Just So Stories

The collective reeling of shock over the past few days has brought out many comments. I’ve shared mine, at times with force, especially at the ignorant or disingenous people bleating ‘innocent till proven guilty’ and ‘art is separate to artist’ and ‘maybe the police got it wrong’ and ‘I’ve edited my collection policy’ (that one!! WTF?!). Oh, don’t worry – I know there are plenty who even after a guilty verdict still maintain the innocence of a child abuser. That’s a whole different level of despicable.

If you are one of those, get a grip thanks. You are enabling. You are mitigating what one of Australia’s most well-regarded kids’/YA authors has done, deliberately and without any shred of decency, has done to innocent children.

And most of those, certainly that I’ve seen or have been brought to my attention, made no mention of those victims in this situation. Which is just despicable in itself.

But despite the fact that this echoes what I have tried to convey, along with luminaries such as Dee White, Matt Stanton and Danielle Binks, my dear friend, Tania McCartney has encapsulated it succinctly with grace and clarity, saying it so much better than I could. For this I thank her xxxx.

I know a lot of people are shocked, confused and hurt atm. I’m hoping the following helps. None of this is meant to shame but it may allow us to reframe the situation from the abuser to the abused. Where it belongs.

1. I feel so hurt/betrayed/devastated.

What it feels like: empathy, shock

What it does: quietly centres the speaker

The emotional focus shifts from children who were harmed to adults processing disappointment. The perpetrator becomes the cause of our pain rather than the agent of harm to victims.

It drains urgency from the harm committed and turns safeguarding into emotional processing for the perpetrator’s admirers. This is where the ‘fan-girling’ people are talking about comes in—how male creators are lauded, adored and can do not wrong. This provides armour to these kinds of perpetrators—and can be enabling.

A re-balance

The shock is real but the most important feelings belong to the children who were harmed not those of us adjusting our image of him.

2. He was such a good, nice person

What it sounds like: personal testimony

What it does: builds a character defence

This frames likability as evidence against harm. In reality, many people who harm children are trusted, charming and respected… and that’s often how access is gained.

It reinforces the myth that harmful people are obvious monsters, which protects perpetrators and undermines victims. And we all know how ingrained this pattern is systemically.

A re-balance

Many people who harm children are well-liked and trusted. That doesn’t contradict the charges—it explains how harm can occur.

3. I just can’t believe he’d do this

What it sounds like: disbelief

What it actually does: introduces doubt without evidence

Surprise is treated as a reason to hesitate—as though personal familiarity outweighs documented investigation.

It positions disbelief as reasonable and belief as premature. This not only sidelines victims, it can slow protective action.

A re-balance

Disbelief is understandable but evidence, not personal familiarity, is what matters here.

4. This is so tragic/sad for everyone

What it sounds like: compassion

What it actually does: flattens responsibility

By making it sad for everyone, harm becomes a shared misfortune rather than an act with victims and accountability. It softens agency and blurs who was harmed versus who caused harm.

A re-balance

It’s tragic for the victims. The focus needs to stay on harm and accountability not shared sadness.

5. The police might have got it wrong

What it sounds like: fairness, caution

What it actually does: elevates a hypothetical over carefully performed and documented process

This discounts the reality of specialist investigations, forensic evidence, multiple reviews and the high threshold required to lay such charges. It delays protective action and preserves reputation during a critical window for victims.

A re-balance

He has not been accused. He has been charged. Police don’t lay child exploitation charges lightly. Acting cautiously in child-facing spaces isn’t declaring guilt—it’s basic safeguarding for victims.

6. We need to wait until he’s proven guilty

What it sounds like: respect for the law

What it actually does: misuses a legal principle to justify inaction

Innocent until proven guilty governs criminal punishment processes not institutional responsibility or risk management. It prioritises procedural comfort over child safety and keeps harmful figures culturally and systemically protected. The professional, psychological and legal cost to investigators is enormous. Charges are laid only when the evidence threshold is solid.

Legal guilt is determined in court. Institutional responsibility is determined by risk and values. In child-facing spaces, waiting for certainty has historically caused harm. This is why his works are being removed from public access.

A re-balance

Legal guilt is decided in court. Institutional responsibility is about risk and duty of care.

7. We should separate the art from the artist

What it sounds like: intellectual maturity

What it actually does: preserves benefit, legitimacy and access

In child-facing contexts, continued promotion keeps the author visible, recommended and socially endorsed. It maintains material and reputational support while harm is sidelined. This is why publishers and other institutions are acting now. An artist IS their art.

A re-balance

In children’s spaces, hosting the work of a living author charged with harming children isn’t neutral—it’s endorsement.

8. Removing the artist’s works is premature

What it sounds like: restraint, fairness

What it actually does: delays child-protective action while risk is active

This frames removal as an overreaction when it’s really a temporary safeguarding measure in response to serious charges.

It assumes:

• removal equals punishment

• action requires certainty

• delay is neutral

None of these are true in child-facing contexts, especially one this serious.

A re-balance

It keeps the work visible, recommended and legitimised during the very period when children should be most protected from association, influence and normalisation.

Again, I know this whole situation is shocking and terrible, but it’s so important to reframe it around the victims not the perpetrator.