Jamie Oliver has learnt the hard way what the moral of his story is

The celebrity chef is no stranger to upsetting people – remember turkey twizzlers? – but now he’s offended an entire nation with his new children’s book. And it was all so completely avoidable, writes Katie Edwards

In the latest issue of Woke News, Jamie Oliver has withdrawn his latest children’s book, Billy and the Epic Escape, after it was excoriated by the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Corporation (Natsiec).

In a statement to The Guardian, Natsiec’s chief executive, Sharon Davis, said Oliver’s book “ignores the violent oppression of First Nations people, raising serious concerns about the cultural safety of First Nations readers – especially young people” and “reflecting a profound lack of understanding and respect”.

How ridiculous, eh? Why on earth wouldn’t a mega-rich, cockney celeb chef infamous for creating controversies have a deep and thoughtful understanding of the experiences of a young First Nations Australian girl living in the care system? (Hmm... yeah... on reflection, perhaps the clues were there that Billy and the Epic Escape’s Indigenous Australian subplot might not be a great idea.)

A cynic might wonder whether this, Oliver’s latest rumpus, is a clever ploy to cut through the noise during the pre-Christmas children’s book marketing campaigns. After all, it’s generating a fair bit of press, and Oliver has bounced back from previous gaffes.

Remember when he called Rotherham resident Julie Critchlow – one of the mothers passing food to her kids through the school fence during his campaign to rid the world, or just south Yorkshire, of turkey twizzlers – “a big old scrubber”? No? That’s my point.

But the cynics would be wrong, because Oliver was, he said, “devastated to hear” of the offence he had caused, and “wholly” apologised. When news of the book’s withdrawal broke, Oliver released a further statement, saying: “It was never my intention to misinterpret this deeply painful issue. Together with my publishers we have decided to withdraw the book from sale.”

Alas, we know that good intentions can still cause damage – and I reckon withdrawing the book from sale was the right move. But adding one simple extra step to the editorial process could have avoided the issue altogether: hiring a sensitivity reader.

Ah yes, the sensitivity reader. They say the Wokeists have a reputation for being super touchy, but the “free speech” types don’t half get worked up about the idea of sensitivity readers. “Censorship!” they cry. “Wokeism gone mad!” they wail. The beef around sensitivity readers strikes me as odd.

I will concede that “sensitivity reader” is probably a bad name. It does have connotations of being easily hurt; a readiness for injury – which adds fuel to the fire for the ones who are so eager to describe those fighting for the rights of Indigenous people as “snowflakes”.

The idea of sensitivity readers, though, is straightforward, and seems like common sense to me. When an author is writing about experiences or identities they know nothing about, sensitivity readers provide fact-checking and suggest improvements. They don’t censor anything.

Many authors send out their drafts to readers for feedback – it’s good practice. So why is it so controversial when it’s someone qualified to advise on areas in which the author’s knowledge may be limited? Sensitivity reading isn’t some nefarious attempt to bowdlerise books – it’s a necessity, especially given that the publishing industry is notorious for its lack of diversity.

Really, editors are already sensitivity readers – checking text for errors, misrepresentations and misconceptions – but everyone has areas of ignorance. Where neither editor nor author has the experience to be aware of any fundamental misunderstandings or misinterpretations in the book, then it makes perfect sense to seek advice from someone who does. But that didn’t happen in the case of Oliver’s book.

Penguin Random House UK, the publisher of Oliver’s children’s books, issued a statement agreeing that the book should have been checked for authenticity before publication. It also accepted responsibility for the “editorial oversight” of not arranging a consultation before it was published, despite Oliver’s request for one.

So, what’s the moral of the story? Getting sensitivity reader feedback on book drafts isn’t routine, but Billy and the Epic Escape shows that perhaps it should be.

Katie Edwards is an author and broadcaster