Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To be annoyed by this part of the the wording of news reports about the croc incident

52 replies

SooPanda · 22/06/2026 17:21

(Not about the incident itself. My heart goes out to the poor child and his family, and I don’t want to discuss the details of the incident itself because there are lots of threads on that already.)

AIBU??! Every news report I’ve read says that “the wife of the zoo owner” jumped in to save the boy.

Is she not also the zoo owner then??

AIBU to be annoyed that this heroic woman is being referred to by her marriage to a man and not her own credentials?

OP posts:
IllBurnThatBridgeWhenIGetToIt · 22/06/2026 17:23

It doesn't mean shes also the zoo owner, no.
I had a business when I was married, it didn't mean the business was also my husbands.

TheignT · 22/06/2026 17:23

I think I read the farm was originally his father's so maybe it is his.

DwarfPalmetto · 22/06/2026 17:26

If she is not also the zoo owner, she could be zookeeper, a zoo volunteer, another visitor... or something else that identifies her as a complete person in her own right.

InterIgnis · 22/06/2026 17:30

No, he may very well own it independently of his wife. A business isn’t automatically a marital asset.

Thebinisrightthere · 22/06/2026 17:31

Google said she is the co-owner

rwalker · 22/06/2026 17:33

It would be more strange not to mention it was the owners wife and tried to pass her off as some random

my wife has a small business absolutely nothing to do with me and I’m not involved in the slightest I presume this is the case here

Kingfisherfly · 22/06/2026 17:33

No it doesn't automatically mean she's the owner. As I understand it he is a thrid generation farmer and his family have owned the land for decades, so she probably isn't.

Backedoffhackedoff · 22/06/2026 17:36

I have a friend who was so incensed she looked it up and apparently she is indeed named on companies house as an owner/ director.

interesting that the media assumed she wasn’t, eh?

like others the way I read it is that she just happened to be there, visiting, not part of the zoo.

Kingfisherfly · 22/06/2026 17:47

Backedoffhackedoff · 22/06/2026 17:36

I have a friend who was so incensed she looked it up and apparently she is indeed named on companies house as an owner/ director.

interesting that the media assumed she wasn’t, eh?

like others the way I read it is that she just happened to be there, visiting, not part of the zoo.

Where did she look it up? Where is it registered? As far as I can see it's not a limited company and has been passed down through his family. It would be very unusual of she was an owner.

AnneLovesGilbert · 22/06/2026 17:50

Not as bad as repeating that the child “ended up” in there which so many outlets did, as if it was just one of those things like ending up putting the wrong shoes on or ending up having a cheese sandwich instead of an egg sandwich.

But you’re completely right. Weren’t there 3 people who jumped into help?

LadyLooo · 22/06/2026 17:52

Is she not also the zoo owner then??

I don't see how anyone here can answer this?

I'm sure there's somewhere online you can check to see any businesses she may own?

JoyousOpalLemur · 22/06/2026 17:53

Of course that doesn't mean she's the zoo owner as well.

If your husband is a doctor that doesn't mean that you're also a doctor.

Livelovelaughfuckoff · 22/06/2026 18:00

I suspect if newspapers lead with "zoo owner" jumps in to save boy most people would assume they were referring to a man. I suppose this instantly highlights that this heroic act was carried out by a woman.

Historically it looks like it has been a family business on the husbands side for several generations so presumably that is where the assumption comes from. Can't find whether she is specifically a legal owner or not so can't really muster the enthusiasm to froth about something that actually be factually correct.

Backedoffhackedoff · 22/06/2026 18:07

Kingfisherfly · 22/06/2026 17:47

Where did she look it up? Where is it registered? As far as I can see it's not a limited company and has been passed down through his family. It would be very unusual of she was an owner.

I’ve assumed companies house- I’ve asked her.

she couldn’t have go own the farm or the land to own the zoo.

InterIgnis · 22/06/2026 18:10

Backedoffhackedoff · 22/06/2026 17:36

I have a friend who was so incensed she looked it up and apparently she is indeed named on companies house as an owner/ director.

interesting that the media assumed she wasn’t, eh?

like others the way I read it is that she just happened to be there, visiting, not part of the zoo.

I could not find her, or him for that matter. The farm doesn’t appear to be on company house at all.

As a farm that’s been run by his family for at least one hundred years, it’s likely to be a sole proprietorship in his name.

HiZev · 22/06/2026 18:19

InterIgnis · 22/06/2026 18:10

I could not find her, or him for that matter. The farm doesn’t appear to be on company house at all.

As a farm that’s been run by his family for at least one hundred years, it’s likely to be a sole proprietorship in his name.

Edited

I bet there is a company. They'd be mad to run a business like that without a limited liability wrapper.

Backedoffhackedoff · 22/06/2026 18:19

InterIgnis · 22/06/2026 18:10

I could not find her, or him for that matter. The farm doesn’t appear to be on company house at all.

As a farm that’s been run by his family for at least one hundred years, it’s likely to be a sole proprietorship in his name.

Edited

the farm won’t be a Ltd company.

the zoo isn’t the farm though. It just occupies the farms land. No reason why it can’t be a company?!

Backedoffhackedoff · 22/06/2026 18:21

She hasn’t responded though and there are about 20,000 directors named Tracey Johnson on companies house so I’m working my way through 🤣

AskingQuestionsAllTheTime · 22/06/2026 18:22

I didn't see what you did.

The Mirror report is clear.
"A local resident, who wished to remain anonymous, said Tracey Johnson, who owns the zoo along with her husband Andy, leapt into the enclosure in an attempt to rescue the youngster."

The Daily Mail has her headlined as "zoo owner's wife", but did say in their third paragraph that she "runs the zoo with her husband Andy".

A different edition of the Mirror says "Boy, 3, thrown into crocodile pit saved by heroic zookeeper and family
Zookeeper Tracey Johnson, her husband Andrew and their son Edward jumped into the crocodile enclosure at Johnsons of Old Hurst, near Huntingdon, to rescue a three-year-old boy".

The BBC referred to the whole family and then ""Tracey was the first on the scene, but she was then joined by her husband Andy and their youngest son Edward. All three were involved in the rescue".

The Metro says "Tracey Johnson, 55, her zookeeper husband Andrew, 56, and their 29-year-old son Edward heroically leapt to the child’s rescue at Johnsons of Old Hurst zoo in Huntingdon on Thursday."

The Sun, rather further down their report and breaking step with the rest, says "Andrew’s wife, Tracey Johnson, bravely helped rescue the tot, who is believed to have suffered a broken arm and pelvis in the horror.

Cambridgeshire Live says "A zoo owner has been hailed a hero on Friday (June 19) after jumping into a crocodile enclosure to save the life of a little boy. Tracey Johnson, 55, dashed into the crocodile pen at Johnsons of Old Hurst near Huntingdon, after being alerted that a boy was in the enclosure by fellow staff members."

(it wants to add a gif. If it does, believe me, I didn't want it to.)

Kingfisherfly · 22/06/2026 18:27

Backedoffhackedoff · 22/06/2026 18:07

I’ve assumed companies house- I’ve asked her.

she couldn’t have go own the farm or the land to own the zoo.

I think she's telling you fibs so substantiate her 'outrage'. It's not a limited company. It won't be on the Register of Companies.

She may (but probably doesn't) have a finabcial interest in the business but you're wasting your time with the list of directors because this business doesn't have any.

Even if it were a limited company, being a director doesn't automatically make you an owner.

Kingfisherfly · 22/06/2026 18:28

Backedoffhackedoff · 22/06/2026 18:19

the farm won’t be a Ltd company.

the zoo isn’t the farm though. It just occupies the farms land. No reason why it can’t be a company?!

No reason it can't be, but it isn't.

SooPanda · 22/06/2026 18:38

DwarfPalmetto · 22/06/2026 17:26

If she is not also the zoo owner, she could be zookeeper, a zoo volunteer, another visitor... or something else that identifies her as a complete person in her own right.

Thank you. That’s what I mean. She isn’t just his wife surely.

OP posts:
SooPanda · 22/06/2026 18:38

Thebinisrightthere · 22/06/2026 17:31

Google said she is the co-owner

Thank you!!

OP posts:
SooPanda · 22/06/2026 18:39

Backedoffhackedoff · 22/06/2026 17:36

I have a friend who was so incensed she looked it up and apparently she is indeed named on companies house as an owner/ director.

interesting that the media assumed she wasn’t, eh?

like others the way I read it is that she just happened to be there, visiting, not part of the zoo.

I’m glad I’m not alone. (Well done your friend for googling it instead of just moaning about it on the internet like me.)

OP posts:
SooPanda · 22/06/2026 18:42

JoyousOpalLemur · 22/06/2026 17:53

Of course that doesn't mean she's the zoo owner as well.

If your husband is a doctor that doesn't mean that you're also a doctor.

Yeah, that’s the same..

So if your husband is a doctor are you automatically referred to as “the doctors wife”? Or are you allowed your own job title, role or achievement external to his?

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread