British Animal Group Criticises The Guardian's Report on £1BN Google London Office After Calling Foxes 'Pests'

The Guardian has come under fire from animal welfare advocates after describing urban foxes as 'pests' in a recent article about their presence on the roof garden of Google's £1 billion London headquarters.

Published on Monday, 9 June 2025, the report detailed how a number of foxes had made their way onto the rooftop wildlife garden of the so-called 'landscraper' office in King's Cross.

Originally revealed via the London Centric newsletter, the story claimed that the presence of foxes had prompted concerns from building managers, particularly after several animals were seen sunbathing, digging burrows, and leaving droppings around the landscaped roof space.

Fox Guardians Condemn 'Inaccurate and Harmful' Language

What sparked controversy, however, was the Guardian's original decision to refer to the foxes as 'pests' and their presence as an 'infestation'—terms animal welfare groups argue are misleading and inappropriate.

Fox Guardians, a UK-based animal rights organisation, took to social media to voice their outrage:

'This Guardian article makes my blood boil. It calls foxes 'pests' that cause an 'infestation' when foxes aren't legally classified as vermin in the UK.'

The group pointed out that while urban foxes may occasionally cause issues such as rummaging through bins or damaging gardens but they play an important ecological role and are legally protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996.

These laws afford wild foxes certain protections, making it unlawful to treat them as vermin or exterminate them without cause.

Urban Foxes: Nuisance or Natural Neighbours?

Urban foxes have long been a fixture in British cities, particularly in London, where they often thrive in landscaped environments with accessible food sources and minimal natural predators.

The Guardian's report suggested that foxes may have been drawn to Google's rooftop garden due to leaky pipes, leftover food, or the presence of rodents—conditions which inadvertently create a hospitable habitat.

Some critics argue that, in large numbers, foxes can become a nuisance. They may dig up turf, chew through cables, or create health hazards through droppings.

Nonetheless, experts and conservationists stress that such challenges should be met with humane and informed solutions—not with inflammatory language that demonises the animals.

Google Criticised for 'Selective Conservation'

Fox Guardians also criticised Google for what they described as a 'speciesist' approach to conservation. The tech giant was accused of promoting biodiversity by featuring a rooftop wildlife garden, while simultaneously attempting to exclude foxes from the space.

'If you're going to build a wildlife garden, you can't pick and choose which wildlife you accept,' the group said. 'If you don't want foxes, then install proper exclusion measures—it's not the animals' fault.'

Guardian Updates Language After Backlash

Following public criticism, The Guardian updated its article and removed the word 'pests' from the original text. The revised version now refers to the foxes simply as 'animals' or 'urban wildlife,' acknowledging that they are not officially classified as vermin under UK law.

This episode has reignited debates over how urban wildlife is portrayed in the media and the importance of responsible language when reporting on human-wildlife interactions.