Sunday, November 10, 2019
Another day, another investigation into a Tory shelved
And this time it is an inquiry into the Prime Minister himself. The Guardian reports that the scandal over Boris Johnson’s friendship with technology entrepreneur Jennifer Arcuri has reignited when it emerged that the independent police watchdog has delayed its announcement on whether the PM should face an investigation into possible criminal misconduct until after the election.
The paper adds that the decision prompted fury from Westminster politicians and London assembly members who said it appeared that a ruling had been “suppressed” in order to protect Johnson from potentially damaging headlines at a crucial stage of the election campaign:
In a private meeting held before parliament was dissolved last week, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) officials agreed not to announce whether they were going to investigate “possible criminality” over allegations about a conflict of interest in Johnson’s dealings while mayor of London with US businesswoman Jennifer Arcuri until after the election.
Sources close to the IOPC investigation said the watchdog was on the verge of announcing its decision on whether it was proceeding with a criminal investigation.
The IOPC was tasked by the Greater London Authority with assessing whether criminal charges should be brought because of the then-mayor’s responsibility for London’s policing.
It is alleged Arcuri received favourable treatment due to her friendship with Johnson, including receiving large sums of public money for her technology firms.
The offence of misconduct in public office carries a maximum term of life imprisonment. Johnson has denied any impropriety.
We have already seen in the last few weeks, the scandal of the now-resigned Secretary of State for Wales backing a friend who collapsed a rape trial, being passed to a cabinet inquiry, enabling him to dodge answering questions on the matter prior to the election, the Office for Budget Responsibility being blocked from publishing damaging figures on the state deficit and debt, and Nunber 10 refusing to clear the publication of a potentially incendiary report examining Russian infiltration in British politics, including the Conservative party.
Can anybody see a pattern here?
The paper adds that the decision prompted fury from Westminster politicians and London assembly members who said it appeared that a ruling had been “suppressed” in order to protect Johnson from potentially damaging headlines at a crucial stage of the election campaign:
In a private meeting held before parliament was dissolved last week, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) officials agreed not to announce whether they were going to investigate “possible criminality” over allegations about a conflict of interest in Johnson’s dealings while mayor of London with US businesswoman Jennifer Arcuri until after the election.
Sources close to the IOPC investigation said the watchdog was on the verge of announcing its decision on whether it was proceeding with a criminal investigation.
The IOPC was tasked by the Greater London Authority with assessing whether criminal charges should be brought because of the then-mayor’s responsibility for London’s policing.
It is alleged Arcuri received favourable treatment due to her friendship with Johnson, including receiving large sums of public money for her technology firms.
The offence of misconduct in public office carries a maximum term of life imprisonment. Johnson has denied any impropriety.
We have already seen in the last few weeks, the scandal of the now-resigned Secretary of State for Wales backing a friend who collapsed a rape trial, being passed to a cabinet inquiry, enabling him to dodge answering questions on the matter prior to the election, the Office for Budget Responsibility being blocked from publishing damaging figures on the state deficit and debt, and Nunber 10 refusing to clear the publication of a potentially incendiary report examining Russian infiltration in British politics, including the Conservative party.
Can anybody see a pattern here?
Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home
<< Home
