Schoolreadinglist.co.uk policy on allegations about authors, illustrators, poets and other credited book contributors.
1) Purpose
- School Reading List publishes recommendations for children and readers aged 0–18. This policy sets out how we respond when concerns are raised publicly or privately about an author, illustrator, poet, translator, editor, or other credited contributor linked to a book we recommend.
2) Core principles
We apply the following principles:
- Safeguarding first. Child safety takes priority in how quickly we respond and what proportionate interim steps we take.
- Evidence over virality. Online campaigns, screenshots, and social media claims are not treated as findings of fact.
- Due process and fairness. We recognise that allegations can be untested, workplace investigations are often confidential, and outcomes can be unclear or cannot be assessed from partial public accounts.
- Editorial independence. We do not make decisions under pressure from pile-ons, trolling, or coordinated harassment.
- Legal and reputational safety. We do not publish, host, or repeat unverified allegations about identifiable individuals. Repeating or paraphrasing allegations can create defamation risk even where the original statement came from someone else.
3) What triggers a review
We will open a formal review when there is verifiable evidence of a formal outcome. For this policy, ‘verifiable’ means publicly accessible primary material (for example, a judgment, order, or regulator decision) or an official public register/notice.
A – Court outcomes (highest confidence)
- Criminal conviction or guilty plea (or equivalent court finding).
- A final civil court judgment.
- Court orders relevant to safety (for example, restraining orders or injunctions).
- Out-of-court disposals (such as cautions), only where supported by an official public source (for example, an official register/notice or statement by a competent authority).
B – Formal public outcomes by competent bodies
- A regulator or statutory body publishes a decision or finding (for example, a decision notice, determination, or outcome statement).
Important: We do not treat publisher, employer, festival, agency, or commissioning decisions as “findings of fact” for the purpose of this policy, and we do not draw inferences from such decisions. Such decisions may be based on internal standards or non-public evidence and often do not state a standard of proof.
4) What does not trigger a review on its own
The following do not trigger a formal review by themselves:
- Newspaper reports, podcasts, documentaries, blogs, Substack posts.
- Anonymous accounts, screenshots, “industry whispers”, or social media threads.
- Claims that rely on non-public HR investigations or undisclosed findings.
- Allegations that cannot be verified through the outcome types listed in Section 3.
- Media coverage can alert us to an issue, but we do not treat media as a finding of fact. Action under this policy depends on outcomes listed in Section 3.
5) Time-limited safeguarding pause (exception)
In exceptional cases, where a concern indicates an immediate safeguarding risk to children, we may apply a temporary pause on new featuring of a creator’s work while we check whether an outcome under Section 3 exists, or is reasonably expected within the pause period based on verifiable information.
- A pause is not a finding of fact.
- A pause is time-limited (for example, 30 days), reviewed internally on a set date, and ended earlier if the criteria for continuing it are not met.
- If no Section 3 outcome is available at internal review, the title returns to normal listing.
6) How we decide whether to remove or retain a recommendation
Even where a Section 3 outcome exists, we only remove or materially downgrade a recommendation where the conduct established by that outcome is:
- Serious, and
- Directly relevant to the child audience, schools, or buyers, including safeguarding risk, child sexual exploitation, serious violence, or other serious offences that would reasonably affect school communities.
Where an outcome exists but the relevance test is not met, options include:
- Keep the book listed.
- Reduce prominence (for example, remove from “top picks”).
- Add a short factual note only where it can be written without repeating or endorsing allegations, and only by quoting or paraphrasing the Section 3 outcome.
7) Practical listing issues (not a misconduct finding)
Separately from the misconduct review process, we may update lists for practical reasons such as:
- A title being withdrawn, unavailable, or no longer suitable to link to for availability or accuracy reasons.
- A publisher changing editions, titles, or metadata.
- These are availability/editorial maintenance decisions and are not presented as moral judgments or factual findings about an individual.
8) Review process
- Triage. If a report raises a safeguarding risk, we assess whether a temporary pause is needed (Section 5).
- Evidence check. We look only for outcomes under Section 3.
- Decision. At least two editors apply the seriousness and relevance test (Section 6).
- Record. We keep records to the minimum necessary and handle personal data in line with our privacy policy.
- Reassessment. Where we pause or monitor, we set an internal review date.
9) Social media engagement, visibility and reporting
- School Reading List does not host user comments or third-party contributions on its website.
- On social media, we can only control content and actions made by our own accounts (including our posts, replies, likes, reposts and follows), and we cannot remove or edit comments made by other users.
- We do not respond (including by quote-posting) to unpleasant, malicious, defamatory, or trolling remarks on any platform.
- Where a thread becomes hostile, we may remove our original post to reduce visibility and avoid drawing further attention to abusive commentary.
- We may also use platform tools to manage our own exposure to such accounts, including muting and unfollowing, and limiting how widely we share or promote the same or similar content again.
- Where we see content that appears unlawful or creates an immediate safeguarding risk, we will preserve evidence, report it using the platform’s reporting tools, and, where appropriate, report it to the relevant authorities.
10) What we ask people to send us
If someone asks us to remove a recommendation due to concerns about a creator, we ask for an email ([email protected]) containing:
- Book title and creator name.
- A link to a Section 3 outcome (for example, a published court judgment/order or published regulator/statutory decision).
- A short explanation of why the proven issue is relevant to children/schools/buyers.
11) What we will not do
- We will not act as a court or replicate HR investigations.
- We will not publish or repeat unverified allegations.
- We will not make changes based solely on online pressure.
- We will not state or imply that allegations are true without a Section 3 outcome.
This policy was last updated on .
