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

[SooPanda]

(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?

I can't see how all the reports in the newspapers describing her as

"Tracey Johnson, who owns the zoo along with her husband Andy"
"runs the zoo with her husband Andy"
"heroic zookeeper and family"
"Zookeeper Tracey Johnson"
"A zoo owner"

have led to any confusion about her status.

Glad to see a few news outlets didn’t use that wording, it’s just the majority of online reports that I have happen to have seen did refer to her in that way. Thanks @AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

I don’t mind if she’s not co owner or whatever, though I expect she is as Cambrishire Live stated it.

My annoyance was that she probably has some role in the zoo other than just “wife”. Presumably she was working in the zoo, as quoted she was alerted by “fellow staff members”. So she could have been called “zoo manager, Tracy” or zoo supervisor. Or crocodile expert. Or just something other than his wife.

It helps understand who the person is, if you just named her, Sally Smith, well who is Sally Smith. Oh she's the doctors wife

In this case it would appear she is described variously across different media sources as the zookeeper, zoo owner, running the zoo and Andy's wife

So who knows give it seems the zoo is not on Companies House if other posters are right.

Yes those particular phrases wouldn’t have led to any confusion. It’s the phrasing that I’ve seen that I’ve taken issue with, which does refer to her as the wife.

Fair. I went looking for the print media because let's face it, they are easier to find!

No she’s not! She’s Sally Smith, she’s her own person. Is Sally not allowed a job and identity of her own? Prof Sally Smith, with a phd in neuroscience who lectures at universities across the nation reduced to “doctors wife” because she married a local GP

It keeps popping up from various news sources on my social media and about the fourth time I saw her named as his wife I thought come on now, she must have her own stuff going on! Was she only in the zoo because she was asking what he wanted for his tea that night?

I know it’s not all media outlets now which is good but it was a lot of them initially. I just think it’s a bit off in this day and age. (But then I still get annoyed with post addressed to MrsSooPanda’sHusband’sFirstnameSurname)

I'd be more annoyed that she is the only one mentioned as going in, when others did too according to reports I've read.
If that's not the case, and it was only her, fine.
But in this tragic case about a little child, whether she is the owner of the business is completely irrelevant. The child matters first, next his family, and then an investigation of responsibility and avoiding it ever happening again.

But I wouldnt know who she was in the context of the story if its connected to the doctor would I?

If the doctor has nothing to do with the story, then yes she is Sally Smith

In this context (and its still a bit vague if she is the co owner or not), she is the zoo owners wife. If she owns it too, then yes she is the zoo owner.

A child thrown into a crocodile pit yet you are more concerned about the wording of the report?

Oh, come now:

"(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.)"

seems to me to make it pretty clear the OP was concerned for the child and family, just had something quite different she wanted to say, about the way it was reported.

It's a partnership, not a limited company so not on Companies House.

My job is to look at ownership structures of businesses.

Generally I find Partnerships are made up of family members, grandparents to grandkids (when they reach adulthood). It wouldn't surprise me if the husband has a share of the business along with siblings that doesn't include spouses.
I'm obviously guessing here, but could be an explanation.

How do you know this?

Which means the PP's friend who had "checked" is full of it.

She might well be- but how do we know it’s a partnership?

The zoo is more than likely to be part of the farm, and thus also under the sole proprietorship or partnership.

A zoo can indeed be an LLC, but this one isn’t.

Oh, I totally asked AI. Of course AI can be incorrect. I didn't think about it too deeply to be honest. Just coming up with a possible explanation.

Also, the family might have multiple businesses all with different legal structures (one business for the zoo, another for the cafe etc etc).

When you said it’s a partnership not a limited company I assumed that was because you knew 🤣

it makes sense for the zoo to be a Ltd company as I can’t see it qualifies for any agricultural relief

So… you didn’t read the first post very well or chose to just ignore what I wrote so that you could post this smug, worthy reply? I’m not talking about the incident and actually the way women are written about and referred to in the media is very important.

Show me in my first post where I said that i think the wording was more important? Because I didn’t, did I?

It still matters though. Women have come so far and are still reduced to being some man’s property.

Gymnastics champion Simone Biles was recently in the news as “NFL wife Simone Biles”. It matters.

I am enjoying this business ownership tangent btw!

My mother used to joke that if she died in some newsworthy way the headline would certainly say "Mother of four killed by falling tree..." and then after another few decades it would be "Grandmother of six..."

But the context is that she did something heroic. It’s about Sally the hero saving a child. Even if that child was saved at the husband’s GP surgery, Sally should be given more of a title and identity than just his “wife”. It’s so patronising!

A child nearly died and you’re being pedantic over the wording of the zoo ownership. Sorry but get a grip!

Did you read the OP? First paragraph?