When Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were found unconscious on a bench in Salisbury city centre – five years ago to this day – few would have known that a huge diplomatic crisis was about to erupt.
Mr Skripal, a former Russian intelligence officer turned British double agent, had been targeted with the deadly nerve agent novichok in an assassination attempt, which Western officials have since claimed leads all the way back to the Kremlin.
Though the pair survived the attack, Dawn Sturgess, a mother-of-three who came into contact with the nerve agent from a discarded perfume bottle, thought to have been used by the assassins to administer to the door handle of the Skripals’ home, later died from her exposure to the chemical.
The incident sparked a huge diplomatic row between the UK and Russia, which denied any involvement in the incident, even after UK intelligence forces shared details of two Russian men alleged to have carried out the attack.
A famously frosty meeting between the UK’s then-prime minister, Theresa May, and Russian president Vladimir Putin followed, while Britain expelled 23 diplomats and imposed some limited financial sanctions on assets that “threatened life or property”.
It was, at the time, the strongest response in relation to Putin’s Russia.
According to Keir Giles, an expert in security issues relating to Russia, it was also a significant step up from the “feeble response” to the poisoning of another former Russian agent, Alexander Litvinenko, in London in 2006.
More on Salisbury Spy
Related Topics:
Mr Giles, and senior consulting fellow at Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, told Sky News: “The response to Salisbury was a success story for the UK. It was about as powerful as it could be.
“The UK managed to rally behind it huge solidarity from the West.”
Advertisement
He said one key decision which would have particularly troubled Putin was the naming and shaming of the two alleged assassins, Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, who both denied involvement.
“Putin would have likely hoped for these actions to have been undetected. Suddenly, everybody knows about it and there is no secrecy to it,” Mr Giles added.
Despite this, novichok was used again, against Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, who fell ill during a flight to Moscow in 2020. He later recovered.
The UK’s response to the alleged Russian aggression also did little to dissuade Putin from launching an invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
“The UK’s response would have had no effect on Putin’s conclusion and is independent of Russia’s situation with the invasion of Ukraine.
“It is a completely different issue in Russia – because Salisbury is really about dealing with a former Russian intelligence officer in the UK.”
The war, he said, was instead about satisfying Putin’s longer-term ambition to restore Russia as an imperial power on the world stage.
However, he said the response to Salisbury would have had an impact, particularly on Putin’s confidence to attempt other similar assassinations in the UK.
“There are risks (to these incidents) and these would have to be weighed against the benefit of carrying out a successful attempt.
“The UK’s response to Salisbury would have raised that risk.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:45
Theresa May says the men identified as suspects in the Salisbury poisonings are from Russia’s military intelligence service.
Professor Tomila Lankina, a professor of international relations at London School of Economics (LSE), who has analysed disinformation campaigns in the wake of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in Ukraine, also believes the UK’s strong response to the Salisbury poisonings would have surprised Putin.
“If you look at the Litvinenko poisoning, the responses should have been more robust, but I remember being impressed by the response to Salisbury,” she said.
“Probably the kind of confidence Russia had to carry out the poisoning was preventable if the UK had more strong and forceful reactions to Russia’s past transgressions.
“But I remember being impressed by the response to Salisbury. I think it would have surprised Putin.”
But Professor Lankina, whose book The Estate Origins Of Democracy In Russia looks into the social structures of Russia, believes more could have been done.
“There was a dependency on Russian money, businesses who were advantaged and benefited from Russian money.”
She said she believed there was an indirect pathway between the events of the Litvinenko and Salisbury poisonings and the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
However, she said this pathway would more likely have been broken if the West’s reaction was stronger in the wake of Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.
Professor Svetlana Stephenson, a Russian-born academic living in the UK and working for London Metropolitan University, said she also believed the Salisbury poisonings were in part due to Russia believing it could act without serious repercussions.
“I don’t think that Russia would have wanted the incident to be detected. But when they did, the response was a tacit acknowledgement,” said Prof Stephenson, who has written critical articles about Putin in the country’s independent newspaper, Novaya Gazeta.
“Part of that messaging was that ‘we can do what we like’.
“In Russia, it would have just been seen as a security services situation, simply Russians dealing with someone they regard as a traitor, rather than an attack on UK soil.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:52
Putin boosting nuclear forces
Prof Stephenson believes, for this reason, that the Salisbury attack would have had little impact on Putin’s confidence in any confrontation with the West.
“When the war first started, I thought he looked quite depressed, and you sensed something unexpected had happened, but I think the war has emboldened him and he looks like this is now the new normal,” she added.
“There is some discontent in the cities, but in provincial Russia, people seem to support the war – and even mobilisation.
“But we can only go by what we see because there is no real opposition in Russia.”
A teenage girl who was killed after getting out of a police car on the M5 in Somerset has been named.
Tamzin Hall, 17 and from Wellington, was hit by a vehicle that was travelling southbound between junction 24 for Bridgwater and junction 25 for Taunton shortly after 11pm on Monday.
She had exited a police vehicle that had stopped on the northbound side of the motorway while transporting her.
A mandatory referral was made to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, which is now carrying out its own investigation into what happened.
The police watchdog, the IOPC, has been asked to investigate.
In a statement, director David Ford, said: “This was a truly tragic incident and my thoughts are with Tamzin’s family and friends and everyone affected by the events of that evening.
“We are contacting her family to express our sympathies, explain our role, and set out how our investigation will progress. We will keep them fully updated as our investigation continues.”
Paramedics attended the motorway within minutes of the girl being hit but she was pronounced dead at the scene.
The motorway was closed in both directions while investigations took place. It was fully reopened shortly after 11am on Tuesday, Nationals Highways said.
A survivors group advocating for women allegedly assaulted by Mohamed al Fayed has said it is “grateful another abuser has been unmasked”, after allegations his brother Salah also participated in the abuse.
Justice for Harrods Survivors says it has “credible evidence” suggesting the sexual abuse allegedly perpetrated at Harrods and the billionaire’s properties “was not limited to Mr al Fayed himself”.
The group’s statement comes after three women told BBC News they were sexually assaulted by al Fayed’s brother, Salah.
One woman said she was raped by Mohamed al Fayed while working at Harrods.
Helen, who has waived her right to anonymity, said she then took a job working for his brother as an escape. She alleges she was drugged and sexually assaulted while working at Salah’s home on Park Lane, London.
Two other women have told the BBC they were taken to Monaco and the South of France, where Salah sexually abused them.
The Justice for Harrod Survivors representatives said: “We are proud to support the survivors of Salah Fayed’s abuse and are committed to achieving justice for them, no matter what it takes.”
The group added it “looks forward to the others on whom we have credible evidence – whether abusers themselves or enablers facilitating that abuse – being exposed in due course”.
Salah was one of the three Fayed brothers who co-owned Harrods.
The business, which was sold to Qatar Holdings when Mohamed al Fayed retired in 2010, has said it “supports the bravery of these women in coming forward”.
A statement issued by the famous store on Thursday evening continued: “We encourage these survivors to come forward and make their claims to the Harrods scheme, where they can apply for compensation, as well as support from a counselling perspective and through an independent survivor advocate.
“We also hope that they are looking at every appropriate avenue to them in their pursuit of justice, whether that be Harrods, the police or the Fayed family and estate.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
13:55
Bianca Gascoigne speaks about Al Fayed abuse
The Justice for Harrods Survivors group previously said more than 400 people had contacted them regarding accusations about Mohamed al Fayed, who died last year.
One of those alleged to have been abused is Bianca Gascoigne, the daughter of former England player Paul.
Speaking to Sky News in October, Gascoigne said she was groomed and sexually assaulted by al Fayed when she worked at Harrods as a teenager.
Wes Streeting “crossed the line” by opposing assisted dying in public and the argument shouldn’t “come down to resources”, a Labour peer has said.
Speaking on Sky News’ Electoral Dysfunctionpodcast, Baroness Harriet Harman criticised the health secretary for revealing how he is going to vote on the matter when it comes before parliament later this month.
MPs are being given a free vote, meaning they can side with their conscience and not party lines, so the government is supposed to be staying neutral.
But Mr Streeting has made clear he will vote against legalising assisted dying, citing concerns end-of-life care is not good enough for people to make an informed choice, and that some could feel pressured into the decision to save the NHS money.
Baroness Harman said Mr Streeting has “crossed the line in two ways”.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
“He should not have said how he was going to vote, because that breaches neutrality and sends a signal,” she said.
“And secondly… he’s said the problem is that it will cost money to bring in an assisted dying measure, and therefore he will have to cut other services.
Advertisement
“But paradoxically, he also said it would be a slippery slope because people will be forced to bring about their own death in order to save the NHS money. Well, it can’t be doing both things.
“It can’t be both costing the NHS money and saving the NHS money.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:09
Review into assisted dying costs
Baroness Harman said the argument “should not come down to resources” as it is a “huge moral issue” affecting “only a tiny number of people”.
She added that people should not mistake Mr Streeting for being “a kind of proxy for Keir Starmer”.
“The government is genuinely neutral and all of those backbenchers, they can vote whichever way they want,” she added.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has previously expressed support for assisted dying, but it is not clear how he intends to vote on the issue or if he will make his decision public ahead of time.
The cabinet has varying views on the topic, with the likes of Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood siding with Mr Streeting in her opposition but Energy Secretary Ed Miliband being for it.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is being championed by Labour backbencher Kim Leadbeater, who wants to give people with six months left to live the choice to end their lives.
Under her proposals, two independent doctors must confirm a patient is eligible for assisted dying and a High Court judge must give their approval.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:30
Labour MP Kim Leadbeater discusses End of Life Bill
The bill will also include punishments of up to 14 years in prison for those who break the law, including coercing someone into ending their own life.
MPs will debate and vote on the legislation on 29 November, in what will be the first Commons vote on assisted dying since 2015, when the proposal was defeated.