Royal Parks breaks silence on Nigel Farage’s bombshell claim migrants are eating swans
Royal Parks has directly addressed Nigel Farage’s claim that migrants are killing and eating swans from London’s famous parks, saying that it has received no reports of people carrying out such acts in any of the capital’s eight Royal Parks.
The intervention came after the Reform UK leader raised the issue during an interview with LBC, where he was discussing claims about migrants and animal welfare. Farage suggested that swans were being eaten in Royal Parks and that carp were being removed from ponds and consumed by people from countries where, in his words, such practices were acceptable.
When pressed about who he believed was responsible, Farage referred to people coming from other countries and agreed that he believed eastern Europeans were involved.
The claim quickly attracted attention because swans are among Britain’s most recognisable protected wild birds. It also prompted a response from the organisation responsible for managing London’s Royal Parks.
Royal Parks said it had not received reports of people killing or eating swans in any of the eight parks it manages. Its wildlife officers, the organisation added, work closely with the Swan Sanctuary to monitor and protect the birds.
The statement does not establish that no individual has ever harmed a swan in Britain. Rather, it directly addresses the specific claim concerning London’s Royal Parks and says that no such incidents have been reported to the organisation.
What Farage actually claimed
Farage’s comments came during a discussion about Donald Trump’s previous claims concerning migrants and animals in the United States.
Rather than presenting evidence of a particular recent incident, Farage posed the issue as a question to LBC presenter Nick Ferrari.
He said that if he told listeners swans were being eaten in Royal Parks and carp were being taken from ponds, he wanted to know whether Ferrari would agree that it was happening.
When asked who he thought was responsible, Farage referred to people from countries where he suggested eating such animals was culturally acceptable.
He was subsequently asked whether he meant Romanians and other eastern Europeans. Farage responded that this was what he believed.
That distinction is important because the claim was presented as something Farage believed was happening rather than as a specific incident for which he supplied a police report, location, date or identified suspect.
No evidence establishing the nationality or immigration status of people responsible for such alleged incidents in the Royal Parks was provided alongside the claim.
Royal Parks issues a clear response
The Royal Parks charity manages eight historic parks in London, including Hyde Park, Kensington Gardens, St James’s Park, The Green Park, Regent’s Park, Greenwich Park, Richmond Park and Bushy Park.
Its response was unusually direct.
A spokesperson said the organisation had received no reports of people killing or eating swans in London’s eight Royal Parks.
The organisation also highlighted its work with wildlife specialists and the Swan Sanctuary to protect the birds.
That statement is significant because the parks contain large numbers of visitors and wildlife officers regularly monitor animal welfare.
It means that, based on the information available to the organisation, there was no reported pattern of migrants killing and eating swans in the parks at the time Farage made his remarks.
Full Fact subsequently reached the same broad conclusion after examining the evidence. Its investigation found no evidence supporting the specific allegation that migrants were catching and eating swans in the Royal Parks.
What about the viral video?
The controversy became more complicated because a video began circulating online alongside the claims.
Posts suggested that the footage showed migrants being caught eating swans by an RSPCA officer.
The RSPCA, however, said the video was not recent.
According to the animal-welfare organisation, the footage had appeared in a television programme broadcast in 2010. It showed an RSPCA officer investigating a family in connection with meat and bones from an unidentified bird.
The existence of the footage therefore does not establish that migrants were currently killing swans in London’s Royal Parks.
The RSPCA’s clarification became an important part of the subsequent fact-checking because old footage can easily acquire a new context when it is reposted on social media.
The video had reportedly attracted hundreds of thousands of views after being presented online as evidence of a contemporary incident.
Swans are protected
The legal position is also relevant.
Swans are protected under Britain’s wildlife legislation. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes it unlawful to intentionally kill, injure or take certain protected wild birds, subject to specific legal exceptions.
That means that deliberately killing a wild swan could constitute a criminal offence regardless of the nationality or immigration status of the person responsible.
The legal question is therefore separate from the political argument about migration.
If someone illegally killed a protected bird, enforcement would concern the alleged offence and the evidence surrounding it rather than the broader category of people to which the suspect might belong.
There have been historical reports
The absence of evidence for Farage’s specific claim does not mean that reports involving swans have never existed.
Full Fact found media reports dating back many years concerning swans being killed or apparently taken for food in different parts of Britain.
However, the organisation noted that the identity of those responsible was often unverified.
One case involved swan remains found in Lincolnshire in 2013. Police investigated the incident, but there was no evidence linking it to migrants.
Another reported incident occurred around Windsor, while earlier claims in 2003 involved allegations that asylum seekers or eastern Europeans were responsible for missing swans.
Police subsequently said they had no evidence establishing that asylum seekers or eastern Europeans were responsible for those earlier claims.
This historical background is important because individual reports of wildlife crime cannot automatically establish a wider pattern.
The separate carp allegation
Farage also referred to carp being removed from ponds and eaten.
This is a different claim from the allegation involving swans.
Full Fact found that there had been anecdotal reports over the years of carp being illegally taken from fishing waters, including reports involving migrants. However, it said it had not found verified recent evidence establishing the wider claim being made by Farage.
Carp fishing is a major recreational activity in Britain, and illegal fish removal, sometimes known as fish theft or poaching, has been an issue discussed by angling organisations.
But establishing that illegal fishing occurs is not the same as establishing that a particular nationality or migrant group is responsible.
Evidence would be required to connect specific incidents with particular individuals or communities.
Why the claim generated such a reaction
The political sensitivity of the story comes from its connection with the wider debate about immigration.
Farage has made immigration one of the central themes of Reform UK’s political platform, frequently arguing that high levels of migration have affected public services, housing, wages and social cohesion.
Critics argue that claims linking migrants with particular criminal or antisocial acts should be supported by evidence rather than anecdote.
Supporters of Farage’s broader immigration arguments may interpret reports of individual incidents as examples of wider cultural or enforcement problems.
But those interpretations should not be confused with evidence that a particular incident occurred.
In this case, the organisation directly responsible for London’s Royal Parks said it had received no reports of migrants killing or eating swans in those parks.
The wider lesson about social media
The episode also demonstrates how quickly old material can be presented as evidence of a new event.
The 2010 television footage is a particularly clear example.
A viewer encountering the clip without its original context could reasonably assume it showed a recent incident. Once the date and original programme were established, however, the video could no longer be treated as evidence of a current event.
This is one reason fact-checkers and public authorities often emphasise the importance of dates, locations and original sources when evaluating viral claims.
Images and videos can be genuine while the captions attached to them are inaccurate.
What Royal Parks is actually saying
The Royal Parks response should therefore be understood narrowly.
It has not claimed that wildlife crime is impossible or that nobody has ever harmed a swan.
Instead, it has stated that it has received no reports of people killing or eating swans across its eight London parks.
That directly challenges the suggestion that there is an established current pattern of migrants eating swans in those locations.
Full Fact reached a similar conclusion after examining the available evidence.
The distinction between “there is no evidence for this specific claim” and “such an event could never happen” is important.
The first is an evidence-based assessment of what has been documented. The second would be an absolute statement that the available information cannot establish.
A political controversy bigger than the swans
The dispute ultimately says as much about Britain’s immigration debate as it does about wildlife.
For Farage, the subject fits into a broader argument about migration, integration and enforcement.
For critics, the episode demonstrates the risks of making broad claims about migrants without verified evidence.
For Royal Parks, the issue is principally about protecting wildlife and accurately reporting incidents.
At present, the available evidence does not substantiate the specific claim that migrants are killing and eating swans in London’s Royal Parks.
The organisation responsible for those parks has said no such incidents have been reported, while fact-checkers have found no verified evidence establishing the allegation.
That leaves the central claim unsupported, even though isolated incidents involving wildlife have been reported elsewhere and at other times.
The controversy therefore highlights a familiar challenge in modern political debate: separating documented incidents from broader claims, distinguishing old footage from current events, and ensuring that allegations about particular groups are supported by evidence before they are treated as established fact.
