Patrick Spencer: Suspended Tory MP denies sexually assaulting two women at private members' club
An MP has denied two counts of sexual assault allegedly carried out at a private members' club in central London.
Patrick Spencer, who represents Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, is accused of cupping the breasts of two women over their clothes at the Groucho Club in August 2023.
The 37-year-old confirmed his full name and date of birth before pleading not guilty to the offences at Westminster Magistrates' Court.
He is due to appear at Southwark Crown Court on 14 July.
Spencer was suspended from the Conservative Party and had the whip withdrawn after the charges were brought.
The politician was first elected to parliament last year with a majority of 4,290.
Lawyers acting for the MP have previously said he "categorically denies the charges" and would defend against the allegations "robustly in court".
The Groucho Club, on Dean Street, opened in 1985 and became a renowned meeting place for A-list celebrities and others, including actors, comedians and media executives.
The club was named after the comedian and actor Groucho Marx, who reportedly once said he would refuse to join any club that would have him as a member.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
19 minutes ago
- BBC News
Lillie Clack: Mum calls for law change after drink-driving crash
A mother has called for changes in the law after her daughter was killed in a drink-driving crash where she was a Clack, 22, of Morden, south-west London, was injured in the crash in the early hours of Christmas Day 2021 and died three days was among six people in a Mercedes that hit a tree following a police chase, flipped over and burst into flames in Carshalton. The driver, Charlie Hilton, was jailed in 2023 for causing Lillie's death by dangerous driving and driving above the alcohol a coroner's ruling of unlawful killing, Debbie Clack is urging lifetime driving bans for motorists involved in fatal crashes while under the influence. Sebastian Naughton, assistant coroner for London South, said the evidence showed Hilton's actions could be considered as gross negligence as he fled police reaching speeds of more than 100mph (161km/h), carried out an illegal U-turn and ran a red a light as passengers inside the car begged him to after the inquest at South London Coroner's Court, Lillie's mother said: "Lillie went through a horrific ordeal and we are continuing to live through this every day."She added: "Hilton killed my daughter."He pleaded guilty to causing her death by dangerous driving while more than twice the legal alcohol limit, running from the police, refusing to stop, losing control of his car, and crashing into a tree."She is calling for lifetime driving bans for anyone convicted of causing death by dangerous driving while under the influence and for tougher penalties for dangerous drivers. Ms Clack said the crash caused a bleed on Lillie's brain and she died on 28 December. "She was just 22. My baby girl," she said."If going through today's pain means something changes, if it shines a light on what went wrong and stops even one other family from feeling this kind of grief, then it was worth it."It cannot be right that any driver involved in a fatal crash gets to go home still carrying their licence in their pocket. It is also the case that too often those convicted of injuring people by their dangerous driving can one day return to the road."What happened to Lillie, her family, friends and the whole community, has to mean something. We all need to believe that lessons will be learned." 'In trouble' The friends had been enjoying a Winter Wonderland attraction and visited a pub in Morden before accepting a lift home from car crashed in Beeches Avenue, February 2023, Hilton was jailed at the Old Bailey for 10 years and six months after pleading guilty to causing Lillie's death by dangerous driving, three counts of causing serious injury, failing to stop when directed and driving above the alcohol coroner suggested Hilton "possibly knew he was in trouble due to the number of people in his vehicle", that the U-turn was "practically inviting the police to pursue" and he would have known he was over the alcohol limit to "made no effort to ascertain" if his passengers were wearing their seatbelts. In his findings the coroner said: "Despite repeated requests from passengers throughout the pursuit to slow down or stop, the driver of the Mercedes would not stop or slow down after the police were no longer in pursuit of the Mercedes."The Mercedes was travelling at about 70mph - in a 30mph speed zone - just seconds before the car went over a raised pedestrian crossing."The driver of the Mercedes lost control of the vehicle, was weaving before striking kerbs on both sides of the road and leaving the carriageway, striking a tree and the Mercedes," Mr Naughton said."Lillie sustained serious chest and head injuries in the collision."Due to the severity of her injuries there was no possible surgical intervention. Lillie deteriorated and died on 28 December 2021."It is not possible to say if her injuries could have been mitigated if her seatbelt had been fastened."Complications of a head injury was given as the cause of death in a post-mortem examination.
Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Starmer defended protester who sabotaged military aircraft
Sir Keir Starmer defended a protester who sabotaged US bombers when he was a human rights barrister. Details of the case emerged hours after pro- Palestinian activists allegedly damaged military aircraft at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. Footage posted online by Palestine Action on Friday morning showed two people inside the air base, with one riding an electric scooter up to an Airbus Voyager air-to-air refuelling tanker and appearing to spray paint into its jet engine. It has now emerged that the Prime Minister represented a defendant in a similar case in 2003. A group of anti-war protesters had broken into RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire to sabotage US bombers before they flew to Iraq. Sir Keir argued that while the actions were against the law, they were justified because they were trying to stop the planes from committing war crimes. Josh Richards, who was represented by Sir Keir, was cleared after a jury failed to reach a verdict. The revelation was first made by the Politico email newsletter. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch tweeted: 'Worth noting that Keir Starmer defended an activist who broke into an RAF base to set fire to aircraft. Starmer claimed his client was legally justified because it might stop a war crime. 'If he'd won that argument in 2004, what happened at Brize Norton would be perfectly legal.' Downing Street declined to comment, except to point out the 'cab rank' rule - under which barristers have no choice but to take the next case in the queue. There were six trials into the 'Fairford Five' who broke into the airbase in the build-up to the invasion of Iraq. Two were found guilty of causing criminal damage to American vehicles at the base. Two others were acquitted, while Mr Richards - defended by Sir Keir - was cleared after two juries failed to reach a verdict. On Friday morning, Sir Keir described the 'act of vandalism' by Palestine Action as 'disgraceful'. 'The act of vandalism committed at RAF Brize Norton is disgraceful,' he said. 'Our Armed Forces represent the very best of Britain and put their lives on the line for us every day. 'It is our responsibility to support those who defend us.'
Daily Mail
34 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Parents' fury as primary schoolchildren are taught about the 300 different flags of Pride - including an 'intersex-inclusive' and another that celebrates polyamory
Parents were left furious after discovering that their primary-aged children are being taught about the 300 different flags of pride at school. Leaflets handed out by the charity Swindon and Wiltshire Pride claim there are more flags representing sexuality and gender identity than there are for countries. The extensive list includes an 'intersex-inclusive Pride flag', a 'polyamory Pride flag, and even a black and white 'heterosexual flag' for straight people, which it says can include transgender people. The information, displayed by the local council on social media, goes into detail about a 'small selection' of 29 varieties. It says: 'While some might think [300] is too many, it's all part of a drive to be more inclusive of the expansive breadth of identity within the community'. The leaflets are part of a free annual support guide produced by the charity, which says it aims to 'promote equality and diversity for the public benefit'. The three double-page spreads about Pride flags describe the identity each is meant to represent, the meaning behind their colours, and when the flag was designed if known. For example, beneath the pink, purple, and green 'trigender Pride flag', the charity explains that 'trigender is a gender identity in which a person switches between or among several genders, including a third gender', which may change depending 'on the individual's mood or environment.' Parents of children at the primary schools had raised concerns about the material to the local Labour council but, they told The Telegraph they had been ignored. One mother, a former teacher, said the guide being given out in primary schools was 'really concerning'. 'Obviously the polyamory one, encouraging children to have multiple sex partners, they shouldn't be sexualising children,' she said. 'In the guide itself, under education, it states it is 'for schools, teachers, and students'. 'A couple of sentences down, for example, it says 'raise awareness of the lesser known identities across the fetish spectrum',' she added, saying that was 'inappropriate'. Among the other Pride flags are 'genderqueer', 'demiboy' and 'demigirl', 'pangender', 'abrosexual' and the 'straight ally flag', which places the rainbow colours in the shape of an 'A' on top of the black and white heterosexual flag. Helen Joyce, the director of advocacy at human rights charity Sex Matters, said the flags 'draw children in' and 'suggest that they need to find themselves on the list' which is 'inappropriate and unnecessary'. Ms Joyce added that the 'false belief' a child can be born in the wrong body can be 'deeply unsettling for young people' and they should be 'protected from such misguided and harmful ideas'. A spokesman for Swindon and Wiltshire Pride said: 'We believe in 'Pride 365': a year-round commitment to celebrating identity, raising awareness, and supporting LGBTQIA+ people in our community. 'Throughout the year, we engage with a wide range of local events, organisations, and educational settings to build understanding and foster inclusion. 'During this Pride Month, we were invited into a small number of local schools to support their curriculum-led work around diversity and LGBTQIA+ relationships. 'Our support guide includes helpful information, links to support organisations, and content written for all audiences – it contains no sexual content whatsoever. 'It is disheartening, though sadly not surprising, to face unfounded attacks or misrepresentations of our work. 'As a visible LGBTQIA+ charity, we know that some individuals may seek to undermine the progress we are making in fostering a more compassionate, inclusive society. 'We remain proud of our mission and grateful to the many people, schools, and communities who continue to stand with us.' It comes after last week a Christian company vowed to sue a council dubbed 'Wokeminster' over plans to hang up trans-inclusive flags to mark Pride Month. In collaboration with Westminster City Council, the Crown Estate, who own the majority of properties on Regent Street, plan to fly Progress Pride flags in 20 locations throughout the central London area between mid-June and mid-July. But if the proposed decorations are hoisted into the air within the next week, the council, nicknamed 'Wokeminster' by its own chief executive Stuart Love, and the Crown Estate risk facing legal action from the Christian Legal Centre. Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, told The Telegraph that the Pride flags were an attack on traditional beliefs about sex and gender. She warned that the Christian Legal Centre would have no option but to pursue legal action if the council chooses to proceed with the Pride display, arguing that everyone should feel welcome in Regent Street. Ms Williams said: 'They send the message that people holding these views – which are worthy of respect in a democratic society – are not welcome. 'The majority of the public do not know the highly controversial and harmful symbolism presented by the Progress Pride Flag.' The Pride flag was created by American artist and gay rights activist Gilbert Baker and was first displayed in 1978 as a symbol of the LGBTQ+ community. The Progress Pride flag, designed by artist Daniel Quasar, is an amended version including black, brown, pink, pale blue and white stripes to represent people of colour within the LGBTQ+ community, the trans community and those living with HIV/AIDS. Ms Williams continued: 'This ideology has been discredited by the Cass review, the closure of the Tavistock, and most recently Supreme Court ruling. When will the Crown Estate catch up with the rest of society?' In April, five Supreme Court justices ruled that the legal definition of a 'woman' in the 2010 Equality Act refers 'to a biological woman and biological sex'. Lord Hodge said he recognised 'the strength of feeling on both sides' and cautioned against seeing the judgement as a triumph for one side over another, stressing that the law still gives trans people protection against discrimination. Despite this, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch praised the ruling as a 'victory' for women and said it meant the 'era of Keir Starmer telling us women can have penises has come to an end'. The landmark ruling could have far-reaching implications on how sex-based rights apply, including how women-only spaces are allowed to operate. Vicky Lee, founder of the Way Out Club, urged the Christian Legal Centre not to pursue legal action over the Pride decorations. She argued they would need to sue 'for every pair of hot pants, every T-shirt and every flag worn as a cape because Pride Month is here and the superheroes [trans community] are not going away anytime soon.'
