Dr Jessica Taylor Wiki

  • Views Views: 24,696
  • Last updated Last updated:
  • WARNING: This wiki contains discussions of sexual abuse, suicide, harassment, and other sensitive subjects in context of Jess Taylor and her work.

    Go to page 2 of Jess's wiki for:
    • Unauthorised use of survivor stories
    • VictimFocus
    • Typically used deflections and distractions

    About Jess

    Dr Jessica “Jess” Taylor, formerly Eaton, is a writer and research psychologist specialising in VAWG (Violence Against Women and Girls.) She has written several books and publications, and has a heavy social media presence. Jess is based in the Midlands area of England.

    Her work is based on the idea that mental illness and neurodivergence don’t exist; they are just expressions of “trauma.” She believes that medication, psychiatry, and any form of diagnosis are oppressive and misogynistic. She can't provide credible evidence to support these claims, which are vastly at odds with the opinions of most doctors and clinical psychologists.

    Jess is married to Jaimi Shrive and has two children from previous relationships. She has spoken on her website, social media, and in interviews about her history of abuse. Her account of her past is so shocking that anyone questioning it would look like a monster. However, some inconsistencies have arisen - for instance, she says she grew up in a very deprived area, but when she posted a photo taken near her childhood home, a local resident indicated that it is rather nicer than Jess suggested.

    She runs VictimFocus, a company that provides training around mental health and VAWG. It sells a number of courses and materials, but its main product is a course that allows someone to become a VF trainer or “facilitator.” They then sell the course to other people and pay an annual fee to keep their certification current. If you think that sounds like a multi level marketing scheme, you’re right. VF also provides a free course aimed at survivors of sexual violence. See wiki page 2 for concerns about this course.

    Jess has published the books Why Women are Blamed For Everything (2020), Sexy But Psycho: Uncovering the Labelling of Women and Girls (2022), and her memoir Underclass (2024.) She also self-published the Indicative Trauma Impact Manual (ITIM); a supposed “alternative” to the DSM and other diagnostic guides. Her books contain personal stories from at least three abuse survivors, published without their knowledge or consent.

    Jess claims to be working towards major systemic change in mental healthcare, and be asking important questions no one else will touch. In fact she takes credit for others' ideas/work, and offers few or no credible alternatives to current practice. Much of her advice is uninformed or outright harmful. Essentially, she's an influencer who makes money from engagement and controversy.


    Concerns about Jess

    • She deliberately misrepresents her qualifications and experience and presents herself as an expert, while being ignorant about many aspects of mental health.
    • She is not subject to regulation by any professional body. Effectively, she can do what she likes with no checks and balances placed on her.
    • Her research is often shoddy and her work is not properly peer-reviewed.
    • She encourages vulnerable people not to seek professional help for their mental health or take their prescribed medication.
    • Claims to be “trauma-informed”, while demonstrating a lack of concern for survivors.
    • Scammy business practices and alleged poor treatment of employees.
    • Questions have been raised over her fundraising and use of grant money.
    • She has published at least three women’s stories of abuse without their consent.
    • Makes false reports of doxxing and harassment to police to try to keep others quiet.
    • Uses vulnerable people to build a “brand” around herself and make money.
    This is not intended to "victim blame" Jess and we will not suggest that she is lying about being abused. We agree with her that women should be believed; therefore we also choose to believe those who have spoken about their negative experiences with her.

    We do not doxx or harass Jess, contact her personally, or share personal information about her or her family on Tattle.


    Professional credentials and opinions

    Qualifications

    Jess holds a PhD in psychology. This involves intensive research in a specific narrow niche, e.g. the impact of advertising on body image. It is different from the DClinPsy - NHS-based training with a heavy taught component that includes six-month rotations across different mental health and learning disability services. Only the DClinPsy qualifies someone for clinical practice.

    Jess claims that a PhD and DClinPsy are just two routes into the same profession, and she chose to take a PhD, knowing it was just the beginning of her professional development. This is false; they're different qualifications, and it's apparent from her material and social media that she is ignorant of basic aspects of psychology and mental health. (See below for examples.)

    She takes advantage of the fact that the general public doesn't understand the difference between an academic/research psychologist like Jess, vs a clinical psychologist who has taken the DClinPsy. (This article explains why the distinction is important.) Jess deliberately gives the impression that she is clinically trained and has provided direct therapeutic care to survivors of sexual violence. Her opinions on autism, bipolar disorder, and trauma therapy are no more informed than those of the average person on the street, but she sets herself up as an expert in the knowledge that most people will hear "psychologist" and assume she actually has a background in these things.

    Because Jess cannot practice clinically, she doesn't need to register with any regulatory organisation. That means there's no one to hold her to a set professional standard, or intervene if she acts unethically. She belongs to the British Psychological Society, but it is a membership body with loose regulation and little legal clout. See wiki page 2 for what's happened when people tried to report her to them.

    She often references the following credentials:

    PhD in forensic psychology - Forensic psychology is the use of psychology as applied to the law or criminal investigation. In order to practice in the UK, you need a doctorate in forensic psychology (called the ForenPsyD at Jess's university), or an equivalent qualification. Jess has a general research PhD in psychology. Her doctorate thesis is on the subject of victim blaming, which can be relevant to forensic psychology. But it doesn't begin to cover the content of the ForenPsyD, which is a mostly practical course with supervised work placements.

    When asked about this on social media, Jess stated that she chose not to take the ForenPsyD and "you don't get to tell me my PhD isn't in forensic psychology!" Since her PhD is not in either the theory or practice of forensic psychology, she does not have a PhD in forensic psychology. She therefore can't register with the Health and Care Professions Council, can't practice forensic psychology legally, and can't call herself a forensic psychologist (which is a protected title.) But technically there's no restriction on twisting words and saying her PhD is in forensic psychology.

    Chartered psychologist - This means she has chartered membership of the British Psychological Society. Almost anyone with a 2:2 undergraduate degree and some postgraduate study in psychology can become a chartered member. It doesn't mean that someone is clinically trained, and it's not a guarantee of ethics or expertise.

    FRSA (Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts) - Jess claims to have been awarded this for "her outstanding contribution to psychology and feminism." It is not an award; anyone over 18 can apply and pay for it. Even if another Fellow nominated her, she's still paying for membership of a professional body.

    AFBPsS (Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society) - Again, this is something you have to apply and pay for. Jess qualifies because she has more than four years' experience within the field of psychology.

    Sunday Times bestselling author - You can achieve this by selling as few as 2000 copies of a book. Jess could have bought that many herself, since she sells copies through her company.

    Career history

    This is Jess's career history as shown on her LinkedIn page:


    She previously had a more detailed CV online.

    Here is how she described her experience in order to sell tickets to an event she was hosting in New Zealand.


    Again, she makes a number of dubious or obviously false claims here:
    • See above regarding her PhD being in forensic psychology.

    • She would have carried out mixed-methods psychological studies even during her undergraduate degree; this isn't anything exceptional.

    • Describing roles in training, service provision, volunteering as "frontline work" directly with survivors. She also says that she has been doing this for 14 years (since she was 19.) Yet, around the same time, she stated on Twitter that 14 years ago she was working in a factory.

    • The "national evidence review" she refers to was essentially just a VictimFocus report. The "BOWSVA Scale" is used solely by VictimFocus, as are her resources that are supposedly used worldwide (there are VF trainers in different countries - not 70 though.)

    • Lists consulting work, training, or sitting on boards as proof of expertise when they are more of a reflection on her marketing skills.

    • "Confidential projects" that she conveniently can't verify or discuss further. Jess has since claimed that she has been accused of lying on her CV or that her work is "fake." We're not suggesting this; just that it is impossible to verify anything she says about these roles. For example, Jess claimed she had "a med role in a prison", see below. If this was her confidential project in a prison then it cannot have involved medication, as she isn't qualified to prescribe it or to carry out clinical assessments.

    • The men's health charity she refers to (The Eaton Foundation/TEF) was one she co-founded herself and where she was most likely paid. See below for more on TEF.

    • Anyone can write books or publications on any subject. This doesn't mean Jess is an expert or that what she has written is informed. See above: you do not need to sell that many copies of a book to make the Sunday Times bestseller list, and she could be counting copies of the book she bought herself to sell through VictimFocus.

    • Her free course contains material that is potentially harmful to survivors, and she uses it to mine content/data. See wiki page 2.

    Jess says that she is a senior lecturer and teaches on doctoral programmes. It appears she is a guest or contract lecturer at the University of Derby. Most universities would not even allow her to supervise a doctoral programme because she doesn't have any officially published, peer-reviewed work. Even if she's paid at the rate of a senior lecturer, that doesn't mean she has the experience you would normally expect at that level. Climbing the career ladder to senior lecturer takes many years, even in a full-time academic role.

    As of January 2024, Jess has 21 publications (mostly self-published; none are in peer-reviewed journals) and 48 citations (some of which are self-citations), far short of what you would normally expect from a working academic. She defends this by saying that journals are exploitative and she refuses to publish in them.

    Lack of peer review

    Peer review is when an independent subject specialist reviews, and provides critical feedback on, an advanced draft of a manuscript. This is the standard system for validating academic work. A peer reviewer should be an expert in their field or at least equally as qualified as you, and they are normally anonymous.

    Jess's books Why Women Are Blamed For Everything and Sexy But Psycho were published without peer review and contain a lot of unevidenced and factually incorrect ranting, but she uses her PhD to suggest that it's all research-driven. For her PhD thesis, she used "reviewers" who were obviously unsuitable. One of these was her then-acquaintance Rose (see wiki page 2), who did not have a relevant background in the subject.


    Another person who supposedly peer reviewed her PhD thesis was a Master's student or recent graduate at the time, i.e., not even at Jess's own level.

    Jess claims that the material she releases through VictimFocus is peer-reviewed. But she selects the reviewers and knows who they are - so it isn't really peer review. This is an example of an email she sent, asking someone to review a VictimFocus report. (Jessica Eaton was her previous name during her first marriage.)


    Jess self-published the Indicative Trauma Impact Manual (ITIM), a supposed alternative to diagnostic manuals. She claims that it is peer-reviewed by "30 clinicians, professionals, academics and those with lived experience of trauma." Yet, she had several personal friends as "peer reviewers", some of them with no background in psychology or mental health. These people were promoting the book on social media and had obvious conflicts of interest. "Lived experience of trauma" basically means anyone can be considered a peer reviewer for Jess's purposes - since she believes that everyone experiences trauma.

    Jess claims that she pays for "independent peer review." If she is paying for it, it's not independent! In the past, she did not pay VictimFocus's panel of supposed reviewers - so either she's being dishonest here (and doesn't pay), or she has started paying people to give favourable reviews of her work.



    Professional views

    The main theme of Jess's work is that there is no such thing as mental illness or neurodivergence, they are just labels for natural responses to "trauma." She says that everyone experiences trauma, and her definition of trauma is very broad, including normal feelings (like disappointment or loneliness) and common events (like watching violence on TV.) According to Jess, even serious conditions like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder aren't illnesses and should not be treated as such.

    She aggressively promotes anti-med and anti-psychiatry views, ignoring the opinions of qualified clinicians and of patients who find that medication works for them. Despite this, she can offer no solutions apart from talking therapies - which aren't effective for some conditions. She doesn't seem to be aware of the existence of any other treatments such as somatic therapies. Jess describes herself as "revolutionary" and advocating for radical changes in mental healthcare, but many of the talking points she recycles have been aroud for decades. See more here about the history of mental illness denialism.

    She responds poorly to criticism, and often claims that it is motivated by personal dislike or jealousy. If an academic criticises her, they're elitists who can't bear to see a working-class mum being successful. If someone outside academia criticises her, they don't have the expertise to know what they're talking about. She also likes to say that she is being held to unfairly high standards that a man would not be held to. It's unlikely that some of her claims would be accepted without question if they came from a man.

    Jess fails to understand why someone may want or need a diagnosis for mental health or neurodivergence. Many people find it to be positive as it helps them get appropriate care and support. It can also mean that someone is entitled to claim benefits or legal protections. If Jess's ideas were accepted as fact it would be difficult to justify mental illness being a protected characteristic under the law - why should it be, when it is just "trauma" and everyone experiences trauma? The way she talks can be more stigmatising towards mentally ill / neurodivergent people.

    Jess has outright stated that she doesn't want to work with patients because she would earn less money. That's fine, but she shouldn't pretend to be just as qualified and experienced as someone with clinical training. She refers to working with vulnerable people as just "holding cases", and says that she's "done her time frontline" as if it were something she has to get through so she can do the "real" money-making work. Again, she hasn't worked clinically frontline at all.

    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.

    Expert witness

    Jess announced in December 2023 that she would now be taking cases as an expert witness in family court, supposedly after receiving many requests for her services. Again, see this article as to why it can be harmful for unregulated academic psychologists with no clinical experience to serve as expert witnesses in court. Also see this judgement by the President of the Family Court regarding unregulated psychologists as expert witnesses and why there will likely be much closer scrutiny in future cases. Jess charges high fees for consulting, mentoring, etc. and likely also does for her services as an expert witness. She may actually be helping predators - it is a common abuse tactic to use a court case to drain the victim's finances.


    Examples of ignorance and unethical behaviour professionally

    Lack of knowledge about mental health

    Jess's social media content indicates that she lacks knowledge of even basic concepts in mental health - despite insisting that she is just as qualified and experienced as any clinical psychologist. We suspect a lot of her posts are deliberately provocative so others will challenge her and she can say she's being "bullied" (see wiki page 2), and/or to see what gets a reaction from her audience and could make money for her. But it's still apparent that she is ignorant of many things. Here are some examples.

    Jess shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what psychosis is, how it manifests, and how it affects the life of the person with the condition. Examples include this recording (from a VictimFocus training session) where she equates psychosis with hearing voices or religious belief. Or when she stated that most people with psychosis function normally day to day.

    Jess cited research into people's "inner monologues" and a statistic that up to 15% of people have auditory hallucinations in their lifetime. She came to the conclusion that we are "supposed to see and hear things" and it should be accepted as natural. This is false equivalence; auditory hallucinations don't always take the form of voices, and the statistic includes people who only ever experience them once. Hallucinations can also be caused by, for example, epilepsy or a brain tumour. It's dangerous to tell people that symptoms which could be very serious (and could indicate a physical illness) are harmless and normal.


    Jess "doesn't believe in the concept of 'delirium.'" Delirium is caused by physical illness or infection, so this is like saying "I don't believe in the concept of 'sepsis.'"


    Jess frequently criticises the DSM, and published her own book (ITIM) as an "alternative." The DSM is widely acknowledged as flawed; even beginner psychology students learn this. Jess claims that the DSM is the predominantly used diagnostic manual worldwide. This is false - it's mainly used in the USA, to decide what health insurers will cover. Most other countries, including the UK where Jess lives, use the ICD (International Classification of Diseases.)

    She had the idea of trying to prove that the DSM isn't valid by running tests on women, and then concluding that they meet the criteria for a high number of psychiatric disorders. Having her devise and run these tests herself would be worthless, as she has an obvious bias and isn't qualified to carry out clinical assessments. She wants to do this "experiment" with a large number of women and film their reactions, presumably to be shown on TV and/or social media. You would expect her to understand why that would be unethical.

    My issue with it (one of many), is the repercussions of taking a possibly vulnerable woman (as those seem to be the only ones she interested in), telling them that she's psychologist who is assessing them and then telling them they reach diagnosis for a mental health disorder on video for likes.

    Some women will take a diagnosis from a 'psychologist' as being valid and it could seriously affect them. She clearly has no ethics around ensuring the women aren't harmed by it.

    Jess claims she can treat schizoaffective disorder without medication just by talking to someone. Not all people with schizoaffective disorder are able to communicate - verbally or otherwise. For those who can talk, therapies (including trauma-informed approaches) are already available. If it were as simple as just talking, that's what doctors and psychiatrists would be doing for their patients.


    When someone asked her how she would treat hallucinations or delusions without medication, Jess replied that she'd use talking therapies and group support. Many people hospitalised with psychotic symptoms will be physically unable to engage with talking therapy unless they are first given medication.


    Jess calls CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy) "victim blaming" because it encourages the person to think differently about their experiences. In fact, it is intended to help them view themselves with respect and compassion. This is especially valuable for survivors of abuse, who often come to believe it's their own fault this happened to them. Jess either doesn't understand CBT, or is misrepresenting it to support her view.


    Jess said that a study from Nottingham Trent University "used women with BPD diagnosis to see how much men wanted to have sex with them." The study (findings here) examined evolutionary preferences for "dark triad" traits, associated with BPD, in a partner. Male and female subjects were asked to evaluate their interest in a potential partner, based on hypothetical scenarios and computer-generated imagery. It didn't involve anyone with a particular diagnosis. She is clearly going for outrage/clicks here rather than facts.

    Jess advises that anyone threatening suicide is just being deliberately manipulative/abusive. Suicide can be used as a form of manipulation, but her argument here shows a total lack of nuance. She's either very obtuse or just posted this to be provocative - regardless of what harm it might cause to others. Statements like this are hugely stigmatising towards suicidal people.


    In response to a tweet about how suddenly psychosis can appear, Jess said this is a myth and psychosis (or any other mental illness) is always caused by some form of "trauma." She's wrong; sudden onset of psychosis can be triggered by a number of physical causes, such as puerperal psychosis, brain tumours, epilepsy, menopause, Parkinson's Disease, dementia, infection, drug reaction, and more. Several of Jess's followers attacked the OP because she is a psychiatrist, and accused her of pathologising women and shilling for drug companies.


    Misrepresenting her qualifications or experience

    An example of Jess trying to give the impression that she is qualified to work with patients clinically but chooses not to. This is false; her PhD in psychology does not qualify her to work in a clinical setting. She clearly did not have any kind of "med" role, because she isn't qualified to carry out assessments or prescribe medication. She's since said (see "Careers" section above) that the prison job was a review into safety, i.e. a research project.


    Jess again using deliberately vague language to imply she works with survivors in a clinical capacity.


    Jess calls herself a therapist (a term with no legally protected definition) and uses this to suggest that she is clinically trained.


    Jess argued with a psychiatrist who said that she evidently has no experience working in (for example) homeless shelters, prisons, or inpatient psychiatric units. She responded, "I've worked in almost every single one of those settings." If she did, it would have been research or consulting - when in context, he was clearly referring to hands-on clinical work. This is one of many examples of how she uses semantics to mislead others as to her knowledge and experience.



    (note: Chris Palmer MD is a known figure with over 50,000 followers so we haven't censored his account name)

    Unethical advice

    Jess tells people not to take antidepressants because they are "addictive", come with severe side effects and withdrawal symptoms, and the patient won't be warned. In fact, SSRIs (the most commonly prescribed antidepressants) aren't psychologically addictive. Doctors do warn patients about side effects, and if it's affecting the patient badly, they will often modify the dose or change the medication. Most prescription drugs have to be "tapered off" if taken for a significant amount of time to avoid the risk of withdrawal symptoms. What she's doing here is blatant scaremongering.

    She also encourages people who are already taking antidepressants to stop. While Jess does advise that someone speak to their doctor first, they may not always do this - especially if she is scaring them about the effect of antidepressants. One person alleged on social media that their friend had to be sectioned after stopping her medication on Jess's advice.

    Here's an example of Jess praising a new mother for abruptly stopping her medication, seemingly without the supervision of her GP. This would put both the mother and baby at risk and by giving approval, Jess is encouraging others to do the same. She often receives comments on her social media from people saying they have stopped taking their prescribed medication on her advice; again this is just one example.


    She gives advice on how to find a "trauma-informed" professional to work with, where "trauma-informed" means anyone who shares her anti-med and anti-psychiatry views. Saying that otherwise, the person is not trauma-informed and their advice is dangerous. Again, this may cause someone to stop taking medication they need, or to stop working with a professional that is actually helping them. It also keeps Jess's audience dependent on her. Examples include the below that she shared on Twitter.


    Jess posted the below about menopause being misdiagnosed as mental illness, warning women that they can expect to be prescribed psychiatric drugs. (SSRIs are often prescribed because they help with physical symptoms such as hot flashes. That doesn't mean the woman is being diagnosed with a mental illness, and with a new drug approved for treating hot flashes, SSRIs will likely be used less for this purpose.) This encourages women who think they are going through menopause not to go to the doctor - at best causing unnecessary suffering and at worst dangerous, because symptoms of serious conditions such as ovarian cancer, hypothyroidism, or early-onset Alzheimer's Disease can be similar to those of menopause.


    Jess published an article for World Suicide Prevention Day 2022, which we will not link to here (it can be found at her Substack, Facebook, and Instagram.) In the article she presents a positive, even romanticised, view of suicide and justifies suicidal thoughts. She ends by saying that Shout and Samaritans have "trained crisis counsellors"; they don't, both organisations are run by volunteers. The entire article is irresponsible and contravenes guidelines for media reporting of suicide, including those published by the Samaritans.

    Some of her advice can be harmful to women in abusive relationships; a huge oversight for a so-called VAWG expert. These are a few of many examples, note Jess encouraging women to ignore red flags such as grandiose/narcissistic behaviour or someone trying to warn them about their partner. She advises her followers to end relationships they feel aren't serving them, with no consideration for the fact that leaving a relationship is the most dangerous time for a woman who's being abused.






    In this Twitter thread Jess says that therapy is just an "industry", and it is equally helpful to "process trauma" through music, books, and other hobbies. This is essentially no different from advice that tells women they would feel better if they just had a nap or bubble bath - something that is widely criticised in VAWG circles as patronising and reductive. Jess herself has criticised this type of advice, but apparently is happy to give it when she has a book to sell.


    Promoting unsuitable products

    Jess sells various materials designed to "help" survivors work through their feelings about their abuse. She suggests it is elitist, classist, or discriminatory to tell people to access professional help. It's no more discriminatory than saying that someone with a physical condition should see a doctor; the solution is to improve access to mental healthcare. In this post for example, she complains about the "professionalisation" of help and that people should not feel they have to engage with "expensive services."


    If this sounds reasonable to you, imagine she's talking about a physical condition and encouraging sick people to buy her product instead of going to a doctor. That's effectively what she is doing here.

    Self-help materials that Jess sells include a journal aimed at women and girls who have been sexually assaulted. It contains a number of prompts for the reader to complete; examples can be seen in the below images (taken from an Amazon review.) Note typos that indicate the journal wasn't proofread before going to print.

    Jess says in the foreword that it would be "infantilising" and "controlling" to recommend using the journal with clinical support. In other words, she's telling vulnerable women and girls to get on with it. Even a mature adult is likely to struggle with the question of what happened while they were being sexually assaulted, much less a child or teenager. It can be very harmful to try to ask someone to self-analyse without proper support.




    Along similar lines, Jess sells flash cards containing similar prompts to those used in the journal. She seems to have no regard for who uses them or in what circumstances. For example, she praised a follower who is a counsellor/life coach for using the cards with young girls at a riding school. There are obviously a number of concerns here: this person isn't clinically trained, they are working with children, and it's not clear whether the students' parents have given permission or have seen the content of the cards. Jess doesn't see any of this as an issue.


    Shock content about sexual assault

    Jess often posts about the horrific experiences some women go through after rape or sexual assault. She tells survivors that their families will reject them; others will "victim-blame" and shun them; and they will be blamed if the perpetrator re-offends. What she says often has truth to it, but she phrases it in a deliberately provocative, scaremongering way. If you had been sexually assaulted and you went to Jess's social media looking for help/advice, how might you feel to be told that your whole family will sign witness statements calling you a liar for example? While it's important to discuss the reality of what can happen, Jess does it in a way that can be very harmful, all so she can get engagement and clicks.

    Other issues with Jess

    Relationship with Jaimi

    Jess and Jaimi's relationship involves a number of elements that Jess has described as signs of grooming or manipulation in the context of a straight couple. This is relevant because her work involves dealing with victims of abuse.

    A man dating a woman he first met when she was 16 and he was 24 - she would call that grooming. Said younger woman becoming ‘step mum’ - she would say exploitation. Quick wedding and lavishing the younger woman with expensive holidays and a big house - she would definitely have something to say. She’s such a hypocrite.
    Jess acknowledges they met when Jaimi was a teenager, but says that they did not know each other well and were not part of each other's lives until 2018 (when Jaimi was 20.) If anyone ask how the relationship began, Jess gets defensive and says they're homophobic/trolling her. Yet she's acknowledged when talking about Amber Heard (see below for more on this) that a young adult in their early 20s is still vulnerable to manipulation by an older partner.

    Jess often comes across as confrontational towards Jaimi on their podcast, and at one point Jaimi shared text messages where Jess snapped at her for cheering during a football match. This shows some worrying signs: Jess was fully aware what the noise was and that Jaimi was enjoying the football, but felt the need to ruin it for her and criticise, and Jaimi ended up apologising. The fact Jaimi posted this on social media suggests she doesn't really think anything of it and sees it as normal. We wonder what Jess would have said if a woman shared such a message from her husband?

    In any situation like this, questions would be asked, regardless of gender or sexuality. If a straight man were in Jess's position with a much younger wife and a job that brought him into contact with vulnerable people, most people would find it suspicious. Jess knows this, but acts like she's being personally attacked when the same standards are applied to her.

    Conspiracy content

    Jess believes in a number of conspiracies including mass social control/manipulation, and the idea that COVID-19 was "weaponised" against the public (she gave an interview on a conspiracy theorist's Substack about this.) Here are some examples of content that she posts on her social media, hinting at things like aliens and mass grooming.




    She has also often spoken about "satanic ritual abuse." This is a term associated with the 1980s "Satanic Panic"; a moral panic based around the idea that Satanists were abusing children en masse. Abuse involving ritualised and/or religious elements does exist, and is simply known as ritual abuse. Some examples include NXIVM and The Family International. But there is no proof that Satanists or devil-worshippers have ever abused children on an organised scale. See the Wikipedia article on the Satanic Panic for more information.

    However, Jess claims that satanic ritual abuse is real and that she has personally been involved with cases. It's not clear in what capacity this supposedly was, since she's never worked with anyone clinically. She speaks about cover-ups and survivors being silenced; deliberately using language designed to appeal to conspiracy theorists. As a result, she has gained a number of followers who believe in satanic ritual abuse, and has been cited by them as proof of its existence.


    Her book Sexy But Psycho describes cases she says she's witnessed, with graphic accounts of ritual sacrifices, rape, cannibalism, and more. Understandably, this could be harmful and triggering to those reading the book.

    While Jess is entitled to her personal beliefs, it's irresponsible to share and promote this kind of content to her audience. A Tattle poster who works in mental health explains why:

    I honestly find her posts like this quite sinister. She seems to be trying to build a following of ppl who believe mental illness isn't real, this is inevitably going to include ppl WITH severe mental illness who aren't taking their meds and have distrust (most likely with good reason) of formal services etc. Ppl who are prone to conspiratorial and magical thinking. Her talk of mass social grooming, alien life etc could really set someone off. We were told in no uncertain terms at MIND (a mental health charity in the UK) to never discuss politics, conspiracy theories etc in front of service users because of the potential to feed psychosis/delusion or cause further distress to those with clinical depression which of course can often lead to that sort of existential despair. As everyone here will know these are both big risk factors for suicidality.
    In September 2023 when several women alleged that Russell Brand had sexually assaulted them, Jess wrote an article about it but was otherwise suspiciously quiet. Normally when a public figure is accused of sexual misconduct she will make a big deal out of it and talk about how women aren't believed and so on. We suspect her silence is because a lot of conspiracy theorists support him and she wants to keep them on her side.

    Personal attacks

    If someone disagrees with Jess, she will often attack them on her social media or in private messages. When the author and professor James Treadwell pointed out her misuse of the term satanic ritual abuse (see above), Jess lashed out at him and tried to get his employer involved - making it look like she was a victim of misogynistic trolling. Another example was a blogger Jess attacked for questioning her claims to have been a sex worker. (This person felt that Jess shouldn't equate her experience of sleeping with her bank manager to that of women who rely on sex work to survive.) See page 2 for more examples relating to people whose stories she published without their consent.

    False reports of harassment and doxxing

    At least eight people have said on Tattle or social media that Jess has made false reports of "harassment" and "doxxing" against them to police/authorities. These include former VictimFocus staff members, and people who had argued with Jess online or criticised her views. One of these is a PhD student who alleges her university received a complaint that she'd harassed Jess for more than a year - even though she and Jess had never spoken to each other. Another is the forensic psychologist Kerry Daynes. At least two posters on Tattle have been reported to police by Jess: an ex-VictimFocus employee, and someone who was on Jess's PhD course with her (which Jess accuses her of lying about.) The first person was contacted by police but they took no action because she hasn't actually broken the law. The second never heard from police.

    This is blatantly a form of abuse and, where police are involved, a waste of their time. The police have to take complaints from Jess seriously because she really has been threatened before (as part of a troll campaign over her first book.) Funnily enough, she didn't like it when she felt people were making malicious complaints about her or her friend Charlotte Proudman to regulators.

    Jess says that none of her staff (current or former) have ever posted on Tattle, and anyone who says they used to work for her is lying. However, some posters have shared screenshots from VictimFocus group chats and a recording from a training session, indicating they did work there. VictimFocus appears to have quite high staff turnover and to have used a lot of temp staff in the past so Jess can't say with certainty that none of them would ever share a negative experience with her.

    Private Facebook group

    In December 2023, Jess opened a private Facebook group for her followers, encouraging them to post there rather than to her main page. She says it now has over 2000 members. To join, they need to message her asking for a link to the group. This means that Jess has access to personal information about everyone in the group - concerning, given her history of threatening people who have upset her in some way (see wiki page 2 for more.) It also means she can say whatever she likes, can freely give unethical advice, and has access to vulnerable women. Since a lot of her followers/fans are abuse survivors and/or have mental illnesses, this raises questions as to how serious disclosures will be handled within the group.

    Inappropriate social media content

    Jess's business social media accounts contain a lot of unprofessional personal content, such as provocative photos of her and her wife and "jokes" about their sex life. Content like this can be distressing to survivors of sexual assault, and should not be shared on the public account of someone working in VAWG.

    This reminds me of what caused the wool to fall from my eyes. I was in the midst of reporting SA to the police, my ISVA was shit, remembered victim focus, but couldn't remember the name & found her Twitter account to look for said resources.

    Instead, I found sexual bragging about coming back from honeymoon & making very loud proclamations about strap-ons on the flight back. The tone of it, the in your face-ness & wrongness of it all upset me at the time. It reminded me very much of the person I was reporting, and I had a very visceral and horrible reaction to that. And another one remembering. Yeah sexual bragging when you call yourself all the stuff she calls herself is not a good look. That was the last thing I needed at that moment, and I'd guess that similar has happened to others.
    (note: SA = sexual assault, ISVA = Independent Sexual Violence Advisor)

    Jaimi does it as well; at one point when she and Jess were flying out to a Women's Aid conference, she tweeted about being caught at customs with a vibrator in her bag. Again, this is something that could be triggering to survivors, and should not be posted at a time when people would have been watching her and Jess's accounts for posts about the conference.









    Jess has said many times that criticising her for this is homophobic. But would you expect to see a straight woman use her work account to joke about her sex life with her husband, or share photos of him grabbing her bum?

    A particularly bad example was when Andrew Tate tweeted encouraging his followers to "reach for the strap" (pull out a gun) over trivial annoyances. Jess and Jaimi both thought it would be funny to retweet this and turn it into a "joke" about lesbians / their sex life. There's no way Jess didn't realise how harmful it could be to post this on a public account that many abused women follow; evidently, her desire for engagement was more important. Just a few days after she posted this, Tate was charged with rape and human trafficking, and she and Jaimi went back to condemning him.

    Screenshot 2023-06-16 211055.png


    Lifestyle bragging

    Jess and Jaimi regularly use social media to show off their lavish spending. This includes two weddings, designer dogs, holidays in luxurious hotels, and regular nights out drinking expensive cocktails. Most of Jess's audience are abuse survivors; people with mental health problems; and professionals working in mental health, who are often poorly paid. These are groups that are heavily impacted by the financial crisis, and Jess has made her money off their backs.

    They have an Instagram account @wandering_womb_travel for their regular luxury holidays and first class travel.


    Nobody would actually care if she was just a bog-standard insta-hun; it’s the fact that she’s trying to use victims and their trauma to become some sort of minor-celebrity/influencer.

    And posts like this during a cost-of-living crisis when many of your target audience are facing a choice to eat or heat their homes doesn’t make you “extra” 🙄 - it just makes you tacky and incredibly crass.

    Podcast

    Jess and Jaimi host a podcast called "The Wandering Womb" (the title refers to historical beliefs about female hysteria.) It is marketed with the line "strong women, strong views, strong drinks, and strong language!" Each episode involves Jess and Jaimi getting drunk and talking about feminist issues. The drinking is supposed to be "fun" and part of the appeal, but often ends in them rambling incoherently. Jess likes to rant and swear, and comes across as threatening; this is something that she markets to her largely vulnerable audience.

    You can either have an "honest, unfiltered" podcast where you rant and swear and drink, or you can have a podcast where you present yourself as an expert giving your opinion in a professional capacity. Trying to do both comes across as disrespectful, unprofessional, and inappropriate.

    Some episodes also contain offensive or unsuitable content:

    "Mountains of Internalised Misogyny" (around the 54:30 mark): Jess and Jaimi made offensive generalisations and stereotypes about lesbians. Describing other lesbians as promiscuous and sexually predatory, and butch women as poorly emulating men. With attitudes like this, it is no surprise that Jess and Jaimi say they don't feel welcome in lesbian circles.

    "Bad Sex Tips: The Sequel" (around the 08:12 mark): Jaimi talked about how a predator could use meditation or massage as a cover for sexual assault. Jess gave an example of seeing this happen in a comedy film; and described the scene in graphic detail. She laughed throughout and evidently found the idea very funny. It doesn't seem to have occurred to her that this happens in the real world, many of her target audience are survivors of sexual assault, and could have been distressed by listening to the episode.

    Manipulating Amazon reviews

    When Jess released the ITIM in March 2023, it received a handful of negative reviews on Amazon. Most of these made specific criticisms of the material, suggesting that the reviewer had read the book. There were also complaints of quality issues such as print errors and poor quality paper. Jess said that these reviews had been left by "a small, loud, defensive minority" who were personally targeting her and Jaimi. She openly asked her fans to "combat" this by leaving positive Amazon reviews. In other words, she tried to cheat the review system, and encouraged her followers to attack others as trolls.


    Within hours, ITIM had a number of new 5* reviews on Amazon. Most of them gave general praise, with no reference to any particular content within the book - suggesting that they'd been left by fans of Jess who were blindly defending her, whether they'd read the ITIM or not. Evidently, she doesn't mind fake reviews when they benefit her. One person who had made a verified purchase left a review with detailed criticisms of the material. Jess blocked the reviewer on social media. She has since repeatedly had the review removed as a supposed terms of service violation. Meanwhile, one fan left a review solely to complain that others were "breaking the rules" by criticising Jess. Again, she doesn't seem to have a problem with abuse of the review system when it's in her favour.

    If you are considering buying the ITIM, please read this independent review from Researchgate first.


    Questions over fundraising

    Crowdfunders

    Jess used to share a lot of online crowdfunders to help people who were supposedly fleeing abuse or living in poverty. Here are some surviving examples: Young mum in poverty, Help a woman escape DV and finish her education. Most of these crowdfunders were purportedly for women who were living in poverty or fleeing from abusive partners. By nature of the request, Jess could not identify who the money went to, or provide proof of donation. Even if all these fundraising efforts were completely legitimate, it looks suspicious in context.

    The Eaton Foundation

    The Eaton Foundation (now known as TEF Mental Health and Wellbeing) is a men’s mental health charity that Jess and her ex-husband co-founded in 2014. She resigned in 2019 when she and her ex broke up. Shortly before leaving, she claimed to have raised over £700,000 in grant money for TEF since it was founded. However, its accounts for the preceding financial year don’t support this. The Eaton Foundation received between £60,000-£80,000 in grants in 2018 and again in 2019. Most of this money went towards salaries - likely including Jess's, even though she says she was a volunteer. TEF ran a mental health centre and promised a variety of services, but could only offer a weekly drop-in session and signposting users to other providers.

    Jess says that when she left TEF, they had a lot of money left but hadn't used it. The accounts don't support this - again, 2018-19 was the relevant year. She could have simply been exaggerating about how much she raised for TEF, however, she announced it all over social media so she should expect to be held to account. You would think the funders, HMRC, and Charities Commission would be interested in the fact that TEF's accounts did not show the amount Jess said she'd raised.

    MOCRA

    Sammy Woodhouse, a survivor of the Rochdale grooming gangs, had the idea for a charity to support women who have had children resulting from rape. Jess became involved with the project and named the charity MOCRA (Mothers of Children Conceived in Rape and Abuse.) In spring 2021 she announced a board of trustees for MOCRA, promoted it on an episode of Woman's Hour, and launched a crowdfunder. The crowdfunder was closed early after raising £5,043 (around a quarter of the original target.) There were no further updates on MOCRA for around 18 months. No one who had donated to the project knew where their money went, including one person who donated £1000.

    In October 2022 Jess announced she could not currently proceed with the project, and had donated the money to Rape Crisis. While it's normal to donate to a fundraiser with no "receipts" or updates, you would have expected to see them in a case like this where Jess was setting up a charity and was encouraging people that needed the service to donate to it. The people who donated to the crowdfunder weren't consulted or offered a refund. They gave money to a specific project (MOCRA), not for Jess to redistribute as she sees fit. Some donors commented on Mumsnet saying they were not happy as they don't approve of how Rape Crisis is run.

    Sammy Woodhouse expressed concern over the way Jess had handled the donation, and asked Jess to provide evidence of donating the money. Subsequently, Jess posted a screenshot showing that in June, she had donated £4990 of the £5040 raised during the fundraiser. She said that the £50 shortfall was spent on website hosting fees. This kept the donation under £5000, which would have required that MOCRA be registered as a charity. It appears that the difficulty in registering MOCRA was because the Charity Commission wanted more information about whether there were financial links between MOCRA and Victim Focus.

    Some of the tweets over this have been deleted, but screenshots can be seen below.





    Publicity-seeking

    Jess has repeatedly attempted to use celebrities, and cases in the news, to draw attention to herself and increase sales. Here are some examples.

    Amber Heard

    Jess used the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard libel trial for publicity and to further her narrative that mental illness doesn't really exist. She spoke in support of Amber, expressing the opinion that Amber did not have a personality disorder - despite Jess having repeatedly said that we shouldn't "distance diagnose" celebrities and public figures. She also stated it was wrong to judge Amber based on stereotypes of what a victim looks like, but did exactly that when talking about Johnny. See here and here for examples. She posted about the trial almost every day even after it became clear that she wasn't following it - not knowing who had given evidence or what they had said.

    In December 2022, Jess and a group of other supporters met Amber in person. Jess made gloating posts on social media about how she and her friends were "brave", right all along, and the only ones to stand by Amber. She has repeatedly claimed that other feminists and women working in VAWG did not support Amber, which is clearly false. If Jess has told Amber that no one else believed or defended her, that would be very manipulative. Jess believes Amber to be an abused, vulnerable woman; so why has she so shamelessly used Amber for publicity?

    Nicola Bulley

    Nicola Bulley, a missing woman, was a high profile case in the news. The main theory around her disappearance was that she had fallen into a river whilst walking her dog. Jess tweeted that she felt something was "not right", based on her assumption that her own dog would jump in after her if she fell into water. The following day she said it was wrong to speculate about Nicola. You can't talk about how you're casually discussing the case with your wife; but then say "don't speculate." Jess even suggested she would contact police to share her theories. She had no connection to Nicola Bulley, and wasn't a witness to her disappearance - what did Jess think she could contribute to the investigation?

    Subsequently, the Lancashire police were criticised for their handling of the case. Jess posted a Twitter thread about how Nicola was being "pathologised" by the police. She implied Nicola may have been murdered, likely by her partner. You'd expect Jess to be careful of this, given how much she likes threatening to sue people for defamation. Again, this was after Nicola's family had repeatedly asked the public not to speculate on what happened. Jess completely ignored this so she could make a point and insist she was right. She then continued to use Nicola for publicity by appearing on GB News to discuss the case.

    Nicola's body was found in the river on 19th February 2023. Her family expressed anger at the people who had tried to suggest that her partner was responsible for her disappearance, and a former Chief Superintendent of Lancashire Police condemned "so-called experts" for hindering the case. Jess didn't apologise or take down any of her tweets about Nicola. Instead, she promoted an article she'd written about the impact on Nicola's family. When she began receiving negative comments, Jess insisted she had never speculated about Nicola, just said that the investigation "felt off" and of course she was right.

    Phillip Schofield

    Phillip Schofield is a TV presenter who was revealed to have had an affair with co-worker Matthew McGreevy - a man young enough to be his son. Schofield maintains the relationship began when McGreevy was 20, and was "unwise but not illegal." It emerged that McGreevy was 15 when they met, and there is evidence of grooming which includes Schofield getting him a job. Schofield was forced to resign as presenter of This Morning and was widely criticised for his actions.

    Jess complained about the public response to Schofield - saying that people were too eager to find him to have done something wrong. This is an interesting reaction, as there are several similarities between Jess's and Schofield's situations. It's questionable at best for Jess to make these comments whilst claiming to be a prominent voice in VAWG.

    Schofield was married with kids, has an inappropriate relationship with a younger coworker and comes out as gay!
    Jess was married with kids, has an inappropriate relationship with a younger coworker and comes out as gay!
    Im not really seeing the similarities are you? 😂

    WHO report

    On 9th October 2023, the UN World Health Organisation released a report about human rights within mental healthcare. It recommended a shift away from the "biomedical model" of mental care (which attributes mental illness to biological factors such as brain chemistry) and lists a number of aims. Jess claimed that the report "vindicates" her, confirms everything she's said, and she is finally succeeding in making change. You can see her detailed take on the report here, and the actual report here.

    Jess is not credited or acknowledged in the report, and it does not support her views that mental illness and neurodivergence are just trauma or that psychiatry is inherently wrong. Its recommendations are aimed at ending abuses within the system. For instance, the report states that mental health diagnoses should not be a basis for discrimination - there are many countries where it is legal for employers, landlords, schools, etc. to refuse someone based on mental illness. This is not the same as saying all diagnoses are inherently stigmatising or prejudicial, as Jess does. She's once again twisting words for personal gain.


    Timeline of major events

    2010 - Jess began studying an undergraduate degree in psychology at the Open University. She claims she "didn't finish high school" before starting her degree, and implies she was a single mother or wasn’t receiving help with her children. In fact she had passed GCSEs (considered finishing school in the UK, even if with a poor attendance record), and was married to her now ex-husband, whom she described as a supportive father.

    2011 - Jess self-published Detoxing Taylor, an autobiographical novel about a young single mother escaping an abusive relationship. The only positive review on Goodreads was shared by Jess herself. Detoxing Taylor is no longer available for purchase.

    2014 - Jess met her future wife Jaimi, who was 16 years of age (Jess was 23-24.) Jess says they met through “campaigning” but they did not know each other well and were not in regular contact until 2018.

    Jess and her ex-husband co-founded The Eaton Foundation (TEF), a men’s mental health charity. It was registered as a charity in March 2014 and is now known as TEF Mental Health and Wellbeing.

    2015 - TEF opened a mental health centre for men, however, it lacked funding and could not provide the services it had promised. (See "Questions over fundraising" above.) Jess has since tried to give the impression that she was the only person responsible for setting up and funding the centre.

    Jess completed her undergraduate degree and began a PhD in psychology at the University of Birmingham.

    2017 - Jess opened VictimFocus and became self-employed.

    2018 - Jess became acquainted with three women whose stories of abuse she would later publish without their consent: Sally Ann, Rosie, and Carol.

    She ran a campaign called "No More CSE Films", which increased her profile after some well known people and organisations supported it. "CSE Films" is Jess's name for graphic educational films intended to warn children/teenagers about the risk of grooming and sexual assault. They are used by schools, police, and social services and can be very traumatic, especially to young people who have already experienced sexual violence or grooming. Sally Ann had personal experience of this and contacted Jess to share her story. She gave permission to use it in a blog post, but nowhere else.

    Jess made Jaimi a trustee of The Eaton Foundation. Jaimi was a 20-year-old woman with no educational or professional background in mental health. It’s hard to see what qualified her to be a trustee of a charity that provided mental health services for men, and was set up with older men in mind.

    2019 - Jess completed her PhD. Shortly afterwards, she left her husband, publicly came out as a lesbian, and announced that she was in a relationship with Jaimi.

    2020 - Jess hired Jaimi as Head of Research at VictimFocus - a senior, highly paid role involving people management. Jaimi was a fresh graduate with limited work experience, apart from spending some time as a personal tutor. This is another example of Jess placing Jaimi in a role she was in no way qualified to fill. Jaimi’s mother was also hired to run the VF shop.

    Jess self-published Why Women Are Blamed for Everything, adapted from her thesis. The book contains Sally Ann’s and Carol’s personal stories used without their consent. Later in the year, Why Women Are Blamed for Everything was re-released through a traditional publisher. Jess was attacked by incel and alt-right groups over the book, and police investigated death and rape threats against her.

    Jess attempted to raise £40,000 towards translating VF resources into other languages. A copy of a fundraising email can be seen here. She also held a Facebook live to solicit donations. Ultimately, she closed the fundraiser with only around £2000 raised. She allegedly blamed "radical feminists" for the lack of donations, and would not commit to creating rewards for those who had donated.

    2021 - Jess became involved with MOCRA and opened a fundraiser. It closed early after raising around a quarter of its target. There were then no further updates on the project, or what had happened to the money, for 18 months.

    Jess was criticised for making ignorant comments on the docudrama King Richard, about Richard Williams, who coached his daughters Venus and Serena to worldwide tennis stardom. Jess felt that it was sexist to centre the film on him rather than Venus and Serena. In fact it mostly focuses on how Williams fought against systemic racism in tennis so that his daughters could play professionally. Venus and Serena were both Executive Producers of the film, which Jess evidently hadn't watched.

    2022 - Jess released her second published book Sexy But Psycho. It featured Rosie’s story used without permission.

    Sally Ann and Rosie both posted on social media about how Jess had published their stories without their knowledge or consent. Both were told by Jess’s publisher that, since their real names were not used, she did not need their permission to publish their experiences.

    Jess repeatedly attacked Sally Ann and called her a liar, stalker, and homophobic. She used police and lawyers to try to threaten Sally Ann into silence. Jess later tried to do the same to the campaigner Rachel Williams, who had supported Sally Ann and Rosie.

    The first thread about Jess appeared on Tattle. Jess attempted to threaten two posters with police and contacted one of them privately to demand that her posts be taken down.

    Sally Ann made a complaint to the British Psychological Society (BPS) about Jess. The BPS responded that they did not find Jess to have broken their guidelines in Sally Ann's case specifically. Jess released a statement claiming that this absolved her of all wrongdoing - disingenuously referring to her book Sexy But Psycho. (Sally Ann's story is featured in a different book.) The BPS did not say that they found Jess to have done nothing wrong, or that this verdict related to anyone's complaints other than Sally Ann's.

    After 18 months of silence regarding MOCRA, Jess finally announced that she was unable to proceed with the project and had donated the money raised to Rape Crisis. Questions arose over her lack of transparency and the fact that the donation came in at just under £5000 - which would have required MOCRA to be registered with the Charities Commission.

    Journalist Julian Vigo published a two-part article about Jess on Substack: part one, part two. Jess threatened legal action and claimed that Vigo is just a "blogger" writing "trash." In the second part of the article, Carol came forward as the third known person whose experiences Jess has published without consent.

    2023 - Jess attempted to use missing woman Nicola Bulley for publicity; capitalising on the case with articles in the press and an appearance on GB News. See "Publicity-seeking" section above.

    Jess released the Indicative Trauma Impact Manual (ITIM), a supposed “alternative” to the DSM and other diagnostic manuals. The ITIM is essentially a list of physical and emotional responses that Jess classes as trauma. At least one alleged peer reviewer was a friend of Jess whom she had recently taken on a night out (not proper peer review + conflict of interest.) Jess also tried to manipulate the Amazon review system, repeatedly getting a negative review from a verified purchaser removed.

    Multiple people came forward saying that Jess had made false complaints about them to police or authorities. In one case she allegedly said that someone had been stalking her for more than a year when in reality they had never spoken to each other. In August 2023 the forensic psychologist Kerry Daynes said that Jess had made a malicious report against her to police. Shortly afterwards, Jess began posting vaguely worded conspiracy content on her social media, talking about cover-ups and people being silenced. She then said she was being targeted by a mysterious group that has seemingly killed other women.

    Jess and Jaimi went on a "tour" of speaking engagements around Australia and New Zealand in August/September 2023. They announced a UK tour for 2024 to promote the ITIM.

    Jess took credit for a WHO report on human rights abuses in mental healthcare and said she was "vindicated!" by the report, which recommends a move away from the "biomedical model" of mental healthcare. The report is aimed at preventing injustices, as there are many countries where (for instance) it is legal for employers to discriminate against someone with a mental illness, or where you can be institutionalised indefinitely without your consent. This isn't the same as Jess's views that mental illness doesn't exist, psychiatry is wrong, and all diagnosis is stigmatising.

    Jess announced the upcoming release of her "darkly comic" memoir Underclass in 2024, supposedly inspired by on her love of stand-up comedy and a "comic roast" she did of her wife in front of everyone at their wedding.

    2024 - Jess published an attack on Sally Ann, accusing her of stalking and harassment and claiming that Sally Ann was served with a Stalking Protection Order. It appears she was in fact served with an interim order while awaiting a court case; which was later dropped because Jess's lawyer could not show enough evidence to justify a Stalking Protection Order. See wiki page 2.

    Attachments