RAF engineers who stole Paddington Bear statue 'antithesis' of everything he stands for, judge says
Two RAF engineers who broke a Paddington Bear statue in half and then stole it were "the antithesis of everything Paddington stands for", a judge has said.
Daniel Heath and William Lawrence, both 22-year-old engineers at RAF Odiham in Hampshire, had been drinking when they damaged the statue at 2am after a night out in Newbury, Berkshire, on 2 March.
CCTV footage played at Reading Magistrates' Court showed them approaching the statue before attempting to rip the bear off the bench, then walking away with part of the damaged bear.
They carried the statue through the town and into a taxi to their base at RAF Odiham, the court heard.
Heath of Oakhall Park, Thornton, West Yorkshire, and Lawrence, of John Street, Enderby, Leicestershire, were sentenced to a 12-month community order after admitting criminal damage.
District judge Sam Goozee said it was "an act of wanton vandalism".
"Paddington Bear is a beloved cultural icon with children and adults alike," he said.
"He represents kindness, tolerance and promotes integration and acceptance in our society.
"His famous label attached to his duffle coat says 'please look after this bear'.
"On the night of March 2 2025, your actions were the antithesis of everything Paddington stands for.
"Your actions lacked respect and integrity, two values you should uphold as members of the armed forces."
The Paddington Bear statue is among 23 placed across the UK and Ireland as part of the Paddington Visits Trail, the judge said.
"In what can only be described as an act of wanton vandalism, the CCTV shows the two of you forcibly remove the front facade of the Paddington statue and carry him through the town to a taxi which took you and the statute back to your base at RAF Odiham," Judge Goozee added.
Heath and Lawrence were arrested at RAF Odiham the next day and admitted their offences in an interview with Thames Valley Police.
The broken half of the Paddington Bear statue was later found hidden in the boot of Lawrence's car.
It cost £5,451 to repair the statue, prosecutor Jaimie Renuka told the court.
The defendants' defence lawyer Tom Brymer told the court: "They have been stupid and they are extremely ashamed about their actions."
The pair were ordered to pay £2,725 each towards the costs of repairing the statue and sentenced to a 12-month community order, as well as 150 hours of unpaid work "as payback to the community for your actions", the judge said.
He added: "Your Squadron Leader speaks of your both being committed and diligent members of the RAF despite your junior rank.
"The RAF recognise your strong promise for your future. I do not know what your futures may hold in the armed forces as a result of this conviction, that will be a matter for a different tribunal."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Record
13 hours ago
- Daily Record
RAF Typhoons scrambled six times in just one week to face Russian bombers
Typhoons are part of a British-led NATO enhanced air policing mission over the Baltic region The RAF has been forced to scramble fighter jets over Poland six times in a single week to ward off 15 Russian military aircraft encroaching near NATO airspace. The Typhoon FGR4 aircraft, stationed at the 22nd Tactical Air Base in Malbork, Poland, carried out these missions from 7th to 12th June. These six incidents represent the most intense period for the air force since being deployed in the region on 1st April as part of Operation Chessman, highlighting an increase in Russian intelligence-gathering operations in the Baltics. In line with the UK's commitment to NATO's defence, it has relocated both aircraft and personnel to the enhanced air policing mission, including the fourth-generation jet. The first aerial confrontation occurred on 7th June when RAF pilots were dispatched to identify an aircraft leaving the Kaliningrad region, later confirmed to be an Antonov An-30, a Soviet-era reconnaissance craft used for terrain mapping via aerial photography, reports the Express. The two Typhoons that were subsequently deployed to intercept were re-tasked to shadow another surveillance-reconnaissance aircraft, the Ilyushin Il-20M COOT A. The fourth-generation UK fighter jets are equipped with advanced radar, sensor fusion capabilities, and a broad suite of air-to-air and air-to-ground munitions to aid with the interceptions. However, the following day, the RAF were once again scrambled to intercept two unknown contacts, later identified as supersonic, all-weather tactical Su-24 bombers. During this mission, the UK jets split up as one of the Su-24s conducted low-altitude flybys of a US Navy cargo ship operating in international waters in a clear act of provocation. In the following days, more reconnaissance planes were repelled, exhibiting similar intelligence-gathering patterns near NATO airspace. Meanwhile, a Tupolev Tu-142 BEAR F, an aircraft designed for anti-submarine warfare, was spotted being escorted by two Su-27 FLANKER B fighter jets. Russia continues to antagonise NATO personnel with these reconnaissance missions and close flybys, with the defensive alliance preparing for its Atlantic Trident 25 air exercise, hosted by Finland. The multinational drill will run from today (Monday) until June 27 and will be performed for the first time outside of either the United States, United Kingdom or France. In tandem with the exercise series, the US has deployed dozens of refuelling aircraft across the North Atlantic, towards Europe, with the volume of aircraft unlikely to correlate with the Atlantic Trident. The aircraft heading for Europe include KC-135 Stratotankers and KC-46 Pegasus tankers. This mass migration could be related to ongoing bombing campaigns carried out by both Israel and Iran who continue to heighten tensions in the Middle East.
The Guardian
2 days ago
- The Guardian
UK minister admits rules banning armed forces from speaking out are unlawful
The UK defence secretary, John Healey, has conceded that policies that banned members of the armed forces from speaking to the press or MPs without permission are unlawful, after a legal challenge was brought by two women who complained they were raped while serving. The women, from the RAF and Royal Navy, argued the restrictive regulations had prevented them from speaking out publicly about their experiences and how their complaints were handled by the chain of command and military police. One of the women, known as PGH for legal reasons, said in a court statement that 'I do not have the freedom to choose to speak about my ordeal on my own terms', and argued that the old gagging orders reinforced a culture of closing ranks that tolerated rape and sexual assault. 'The policy makes perpetrators of sexual violence feel protected and that they can trust their colleagues to help cover up their actions,' she said. At first, the Ministry of Defence tried to strike out the claim, arguing it was irrelevant because it had introduced a looser policy earlier this year. But a high court judge, Mr Justice Saini, ruled last month that the MoD had a case to answer, because of the impact the old policy had on the women concerned. That verdict prompted the MoD to concede, in a letter sent to the women's lawyer earlier this month. It says that Healey 'now accepts' the gagging orders 'were unlawful', because they are incompatible with military personnel's freedom of expression and other rights. The first woman, know as EPX to protect her anonymity, said she was raped by a male colleague during her initial RAF training. After making a service complaint she said she was ostracised and told the situation was her fault. Subsequently, the person accused of assaulting her was acquitted of rape at a military court, in a trial that EPX said in a statement was 'poorly handled'. The second woman, PGH, said she was raped at a social event at a navy base where she, according to her own statement, was 'plied with alcohol'. Military police were 'very disbelieving' of her claim and 'made excuses on behalf of the accused', the high court judge said as he set out her case. No charges were ultimately brought. EPX said she had wanted to talk to the media about what happened in response to a July 2021 parliamentary inquiry. That concluded that two-thirds of women in the armed forces had experienced bullying, sexual harassment and discrimination during their career, and said the military was 'failing to protect' female personnel. The MoD vetoed her request, citing the ban, meaning she has never been able to give her account of events in public. 'I want the freedom to be able to express my views and to talk about my personal experiences in relation to any or all of the above issues, without the MoD having a veto,' EPX said in a statement of claim. The prospect of having to seek permission from superiors to speak to a journalist or MP would, EPX said, fill her with 'dread and worry'. Providing enough information about her case to seek permission would amount to 'a huge invasion of my personal information' and she said she had no confidence 'this would be handled with sensitivity and confidentiality' by the armed forces. The two women are planning to continue their legal action because they say the MoD's new personnel policies fail to make explicit that members of the armed forces have the right to communicate with the press and parliament on serious sexual offences and related matters. Emma Norton, from the Centre for Military Justice, who is acting for EPX and PGH, said her clients were not seeking the right to discuss classified or operational information, but instead 'things which have no place in any unit of the armed forces, any other public or private sector workplace or indeed wider society, namely rape, sexual assault, misogyny and the sexual harassment of women'. Allegations of serious sexual offences, the vast majority against women, are threatening to engulf the military. In February, online forums were flooded with testimonies of abuse in the aftermath of the inquest into the death of 19-year-old gunner Jaysley Beck. She had committed suicide after allegedly being sexually assaulted by a colleague and subjected to a barrage of unwanted attention from her boss. An MoD spokesperson said: 'The welfare of all our Armed Forces is an absolute priority. The relevant policies were amended and recognise the rights of all our people. 'It would be inappropriate to comment further while legal proceedings are ongoing.'
The Independent
3 days ago
- The Independent
Harry Dunn mother speaks of ‘undeserved' MBE for being ‘mum who was just broken'
The mother of a teenage motorcyclist, killed by a US citizen who was able to leave the UK under diplomatic immunity laws, has said she feels 'undeserving' of her MBE because she was 'a mum who was just totally broken'. Charlotte Charles, the mother of 19-year-old Harry Dunn, said her work on road safety following the crash that resulted in her son's death in 2019 was an 'avenue to direct my grief down'. Harry was killed when a Volvo driven by then-US state department employee Anne Sacoolas hit him while on the wrong side of the road outside RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire. Sacoolas had diplomatic immunity asserted on her behalf following the crash and she was able to leave the country 19 days later. Mrs Charles, alongside Harry's father Tim Dunn, campaigned for justice for three years – which included a meeting with US President Donald Trump at the White House. Speaking about her reaction to when she received the letter telling her she had been made an MBE, Mrs Charles, 50, told the PA news agency: 'One of a bit of bewilderment, I guess. 'I couldn't be happier on behalf of Harry, if I'm honest. 'I just always wanted to make sure his death led to change, and if it means that a few more lives are saved, and victims of a serious crime are treated a little bit better, and that the roads in and around our bases in the UK are safer, then I'm thrilled to accept the award on behalf of him. 'But I don't think it's sunk in yet.' She continued: 'I think when I received the letter I just felt almost a little bit undeserving – because you don't forget all of the achievements that you've worked so, so very hard to secure. But at the end of the day I just view myself as a mum who was just totally broken. 'I didn't know any other way of coping apart from focusing on as many positive things as I possibly could. 'It was an avenue to direct my grief down – so for me, the last five-and-a-half years… campaigning for one more string to the bow of Harry's legacy was a real focus. 'So for it to be honoured and recognised feels a little bit surreal because I was just doing what I desperately needed to do at the time – which was to try and secure safety and a better understanding of everything that we had been going through. 'So it just feels quite surreal.' Questioned on whether she felt her work on road safety and changing the laws regarding diplomatic immunity would be recognised in such a way, she said: 'No, not at all – it's the furthest thing from your mind. 'All you're thinking about at the time is to just try to make sure that what happened to us just never happened to anybody else. 'When Anne Sacoolas left the country and jumped through what we discovered was a loophole – that was one of the main things on my radar, to get that loophole closed. 'Then you start looking more widely.' She added: 'You work on these things and you do your absolute best at the time for what you have in your head and what changes you want to make for the sake of healing your heart a little bit more. 'But you never ever think that a recognition like this is going to come along – it's just not in your realms of thinking at all.' Mrs Charles, and the rest of the Dunn family, are expecting a parliamentary inquiry to be announced soon before the sixth anniversary of Harry's death in August. She told PA: 'I would say that we have been more at peace since justice was done. 'In our eyes, we did achieve what we set out to achieve. 'We were able to show that those who think they are above the law aren't – certainly not in our country. 'We can't control other countries' laws and regulations but we had a lot of faith and hope in our justice system. 'So to be able to achieve that was incredible, and I think the overall feeling is one of peace. 'I carried out that promise to Harry – and the public and the media, and eventually our own Government, helped us to achieve that. 'Life is still really hard – if I'm honest we're still trying to work out what our life is without Harry. 'You constantly live with that pain and that sense of sheer loss – but certainly I can say on behalf of myself and the family that we do have a better sense of peace in our broken hearts now.' Asked if her MBE was on behalf of her son, she said: 'Absolutely it's on behalf of Harry. 'My love for him has got me through all of the fights that we've had to have to get to where I am today. 'So the award is absolutely on behalf of Harry, yes.'
