UKC

So at first I thought Boris was just having another bit on the side with this "business woman" who happens to have a dancing Pole in her flat (presumably for "technology lessons"), but it seems that this in itself is just the fun bit of the story.

Yesterday we learn her company was awarded £100K grant for UK only businesses. She was not living here at the time, and the only UK trace of company activity is the address lodged with companies house and a UK phone number. (update found. Apparently they've reregistered to a virtual office in London as of yesterday https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/26/jennifer-arcuri-hacker-hou...)

Boris appeared at events for this company for free as a Keynote speaker (His normal fee is in the 100K bracket). Notably a number of his co speakers have links to Breitbart, Bannon and Farage. That in itself is probably not corrupt but proves links going back as far as 2012.

And now we find it's not just Johnson that's got his nose in the trough. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/26/state-fund-jennifer-arcuri... 

  I think this will run and run and prove much more than just a sordid affair.

It stinks f*cking stinks f*cking stinks f*cking stinks. This is becoming the "new normal".

When this first surfaced, I said to myself “I know that name”. Checked my LinkedIn and yes, we’re connected. I remember meeting her at a social media event at one of the big media agencies back when social was the hottest thing going. I remember thinking two things: she doesn’t really get the industry and she is a complete bullsh1t artist. I can definitely see how her and Boris can get on like a house on fire.

Dancing Pole!?!... I didn't know that such domestic staff existed. 

More here: https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1176839648406122497

They won't once we get Brexit done.

They're like Lapp dancers...

Fair point... Will probably have to settle for a fat bloke from Hull, instead?... Will need to upgrade the pole, mind. 

But they don't Finnish?

(Dammit this was meant to be a serious thread!)

I’ll have to Czech on that

Sorry...

"barking up the wrong tree with this one" - so which is the right tree for evidence of corruption...

Prescott?

Sorry that vision may spoil your day. 

Lately I’ve been thinking the security services’ dossiers on Johnson and Corbyn should be released to the public so we can make some informed choices.

This morning it looks like (someone employed by but cough cough not acting under orders from...) the CIA is taking this approach to Trump.

I’m leaning strongly to the personal opinion that Johnson and Trump are working for the same masters.   Along with half the press...

The thing about Boris (and Trump too) is that he's already so covered in shit, when more shit comes his way it never seems to stick.  Shit just slides off shit, and when you're already completely covered in shit what does one more bit of shit matter?  And besides, his supporters like him to be covered in shit, if he wasn't covered in shit he wouldn't be the same would he?  Shit for Boris is good, it shows he's not like the rest of the MPs who aren't covered in shit.

Been referred to the IOPC (I think that’s what it’s called) for investigation. 

Yes, just seen that. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-jennifer-arcur...

and on it runs...

You've got to admit she has a magnificent chest though.

We're still talking about the fittings in her flat aren't we?

I've no doubt Boris has personally checked out her fixtures and fittings.

And now we have mystery loans: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/28/boris-johnson-jennifer-arc...

I see the Johnson apologists are claiming that the 'due process' for the complaint hasn't been followed.  I didn't realise they were such sticklers for rules, law, etc.

To be honest, more of a concern to me than him bunging some American woman £126k of our money in the hope of a shag, is the credible suggestion that he’s hell bent on steering the whole country to the devastation of a no-deal Brexit to make money for people who’ve backed him financially. That needs investigating sharpish, although I wouldn’t be surprised if, like lying in an election campaign it isn’t actually illegal.  

As I understand it Arcuri was if not an introducer of these backers, at least was in the same social and business circles

How can due process have been followed? The story only emerged this week.

They seem to be inferring that the Rozzers have been involved too soon. 

It will shock you to find out that there are reports that the £126k did indeed buy our pillar of honour, truth and probity a shag. So that’s alright then. As long as it wasn’t wasted. 

Good value. 

Better than spaffing it up the wall...

It sounds like very poor value for money though. Mind you, I suppose it wasn't his money.

You haven't seen him naked

Seems now, like his hero in the US, he may be a sex pest too:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/29/no-10-denies-claims-boris-...

Well, they do call him "Britain Trump", don't you know?

Or he might not be.

Yeah, right.

Serial womanisers are generally also thigh-squeezers, just as right-wing strongmen are generally personally corrupt.

jcm

Of course it did FFS. Johnson’s type don’t pay on account.

jcm

That’s a really convincing argument that you’ve got there.

It's more of an assertion than an argument. Why don't you think of it as a hypothesis (or rather, two hypotheses) and see if you can disprove it (them)? I can't think of any counter-examples to the second part off-hand, although there probably is the odd one. 

I assume that was "Britain's Trump" before Trump himself mangled the phrase, is it weird that everybody just seems to be going with it now even though it makes no sense?  We know Trump can't tell a hyphen from an apostrophe, but are we all covfefe now?

 Not weird at all - it's entirely in keeping with the times!

Except the assertion was really meant to mean that Johnson is guilty. It’s an assertion that should be added to jcm’s previous one - the one that said all leavers are thick or xenophobic.

Johnson might be a womaniser but, despite his best attempts, he’s neither right wing nor a strongman.

Why do you conjoin these two items - is it to try and minimise either or both ?

Incidentally, it has now been generally proved (at least to most of us) that BJ is a serial liar, and the piece in question points out, from two sources - at least one of which who knows BJ well - that his accuser is rather trustworthy. I think I know which side I'm more inclined to believe, all things considered.

You’re inferring something that I never meant.

Jcm conjoined the two.

You should believe in a person being innocent until proven guilty.

Whether or no you like or hate that person shouldn’t come into it, should it?

'Innocent until proven guilty' is a legal standard that doesn't apply here, in the 'court of public opinion'. In situations like this where male power and privilege is significant we can, at least to begin, with give the woman some credibility. 

I never said anything about credibility.

But good luck with proving something from 20 years ago.

But this isn’t about who actually did what , it’s a smear campaign.

It might be. But you appear to have decided that Charlotte Edwards is a liar and that Borid is a truthful chap, and that's a little odd given that we know Borid lies.

Boris has told numerous lies.

If Edwards is telling the truth then the place to make an accusation of a sexual assault is a police station not a newspaper column.

But this time you think he's telling the truth. Ergo she is lying.

That's her choice, Borid could always sue for libel.

Why?  It's not provable, and possibly not criminal.  However, it is a serious matter and says a lot about the prime minister

It says whatever you choose to believe.

If it’s true it’s more proof of Johnson’s unsavoury character.

If it a lie then there’ll be the inevitable ‘no smoke without fire’ accusations from some.

Maybe, but either way it is not true to say it should only be reported to the police.

This is nonsense.

The law should consider someone innocent until proven guilty, that's really important.

Individuals can and should make up their own minds (hopefully based on the balance of evidence and reviewing it if more comes to light); there are loads of situations where it's important to be able to make judgement calls about someone's trustworthiness.

Yes, I think she’s lying.

Not because Johnson denies it but because it’s an allegation from an alleged incident 20 years which the alleged victim has sud decided to disclose in a newspaper.

I could of course be wrong.

So you assess the evidence available to you and make a decision.

When you meet or read about someone do you, before you obtain and assess your evidence, think of the person as being trustworthy or untrustworthy?

I didn’t say ‘only to the police’ but if Johnson is indeed a sex pest, as stated by a previous poster, then should he not be subject to a police investigation?

Jacques Chirac was known as a bon viveur and ladies man and the French are having a day of mourning for him. What a bunch of uptight tw@ts we are, Vive la France!

I'm not trying to prove anything. What are you talking about? And how is one woman saying what happened to her a smear campaign? 

I don't anyone much minds about Boris shagging around.  Sexual harassment, using tax payers money to fund shagging, and trying to wriggle out of support children are rather different matters, however.

I think there's a difference between 'being a ladies man' and putting your hand up someone's skirt against their wishes. 

Or maybe there isn't, and maybe Chirac wouldn't be so popular if he had been born 40 years later. Isn't there (rightly) a bit of a backlash against this sort of thing in France?

The evidence seems to be the word of a woman widely regarded as trustworthy on the one hand, and the word of a proven, serial liar whose career is in on the line on the other.  I'm sure you are right though, Boris is telling the truth here.

So are the Me Too campaigners a "bunch of uptight tw@ts" as well then?

I think Boris is a bit of a chancer, he might have used his position to help increase the odds of a short term encounter with a much younger lady, who was probably happy to use her relative youth as leverage to get what she wanted from him.

Prince Andrew though, love to see something more thorough there. Perhaps in due course as the investigation progresses. 

Yes, sorry, my ‘prove anything ‘ wasn’t a suitable reply to your post.

It’s a smear campaign, in my opinion, because it’s untrue and is timed to do more damage to Johnson’s reputation.

Thanks.

Depends how much of his “leadership ability” is heritable I suppose...

Which I didn’t say, of course. I should have added to my previous observation that most of them are also shameless liars.

jcm

But you don't know that it's untrue. And releasing this at an inopportune time for Johnson doesn't make it a smear.

So what was your statement about Brexit, xenophobia and thick?

I don’t know if it’s true.

Nobody does.

But I’m sticking with my position, Mrs Cummings seems to support this.

Pointless then, pointless 20 years on, the police won't do anything with it.

Revenge is a dish best served cold. Imagine the fortitude it took not to air this while he was London mayor, keeping her powder dry all these years fearing he may one day rise higher. Bravo.

jk

I actually said; "I think I know which side I'm more inclined to believe, all things considered."

And the reason I dislike BJ and hat his guts is BECAUSE he's a two-faced lying **.

** Please insert your own choice here

Your assessment  of Johnson’s character is correct.

So you wouldn't mind if some strange man stuck their hand up your good lady's skirt ??

Strange idea to support - at any point either now or in history.

Really?  You believe Boris, who has been sacked from 2 jobs for lying, lied to the face of a man ON CAMERA in a hospital just last week, has made up countless stories in the press during his time as a reporter, has had countless affairs and even had a child with another woman whilst still married.... over Charlotte Edwardes, who doesn't have any history of deception, just because it happened 20 years ago?

I'd suggest you ask yourself who is more likely to be telling the truth, on the balance of probabilities.   

No, that's how a court of law works.  Private individuals are entitled to their own opinions about whether a person is guilty or not as we are not the ones who will administer justice.

So you are groped at an event and after keeping quiet for 20 years you decide to tell people about it in a newspaper?

I think that there are probably plenty of women who have been groped and for a variety of reasons either never tell or delay telling their story.

I don’t believe that Edwardes is one of these women.

With Johnson’s track record it is easy to see why an accusation is credible and believable.

That doesn’t make it true.

I don’t disagree with you.

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt until something convinces me otherwise. 

Agreed it doesn't make it true.  Just more likely to be true than not.

As do I, and Boris Johnson has given me plenty of reason not to believe a god damn word that comes out of his mouth.

I'm not convinced her "relative youth" was one of the principal assets he will have been interested in!

It was meant to be a light-hearted, sarcastic post poking some fun at our own views of our PMs wandering hands compared to the French, who today are having a big day remembering and celebrating one of the masters of the art of trying to f*ck anything in a skirt. 

I thought the Vive la france and the smiley made it obvious it was a piss take...obviously not.

I said that most of them make stupid and xenophobic statements from time to time, and that their leaders evidently believe that obvious lies and appeals to xenophobia and/or racism are the best way to secure their votes.

jcm

You’re going to make me search for it, aren’t you?

On the subject of Johnson’s womanising and personal corruption, by the way, he used to send his Mayor of London official car to pick up his then squeeze, a married bridge player, after the evening session.

jcm

Some years ago, when the subject of B J came up on here, you remarked that you'd met him and, in your view, he wasn't a man to have beside you in the trenches. At the time, that remark chilled me to the bone (it still does). It wasn't that I doubted it; quite the reverse. Although we've never met and I sometimes find you acerbic (we're probably on polar opposite ends of a tough/tender minded spectrum), I would unhesitatingly trust your judgement on such a matter. And, my God, how right you were! 

One problem with sociopaths is that you keep making excuses because they 'must' have better feelings, hidden somewhere. But you'll go to your grave looking for that somewhere. Although rationally one shouldn't have been surprised, emotionally, last week's, "Humbug!" moment was horrific. Now I feel that Johnson is capable of well-nigh anything - Cummings too. The sooner public life is cleansed of them, the better.

Mick

12.10 Sat on the proroguing illegal thread.

jcm

Thanks.

I’d already found it but didn’t post it as a gesture of goodwill.

I honestly think that the French would think less of a powerful politician if he didn't have a string of mistresses.

Shit... a bridge player.  Is there no limit to his depravity?!

I wonder if he played the same hand again...

So did Boris pay £120,000 of our money to this American woman to get sex with her?

Never let it be said again that Conservatives are good with money or our money. 

A Tory spokesman has just announced that Corbyn would’ve paid £130,000 and done it with a terrorist. 

Ah, bridge players, renowned the world over for their clever cheating tactics.

I am perfectly willing to believe that this is something that Boris would do but I equally believe that someone coming forward to reveal this 20 years later and at such a politically charged time may have something other than her reputation in mind.

Al

I think that’s unlikely. A more realistic interpretation might be that Boris, considered a significant catch by a sizeable segment of the female population, was already enjoying extensive pole-dancing lessons before the relationship became more business-like.

I attended university with Boris’ first wife at the time she met him. She was the biggest catch in the year. I don’t think BJ struggles with getting laid. Indeed the thigh-squeezing story doing the rounds suggests his success is enough to make him feel entitled to it.

Worse. He’d make her Home Secretary and give her £10.9bn to play with

I think I may have confused this allegation with another one which only goes to show that this is looking increasingly like a politically motivated witch hunt.

Al

Don't be obscured by the smoke screen. The Arcuri affair is where the real juice is. Aged sexual assault accusations could be contentious and rely on hearsay however valid, but flying a friend around the world with funding she wasn't entitled to is very much "Misconduct in public office" territory.

I agree but stand by my statement.

I think you might be right, but there's a huge difference between having a string of mistresses and giving unsolicited and unwanted attention to women's inner thighs.

I have no doubt the full anti-boris crowd is trying to get stuff out, but that doesn't mean it's not going to stick at some point (although there's an argument to say if you are already covered in it, throwing more on isn't noticeable and is perhaps a key tenement of the Bannon/Trump strategy) . As I implied at the beginning, I don't think this is about just a nasty little sex story.

Steady on, I was just responding to a post about Jaques  Chirac. BJ’s thigh-squeezing exploits are of very little interest to me.

Fair enough, but the latest allegations about Johnson bear little resemblance to the kind of gigolo-type, irresistible-to-women behaviour that the French may have greater tolerance of in public life than the British.

You can't give them both the benefit of the doubt - shouldn't you give the benefit of the doubt to the person who is not a raging liar?

When you’re as belligerent and confrontational as Johnson you need to expect a bit of a fight back and some dirt to be mined, and when you’re as amoral as he is you can expect that your opponents will be mining a rich seam.  

Out of interest, where do you stand on public money being given to friends (and perhaps friends with benefits) of senior politicians, when those friends don’t meet the criteria for receiving that public money?

Hang on. Lets not confuse issues and subscribe views to me that I have not opined. Boris could be guilty of all sorts of things and it's right that he be investigated but at the same time it's all very convenient for those who oppose him so there could be a witch hunt. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I’ve just been a little bit sick. 

If £126,000 isn’t bad enough, how about £100,000,000?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prime-ministers-100m-plan-for-former-mod...

Define witch hunt? I'd agree he is now under more scrutiny than before because he is PM but that is what you'd expect? The reason it may look to you like he is getting more attention than other politicians is because he's given journalists so much material. Opposition leaders get hit jobs for wearing anoraks and eating bacon sandwiches so it's not unfair for him to be quizzed about these things. If anything he's getting off lightly given his unfunded promises and lies about 40 new hospitals. 

No.

Says it all really.

If it does then why was he dishing out £126,000 of our money to get sex? 

To me it means specifically going out to dig up dirt on someone to intentionally question and ruin their personal reputation for political gain at a time when it is oh so convenient for their opponents. This is not to defend the character or the activities of the victim but rather a condemnation of the objectives of the perpetrators of the witch hunt, whatever the political persuasion.

Is it the Sunday Times or Charlotte Edwards (or both) that you're saying is perpetrating a witch hunt? Is it still a witch hunt if the allegations are true?

The term witchhunt does rather bother me.

I mean it’s not like people going around looking for people they think might be a witch – that is a witch hunt.

We have someone who some people suspect is a witch.  People are trying to determine if they are a witch. This is the witch trial stage.

Terminology matters.

Sorry I raised it I though there was a general understanding of what it meant.  Looks like I was wrong

Al

I agree it's a problematical word.  One man's witch hunt is another mans thorough investigation and that may depend upon which side you sit.  My concern is with regard to the motivation and that is regardless of sides and seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable position to take.

Investigative journalism= witch hunt? OK got it.

No.  Are you being awkward and argumentative or do you seriously not understand what I said.

I understand that this honest broker schtick is wearing a bit thin.  On the one hand people like you say you can't defend Johnson but then go out of your way to stifle criticism. This is a PM who came to power following a pretty unedifying stint as a minister with minimal scrutiny (remember his team didn't trust him to face the press during the Tory leadership campaign). He already had a reputation for lying (which cost him two jobs) and it has since transpired he lied to the Queen and parliament and has very probably misappropriated public funds, possibly illegally.

Now to avoid him being quizzed on this you and your ilk turn to the Trump-Bannon play book by shouting witch hunt instead of allowing the allegations to be investigated. 

What have I not understood?

Is there a problem if the motivation is a desire to demonstrate that our Prime Minister is untrustworthy and may feel willing to play fast and loose with the rules? 

Do we really need an investigation to demonstrate that?

Very fair point. You and I may not need such an investigation, but it seems there are some for whom it is a step too far. 

There's no need to investigate whether Borid misused public funds because we know he's untrustworthy and plays fast and loose with the rules? 

My post was a rhetorical question.

Well I was trying to keep this away from personalities, specific parties and specific incidents i.e. I was trying to be neutral, but seeing as you have brought it up.  If a similar series of revelations with regard to JC were to materialise you and "your ilk" would be quick to claim witch hunt.  And if the circumstances were similar I would support that claim.

Just try to understand what I write and don't jump down my throat because of your preconceived ideas about me and your specific political leanings. I was questioning the motivations. If you cannot discuss it in that context then there really is no point in continuing.

Well I wouldn't.

Call me old fashioned but when there are good grounds for believing that a very senior politician has misused a sizeable amount of public money I think the full facts need to be established. Corruption must never be tolerated, never.

What if the motivation is to establish whether the PM has broken the law? 

No issue with me but if the motivation is to discredit someone regardless for political gain, I'm not comfortable with that. And if the allegations are as serious as stated they should of course be investigated no matter what the source. I have never said otherwise despite some of you trying to corrupt my meaning.   I am questioning the motivations.  They may be genuine sincere and well intentioned but equally they may not. Surely no one can be defending someone who says go and dig up some dirt on person A or B or C merely to discredit them? 

Eric9points:  I have never said that and it is extremely disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

It seems to me to be a ludicrous position to take. What does it matter what Ms Edwardes’ motives are? The question is whether the allegation is true, and if it is true, whether it matters.

In any case, it’s easily understandable. If a young woman is assaulted by a powerful older man and keeps quiet because she understands, correctly no doubt, that speaking out will end her career, then nothing is more natural than speaking out when, and only when, she sees her attacker attain a position of power which she doesn’t believe he has the proper character for, especially when he is now abusing that power in the same way as he abused his power all those years ago. Challenging that motivation is pitiful and merely tells you a lot about the person who challenges it.

jcm

But you'll never know whether the motivations are genuine until the issue is properly investigated. So, it would seem essential to carry out a thorough investigation in order to establish the true position. Given that to be the case, would you be in favour of a full and thorough investigation into potential wrong-doing by our Prime Minister? 

Oh FFS of course.  I explicitly said so. What is it on this forum do people not understand plain English? or is it more malicious.  It certainly feels it at times.

Well, if by similar revelations you mean misuse of public money  and hands on thighs then Corbyn seems to avoided those bullets, but he's been dragged over the coals for plenty of things (IRA, Hamas, antisemitism) since becoming leader of the Labour Party and I haven't seen you jumping to his defence despite them all being branded a "witch hunt" by his supporters?

Or it may be your efforts at obfuscation which draw people down certain paths. Perhaps you might reflect on your own patterns of behaviour as well as those of others. 

Still, good to see you agree that the PM should be properly investigated, regardless of the motivations of his accusers. 

To be fair to Harry, your posts do come across as "Boris apologist", even if that's not intended/accurate. 

Perhaps, just consider this for a moment, I did not see those allegations on UKC.  I'm not sure how much longer I can go on saying what I'm saying. My post has nothing to do with specific allegations, the individuals or the political party. F*ck it I don't have the energy to say it again.  I can only assume that some of you are too stupid to understand others seem intent on baiting me by misrepresenting my words.

And there we have the problem in a sentence.  I have specifically said I do not like Boris on several occasions and posts.

That's a little pompous but I will.  In return and being equally pompous perhaps you could learn to read better.

I do apologise. I came late to this thread and missed some of your earlier posts on the importance of the investigations into Johnson's behaviour. 

Accepted but therein lies my frustration. I'm trying to be crystal clear, it is others who keep coming back at me with the same accusations that I have already denied and explained.  It's very wearing.

You said "I think I may have confused this allegation with another one which only goes to show that this is looking increasingly like a politically motivated witch hunt"

Why assume he was buying sex? Could be silence, access, information... all sort of juicy options. That said, since we can assume the security services will have been all over this before he was made PM so sex does seem the safe option.

jk