Dr Jessica Taylor #8 'Allo 'Allo - it's the tall poppy with the big boobies!

[AccidentalAcademic]

I feel like Simpo and his Usual Suspects fake limp need to be incorporated into it.

Whether 'Simpo' is actually a real person or just a character Jessica has created, I think he says something about her worldview.

She paints a clear picture of someone with learning difficulties or other additional needs when she describes his ban from using anything sharper than plastic safety scissors, the limp, and the sleeves that were soggy from constant chewing. As an academic psychologist I carried out a lot of my research with vulnerable young people. Reading that anecdote, my first thought was to wonder whether 'Simpo' was targeting someone with an obvious marker of vulnerability (the baby in the pram) because it happened to be more prominent than his own. It's pretty clear from the contempt with which JT writes about him that he was bullied himself - if bad treatment of 'Simpo' and people like him hadn't been normalised, she wouldn't be able to sneer at him without realising that it doesn't actually make her look like the bigger person in that situation. Kids who have been bullied don't automatically become bullies themselves; that's a very crude oversimplification. But if they lack the linguistic and/or emotional vocabulary to describe their own experiences and make sense of how they feel, if they haven't grown up in a consistently safe, nurturing environment with caring relatives and skilled professionals to help them them fill in those blanks, then yes, they're at greater risk of becoming bullies too. I've met quite a few 'Simpos': young people who just couldn't grasp that it might be possible to have a relationship when they weren't at risk of being scapegoated, and who believed that the only way to draw fire away from the target on their own backs was to try and stick a target on someone else's. It wasn't something they did consciously, but this is how they experienced the world.

Would I blame teenage Jessica Taylor for not understanding that? No, because she was a kid herself. But I think it's reasonable to expect someone who markets herself as a "leading trauma-informed psychologist" to understand it, and to show a little more compassion and insight than she has in that excerpt. Why does she even bring up the features that marked Simpo out as 'different'? It's certainly not part of any thoughtful exploration of how working class kids with SEN are failed by almost every system they come into contact with. It's to show off how sassy and resilient she was as a teenager. That line basically reads as, "Even when I got bullied for being a teenage mum, I didn't feel inferior or ashamed. I just thought about Simpo's obvious disability and wondered how come the sp*zzy r*tard got to drive! Haha."

Then, as if working class disabled people don't get accused of being lying benefit-scrounging leeches often enough, she announces that doctors had found his limp was faked "for attention". (There is no mention of how she would know this - were the local GPs were so in awe of Jessica's prodigious intellect that they were calling her in to share the details of all their patients and get her personal take?) Even if there was no physical cause for his limp, any psychologist worth their salt should know that people with cognitive disabilities sometimes develop psychosomatic physical conditions. There are multiple possible reasons for that, but the simplest - and saddest - is that intellectual disability carries such a painful stigma that people can end up taking refuge behind a problem that feels more acceptable, or at least easier to bear. This doesn't make them fakers. Even if the cause isn't organic, it's a manifestation of genuine distress that needs actual treatment from an actual trauma-informed clinician.

Even if 'Simpo' is just a figment of her imagination, he still exposes her lack of psychological knowledge or capacity to reflect, because the way she's framed that anecdote makes it very clear that she thinks this is a perfectly acceptable way to talk about people like him. A lot of ignorance and prejudice on display here, Jess.

 

[Jessterday]

Yes, a few women who used to be employed at VF were contacted by the police. Jess reads all these threads obsessively, and by that point had figured out a few user names based on some of the info we've shared. My sense at the time was that she submitted reams of "evidence" to the police on my comments here, and then also claimed I stalked her on other social media platforms.

I told him my username. I explained that I deleted my Twitter a year previously, I've blocked her on Facebook and LinkedIn, I don't have Instagram etc etc. I shared my experiences of her as an employer here, and I made comments on my concerns about her behaviour in general. The copper confirmed that I didn't say anything illegal, or defamatory, homophobic, etc. It was a massive waste of police time, because he already decided I hadn't done anything wrong, so I don't understand why he bothered to ring me. He should have just said to her "I've read these comments and they aren't illegal." I don't understand how it went any further than that.

Anyway. Hi, Jess. It's me again. I still think you were a terrible boss. Thanks for paying for half my professional qualification, it's helped me make a TON more money in my current job.

 

[solitaryblue]

I like how Jess is claiming to have been listed as "a top influential health expert for 2024 on MSN.com". It's pretty suspect that the photo of the "article" on MSN is actually a couple of screen shots from the Microsoft Start app, which pulls together articles posted from a myriad of news websites.

Where is the link to the original article? Well, I pondered this as she thanked a handful of followers for their congratulations on such a great achievement on social media, and wondered, who are the other health experts listed in this article?

A bit of digging led me to finding the original source:

The 11 Influential Health Experts

Every year, approximately 1,500,000 individuals go through a nonfatal injury due to medical errors. These statistics are not just numbers;

www.fabworldtoday.com

And the other 10 "health experts" are basically people with health-related businesses, some of whom have a pretty small social media following (definitely less than Jess, granted) who blatantly need their services publicising to a bigger audience.

So the fantastic website, "Fab World Today" is awash with hundreds of articles, written by the same 5 people (supposedly) gushing about all sorts of people and their businesses. But with less than 100 followers on Instagram and their Facebook postings being a bit, well amateurish as far as journalistic content is concerned, the digging kept on. Google "FabWorldToday" and you'll find people offering to write you a guest post for this website. Here's an example-

Guest post on fabworldtoday.com-fabworldtoday dofollow link–DA51 for $55

You will be receiving an article on site www.fabworldtoday.com! The post will give you a boost of SEO! You will receive a permanent link.

www.peopleperhour.com

And for this offer, you can provide your own article and picture!

"SEO, Guest Posting & Link Building is most successful when you get backlinks from real and legit websites with good traffic.

You will get a Guest Post on www.fabworldtoday.com Having an article on www.fabworldtoday.com will provide you high authority and increase your site ranking in Google Search."

So there we have it. The only person that considers JT an influential health expert in the year 2024 is herself and the one "Mia Rodriguez" from Chicago she paid to post it

 

[AccidentalAcademic]

The thing is that REGULATED professionals in the psychiatric/psychotherapeutic field are very, very aware of the risk of transference, strong feelings of attachment engendered when people are disclosing such traumatic events.

Should anyone be soliciting /even allowing the disclosure of such traumatic experiences outside of very clear structures / referral paths etc?

Actual frontline clinicians would be aware of the risk of being seen as a saviour, as the only person who *gets it*, the person to whom the devastated can disclose information they struggle to tell even those closest to them.
In an appropriate setting they should have the skills to detach without devastation for the already traumatised individual.

MH services are not without serious flaws but they do get this. And as one prominent Psychiatrists implied the CMHT will still be there if stickers & journaling don't work.

This x 1000.

I've been a research psychologist for most of my career (I'm on clinical training now). Even as a researcher who doesn't provide therapy or treatment, it is a reasonable expectation that you would be very aware of people's vulnerabilities when recruiting participants or securing consent.

Jessica received a distressed Facebook message from Sally Ann in which she shared her experiences as a victim of child sexual exploitation and talked about how her trauma had been exacerbated when her keyworker made her watch a graphic film about abuse. She contacted Jessica because she had seen her speak out against these films, and she wanted to help the campaign.

Someone with limited knowledge of psychology and research ethics might reasonably assume that this message was consent to share. On a journalistic level, using journalistic standards of consent, it would have been OK. But for a researcher claiming specialist expertise in trauma, that is not a reasonable assumption and the bar for consent is significantly higher. If someone reached out to me over Facebook and was clearly very distressed, my first thought would have been, "Is this person able to consent to publication right now? Do they understand the process, and can they weigh up the possible risks and benefits to themselves?" I would explore these questions with them when they were calmer and send them a proper participant information sheet and a consent form to sign. This is the bare minimum standard for ethics in research. No matter how Jessica tries to twist and dodge, she got it wrong here. And this whole situation arose because she couldn't just acknowledge that to Sally Ann and remedy her mistake. She can't admit she's wrong, ever, and Sally Ann isn't the only woman to have suffered for that weakness of character and professional integrity.

A teenage girl who had participated in my PhD research withdrew her consent for something she had written to appear in the book I was publishing. She was happy for it to be in the thesis and in academic articles, but not the book. I was disappointed, because her written contribution was very powerful and I knew the chapter would be weaker without it. I also didn't really see why someone would be OK with having their story in a thesis but not in a book. But my disappointment didn't matter. Whether or not this girl's reasoning made sense to me was irrelevant. What mattered was that I respected the participants who had been gracious enough to let me interview them. I wouldn't even have known that this girl had changed her mind if I hadn't contacted all my participants as I was doing the final edits to double-check they were still happy. Technically I would have been on solid ground to press ahead with publication without the final check - the original consent form explained that I would be writing articles and a book, after all. But if you're working with vulnerable people and you care about them as individuals, you owe them more than the bare minimum. Jessica can't call herself trauma-informed so long as she tries to excuse terrible decision-making based on technicalities.

 

[AccidentalAcademic]

The more she lashes out, and the way she does it, makes me think more and more this is personal. Claiming that "every day people hallucinate more than we realise or admit", makes me think she's the one hallucinating and is trying to normalise it. Unless I'm a rarity who doesn't hallucinate. Of course, she adds the caveat "more than we realise", so she can justify saying "you do, you just don't know you do, but I know because I have a phd". It's pretty messed up really.

I think that because she's never worked clinically or spent any significant time with people experiencing psychosis or severe mental illness, she doesn't have any frame of reference for what hallucinations actually are in this context. She believes they're just like vivid daydreams, or those moments when you're half-asleep, half-awake and you're unsure if you really heard someone speak to you or if you dreamed it. I doubt she's experienced them herself. She's also had a lot of pushback from actual clinicians over her comments on Valdo Calocane and the hallucinations he is suffering from, so she's doing her usual thing of doubling down and refusing to learn, with the bonus addition of "You're all stealing my ideas." The insinuation is that professionals are actually drinking in and agreeing with every word she says, they just won't admit it.

The thing that betrays her lack of experience and knowledge is the way she acts as if hallucinations are treated as a diagnosable mental illness. They aren't. In and of themselves, they aren't diagnostic of anything. People can experience hallucinations for all sorts of reasons. They're quite common in temporal lobe epilepsy, for example - people can experience them during or immediately before a seizure. They're common in people who are severely sleep deprived (this is one reason why people with bipolar disorder might hallucinate during a manic episode, because they're going so long without sleep). They're extremely common in dementia with Lewy bodies, which is one of the rare conditions where visual hallucinations are more frequently occurring than auditory ones. And some people hear voices or (much less commonly) see things that aren't really there without having any medical condition at all. Hallucinating is only considered to be a sign of illness if the person is distressed by these experiences and they're negatively affecting their life. If they're not in any distress and they're not experiencing any negative consequences, e.g. becoming housebound without any food because a voice has said they'll die if they go outside, then for the sake of clarity we don't even refer to it as hallucinating. We just call it voice-hearing, and much as Jessica might want to believe the idea that voices =/= illness originated with her, it didn't, unless she's claiming to have had the thought before she was even conceived.

Everything she writes makes it clear how detached she is not only from the lived reality of people with psychosis, but also from...books. Articles. Information. She just doesn't read. It's all such a grift. If I had to put money on the last time she sat down and read a research paper or monograph cover to cover, I'd say it was while she was still at university, and maybe not even then. If you look at the references in her thesis and Why Women Are Blamed for Everything, a lot of important research is missing. At the time she put her thesis online, I wondered why her supervisors hadn't offered her better guidance during her lit review - why would you quote Brownmiller's work from the USA in the 1970s to illustrate a point about the British criminal justice system in the 2010s when there is recent work on this very topic? - but now I think she wouldn't have listened if they had. Her real skill is marketing, which is why her target audience is made up of people outside the clinical world who don't have the knowledge to see through the spin.

 

[AccidentalAcademic]

"No one really expects the PhD scholar to turn up to work in a lowered sports car with the sound system up."

1. During my own PhD and all subsequent jobs in academia I never gave a single thought to how anyone else arrived at the building. I doubt other people did either.

2. If anyone at UoB did care about Jessica's car, it won't have been because she was a "driving contradiction", it will have been because the extremely limited student parking is a 15 minute walk away from the psychology department, so for her to "turn up to work" in a sports car she must have been driving it into the foyer. That's the only way anyone could have seen what she drove.

But no, in Jessica's mind everyone must have been fixated on her every move as she blasted 'Strongly and Successfully' into their midst, so of course they were shocked by her car.

 

[witchofwestbyfleet]

Thread title courtesy of @Dike Themis

Before Jess starts up again about how we're misogynists making fun of her looks, the title refers to her claim that "feminists" were attacking her and Jaimi out of jealousy because "our tits are too big"

Recap:

• Jess and Jaimi went on a taxpayer-funded holiday business trip around Australia and New Zealand, plugging the ITIM. Jess promoted herself with many bikini shots, including one where she'd scratched FUCK THE DSM in the sand with a stick, because it's totes for the benefit of women and not a holiday
  
  
• More people came forward saying Jess had made false complaints about them to police/authorities. These included Kerry Daynes (actual forensic psychologist), and a PhD student whom Jess accused of harassing her for more than a year, despite the fact they'd never spoken to each other.
  
  
• VF accounts on Companies House show Jess and Jaimi have around £133,000 in director loans between them including a £36,000 loan that Jaimi took out immediately after being made a director
  
  
• Jess is desperately trying to get attention off the back of Britney Spears' situation like she did with Amber Heard
  
  
• Jess and Jaimi defended Phillip Schofield with rhetoric about "but Matthew McGreevy is a consenting adult so no grooming took place!" What does that remind us of?
  
  
• Jaimi shared a text exchange where Jess snapped at her for cheering during the football and she had to repeatedly apologise. Wonder how they'd be reacting if a woman shared such a text from her husband?
  
  
• Andrew Tate tweeted saying "pull out the strap" (pull a gun on someone) if they annoy you. Jess and Jaimi thought it appropriate to turn this into a hilarious joke about lesbians on their account that many victims of abuse follow
  
  
• Jess went full-on conspiracy on main, and gave an interview on a conspiracy theorist's Substack, saying that COVID-19 was a psyop. She's also been tweeting stuff about people being assassinated to keep them quiet, and hinted that she's being targeted by a sinister group that's had several women killed
  
  
• She advised her vulnerable audience to ignore red flags in a partner, such as grandiose/narcissistic behaviour or others trying to warn you about them
  
  
• She is complaining a lot about "white people", "colonisation", and the loss of "ancient knowledge" despite the fact she's a wealthy, privileged, very entitled white woman with a reductive and patronising attitude towards cultures she knows nothing about
  
  
• And Jess has announced her upcoming foray into ... comedy?

Wiki linked above!

 

[witchinghour]

I've met her dad and he seemed solidly working class to me, I don't think she's a middle class woman pretending to be working class.

However I don't believe a word she says, having seen how much she lies up close, and totally agree it reads like badly written fiction. Working class - yes. "Underclass"? I doubt it.

Like so many of Jessica's lies, I expect there's some truth buried somewhere in it, which she's then twisted and embellished with outrageous lies, placing her as the hero-victim of every story.

I expect she's going to upset a whole new bunch of people who recognise themselves in the book but think "hang on that's not what happened".

 

[Blue bunny]

I know so many front line workers who will make more of a difference to someone on a friday afternoon than she will her entire career. Many for low pay or no pay and none of them ever feel the need to shout about it on social media every 5mins.

 

[Dr.CM]

I know people who were working class with phds. I know 3 people with them who didn't get any support off their parents financially, they used loans and grants. 2 of those got their phds in the last 5years, both with northern accents and didn't grow up rich.

People can do it, obviously, goes without saying it's nothing to do whether working class people are as intelligent or smart. But it's harder now than ever, I really feel for young people in this situation.

It's very uncomfortable being away from home when you can't afford it and no amount of grants / loans / part time jobs is going to put you into financial ease when the 'well off' kids have got their rent sorted by parents, weekly allowances, been given a car when they were 17, group together and go on amazing travels, take extra curricular tuition, sink huge funds into tech equipment, and having fun socialising. Beyond that again, I was at uni with people who were the internationally rich and famous people's kids and it's a whole different world of entitlement - they have no bounds on the finances they can pour into self-propelled projects to support their course work, the professionals they can access, the materials and goods and services they can utilise, or the advantages of all contacts they have and the international work experiences they can get off the back of nepotism.

My belief is that working class students should be given various types of extra support to cope with this so they can maximise their studies and cope with the literally huge gap in privilege and life circumstances. It's getting far worse not better now.

 

[AccidentalAcademic]

A recent meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials demonstrates that antidepressants overwhelmingly outperform placebo. I no longer have Facebook, but here is a link to the research summary if anyone wants to counter that misinformation: https://www.psych.ox.ac.uk/news/all...ng-acute-depression-in-adults-concludes-study

The meta-analysis itself is published open access.

I won't even get into the irony of the supposed champion of anti-pathologisation telling a woman that her experiences are "all in her head". Instead I'm wondering if she's noticed the inconsistency of her own thinking. Antidepressants don't work and a kitten dies every time you take one, but they also have such a strong placebo effect that "they work because you expect them to". Even though they don't work. That's a remarkably square circle you've got there, Jess.

 

[AccidentalAcademic]

Whether deliberately or through ignorance, she's misleading people about what it means to practise as a chartered forensic psychologist, because they can choose to be involved in research (which is why a 50,000 word thesis is a core component of their training). The first one who jumps to mind for me is Dr Rachel Beryl, who currently leads a trauma and self-injury service and whose most recent publication is this chapter in the new book Trauma-Informed Forensic Practice. There's nothing wrong with choosing to do a PhD if you want to do research exclusively, but Jessica never did want that. If she had she wouldn't keep eluding to her vaguely worded, elastically expanding "years of frontline experience" (which mysteriously took place while she was working in B&Q). She would be honest about what the nature of her jobs has been and what she is qualified to do. Instead she keeps wording things in such a way as to give the impression that she has worked as a therapist and could do continue to give therapy if she wanted to, she's just far too busy being a radical changemaker to sit on a ward from 9 to 5.

That 9 to 5 therapy comment is itself inaccurate, because a lot of forensic psychs design and lead services and provide consultancy/training to other professionals, as opposed to doing direct therapy. Some do none at all. And of those who do, I can't imagine any of them would describe their job as "holding case after case". Those 'cases' are real people. Human beings with hopes and dreams and good qualities as well as criminal records. Not 'cases'. For a good practitioner psychologist it's a privilege to listen to their stories and help them to reach a better place. I can't imagine even the most burnt out jaded practitioner I've ever met referring to their therapeutic work with patients as "doing their time frontline", as if it's a prison sentence in itself. That says an awful lot about Jessica's own thoughts and priorities.

 

[AccidentalAcademic]

It’s interesting how it’s all ‘ they’re all hating on me for being amazing and successful’ but she mainly mentions Jaimi in the context of ‘people calling her thick’.

This is similar how she claims people have insulted her by describing her as too attractive and feminine to be a lesbian: it actually functions as a backhanded compliment. To Jessica, that is, not Jaimi. People supposedly saying that Jessica got Jaimi onto a PhD by secretly completing a Master's degree in her name? The subtext for that is clearly "I'm a Very Intelligent Person. Even my detractors recognise that I'm a Very Intelligent Person! They think Jaimi must have had my help because I'm just so Very Intelligent!" The same with her claim that some people think they met when she was "Jaimi's teacher" - she never taught Jaimi at any point, but she's certainly not averse to creating the impression that she has been a teacher of other people at some other point.

Saying the HCPC found her to have done nothing wrong is a lie. She's not even registered by the HCPC as she's not a clinical psychologist! I believe it's true people who were taken in by her play-acting as a clinical psychologist have reported her lack of ethics to the HCPC. But they won't / can't investigate her as she's not a member! Such utter bullshit to say (or imply) she's been in any way endorsed by them.

She was reported to the HCPC by several practitioner and research psychologists over misuse of a protected title on Netflix. The HCPC did take action on that. They compelled Netflix to remove the misleading content. They couldn't do anything else about her unethical and unprofessional behaviour because she isn't regulated by them (their exact wording was, "As she is not actively registered with us, it is not within our remit to investigate the other concerns you have raised"). But they did have this to say:

This is a mechanism they have to ensure that any non-registered individual who has had concerns raised about their conduct will be unable to apply for registration without extra checks being undertaken on fitness to practice grounds. Hardly a shining endorsement. This is all of a piece with her usual tactics: by claiming the HCPC have exonerated her (because they don't have the remit to investigate her) she is creating the false impression that she is regulated by them, which bolsters her credibility among people who know enough about healthcare to realise that practitioner psychologists are HCPC-registered but who don't know enough to spot the disingenuous wordplay and other Walter Mitty BS. The same with when she called the BPS "my regulator" on Twitter. The BPS isn't a regulator and they have stated this very clearly in a recent article on regulation that appears on the website ("The BPS does not have a regulatory function"). She wants people to believe that she has professional oversight - and therefore endorsement - from major psychology bodies.

Some people will be fooled, but not professionals in the circles she wishes she moved in, and I think this is where a lot of her angst comes from. The ranting about not being accepted professionally because she's too working class or too lesbian or too female or too pretty or too sweary is resentment at not being hailed as a genius by the profession itself, and she needs lots of praise and reassurance from random Facebook posters to compensate for the knowledge that in academia and clinical psychology she's seen as a fraud (among the people who have even heard of her, that is). She just can't bear that a practitioner psychologist would hear her name and not feel admiration or even envy, but, "Oh, that grifter" or - worse - "Who's that?".

My own sense is that she's doing this now because she's upset her spurious court case has been dropped for lack of evidence, and she needs to retcon events to explain to her closest acolytes why her glorious legal vindication isn't happening after all.

 

[AccidentalAcademic]

Typical narc. Is clearly the aggressor in that exchange, with the other person being reasonable, but somehow manages to see herself as the victim. Mind blowing.

Clinical psychology is a small world, forensic psychology even smaller, and people in those fields would realise very quickly that she couldn't have worked in any of the prisons or NHS trusts in the Midlands. I'm not in that region but I can name five CPs working there off the top of my head. There aren't many degrees of separation between the UK's practitioner psychologists, especially not in the digital age. There are professional WhatsApp groups and a private qualified forum to which you can only gain access by sharing your HCPC reg number with the site admin. This is why Jessica "never comments" on professionals' posts. She's brand-savvy enough to realise that she can't sell her fabrications to people who could out her as a fraud in about three minutes. The idea that professionals are "always sniping" at her for no reason other than their own petty envy is what she tells her fan club, trusting that they're equally disconnected from the field and will not cotton onto the truth - that practitioners on social media have got wise to her refusal to give a clear answer to a straight question where her career is concerned. If that counselling psychologist had asked, "Did you advise the government on this?" Jess would have spun a vague convoluted line about all the advisory work Victim Focus does. "Was that your recommendation to the committee?" is much more pointed and harder to duck, which is why Jess is feeling resentful.

 

[butterjamcream]

It reads like someone trying to pass as young & working class - it’s like a caricature.
---


I think because Jaimi actually has very little depth of knowledge regarding the training she delivers (having not worked / studied in mental health, VAWG, support roles, criminal justice etc), she mimics Jessica’s confidence and just throws information at the group.

I don’t mean to belittle her. But there’s no getting around her lack of knowledge and experience, and you just can’t hide that among most professionals in relevant fields.

It really says a lot about Jessica, in many different ways, that she puts Jaimi in that position.

It’s serious though. They take money from tax payers, the pockets of women desperately trying to improve their employability and cash strapped women’s groups and what they get is a pound shop substitute teacher in Jaimi.

She has no experience or qualifications in training. No experience in facilitating. No front line experience working with victim-survivors. No qualifications in it.

Her presentations go off the rails very quickly. She uses terms incorrectly, gets stats wrong. She is out of her depth.

And the worse thing is Jaimi trains the police- HOW THE FUCK IS THAT VICTIM FOCUSED? that’s just short changing victim-survivors once again.


There are / were decent trainers at VF and fortunately they were left alone to write their own material. A few times Jaimi intervened - she corrected one trainers definition of misogyny- to something that was so obviously wrong. Probably just doing it to try and stamp some kind of authority under the guise of ‘feedback’.

Jess actually hates training. Weird because she is actually a decent speaker. But she is lazy AF. Always cancelling at the last minute- putting work onto others.
---
Hahahaaaa….. except a lot of her blogs are having a go at women- like the last one that seriously libels her staff (yes they are identifiable Jessica- not naming them is not a protection from libel) and also libels Sally Ann.

Other blogs that she published - like her sinister ‘pillars of justice’ blog published and aimed at her staff.


The truth is Jessica is when feminists write about you it isn’t a hit piece- it’s and intervention. It’s demanding better for women. It’s safeguarding.

Staff members came off their mental health medications in an unsupervised and unregulated way. This devastated lives. I know everyone here knows exactly what coming of anti depressants/ anti psychotics looks like when not supervised.


Her response…..? Threats. Bullying. No sick pay.

Seriously Jessica- fuck you.
---
And as for ‘you are all plagiarising me/ I’m so original/I’m going to end patriarchy’ ….. well I have a fun game….

It’s called Tate or Taylor….. you have to guess who said it-


1) “depression? Some people are just really unhappy”

2) “depression is not a clinical disease, but just a label”

3) “trillions have been wasted on anti-depressants”

4) “it is not scientifically proved that depression is real”


I’ll give you a clue- they are all Andrew Tate in 2017- way before Jessica turned up. I wouldn’t be so proud about sounding like Andrew Tate- but then I’m not a psychopath.
---

It’s serious though. They take money from tax payers, the pockets of women desperately trying to improve their employability and cash strapped women’s groups and what they get is a pound shop substitute teacher in Jaimi.

She has no experience or qualifications in training. No experience in facilitating. No front line experience working with victim-survivors. No qualifications in it.

Her presentations go off the rails very quickly. She uses terms incorrectly, gets stats wrong. She is out of her depth.

And the worse thing is Jaimi trains the police- HOW THE FUCK IS THAT VICTIM FOCUSED? that’s just short changing victim-survivors once again.


There are / were decent trainers at VF and fortunately they were left alone to write their own material. A few times Jaimi intervened - she corrected one trainers definition of misogyny- to something that was so obviously wrong. Probably just doing it to try and stamp some kind of authority under the guise of ‘feedback’.

Jess actually hates training. Weird because she is actually a decent speaker. But she is lazy AF. Always cancelling at the last minute- putting work onto others.
---
Hahahaaaa….. except a lot of her blogs are having a go at women- like the last one that seriously libels her staff (yes they are identifiable Jessica- not naming them is not a protection from libel) and also libels Sally Ann.

Other blogs that she published - like her sinister ‘pillars of justice’ blog published and aimed at her staff.


The truth is Jessica is when feminists write about you it isn’t a hit piece- it’s and intervention. It’s demanding better for women. It’s safeguarding.

Staff members came off their mental health medications in an unsupervised and unregulated way. This devastated lives. I know everyone here knows exactly what coming of anti depressants/ anti psychotics looks like when not supervised.


Her response…..? Threats. Bullying. No sick pay.

Seriously Jessica- fuck you.
---
And as for ‘you are all plagiarising me/ I’m so original/I’m going to end patriarchy’ ….. well I have a fun game….

It’s called Tate or Taylor….. you have to guess who said it-


1) “depression? Some people are just really unhappy”

2) “depression is not a clinical disease, but just a label”

3) “trillions have been wasted on anti-depressants”

4) “it is not scientifically proved that depression is real”


I’ll give you a clue- they are all Andrew Tate in 2017- way before Jessica turned up. I wouldn’t be so proud about sounding like Andrew Tate- but then I’m not a psychopath.

And to be fair there is some Tate crossover with her latest anti feminist rants and her takes on older women too.

 

[lxlyfloral]

It’s so glaringly obvious that she’s never worked professionally with a psychiatrist. In the UK at least (can’t speak for any other countries as I’ve only ever worked in the UK with psychiatrists) they don’t say anything close to that. ECT is a real last resort and there’s extensive paperwork and assessments to go through for it. Psychosis isn’t just written off as being life long, there’s a recovery framework and people are always expected to make a recovery with support. I’ve never in my life heard a doctor say someone will be ill forever. Psychiatrists often refer people to psychologists and deem people as needing trauma therapy. I’ve seen multiple multiple psychiatrist assessments recognise and highlight that trauma is a root cause of someone’s presentation. When she’s saying “we can’t test for it” is she not aware of diagnostic questionnaires? Of screening tools?

Maybe if she spent even a few weeks in proper clinical work and actually worked in the environment she’s always preaching about, she’d have more knowledge of how things ACTUALLY work. Until then, she’s just embarrassing herself. Jess, come do a few weeks in an NHS adult acute mental health ward and you’re going to be so humiliated at all the nonsense you’ve been putting out

Everyone who’s ever worked clinically in NHS mental health services (a lot of her following/followers) knows what she is always preaching isn’t even accurate or true, and it just highlights her inexperience

 

[RightWingGrift]

There is so much to unpack here. Saying this about her ex husband, who is now bringing the children up when her children can see it seems so damaging and confusing for them. If their dad is so abusive, why do they live with him, when he might not even have PR over one of them. They must be wondering this.

The only explanation as to why they live with him if everything she has said is true is that she lost residency of them in court and it wasn't by choice he has them, but again, one of them he likely doesn't have PR for. Unless he adopted him and then got residency in court because she either didn't fight it or they found her unfit.
---


The fact he's never spoke up makes me think he's either a great dad thinking only of the kids or she has a big hold over him (perhaps £85,000 worth of hold). He must need her for child maintenance too, but he can get that court ordered and say what he likes.

The fact her ex- husband hasn't spoken about this makes me think she has some kind of silencing tool slapped on him. Having seen the lies she made up about Sally Ann I have ZERO reason to think she hasn't done the same to him. And he may feel that he risks too much re the kids by going against it.

And HI everyone- I'm interested as I'm a feminist who is worried by some feminist activists drifting towards dodgy approaches re anti-vax, anti-medicine & exploiting women for cash.

 

[AccidentalAcademic]

Sally Ann was hospitalized because she was left suicidal over the whole situation, and in a WhatsApp or text message leaked by a disillusioned VictimFocus staff member, Jessica said she was worried because if Sally Ann did kill herself it would make her (Jessica) look bad.

That's all anyone needs to know about Jessica Taylor. If you had no other details about the grifting or the bullying of her staff or the incessant self-aggrandising lies, that one comment reveals what her ethics and priorities are.

Nearly two decades ago I was stalked by a woman experiencing psychosis and who had developed some delusional thoughts about me, such as that I was casting spells on her to make her suffer. On one occasion she called police and told them I'd murdered my flatmate. My flatmate and I were both at work when we got a phone call from our neighbour to say police were there and wanting to speak to us. It made me feel sick with anxiety, not because I thought this woman was a physical threat (she wasn't), but because I had no idea what fallout I would have to deal with next. But I never wanted her to be punished and I would never have demonized her on social media, because she was vulnerable and ill and she needed help. And that's an actual stalker with beliefs that were clearly divorced from reality, not someone raising entirely rational concerns over having her data used in a re-traumatizing way by someone who should really have known better.

 

[AccidentalAcademic]

"Hundreds of you have messaged me..."

She writes this every single time people disagree with her to any significant extent. Every single time. It's like clockwork. The subtext: "You might disagree with me, but I've got THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE who hang onto my every word! Yesterday they sent HUNDREDS OF MESSAGES agreeing with me/telling me I'm great. What? Oh, you wouldn't know them, they go to another school. It's the world's leading trauma-informed school that I actually set up when the DfE and the WHO begged me for help, and they wanted me to be the principal but I knew that wouldn't leave me enough time for research that changes the world." It's such a cringe tactic to try and elicit the compliments she craves.

 

[butterjamcream]

Back to Victim Focus- my previous contribution to these threads was as current staff- happy to announce I’m now contributing as ex staff #Freedom #TheFutureIsBright #VictimFocusSurvivor

I want to share some of the realities of life there- but don’t want to give away my identity or place others at risk- especially considering her habit of using the courts and police to punch down- classy Jessica.

- re Jessica’s inbox- there was very little in the way of hate male or abusive content- genuinely very little. I would ALWAYS err towards the believe women position- but in this case I don’t. During my time, and I had access there was no evidence of stalking or abusive behaviour. Worth pointing out this included access to her personal messages.

There was some DMs- mostly vulnerable women. The lionesses share of the DMs went unanswered- not even a signposting automatic responder.

- she did at some stage get a member of staff to manage the inbox. The particular staff member although previously an IDVA was not an appropriate choice. Immature and one of the staff members responsible for a lot of abusive comments about women, feminists and Sally Ann. She was one of Jessica’s flying monkeys who turned up (on work time) to an online conference to harasss Sally Ann during a presentation she was making. Definitely a ringleader in terms of bullyingof other staff and Sally Ann.

Any way I digress. She was in charge of the inbox, and she made a document for Jessica of all the nice comments and presented it to her, gushing during a meeting. So to say social media is one of her main narc feeds is an understatement when it’s framed and presented with a ribbon.