03519-25 Reid v The Courier

Summary of Complaint

1. Alexa Reid complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Courier breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Bird cruelty probe into wildlife centre”, published on 23 August 2025, and an article headlined “Perthshire wildlife park bosses hit back after series of controversies including E coli probe”, published on 17 September 2025.

2. The first article under complaint appeared on the newspaper’s front page, before continuing on to page 7. The front-page sub-headline read: “Former Auchingarrich boss claims turkeys battered to death”. The article then opened by reporting that “[p]olice are investigating claims that turkeys at a Perthshire wildlife park were battered to death.” It then said that “Police Scotland has confirmed to The Courier that two investigations at Auchingarrich Wildlife Park are ongoing.”

3. The article then went on to report that the first investigation:

“regards a complaint made by former park manager […] who claims seven turkeys belonging to him were slaughtered at the Comrie attraction.

“’When I went into the shed, there was blood everywhere,’ he told The Courier.

“’It was all over the wall, like something from a horror film.’”

4. The article also reported that the park manager “says he quit his job at the charity after reporting his concerns last month. However, Auchingarrich Wildlife Park owner Alexa Reid […] called the turkey allegations ‘malicious and vindictive’. She and her partner […] also claim [the park manager] was sacked, sparking a separate police investigation.”

5. The article then reported that the former park manager “alleges the turkeys – a gift from his grandparents – were slaughtered”.

6. The article also said that the wildlife park,

“has been dogged by controversy since Ms Reid and her partner […] took it over in 2022.

Pet owners who had paid for their animals to be buried in its pet cemetery protested the following summer when it emerged gravestones and other memorials had been removed so the land could be used as a grazing paddock.

Ms Reid claimed she and staff were the victims of ‘a hate campaign’.

In November that year, a stag vanished from the park amid claims a fence had been ‘sabotaged’.”

7. The article went on to report that there “was further anger last month when The Courier revealed a volunteer at the park had a conviction for animal cruelty.” It also said:

“Ms Reid defended the decision to take him on as a volunteer, telling The Courier: ‘[The volunteer] has expressed genuine remorse for his previous actions and a heartfelt desire to change.’

“Speaking yesterday, [the complainant’s partner] insisted [the volunteer] had only spent three hours at the park in total.”

8. The first article under complaint also appeared online, in substantively the same format, under the headline “EXCLUSIVE: Perthshire wildlife park probed by police over claims turkeys battered to death”. This version of the article was published on 22 August 2025.

9. Prior to the first article’s publication, a reporter acting on behalf of the publication contacted Police Scotland as follows:

“I'm told an animal cruelty complaint had been made about Auchingarrich Wildlife Park, Comrie. The complainant is [… He] alleged that seven turkeys were beaten to death with a stick. Are you able to confirm police are investigating please?”

10. The police responded with the following statement: “We have received a report of alleged animal welfare offences in the Crieff area and enquiries are ongoing.”

11. The second article under complaint appeared online only, and reported that “[b]osses at a controversial Perthshire wildlife park have hit back at a series of damaging allegations concerning animal welfare and public health” and that this “follow[ed] confirmation that Auchingarrich Wildlife Park was investigated over a suspected E coli infection.”

12. The second article under complaint repeated the following claims made in the first article: a “[f]ormer park manager […] claimed he quit his job at the charity after turkeys belonging to him were battered to death”; the former manager “insist[ed] he resigned from his job at Auchingarrich”; “the park had taken on a volunteer with a conviction for animal cruelty”; that “[i]n 2023, pet owners who had paid for their animals to be buried in the Auchingarrich pet cemetery under the previous owners hit out after gravestones and other memorials were destroyed and removed so the land could be used as a grazing paddock”; and that “[i]n November [2023], a stag vanished from the park amid claims a fence had been sabotaged.”

13. The second article also reported that the complainant and her partner “claimed” the park manager “had been sacked, sparking a separate police probe.” It also quoted from a statement they had reportedly given, which said:

“’The claims circulating derive from a single senior former employee whose contract was terminated for gross misconduct.

“‘This individual is currently under investigation,’ it continued. ‘And we urge caution when evaluating such one-sided narratives in the press or on social media.’”

14. The second article under complaint included two posed photographs of the complainant.

15. The complainant contacted the publication on 25 August 2025 to complain about the first article. She said that, upon being asked by a reporter about the alleged investigation into animal cruelty at the park, she had “clearly stated that I had no knowledge of any police investigation” and “expressed my concern that this inquiry was a malicious attempt by a disgruntled former employee to tarnish my reputation and that of our charity”. She said she had also said that she had made her own criminal complaint against the former manager. However, she said that the journalist had told her that she did not believe her account, despite the fact that she had been provided with a police reference number.

16. The complainant added that she had contacted the police, which had confirmed that there was no investigation against her and that it would not disclose details of any such investigations, due to data protection laws. She said it was therefore inaccurate for the article to refer to any police investigation or “probe” involving animal cruelty.

17. Turning to the article itself, the complainant said that the references to “blood everywhere” and comparisons to “a horror film” sensationalised the story in a misleading manner. She also expressed concern that the article focused on the former manager’s allegations without providing a balanced view, or sufficiently setting out her side of the story.

18. The publication responded on the same day, and said that the article made clear that the complainant considered the turkey allegations to be “malicious and vindictive”. It added that the article did not say that the complainant was under investigation, but that allegations of animal cruelty at the park were under investigation. It noted that the article did not say that a crime had been committed, simply that a police probe was underway.

19. The publication added that the article took into account the complainant’s position that a second police probe was currently ongoing into the conduct of the former park manager, and that the reporter had not told the complainant that she didn’t believe her. It also said that a reporter acting on its behalf had sought – and received – corroboration from the police that an investigation was underway in relation to the turkey allegations.

20. The complainant then contacted IPSO with her concerns. She said that the article breached Clause 1, and reiterated her position that the police had confirmed there was no investigation against her or the park. She later said that she had spoken to the police, who had confirmed there was no allegation of animal cruelty. Rather, the allegation was of theft, and the case had been closed as there was no evidence to substantiate the allegation.

21. She added the “former boss” did not resign, but was dismissed, and that he was not a former “boss” but an ex-employee.

22. The complainant also said the article reported “they took money for pet burials only to desecrate the cemetery the following year”, which was inaccurate. The correct position, she said, was that “a couple of headstones” had been moved “with the permission of the owners”, and broken and damaged headstones were “picked up” in the hope that they would be claimed by the pet’s owners. She said they had never taken money from people to bury their pets on the site – this had been done by the park’s previous owners – and they had never buried pets on the site.

23. The complainant said the article also alleged that the park had deliberately sabotaged fences to allow a stag to escape. The complainant alleged that the article reported “it appears that the fences were tampered with”. She said the fences were deliberately cut, and the stag released or stolen.

24. The complainant also said that the article inaccurately reported the park employed an individual with an animal cruelty conviction. She said he was a volunteer who had only volunteered for three hours total. She said the article claimed: “they hired someone with a criminal past”.

25. The complainant also said that the article was unfair, as despite extensive conversations with the journalist ahead of publication, only one quote from this conversation had been published.

26. On 1 September 2025, the complainant was asked by IPSO to provide written confirmation from the police that she was not under investigation. The complainant said she would source this from the police. However, no written confirmation was received before the conclusion of IPSO’s investigation on 12 March 2026. The complainant instead provided the voicemail from a police officer which she said confirmed that there was no investigation; this included the following:

“It's […] from the police here […] I think you're wondering whereabouts the kind of welfare side came from.”

27. The complainant provided the following email from the police – sent in response to the complainant asking “that the police confirm in writing that there is no investigation into myself or Auchingarrich Wildlife Park” – on 16 September:

“I can confirm that [a journalist working for The Courier] did contact the news desk here at Police Scotland on 22 August 2025 and we provided the following statement in response.

A Police Scotland spokesperson said: ‘We have received a report of alleged animal welfare offences in the Crieff area and enquiries are ongoing.’”

28. The complainant noted that the police email did not specifically mention her name or Auchingarrich.

29. On 19 September, the complainant complained about the second article to IPSO. She said it breached Clause 2, as it included a picture of her which had been published without her permission. She also said that she was not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations which appeared in the article.

30. She added that the article breached Clause 1 as the park was operated by a registered charity, not by her and her partner.

31. During IPSO’s investigation, the publication reiterated its position that the article was an accurate report of the two police probes into the park. Turning to the additional matters raised by the complainant, it first said it was not inaccurate to refer to the ex-employee as a “former boss”, given he was a park manager. It said an employment tribunal confirmed that this was his job role at the time he left the park, and provided the judgment in question, as well as a Facebook post from the park which referred to him as a “park manager”. At any rate, it said the article made clear the distinction between the “former boss” and the owners of the park.

32. Turning to the animal burials, it noted that payments had been made for animal burials – albeit to the park’s previous owners. It pointed to its previous reporting on the topic, where one such pet owner had been left “sobbing” by the removal of the graves. It did not therefore consider that the article was inaccurate on this point. However, it amended the first article under complaint to make clear that it was previous park owners who had been paid for pet burials.

33. The publication also said that the complainant and her partner had previously been introduced to a journalist acting on its behalf as the “owners” of the park. It added that the park’s Companies House Records and charity listings showed that the complainant was the individual with significant control over the wildlife park

34. The publication said the photographs of the complainant which appeared in the second article had been taken by one of its journalists during a visit to the park. It said that the complainant had posed for the photographs on the understanding that they would be published in an article.

35. The complainant said that the publication should have contacted an animal welfare body for comment ahead of the article’s publication, which would have been able to confirm that the “humane dispatch of sick turkeys is a welfare requirement, not cruelty”. She said that two turkeys were “dispatched by the team using the humane dispatcher under welfare concerns”. She added that the turkeys had not been gifted to the former park manager by his grandparents, as the article reported. Rather, they had been purchased for his Christmas lunch.

36. In relation to the photographs of her, she said these had been taken for a different story, and their inclusion was therefore misleading.

37. The publication said the former park manager had confirmed to it that the turkeys were a gift from his grandparents.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Clause 2 (Privacy)*

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home, physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital communications.

ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. In considering an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information and the extent to which the material complained about is already in the public domain or will become so.

iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Findings of the Committee

38. The publication had contacted the police, ahead of the first article’s publication, to ask whether it was investigating an allegation of animal cruelty at the wildlife park – specifically, an allegation that “seven turkeys were beaten to death with a stick.” The police, in its response, had not corrected the publication or indicated that its information was incorrect in any manner. Instead, it had provided a statement for publication, stating it had “received a report of alleged animal welfare offences in the Crieff area and enquiries are ongoing”.

39. The complainant had noted that the police’s statement did not specifically reference her or the park. However, it did not follow that this meant a police investigation was not ongoing. Although the complainant had said that she had received confirmation that there was no police investigation into such allegations, the email and voicemail she had provided did not state this. The evidence provided by the complainant did not, in the Committee’s view, support the complainant’s position that the only police investigation ongoing was into alleged theft.

40. At any rate, the publication had taken clear steps to ensure its coverage was accurate: upon receiving the allegation from the park manager, it had put this to both Police Scotland and the complainant. In addition, it had made clear the complainant’s position that any such allegations were “malicious and vindictive”, and by extension her position that no turkeys had been beaten to death in the manner alleged by the former park manager. The Committee was satisfied that care had been taken in reporting that a police investigation was ongoing, and there was no breach of Clause 1 (i).

41. Given the publication had supplied a statement from the police which did not dispute that an investigation into animal cruelty was ongoing, and where the article made clear that the complainant disputed any such allegations, the Committee did not consider that there were grounds to find that the article was significantly inaccurate on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

42. While the complainant had said that the journalist had told her that she disbelieved the complainant’s account, both articles clearly set out the complainant’s position that she disputed any allegation of animal cruelty and that an investigation was ongoing against the former park manager for theft. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 on this point, where the complainant’s position made clear.

43. The references to “blood everywhere” and “like something from a horror film” were clearly attributed to the former park manager. In such circumstances, and where the article made clear the complainant disputed his account, the Committee did not consider that these references were inaccurate, misleading, or distorted. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

44. The Code does not require that articles are balanced and – at any rate, and as noted above – the articles both set out the complainant’s position regarding the various allegations against her. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

45. The articles both made clear the complainant’s position that the former park manager had been dismissed. In addition, where it did not appear to be in dispute that he was a manager, and where it was made in clear in both articles that he was not the owner of the park, the Committee did not consider that it was inaccurate to refer to him as a “former boss” – a manager will generally have some influence and direction over a company’s operations and staff. There was no breach of Clause 1 on either of these points.

46. The complainant had expressed concerns that the article included inaccurate, misleading, and distorted phrasing. However, some of the phrases identified by the complainant did not appear in either of the articles under complaint. These included: “they took money for pet burials only to desecrate the cemetery the following year”; “it appears that the fences were tampered with”; and “they hired someone with a criminal past”. Where these quotes did not appear in the articles, there was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.

47. It was not in dispute that gravestones had been moved from a pet cemetery – either with permission from the owners, or because they had been damaged. It was also not in dispute that concerns had been raised about this, and that pet owners had paid the previous park owners to bury their pets at the park. Given this, the Committee did not consider that the articles were inaccurate, misleading, or distorted on this point: the graves had been moved during the complainant’s time at the park, and the articles had not claimed that the complainant had taken payment for burials. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

48. The first article did not report that the complainant had sabotaged the park’s fences. It simply reported that “a stag vanished from the park amid claims a fence had been ‘sabotaged’” This tallied with the complainant’s position, which was that the fences had been deliberately cut. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

49. The articles did not report that the park “employed” an individual with an animal cruelty conviction, and made clear the individual was, in fact, a volunteer. There was no breach of Clause 1.

50. The publication had provided information from Companies House and the Charities register which showed that the complainant had significant control over the organisation and charity, respectively, that operated the park. In such circumstances, it was not inaccurate to refer to the complainant as the owner of the park. There was, therefore, no breach Clause 1.

51. The complainant did not appear to dispute that the former park manager told the publication that the turkeys were a gift from his grandparents, and the Committee was therefore satisfied that the publication had accurately reported his comments, and taken care in doing so as required by Clause 1 (i). It also did not consider that who gave the man the turkeys and for what purpose they were obtained was information which materially affected the accuracy of the article – which was focused on the allegations of animal cruelty. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

52. The second article included extensive rebuttals from the complainant to the allegations against the park – indeed, the focus of the article was a statement published by the park on social media, responding to various claims. In such circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that the position of the complainant – that she disputed the allegations – was clearly set out, and that there was therefore no obligation for the newspaper to contact the complainant for comment ahead of the article’s publication. There was no breach of Clause 1.

53. The photographs of the complainant which appeared in the second article under complaint had been taken for an earlier article. In such circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that the complainant was not photographed in circumstances where she had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that she had consented to the photographs entering the public domain.

54. It also did not consider that the photographs were misleading, where they simply showed the complainant’s likeness, and accompanied an article reporting on allegations about a park she operated, and the response to those allegations. There was no breach of Clause 1 or Clause 2 in relation to the photographs.

Conclusions

55. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 29/08/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 09/04/2026

Independent Complaints Reviewer

The complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request for review.