Did Boris Johnson abuse public money in the pursuit of sex? It doesn’t matter, as his kind always get away with it

Boris Johnson had an intimate relationship with Jennifer Arcuri, while Arcuri received over £100,000 in public money. It’s morally, if not legally, corrupt, but Teflon Boris will get off again.

Here is the news. Prime Minister Boris Johnson will not face a criminal investigation into his relationship with American entrepreneur Jennifer Arcuri while he was Mayor of London. The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) said on Thursday that it would not be looking into claims against the PM of misconduct in public office – claims which Johnson denies.

A blind man with his head up his own arse could have seen that coming. Senior politicians rarely end up in the dock, while a sitting Prime Minister is never going to be left sweating in the cells before getting torn apart by a maverick detective with a broken marriage and drinking problem who, by bending the rules, always gets results.

I digress.

This non-stick quality is especially applicable to an Old Etonian PM for whom the establishment’s wheels are uniquely greased and unlikely to be derailed. While the Greater London Authority will be reopening its own inquiry, it can’t “convict” Johnson of anything, so there’s only one court left where he can be tried: The Court of Public Opinion. Usually, a kangaroo court, but this time a place where I really hope Johnson goes down, so to speak, for his abuse of power, trust and our money. So pass me my wig – I need to prosecute.

Let’s begin with a few facts.

Fact one: Johnson and Arcuri, both married to other people at the time, were “at it.” I have a source who confirmed to me that, according to Arcuri, their relationship was sexual. Johnson probably called it “spaffing.” She admits that he visited her home at night and even the IOPC found evidence that there might have been an “intimate relationship.”

Fact two: At the same time as the spaffing was going on, Arcuri’s company Innotech received £126,000 in public money. The largest chunk, a £100,000 cyber-skills grant aimed at UK talent, was awarded despite Arcuri and her husband living in the US and having no UK office – and we’re not the 51st state yet.

Fact three: Arcuri went on three trade missions with Johnson while he was mayor between 2008 and 2016, despite being about as qualified as a kid with a lemonade stand.

Fact four: Johnson gave keynote speeches at Arcuri’s events, promoting Innotech. Arcuri gained one of just 200 highly-coveted ‘Tier 1’ entrepreneur visas as a result.

You can come to your own judgement but, in my humble opinion, it all adds up to, at best, one of the most influential city mayors on the planet misusing his power to help out a woman he was very “close” to. At worst, and this is where my vote lies, the Mayor of London was effectively using citizens’ money – my money – in his pursuit of sex. And I definitely didn’t see that on my tax bill. That’s corrupt, morally if not legally.

But like I say, he’ll get away with it. His kind always does. The world is built by the elite for the elite and they put measures in place to stop the whole thing collapsing in on itself. Johnson’s so slippery that if you laid him on Donald Trump and spun him, you’d unlock the key to perpetual motion.

As the IOPC’s statement said, “While there was no evidence that Mr. Johnson influenced the payment of sponsorship monies or participation in trade missions, 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.”

What do they call that in spy films? Plausible deniability? No, BoJo didn’t tell them to favor Arcuri but, you know, nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more.

Anyway, jurors, it’s up to you. If you’re happy in a world where leaders can throw your money in the direction of their latest bunk-up and get away with it, carry on as you were. If you’re not, well, I rest my case.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.