WARNING: This wiki contains discussions of sexual abuse, suicide, harassment, and other sensitive subjects in context of Jess Taylor and her work.
Some information in this section comes from an article by Julian Vigo: Part 1 and Part 2. See below for more on what happened when the article came out.
Where possible, we have used archived links (rather than screenshots) that can't be faked, edited, or deleted.
Unauthorised use of survivor stories
Jess has published at least three women's stories of abuse without their consent: Sally Ann, Rosie, and Carol. Sally Ann and Carol's stories both appear in Why Women Are Blamed For Everything, and Rosie's in Sexy But Psycho. Jess has also attacked the domestic violence campaigner Rachel Williams for publicly supporting these women.
Sally Ann
In 2018, Jess ran a campaign against the use of graphic educational films about sexual abuse. Sally Ann contacted Jess with her story of being traumatised by such a film, and Jess asked to use this story in a blog post. Sally Ann agreed via email but did not sign a consent form. At the time, she was in poor mental health and had recently been in hospital. Jess was aware of this, but didn't question whether Sally Ann was capable of giving informed consent.
When Why Women Are Blamed For Everything was released, Sally Ann saw that her story was included without permission. Later, in 2022, a friend also read the book and identified her. This upset Sally Ann and she decided to speak on Twitter about what happened. For the sake of clarity, note that Sally Ann was not interviewed for Jess's book or academic papers, and has never made any complaints about Jess's second book Sexy But Psycho. Jess has taken advantage of confusion around this in order to further her own version of events.
Jess initially denied publishing the story, then said that Sally Ann was lying and had given consent. Jess's publisher confirmed that Sally Ann's story was indeed featured in the book; but stated that no consent was necessary, as a pseudonym was used. The publisher's lawyer subsequently justified their refusal to remove the story from the book. Jess has refused to take down the original blog post with Sally Ann's story, despite being repeatedly asked to do so. She has spoken about the importance of ongoing consent in a sexual relationship, yet doesn't seem to think it applies in other contexts, including her own work.
Jess has tried to keep Sally Ann quiet and use her as an example to intimidate others. This includes:
Accusing Sally Ann of stalking, harassing, and doxxing Jess, threatening her wife and children, and homophobic abuse.
Making complaints against Sally Ann to police - despite Jess saying she was "not gonna wheel out the lawyers or the police." Police contacted Sally Ann's social worker to check on her safety, and decided not to act on Jess's complaints. They subsequently confirmed with Sally Ann that no action has been taken against her. She also works with children, which requires a full criminal record check.
A lawyer for VictimFocus asking Sally Ann for financial damages and a public apology, even though VF had nothing to do with it as her complaint was with Jess. Sally Ann did not comply, and the matter went no further.
Declining Sally Ann's Subject Access Request to VictimFocus as "vexatious", and again threatening her with police and lawyers.
Jess's wife Jaimi sending Sally Ann a manipulative, guilt-tripping message. If you had a work-related dispute with someone, would you expect your partner to get involved and contact them?
Attempting to have Sally Ann issued with a court order for stalking, see "Stalking allegations" below.
In a voice message to one of the VF team, Jess claimed that she'd recently discovered Sally Ann had been stalking her for years. This was never mentioned before or since. She falsely said that Sally Ann was about to be arrested; expressing concern that Jess would be "blamed" if Sally Ann tried to take her own life. This is a transcript of the message.
It's very telling that Jess anticipated a risk to Sally Ann's safety, but was more concerned with her own public image. Why would anyone "blame" Jess for going to the police if her wife, children, and pets were in danger? Jess has said that women should not be threatened with arrest for speaking their minds online, and it is unfair for police to look through a survivor's phone and computer. But she wanted Sally Ann arrested and her electronics seized. Evidently, Jess's principles about protecting survivors apply only when she likes the person in question. "Rachel" is Rachel Williams - see below.
Jess has built her career around talking about the problem of women being treated as liars and mentally ill when they disclose abuse. But this is exactly what she has done to Sally Ann. Even if Sally Ann had initially agreed to have her story published, she has now withdrawn her consent. Jess's failure to respect this demonstrates a disregard for professional ethics and the wellbeing of survivors.
Rosie
Rosie and her friend Rose both work with abuse survivors. Rose and Jess knew each other from academic circles, and Rosie developed a friendship with Jess as well around 2018. Rosie eventually disclosed her experiences of sexual violence in confidence as a friend. Subsequently, Jess used this story without consent in her second book, Sexy But Psycho. The book contains an almost exact verbatim record of what Rosie said to Jess when they went to a restaurant together. This suggests Jess made detailed notes shortly after the conversation, or even that she could have recorded it. Why would she do this, and was she already planning to use the story somewhere?
Upon reading Sexy But Psycho, Rose instantly recognised that Rosie’s story was included. Jess denied it, insisting that everyone featured in the book had given written consent. She then tried to suggest that Rose hadn't even read the book and had deliberately misled Rosie.
Rosie gave the following account of what happened (originally published on Twitter, now deleted):
Rose has also given her own version of events. Jess denied it and repeated her claim that everyone featured in the book had given permission. She also deleted tweets about going to the restaurant with Rosie, but screenshots remain online.
Rosie and Rose have used social media to draw attention to how Rosie was featured in the book without her consent. Jess has not responded as aggressively as she did with Sally Ann. This may be because Rosie and Rose both work with survivors themselves, and others in the industry know that they have no reason to lie. Rosie and Rose have attempted to contact Jess's publisher and the British Psychological Society, but have been ignored or brushed off. As with Sally Ann, even though the book in question contained specific details that identify Rosie, the publisher said Jess did not need consent to use the story because Rosie's real name was not published.
Carol
Carol came forward in the second part of Julian Vigo's article. She was interviewed for Jess's thesis, and gave consent to use her story at conferences or in academic journals. Jess mentioned that the thesis was being turned into a book, and promised to allow Carol to see and approve the drafts. Carol assumed this was an academic book. She sent feedback on Jess's interpretation of the research findings; but then never heard from Jess again. Jess then used the story in Why Women Are Blamed For Everything. Carol had specifically said that she did not want her story used in any book intended for general publication, as her family is unaware that she was abused. She chose to use a pseudonym in the article, both to maintain her anonymity and because she is concerned about reprisals from Jess.
Rachel
Rachel Williams is a respected campaigner against domestic violence. She had some doubts about Jess after a previous negative experience of hosting a webinar with her. When Rosie and Sally Ann spoke out about Jess publishing their stories without consent, Rachel followed and retweeted them on social media. Jess contacted Rachel privately, asking her not to share these tweets. Rachel refused, and also made critical remarks about Jess’s approach in other areas.
Some time later, former members of VictimFocus staff sent Rachel screenshots from a group chat where Jess and others had made threats/abuse against her. See "VF group chat" section for details. Rachel shared these screenshots on her social media and wrote about what happened. The feminist author Julie Bindel (a friend of Rachel) defended her. Jess's subsequent claims of being harassed by "feminists" are likely an attempt to discredit Rachel and Bindel. Jess again tried to use police to intimidate Rachel, justifying this to VF staff by saying that Rachel had doxxed her and shared her "house details."
British Psychological Society complaint
After Sally Ann made several complaints against Jess to the British Psychological Society (BPS), they decided not to take any action.
Their response states that they did not find Jess to have broken their rules about confidentiality in Sally Ann's case specifically. It does not say that Jess did nothing wrong or that her work is ethical. It's highly questionable to put the burden of proof onto Sally Ann, and to tell her not to share the verdict with anyone else. The BPS is known for loose regulation of its members, and its complaints handling procedure has been subject to an investigation by the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care.
Jess made a statement suggesting that the BPS had found all allegations about her since the publication of Sexy But Psycho to be false. This is dishonest; the decision referred solely to formal complaints made by Sally Ann. Jess mentioned Sexy But Psycho (the book featuring Rosie's story) as a way to deflect and make it sound like this was a "get out of jail free." She and Jaimi shared a gloating meme on Instagram, along with photos of them celebrating with dinner and cocktails. She later said that anyone questioning the BPS was part of a "smear campaign" and more concerned with wanting her to look bad than with anyone's safety.
Jess has also claimed that Sally Ann's complaints were homophobic in nature and "referenced (Jess's) sexuality." This is deliberately vaguely worded - for example, it would reference Jess's sexuality if Sally Ann were to mention that Jaimi was involved. Without further clarification or evidence, it doesn't show Sally Ann did anything wrong. The text of the BPS decision doesn't mention any complaints about Jess's personal life.
Julian Vigo investigation
On 23 October 2022, the journalist Julian Vigo published the first part of an investigation into Jess, as an article on Substack (links above.) Vigo interviewed Sally Ann, Rose, Rosie, Carol, and Rachel along with a couple of VAWG professionals who expressed doubts about Jess.
Jess was approached for comment, but chose not to respond. When the first part of the investigation came out, Jess claimed that legal action would be taken; Vigo hasn't mentioned this happening. Jess and Jaimi have also tried to suggest that Vigo is just a "blogger" and not a real journalist because she publishes online. She's an experienced print journalist, and online platforms are a valid medium for journalism. Does Jess consider herself not to be a professional writer because she also has a Substack?
Jess and Jaimi tried to control the narrative by accusing Sally Ann of doxxing (yet again), and coming out with a barrage of accusations about her and unspecified "feminists." Jaimi tried to intimidate two Twitter users by giving their real (full) names, making it clear she knows who they are. Apparently it is OK to share someone's personal information when Jaimi does it. In the below screenshots, the red indicates where she used someone's real name. She also falsely claimed that Sally Ann had lied about her story being in Sexy But Psycho, and had misled Rosie into thinking her experiences had been published without consent.
Stalking allegations
On 12th January 2024, Jess released a Substack article about being a "victim of stalking." She stated that Sally Ann was served with a Stalking Protection Order in August 2023 for threatening and harassing Jess and Jaimi, but that they were not permitted to talk about it until now. There are no restrictions on talking about a criminal case when it's concluded (unlike family court), and if you have a Stalking Protection Order against someone, you will normally be advised not to name them or post about them online. Jess accused Sally Ann and used her full name - deliberately setting her up for others to attack.
What actually happened was that Sally Ann was served with an interim order in August while waiting for the case to be heard. An interim order is granted as a protective measure for the complainant's safety until the case comes up; it doesn't mean the person is guilty (which hasn't been decided yet.) When it got to court, Jess's lawyer could not provide enough evidence to justify a Stalking Protection Order. On 19th January, Sally Ann posted evidence confirming the case had been closed due to a lack of evidence and that she was no longer under an interim order.
In the article, Jess again defended using Sally Ann's story in her book, with a version of events that contradicts what she has said previously. Again, she failed to address the fact she refused to remove the story after Sally Ann asked. By naming Sally Ann and no one else, she's deliberately making Sally Ann a target for threats and abuse. Jess also ranted at length about how "feminists" had been harassing and bullying her for years on end, and other lesbians ostracised her and wouldn't accept her because she isn't butch. See "Typically used deflections and distractions" below.
She made a long list of allegations, mostly dubious or outright false, against nameless "feminists." Many of these allegations referred to comments by strangers on Tattle or social media, which Jess distorted and tried to portray as a harassment campaign by prominent feminist campaigners. Several of the supposed attacks on Jess are self-aggrandising or backhanded "compliments" e.g. saying that feminists are jealous of her big breasts or that she was falsely accused of having completed a Master's degree in her wife's name! (If anyone said this, it would be a fairly obvious lie; Jaimi doesn't have, nor claim to have, a Master's.) It's very telling she feels the need to emphasise herself as a "victim" of other women, and that "there's no sisterhood for tall poppies!" What she sees as the problem here is that other women are not giving her the reverence and acclaim she thinks she deserves.
She further falsely claimed that HCPC (Health and Care Professions Council), the NHS, and BPS had all investigated her and found her to have done nothing wrong. See above for the BPS verdict, which did not say this. The NHS cannot investigate her because she doesn't work for them or have any connection to them. She was reported to the HCPC because she appeared in a Netflix documentary which falsely referred to her as a "forensic psychologist", a title she does not have the right to use. The HCPC compelled the makers of the programme to remove this. They could not investigate Jess because she isn't registered with them, but did add her to their "watchlist", meaning Jess will be subject to extra checks if she ever does register. That's not an endorsement! See this post by someone who works in clinical psychology and reported her to the HCPC.
Jaimi subsequently stated that she became suicidal after Sally Ann suggested Jess was abusing Jaimi; and that Sally Ann had tagged Jaimi's university (at the time, Jaimi had not revealed publicly where she was studying) asking them to intervene. This was inappropriate behaviour on Sally Ann's part, but it's not "stalking" or illegal. Jaimi herself has revealed personal information about others on Twitter by giving their real full names, and Jess has tagged someone's employer to try to give the false impression he was harassing her. She also said that legal action against Sally Ann continues - indicating Jess is still trying to use the legal system to intimidate Sally Ann. Jaimi claimed she and Jess had "never retaliated" against Sally Ann before, which is blatantly false.
Remember, this began over Jess's ongoing refusal to remove Sally Ann's story from her book - re-traumatizing her and causing her ongoing distress. Even if Sally Ann were stalking Jess, she has severe mental illness and is very vulnerable; it would still be completely inappropriate to "name and shame" her. Effectively, Jess published a hit piece to attack Sally Ann and to drum up support and publicity for herself before the release of her memoir.
VictimFocus
VictimFocus (VF) is Jess's company. It offers training about mental health and VAWG for professionals, including NHS staff and police. VF is heavily marketed around Jess as a leader, which is unusual for a business of this nature. You probably wouldn't know who the leaders or CEOs of most major organisations in VAWG are, unless you work in the field yourself. It is not a charity, and Jess has never claimed otherwise; but a lot of her followers seem to be under the impression it is, and she makes no attempt to correct this.
The VF website contains material that is poorly researched and deliberately misleading. For instance, a report titled 'I thought it was just a part of life': Understanding the Scale of Violence Committed Against Women and Girls in the UK since Birth' says that 99.7% of women in a study of 22,000 had experienced physical or sexual violence. The site claims "It is likely that every woman and girl will be subjected to violence, abuse, rape or harassment." However, there was very clear self-selection bias in this study: see here for details. (The original tweet reads: "Sorry, I think JT does great work and I like to link to her important articles, but with this study, especially the presentation, something went horribly wrong. And asking questions about it isn't 'obsession.'")
Jaimi is a director of VictimFocus and was hired as the Head of Research and Development in 2020, shortly after they got engaged. Jaimi does not have a relevant educational or professional background; her degree is in politics. When she joined VF she had little work experience, yet went straight into a highly paid senior role requiring people management. Jess says that "lived experience of trauma" is at least equally as valuable as formal education when working in VAWG. Many women working in VAWG are abuse survivors, yet they don't get hired for senior management positions straight out of university.
Training courses
VictimFocus sells several courses aimed at professionals, all of which have no value or use outside of VF. Jess says they are "CPD accredited", essentially this means they are approved by a sales company rather than any reputable institution. Large companies like this because they can meet quotas for staff CPD (Continuous Professional Development), and Jess wins more business.
The most heavily-promoted course allows someone to become a VF trainer or "facilitator." Afterwards, they will then sell the course to other people and train them, and pay an annual fee to Jess to keep their certification current. This is concerning, as it's the same way multi-level marketing schemes work.
This sort of business model (sell some form of "training" and figure it out as you go) might be OK if you're doing sales or customer service training or similar but is hugely unethical when you're potentially dealing with vulnerable victims.
Some VictimFocus courses offer Klarna payment, which should not be offered on something that vulnerable or low-income people may be buying. Jess has written about the documented link between debt and poor mental health; in fact, she posted a Twitter thread about it around the time she added the Klarna option. Some courses are sold at a reduced rate, which she says is because professionals are often priced out of resources. In that case, why is she inviting them to get into debt to buy from her?
To take a VictimFocus course, you have to agree to let Jess use any information you share, in anything she may publish in future. This isn't mentioned on the main website; you would only find out after buying, and if you don't agree, you can't proceed with the course. The use of data would supposedly be anonymous, but using a pseudonym (or no name at all) doesn't mean someone can't be identified. When Jess published Sally Ann and Rosie's stories, they were both recognised by friends because she had included very specific details.
The website also doesn't state who can see your answers, where data is stored and for how long, etc. Jess also appears to use some of her paid courses (aimed at professionals) to collect resources, as the course asks students to complete tasks such as designing training materials or explaining how they'd go about teaching a certain topic; but they don't receive any assessment or feedback on these answers.
Course for survivors
The VictimFocus website offers a free course for female survivors of sexual violence. It contains a number of questions and prompts that are potentially harmful and risk re-traumatising the person. This includes asking the survivor to compare their sexual assault with their current partner and sex life. British Psychological Society guidelines state that questions like this shouldn't be asked online (see page 18.)
As with other VF courses, you must give consent for Jess to use any information you provide. This is especially bad given her history of publishing survivors' stories without their consent. Screenshots from the course can be seen below, there is also a detailed Twitter thread by someone who took the course.
VF accounts
VictimFocus's accounts for the financial year 2021-2022 state that the company had no employees in 2021. People who formerly worked for VF have said on Tattle that they were employed by Jess (i.e. not contractors) in 2021, and that at this time, she paid salaries from her personal bank account. The accounts show that Jess took out a £13,000 loan for the business during the year, which was likely a COVID "bounce back" loan from the Government. Did she claim this on the basis that she was struggling and had to make all her employees redundant? Jess gave the following response as to why VF was registered as a dormant company until 2022.
Notice the confrontational response to what is a perfectly valid concern about her company.
Their accounts up to 31st March 2023 show that Jess and Jaimi have taken £133,534 in director loans between them. These are loans that can be taken out by the director of a company and have to be paid back into the business within nine months - but there's nothing to stop the person borrowing the same amount again and again. It is also not taxable if repaid within the time frame and some unscrupulous people use this as a tax loophole. Jaimi was made a director of VF on 1st March 2023 and by the time the accounts were filed had already taken out a loan of more than £36,000.
Working conditions at VF
Former VF employees have appeared on Twitter and Tattle, and given worrying descriptions of what it was like to work there. This is a summary of what they have alleged:
Most positions are part time or "flexible", and staff earn as little as £8,000 a year; it is understood that they'll be claiming Universal Credit (a welfare payment given to supplement low wages.) Despite this, everyone is expected to contribute to expensive gifts for Jess and her family, such as a spa break. Jess has repeatedly promised pay rises and overtime pay, but later reneged on it.
There is a cliquey, underhanded atmosphere where people are frequently gossiped about and excluded. Anyone who does not conform to the "company culture" risks being shunned and ultimately driven out of their job.
Jess prefers to hire staff through the Job Centre (i.e., unemployed people receiving welfare), or young women straight out of university, as they are less likely to challenge her or ask too many questions.
People who leave or are fired are punished by withholding pay and/or references, locking them out of emails, and forbidding current staff to talk to them. It is common for someone to be dismissed with immediate effect and not allowed to work their agreed notice period. Remaining staff are often not told when someone has left.
There are no proper HR procedures and no way to appeal, as Jess has the final say in everything. She uses the threat of legal action to intimidate her staff, which is effective because they are on low incomes and many of them have had distressing experiences in the court system.
Anyone joining the company must sign a "confidentiality agreement" that allows Jess to put her name on any work they produce.
VF staff regularly work longer than their contracted hours and don't receive any overtime pay. They are expected to be on social media late at night to defend Jess when she argues with people online.
We can't prove that anyone who claims they worked for VF is who they say they are. But some of these posters have shared screenshots of private messages from Jess, or VF group chats. Sally Ann and Rachel were also contacted with evidence of what was being said about them at VF. So, evidently there are people that used to work for Jess who have tried to expose her.
They also allege that after concerns over the group chat (see below), Jess updated the terms of the staff NDA to include not sharing screenshots of the chat. She brought in an external consultancy to try and enforce this, and threatened that anyone breaking the NDA would be sued and "stripped of their assets." Again, most people working for VF at this time were survivors of sexual assault and/or domestic abuse; and many of them had had negative experiences in the court system.
Increasingly, staff began to express discomfort about the working atmosphere. Jess initially seemed open to discussion, but ultimately nothing was done, and she tried to shift blame onto the people who had complained. They were all eventually pushed out of their jobs, or fired on shallow pretexts; and as a result she lost around 15 staff members. Jess made most remaining staff redundant at the end of the year.
VF group chat and other concerns
Most information in this section is alleged by former employees of Jess and cannot be proven. Some of them have posted on Tattle and have said that screenshots provided are part of a long conversation in the same vein - they are not "cherry picked." Even Jess and Jaimi haven't denied these images are real; they've just spoken vaguely about lies or things being taken out of context.
At VF, everyone works remotely and Jess organises the team via WhatsApp groups. She had told them that Sally Ann and Rachel were harassing, threatening, and doxxing her and had lied about it. This led to the chat turning into a vicious attack on both women.
Jess's staff called Sally Ann an "horrific little turd" and wanted to send her "glitter and shit" in the post. They also planned to "ambush" her at a webinar where she was due to speak; and joined under false names. Jess laughed along with this and encouraged it.
Some people in the group were so disgusted by the conversation that they warned Sally Ann about the webinar, and sent her screenshots of what had been said about her in the chat. She was also told that Jess had "joked" about contacting her abuser and/or releasing sensitive information about her.
The discussion regarding Rachel included talk of murder, knives, and bullets - which Rachel found very intimidating, as she was shot by her ex-husband (Jess was aware of this.) There is also a poorly Photoshopped image of what was supposed to be Jess and Rachel having a rap battle - taken from the film 8 Mile. However, it's a very bad Photoshop and could be mistaken for a physical fight. Again, Rachel was sent these screenshots by people who had been in the VF group chat. In the below screenshots "Mandy" is Jess's mother-in-law, who is also employed at VF.
Jaimi later suggested that she and Jess had been "abused", doxxed, and threatened by Rachel, which wasn't true. Another member of VF staff, B., defended the chat and suggested that it had been taken out of context. (Again, it's hard to see what kind of context would justify these comments.) Elsewhere in the group chat, B. had used Kanye West's mental health as a punchline, and had said she wanted to fight Rachel and threaten Jess's critics. This kind of talk is concerning coming from someone who works with vulnerable people.
On the day of the offending chat about Sally Ann and Rachel, the conversation continued until evening when Jess said she had reported them both to police for doxxing her. She did not share any evidence of them doing this. Jaimi indicated that Jess had involved three separate police forces.
Jess acknowledged the chat had gone too far, and shut it down. She said that she promotes "free speech" and there would be no consequences for what anyone had said. But within a few hours, new WhatsApp groups had started up and the conversation soon developed into insulting Sally Ann and Rachel again. Other inappropriate topics were discussed; such as conspiracy theories, admitting to illegal drug use, and offensive comments about child autism.
Jess and Jaimi allegedly began a long conversation about sex toys, including photos, and saying that they were going to send all staff sex toys. If true, it's concerning that Jess casually brought up detailed discussion of sex in a chat that staff were expected to participate in. Especially when it was widely known that there were several members of staff who had experienced rape or sexual violence. This kind of behaviour could be considered sexual harassment even in an off-topic chat.
When the Met were exposed & the existence of problematic WhatsApp groups of serving officers highlighted people were quite rightly appalled.
If it can ever be proved that someone has engaged in/facilitated a WhatsApp chat (even if it were the informal work channel) on dildos I fail to see how they can credibly be in a position to advise any public institution about any aspects of misogyny.
Jess views any kind of challenge or criticism (no matter how mildly worded) as a personal attack, and will always come out swinging in response. Whenever someone says something she doesn't like on the internet, expect her to come out with one or more of the following.
Attacked by "feminists"
Jess frequently complains that she is the victim of "internalised misogyny" from other women, and that they do not hold her in the level of esteem she thinks she deserves - "there's no sisterhood for tall poppies!" (Meaning other women are jealous of her and won't support her.) This is often accompanied by self-righteous posts about women not believing rape victims, or how Jess can be critical of feminism while still being a feminist.
When Jess was first gaining attention, she mixed in well known feminist circles and used these women as a way of getting noticed. She was also openly gender critical and claimed that she got her publishing deal through JK Rowling. But around the time her first book was released, she began complaining that feminists were excluding her from lesbian circles because she's not butch; and were spreading lies and gossip about her. Did she think that making others look bad would improve her sales?
She now constantly blames "feminists" for anything and everything, including:
"Platforming pro-paedophile academics" - seemingly referring to the charity Mermaids (for trans-identified children), which was investigated over a trustee's links to a paedophile group. No matter your views on trans people, someone in Jess's position should not be casually using paedophilia as a "gotcha" against people she doesn't like.
There are dozens of other examples. She complains about feminists more than some anti-feminist accounts do!
Jess has criticised several prominent feminists and got into fights with them on Twitter. When Rachel Williams spoke out about how she'd been treated by Jess (see "Rachel" section above), her friend Julie Bindel defended her. Jess subsequently shared a video of her crying in her car, saying that she was being bullied by a feminist; and hinted but then denied that it was aimed at Julie. In an episode of her podcast, she claimed that several well-known lesbian feminists had sexually harassed her and Jaimi. While she didn't name anyone, it's obvious to anyone who follows her which women she's accused of bullying. It wouldn't be the first time she's tried to dismiss criticism as sexual jealousy.
The network of feminist activists and academics in the UK is small and well-connected; everyone knows each other. People talk, and Jess quickly established herself as not credible. We believe the way she talks about "feminists" is an attempt to discredit criticism and excuse why she isn't taken seriously. It's no wonder people don't find her credible when she apparently thinks that radical feminists' most important concerns are whether or not they wear makeup and get statues devoted to them.
Constant threat
Jess frequently talks about being bullied, threatened, harassed, doxxed, intimidated, discriminated against, and even physically attacked no matter where she goes. She has given multiple accounts of different people becoming "obsessed" with her and stalking her after meeting her only once. Even going so far as to suggest she was being targeted by a hate group that has murdered other women. She often says that her children (who don't live with her), wife, and/or pets are in danger as well.
Women working in VAWG are often targets of abuse, and Jess really has been threatened by incels and alt-right groups. But it's clear from her false stories about Sally Ann and Rachel that she uses talk of threat as a way to control the narrative. This works well as a deflection because it elicits sympathy for her - how could you question someone that's been subjected to all this for bravely speaking out against misogyny and corruption? It's also a good way to rally her fans against anyone she doesn't like.
"Focus on systems not individuals"
Jess says that it's important to focus on "systems" rather than individual people. For example, she published an article saying she doesn't discuss Andrew Tate because he's just a symptom of a wider systemic issue. Of course, she uses this to try to shut down any questions about her - saying she is discussing "oppression" and "structures" and "global problems", while all her critics do is mindlessly gossip about her! It's a lazy way of deflecting, and is extremely hypocritical given the way she's treated Sally Ann, Rachel, and others. (See wiki page 1 for more examples.) She's perfectly happy to target individuals when it suits her, such as how she brings up Johnny Depp at every opportunity.
Charlotte Proudman
Charlotte Proudman is a friend of Jess and they demonstrate similar behaviour. Charlotte gives the false impression that she practices criminal law (she is a family lawyer.) She posts provocative, often uninformed content for clicks and engagement; and expresses overly-harsh, outright sexist rhetoric towards men. As a result, she attracts a lot of hate/threats/trolling along with genuine concerns.
Jess will periodically defend Charlotte and say that people are "stalking" her, obsessed with her, hate her for trying to change a corrupt system, and can't stand to see a working class woman become successful. In other words, everything Jess says about herself. This serves to distract from Jess's own actions and make her constant claims of oppression look more reasonable (see, she isn't making it up, her friend is getting bullied too!) It is also a way to intimidate anyone who might try to report either Jess or Charlotte to regulators. If you do, they'll both attack you and tell the world you're a stalker.
Tall tales
Jess often tells personal stories that don't add up, or have obvious inconsistencies. One example is when she and Jaimi said they had "rescued" their new dog, which was clearly an expensive pedigree. Jess is alleged to have admitted on a private social media account that the dog came from a breeder, leaving others with the impression that she was using this as bait to see if anyone would question her. It's twisting words - she specifically said the dog was "rescued" (which could mean anything), not "a rescue dog."
Another example is her saying, with details changing between different accounts, that she stopped attending school nine months to a year before GCSEs. But showed up to sit the exams "out of spite" and miraculously passed 10-13 GCSEs. This is implausible; most schools wouldn't enter a student with poor attendance for exams, and at the time she would have sat GCSEs, coursework was a heavy component of several subjects. Jess is friends with one of her old teachers on Twitter, he has thus far not responded to questions about this.
The reason for these stories is so that if anyone challenges Jess, she can say people are "obsessed" with her and "stalking" her. (If you follow her social media, it's not hard to notice inconsistencies crop up.) Or that critics can't refute her arguments and are resorting to personal attacks.
Ageism
Jess often accuses others of attacking her out of jealousy that she is so successful at a young age, or because they don't take a young person seriously. Jess is in her early-mid 30s so she is young, but she talks as if she were the same age as her wife or even younger. She is not unusually young to run a business, publish books, hold a PhD, or take part in activism. There are plenty of women in their teens and early 20s campaigning in VAWG and mental health; but Jess rarely if ever mentions them.
She also likes to complain of middle aged feminists bullying her and Jaimi because they can't stand to see young women come along with fresh ideas. By doing this, she's promoting sexist and ageist stereotypes - that women over 40 or 50 are all "bitter" and jealous of younger women, and older people don't have as much to contribute as young people.
