Paddington Returns to His Bench. Order Is Restored.
Local officials unveiled a repaired statue of Paddington Bear on Wednesday, adding another element of joy to the already perfect — and oh-so-rare — springtime conditions in England. The return of the famous bear drew adults and children alike.
Last month, two members of the British Royal Air Force vandalized the statue of the storybook bear, leaving only Paddington's shell. A judge sentenced the pair to 150 hours of community service and ordered them each to pay 2,725 British pounds, or about $3,500, to repair the statue. It was one of 23 installed last year across Britain and Ireland to promote the release of the movie 'Paddington in Peru,' though it held special significance in Newbury, the birthplace of Michael Bond, the author of the children's book series about the well-meaning bear.
Both men expressed remorse for the damage that they had done. And with the statue's restoration, this chapter now seems closed. As Paddington's aunt Lucy would say: 'If we're kind and polite, the world will be right.'
Paddington will again be looked after by the people of Newbury. He'll be there, peacefully snacking on a marmalade sandwich.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
8 hours ago
- Newsweek
Number of International Adoptions in U.S. Plummets
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. International adoptions to the United States have fallen to a record low, marking a 94 percent decline since their peak in the early 2000s. 2023 was the lowest year for international adoptions, according to the Pew Research Center's analysis based on U.S. State Department data. Why it Matters The collapse in international adoptions represents a significant shift in how children without parental care are placed and cared for worldwide. While once considered a humanitarian solution, foreign adoptions are now more tightly regulated under international frameworks like the 1993 Hague Convention, which emphasizes a child's right to remain in their country of origin where possible. For example, Russia barred Americans from adopting Russian children in 2013 and expanded those restrictions to the rest of the world in 2024. Ethiopia stopped allowing foreign adoptions in 2018, China banned them in 2024 and South Korea announced plans this year to end all private international adoptions following a probe into irregularities. Guatemala halted international adoptions in 2008 amid allegations of child trafficking. What To Know The peak of foreign adoptions was in 2004, when almost 23,000 foreign-born children joined U.S. families via adoption. The number fell to just 1,275 adoptions in 2023, according to U.S. State Department data. International adoptions have declined yearly since 2004, mirroring similar falls in countries such as Canada, France, Italy, and Spain. This is largely because the countries that historically represented the largest sources of adoptee—China, Russia, Guatemala, South Korea and Ethiopia—have taken steps to limit international adoptions. China accounted for 29 percent of all adoptions since 1999, Russia accounted for 16 percent, Guatemala 10 percent, South Korea 8 percent and Ethiopia 6 percent. The decline is not isolated to the U.S.; major adoption countries across Europe and North America are also seeing dramatic drops. France, for instance, saw international adoptions plummet 97 percent from 2004 to 2024. Rising costs and bureaucracy are also factors. The cost of international adoption jumped from a median of $6,000 in 2008 to over $30,000 in 2018, according to the Institute for Family Studies. What People Are Saying The Head of International Surrogacy and Adoption and Wilson Solicitors LLP, Amna Khaliq, told British newspaper in 2020: "Not all countries are open for adoption. You will have countries which either prevent adoption from happening overseas or are not on the UK's list of countries where they will allow adoptions to take place due to the concerns about the processes of the country." American conservative commentator and author Naomi Schaefer Riley wrote for an essay on the topic in 2020: "The bureaucratic headaches and expenses have multiplied... Given the difficulties and costs of international adoption, agencies... have decided to cease their international adoption programs." File photo of a five-month baby girl looking at a globe, taken in Connecticut, in September 2015. File photo of a five-month baby girl looking at a globe, taken in Connecticut, in September 2015. AP Celebrity Adoptions: Changing Narratives High-profile celebrity adoptions drew public attention to international adoption's possibilities and challenges. Pop icon Madonna became the subject of extensive media coverage due to her adoption of children from Malawi, highlighting both the visibility and controversy surrounding international adoptions. Critics raised questions about whether celebrities received special treatment or skirted laws intended to protect children, and governments were sometimes pressured to scrutinize or restrict foreign adoptions more closely. What Happens Next International adoptions to the U.S. are likely to remain low as more countries restrict foreign adoptions and domestic placements increase in many origin countries. Adoption agencies, such as Bethany Christian Services, have shifted focus to supporting children in their countries of birth or prioritizing domestic adoptions. Efforts to balance the need for ethical oversight with the desire to provide homes for children will continue to shape international adoption policy. Meanwhile, international surrogacy—a separate practice not regulated under the Hague Convention—is reportedly increasing, raising new legal and ethical questions, according to the Pew Research Center.
National Geographic
13 hours ago
- National Geographic
Charles Lindbergh was a Nazi puppet—and his famous flight was overrated. Here's why.
Charles Lindbergh standing in front of his plane, the Spirit of St. Louis, which he used on his transatlantic flight. Photograph by Bridgeman Images The aviator was so impressed by German propaganda that he grossly overestimated Hitler's airpower. I have to declare a personal stake that shapes my opinion as I write this story. It has its origins in 1940, 85 years ago this month. I was seven years old, living near London. I watched the choreography of a great battle underway, etched in vapor trails high above in the crisp blue sky of summer, the combat that became known as the Battle of Britain. I wasn't scared. I watched with the detached excitement of a child unaware of how perilous those days were for us. That understanding would come later, from my work as a journalist, spending years discovering how closely fought that famous victory was. Had that battle been lost it is doubtful that Britain, then alone as most of Western Europe fell to Hitler, could have survived, as it did, until Pearl Harbor made American intervention inevitable. As things have turned out, one of my most unsettling discoveries has been that a man long hailed as an American legend, Charles Lindbergh, worked avidly with the Germans to undermine the chances of a British victory. Much has long been known about Lindbergh's alliance with American fascists between 1939 and 1941, and particularly his speech in Des Moines, Iowa in September 1941, in which he blamed three groups—the Roosevelt administration, the British and the Jews—for pressing the nation to confront Hitler. Much less known is the role Lindbergh played in England during the 1930s as Hitler's useful idiot, spreading the idea that Nazi Germany had become an invincible air power. The first Nazi to spot and exploit Lindbergh as an effective agent of German disinformation was Hermann Goering, Hitler's deputy and head of his air force, the Luftwaffe. Goering recognized that Lindbergh's celebrity gave him oracular authority on aviation—whether justified or not. Portrait of Charles Lindbergh Photograph by The Stapleton Collection, Bridgeman Images A decade after Lindbergh's epic solo flight across the Atlantic, on October 16, 1937, the Nazis made their master move, allowing him into their secret test field at Rechlin, near the Baltic coast. Virtually all the Luftwaffe's future aircraft were revealed to him. Credulous and convinced that no other European power rivaled Germany in the air, Lindbergh thereafter became a powerful influence on the 'peace at any price' factions in Britain and France. Lindbergh had no background in military aviation, but when he spoke on the subject of anything with wings, a lot of important people listened. There were numerous reports of Lindbergh pressing his views on leading European politicians, some of whom found them unnerving and demoralizing. For example, the British military attaché in Paris, seeing how rattled the French were by Lindbergh's assessments, reported to London, '…the Fuhrer found a most convenient ambassador in Colonel Lindbergh.' Limited Time: Bonus Issue Offer Subscribe now and gift up to 4 bonus issues—starting at $34/year. Lindbergh's impact in Britain was equally effective. In a single meeting he could turn a stern patriot into an abject appeaser. In 1938 a highly influential Tory, Thomas Jones, noted in his diary that before listening to Lindbergh he had been for standing up against Hitler but: 'Since my talk with Lindbergh I've sided with those working for peace at any cost in humiliation, because of the picture of our relative unpreparedness in the air…' (How the Battle of Britain changed the war—and the world—forever) Lindbergh also had a willing ear in the American ambassador in London, Joseph Kennedy. In 1938 he told Kennedy that Germany was then able to produce 20,000 military airplanes a year and gave a dark prediction of likely British defeat in the air. (In October 1938 Goering, on behalf of Hitler, awarded Lindbergh the Service Cross of the German Eagle.) In fact, Lindbergh's numbers were absurdly inflated. They were, literally, being used by the Nazis as a force multiplier. Moreover, Lindbergh's propaganda had masked a systemic weakness in the organization of German aircraft production. It was far from being a model of Teutonic efficiency. Production was dispersed among many manufacturers competing for resources and slowed by supply chain bottlenecks. In contrast, British aircraft production was far more rigorously directed and resourced from a central command. Charles Lindbergh receiving the Service Cross of the German Eagle from Hermann Goering on behalf of Adolf Hitler Photograph by SZ Photo/Scherl, Bridgeman Images More crucially, Lindbergh had no inkling of a game-changing technical leap in the deployment of air power that the British pioneered, the world's most advanced radar-based early warning system. Incoming waves of bombers could be pinpointed and tracked before they reached the British coast. Their size, direction and altitude were precisely plotted on a map in a central operations room, enabling the Royal Air Force (R.A.F) to deploy its precious hundreds of advanced fighters and pilots sparingly in the most efficient and deadly way. Britain's 'finest hour' At the outbreak of war, in September 1939, Germany did have a clear lead in numbers: 2,893 available front-line airplanes versus 1,600 in Britain. But by July, 1940, when the Battle of Britain began, the difference had narrowed. Britain had 644 front-line fighters to 725 German (with their time over England critically limited by fuel). By the end of September, when the RAF's famous victory was achieved, they had 732 fighters available while the Luftwaffe was reduced to 438. Weeks before the battle in the air began, Britain's expeditionary army in France had been nearly wiped out, saved only by the evacuation at Dunkirk. Few foresaw that its air force, the most scientifically advanced of its forces, was actually capable of saving the day. But—a point mostly overlooked by historians—Prime Minister Winston Churchill, fighting off a last-ditch resistance by appeasers, made his confidence in the R.A.F's strengths the bulwark of his case for carrying on the war. (Searching for the remains of two early transatlantic pilots) This is testament to Churchill's remarkable openness, at the age of 65, to technical transformation: As a young man he had served in the army, and had then twice served as First Lord of the Admiralty, in 1911 and 1939, running the Royal Navy. But, as much as he loved Britain's imperial-scale navy, he understood in 1940, ahead of many others, that the island nation's last line of defense was now in the air. On June 18, 1940, in one of his greatest speeches, Churchill warned, 'The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us…if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age.' Yet, if Britain prevailed, the world would say, 'This was their finest hour.' The battle engaged remarkably low numbers of men in combat, only a few hundred on each side, almost like medieval knights, each alone in a cockpit. When it was over, Churchill made the indelible tribute to his airmen: 'Never in the history of human conflict have so many owed so much to so few.' Victory in the air ended any chance of Hitler carrying out Operation Sea Lion, his planned invasion of Britain. And it finally laid bare the pernicious extent of the disinformation spread by Lindbergh—swallowed whole by many, including Ambassador Kennedy. Even then, Kennedy, a hardened isolationist, had learned nothing. Unmoved by the victory, he said, 'The British have had it. They can't stop the Germans and the best thing for them is to learn to live with them.' (Charles Lindbergh's wife was a record-breaking aviator in her own right) It's important to note that Lindbergh's crossing of the Atlantic in 1927 was an act of superb airmanship—particularly of navigation—but it did nothing to advance the science of aviation. His airplane, the Spirit of St. Louis, was a one-off bespoke model built for only one purpose: for one man to safely cross the Atlantic. It was not in any way a precursor. The science necessary to carry passengers safely across any ocean was an American achievement, developed mainly in a wind tunnel at Caltech in California, where two companies, Boeing and Douglas, created the first twin-engine all-metal airliners. In fact, the need for a larger, twin-engine airplane to cross oceans was foretold by two British military aviators, Captain John Alcock and Lieutenant Arthur Whitten Brown, who were the first to actually fly across the Atlantic, 1,890 miles, from Newfoundland to Ireland, in 1919, in a converted World War I bomber. They landed, unheralded, in a field and came to rest, nose down, in a bog, not like Lindbergh on a floodlit runway with the whole world listening on radio. As a result, to this day few people realize who was first. It will fall to President Donald Trump to decide how the nation will mark the centennial of Lindbergh's 1927 flight from Long Island, New York, to Paris. This will confront America with a challenging moral judgment: Can a legendary human endeavor ever be celebrated if the 'hero' turns out to have been so deeply flawed?
Boston Globe
2 days ago
- Boston Globe
Shocking plunge by Southwest flight from Southern California was to avoid another aircraft
'We really thought we were plummeting to a plane crash,' Burdi told Fox News Digital in an interview at the Las Vegas airport. She said the pilot told passengers they had nearly collided with another plane. The Federal Aviation Administration said the flight, Southwest 1496, was responding to an on board alert about another aircraft in its vicinity. The FAA is investigating. Southwest said the crew responded to two alerts that required the pilot to climb then descend. The flight left Hollywood Burbank Airport just before noon. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Another passenger, comedian Stef Zamorano, said she saw a woman who wasn't wearing her seat belt shoot up and out of her seat, and a man next to her was clutching her arm. A woman across the aisle was panicking, she said. Advertisement 'She was pretty much verbalizing how we all felt, saying, 'I want to get off this plane. I want to be on the ground',' Zamorano told The Associated Press on Friday. Another woman was panicking and saying she wanted 'to get off this plane.' The plane was in the same airspace near Burbank as a Hawker Hunter Mk. 58, according to the flight tracking site, FlightAware. Records show it is owned by Hawker Hunter Aviation, a British defense contracting company. Advertisement The company didn't respond to messages on Friday and Saturday seeking comment. Southwest said the flight continued to Las Vegas, 'where it landed uneventfully.' The airline said that it is working with the FAA 'to further understand the circumstances' of the event. This close call is just the latest incident to raise questions about aviation safety in the wake of January's midair collision over Washington, D.C., that killed 67 people.
