Dr Jessica Taylor #2

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
1
On twitter if u block someone u can't see their interactions with or around u, so if she blocked everyone who supported Sally ann, I reckon she'd lose some narc supply. I kinda reckon she likes being talked about.

Yes you can't delete or control comments on Twitter so no good for her 😆
People basically have the right to say what they want there and all she can do is hide them from her eyes only, but she can't control what people say about her.
Twitter has become a strong voice against her. Thankfully.
 
Last edited:
Nice reply to one of her self-pitying tweets
 

Attachments

  • 4BB1C82A-A326-46EF-A857-570213930A03.png
    4BB1C82A-A326-46EF-A857-570213930A03.png
    28.3 KB · Views: 685
SavannahS said:
On twitter if u block someone u can't see their interactions with or around u, so if she blocked everyone who supported Sally ann, I reckon she'd lose some narc supply. I kinda reckon she likes being talked about.

Yes you can't delete or control comments on Twitter so no good for her 😆
People basically have the right to say what they want there and all she can do is hide them from her eyes only, but she can't control what people say about her.
Twitter has become a strong voice against her. Thankfully.
Click to expand...

I know several women who criticised her on Twitter a few years ago and she never blocked any of them. In fact she was more likely to keep engaging with them and send them DMs demanding explanations for why they had a problem with her.

I think she partly doesn’t block because she wants to leave the door open for further contact, so she can then say “look they are abusing me.”
 
alphaspagbol said:
Wow! Obviously not read it yet. But in the context of recent goings on this is t a good look
Click to expand...
It will no doubt include all the stories of the women who have asked that their stories not be included. This goes against all ethical standards; while it obviously can be impossible to remove information from something that has already been published--although it could be removed from later editions---it absolutely can be removed from something that hasn't yet been published, and the right to have your data removed AT ANY POINT is clearly set out in the ethical framework. The women involved have repeatedly asked her to remove their stories, so she cannot claim they haven't asked that. BUT she hasn't abided by any ethical standards, which is completely wrong anyway, but she exists in this no man's land where she uses her title of psychologist to give her credibility, but then publishes without the ethical constraints of a psychologist. She's on dangerous ground if she wants to retain her academic status. And besides all of that, she clearly knows she is causing harm to these vulnerable women but is continuing regardless, retraumatising them every day. She's despicable.

CuriousTherapyCat said:
A report being “our opinion in an essay”?
I’m not sure any research talking to people has been done here? Haven’t noticed requests?
Click to expand...
She just recycles the same data. How many books has she produced which are all based on the same 'research'? Research for her PhD I believe, which should be held up to scrutiny because that will have been dependent on ethics....which she has repeatedly breached.
 
Lula-lee said:
I don’t think she has any academic status to be honest. She’s got no high quality peer reviewed papers. She’s published her PhD as a book and not in academic journals. She talks loud and puts a good spin on things but on paper she is not at all impressive I’m academic terms.
Click to expand...
I don’t think she really cares about how academics see her. I think it gives her a thrill to think she is seen as a maverick. What is increasingly clear from her approach on social media is that fame, adoration, attention and money are her motivating factors.
 
Yep, she got the PhD, and paid the fee for the FRSA, for the clout of the letters. Hence why she is Dr Jess Taylor everywhere, with various bits and bobs prominent in all bios, where serious people barely mention these things - take Pinker for a comparison « cognitive scientist at Harvard ». That’s literally it. No PhD etc… because proper people know they’re the bollocks and don’t need to shout about it. And they certainly don’t mention their GCSEs / equivalent.
 
Boogs said:
I don’t think she really cares about how academics see her. I think it gives her a thrill to think she is seen as a maverick. What is increasingly clear from her approach on social media is that fame, adoration, attention and money are her motivating factors.
Click to expand...
You are exactly right. She knows she’s not convincing as an academic to other academics but she can make out that she has academic credibility to the general public and that’s enough because it’s not about being an academic for her, it’s about being a celebrity and making money. Lord knows academics don’t earn enough to fund her lifestyle! So I suppose it’s no use appealing to the ethical principles of research or any morale values whatsoever because all she cares about is her own fame and fortune and nothing at all for those she tramples on to get what she wants.
 
Lula-lee said:
I don’t think she has any academic status to be honest. She’s got no high quality peer reviewed papers. She’s published her PhD as a book and not in academic journals. She talks loud and puts a good spin on things but on paper she is not at all impressive I’m academic terms.
Click to expand...
Well by academic status I mean she does actually have a PhD and so can use the title 'Dr' which to some of her followers seems to mean a medical doctor. I'm sure a PhD can be 'stripped' if it transpires ethics were broken....Her chartered status with the BPS must be under threat with the obvious harm she has knowingly caused to the participants in her research and makes no attempt to make amends...

But yes you're right she has zilch in the way of academic publications, which is unusual to say the least....

Stella.alletS said:
I once made a passing comment on Facebook about how her constant pics feeling Jaimi up seemed weird and she found me on twitter and send me loads of messages saying things like "if you want to step to me" and "say it to my face" 🤣 I totally ignored her and thought she was a weirdo.
Click to expand...
Wow how childish! Like she wanted to fight you! Playground behaviour...
 
Last edited:
Yes, you’re right. I think her PhD could be under threat if she was proven to have done the research unethically. It would have to go through a research misconduct process at the university that awarded it but that sort of thing is so rare. It would have to be that there was a lot of very strong evidence. I would also imagine that since she was being supervised at that time, there would have been more oversight so it’s more likely that she did follow the proper standards than not (but that’s no guarantee). The BPS chartership seems like it could be much more under threat though as there are strong grounds for asserting she is bringing psychology as a discipline into disrepute and she is clearly knowingly causing significant distress to vulnerable people for profit. But I’m not aware of how the BPS processes work.
 
littlesunflower said:
I know several women who criticised her on Twitter a few years ago and she never blocked any of them. In fact she was more likely to keep engaging with them and send them DMs demanding explanations for why they had a problem with her.

I think she partly doesn’t block because she wants to leave the door open for further contact, so she can then say “look they are abusing me.”
Click to expand...
Interesting.
This is what it looked like, she then uses screenshots for "proof."
How toxic.
Her dm-ing ppl who disagree with her is really effective intimidation. I'm intimidated by her. By both her gushy lovey dovey talk to her supporters, and her cruel, unblundaried shaming and sharing of info to those who are seen as "against" her.
 
Lula-lee said:
Yes, you’re right. I think her PhD could be under threat if she was proven to have done the research unethically. It would have to go through a research misconduct process at the university that awarded it but that sort of thing is so rare. It would have to be that there was a lot of very strong evidence. I would also imagine that since she was being supervised at that time, there would have been more oversight so it’s more likely that she did follow the proper standards than not (but that’s no guarantee). The BPS chartership seems like it could be much more under threat though as there are strong grounds for asserting she is bringing psychology as a discipline into disrepute and she is clearly knowingly causing significant distress to vulnerable people for profit. But I’m not aware of how the BPS processes work.
Click to expand...
Well yes a supervisor will have seen that she all the necessary paperwork such as Participant information form and Consent form, but in her PhD she claims to have had 456 participants, I'm not sure it would have been the job of the supervisor to check that she had 456 signed consent forms. The issue here, and I may be wrong but this is the impression I got, is that SA was interviewed as part of her PhD but now JT is treating the SA's data as belonging to JT and is continuing to use it, despite SA---and other women----requesting that their info be not used in further publications. This certainly fits in with how she treats her 'employees', making them sign NDAs and sign to the effect that all research they carry out belongs to Victim Focus, ie JT. So this means that she gets her minnows to do her research and then she takes all the credit for it. If SA's data was gathered for JT's PhD that makes it an ethical issue with the PhD, not just some fiction publisher, as 'the right to withdraw at any time and your data be removed' is ALWAYS part of consent/ethics, notwithstanding that this is impossible with something that is already published. Now if she used SA's data in her PhD without a consent form then that is also a clear breach. Maybe she's particularly sneaky and covered all bases and crossed the T's, but I suspect she isn't and hasn't, as her arrogance and narcissism would not imagine that any of the women would react in this way as she simply thinks that she is a guru, a saviour and they will all forever be in awe of her. Surely to god she will not use their stories any more, but she's a monster and just thinks there's nothing they can do, so she probably will....
 
456 research participants is huge! Particularly for qualitative research- which is I think what she did in her PhD. It sounds odd to me, I can’t imagine that proper process was followed by a student for that number of participants. I wasn’t aware that SA’s data could be linked to the PhD. If so, there has to be a case for research misconduct and the University would have to investigate.

Looking at her thesis, the 456 participants completed a questionnaire, looks like it was online so I’d imagine consent was collected online also- looking at the info related to the survey and ethics app in the appendices, that seems to be the case. The numbers involved in her qualitative studies who would have been interviews are much smaller- 10 women and 11 professionals. Depending on the university’s regulations, the consent forms should still be stored securely by the main supervisor (usually for 5yrs). But it might not be easy to identify who that is due up JT having changed supervisors part way through her PhD. This is highly unusual and when it happens, tends to be down to progression issues or if staff leave/retire etc. but that wouldn’t explain why the original supervisor wasn’t thanked in the acknowledgment section. I think this is pretty telling. The original supervisor is named on the participant information sheets though so clearly had significant involvement in the research design. Seems very dodgy to me…
 
Last edited:
Lula-lee said:
456 research participants is huge! Particularly for qualitative research- which is I think what she did in her PhD. It sounds odd to me, I can’t imagine that proper process was followed by a student for that number of participants. I wasn’t aware that SA’s data could be linked to the PhD. If so, there has to be a case for research misconduct and the University would have to investigate.

Looking at her thesis, the 456 participants completed a questionnaire, looks like it was online so I’d imagine consent was collected online also- looking at the info related to the survey and ethics app in the appendices, that seems to be the case. The numbers involved in her qualitative studies who would have been interviews are much smaller- 10 women and 11 professionals. Depending on the university’s regulations, the consent forms should still be stored securely by the main supervisor (usually for 5yrs). But it might not be easy to identify who that is due up JT having changed supervisors part way through her PhD. This is highly unusual and when it happens, tends to be down to progression issues or if staff leave/retire etc. but that wouldn’t explain why the original supervisor wasn’t thanked in the acknowledgment section. I think this is pretty telling. The original supervisor is named on the participant information sheets though so clearly had significant involvement in the research design. Seems very dodgy to me…
Click to expand...
She could have changed supervisor to not share the IP from the study with her first supervisor. Her PhD research is behind a paywall and that way just JT profits.
 
ZiggyStardust68 said:
The issue here, and I may be wrong but this is the impression I got, is that SA was interviewed as part of her PhD but now JT is treating the SA's data as belonging to JT and is continuing to use it, despite SA---and other women----requesting that their info be not used in further publications. This certainly fits in with how she treats her 'employees', making them sign NDAs and sign to the effect that all research they carry out belongs to Victim Focus, ie JT. So this means that she gets her minnows to do her research and then she takes all the credit for it. If SA's data was gathered for JT's PhD that makes it an ethical issue with the PhD, not just some fiction publisher, as 'the right to withdraw at any time and your data be removed' is ALWAYS part of consent/ethics, notwithstanding that this is impossible with something that is already published. Now if she used SA's data in her PhD without a consent form then that is also a clear breach. Maybe she's particularly sneaky and covered all bases and crossed the T's, but I suspect she isn't and hasn't, as her arrogance and narcissism would not imagine that any of the women would react in this way as she simply thinks that she is a guru, a saviour and they will all forever be in awe of her. Surely to god she will not use their stories any more, but she's a monster and just thinks there's nothing they can do, so she probably will....
Click to expand...

You're right that the issue is with Jessica continuing to use SA's story without permission, but I don't think it was anything to do with her PhD.

As I understand it, this is what happened: Jessica ran a campaign against CSE imagery being shown to children in school, within "educational" films. SA got in contact with her, via Facebook and while distressed and shared her story with her. Jessica asked her if she could use it in a blog and SA said yes. She didn't ask her to sign a proper consent form - any academic worth her salt should know that consent given over Facebook while distressed might be legal but certainly isn't ethical.

She then went on to use the same story in a report and Why Women and Blamed for Everything without asking permission. That's arguably not legal. The publisher are claiming that as SA's name's not used it's fine. But SA is recognisable from it though, a lawyer may be able to successfully argue it's not legal.

Then, when challenged about SA being in the book, Jess acted out abuser 101, claiming Sally Ann wasn't in it and that SA was confused, crazy, someone else had put her up to it, she didn't know what she was talking about etc etc

Then JT did an about turn and is now admitting SA is in the book, acting as if we should all forget she said she wasn't/ JT briefly released private messages showing that SA gave permission for the blog (no mention of the report or book), which is what Sally Ann said all along. She then deleted them off Twitter after getting pushback.

destinyschild22 said:
Her PhD research is behind a paywall and that way just JT profits.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's true. Jessica's whole thing is about how she doesn't believe in paywalls. (I strongly suspect she also doesn't want the scrutiny and ethical standards that go alongside publishing through respected journals.)

Jessica's PHD is here: https://www.researchgate.net/public...en_who_have_been_subjected_to_sexual_violence

She claims here that it's free access:
 
I think we can all agree that an open access peer reviewed journal would be better.

The main point stands: she steals survivors’ stories and IP from collaborators
 
Last edited:
I P = intellectual property

<When you type in “IP” tattle automatically hotlinks info about I P (internet protocol) addresses and whether celebrities can work out who here is writing about them

destinyschild22 said:
I P = intellectual property

<When you type in “IP” tattle automatically hotlinks info about I P (internet protocol) addresses and whether celebrities can work out who here is writing about them
Click to expand...

with this in mind, here’s the message I’m trying to get across to you all

“I think we can all agree that an open access peer reviewed journal would be better.

My main point is that she steals survivors’ stories and intellectual property) from collaborators”
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
Back
Top