I don't agree. I have an anglo friend who's very vehement about the fact Lewis Carroll wasn’t a pedophile, primarily due to the fact the BBC documentary that exploded that idea into popular consensus was created around the time Jimmy Leville got exposed, and in trying to ride the coattails of the controversy, they faked or misinterpreted a lot of evidence.
In his own words:
"The BBC documentary cited got pulled for being bogus shit. Ironically, it turns out Carroll iirc had a number of affairs with adult women and prostitutes, back in the Victorian period this was seen as worse than the shit he gets described with to this day. The photos of little girls iirc is also made up by said BBC documentary too. Said documentary got slammed by historians when it came out.
The photos that are attributed to him are the sort of things that would even be seen on postcards and the like.
The people of that era had some weird idea of child nudity that wasn't sexual in nature, and more an expression of innocence and purity. If this sounds retarded, it is, and I'm serious that they saw it that way back then.
Anyways, the BBC doc claimed a photo of a supposed nude girl of the Liddell family being from Carroll. There's zero evidence of such aside from the back being signed with his name (with the wrong handwriting)."
He actually takes a lot of offense when people see his writings as pedoshit, and I feel the same amount of hatred at the thought of an icon like Alice in Wonderland having been basically yielded over to such faggots.