Johnson & Jennifer Arcuri report points to a wider culture of Johnsonian inaction
A report from the Independent Office of Police Conduct into whether Boris Johnson’s reported relationship with Jennifer Arcuri amounted to Misconduct in Public Office-a potential criminal offence- has concluded that it did not.
What the report does do, in some detail, is point to a potential conflict of interest between Johnson’s role as London Mayor and his friendship with Arcuri and the fact that he took no action on this.
Perhaps particularly interesting are paragraphs 70-73 of the report
Ms Arcuri attending a New York Trade Mission in February 2015 which she was not entitled to attend. The fact that she did actually attend it in a rather ill-defined capacity is thought to be because officials were aware of her relationship with the Mayor.
There is no suggestion that Johnson authorised Ms Arcuri’s attendance and its possible that he may not have known about it specifically. What also seems likely however is that he knew in a general way that Ms Arcuri might trade off others knowledge of a supposed relationship. On this the report criticises his ‘inaction’ in dealing with any suspicion of a conflict of interest or impropriety. In short Johnson did know that problems might arise and questions get asked (as in fact did happen) but just couldn’t be bothered to do anything about it.
It is fully in-line with what we know of what might be called Johnsonian culture. Criticisms of his laziness in addressing matters stretch back as far as his Eton and University days
Criticisms of his inaction have bedevilled him even into 2020 as a newly elected PM:
In the crucial weeks before March (2020) Boris Johnson did not attend any of the five virus meetings held by Cobra, the emergency committee, in January and February and spent 12 days out of the public eye while on a ‘working’ holiday at (Chevening) in Kent.
Sunday Times 19th April
A culture of inaction, a sort of waiting for things to happen perspective, may have a place in certain contexts. If the individual concerned is someone whose job is focused on the need to actually do things it looks like a very serious problem indeed
Leave a Reply