Campaigners call for public to be barred from parliamentary bar following ‘spiking' incident
Campaigners have called for the public to be banned from a parliamentary bar after a woman's drink was allegedly spiked there.
Strangers' Bar, a popular drinking spot for MPs in the Palace of Westminster, is currently closed for a security review following the alleged incident.
They are also campaigning for tougher measures to be brought into bars across the parliamentary estate.
Under current rules, only those holding certain types of parliamentary passes can bring guests into the bar. MPs have the most flexibility with who they can invite.
Ryan-Mark Parsons, a parliamentary staffer to Greg Smith MP, is spearheading the campaign in Parliament after he was spiked while on a night out with friends in Soho last year.
Mr Parsons said that prohibiting guests from visiting Strangers' Bar for a period of time could help prevent future cases of spiking.
He said that 'only having passholders in Strangers' would be a good idea.
'I don't think it should be open to guests, as anyone could come to the estate,' he said. 'I think it would be in the interest of people working in Parliament, and make them feel safe.
'It should, in my opinion, be closed to guests until better security is in place at the bar.'
Another staffer added: 'In my view the unregulated in and outflow of guests on the terrace does unfortunately test the bar staff and security, and places an increasing pressure on estate staff to provide a safe environment for those working on the grounds.'
Campaigners also say that every bar in Parliament should provide drinks caps to prevent unwanted drugs being put into their drinks, along with free testing strips which would enable people to see whether their drink has been tampered with.
They also advised putting up posters around the parliamentary estate warning of the dangers of drink spiking.
Mr Parsons also suggested that monitoring the number of people allowed into Strangers' Bar might be a good way to prevent similar incidents in future.
He said: 'On staffer nights on a Thursday, Strangers is rammed. They could monitor it at any one time.'
Training for staff should also be mandatory, he said, explaining: 'training on how to spot signs of spiking should be mandatory for all House of Commons staff.'
Jo Tanner, who was spiked in Strangers' Bar in 2017, said that she would be in favour of 'any measures' taken to prevent spiking in future.
She said: 'I think any sort of mitigation or protection for anybody is helpful. Testing sticks could be readily available.
'Ultimately there needs to be better education and a reminder to everyone that a drink is vulnerable. People need to recognise that because you've gone through airport security, it doesn't mean that Parliament is safe. Passholders don't go through those systems.'
She added that spiking on the parliamentary estate 'clearly isn't a new problem'.
It is understood that an update will be provided when the review is concluded.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
If white British people become a minority, the Left will be in serious trouble
Within the next 40 years, white British people will become a minority in this country. And by the year 2100, they'll account for only a third of the population. So predicted Professor Matt Goodwin of Buckingham University in a report this week. And, ever since, I've been pondering an intriguing question. If his prediction comes to pass, will the Left still support DEI? After all, the whole point of DEI – the progressive doctrine of 'diversity, equity and inclusion' – is to benefit minorities. So, if white British people become a minority, will Left-wing activists throw all their righteous energies into championing them? Perhaps they'll insist that job adverts give priority to applicants who are white British. And order schools to celebrate White British History Month. And, when political parties are seeking election candidates, demand that they increase white British representation by adopting all-white British shortlists. Equally, perhaps they'll call on the BBC to cast white British actors in non-white British roles. And argue that all non-white workers should undergo unconscious bias training, to check that they aren't harbouring prejudice against the white British community – or, as they're properly known, People of No Colour. I suppose it's possible. But, for some reason, I have a funny feeling they'll decide there's no longer any need for DEI – because, once the white British are a small minority, true social justice will finally have been achieved. In 2016, the late Canadian comedian Norm MacDonald told the greatest satirical joke of our age. It went like this. 'What terrifies me is if Isis were to donate a nuclear device and kill 50 million Americans. Imagine the backlash against peaceful Muslims?' A perfect skewering of 21st-century liberal priorities. I'm reminded of it often. For example, whenever there's a debate in the Commons or on the BBC about the grooming gangs scandal – and the talk, as always, turns swiftly to the dangers of Islamophobia. This week, I was reminded of that sublimely dark joke once again. And it was thanks to a truly mind-boggling article in the newspaper USA Today. Last Sunday, in the Colorado city of Boulder, a firebombing attack was launched on a group of Jewish people who had gathered to raise awareness of Israeli hostages in Gaza. Following the arrest, at the scene, of a 45-year-old Egyptian migrant who allegedly told police he wanted to 'kill all Zionist people', immigration officials began taking steps to deport his family, who are also Egyptian migrants. And how did USA Today choose to cover this development? By publishing a piece with the tear-jerking headline, 'Boulder Suspect's Daughter Dreamed of Studying Medicine. Now She Faces Deportation.' Beneath this headline we were informed that 18-year-old Habiba had recently won a 'Best and Brightest scholarship', and 'written about her hope of accomplishing great things'. Well, I suppose it's only natural that a newspaper would wish to focus on Habiba's plight. Because of course she's the real victim here. After a backlash from thousands of staggered readers, USA Today revised the article on its website, to give at least a little more prominence to the firebombing attack and the members of the public who were seriously injured in it – including an 88-year-old Holocaust survivor. Anyway, I hope that the newspaper's journalists aren't feeling too sad about the crushing of Habiba's dreams. Because I've got some wonderful news for them. Incredible though it may sound, the US isn't the only country on Earth where it's possible to study medicine. In fact, it can even be studied in Egypt. So there's really no need for Habiba to miss out. And if she doesn't fancy Egypt, there's an exciting alternative. She and her family can simply come and live in Britain. Here, after all, they can rest safe in the knowledge that we never deport anyone. More and more MPs, reports the BBC, are deciding against the legalisation of assisted suicide – or, to use the term preferred by its supporters, 'assisted dying'. These MPs say they supported the idea in principle, but now reluctantly concede that the bill lacks adequate safeguards. Good on them. But I hope that the many MPs who still support the bill will consider another crucial argument against. Which is that, if they legalise assisted suicide, the criteria for eligibility will inevitably widen, as it has in other Western countries. And so, in due course, we could end up like the Netherlands – where, last year, a woman in her 20s was granted an assisted suicide. She wasn't terminally ill. In fact, she wasn't physically ill at all. She was just depressed. It's chilling that the state would agree to such a request. But that's the sort of scenario we could easily see here. It'll be like a dystopian inversion of the Samaritans. If you tell the Samaritans that you're so depressed you want to die, its staff will do everything they can to dissuade you. But if you tell the state that you're so depressed you want to die, it'll say: 'Certainly, we'll book you straight in. Can you do Tuesday, 10 past three?' 'Way of the World' is a twice-weekly satirical look at the headlines while aiming to mock the absurdities of the modern world. It is published at 6am every Tuesday and Saturday Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Hegseth says Nato allies ‘very close' to raising defence spending target to 5%
The US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, said Nato allies were 'very close, almost near consensus' to an agreement to significantly raise targets for defence spending to 5% of GDP in the next decade. The Trump administration official indicated he expected the increased target to be agreed at a summit in The Hague later this month – and confirmed that the headline figure was to be split into two parts. 'This alliance, in a matter of weeks, will be committing to 5%: 3.5% in hard military and 1.5% in infrastructure and defence-related activities. That combination constitutes a real commitment,' he said. Hegseth was speaking at a press conference at Nato headquarters in Brussels after the morning session of an all-day meeting of defence ministers from the 32-country transatlantic military alliance. 'I'm very encouraged by what we heard in there,' Hegseth told reporters. 'Countries in there are well exceeding 2% and we think very close, almost near consensus, on a 5% commitment to Nato.' Nato's current target level for military spending, agreed at a summit in Cardiff in 2014, is 2% of GDP, but Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that European allies and Canada do not spend enough compared with the US. In an attempt to avoid Trump wrecking the first Nato summit of his second term, the alliance's new secretary general, Mark Rutte, proposed a 3.5% plus 1.5% target, though there is some ambiguity about the target date. Initial reports suggested that Rutte wanted allies to hit the target from 2032, though earlier this week British sources suggested the date could be 2035. Sweden's defence minister said he would like to see the target hit by 2030. Only Poland currently exceeds the 3.5% target for hard military spending at 4.32%, according to Nato figures, while the US defence budget, the largest in the alliance, amounts to 3.4% of GDP, at $967bn (£711bn). The UK spends 2.33% of GDP on its military, but has pledged to increase that to 2.5% by 2027 and to 3% some time in the next parliament. Earlier this week the prime minister, Keir Starmer, declined to set a firm date for the UK achieving 3% as he unveiled a strategic defence review. Related: Why is defence such a hard sell? The same reason Starmer is struggling in the polls | Martin Kettle Rutte will visit London on Monday to meet Starmer before the summit. Downing Street said the prime minister and the secretary general would 'talk about how we ensure all allies step up their defence spending now in order to respond to the threats that we face now'. Germany's defence minister, Boris Pistorius, said Berlin would need up to 60,000 additional troops to meet new Nato targets for weapons and personnel. 'We are stepping up to our responsibility as Europe's largest economy,' the minister said on Thursday. Germany, which currently spends 2.12% of GDP on defence, had been singled out by Trump as a laggard in spending, though until Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Berlin had been reluctant to be a leader in European military spending, partly due to the memories of the militarism of the second world war.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Russia is at war with Britain and US is no longer a reliable ally, UK adviser says
Russia is at war with Britain, the US is no longer a reliable ally and the UK has to respond by becoming more cohesive and more resilient, according to one of the three authors of the strategic defence review. Fiona Hill, from County Durham, became the White House's chief Russia adviser during Donald Trump's first term and contributed to the British government's strategy. She made the remarks in an interview with the Guardian. 'We're in pretty big trouble,' Hill said, describing the UK's geopolitical situation as caught between 'the rock' of Vladimir Putin's Russia and 'the hard place' of Donald Trump's increasingly unpredictable US. Hill, 59, is perhaps the best known of the reviewers appointed by Labour, alongside Lord Robertson, a former Nato secretary general, and the retired general Sir Richard Barrons. She said she was happy to take on the role because it was 'such a major pivot point in global affairs'. She remains a dual national after living in the US for more than 30 years. 'Russia has hardened as an adversary in ways that we probably hadn't fully anticipated,' Hill said, arguing that Putin saw the Ukraine war as a starting point to Moscow becoming 'a dominant military power in all of Europe'. As part of that long-term effort, Russia was already 'menacing the UK in various different ways,' she said, citing 'the poisonings, assassinations, sabotage operations, all kinds of cyber-attacks and influence operations. The sensors that we see that they're putting down around critical pipelines, efforts to butcher undersea cables.' The conclusion, Hill said, was that 'Russia is at war with us'. The foreign policy expert, a longtime Russia watcher, said she had first made a similar warning in 2015, in a revised version of a book she wrote about the Russian president with Clifford Gaddy, reflecting on the invasion and annexation of Crimea. 'We said Putin had declared war on the west,' she said. At the time, other experts disagreed, but Hill said events since had demonstrated 'he obviously had, and we haven't been paying attention to it'. The Russian leader, she argues, sees the fight in Ukraine as 'part of a proxy war with the United States; that's how he has persuaded China, North Korea and Iran to join in'. Putin believed that Ukraine had already been decoupled from the US relationship, Hill said, because 'Trump really wants to have a separate relationship with Putin to do arms control agreements and also business that will probably enrich their entourages further, though Putin doesn't need any more enrichment'. When it came to defence, however, she said the UK could not rely on the military umbrella of the US as during the cold war and in the generation that followed, at least 'not in the way that we did before'. In her description, the UK 'is having to manage its number one ally', though the challenge is not to overreact because 'you don't want to have a rupture'. This way of thinking appears in the defence review published earlier this week, which says 'the UK's longstanding assumptions about global power balances and structures are no longer certain' – a rare acknowledgment in a British government document of how far and how fast Trumpism is affecting foreign policy certainties. The review team reported to Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves, and the defence secretary, John Healey. Most of Hill's interaction were with Healey, however, and she said she had met the prime minister only once – describing him as 'pretty charming … in a proper and correct way' and as 'having read all the papers'. Hill was not drawn on whether she had advised Starmer or Healey on how to deal with Donald Trump, saying instead: 'The advice I would give is the same I would give in a public setting.' She said simply that the Trump White House 'is not an administration, it is a court' in which a transactional president is driven by his 'own desires and interests, and who listens often to the last person he talks to'. She added that unlike his close circle, Trump had 'a special affinity for the UK' based partly on his own family ties (his mother came from the Hebridean island of Lewis, emigrating to New York aged 18) and an admiration for the royal family, particularly the late queen. 'He talked endlessly about that,' she said. On the other hand, Hill is no fan of the populist right administration in the White House and worries it could come to Britain if 'the same culture wars' are allowed to develop with the encouragement of Republicans from the US. She noted that Reform UK had won a string of council elections last month, including in her native Durham, and that the party's leader, Nigel Farage, wanted to emulate some of the aggressive efforts to restructure government led by Elon Musk's 'department of government efficiency' (Doge) before his falling-out with Trump. 'When Nigel Farage says he wants to do a Doge against the local county council, he should come over here [to the US] and see what kind of impact that has,' she said. 'This is going to be the largest layoffs in US history happening all at once, much bigger than hits to steelworks and coalmines.' Hill's argument is that in a time of profound uncertainty, Britain needs greater internal cohesion if it is to protect itself. 'We can't rely exclusively on anyone any more,' she said, arguing that Britain needed to have 'a different mindset' based as much on traditional defence as on social resilience. Some of that, Hill said, was about a greater recognition of the level of external threat and initiatives for greater integration, by teaching first aid in schools or encouraging more teenagers to join school cadet forces, a recommendation of the defence review. 'What you need to do is get people engaged in all kinds of different ways in support of their communities,' she said. Hill said she saw that deindustrialisation and a rise of inequality in Russia and the US had contributed to the rise in national populism in both countries. Politicians in Britain, or elsewhere, 'have to be much more creative and engage people where they are at' as part of a 'national effort', she said. If this seems far away from a conventional view of defence, that's because it is, though Hill also argues that traditional conceptions of war are changing as technology evolves and with it what makes a potent force. 'People keep saying the British army has the smallest number of troops since the Napoleonic era. Why is the Napoleonic era relevant? Or that we have fewer ships than the time of Charles II. The metrics are all off here,' she said. 'The Ukrainians are fighting with drones. Even though they have no navy, they sank a third of the Russian Black Sea fleet.' Her aim, therefore, is not just to be critical but to propose solutions. Hill recalled that a close family friend, on hearing that she had taken on the defence review, had told her: ''Don't tell us how shite we are, tell us what we can do, how we can fix things.' People understand that we have a problem and that the world has changed.'
