UK PM Johnson will not face criminal action over links to U.S. businesswoman

[snoop1130]

UK PM Johnson will not face criminal action over links to U.S. businesswoman

By Michael Holden

 

FILE PHOTO: Britain's Prime Minister Boris Johnson is seen at 10 Downing Street, following the outbreak of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), London, Britain, May 13, 2020. REUTERS/John Sibley

 

LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Boris Johnson will not face criminal action following allegations of misconduct over his relationship with a U.S tech entrepreneur but he might have had an intimate relationship with her, the police watchdog said on Thursday.

 

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) launched an investigation last September following a newspaper report that Johnson, when mayor of London, had failed to disclose his personal links to Jennifer Arcuri, who received thousands of pounds in public funding and places on official trade trips.

 

Johnson denied any wrongdoing, saying everything was done with full propriety and that there was no interest to declare.

 

The IOPC’s Director General Michael Lockwood said there was no evidence to indicate Johnson influenced any payments to Arcuri or influenced her participation in trade missions.

 

But Lockwood said “there was evidence to suggest that those officers making decisions about sponsorship monies and attendance on trade missions thought that there was a close relationship between Mr Johnson and Ms Arcuri, and this influenced their decision-making”.

 

Johnson’s spokesman welcomed the fact that “this politically motivated complaint had been thrown out”, saying it was a waste of police time.

 

“Such vexatious claims of impropriety in office were untrue and unfounded,” the spokesman said.

 

The matter was referred to the watchdog because Johnson was head of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, a role equivalent to a police commissioner, during his 2008-2016 term as mayor.

 

The Greater London Authority said it had alerted the IOPC because Innotech, Arcuri’s then company, had received 11,500 pounds ($14,000) from London & Partners, the mayor’s promotional agency, for two events in 2013 and 2014.

 

She attended a trade mission to Singapore and Malaysia in 2014 through Playbox, one of her companies, even though an initial application through Innotech had been declined.

 

Last October, the government’s Internal Audit Agency ruled a decision to award a 100,000 pound grant to a company run by Arcuri was appropriate.

 

Arcuri gave a number of TV interviews after the allegations came to light, saying she and Johnson had enjoyed a “very special relationship”, having bonded over classical literature, but said he had never shown her any favouritism.

 

She repeatedly refused to say whether she had had an affair with Johnson but said he had cast her aside like “some gremlin” after the reports surfaced.

 

“Our review established there was a close association between Mr Johnson and Ms Arcuri and there may have been an intimate relationship,” the IOPC said.

 

It said it would have been wise for Johnson to have declared this as a conflict of interest and might be a breach of the GLA’s Code of Conduct.

 

The London Assembly said it would continue its investigation into Johnson’s conduct.

 

“My message to the prime minister is that this issue isn’t going away just yet,” Assembly member Len Duvall said.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-05-21

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[Relocated]

9 minutes ago, snoop1130 said:

“Our review established there was a close association between Mr Johnson and Ms Arcuri and there may have been an intimate relationship,” the IOPC said.

Any forensic evidence soaked with semen on blue coat? 

Reminds me of Christine Keeler.

[Puchaiyank]

She will tell you it was indeed criminal...his link was prone to failure at the most important moment of their communications...????

[Crazy Alex]

Another dry hole for leftists. Life is good.

[Bluespunk]

5 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

Our review established there was a close association between Mr Johnson and Ms Arcuri and there may have been an intimate relationship,” the IOPC said.

 

It said it would have been wise for Johnson to have declared this as a conflict of interest and might be a breach of the GLA’s Code of Conduct.

 

The London Assembly said it would continue its investigation into Johnson’s conduct.

Ah huh...tick tick tick

[JonnyF]

Excellent news. Johnson has more important things to deal with than a load of salty losers still bitter about Brexit and the landslide election result.

[stevenl]

21 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Excellent news. Johnson has more important things to deal with than a load of salty losers still bitter about Brexit and the landslide election result.

You have only rhetoric, nothing on the topic? Was she favoured with contracts and business trips, should he have declared their relationship?

[Card]

31 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Excellent news. Johnson has more important things to deal with than a load of salty losers still bitter about Brexit and the landslide election result.

He should be prosecuted for deleting all emails and records of his time in office after leaving office. They were not his intellectual property. Johnson is as corrupt and incompetent as his trump hero.

[stevenl]

34 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

It would appear not.

 

 

<snip>

 

Thanks for offering your opinion. I disagree with it, but it is good to see a part of your post without the rhetoric.

 

Pity you're ignoring this part of the IOPC: "It said it would have been wise for Johnson to have declared this as a conflict of interest and might be a breach of the GLA’s Code of Conduct.", and "there was evidence to suggest that those officers making decisions about sponsorship monies and attendance on trade missions thought that there was a close relationship between Mr Johnson and Ms Arcuri, and this influenced their decision-making" seems you're a bit selective.

Edited May 22, 2020 by stevenl

[Rimmer]

A post and a reply importing a none medical condition, term from the US forum has been removed. This is trolling so please don't do it.unless you are in need of a holiday.

[JonnyF]

10 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Thanks for offering your opinion. I disagree with it, but it is good to see a part of your post without the rhetoric.

 

Pity you're ignoring this part of the IOPC: "It said it would have been wise for Johnson to have declared this as a conflict of interest and might be a breach of the GLA’s Code of Conduct.", and "there was evidence to suggest that those officers making decisions about sponsorship monies and attendance on trade missions thought that there was a close relationship between Mr Johnson and Ms Arcuri, and this influenced their decision-making" seems you're a bit selective.

Boris cannot control what an officer does or does not think.

 

If an officer thought there was a relationship and then allowed this opinion to affect their decision making regarding sponsorship, it is the officer who should be reprimanded, not Boris.  

[klauskunkel]

13 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

Arcuri gave a number of TV interviews after the allegations came to light, saying she and Johnson had enjoyed a “very special relationship”, having bonded over classical literature, but said he had never shown her any favouritism

however, he has shown her his Johnson.

[stevenl]

14 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Boris cannot control what an officer does or does not think.

 

If an officer thought there was a relationship and then allowed this opinion to affect their decision making regarding sponsorship, it is the officer who should be reprimanded, not Boris.  

You're again ignoring the part where the IOPC said BJ should have declared their relationship. Since you value the IOPC's opinion, see your reasoning regarding the monies and business trips, you consider this IOPC opinion irrelevant?

[parallaxtech]

50 minutes ago, klauskunkel said:

however, he has shown her his Johnson.

The PM Who Shagged Me

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

You're again ignoring the part where the IOPC said BJ should have declared their relationship. Since you value the IOPC's opinion, see your reasoning regarding the monies and business trips, you consider this IOPC opinion irrelevant?

Lets look at what they actually said. "It said it would have been wise for Johnson to have declared this as a conflict of interest and might be a breach of the GLA’s Code of Conduct."

 

"would have been wise"

"Might be a breach"

 

Hardly a damning indictment is it? The fact that the complaint has been thrown out says it all really. Just a few Anti Tory Remainers trying to make a big story out of it. Boris won't be facing any action and rightly so.

[stevenl]

16 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Lets look at what they actually said. "It said it would have been wise for Johnson to have declared this as a conflict of interest and might be a breach of the GLA’s Code of Conduct."

 

"would have been wise"

"Might be a breach"

 

Hardly a damning indictment is it? The fact that the complaint has been thrown out says it all really. Just a few Anti Tory Remainers trying to make a big story out of it. Boris won't be facing any action and rightly so.

Exactly, that is how you view facts, ignore those you don't like. 

[evadgib]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Boris cannot control what an officer does or does not think.

 

If an officer thought there was a relationship and then allowed this opinion to affect their decision making regarding sponsorship, it is the officer who should be reprimanded, not Boris.  

Boris should refer this particular piece of guesswork to the appropriate authorities as it's disclosure is highly likely to have breached a number of regulations purely for political gain.

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

You have only rhetoric, nothing on the topic? Was she favoured with contracts and business trips, should he have declared their relationship?

 

Nothing criminal, according to the article, although he would have been wise to declare the conflict of interest. 

 

But the left always want to investigate "others' never their own. 

 

Keith Vaz, disgraced former long time MP. Scandals with rent boys and drugs somehow never prosecuted. Vaz is enormously wealthy, numerous high priced properties, and has privately educated all his kids (another socialist who wants to deny the plebs that privilege but not his own spawn). The police have repeatedly dragged their heels on investigating his very visible unusual wealth. Last time because he said he was unwell! Now, having not stood at the last election he's been "elected" chair of the local Labor Party constituency party, shortly after being in a mental hospital.

 

Or perhaps randy old Corbin should have declared a conflict of interest when appointing his old gik Abbott to the shadow cabinet. She weren't there on intelligence for sure.

 

The left seem to want to use the law to pursue others, for anything they invent, but believe themselves to be above it. 

 

 

[Baerboxer]

22 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Exactly, that is how you view facts, ignore those you don't like. 

 

You mean rather than trying to present possible maybes that you like as facts, like you're doing?

[Baerboxer]

21 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Boris should refer this particular piece of guesswork to the appropriate authorities as it's disclosure is highly likely to have breached a number of regulations purely for political gain.

 

Indeed. Of course Reuters aren't exactly politically unbiased. And some of their "sources" are dodgy, maybe even imagined. 

 

I can't imagine any officer or official report including such comments.

[silver sea]

I thought that they have always claimed that when he was London Mayor, he never helped her with her business interests. Instead, whenever he visited her privately, it was so that she could give him some computer technology lessons. 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7500453/Ex-model-said-Boris-Johnson-came-round-technology-lessons.html

 

In other words, I guess, she was showing him how to put his (not so) floppy disk into her hard drive. But as we all know, it’s always Johnson, and not his critics, who talks “an inverted pyramid of piffle”.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-326045/Boris-sacked-lying-affair.html

 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6145051/Ex-mistress-Petronella-Wyatt-reveals-rare-insight-Boris-Johnson.html

 

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by silver sea

[Laughing Gravy]

The progressive lefties and champagne socialist will be crying into their cocktail glasses. I wonder what next they will try to pin on him and prevent democracy.

 

Probably he puts his socks on first or he called his fiancee an animal. Either way, it will be something absurd that the lefty lot will try and justify why he shouldn't be PM, and look idiotic once again and again.

[stevenl]

51 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Nothing criminal, according to the article, although he would have been wise to declare the conflict of interest. 

 

<snip>

 

48 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

You mean rather than trying to present possible maybes that you like as facts, like you're doing?

There you're wrong, that's not what I'm doing. I am doing the same as you: reaching the conclusion that "he would have been wise to declare the conflict of interest. ".

[Rimmer]

Some off topic stuff has been removed

[transam]

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

You're again ignoring the part where the IOPC said BJ should have declared their relationship. Since you value the IOPC's opinion, see your reasoning regarding the monies and business trips, you consider this IOPC opinion irrelevant?

Hey, did you read the topic title.......????

 

Why don't you apply for the job to bury Boris.....Go for it, you seem to know more than those paid to do the job.........????

[RuamRudy]

Imagine if it was discovered that Sadiq Khan had a mistress and that he gave her £120,000 of taxpayers money - this board would be in meltdown. 

[evadgib]

7 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Imagine if it was discovered that Sadiq Khan had a mistress and that he gave her £120,000 of taxpayers money - this board would be in meltdown. 

Not til 2030 though eh?

[NoshowJones]

8 hours ago, Card said:

He should be prosecuted for deleting all emails and records of his time in office after leaving office. They were not his intellectual property. Johnson is as corrupt and incompetent as his trump hero.

If Blair can get away with lying about WMD in order to commit genocide, what are the chances of any British PM or ex PM getting done for anything?

[riclag]

The  BRITISH VERSION of ,lets throw what ever against the wall and see if it's gotcha! The guy is tryin to take care of the sovereignty of his gov! The news is not the news anymore ,is it!

[7by7]

Many a true word.....

 

Britain knew Johnson would never deceive them over affair with a blonde

"Margaret Gerving said: “I knew it was all lies when they said he had an inappropriate sexual relationship. Not Boris, I said. 

“Now he’s been exonerated all those dirty people with their minds in the gutter will finally have to accept he was only having IT lessons from that lovely lady without a sniff of impropriety. 

“There’s just no way he would allow his base lusts to overwhelm his sense of civic duty. He gave her those grants because of her undoubted technological brilliance. Mark my words, she’ll be the next Steve Jobs."