Former lumberjack falsely accused of being the Sycamore Gap feller had to wear 'Rod Stewart' wig to avoid abuse after trolls targeted him
Walter Renwick was arrested the day after the famous tree, which stood in a valley along Hadrian's Wall in Northumberland National Park for around 150 years, was illegally chopped down in September 2023.
Officers searched the ex lumberjack's home and removed a chainsaw from his property after he was accused by online sleuths.
Following his arrest, he became scared to leave the house as people would accuse him of felling the tree when they saw him in public.
'It was heartbreaking. There were police everywhere, drones flying around the valley, divers in the lake, they were 100 per cent certain I'd done it,' he told the BBC.
Eventually, Mr Renwick resorted to wearing a disguise to stop so many people recognising him.
'Every time I went shopping in Haltwhistle or Hexham, people were nudging each other and saying, ''That's him that cut the tree down'', stuff like that. I know it was daft but I put a Rod Stewart wig on so people didn't spot me,' he said.
To make matters worse, Mr Renwick had recently been evicted from Plankey Mill Farm, near Bardon Mill, meaning he was also dealing with the loss of his home.
In December 2023, Northumbria Police let Mr Renwick, as well as a 16-year-old who had also been accused, go following a stressful and public process.
The force said it had carried out a 'meticulous and proportionate investigation' and recognised the 'strength of feeling' caused by the felling of the iconic tree.
Police arrested Daniel Graham, 39, and Adam Carruthers, 32, both from Cumbria, over the crime.
The pair were both convicted of two counts of criminal damage and sentenced to 10 years in prison at Newcastle Crown Court in May this year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
2 hours ago
- Sky News
How e-bike riders are doing double the speed limit - and many of them work for fast food delivery firms
It's lunchtime on Birmingham's New Street. Close to its many restaurants, food delivery riders are congregating on their bikes. The area is packed with shoppers and workers. PC Paige Gartlan is approaching with other officers. She's on the lookout for illegally modified e-bikes - and she knows she'll find them here. "You can physically tell by looking at the bike that it's generally going to be illegal - the battery pack is taped on to the sides and generally the size of the motor that's on the back wheel," she explains. Sky News has been invited on an operation by West Midlands Police to find these bikes and get them off the streets. PC Gartlan has been hit by one before. She's had to tackle a rider to the floor after he drove into her. Within minutes, she's spotted a suspicious-looking bike. The rider makes a run for it - followed by plain-clothed officers. PC Gartlan tests the bike - it's showing a top speed of 52km/hr on the speedometer - just over 30mph. The speed limit for e-bikes in the UK is 15.5mph when using electric power for assistance. I look up the street and another two riders have been detained. In less than an hour, officers have confiscated four bikes - all were being ridden by fast food delivery drivers. The commotion is attracting a lot of attention. "They are dangerous," Sandra, who has just finished work, tells me. She's stood watching the riders being questioned. She says she's had near-misses herself and is worried for the safety of the elderly and children. It's not just West Midlands police officers here - immigration officials are carrying out checks too. They're involved in a nationwide operation, which has seen more than 7,000 arrests in the last year - a 50% increase on last year. Matthew Foster, the immigration enforcement lead officer for the West Midlands, tells me they've already found one individual who has entered the UK unlawfully. "He's been detained," he says, "to affect his removal from the UK." Further down the street, police are loading illegally modified bikes on to a van - they're destined to be crushed. One of them had belonged to Demoz. He's on his way home, carrying a big box with the logo of one of the main fast food delivery firms on it. He tells me he used to have an illegal bike, but he thought his new one was legal. "I make a mistake, I have to say sorry, I will do better for the future," he says. I get in touch with the big delivery firms; Deliveroo, Uber Eats, and Just Eat. Their representatives say they constantly remind workers of their safety obligations, and that they're all working closely with the government to increase security checks on riders. As he leaves, Demoz, now bike-free, tells me he's thinking of changing his job.
BBC News
3 hours ago
- BBC News
'I spent months fighting £25 parking penalty'
A man has said he spent months fighting and eventually winning an appeal against a £25 charge after parking outside his home. Mark Toplass has a brain injury, which causes memory loss and he relies on reminders about everyday activities like bills and car 55-year-old received the penalty in February when his parking permit, which allows him to park for free outside his home in The Meadows in Nottingham, had numerous demands from Nottingham City Council for payment, Mr Toplass later discovered that the authority's policy states it will send a reminder to residents ahead of their permit expiring - which he said he did not receive. Mr Toplass, who has had two brain injuries - his first a haemorrhage aged 38 - said: "My memory is shocking so I have reminders set up for everything. I've had to adapt my life."This should've been dealt with at the very first appeal. Instead, they kept telling me the fine would double if I didn't pay, which is when it got stressful."I've had to spend hours upon hours on this, just to show that they're not following their own procedures."Mr Toplass said the council told him it only reminded residents to renew their permits as a matter of digging into the issue, the former Army veteran - who used to work in local government - discovered the part of the council's policy, which states that "reminders will be issued to permanent residents... via email" before a permit charge was then cancelled in May after his second appeal. Since then, Mr Toplass has filed an official complaint and a freedom of information (FOI) request in a bid to find out how many other residents have been said: "My grievance now is how many other people in Nottingham are in the same boat?"In this day and age, we're all tight on money and don't want to be paying for something that isn't our fault."Mr Toplass has now cancelled his parking permit as he "doesn't want to go through the rigmarole", and will instead park on his own driveway, which he previously left empty so local children could play football on city council said its policy was to send reminder letters to residents with virtual parking permits, but added the responsibility for renewal remained with the permit holder.A council spokesperson said they were sorry to hear about the difficulties Mr Toplass had council has not told the BBC why the charge was spokesperson added: "We understand that situations like this can be challenging, particularly for residents with additional needs, and we aim to take a fair and proportionate approach to enforcement. "Anyone who receives a penalty notice can appeal, and all appeals are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, taking individual circumstances into account."
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Stephen Lawrence's father pleads with one of the thugs who murdered his son to reveal the names of the other gang members involved in the attack
The father of Stephen Lawrence has issued a heartfelt plea for one of his son's killers to reveal the names of all those responsible - as the convicted murderer is set to make a bid for his freedom. David Norris, 48, had always denied being involved in the 1993 murder of the teenager. But in March, it was revealed that Norris had a change of heart and 'accepted he was present at the scene.' He also admitted to punching the 18-year-old, but claimed he did not 'wield the knife' during the fatal stabbing incident at a bus stop in Eltham, south-east London, on April 22, 1993. Only Norris and Gary Dobson, 49, two of the original five prime suspects, were convicted in connection with Stephen's killing. Both were found guilty under the law of joint enterprise, which allows people to be convicted of murder even if they did not inflict the fatal blow. It has never been proven who stabbed Stephen, who suffered two knife wounds, or whether more than one knife was used. Now ahead of Norris' public parole hearing next week, Neville Lawrence, 83, is urging the killer to reveal exactly what happened on that fateful day. Speaking to The Mirror, Mr Lawrence said: 'My message to him would be, 'You have served so many years in prison, you've known what you did was wrong and you refused to give the information in the early days about all the other boys that were involved. David Norris (pictured) had always denied his involvement in the 1993 murder until earlier this year. The convicted murderer is set to make a bid for his freedom at a public parole hearing 'I need you to say exactly who was there with you that night because we now know that you were there'. He added that it felt 'unfair' if Norris succeeds in his parole, because he will be able to walk out of prison and live his 'everyday' life again. Mr Lawrence said: 'My son will never be able to do that because he's dead and it's because of these people that robbed me of my son.' In March, Parole Board vice chair Peter Rook KC announced Norris had changed his stance on his involvement. 'Recent reports now suggest he has accepted he was present at the scene and punched the victim but claims that he did not wield the knife. 'He does not accept he holds racist views.' In a major victory for the Mail and the Lawrence family, Norris' parole hearing will be heard in public. Norris fought against such an application from this newspaper, arguing that having the hearing in the open to do so would increase the risk to his safety. But Mr Rook ruled that his case should be made in public, and in his judgement quoted extensively from an application made by the Mail which argued that without press scrutiny it is unlikely that Stephen's killers would have faced justice. Five men were initially arrested over the murder, in Eltham, southeast London, with Norris, 16 at the time, and Gary Dobson, 16 then but 49 now, only brought to justice after a belated forensic breakthrough. Both were given life sentences in 2012. It followed a lengthy campaign from the Mail to secure justice for Stephen, including a 1997 front page in which Norris was named as one of his killers. The application to the Parole Board also quoted from a recent interview with Stephen's father, Neville, in which the 82-year-old said he would be willing to accept Norris's release from prison if he apologised and showed he was a changed man. The Mail argued that a public hearing would provide the killer with the platform to properly express remorse for his actions. The Lawrence family supported a public hearing but lawyers for Norris argued that the murderer, who has been diagnosed with PTSD, would suffer from 'emotional stress' should a hearing be held in public. They also argued that it would increase the risk to his safety within the prison estate, given he has been attacked three times while incarcerated, and that he would be incapable of giving his 'best evidence' should his remarks be made public. But Mr Rook found that the case remained of public importance because of its impact on policing, that it was accepted that not all those involved have been brought to justice and that the public will be interested to know whether Norris now accepts his responsibility for Stephen's murder. The criminal justice system had clearly failed with regard to this case at earlier stages, he said, with the subsequent MacPherson report into the investigation making multiple recommendations still relevant today. 'There is a clear public interest in seeing the Parole Review conducted in a proper judicial manner with evidence-based decisions on risk,' Mr Rook said. Norris's time in prison has not been without issues that will likely count against him when the panel makes its decision. He was caught illegally using a smartphone in jail in 2022, which he used to take a sickening selfie from his cell on Dartmoor's E wing, which houses supposedly well-behaved inmates. The phone was recovered from his body after he was X-rayed and a police investigation into how he obtained the device was launched. A date is yet to be set for the hearing. Stephen's father called on Norris to name his son's other killers and tell the truth about what happened on the night of his murder for the first time. During an interview from his home in Jamaica in March, Mr Lawrence thanked the Daily Mail for its fight to ensure his parole hearing would be heard in public. 'Thank you to the Daily Mail for doing this service for us,' he said. 'Without your appeal this would have stayed behind closed doors.' Mr Lawrence added: 'If he's going to make a statement the public will hopefully finally hear everything that happened. 'He knows who was there with him. 'And he has been in prison for all this time so it's his chance to say it wasn't just him alone, there were others with him. And name them. 'I don't think he's going to do that but that's what I want him to do. 'This is his chance to come clean and confess to what happened that night.' Mr Lawrence said he planned to attend the hearing and his solicitor would read a statement outlining the effect Stephen's murder has had on the family. 'He's going to be able to walk away and live the rest of his life if he behaves himself. 'Stephen can't do that,' he said. 'I feel if someone is lucky enough to have that chance for parole they should have to say I'm sorry, I'll never get into trouble again and they should have to admit what they did. 'If he admits it and said how sorry he was and he names the other people I could accept him coming out. 'No one who was there that night has ever told the truth about what happened or even admitted the fact that they were there. 'If he does do that it will be the first time. 'If he admits he was there and caused my son to lose his life I would accept what happened and it would make it seem to me he was a changed person but if he just says nothing I can't accept [his release].'
