Vandalised Paddington Bear statue returns to town after being repaired
The sculpture in Newbury, Berkshire, was damaged last month when two Royal Air Force engineers broke it in half after a night out and made off with part of it.
Daniel Heath and William Lawrence, both 22 and engineers at RAF Odiham in Hampshire, were sentenced for criminal damage at Reading Magistrates' Court and ordered to pay £2,725 each towards the costs of repairing it.
The rebuilt statue was unveiled in the town centre on Wednesday, with locals expressing their joy at the beloved character being brought back home.
Among those at the unveiling ceremony was Anthony George, who said he was 'devastated' when the statue was damaged and decided to immortalise Paddington with a tattoo on his leg.
The 64-year-old, from Hungerford in Berkshire, said he got the tattoo three weeks before the official return of the statue to Newbury.
'I'm very proud of it,' he said.
'I just want to symbolise what a wonderful fictional character Paddington is.
'I grew up with Paddington, so it means a lot.
'It clearly says on his name tag 'Look after me', or words to that effect, and hopefully people will adhere to that: be kind.
'Unfortunately the other two that vandalised it weren't very kind.'
He added: 'When I heard what happened, I was absolutely devastated.
'Such a shame and everyone loves Paddington – apart from Daniel and William. My dad was in the RAF, they're in the RAF – my dad would have been mortified.'
CCTV footage played to the court showed the men approaching the statue late at night before ripping the bear off its bench and walking away with it.
District judge Sam Goozee condemned Heath and Lawrence's actions, calling them 'the antithesis of everything Paddington stands for'.
Inspector Alan Hawkett, from Thames Valley Police, said the success of the investigation into the vandalism came from 'a real community effort'.
He said: 'It wouldn't have been possible without the help of the community: people posting on the Facebook pages, reporting what they had seen and what they heard, the town centre businesses checking their CCTV for us, the local taxi companies as well.
'It was a real community effort that brought about the return of Paddington.'
Marc Giles and Ty Cosway, from the Special Constabulary team, said they worked for 15 continuous hours to retrieve the broken half of the Paddington Bear statue.
'When we arrived on the scene, it was about three seconds before someone approached us and said 'Oh, you're here for Paddington',' Mr Giles said.
Mr Cosway added: 'Some kids were coming up to us while we were walking from business to business doing our CCTV inquiries, and you start to get a bit more of an idea of the impact.
'It might seem on the surface as a localised case of criminal damage, but the community impact was massive.'
Mr Giles said: 'We ourselves were shocked by it, and it made us feel even more proud to have brought him back.'
After the interview, a little boy came to hug the two constables and said: 'Thank you for bringing him home.'
Dominika Zydron, 39, who lives in Newbury, attended the unveiling ceremony with her two children Joanna, nine, and Stasiu, four.
She said: 'We came here especially to see him and welcome him home. We are very excited.
'We walk by this road every single day and say hello to Paddington, so when he was missing it was very sad for us.'
Kerrie Newton, 49, also from Newbury, came to see the repaired statue with her daughter Evelyn, nine, and her son Henry, six.
She said: 'It's great to have him home.
'He's brought a lot of joy to Newbury when he was first here and it really upset everybody in town that he was sadly taken from us.
'It means a lot that he's come back quickly.
'It's a little bit of happiness in this crazy world.'
Michael Bond, the author and creator of Paddington, was born in Newbury. The statue is one of 23 located across the UK and Ireland as part of the Paddington Visits Trail.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
11 minutes ago
- USA Today
Michigan football NCAA sign-stealing findings and penalties to be announced Friday
After almost two years of tit for tat, conjecture, media attention, and fanbases fighting about what exactly it all means, the alleged Connor Stalions Michigan advanced sign-stealing investigation is coming to a close. According to a report from Pete Thamel and Dan Wetzel of ESPN, the findings and any potential penalties (hint: there will be something) will be announced Friday. Further on that, The Detroit News' Angelique Chengelis reports the punishments will be released by noon, while NBC's Nicole Auerbach, reports that Michigan will receive the notice of penalties before the public earlier that morning. It's hard to fathom that something won't come from this. The NCAA has charged the Michigan program with 11 NCAA violations, six of those being the most severe Level 1 infractions. That is in combination with recruiting violations and prior suspensions for former head coach Jim Harbaugh, so repeat offender and failure to monitor would figure to be a part of whatever penalties are handed down. What is indeed a part of the penalty remains to be seen. The language used by the NCAA has at least been very severe, and some of the reporting of the initial draft of the Notice of Allegations has also pointed toward the NCAA looking to impose some pretty significant things. Michigan took things all the way to a hearing in front of the Committee on Infractions, so all of that points to something somewhat significant being talked about. But where things landed after the hearing remain to be seen. What could be in play is at least a suspension and perhaps a show-cause penalty for Sherrone Moore because of his role on staff and the deletion of 52 text messages between he and Stalions when news of the alleged improprieties broke. Michigan has tried to get out in front of that by self-imposing a two-game suspension for Moore this upcoming season, but it is unclear what that will do to soften the blow from the NCAA. You can likely also expect further show-cause penalties for former head coach Jim Harbaugh, who is already in the midst of a four-year one for the earlier findings of impermissible contact with recruits. You can bet that the news cycle will be hot and heavy tomorrow morning and early afternoon, and we'll also be here to react to it. Contact/Follow us @BuckeyesWire on X (formerly Twitter) and like our page on Facebook to follow ongoing coverage of Ohio State news, notes and opinion. Follow Phil Harrison on X.
USA Today
11 minutes ago
- USA Today
L.A. divers caught with massive illegal lobster haul, stirring anger
The Southern California spiny lobster season closed in March, so wildlife officers were beyond suspicious on the night of Aug. 1, when they observed four individuals repeatedly diving and returning to shore in Los Angeles County. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife officers, who had been on patrol, watched the divers "actively taking spiny lobsters" for nearly four hours before initiating contact near Royal Palms Beach in San Pedro. The individuals, who attempted to flee, were caught with 236 spiny lobsters in the back of their truck. Most of the lobsters were undersized. ALSO: Yellowstone tourist faced with tough choice during extremely close bison encounter The CDFW stated in a news release that the individuals did not have fishing licenses or tools for measuring lobsters – requirements during open season from early October through mid-March. If there's a silver lining to this attempt to plunder a valued resource, the lobsters were alive and returned to the ocean 'after a quick count and photographs for evidence.' The divers were cited for several misdemeanor violations, including taking lobster out of season, possession of undersized lobster, commercialization without a license, and fishing without a license. The bust was announced Wednesday via Facebook. Comments reflected anger directed toward the poachers, but also the state for charges that did not seem harsh enough. A sampling: –'Curious as to why the take of 236 spiny lobster out of season, 210 of which were undersized, is a misdemeanor and not a felony? Also, I'm wondering if there was any investigation into whether or not they had a black market buyer?' –'Only cited? With over 250 lobsters caught illegally and multiple violations they could've been at least booked for a night!' –'Needs to be a felony at this level. Sure it's one thing if someone takes a few or doesn't know the regulations, but this is an organization to deal with all that volume.'
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Mississippi may require age verification, parental consent for social media, Supreme Court says
Supreme Court Social mediaFacebookTweetLink Follow The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed Mississippi to enforce a state law that requires the nation's largest social media companies to verify the age of their users and obtain parental consent for minors, an effort the state said is intended to protect children from online predators. There were no dissents and the court did not explain its reasoning, as is often the case on its emergency docket. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a member of the court's conservative wing, wrote a brief concurrence asserting that the Mississippi law is 'likely unconstitutional' but said that the internet companies who sued had not 'sufficiently demonstrated' that they would be harmed by a temporary order in favor of the state. A coalition of social media companies that includes Facebook, X and Instagram – and several outside groups – had urged the high court to block enforcement of the state law, arguing it infringed on users' First Amendment rights. Though the law at issue in the case affects only Mississippians, many other states – both blue and red – have enacted similar requirements in recent years amid growing concerns over privacy and the safety of young people online. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is supporting the social media companies in the case, said it is tracking laws in at least 10 other states requiring parental consent or age verification for online services. The group, along with several others that filed a brief in the case at the Supreme Court, described the Mississippi law as a 'well-intentioned but fundamentally flawed' effort to protect minors online. Mississippi officials said the state is responding to high-profile reports of 'sextortion' and other online crimes. In one case, a 16-year-old Mississippi boy committed suicide after an Instagram user posing as a female initiated a sexual encounter and then demanded a $1,000 payment under threat of exposing their exchanges on the internet. 'The act requires what any responsible covered platform would already do: make 'commercially reasonable' efforts to protect minors – not perfect or cost-prohibitive efforts, but efforts of reasonable care based on a platform's resources,' Mississippi told the Supreme Court in a brief urging the court to leave the law in place. But NetChoice, a trade group representing the social media giants, said the law infringes on the First Amendment rights of users. And several LGBTQ advocacy groups argued that the law would make it harder for gay and lesbian youth to find safe spaces online. 'Online platforms, including social media sites, offer safe spaces for individuals, including youth, to connect with others who share their identities, access information about LGBTQ+ issues and resources, and explore their gender identity and sexual orientation in a supportive environment,' the groups said. The law, which was enacted last year, imposes $10,000 in penalties per violation as well as possible criminal penalties. A federal district court temporarily blocked the law's implementation, but the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals halted that lower court order, allowing the law to take effect. The Supreme Court's decision is a temporary one, laying out what happens while lower courts weigh the law's constitutionality. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court let stand a separate law in Texas that requires age verification for pornographic websites in one of the most closely watched First Amendment cases to arrive at the high court in years. The adult entertainment industry had challenged the law as a violation of the Constitution because it restricted the ability of adults to access protected online speech. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for a 6-3 court, which divided along ideological grounds with the court's three liberals dissenting. 'The statute advances the state's important interest in shielding children from sexually explicit content,' Thomas wrote. 'And, it is appropriately tailored because it permits users to verify their ages through the established methods of providing government-issued identification and sharing transactional data.'
