Organisers lost thousands when their launch event was cancelled after the zoo boss intervened
04:52, 13 Oct 2025Updated 07:25, 13 Oct 2025
Bristol Beacon and, inset, Tom Jones from the Save Bristol Zoo campaign(Image: Bristol Post)
Bosses at the Bristol Beacon cancelled an event launching a campaign calling for Bristol Zoo to reopen, hours after private pressure from bosses at the zoo – and then tried to cover it up, Bristol Live can reveal. The council-owned concert and events venue ended up having to pay the organiser of the campaign, whose booking was cancelled at short notice, thousands of pounds in compensation.
That money – more than £3,500 – was eventually paid to help with the costs incurred by organisers of the Save Bristol Zoo campaign in setting up and publicising the public meeting, that was cancelled just a week before it was scheduled at the end of April this year.
The Beacon said it cancelled the event because it was ‘likely to cause significant reputational damage’ to both the Beacon and Bristol Zoo. But organiser Tom Jones said he suspected the zoo itself was involved in the decision to cancel. He asked whether the Beacon had been contacted by anyone at the zoo and had been told ‘we’re aware of the petition, nothing more’.
He therefore made a ‘Subject Access Request’ about himself to the Beacon. He then also demanded compensation for the money he’d spent setting up the event.
In the months that followed, the Beacon told Mr Jones he’d only get compensation if he dropped request for the Beacon’s internal emails, and only if he signed a ‘non-disclosure agreement’ confidentiality contract – which would have banned him from ever explaining why the event was cancelled.
In the end Mr Jones refused, was awarded compensation and forced the release of emails, which revealed that Bristol Zoo chief executive Justin Morris had indeed emailed the Beacon’s chief executive just a few hours before the booking was cancelled, and that the Beacon’s leadership team agreed not to tell Mr Jones about that intervention.
READ MORE: Everything Bristol Zoo and Bristol Beacon said as we share the emails on zoo campaign they didn’t want people to seeREAD MORE: Alternative ideas for former Bristol Zoo site as campaigners fight plans for hundreds of homes
Mr Jones said the dispute meant he was unable to launch the new Save Bristol Zoo campaign, which he said would have mapped out an alternative future for the Clifton Zoo site, with former employees and zoo industry experts involved in the cancelled campaign launch.
He said the legal wrangle that followed also meant he couldn’t initially tell all the people who had donated thousands to a fundraising page what had happened to their money.
He said the affair had shaken his faith in Bristol’s city-owned institutions and charities, and that Bristol Beacon tried to ‘buy my silence’.
A Save Bristol Zoo campaign march in March 2023 with, inset, Bristol Zoological Society Chief Executive Justin Morris(Image: Bristol Post)
“Bristol Beacon – an institution which until recently I held in high regard – tried to leverage my request to be repaid several thousand pounds of publicity and marketing costs for the cancelled meeting, in order to persuade me to drop my Subject Access Request, the findings of which, the Beacon’s senior leadership knew would be deeply embarrassing for them,” Mr Jones said.
“I don’t know about any of my fellow Bristolians, but the fact that our flagship concert venue and music charity behaved in this way is, to me, incredibly disappointing and deeply shocking,” he added.
A spokesperson for Bristol Zoo said its chief executive Justin Morris had merely ‘emailed the Chief Executive of the Bristol Beacon to check he knew the event was happening’, while the Bristol Music Trust which runs Bristol Beacon, said they had taken issue with a petition set up after the event was booked, which called for the zoo’s leadership team to be replaced.
“As a charitable organisation, Bristol Music Trust would not host an event organised by a group calling for the resignation of the leadership of another charitable organisation, as it is likely to cause significant reputational damage to both parties,” a spokesperson said.
To read the full story, including the emails, click here.