Family business ‘heartbroken' after dinosaurs stolen from car park
A family business has been left in a 'whirlwind of nightmares' after two of their interactive animatronic dinosaurs were stolen from a car park.
Tom Pruen, who owns Bristol -based company Raptors World, said the two models, named Rexy and Yoshi, were stolen from a hotel car park in Thurrock, Essex.
The small business hires out and operates lifelike interactive dinosaur models at events across the country.
Rexy and Yoshi were parked in a van overnight at the Thurrock West Premier Inn. They were set to appear at an event in the Lakeside Shopping Centre on Sunday and Monday.
Mr Pruen said the van was stolen around 4.30am on Monday, which also contained a 'full Jurassic set-up' as well as the two dinosaurs.
'Its just been a whirlwind of nightmares, to be honest,' Mr Pruen told The Independent: 'We're still hopeful that all that stuff will get dumped because they are of no real value to anyone else, and the dinosaurs are going to be difficult to sell because of how distinctive they are.'
The dinosaurs cost between £5,000 and £10,000 each, and the Raptors World owner said it has been a 'mad scramble' to acquire all the materials needed so that they could still run events this weekend.
Mr Pruen said he was thankful to other dinosaur model hiring companies which reached out to him offering their assistance after Rexy and Yoshi were reported stolen.
Yoshi is a light green velociraptor, and Rexy is a dark green tyrannosaurus rex.
Mr Pruen worries he will be unable to retrieve the missing dinosaurs and fears the van has already been stripped apart to be sold for parts. He added he would be 'very surprised' if the thieves put the dinosaurs up for sale because they are so distinct.
In a direct appeal to the thieves, Mr Pruen said: 'Please bring back my dinos – you don't understand the damage you have caused.
'All I can think about is the people whose faces we've made smile with those dinosaurs throughout the years. Our customers are devastated, and it's heartbreaking to hear the stories from the people we will potentially let down.
'All we want to do is put smiles on children's faces and make a few adults scream – that's what makes a good day.
'This job takes real dedication, and there's been a lot of work behind the scenes to get us to where we are today.
'I just hope the thieves come to their senses and just dump the van somewhere, and hopefully our dinosaurs can be returned back to us.'
Raptors World said they are willing to offer a reward for the safe return of the dinosaurs.
Essex Police
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
19 minutes ago
- The Independent
HMRC failure to notify MPs sooner about £47m phishing scam ‘unacceptable'
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has been warned by a committee of MPs that its failure to report details of a breach affecting around 100,000 taxpayers is 'unacceptable'. The Treasury Committee said it was only alerted to the information when a notification was published on the HMRC website on the same day as a live session. On June 4, it emerged that HMRC had lost £47 million after a phishing scam breached tens of thousands of tax accounts. Senior civil servants at HMRC told the Treasury Committee that 100,000 people have been contacted, or are in the process of being contacted, after their accounts were locked down in what they said was an 'organised crime' incident which started last year. On Tuesday, the committee published a letter from the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) stipulating that it had not discussed the phishing incident with HMRC and was not aware of it prior to the hearing on June 4. The committee also published a letter sent via email from its chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier to John-Paul Marks, chief executive, HMRC. The letter said: 'I am alarmed that it was never deemed necessary to inform Parliament about an issue which affected such a vast number of taxpayers and led to the loss of £47 million of public money. 'To discover this information during a session from press reports and without adequate time for the committee to review the information in detail is unacceptable.' The letter said the committee is seeking responses from HMRC as to 'why was Parliament not notified earlier about the loss of £47 million of taxpayers' money, whether through a written ministerial statement and/or public or confidential letters to the Treasury Committee and the Public Accounts Committee?' The committee is also seeking responses over why the update was published on the day of the committee hearing on the work of HMRC and who else in Government was told about the incident and when. It also wants to receive a timeline of how the incident unfolded and find out what measures HMRC has put in place to ensure that such incidents do not happen in future. The letter asked for a reply by June 24 2025. Meanwhile, the letter from Glenn Collins, head of technical and strategic engagement, ACCA, to Dame Meg, dated June 5, said: 'While we regularly engage with HMRC, including earlier in the year about issues relating to agent account access, we have not received any communication from HMRC on the issue of taxpayer account breaches until yesterday. 'We have highlighted to HMRC our frustration that HMRC has not been transparent or timely in its communication over this important issue.'
Telegraph
28 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Police Federation pays £15m to officers hit by cyber attack
The Police Federation has paid out £15 million to 19,000 current and former officers who had their personal details compromised and stolen by cyber criminals. Two huge attacks exposed the home addresses of some officers to hackers six years ago, and in March 2022 the federation admitted liability for unlawfully processing officers' personal details by not having proper protection in place. The attacks sparked panic among rank and file officers who feared their safety had been compromised. The federation has admitted that two recently settled group actions 'have had an enormous impact on the finances and assets of the PFEW (Police Federation of England and Wales) and the organisation could not withstand a further claim of this nature'. Hackers accessed Police Federation systems and encrypted several of its databases during the attacks, making them inaccessible. Now the organisation, which represents 145,000 rank and file officers, has agreed to settle the claim for £15 million, inclusive of legal and insurance costs. It had been claimed that the names, email addresses, National Insurance numbers and ranks of around 120,000 police officers had been exposed. A source said: 'This is a huge settlement. It caused huge concern among rank and file police officers up and down the country.' 'Agreed a settlement' The settlement had been revealed by Monckton Chambers, the law firm. Mukund Krishna, the chief executive officer of the Police Federation, said it was his priority to resolve the two historic action claims that 'hung over the organisation' when he became CEO in July 2023. He added: 'At the end of last year, we agreed a settlement following the employment tribunal ruling against us regarding pension discrimination. 'I am now pleased to say that we have settled the data protection claims brought against PFEW by just under 20,000 members and former members. This claim followed two separate cyber attacks suffered by the federation over six years ago. 'The federation has taken the pragmatic view that settlement of the litigation is in the best interests of both the federation and its members. 'The negotiation of these settlements has required a huge amount of detailed work but will, collectively, provide the federation with much greater financial certainty going forward. This outcome will also allow PFEW to move on and focus all our efforts on transforming the organisation and serving the membership.' A total of £15 million will be paid in stages, which covers all 19,159 claims for damages but also includes legal costs, expenses and the costs of insurance cover.
The Independent
33 minutes ago
- The Independent
Nephews locked in court battle over dementia-stricken aunt's £400k estate
Two nephews are locked in a £400,000 fight over the fortune of a widow, who disinherited one side of her family after they suggested she go into a care home. Doreen Stock, who did not have any children, died in 2021 aged 86. She left her entire estate to her nephew, Simon Stock, and his wife Catherine, who lived close to her south London home. Mr Stock claimed he had been like a son to Doreen – but the will is now under challenge in court after Doreen's great-nephew, 39-year-old Ben Chiswick, launched a bid to inherit it himself. Ben, a propulsion engineer who is based in Michigan, US, had been due to inherit her fortune under a previous will written in 1986 when he was a baby, but was dramatically disinherited by his great-aunt a year before her death after his parents suggested Doreen spend time in a care home. He is fighting to reinstate the previous will, claiming Doreen, who he says was a 'fixture in his childhood', was too stricken by dementia to properly understand what she was doing when she changed her wishes. However, the Stocks are fighting the case, claiming Ben – who has lived in the US since 2017 – had no "meaningful relationship" with Doreen beyond his early years. Simon, meanwhile, had been 'the nearest thing to a son she had', they said. Sitting at Central London County Court, Judge Jane Evans-Gordon heard that "independent" and occasionally "stubborn" Doreen had a deep emotional attachment to her home in Charminster Road, Mottingham, having shared it with her husband Samuel until his death in 2001. Doreen's first will, made in 1986, ultimately left her estate to Ben, the son of her niece Patricia Chiswick and husband Brent. The estate principally contains the Mottingham house, which is valued online at about £400,000. The court heard Doreen had had a good relationship with the Chiswicks, who helped her with her shopping and visited her regularly. She even made a lasting power of attorney in their favour, but before she died she revoked the document and changed her will, leaving everything to a nephew on her husband's side: tax advisor Simon Stock and his wife Catherine. Challenging the will, Ben Chiswick claims that his great-aunt's dementia in her final years means there is serious doubt whether she had the necessary capacity to make the changes. He said the fact there was no discussion with his side of the family about the new will suggested "something not right" about her change of mind. "Doreen and I had a really happy relationship and she understood that leaving her estate to me would make a massive difference to my life," he said in his evidence. Barrister James McKean, for Simon and Catherine, told the court that Doreen had also been close to Simon, contributing to his school fees as a child. Although she previously had a close relationship with Ben's parents, that was ruined when they suggested she go into a care home in 2019, the court heard. To make matters worse, Patricia had then arranged for a "capacity assessment" for her aunt, which the barrister said led to Doreen fearing her independence was being threatened and ultimately changing her will. There had been "building resentment" with the way her power of attorney was being administered, which "finally boiled over in the summer of 2019 when the Chiswicks made an ill-judged – though perhaps well-intentioned – suggestion to Doreen that she spend a period in residential care'. 'Doreen was, by all accounts, jealously independent. It is little wonder that she found the proposition to be alarming and offensive," the barrister said. 'No doubt Doreen was worried about the prospect of going into a home, then was asked to undergo the capacity assessment, and put two and two together." Within weeks of the assessment, which resulted in a report stating she "lacked capacity", she had begun steps to revoke the power of attorney and make a new will in Simon and Catherine's favour, he told the judge. Quizzing Patricia Chiswick in the witness box, he added: "Doreen loved her home and it had been her and Samuel's home before his death. There was a deep emotional connection to that property. "Saying to Doreen that she should leave that property and spend some time in a care home was offensive to her, wasn't it? "From Doreen's perspective, this must have looked a real threat to her independence." But Patricia denied upsetting the pensioner, insisting that the plan was only ever for a short break in a care home while she and her husband went on holiday. "It was simply a suggestion because we don't usually go away for three weeks at a time, and I think she had been quite unwell and her health was deteriorating in general," she said. "I was concerned about leaving her and I thought it would be quite nice if she could go somewhere where she could be looked after while we were away. "It was absolutely stressed that it was for three weeks. There was no suggestion she was going to stay there indefinitely." The Chiswicks did not visit Doreen again between the capacity assessment in 2019 and her death in May 2021. For Patricia's son Ben, who is the claimant in the case, barrister Simon Lane said that, at the time she made the new will, she was 'vulnerable and was behaving out of character'. The 2019 assessment conducted after the suggestion of a care home move had resulted in an expert's finding that she "lacked capacity", he said. But Mr McKean said the assessment was deficient, with Doreen answering with "prickly hostility" when she was quizzed about things that made no sense to her, such as a fire which never actually happened. Other assessments around the same time had resulted in findings that she did have capacity, although she was suffering with "mild" dementia, he said. "Doreen may have had some memory problems, but capacity and memory are different beasts," he said. "The court will struggle to find any evidence of impaired cognition or reasoning. On the contrary, Doreen's behaviour, values and reasoning were consistent and plausible at all times." He said there was reason for her to decide to change her will, the last being made more than 30 years previously, and that by then Ben – living and working on the other side of the Atlantic – would have been "far from her mind as a beneficiary". He had not seen her again or even spoken on the phone after moving to the US, while most of the evidence of their relationship came from when he was a child. On the other hand, Simon and Catherine had been able to visit her regularly, living not far from her in Eltham, south London, he said. "The court can be surprised neither by the making of the disputed will, nor by Doreen's choice of beneficiaries," he added. The judge is expected to give her ruling on the case at a later date.
