Boris is now being called to answer questions about … well it doesn’t matter. The way of the world appears to be that some non-entity makes an accusation about a public figure (normally involving sex, money or both) who is then required to respond, not by due process, but to trial by media, and as often as not, some self serving politician who seeks an opportunity to gain exposure by feigned outrage at the ‘allegations’. ‘Questions to answer’ … ‘held to account’ … ‘goes to character’ – the lexicon of mud-slinging is rolled out for personal and political gain.
Grumpy had no interest in an artificial furore about whether BoJo had somehow been involved in ‘influencing’ a grant to a company called Hacker House, a director of which, Jenifer Acuri, he is said to have had a ‘relationship’ with (another coded word full of innuendo and allusions to something illicit and sexual). However, Grumpy discovered he had multiple connections in LinkedIn to Ms Acuri (although he has never met her) and other people associated with Hacker House, so his ears perked up.
Layla Moran stated in the commons “We now know that Hacker House is not based in the UK”, presenting this as a ‘fact’ to support the allegations that BoJo was complicit somehow in facilitating a grant to a foreign organisation, and thus demonstrating yet again for his disregard for the rule of law.
She could have checked Companies House and determined that it is a UK Company, number 09678695, with a registered office in the UK in Ludgate House, a commercial office block on Fleet Street, London. It has a British director (although there is no impediment to prevent ALL the directors of a UK company being located overseas), and submits accounts to HMRC. In what way can the Company be described as not being based in the UK ? This is plain sophistry. Moran told an untruth to assert white is black, and from that perspective she is a guilty as others in using language to deceive and smear.
In the febrile atmosphere of the commons on 25th September, both sides sought to diminish the other in an astonishing display of the breakdown of government. Whilst Geofrey Cox (Attorney General) and Johnson did so fairly directly, Labour and Lib Dem sought to do so by innuendo and false conflating of issues. (Although Boris has also been also called a ‘dictator and ‘tyrant’ by opposition MP’s). Anna Soubry attempted to make a ‘joke’ about pole dancing, a snide reference to the aforementioned Ms Acuri, who is said to have indulged in same, again with the implication of a salacious character, five pound notes in knickers, and that sort of thing. As an ex-barrister, she is well versed in the art of smear.
On a broader front, Johnson was accused (by MP Paula Sherriff) of using “pejorative language” in referring to the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill as the ‘Surrender Bill’. As ever, the Oxford English Dictionary helps to interpret this; it defines ‘pejorative’ as “expressing contempt or disapproval”. Boris may be said to be not unreasonable in this regard, as he was of the view that it tied the hands of the government in negotiating with the EU, and hence his disapproval. The reality is that this approach is meat and potatoes to all MP’s – the tags ‘poll tax’ , ‘bedroom tax’ were all used by Her Majesty’s Opposition to convey negative connotations to the electorate about Bills in the House. At another extreme, Grumpy is also reminded of MP David Lammy referring to Brexit supporters as ‘worse than Nazis’, which did not generate even the slightest condemnation from the likes of Paula Sherriff in particular or the denizens of Corbyn’s benches in general.
Grumpy, and he suspects the ‘common man’, views them all equally; petty, backbiting, and mud slinging, with a focus on trying to do down the other side and ignoring the serious motes in the eye of the nation which need so desperately addressing.