PM Johnson: No impropriety in my relationship with U.S. businesswoman

 

Britain's Prime Minister Boris Johnson is seen outside the venue for the Conservative Party annual conference in Manchester, Britain October 1, 2019. REUTERS/Henry Nicholls

 

MANCHESTER, England (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said on Tuesday there had been no impropriety in his relationship with a U.S. businesswoman which is now subject to a possible misconduct investigation.

 

The government of London said on Friday it had referred Johnson to Britain’s police watchdog for potential investigation over allegations of misconduct involving tech entrepreneur Jennifer Arcuri while he was mayor of London.

 

“I can tell you there was no impropriety as far as I’m concerned,” Johnson said when asked about the allegations on LBC Radio.

 

Asked why the allegations had surfaced, he linked them to those who wanted to stop him from delivering Brexit.

 

“I think there’s a very good reason, and that is that I’ve been tasked, one way or the other, to get Brexit done by Oct. 31, and there are quite a lot of well meaning, and highly intelligent people, who basically think that would be something they don’t want to see,” he said.

 

“And I think that there is a concerted effort now to frustrate Brexit.”

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-10-01

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

Just the bit about handing her a large wedge of public money to be explained.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Just the bit about handing her a large wedge of public money to be explained.

Shouldn't there be an 'allegedly' in there or does his being a brexiter enable you to ride rough-shod over all that?

Edited October 1, 20196 yr by evadgib

Shouldn't there be an 'allegedly' in there or does his being a brexiter enable you to ride rough-shod over all that?

So then, Boris allegedly cavorted with assistant on generous public expenses.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Much more detail about the irregularirities here - corrupt as <deleted>.  Lock Him Up !

 

The latest twist follows revelations that firms run by the entrepreneur – who is said to have confided in friends she was having an affair with Johnson – received £126,000 of public money. About £11,500 of that figure was paid by L&P to Innotech while Johnson was mayor and after Cuneo left the agency. Arcuri also went on three overseas trade missions led by Johnson, two of which she had initially been turned down for.

The Sirius scheme, run by UK Trade and Investment (now the Department for International Trade), aimed to attract international entrepreneurs to set up businesses in Britain by providing visas, expert advice and mentorship, as well as a £12,000 grant.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/01/revealed-jennifer-arcuri-got-visa-from-scheme-run-by-former-johnson-official

Edited October 1, 20196 yr by beautifulthailand99

What is the world coming to when a politician can't fund dirty weekends away with some hot totty from public funds? 

With this, his history of lying and the groping, I wonder how far back you have to go find his and Trump's common ancestor

14 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

The government of London said on Friday it had referred Johnson to Britain’s police watchdog for potential investigation

Isn't this kind of nonsense why Britain wants to leave the EU. Non elected officials melding in politics?

5 hours ago, champers said:

What is the world coming to when a politician can't fund dirty weekends away with some hot totty from public funds? 

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

 

It seems Remainers are so quick to be judge, jury and executioner. I wonder if it's anything to do with his Pro-Brexit stance? Surely not... 

8 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

Isn't this kind of nonsense why Britain wants to leave the EU. Non elected officials melding in politics?

Non elected officials meddling in politics? Sounds like the Miller case. 

 

Don't like a government decision? Got money for lawyers and media coverage? No problem, take the government to court and let the unelected, unaccountable and unrepresentative judges over-rule the decision.   

 

Another gift to Democracy from Remainers who cannot accept losing.

 

 

It he's swinging round the go-go pole with her, that's his own personal business. If that pole is being improperly subsidised with public money, that's everyone's business, and he should resign/be sacked.

in related news:

Donald Trump has offered to send his lawyer Rudy Giuliani to assist Boris Johnson.

"My friend Boris got in trouble over his Johnson and my friend Rudy has a lot of experience dealing with that kind of fallout."

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

 

It seems Remainers are so quick to be judge, jury and executioner. I wonder if it's anything to do with his Pro-Brexit stance? Surely not... 

Give us a break. She's already admitted to bonking him to friends and colleagues. 

 

https://bdnews24.com/people/2019/09/30/us-businesswoman-admitted-affair-with-boris-johnson-uk-report-says

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7516443/American-model-Jennifer-Arcuri-told-friends-having-sexual-affair-Boris-Johnson.html

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/29/world/europe/boris-johnson-jennifer-arcuri.html

35 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Give us a break. She's already admitted to bonking him to friends and colleagues.

In which case 'why now'?

 

16 hours ago, evadgib said:

Shouldn't there be an 'allegedly' in there or does his being a brexiter enable you to ride rough-shod over all that?

The transaction is a matter of public record.

 

What’s missing is a credible explanation as to why it was made.

 

Anybody knows you can't just go around squeezing a woman's thigh. I am horrified. You must have written permission, a waiver. What's wrong with these men?

6 minutes ago, evadgib said:

In which case 'why now'?

 

Why not now?

45 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Why not now?

After 20 years another month wouldn't have made much difference.... if B-B-Brexit wasn't set for 31 October ????

1 hour ago, johnnybangkok said:

Give us a break. She's already admitted to bonking him to friends and colleagues. 

 

https://bdnews24.com/people/2019/09/30/us-businesswoman-admitted-affair-with-boris-johnson-uk-report-says

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7516443/American-model-Jennifer-Arcuri-told-friends-having-sexual-affair-Boris-Johnson.html

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/29/world/europe/boris-johnson-jennifer-arcuri.html

Trial by Daily Mail ????.

 

Actually given the courts farcical ruling on Prorogation last week, your probably better off being judged by the media than by the likes of Judge Hale in her Kangaroo court ????.

 

 

53 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Why not now?

People will assume it's a political hatchet job, which to be fair, it is.

7 minutes ago, evadgib said:

After 20 years another month wouldn't have made much difference.... if B-B-Brexit wasn't set for 31 October ????

Surely it's just a coincidence that she's raised it now... ????

 

????

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The transaction is a matter of public record.

 

What’s missing is a credible explanation as to why it was made.

 

So what's actually missing is the smoking gun?

This is a non story until such time as credible evidence emerges or he changes sides (an' I'm not talking 'Brexit' to 'Remain' lol) ????

Edited October 2, 20196 yr by evadgib

7 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Trial by Daily Mail ????.

 

Actually given the courts farcical ruling on Prorogation last week, your probably better off being judged by the media than by the likes of Judge Hale in her Kangaroo court ????.

 

 

So now you decide to have a go at the Daily Mail? Didn't see you doing much of that when they printed nonsense about the EU. The hypocrisy knows no bounds.

 

P.S. There is a reason why I sourced 3 separate publications.  

Non elected officials meddling in politics? Sounds like the Miller case. 
 
Don't like a government decision? Got money for lawyers and media coverage? No problem, take the government to court and let the unelected, unaccountable and unrepresentative judges over-rule the decision.   
 
Another gift to Democracy from Remainers who cannot accept losing.
 
 

Hard Brexiteer justification of breaking the law. Impressive.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Anybody knows you can't just go around squeezing a woman's thigh. I am horrified. You must have written permission, a waiver. What's wrong with these men?

Creepy men and creepy justifications.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

So what's actually missing is the smoking gun?
This is a non story until such time as credible evidence emerges or he changes sides (an' I'm not talking 'Brexit' to 'Remain' lol) [emoji41]

Non-story and non credible evidence. Yeah, right.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Surely it's just a coincidence that she's raised it now... [emoji849]
 
[emoji38]

Comes with all the other evidence that Boris is unfit for office.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

18 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Hard Brexiteer justification of breaking the law. Impressive.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

I am against unelected, unaccountable judges reversing the political decisions of elected governments. 

 

Sounds right up your street though.

 

 

7 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

I am against unelected, unaccountable judges reversing the political decisions of elected governments. 

 

Sounds right up your street though.

 

 

What is your opinion about lords, queens, prime ministers, CEO's ?

You are not a hypocrite when it suits you, are you ?

24 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

I am against unelected, unaccountable judges reversing the political decisions of elected governments. 

 

Sounds right up your street though.

 

 

What Johnson did was illegal. 

Also in the UK you have an unelected House of Lords and an unelected head of state.

Presumably you are ok with them passing laws so long as they are ones you agree with.