- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
They seem to really enjoy the drama, while Sally-Ann seems obviously (and understandably) very distressed.
They're bullies. Who behaves like this on a professional social media account?
They're bullies. Who behaves like this on a professional social media account?
The impact on SA is really worrying me. As the only named person she will be in focus.
Her name has been circulated on a account/platforms which claims an enormous reach - c1m (???) Other large follower a/cs have either circulated or supported. These accounts may have had professional/work based interactions and may have personal friendships. I would hope this is not orchestrated or parties acting in concert.
If this was being reported in a newspaper there would be a requirement for balance. SPOs are a relatively new process so I am not clear what the requirements are re public disclosure of evidence/grounds for the order.
I don't know if I've misremembered this but was SA helped/supported/profiled by LJ & DtD??
Her name has been circulated on a account/platforms which claims an enormous reach - c1m (???) Other large follower a/cs have either circulated or supported. These accounts may have had professional/work based interactions and may have personal friendships. I would hope this is not orchestrated or parties acting in concert.
If this was being reported in a newspaper there would be a requirement for balance. SPOs are a relatively new process so I am not clear what the requirements are re public disclosure of evidence/grounds for the order.
I don't know if I've misremembered this but was SA helped/supported/profiled by LJ & DtD??
I’m disgusted that her supporters, no matter how they feel about Jess, think it is acceptable to publicly name a survivor who is clearly very vulnerable. They have totally bought into the narrative that Jess and Jaimi are the vulnerable victims here and that SA is a perpetrator.
Even if Sally Ann had done any of these things she is still very vulnerable and has mental health problems, it would not be OK to bully and attack her even then. Also I love how Jaimi cries oppression because Sally Ann tagged her university professors "that was private information!" when Jaimi herself doxxes people on social media (giving their real full names), and Jess has repeatedly complained to people's employers and universities to try and get them sacked/thrown out/punished
It’s the classic do as I say not as I do.
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.
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.
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.
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.
One thing I’m not understanding (and why her fans aren’t thinking this) is why she’s not removed SA’s story in the reprint version of the book if she’s been harrasing and stalking?
I may be missing something here but surely if someone is being as awful as she’s making out, you’d remove it?
I may be missing something here but surely if someone is being as awful as she’s making out, you’d remove it?
It seems there is no limit to the depths which Jess will go to satisfy her narcissistic needs. I hope she’s not pushing SA as far as she can go psychologically, as she’s been unable to stop her legally. She thinks by clearing herself to her fans on social media and pushing SA to become suicidal again she won’t be exposed and will have a new trauma drama to get publicity and sympathy from. I hope SA and others involved ( JS named someone else who had apparently betrayed her) are protected and supported.
I had similar thoughts. I'd suspect in her mind removing it would be an admission that perhaps it shouldn't have been there in the first place.
I think a lot of Jess' defenders at the moment haven't taken a proper step back and really thought about how this must feel for SA. I can imagine they probably think 'well, she's told the story, putting it in print isn't a huge deal'. I was thinking last night about how it would feel to have something awful I've experienced put into print and to see it in writing, without having had sight of it first and then having the choice to have my recollection of my own experience blocked. I'd feel utterly violated, again. I'd feel that any tiny bit of power and control and hold on how I viewed and reflected on that event or how I felt about myself after the event would have been taken away as it's been reproduced through the lens of someone else and used as an anecdote. I'd feel totally revictimised. It's such a reflection of Jess' character (and work experience) that she can't see this. Even worse if she can but her ego overrides this.
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.
Also read the blog in shock that she’s really fully committing to this narrative. Both her and Jami saying they ‘never retaliated’ when we have all seen evidence to the contrary? I ended up feeling I was going mad. Does Jess think she can just steamroller the world until we all agree with her version of events?!
I’m also very concerned about SAR and really hope she’s got people around her to keep her safe and supported.
I’m also very concerned about SAR and really hope she’s got people around her to keep her safe and supported.
LOL Jaimi bitching and moaning about how we're "obsessed" with her and Jess and most of us post on threads about other women, proving we are misogynists. Well you're the one who has clearly gone through our posting histories! I've been quite active on Simon Harris' and Cleaning With Mario's threads, I guess they are women now
That’s exactly how gaslighting works. You think you’re going crazy because nobody would be that blatant. Gaslighters will say whatever they want you to believe regardless of evidence as what they say goes - the end.
She won’t remove the story from the book as she would see that as SA winning.
I had a very manipulative, emotionally abusive stepfather. One of his favourite tactics was to constantly interpret everything I did in the most absurdly negative way (e.g. I was late to visit my mum because my train was delayed; he turned this into "you're giving sob stories and trying to make your mum sorry for you.") Or he would talk about how I was selfish, a bad daughter, etc. and cite things I had supposedly said or done in the past, that I had no memory of and thus didn't know whether or not they happened. Jess's "stalking" article definitely reminded me of this
It's not misogynistic to comment on women who are choosing to take money from vulnerable women and who, in some cases, weaponise mental health and domestic abuse in order to either silence female critics of that behaviour or obtain more money. Or both. Whether they're women is neither here nor there in this case.
Yes, I notice she hasn't been speaking up in defence of Jack Monroe recently ... wonder why that is?
I cannot imagine
ETA while they're here, they should probably have a gander at the Oli Sykes thread.
Oli Sykes,
Hey! Can someone please start a thread on Bring Me The Horizons singer Oli Sykes, would love to do a deep dive and I’m sure there’s lots of knowledge lurking here! Thanks!
tattle.life
- Status