Her recent post about suicide is spectacularly irresponsible and ill-informed. And, whilst in many ways, she has become a laughable caricature of the person she made such efforts to become, she continues to show absolute disregard for the vulnerable people whose attention she courts, and whose trust she abuses.
Jessica knows full well that the carefully choreographed and ambiguous wording she uses to describe her ‘frontline’ experience is designed to have her followers understand her to be working therapeutically with people, at the very least. Testament to this is the nature of the advice that people seek from her in public forums – I shudder to think what people share with her in private communications. It is shockingly unethical, callous and insulting.
Here are just a few of the comments I picked out following a quick scan of the responses to (the suicide) post – I’m sure there are more. Jessica writes that she has…
‘worked for years on the frontline in mental health services’
‘worked frontline for years before going into academia’
‘ran a mental health centre for 5 years’
‘worked in frontline sexual violence and domestic abuse for 7 years’
‘had a Psychology degree and Ad Dip CBT’ adding that ‘The vast majority of people working in third sector support services do not have formal qualifications like I did’
Indeed, it seems Jessica was not just qualified to work ‘frontline’, we are to understand that she was - relative to her third-sector contemporaries - overqualified. All those qualifications and frontline experience and yet she is seemingly unaware that The Samaritans helpline isn’t staffed by ‘trained crisis counsellors’… She really is extraordinarily comfortable with churning out (potentially dangerous) misinformation. Her refusal to correct herself, even when her errors are politely pointed out to her by well-intentioned followers, screams of a breathtakingly fragile ego and an exceptionally thin veneer masking her obvious ineptitude.
Case in point – Jessica’s response to people asking her to share exactly what form her ‘frontline’ work has taken. Enquirers are accused of ‘getting personal’ because they ‘lack a strong enough counter-argument’ to her ‘points’. Jessica comments to one of her supporters that ‘It’s the same old tit. People claiming I’ve never worked frontline and mocking my qualifications. Boring and unoriginal. And, has zero impact on my actual work. Just speaks volumes about them, says absolutely nothing about me’ … The enquirers reveal nothing of themselves other than their concern for others and that they wish to assert their right to scrutinise, you, the speaker, before blindly accepting your position. Rather, it is your response to them, Jessica, that reveals a great deal about you. It reveals exactly who you are and what you are so clumsily trying to hide.
It’s all foot stompingly juvenile but, as has been said here many times before, people have been, and sadly people continue to be harmed by her and her organisation (I’m mindful to include those who did, and who still do work for her, having heard of the hardship one ex-staff member had to endure when she challenged Jessica). The Victim Focus WhatsApp group messages about Sally-Ann were vile, and I’m so sorry that Sally-Ann had to see that. Sally-Ann has conducted herself with such dignity, courage and authenticity – she is the antithesis of Jessica. She has been incredibly brave to speak out and not be silenced by Jessica and her (ever-diminishing) minions.
I hope it helps to know that the tide is turning. I have a foot in two of the ‘sectors’ Jessica and her business model depend on for revenue. I can tell you with absolute confidence that Jessica has little to no status or tangible presence within the sectors I commonly work with, despite her frequent assertions to the contrary. She, unsurprisingly, presents a thoroughly dishonest account of her standing within said sectors – to the amusement and incredulity of those aware of her grandiose and inaccurate claims. That said, I am always poised, should her name crop up, to encourage due diligence and challenge any notion that Jessica is in any way a credible researcher/training provider. But increasingly, it seems I would be preaching to the converted. Choosing my words very carefully here… (note to self to channel Jessica’s evasive and non-committal wording) I attended a meeting of, let’s call them, a commissioning group of sorts (of the kind that would make Jessica salivate) and staff from high-profile organisations (you know, the kind staffed by people less qualified than Jessica). Jessica, will I’m sure, be thrilled to know that her name did come up (albeit informally) as my colleagues collectively commiserated with, let’s call them a ‘subsidiary group’, who had been hoodwinked into commissioning a piece of work from VF and who have now been advised to keep the output very low profile (i.e., bury it). Senior colleagues had, among other things, been made aware of the mock-up photo of Jessica fighting with Rachel Williams. It was NOT well received.
Similarly, I recently heard about a project being reallocated because it had been noted that members of the team were associated with Jessica. It seems that in my world, having any association with Jessica Taylor is fast becoming a poison chalice.
Like many of you, I had such high hopes for Jessica. There is a sense that many people were genuinely rooting for her and celebrating her successes. Her initial message was absolutely worth championing. She was supported, her voice was elevated, and she was championed by many (often older) feminists who she now accuses of being jealous, uneducated, and lacking the cognitive capacity to make sense of her revolutionary thinking. Apparently, they’re just not ready for her. But Jessica and team Jessica, c’mon (!), do you really believe that leading feminist voices such as Julie Bindel (who cited you and your business in one of her publications as recently as 2021) is jealous of you??!!!
I would have said even six months ago that there was space to climb down from this nonsense, to get a grip of what goodwill remained and invest in a little of that self-reflection you so readily accuse others of not being capable of (a reflective journal might be a useful tool to keep you on track ;-)). But we all know, of course, that it would take a great deal more than that to stop the rot at this point.
Academia could not be more disinterested in Jessica Taylor, and the various services that engage with the VAWG sector are either getting wise to her business model or have never heard of her.
She will continue to channel her efforts into producing poorly written pop psychology books and TV work. That is the space she is knowingly carving out for herself. It’s just a shame she can’t find a way to do that in a way that also prioritises others’ safety.
I am reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with someone who had been approached by Endemol to be their resident psychologist on Big Brother. Their response ‘dear god no, of course, I turned it down. I haven’t worked like a dog for twenty-five years to do something as career-ending as becoming a TV psychologist. I got into this because I wanted to create change not impress my old mates from secondary school’.
But we must trust Jessica’s judgement on this. She is, after all, a highly evolved human. One of the great thinkers of our time.
Jokes aside, I hope to goodness that this most recent post of Jessica’s does not result in someone harming themselves, and or, discouraging anyone from help-seeking. Likewise, to those who have lost people close to them to suicide, I hope the accusatory nature of some sections of her post was read through a lens of disregard for this woman’s opinion.
Know that Jessica neither believes thinks nor feels what she writes. She writes for perceived kudos, social media traction and revenue security, not to express genuine conviction.
Sally-Ann, if you check in here, I hope you’re holding up ok. You have many people fighting your corner. You may not see us, but we are here.
Jessica knows full well that the carefully choreographed and ambiguous wording she uses to describe her ‘frontline’ experience is designed to have her followers understand her to be working therapeutically with people, at the very least. Testament to this is the nature of the advice that people seek from her in public forums – I shudder to think what people share with her in private communications. It is shockingly unethical, callous and insulting.
Here are just a few of the comments I picked out following a quick scan of the responses to (the suicide) post – I’m sure there are more. Jessica writes that she has…
‘worked for years on the frontline in mental health services’
‘worked frontline for years before going into academia’
‘ran a mental health centre for 5 years’
‘worked in frontline sexual violence and domestic abuse for 7 years’
‘had a Psychology degree and Ad Dip CBT’ adding that ‘The vast majority of people working in third sector support services do not have formal qualifications like I did’
Indeed, it seems Jessica was not just qualified to work ‘frontline’, we are to understand that she was - relative to her third-sector contemporaries - overqualified. All those qualifications and frontline experience and yet she is seemingly unaware that The Samaritans helpline isn’t staffed by ‘trained crisis counsellors’… She really is extraordinarily comfortable with churning out (potentially dangerous) misinformation. Her refusal to correct herself, even when her errors are politely pointed out to her by well-intentioned followers, screams of a breathtakingly fragile ego and an exceptionally thin veneer masking her obvious ineptitude.
Case in point – Jessica’s response to people asking her to share exactly what form her ‘frontline’ work has taken. Enquirers are accused of ‘getting personal’ because they ‘lack a strong enough counter-argument’ to her ‘points’. Jessica comments to one of her supporters that ‘It’s the same old tit. People claiming I’ve never worked frontline and mocking my qualifications. Boring and unoriginal. And, has zero impact on my actual work. Just speaks volumes about them, says absolutely nothing about me’ … The enquirers reveal nothing of themselves other than their concern for others and that they wish to assert their right to scrutinise, you, the speaker, before blindly accepting your position. Rather, it is your response to them, Jessica, that reveals a great deal about you. It reveals exactly who you are and what you are so clumsily trying to hide.
It’s all foot stompingly juvenile but, as has been said here many times before, people have been, and sadly people continue to be harmed by her and her organisation (I’m mindful to include those who did, and who still do work for her, having heard of the hardship one ex-staff member had to endure when she challenged Jessica). The Victim Focus WhatsApp group messages about Sally-Ann were vile, and I’m so sorry that Sally-Ann had to see that. Sally-Ann has conducted herself with such dignity, courage and authenticity – she is the antithesis of Jessica. She has been incredibly brave to speak out and not be silenced by Jessica and her (ever-diminishing) minions.
I hope it helps to know that the tide is turning. I have a foot in two of the ‘sectors’ Jessica and her business model depend on for revenue. I can tell you with absolute confidence that Jessica has little to no status or tangible presence within the sectors I commonly work with, despite her frequent assertions to the contrary. She, unsurprisingly, presents a thoroughly dishonest account of her standing within said sectors – to the amusement and incredulity of those aware of her grandiose and inaccurate claims. That said, I am always poised, should her name crop up, to encourage due diligence and challenge any notion that Jessica is in any way a credible researcher/training provider. But increasingly, it seems I would be preaching to the converted. Choosing my words very carefully here… (note to self to channel Jessica’s evasive and non-committal wording) I attended a meeting of, let’s call them, a commissioning group of sorts (of the kind that would make Jessica salivate) and staff from high-profile organisations (you know, the kind staffed by people less qualified than Jessica). Jessica, will I’m sure, be thrilled to know that her name did come up (albeit informally) as my colleagues collectively commiserated with, let’s call them a ‘subsidiary group’, who had been hoodwinked into commissioning a piece of work from VF and who have now been advised to keep the output very low profile (i.e., bury it). Senior colleagues had, among other things, been made aware of the mock-up photo of Jessica fighting with Rachel Williams. It was NOT well received.
Similarly, I recently heard about a project being reallocated because it had been noted that members of the team were associated with Jessica. It seems that in my world, having any association with Jessica Taylor is fast becoming a poison chalice.
Like many of you, I had such high hopes for Jessica. There is a sense that many people were genuinely rooting for her and celebrating her successes. Her initial message was absolutely worth championing. She was supported, her voice was elevated, and she was championed by many (often older) feminists who she now accuses of being jealous, uneducated, and lacking the cognitive capacity to make sense of her revolutionary thinking. Apparently, they’re just not ready for her. But Jessica and team Jessica, c’mon (!), do you really believe that leading feminist voices such as Julie Bindel (who cited you and your business in one of her publications as recently as 2021) is jealous of you??!!!
I would have said even six months ago that there was space to climb down from this nonsense, to get a grip of what goodwill remained and invest in a little of that self-reflection you so readily accuse others of not being capable of (a reflective journal might be a useful tool to keep you on track ;-)). But we all know, of course, that it would take a great deal more than that to stop the rot at this point.
Academia could not be more disinterested in Jessica Taylor, and the various services that engage with the VAWG sector are either getting wise to her business model or have never heard of her.
She will continue to channel her efforts into producing poorly written pop psychology books and TV work. That is the space she is knowingly carving out for herself. It’s just a shame she can’t find a way to do that in a way that also prioritises others’ safety.
I am reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with someone who had been approached by Endemol to be their resident psychologist on Big Brother. Their response ‘dear god no, of course, I turned it down. I haven’t worked like a dog for twenty-five years to do something as career-ending as becoming a TV psychologist. I got into this because I wanted to create change not impress my old mates from secondary school’.
But we must trust Jessica’s judgement on this. She is, after all, a highly evolved human. One of the great thinkers of our time.
Jokes aside, I hope to goodness that this most recent post of Jessica’s does not result in someone harming themselves, and or, discouraging anyone from help-seeking. Likewise, to those who have lost people close to them to suicide, I hope the accusatory nature of some sections of her post was read through a lens of disregard for this woman’s opinion.
Know that Jessica neither believes thinks nor feels what she writes. She writes for perceived kudos, social media traction and revenue security, not to express genuine conviction.
Sally-Ann, if you check in here, I hope you’re holding up ok. You have many people fighting your corner. You may not see us, but we are here.
