Forum Topic

Jennifer Acuri

I don't recall seeing her name here yet. But maybe I missed it.

Ken Munn ● 2038d40 Comments

I wonder it's taken so long - I mean 'the scoop'. Is there a strategy in place?

Simon Temple ● 2038d

Is she Chiswick?

Ed Saper ● 2038d

Grubby.

Richard Potts ● 2038d

Is that Honda's posh marque ?

Richard Greenhough ● 2038d

Imagine if Borisina Johnson, a female hack of very shoddy appearance, who had been sacked for lying twice, had cheated on her first husband with  her second husband , had cheated on her second husband with her future third husband and cheated on her future third husband and used public funds to keep him sweet. And lies and lies and lies.

Stewart Jones ● 2038d

"I don't recall seeing her name here yet."It helps if you get the name right, Arcuri.There was a thread in 2019:http://appasp.chiswickw4.com/server/app/forum/ShowMessage.Asp?ID=1337863

Richard Jennings ● 2038d

LOL

Simon Temple ● 2038d

I don't understand why a forum and newsletter for Chiswick has this on the front page. Can someone enlighten me re the Chiswick relevance?

Claire Moran ● 2038d

She has flown into Heathrow and to get to central London she went past Chiswick.

Simon Temple ● 2038d

I'd be delighted to. The investigation relates to a time when Johnson was London Mayor. What it will seek to determine is whether or not he used London Assembly funds corruptly to pay for his mistress to accompany him on trips.Despite the fact that he was carrying on this affair while his wife was battling cancer this is not about his sexual morality. If he had paid for Jennifer Arcuri to come along with him it would have been no concern of ours. However, the price of her trips effectively came out of the Mayoral Precept i.e. it was paid for by you and I. That's why it is both newsworthy and relevant to us.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 2037d

Please, let's get the simple grammar up to scratch before ranting on "it was paid for by you and I."  It wasn't paid for by "I" whoever I might be!!!  Incidentally, I had no idea who this Jennifer person was until I read about Boris dalliance.  It was ever thus,  people in power attract like magnets and most seem incapable of resisting!

Jennifer selig ● 2037d

'people in power attract like magnets and most seem incapable of resisting!'Bloody hell! Bozza in no way, shape or form can be described as attractive - he always looks like a bundle of sh*t tied up ugly, and looks as though he spent the previous night behind Kings Cross station, and that dandruff - well!

Vanessa Smith ● 2037d

Apologies for the grammatical error. However, I would dispute that, however badly written my post was, it wasn't a rant. The cold hard fact is that the investigation may uncover that the current Prime Minister effectively stole money from us.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 2037d

Atleast he has more than one blue suit in the wardrobe 😀That said,his approval rating is up,who would have known

Julian Pavey ● 2037d

"Bozza in no way, shape or form can be described as attractive.."I agree with you, but it seems that a surprisingly large number of women don't. Whether it is the whiff of power that attracts them, or he has some mighty powerful pheromones, I know not. Or perhaps they are just very short-sighted.....But then, Old Jeremiah always looked as though he had spent the night in a skip, but he has also got a track record of landing attractive women. There is no accounting for taste.

Richard Greenhough ● 2037d

Jennifer, criticising other people's grammar or spelling on a public forum is smug and unattractive. If you can't resist the temptation, at least make sure you're above reproach yourself (i.e. observe the rules about apostrophes).

Robert Fish ● 2037d

Let's face it if morals were taken into account there would be few for the job.

Janice Evans ● 2037d

Those who can't keep it zipped-up present an exploitable security risk.

Ken Munn ● 2037d

During wartime possibly, any examples.

Janice Evans ● 2037d

KM: "Those who can't keep it zipped-up present an exploitable security risk."David Lloyd George, who was notorious for being a lecherous old goat, successfully prosecuted the 1st World War to a conclusion (plus ended the war in Ireland).While Lord Palmerston was another eg nicknamed "Lord Cupid", who even at the age of 78 was cited as a co-respondent in a divorce case after the wife of a journalist said she had committed adultery with Palmerston while visiting him at the House of Commons. (It later turned out to be attempted blackmail, but the fact that the blackmailer thought - correctly - that it might be believed says it all).Anyhow, as Foreign Secretary, Minister for War and eventually PM at the height of Empire, Palmerston was involved in more wars than you could shake a stick at, most notably in the Crimea, yet his extra-curricular activities never held him back, even in the age of Victorian prudery.Quite honestly, I don't think too many people care about Boris' private life, even if it should involve petty, personal corruption, as alleged in the Arcuri case. Rather the test will be whether he can govern successfully - or in his case, somehow persuade us that he is doing so, even if he's not.

Richard Cathcart ● 2037d

You've missed the point. Whatever the issues a person might have with Boris Johnson's private morality, he breaks no law by having an affair when his wife is battling cancer.By arranging for a woman he is having an affair with to accompany him on a number of trips when he is acting as London Mayor very well may amount to a criminal offence. It certainly is a misuse of public funds. He can't claim he was unaware of the rules because, as I learnt from the article, he already had received a warning over a previous mistress.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 2037d

Well if Boris has been proven to have committed a criminal offence, then at a minimum he'd have to resign.But it could prove very hard to prove to the necessary standard of proof etc.And my opinion is that if it comes up short of that, not enough people will care enough about the strong whiff of corruption from this, er, affair.After all, he's been up to this sort of thing all his career and it hasn't prevented him from "getting to the top of the greasy pole", as another PM of similar character (though much greater competence), Disraeli famously put it.Indeed, I suspect some male voters, at least, may even have a sneaking admiration for Boris's behaviour - perhaps borne out of envy?

Richard Cathcart ● 2037d

Hmm, every few months (pre-pandemic) I socialise with former work colleagues (who are now effectively my competitors) or another consultant I regularly work with on projects and I record it as business entertainment of clients.  In reality it's nothing more than afew beers with the lads I used to work with or enjoying a decent meal and afew drinks with someone who is a very good personal friend of mine (albeit we're not having an affair) who also just happens to be a consultant whom I often bring in on projects and vice versa.  So in the cold light of day it's not strictly business entertainment but purely personal socialising.But nonetheless I record it as a business expense and it comes off my tax bill.  And I don't feel remotely 'guilty' about doing so given the amount I pay in tax compared to the complete lack of support I get from the government, and whilst I'm not going to completely take the **** I do make sure that anything I can record as a business expense I do so.As I strongly suspect do most of you.  So I think I'd be somewhat hypocritical if I passed judgement on Boris for doing something that isn't a million miles away from what I do from time to time.

Adam Beamish ● 2037d

Are these alleged trips ones that he would have been allowed to take his wife with him at the public expense ? If so, the difference in the cost of taking a mistress rather than a wife would presumably be minimal.

Richard Greenhough ● 2037d

Surprising it took her so long to sell a story.

Nick Jenkins ● 2037d

Is the Mayor of London allowed to take his or her spouse along with them on official trips, at the council tax payer's expense? In the case of Arcuri, I understand the trip (or was it trips?) was business promotion for London businesses and she went along as the representative of a London business - something to do with IT - so she wasn't there as Johnson's official partner. She also received a handsome subvention from GLA funds for going, I believe. The non-minimal sum of £126,000 has been mentioned.

Ken Munn ● 2037d

In 2019 she said all allegations were false.

Janice Evans ● 2037d

Perhaps she was being used as a honey trap to encourage foreign businesses to invest in London ?

Richard Greenhough ● 2037d

I think it is very telling that  people do not care that the PM lies and gets away with it so easily.  I don’t imagine that people would turn a blind eye to a female PM if she were to behave in the same way.

Stewart Jones ● 2036d

Anyone who believes what has happened in the Jennifer Arcuri case is analogous to Adam Beamish's slightly dodgy expense claims is unaware of the details of what happened.I can't do it justice in a few paragraphs so if you are in doubt about how serious this is I would urge you to read the more detailed news coverage of the affair.The undisputed facts are that a woman who was the mistress of the then Mayor of London was given grants totalling over six figures for technology initiatives despite her having no relevant experience. She was then further invited to a number of official trips made by the Mayor of London as a delegate.The Independent Office for Police Conduct investigated why it was decided not to lay any criminal charges over the matter. They concluded that firm evidence had not been presented that Boris Johnson had requested that Ms Arcuri be given the grants or be invited on the trips.It seems impossible to conclude otherwise than that Johnson made the request verbally and therefore avoided any paper trail that would link him to the decision. A successful conviction would therefore rely on the person(s) to whom the request was made being willing to testify but as Johnson obviously would have been aware what he was doing was dubious and therefore have been careful to have made the request to someone he knew would lie on his behalf.The Prime Minister is still on the hook for not having declared the nature of his relationship with Ms Arcuri but this is probably just a procedural offence for which he will be officially censured, something that will not bother him in the slightest.What I am finding it hard to understand is why there is so little outrage about this matter. Well-educated people like Adam Beamish can brush it off as an acceptable level of fingers in the till but in the not so distant past the nation was rocked by the expense claims of MPs which in many cases were within the admittedly flawed rules.I wonder for instance what Denis MacShane makes of the whole thing. He was sent to prison because of an ambiguity over whether laptops purchased through his MP's office were for personal or constituency use.Why have we all of a sudden moved from Macarthyite intolerance of the most minor expense fiddles by MPs to a widespread blithe acceptance of what appears to be fraud on a large scale?

Paul Corcoran ● 2036d

As you said no proof.

Janice Evans ● 2036d

Think Adam was giving general idea of what goes into business expenses,If a connection to work people claim.

Janice Evans ● 2036d

There is a world of difference between some de minimis tax fraud and diverting a six figure sum of grant funding to your mistress.As for the lack of proof, it is highly likely if there was a case that had the identical circumstances but did not involve the Prime Minister the CPS would have recommended a trial during which officials would have had to confirm or deny whether they were given verbal instructions and proof would be forthcoming.

Paul Corcoran ● 2036d

‘What I am finding hard to understand is why there is so little outrage about this matter’.‘Why have we moved ... to a widespread blithe acceptance of what appears to be fraud on a large scale?’Exactly Paul.  I am old enough to remember when things were very different, when ministers who lied would automatically resign.  These days, time after time, there is news of this or that piece of cronyism or sleeze, all in plain sight, and it’s as if nobody cares, as if it doesn’t matter.  I would love to hear some answers to your questions.

Alastair Banton ● 2036d

"..ministers who lied would automatically resign.."Only when they were caught out. I suspect that in this age of electronic communications, social media and everyone walking around with cameras on their phones they are far more likely to be caught out than in the past, when quite a few probably got away with it.

Richard Greenhough ● 2036d

Paul, if we get proof about the six figure sum think he will have to answer to it, would like to see if any worthy evidence is available before judgement.

Janice Evans ● 2036d

Well that’s obvious Richard but I don’t see that it in any way answers Paul’s questions.  Perhaps you might like to reflect on your own attitude to government lies and ministerial responsibility.

Alastair Banton ● 2036d

Paul, I do take a degree of offence at the suggestion that I was brushing this off.  Fact is, unlike yourself, I haven't read chapter and verse about this because (a) I'm far too busy, and (b) such conduct is sadly far too commonplace for me to bother to spend my valuable time on it.As for why most people aren't that bothered, in a similar vein I don't understand, as someone who is very interested in sport, why many people are so devoted to their team and spend fortunes following that team and sing stupid songs about "I'm West Ham till I die" or whatever.  And why footballers are paid £250k upwards a week when there's millions in the world who are starving.But they do, and we live in a world where the excessive wealth of the uber rich aren't made to distribute that excess to the poorest in the world to level things up abit.  Which is why the world is such a screwed up place, and which makes Boris's conduct positively trivial in the grander scheme of things.But, the other thrust of my point was that in my opinion, and it is just that, over recent years there's been an increasing number of contributions on all kinds of subjects from people taking the moral high ground or a sense of superiority.  Which never sits well with me.

Adam Beamish ● 2036d

I favour the northern me and thee.

Kathleen Healy ● 2036d

Adam, your post was so rambling and contradictory it is hard to make out exactly what your argument is but the notion that Johnson's behaviour is trivial is utter nonsense.Imagine for a second Steve Curran the leader of Hounslow Council was found to have taken his mistress down to the MIPIM conference at Cannes and on a number of other foreign trips and arranged for her to get large grants for work that she wasn't qualified to do. Are you seriously saying that you would be telling us that it was nothing for us to get worked up about?(For the record I don't even know whether Cllr Curran is married and I have never heard anything to suggest he would actually behave this badly).I think your moral compass has gone seriously awry. You justify your minor tax fiddles by saying you pay lots of tax but the government doesn't do much for you in return. For the system to work there has to be people who pay in more than they take out. Those with well paid non-public sector jobs, in good health with no kids will be substantial net contributors. You might want to consider how much your own contribution will ultimately be. As I understand it you worked for many years for Hounslow Council and will therefore probably benefit from a defined benefit pension scheme which most of the rest of us could only dream of even if it will be adjusted down because full time wasn't served. If you live to a ripe old age it could be that you end up getting paid more in retirement than you paid tax when you were working.It therefore does matter than public money be carefully accounted for and those that take from the public purse be prosecuted as the thieves they are. The Prime Minister should not be an exception.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 2035d