Businesswoman Jennifer Arcuri, whose links to the Prime Minister have come under scrutiny, has called for Boris Johnson to personally apologise to her.
Ms Arcuri’s links with Mr Johnson came under public scrutiny earlier this year over allegations she received favourable treatment for her business ventures during his eight-year stint as mayor of London.
In a morning of broadcast appearances, she has spoken of their relationship calling it “very special” as she refused to say whether they had an affair.
Following her appearance on ITV’s Good Morning Britain, TV presenter Lorraine Kelly criticised her live, asking “what’s the point of you coming on TV?” after the US businesswoman appeared to dodge questions.
Ms Arcuri swerved queries about her relationship with Mr Johnson, telling hosts Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid that she did not want to “be pressured into admitting” to anything about her links to the Prime Minister.
Later, speaking to the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire Show, Ms Arcuri insisted Mr Johnson did not do her any “favours” but said she wished he had declared her as an interest if it could have “saved me this entire embarrassment and humiliation”.
She said: “I would love an apology for acknowledging the fact that given all those years, you know, that I was on the ground, hustling and working as a student. I mean he saw my arc, he saw my progression as a young woman, graduating and becoming, you know, a mature entrepreneur.”
I was convinced this was a man of his word because I couldn't believe the fervent, linear focus which he had on meJennifer Arcuri
She also accused the Prime Minister of feeding her to the wolves. Asked if Mr Johnson “had bigger fish to fry”, she said: “That’s what you tell somebody when you meet them for the night, you don’t know them, you haven’t spent the hours with them, the investment into another person.
“And the fact that I’m called out, just on GMB, because ‘why I am here if I’m not here to admit the affair?’
“Well wait a minute I’m not allowed to be upset because somebody that was very much a part of my life, who knew what I stood for, the calibre and integrity and merit that I work at. I mean all these things he knew and he sat back, why?
“He didn’t have to ignore me, it could have been a 30-second phone call, just to let me know that he’s acknowledging the fact that he, while he gets to be prime minister gets to feed me to the wolves – and I find that really disturbing.”
Ms Arcuri said Mr Johnson did not just have “a sexual intention” towards her, as she insisted he was a “man of his word”.
'I said why did you block me? What a slap in the face.'— Good Morning Britain (@GMB) November 18, 2019
Jennifer Arcuri addresses her comments accusing Boris Johnson of treating her like one of his 'fleeting one-night standsâ after he hung up a phone call with her. #GMB pic.twitter.com/cuTxtYhpKK
“I was convinced this was a man of his word because I couldn’t believe the fervent, linear focus which he had on me.
“I assure you it was not just a sexual intention, he actually was very intrigued by my energy, my ability to get things done – he loved my events, and he saw the way I could work a room, the way I met everybody.”
She added: “I was a female, there was very few of us and I was extremely tenacious and I’m telling you that’s what London and Partners loved about me, that’s what Boris Johnson loved about me, and that’s why I was accepted so greatly into this London community.
“I have great pride for this eco-system. I mean, we built it.”
In an interview with ITV Exposure on Sunday, Ms Arcuri claimed Mr Johnson cast her aside as though she was a “gremlin” after she tried to contact him for advice on how to handle the media interest.
In September, The Sunday Times reported that Labour MP Jon Trickett wants Mr Johnson to explain the allegation that he failed to declare potential conflicts of interest while London mayor in relation to the allocation of public money to Ms Arcuri.
Last month, the London Assembly paused its probe into Mr Johnson and Ms Arcuri’s relationship following a request from the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The police watchdog said it was “acquiring material” to determine whether the matter should be criminally investigated and asked the committee to “give precedence” to its inquiry.