Dr Jessica Taylor #4 Consent is for losers, not for me. Ignore that journalist spilling the tea.

[SavannahS]

I was wandering if anyone here has experienced with narc rage and can understand what Jess may be up to.
Her ego is bruised and she's lost face, the article would've upset her and the gradual twitter shift against her...it's small, and hasn't affected her income, but there's a stain.

Would she be just looking for ways to launch bigger and disprove her critics, ie, some weird new project or org to be created?

Or finding new ways to hurt ppl who disagree with her ? I think she tweets to hurt and harm.

It's hard with narcs because it seems that their pettiness is bottomless.

 

[AccidentalAcademic]

She does try to hurt people, and the methods she uses are usually rooted in the idea that anyone who takes issue with her behaviour must be envious and not wanting to see her succeed. Hence posing with alcohol and a homemade 'Justice' banner when the BPS gave that lukewarm response to Sally Ann, as if she'd just been exonerated after falsely serving ten years, and bragging about her book sales and royalties when she knew that a stranger profiteering off her most traumatic memory was causing Sally Ann pain. Then the barrage of wedding photos, partly to reinforce the narrative that all criticism must be homophobic, but also because on one level she really does believe that she leads an amazing life that critics are desperately envying. If she ever does realise that people's primary feeling towards her is contempt, not envy, she might try a different tack, but at the moment her strategy seems to be "Hahahaha haterz, just look at my Channel 5 appearances, my book sales, my world-leading fashion-forward jumpsuit, my bougie shower!" Unless she has more immediate power over people, e.g. VF staff, when she'll use bluster tactics (the infamous and legally unenforceable 'NDA').

 

[SavannahS]

"the fashion-forward jumpsuit" ....so funny.
Look at me defying tradition in my jumpsuit, I'm amazing in all ways and my clothes are better than yours...

Overconfidence and hubris ftw with this lady...

I feel like with narcs even when U win it feels like a loss because they are so nauseating in their responses ...

I guess she can try her little tactics but respect can't be bought like false book sales or internet likes from bots can...

 

[Concerned_Person]

Unless she has more immediate power over people, e.g. VF staff, when she'll use bluster tactics (the infamous and legally unenforceable 'NDA').

Would she try to create immediate power over people? Like by paying a tonne of money to a lawyer who just sees £££?

 

[MsSelfridge]

Would she try to create immediate power over people? Like by paying a tonne of money to a lawyer who just sees £££?

Lawyers don’t just see £££ - they see prospect of success and impact on their reputation. Any lawyer worth their salt wouldn’t touch her with a barge pole.

 

[ZiggyStardust68]

I don't mean to scare anyone but I think her threats could have something to it. Narcs with money know how to get ivos and threaten ppl. SA did nothing wrong but Jess is a liar and would try use courts to threaten people. She's a perp and I feel not harmless.

Sigh....justice is fucked.

Seeing a perp like her control courts to hurt her own victims...

Ngl it's deeply depressing.

Threaten people with what? It doesn't matter how many threats of legal action she makes, nobody has done anything illegal. Well actually that's not true--she has been acting illegally in her claims about SA. She might think she can manipulate the courts but she can't, and it it would probably finish her financially if she tried...

 

[nothanksbabes]

What legal action is she going to take? Truth and reasonable belief are the defence for defamation/libel and nothing that's been said about her that could cause reputational damage is untrue.

She can't keep her own story straight, so how the duck is anyone else meant to.

 

[ZiggyStardust68]

What legal action is she going to take? Truth and reasonable belief are the defence for defamation/libel and nothing that's been said about her that could cause reputational damage is untrue.

She can't keep her own story straight, so how the duck is anyone else meant to.

Exactly! She is only one guilty of defamation against Sally Anne, and I really really hope SA pursues this legally.

 

[BigYellow]

She has lost face so many times now, saying her 'legal team' is dealing with something and then nothing happening. I really think if she'd been able to take anyone to court, she would have by now.

She can't keep her own story straight, so how the duck is anyone else meant to.

Exactly. The conversation with the solicitors would go:

Jess: "she's saying she didn't consent to be in my book, but she did"
Them: "Can you show us the consent"
Jess: "urmmmm...."

 

[nothanksbabes]

Idgaf how much money she's got from pointless police contracts, there's no way on earth she can afford a "legal team". She'd bleeping bankrupt herself the way she goes on.

 

[ZiggyStardust68]

Idgaf how much money she's got from pointless police contracts, there's no way on earth she can afford a "legal team". She'd bleeping bankrupt herself the way she goes on.

Yes, what price would a court put on the damage caused to the women she has defamed and re-traumatised?

 

[Concerned_Person]

Yes, what price would a court put on the damage caused to the women she has defamed and re-traumatised?

Exactly, that's what she'll bank on. How many of us would know what to do if we were challenged legally, and, more to the point, would have the finances to know where to even start?

 

[Wolf359]

She hasn’t got a bleeping ‘legal team’. Her legal team is probably Mandy googling the CAB website.

Only extremely wealthy organisations can afford to have (or indeed, need) in-house legal teams.

No one has committed a crime or a tort against Jessica. She, on the other hand, has committed plenty against other people.

If she were to ‘bring legal action’ against you, the correct response would be to say alright, let’s see it then. It would probably be a long letter full of legal spaff from a high street solicitors that you would be under no obligation to reply to. And that would be the end of it.

The truth is a defence to libel.

 

[ZiggyStardust68]

Exactly, that's what she'll bank on. How many of us would know what to do if we were challenged legally, and, more to the point, would have the finances to know where to even start?

No I mean she should be careful. If compensation awarded in defamation cases can run to several thousands for reputational damage, how much could it be for the damage she has caused to SA and others?

 

[nothanksbabes]

She hasn’t got a bleeping ‘legal team’. Her legal team is probably Mandy googling the CAB website.

Only extremely wealthy organisations can afford to have (or indeed, need) in-house legal teams.

No one has committed a crime or a tort against Jessica. She, on the other hand, has committed plenty against other people.

If she were to ‘bring legal action’ against you, the correct response would be to say alright, let’s see it then. It would probably be a long letter full of legal spaff from a high street solicitors that you would be under no obligation to reply to. And that would be the end of it.

The truth is a defence to libel.

Precisely. I worked for senior lawyers in large firms for years. They're not working their arses off, recording their lives in six minute increments and charging £500 for a fart for crackpots like her .

 

[ZiggyStardust68]

This is her latest tweet---she can't even tell the truth when she's quoting someone else. The article simply does not say that, it actually says such treatments were rare, but that doesn't suit her agenda.

http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/26121/1/26121%20TLP%20LGBT%20History%20Month%20Essay%20AAM.pdf

 

[peasandglove]

This is her latest tweet---she can't even tell the truth when she's quoting someone else. The article simply does not say that, it actually says such treatments were rare, but that doesn't suit her agenda.

http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/26121/1/26121%20TLP%20LGBT%20History%20Month%20Essay%20AAM.pdf

Can you comment this on her tweet? I can’t as I’m blocked. I feel it’s important for us to publicly call this stuff out in real-time. I’m so over her bullshit

 

[AccidentalAcademic]

This is her latest tweet---she can't even tell the truth when she's quoting someone else. The article simply does not say that, it actually says such treatments were rare, but that doesn't suit her agenda.

http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/26121/1/26121%20TLP%20LGBT%20History%20Month%20Essay%20AAM.pdf

I laughed out loud in disbelief. It says the exact opposite of what she's claiming - that as lesbian sexuality was not criminalised, women were less likely than men to be offered 'treatments' such as aversion therapy, which were presented as a 'soft' prison alternative. I really don't know how she can read that and turn it into "women were very likely to be found in psychiatric services". It could be deliberate distortion, but part of me suspects she just doesn't actually read anything very carefully or thoughtfully. She wants references to make herself look more academic, but she skim-reads everything and plucks out things that might buoy up her existing views without actually taking in what is being said. It has also just occurred to me that in the past she bragged about how she can write thousands of words (to 'publishable standard', whatever that means to her) in under an hour...but she didn't have a word to say about how much she reads, or what she reads, or by whom. Back when I was still supportive of her, I read parts of her thesis and was puzzled by the way she would quote 50-year-old work by American feminists (which didn't seem particularly applicable to her immediate argument) while not citing recent, far more relevant work. At the time I assumed her supervisors must not have given her enough guidance. This is the sign of a student who is either not able to perform a comprehensive literature search, or who doesn't actually read much and just tries to collect references that match their preconceived ideas as though they are Pokemon. Now I'm pretty sure Jess is in the second group. Academically she's such a fraud. On a related note, that article is a very good summary of the relationship between the lesbian liberation movement and Mad activism - it must present Jess with quite some cognitive dissonance to see ideas she has presented as uniquely hers being voiced by activists decades before she was born. A shame she never cited any of them...

 

[Blue bunny]

I love how she tried to look clever, by referencing them and then was too stupid to understand what it said.

 

[nothanksbabes]

Glad to see she's been called out, with sources.