- There is some evidence that Mr Johnson and Ms Arcuri may have been in an intimate relationship during some of the relevant time period when Ms Arcuri attended trade missions (this is relevant to whether there could ever be a sufficiently serious breach of the public's trust to engage MIPO).
- There is no evidence that Mr Johnson influenced the payment of any sponsorship monies to Ms Arcuri or her companies.
- There is no evidence that Mr Johnson sought to influence, or played an active part in securing, Ms Arcuri's participation in trade missions.
- There is some evidence that Mr Johnson may have been aware (disputed by Mr Johnson) that Ms Arcuri was on an attendee list for a New York trade mission event, but this awareness is not sufficient for me to suspect Mr Johnson of having committed MIPO.
- While Mr Johnson was not under an obligation to declare on his register of pecuniary interests Ms Arcuri's dealings with the Greater London Authority (GLA)/London and Partners (L&P), if Mr Johnson was in an intimate relationship with Ms Arcuri, it would have been wise for him to have declared this as a conflict of interest, and a failure to do so could have constituted a reach of the broader Nolan principles contained within the GLA 2012 Code of Conduct.
There are some fruiter bits, with an interesting redaction...
An L&P email of 18 February 2013 described Ms Arcuri as "close to Boris". As to if and when their relationship became close, or rather might be reasonably suspected to be a sexual relationship, the evidence made available during the scoping exercise suggests that this started some time before XXXXX 2014, and that it ended before Ms Arcuri's relationship with her present partner began, which media reports suggests was in 2016. The evidence of this sexual relationship comes from an associate of Ms Arcuri.
This person is described as Witness A. No idea what's behind the XXXX - does a month matter ? A trip to the appendix is a dead end.
No comments:
Post a Comment