Connect with us

Published

on

The iconic Sycamore Gap tree “can never be replaced” but its stump is showing signs of life, the National Trust has said, as the two men who felled it face sentencing.

Adam Carruthers, 32, and Daniel Graham, 39, drove 30 miles through a storm from Cumbria to Northumberland on 27 September 2023 before felling the landmark in less than three minutes.

Prosecutors said their “moronic mission” caused more than £620,000 worth of damage to the tree and more than £1,000 worth of damage to Hadrian’s Wall, where it fell.

They took a wedge as a trophy, which has never been recovered, and seemed to revel in the media coverage, exchanging messages and voice notes about the story going “wild” and “viral”.

Footage of the moment the tree was felled was played during the men’s trial at Newcastle Crown Court, where they both denied but were found guilty of two counts of criminal damage.

Adam Carruthers and Daniel Graham. Pic: Northumbria Police/PA
Image:
Adam Carruthers and Daniel Graham. Pic: Northumbria Police/PA

An image of the Sycamore Gap standing, which was shown in evidence. This image was taken at approx. 5.20pm on Wednesday 27 September 2023.
Pic: CPS
Image:
A picture of the tree taken hours before it was felled. Pic: CPS

In a victim impact statement read at their sentencing hearing, National Trust general manager Andrew Poad, said the “iconic tree can never be replaced”.

“While the National Trust has cared for it on behalf of the nation, it belonged to the people,” he wrote.

More on Northumberland

“It was a totemic symbol for many; a destination to visit whilst walking Hadrian’s Wall, a place to make memories, take photos in all seasons; but it was also a place of sanctuary – a calming, reflective space that people came to year after year.

“While what was lost cannot be replaced, the stump is showing signs of life, with new shoots emerging at the base – as the decades progress, there is hope that some may grow and establish.”

Mr Poad said the “outpouring of emotion” to the felling was “unprecedented”, with one message from a member of the public described it as “like losing a close family member”.

Pictures were shown in court of a “celebration room” in memory of the tree, including a note which says: “How dare he steal our JOY,” while another reads: “Nature at it’s best over 300 years. Humanity at its worst over one night”.

Mr Poad added: “The overwhelming sense of loss and confusion was felt across the world.

“When it became clear that this was a malicious and deliberate act the question was why anyone would do this to such a beautiful tree in such a special place, it was beyond comprehension.”

Both men deny all charges against them.
Image:
The pair were found guilty of criminal damage

Graham has a previous caution for theft after he cut up a “large quantity of logs using a chainsaw”, the court heard.

He also has convictions for violence including battery and public order offences, which were said to be “relationship-based”, while Carruthers has no previous cautions or convictions.

The tree, which had stood for more than 100 years in a dip in the landscape, held a place in popular culture and was featured in the 1991 Kevin Costner film Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves.

It also formed part of people’s personal lives, as the scene of wedding proposals, ashes being scattered and countless photographs.

A 6ft section of the trunk is now on public display at The Sill: National Landscape Discovery Centre, around two miles from where it once stood, while 49 saplings taken from the tree have been conserved by the National Trust.

Graham and Carruthers, who were once close friends, gave no explanation for why they targeted the tree, and since their arrests, they have fallen out and come to blame each other.

At their trial, Graham claimed Carruthers had a fascination with the sycamore, saying he had described it as “the most famous tree in the world” and spoken of wanting to cut it down, even keeping a piece of string in his workshop that he had used to measure its circumference.

Carruthers denied this and told the court he could not understand the outcry over the story, saying it was “just a tree”.

Prosecutor Richard Wright KC said the pair have now accepted they went on the mission in pre-sentencing reports.

But Carruthers claimed he was “drunk” and didn’t realise what happened until the next day, while Graham said it was “only when the blade made contact with the tree he realised it was serious,” the court heard.

Mr Wright added: “The court can be sure they were sober, prepared and planned to do exactly what they did.”

Continue Reading

UK

Why Andrew hasn’t given up being a prince – amid call for him to ‘live in exile’

Published

on

By

Why Andrew hasn't given up being a prince - amid call for him to 'live in exile'

Sky News’ royal commentator has explained why Prince Andrew has not given up being called a prince – while another expert has said “the decent thing” for him to do would be “go into exile” overseas.

Andrew announced on Friday that he would stop using his Duke of York title and relinquish all other honours, including his role as a Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter.

However, he will continue to be known as a prince.

Royal commentator Alastair Bruce said that while Andrew’s other honours and titles were conferred to him later in life, he became a prince when he was born to Elizabeth II while she was queen.

He told presenter Kamali Melbourne: “I think […] that style was quite special to the late Queen,” he said. “And perhaps the King, for the moment, thinks that can be left alone.

“It’s a matter really for the King, for the royal household, perhaps with the guidance and advice of government, which I’m sure they are taking.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Who pushed Andrew to drop his titles?

Since Andrew’s announcement, there has been speculation over whether any further measures will be taken – and one author has now called for him to “go into exile”.

More on Prince Andrew

Andrew Lownie, author of The Rise And Fall Of The House Of York, said: “The only way the story will go away is if he leaves Royal Lodge, goes into exile abroad with his ex-wife, and is basically stripped of all his honours, including Prince Andrew.”

Royal Lodge is the Windsor mansion Andrew lives in with his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, who has also lost her Duchess of York title.

Andrew and his former wife continue to live on the Windsor estate. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Andrew and his former wife continue to live on the Windsor estate. Pic: Reuters

Mr Lownie continued: “He makes out he’s an honourable man and he’s putting country and family first. Well, if he is, then the optics look terrible for the monarchy. A non-working royal in a 30-room Crown Estate property with a peppercorn rent.

“He should do the decent thing and go. And frankly, he should go into exile.”

Mr Lownie added if the Royal Family “genuinely want to cut links, they have to put pressure on him to voluntarily get out”.

Read more from Sky News:
How Prince Andrew allegations unfolded
William and Camilla’s influential roles

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Windsor’s take on Prince Andrew

Andrew’s decision to stop using his titles was announced amid renewed scrutiny of his relationship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and fresh stories linked to the late Virginia Giuffre.

Ms Giuffre, who was trafficked by Epstein, alleged she was sexually assaulted by Andrew on three occasions – which he has always vigorously denied.

The former duke paid to settle a civil sexual assault case with Ms Giuffre in 2022, despite insisting he had never met her.

Continue Reading

UK

Lingering dread over what else about Prince Andrew could still emerge

Published

on

By

Lingering dread over what else about Prince Andrew could still emerge

Just a cursory glance at the headlines, and it’s clear the disgrace and downfall of Prince Andrew is not over.

So what next for the man and the monarchy?

The King might have hoped his involvement showed direct action had been taken.

He certainly does not want any distraction from his upcoming state visit to the Vatican.

But that might be wishful thinking.

Now the Met Police has been dragged in too. Forced to look into reports in the Mail on Sunday that Andrew asked his protection officer to smear his accuser, Virginia Giuffre.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Police ‘looking into’ Andrew claims

The prince allegedly wanted his officer “to dig up dirt” and told an aide at the palace what he had done.

More on Prince Andrew

Let’s be clear: back then, Andrew’s security was funded by the taxpayer.

So are we reaching the endgame, and what does that look like?

Andrew might have given up the use of his title, Duke of York, and other honours too.

Read more:
Call for Prince Andrew to ‘live in exile’

How Prince Andrew allegations unfolded
Everything we know about titles decision

But what about his style ‘prince’? Some want that ditched too.

It’s a complicated but not impossible process. Andrew could, of course, just stop using it voluntarily.

Some want him to give up his home, too. For a non-working royal, the stately Royal Lodge, with its plum position on the Windsor Estate, is an uncomfortable optic.

Andrew’s wider family is worried. The Sunday Times has reported that the Prince of Wales wants him cut off completely.

With the reputation of the monarchy at risk, William does not want to appear weak. He’s putting loyalty to “the firm” firmly above his familial relationships.

Prince Andrew has always strongly denied the allegations, and restated on Friday: “I vigorously deny the accusations against me”. Sky News has approached him for comment on the fresh allegations set out in the Mail on Sunday.

But with Virginia Giuffre’s tragic death and posthumous memoir due out on Tuesday, Buckingham Palace will be braced for more scandal.

When Andrew gave up his titles, there was certainly a sense of relief.

There is now a sense of dread over what else could emerge.

Continue Reading

UK

Families whose loved ones took their lives after buying poison online write to PM

Published

on

By

Families whose loved ones took their lives after buying poison online write to PM

Bereaved families whose loved ones took their own lives after buying the same poison online have written to the prime minister demanding urgent action.

Warning: This article contains references to suicide

The group claims there have been “multiple missed opportunities” to shut down online forums that promote suicide and dangerous substances.

They warn that over 100 people have died after purchasing a particular poison in the last 10 years.

Among those who have written to Downing Street is Pete Aitken, whose daughter Hannah was 22 when she took her own life after buying the poison from a website.

Hannah was autistic and had ADHD. She was treated in six different mental health hospitals over a four-year period.

Mr Aitken recently spoke to Sky News around the second anniversary of Hannah’s death.

More on Mental Health

He said: “Autistic people seem to be most vulnerable to this kind of sort of poison and, you know, wanting to take their lives.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Pete Aitken speaking to Sky News

Sky News is not naming the poison, but Hannah was able to buy a kilogram of it online. Just one gram is potentially fatal.

“There’s this disparity between the concentration required for its legitimate use and that required for ending your life. And it seems quite clear you could make a distinction,” Mr Aitken said.

Analysis from the Molly Rose Foundation and the group Families and Survivors to Prevent Online Suicide Harms says at least 133 people have died because of the poison. It also says coroners have written warnings about the substance on 65 separate occasions.

The report accuses the Home Office of failing to strengthen the regulation of the poison and says not enough is being done to close dangerous suicide forums online.

Lawyers representing the group want a public inquiry into the deaths.

In a joint letter to the prime minister, the families said: “We write as families whose loved ones were let down by a state that was too slow to respond to the threat.

“This series of failings requires a statutory response, not just to understand why our loved ones died but also to prevent more lives being lost in a similar way.”

Read more from Sky News:
Blood test for more than 50 cancers ‘could transform outcomes’

Warning of six million new cancer cases – with these areas worst hit
Hospital accused of ‘covering up’ concerns about suspended surgeon

The group’s lawyer, Merry Varney, from Leigh Day, said: “The government is rightly committed to preventing deaths through suicide, yet despite repeated warnings of the risks posed by an easily accessible substance, fatal in small quantities and essentially advertised on online forums, no meaningful steps have been taken.”

Hannah's dad is one of the family members to have signed the letter
Image:
Hannah’s dad is one of the family members to have signed the letter

A government spokesperson said: “Suicide devastates families and we are unequivocal about the responsibilities online services have to keep people safe on their platforms.

“Under the Online Safety Act, services must take action to prevent users from accessing illegal suicide and self-harm content and ensure children are protected from harmful content that promotes it.

“If they fail to do so, they can expect to face robust enforcement, including substantial fines.”

They added that the position is “closely monitored and reportable under the Poisons Act, meaning retailers must alert authorities if they suspect it is being bought to cause harm”.

“We will continue to keep dangerous substances under review to ensure the right safeguards are in place,” they said.

Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK. In the US, call the Samaritans branch in your area or 1 (800) 273-TALK.

Continue Reading

Trending