths with you. We are keeping the receipts of the awful things that you chose to do, because we know the harm it causes. The receipts are for us.
5) The Rape Crisis conf has announced its speakers. Interestingly Jess gave a video presentation at it two yrs ago. Unusually she turned up for it (was it paid?) and it was her usual rambling crap with the constant glasses nudge. (People who wear glasses are clever you know). Any way she is not on the schedule this year. There is a slot on pathologisation of women and girls in the courts, and they have someone else in.
Hello & welcome to the new readers
#TattleLife wtf?A few thoughts from the lions den........
1) More staff are now aghast, although quietly. I mean, talk about being backed into a corner. Fuel prices jumping, a boss who will sack/underpay you at any given moment. And if you leave before you are bullied out or sacked do you put Victim Focus on your CV or consider a gap preferable?.... roll on Christmas I need a brandy.
2) Not surprised by the BPS. Most of these organisations are toothless. I was reading a piece the other day about a DR with a serious DV conviction who faced no consequences via the GMC.
3) There was a comment up thread about feeding the beast. Annoyingly narcs feed off any kind of attention but I have to disagree with the poster. This is our place to collate the catalogue of abusive/exploitative behaviour and get mutual support for the harm Jess and Jaimi caused us and those close to us. In fact strangers too. I hope this thread shows SA that she is not alone, women (are we all women here?) believe her, and women she has never met care about her and her journey of healing. So Jess may well make hay out of it, but although in one sense this is about her, in many other ways it is not. Personally I have a history of being gas lit, via physical abuse and emotional abuse. I'm not sure how long it would have taken me to even begin to recover from the mad tit at work without the support of you lot. At Victim Focus LTD we were silenced by being isolated and coerced in a toxic atmosphere. Now the silencing is more obvious- but more on that another time.
4) There is bomb after bomb after bomb still waiting to come out. I cant say more, but this is far from over. So no Jess, this is not bullying. No one suddenly decided to dislike you for no reason. I think everyone here would prefer to have lived a life without ever having crossed paths with you. We are keeping the receipts of the awful things that you chose to do, because we know the harm it causes. The receipts are for us.
5) The Rape Crisis conf has announced its speakers. Interestingly Jess gave a video presentation at it two yrs ago. Unusually she turned up for it (was it paid?) and it was her usual rambling crap with the constant glasses nudge. (People who wear glasses are clever you know). Any way she is not on the schedule this year. There is a slot on pathologisation of women and girls in the courts, and they have someone else in.
Hello & welcome to the new readers
Last edited:
Hi all, thanks for the compassion here. For openly sharing and also just being kind.
Seeing the rap battle and not fight... all has a nasty vibe...
I had a therapist once like Jess. Powerful profile. Naff website. The trauma from disclosing to this man, who was essentially unsafe and in many ways a perpetrator, who wanted power....really rocked me,
There i a special kind of awful, a person who uses words like feminist, or even vaw specialities, to keep women down.
Jess is not a feminist imo. There is no genuine interest in helping women.
She's a business woman and if not this hustle it would've been something else.
Maybe that's why she's had to tell her story through the lens of feminism. And it doesn't sound believable. Because that's not what she's about
She's a faux feminist. And weaponising feminism as she has done is a pretty effective abuse tactic. Who would suspect her?
Re feeding the monster, it's a hard one for me. I like what was said respectfully about this being our space. For us. There is nothing more valuable and also difficult to find when Ur traumatised by someone, then connection with other victims.
So thank u to everyone here for sharing. Ur helping others and caring and showing SA that some ppl will see the truth.
Haha yes the hats were top much for me as well.
Seeing the rap battle and not fight... all has a nasty vibe...
I had a therapist once like Jess. Powerful profile. Naff website. The trauma from disclosing to this man, who was essentially unsafe and in many ways a perpetrator, who wanted power....really rocked me,
There i a special kind of awful, a person who uses words like feminist, or even vaw specialities, to keep women down.
Jess is not a feminist imo. There is no genuine interest in helping women.
She's a business woman and if not this hustle it would've been something else.
Maybe that's why she's had to tell her story through the lens of feminism. And it doesn't sound believable. Because that's not what she's about
She's a faux feminist. And weaponising feminism as she has done is a pretty effective abuse tactic. Who would suspect her?
Re feeding the monster, it's a hard one for me. I like what was said respectfully about this being our space. For us. There is nothing more valuable and also difficult to find when Ur traumatised by someone, then connection with other victims.
So thank u to everyone here for sharing. Ur helping others and caring and showing SA that some ppl will see the truth.
Haha yes the hats were top much for me as well.
Last edited:
@butterjamcream Do you mean JT has a track record for not turning up to conferences? I would have thought she would relish any opportunity to get in front of a mic and polish her credentials. If she's been steering clear of events in the sector it suggests that she may actually be aware of the weaknesses in her own work and is trying to avoid feedback from peers.
Gloating on FB. Yes a repost of an old post. But it’s pretty tone deaf at this time
Attachments
- Status