Welcome to Boston Eye

After a spat with Boston Borough Council, we were reluctantly forced to revise our blogging arrangements to honour an promise … and we believe in keeping our word – unlike others that we could name.
The page that you are on now is home to Boston Eye’s reports from October 2008 – when it transferred from an even earlier website begun in February 2007 - until September 2011 – and now forms an archive of our 800 postings during that period, which can be searched by using the Blogger search box  on the page - pictured below.

From Monday 5th September, we became New Boston Eye – and moved to:

http://newbostoneye.blogspot.com/

Please bookmark it and visit us often.
Our e-mail address remains the same.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com   Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Out with the old ...

IN

with the new!

Having given our word, we have drawn a line in the sand beneath the Boston Eye blog which began four and a half years ago.
However, in view of the questionable way  that  we were nudged by Boston Borough Council towards an age old promise to cease blogging,  we asked  our readers to decide.
Their  vote was unanimous ...

Carry on -  don't cower down

Among the dozens of of e-mails  we received, it was encouraging to note that more than 20% of serving borough councillors urged us to continue.
So from tomorrow - Monday, 5th September  - we  resume blogging from our new address ...
You will find us at

http://newbostoneye.blogspot.com/



Please bookmark it and visit us often.
This site will remain as an archive of our previous 800 postings ...
Our e-mail address remains the same.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com   and  your e-mails will always be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Our readers

have spoken ... and Boston Eye will soldier on!

There’s a lot to read today.
We were overwhelmed by the quantity of e-mails we received following yesterday’s blog – and the tremendous support and generous comments expressed in them.
Universally, they implored us to continue writing in some shape or form, and given the depth of feeling expressed, that is what we plan to do.
We will honour our promise to cease blogging as Boston Eye, which me made because we felt that if our identity became widely known, our credibility would suffer – as we were nothing more than an individual – a local David aiming his slingshot at the well armoured and confident Goliath known as Boston Borough Council, but sadly without the success of the original.
But the bottom line is that it doesn’t seem to matter – because over the years our blog appears to have gathered credibility and a reputation which makes it something that our readers do not want to lose.
We thank them for this, and will carry on from a new address – which honours our promise – even though it was enforced through what we consider less than honourable means.
Our new address will be http://newbostoneye.blogspot.com/   and our e-mail will remain the same.
We wrote earlier about the e-mails we have received – and publish extracts from some of them below.
Interestingly a surprising number came from Boston Borough councillors – though as you might expect, they did not include any Conservative members!
Councillor Richard Leggott ,a veteran Independent, wrote to say: “Not that I have ever interpreted your column as pure opposition, but one of the things I do remember from history lessons, many moons ago, is that, in government, the opposition is just as important as the administration.
“A good partnership is not necessarily one that agrees wholeheartedly on everything.
“Yes, I feel you are now part of the local government 'partnership'.
“Under whatever label/ format you find acceptable please continue your good work on behalf of the people of Boston.”
His colleague Councillor Brian Rush, added: “It is a very sad day politically for Boston, if the Eye stands by its decision to cease blogging because someone sets out to “out” the authors.”
Another Independent, Councillor Carol Taylor, told us: “If it wasn't for Boston Eye, I would be bumbling along hoping that I could make a difference for the people of Boston. I no longer bumble because I have received a tremendous education from Boston Eye. The blog has given me information which whet my appetite and then encouraged me to delve further. This has now increased my knowledge base of events, lack of events, political gaffes, the council's sleeping timetable, who dunnit? who could have dunnit but didn't, and to highlight some wonderful sensitive egos. I am always on guard, however, because should I do anything that is not in the public's interest, you would be down on me like a ton of bricks ( provided from Market Place restoration!) and quite rightly so.
“You have created a blog for the people of Boston and, as you say, readers are increasing in numbers, so why give it up? Four and a half years of building up an information and critical appraisal site sprinkled with a bit of satire, laced with conscience pricking, topped with humour but the icing on the cake is FREEDOM OF SPEECH.”
Labour Councillor Paul Gleeson wrote to say: “I for one will regret the passing of your blog, whilst you will not be surprised to learn I did not agree with all that you wrote. I think my world view is somewhat different. I did, you may be surprised to learn, agree with a lot of what you wrote and all your articles were well written with good research.
“Maybe because I have never seen myself as being part of the great and the good, or even considered it a healthy thing to aspire to, I never felt threatened if your blog tweaked my or my party’s nose or even hit us with a big stick. It is only when our thoughts and assumptions are challenged can we ensure that we develop robust cogent policies. One of the issues of being in a political party is that it is full of people who share your beliefs. Whilst that can give you great strength, it is too easy to convince yourselves that your policy is self-evidently correct, it is only when people with a different (albeit wrong !) world view challenge it, will any flaws be revealed.
“I hope you will reconsider, you can’t leave www.bostonlabour.org.uk/news.html  the only daily blog in town, what will we have to live up to?”
Darron Abbott, himself a vociferous campaigner on behalf of Boston and its businesses and a Conservative candidate at last May’s elections, wrote: “I believe is a very dark day in the political history of my town, if indeed it is the last day that Boston Eye publish their blog.
“You may think this sounds a bit dramatic, but I genuinely believe something will be lost. Over the period that Boston Eye has been published, I have learnt a great of what has been happening here in Boston, that the powers that be have tried to keep quiet - or just the fact that I have not had the time or resources to research myself.
“As regular readers will be aware, the blog has allowed me to voice my opinions publicly and, yes, has helped force other parties to take notice, I will be disappointed to lose this facility as Boston Eye have always been prepared to go where the local press have been frightened to go.
“It appears that the author of Boston Eye’s identity has been known for some time. Up to recently this anonymity has been respected as it served its purposes, but now these same people seek to close down the rights of others.
“One person in particular is Councillor Singleton-McGuire, who up to the election in May openly welcomed Boston Eye’s criticism of the BBI and boasted of his submissions to it. It now seems however he and his administration have taken power and received the same scrutiny he feels that the blog is no longer serves his needs.
“As a Conservative candidate at the elections in May, I will now go on record, in how disappointed I am that the administration has taken the course of action they have.
“Whilst I understand the author of Boston Eye feels creditability will be lost, I urge the team to continue to uncover and inform us of that is going on in Boston.”
Other comments sent in just the past 24 hours include:
• “Please continue in some form, as I've only recently discovered  your blog, and it seems the only forum that is holding the local authorities to account.”
• "Boston Eye is a beacon of light illuminating the sometimes strange and murky goings on within our once proud borough, but as an obviously honourable person, unlike most of our politicians, I must respect whatever decision you eventually make - but in the earnest hope that you will continue to give voice to sense, reason, sanity and above all the truth regardless of the poison of political correctness that has so corroded our way of life in this town and indeed the whole country. Obviously the PC brigade are totally unable to handle any meaningful discourse on any subject whatsoever as theirs is the only permitted view in the local and national media. As such Boston Eye with its wide range of views must have been a target for destruction from the word go. “We need the likes of Boston Eye to give an alternative and truthful view of events. Please in some way carry on your freedom of speech/thought blog.”
• “I appreciate that in order to keep to your word, the Boston Eye column may now have to cease. “There's more real analysis of local interest in your column than in all the so-called 'local media' combined. “Accordingly, I would urge you to at least consider the possibility of carrying on in some alternate way. “There continues to be a strong need for your kind of independent commentary.”
• "As a daily reader and past contributor please keep up the blogging - it is a medium that is well-informed and represents and puts to the fore the concerns and views of Boston’s public! Who else would do it if not Boston Eye!!???
• " ‘If you don't have this freedom of the press, then all these little fellows are weaselling around and doing their monkey business and they never get caught. " - Harold R. Medina US lawyer, teacher and judge. An apposite quote, n'est-ce pas? And who is going to tell the citizens of Boston if there's any weaselling going on in Worst Street if Boston Eye is silenced? Local newspapers reproduce the council-speak that is fed to them. Boston Eye uncovers the stories behind the stories, and explains the facts in a way that everyone can understand. Long may they continue to do so”

Whew! What can we say – except see you next week.
And thanks.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Our Friday miscellany

of the week's

news and events

Today is a day of hail and farewell, as we trot out some of the mixture as before … then bid our readers adieu.

Stop Press entry at foot of page

It’s a point that we’ve made before in discussions about the influx of migrant workers into Boston – but it still needs making. This week’s Boston Standard tells us that almost 2,500 people from overseas registered for national insurance numbers between March 2010 and March this year “to allow them to work in the borough.” Other statistics show that there has not been that number of jobs created  to justify these figures. Therefore, some registrations must be for ancillary purposes - the most common being entitlement to benefits and allowances. Registration helps places like Boston because it influences the borough’s grant from central government, but there is still a huge disparity between the unofficial numbers of those who live in the borough, and official statistics. This is why Boston is always strapped for cash.
Boston Labour Party has a seductive map on its website suggesting a proposed route for the town’s bypass (pictured below, left.). It skips across the A17 and the A52, south to Wyberton, curves north to Fishtoft, Haltoft End and Hill Dyke before heading south again to the point where it started.
In an ideal world it would be just the job. But being the old pedants that we are, we worked out a distance for the route, which came to 15 miles, give or take. The heavily dumbed down plan for the proposed Lincoln eastern bypass – which makes it single rather than dual carriageway – will cost £98m for just 4.88 miles. At today’s prices the Labour route would work out at almost £300 million.  We think we can fairly say: “Forget it, Boston.”

Talking of spending, we noted the pictures in the local papers of a “free” event at the Hussey Tower, where visitors could see demonstrations of traditional brickwork repairs and tour the tatty monument. We’ve mentioned cost  quite a bit in the last couple of days, and wondered  … could this “free” event be the “masterclass in traditional repair” for which Heritage Trust of Lincolnshire received a lottery grant of almost £50,000 a few months ago?

In August we were told there would be seven Boston borough council committee meetings this month. Then the Performance Review committee meeting scheduled for the 8th vanished without explanation, and we believe that another may well follow. This is an interesting departure for our new regime – cancelling meetings without explanation when so much needs doing. Perhaps it is intended as a perverse form of economy.
Boston Borough Council continues its ongoing interest in putting the cart before the horse with this year’s voter registration forms. People who don’t spot the box at the top of the page -  and it doesn’t stick out a mile - will doubtless wade through the forms and fill in all the details before learning that if the information is unchanged, it can all be done on the internet, or by ‘phone. As the form points out – using either of these two methods save the council time and money. Perhaps the information could be made more prominent next time around.
Not only is the Market Place refurbishment taking its toll on local businesses, it’s also going to rain on one of the Boston’s few open air parades. We note that this year’s Battle of Britain Sunday service and parade will be rerouted  through Pescod Square, and that as a result, the saluting base  will be located in the loading bay near WH Smith.  Surely, someone is pulling our leg?  Can’t we sling up a podium big enough for four in a slightly more appropriate and respectful location? It could even be big enough for three, as, whilst we can understand the presence of the Mayor, RAF Coningsby’s Wing Commander Al Seymour, and Boston Team Rector Robin Whitehead, we are somewhat at a loss to see why the council’s “strategic director” needs to be up there with them.
We now have our very own optical illusion as a logo in Boston Borough Council reports. You know what we’re talking about – illustrations where you decide whether a drawing is of an attractive young lady or an old crone.

So how do you see the one above? We guess it’s meant to indicate partnerships and togetherness. But we’re afraid that we see it in a drowning not waving capacity - a long line of people clinging together for dear life to avoid sinking beneath the choppy blood red waters beneath.
Something we’ve mentioned on occasion is the poor quality of the postal service in some parts of Boston – where it seems that posties deliver when they feel like it, rather than being motivated by the accumulation of letters at the sorting office. A reader who complained after a particularly breathtaking piece of Royal Mail incompetence e-mailed us with a possible reason. After repeatedly brushing aside all complaints, Royal Mail's final response declared: "Please be assured that we take letting our customers down seriously ..."

We note that the controversial Roll of Achievement that was once so prominently displayed has disappeared from the home page of Boston Borough’s Council’s website.  It is still lurking in the bowels of the borough’s computer – but must be searched for to be read. The roll was always somewhat anomalous – listing some people and not others, and in obvious conflict with other parts of the site listing notable Bostonians. The space on the website has been taken by a Leader’s Message – which we take to be the ruling group’s paean of self praise for their first 100 days. We admit a frisson of fear as we read a line by Councillor Peter Bedford which declared: “My aim is to take this authority back to where it was in the past ….”  Fortunately, he added the words “-  a council well thought of and respected throughout the East Midlands.”   Although we consider the first half of the statement to be more likely, we trust that the aim  expressed in the latter will be as true as that of William Tell.
The leader also goes on to say: "Talks are starting with our neighbouring authorities about possible joint working schemes, helping each other to save money and get the best value we can for you all." We hope that he is not thinking of a reunion with the South Holland/East Lindsey partnership, with which the borough was on the brink of forming an alliance when financial problems forced its withdrawal. At the time, it was said that if Boston decided at a later date that it wanted to join the club, it would be at whatever the going rate was. The item below, from the Rotten Boroughs feature in this week's Private Eye, suggests that the price might be high, given the apparent absence of interest from anyone else in the year since the operation started.

Whilst it is always praiseworthy to support our local services, a line has to be drawn somewhere.  In the letters page of this week’s Boston Target, the “Letter of the Week” was headed “Care at the Pilgrim was just exemplary.”  It referred to the stay of an elderly relative in our controversial local hospital, and added: “We can honestly say that she could not have received better care anywhere.” Think about it. You can honestly say no such thing - unless the person in question has received treatment in every hospital in the country, and you had compared them all.
Ahead of our last item, we note that the Boston Standard’s weekly sales have slumped again – according to figures from the Audit Bureau of Circulation released yesterday.  In the first six months of 2011 they averaged 8,395 copies a week  - down 10.8% and among only 14% of papers showing a double-digit drop in circulation. Just when we were getting close …
Finally, the late Harold Wilson wasn’t kidding when he said that a week is a long time in politics.  After the recent e-mail that we mentioned in which the writer decided to remind us where we lived and cautioned us to watch what we wrote, our enquiries have established that our nom de plume is no longer what it was. We promised on more than one occasion that we would end our efforts to call the council to account if  we were “outed” - and decency dictates that we keep our word.  It has been our pleasure to write so many tens of thousands of words and to be read by an increasingly large readership over the past four and a half years. We had hoped that repeatedly sending a message to the "great and the good" might create an appreciation of their unique position and that they might use it to benefit voters. But in many instances this has not proved to be the case. We are sure that there are many in Worst Street will now breathe a sigh of relief, slap themselves on the back and go about their usual business of running a not very good council not very well, happy in the knowledge that no one will now take them to task - which we suspect is what this is really all about.  To misquote Harold Wilson: the weak are a long time in politics. Having said that, we are also pleased to have made many fine acquaintances within and without the council. One has already suggested that if enough people respond, we should reconsider our decision, and continue blogging – but obviously not under our present name. We are willing to give it a try, and if you would like to see some sort of blog continue, then please e-mail us. We have a target response figure in mind – but as we have said so many times before … we won’t be holding our breath.
But in the meantime, please keep checking our site for news …

STOP PRESS: We have already received a number of letters and comments regarding the above item, which will reproduced on the blog page tomorrow. In general, they are supportive of Boston Eye continuing on some shape or form, but more views would be welcomed before we take a final decision. We look forward to hearing from you.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

£5,000 for hopeless visitor site

- and who knows

how much to plug

somewhere in Exeter?

Yesterday we looked at some of the areas where Boston Borough Council spends its – or rather our - money, and came up with some interesting and unusual items.
Another - which there wasn’t room to mention yesterday - was a contribution of £5,000 towards the running of the Visit Lincolnshire website – but the council’s spending list doesn’t say whether this is annual, or quarterly, or what.
Lincolnshire County Council took on the running of this website after funding was withdrawn from the quango of the same name which previously ran Visit Lincolnshire.
Hopefully, this is an annual charge – because assuming similar contributions are being made by the county’s six other district councils, then Lincolnshire County Council is raking in £35,000 for running a small website within its huge internet presence. Nice work if you can get it.
As for value – a search for Boston on the website generates a so-called 118 entries, although many of these are in neighbouring local authority districts, and a large number appear to be adverts for accommodation and the like.
A random check of the site shows just how hopeless it is.
The Boston Beat one-day music festival is still listed for Central Park next month – even though it was cancelled weeks ago.
The Mill Inn on Spilsby Road appears in the index as being in South Holland.
Boston Farmers’ Market is billed as a weekly event and apparently located halfway down Threadneedle Street.
Whilst Boston Tourist Information Centre in the Guildhall is listed, its severely restricted opening hours are not.
And although we mentioned some time ago that the Boston Community Showcase was not listed on the site, it is still conspicuous by its absence.
What seems clear is that no-one at Boston Borough Council is tasked with checking whether this website is doing its job properly – but when County Hall sends in a bill for £5,000, the cheque wings its way to Lincoln.
Frankly, to pay that much money for such indifferent service is unforgivable.
Someone from Worst Street needs to give Lincolnshire County Council a kick up the backside – but we know that won’t happen, don’t we?
Also on the subject of indifferent service, Boston Borough Council’s website carries a link to another site called locations4business.
The organisation calls itself “The Inward Investment Portal” providing “a complete, free and indispensable business-to-business resource that every company will turn to when deciding where to locate their business operations. In turn, we plan to be the site where every economic development agency will want to be seen.”
Whilst the service is apparently free to business – there is presumably a charge to local authorities such as Boston for having an entry.
Click on the link to the borough council “gallery” on the locations4business site, and you will see the following

click on photo to enlarge

If you look closely, you will see an aerial photograph of the Market Place – but, mysteriously, captioned Marsh Barton.
Would you like a clue?
Marsh Barton is Exeter's largest trading estate, supporting over 500 diverse businesses including showrooms, builders merchants, tool and plant hire.
Yet again, we ask: What is the point of paying for services to “sell” Boston - but not checking to see whether they are delivering what they are supposed to?
In recently months it has been said more than once that Boston needs much more by way of promotion and publicity.
Why not start by chasing up these existing sloppy “providers” and getting them to do their job properly?
You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

It's only money - but it is ours!

Boston Borough Council’s spending figures over £500 always make interesting reading, as they give a clue – but nothing more – as to what the borough does with our money.
For example …
We recently read a report about a programme run by Garden Organic, a national charity for organic growing, which has been working with Boston and East Lindsey district councils to support community growing spaces - including one in Central Park.
It recruits local volunteer Master Gardeners to pass on their expertise to other locals. So far there are 17 - of which only six are listed as operating in Boston, and a new group is currently being sought.
The charity offers a two-day training session, supported by a dedicated manual and interactive website, support from the Lincolnshire volunteer co-ordinator, and “free” resources, including a badge, clothing, safe working policies, insurance, expenses, and awards.
It all sounds so mellow and green, and a perfect example of self-help at little or no cost.
Until, that is,  you look at the real cost to Boston council taxpayers.
For the period between March 1st and June 30th, the borough forked over £5,461.96 – that’s a lot of green if you’ll forgive the pun!
A far more expensive bedfellow is the also one of the borough’s favourite needy causes - the South Lincs Community and Voluntary Service, which once upon a time was the humble Boston and District Volunteer Bureau.
Last month, Boston Borough Council paid SLCVS £12,750 under a service level agreement covering July to September this year.
The organisation is by no means hard up.
Just five years ago it got by on an income of £350,000 – but last year took in nearly £800,000, and also has generous surpluses in the bank.
Perhaps a review of whether Boston really needs to chip in so much money – equivalent to an annual contribution of £50,000 a year – might lead to some savings to taxpayers.
It may be, of course, that no one thinks to query such things - because so many staff now appear to work for agencies.
July’s figures show more than £20,000 was spent on agency staff – mainly in the finance, street cleaning and refuse collection services – although one single charge of almost £5,000 was for development control “assistance” in June alone.
Although it is no doubt cheaper to hire staff than to keep them on the books, there are some areas where we think that someone with more commitment than a week or two might be better for the job.
In the way that more information might be helpful to see where some of our money goes, we wondered what a housing court desk is, and why the council paid the Ringrose Law Group £5,000 for it  for the period between April and June.
At that rate it’s a yearly cost of £20,000 – but for what, exactly?
Is there a clue in a document published by Boston Borough Council in May last year, under the snappy headline: “Having problems paying for your home? Are you threatened with repossession due to mortgage or rent arrears?”
It asks: “Did you know that FREE representation is available at Boston County Court for all rent or mortgage possession cases? The duty desk is hosted by Ringrose Law in partnership with Boston Borough Council.”
The Ringrose logo and web address also appears in the brochure, and a visit to their site refers to “Our newly established Housing Department” which offers help to clients with issues including possession and repossession.
However, we can find no mention of free representation – or of Boston Borough Council.
If this is indeed the same thing – and has to be the case – then £5,000 a quarter seems a lot to pay.
Might it not be better to see if it was cheaper to pay case-by-case,  rather than a fixed fee?
Finally, we note that Liability Orders – issued to recover money owed to the council using the court system, cost £6,642 between May and July.
Some of these orders are used to obtain unpaid council tax – but they are also used to hound further the desperate local business owners who have not paid their levy to the equally but differently desperate Boston Business Improvement District.
It would be interesting to know how many orders are put to this purpose – and also how much money in total that the orders will claw back.
Tomorrow, we’ll be looking at one particular payment where the borough clearly doesn’t bother to see if it is getting value – and finding an unexpected link between Boston and the West Country

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Our Friday miscellany

of the week's

news and events

After all the trumpeting about the deal to “save” the Geoff Moulder Leisure Centre training pool, it seems that the plan isn’t quite as original as it was cracked up to be. Frampton and Holme’s Independent Councillor Brian Rush, writes to say: “It is ironic isn’t it, that this ‘new idea’ was put forward by the Better Boston Group way back? We had many meetings with Adrian Reed (executive headmaster of the Witham Schools Federation) and the Swimming Club, regarding just such a take over at the time. Had this idea not been talked down by Boston Borough Council officers, but taken forward - instead of running with the Leisure Connections debacle - so much time could have been saved, along with lots and lots of taxpayers money. I know success is never guaranteed, and I do hope the Conservatives will be big enough to give credit where it is due. Sometimes local people do know best, and maybe, just maybe, if our officers began to listen to local ideas, Boston might just be a better place.”
After our attempts earlier in the week to clarify exactly what the election of a mayor might mean for Boston, a reader sent us details of developments at Labour-run Leicester City Council – which recently abolished the post of chief executive. Directly-elected mayor Sir Peter Soulsby said the post was "redundant" because his role included most of the responsibilities of a chief executive, and that the council could save £175,000 a year by abolishing the post. Critics who say that changing the system would be more expensive, please take note!
What a funny old world it is when freedom of speech is threatened in a place like Boston! We accept that some people don't like what we say about our local politicians - invariably the politicians themselves - but have always remained satirical, and nothing more.  We once said that if identified we would cease blogging, and until recently that would have been the case. However, earlier this week we were confronted by something quite sinister.  An e-mail apparently from a senior councillor - couched humorously, but unambiguously -  claimed to know where a team member lived and included the words "be careful what you write ... "  We replied and questioned the implied threats in this communication and sought clarification, without success. We are not scared by bullyboy tactics and claims of knowing things which can be no more than guesses.   It is sad when politicians stoop so low to avoid criticism, but Boston Eye is made of sterner stuff. We would also be grateful if whoever has been repeatedly trying to hack our site would call it a day!
There seem to be some strange attitudes where our so-called visitor “attractions” are concerned. We note that the Guildhall – one of our few historic buildings – will close at noon tomorrow, then again at 12.30pm on 3rd September and 1pm on 24th September. The reason is that it has been booked for private functions on those dates. The Guildhall’s opening times are already pathetic – just 10-30am to 3-30pm Wednesday to Saturday. Surely an accommodation could have been made so that the private events started a couple of hours later to avoid the possibility of  potential visitors being disappointed? Apparently not.
But it gets worse. Now, the Maud Foster windmill has closed its tearooms after months of disruption from roadworks that made no difference at all to the traffic problems on Spilsby Road that they were designed to alleviate. 
Much further down the chain, we note that the giles52gallery  -which cost taxpayers so much money when it was created as part of a “community hub,” has been closed for the last fortnight – during what is probably the busiest time of the year for visitors. It seems that the goal of wrecking the town’s small businesses by closing the Market Place for at least  eight months is not enough. The plan now appears to be to run down what few visitor attractions we have as well.
Talking of the Market Place, we note that this week’s Boston Standard claims credit for the opening of an information centre to keep business owners abreast of developments. It was planned anyway, but according to the Standard came “just days after we called for a meeting.” Unfortunately, we can’t quite trace this call being made in the "newspaper" or on its website. Not only that, but as businesses can see their livelihoods being destroyed before their eyes, we see little to be gained from the presence of  a mostly unmanned information centre and a comments book – though some of the comments might well prove interesting!   Staff from the contractors will be available for three hours each Wednesday and Friday – but what can they say to make people feel better?  They can sympathise - possibly - but nothing is going to change. Hurrah for the Boston Standard. File the story under the same category as its “demand” for answers concerning North Sea camp made three weeks ago – which apparently have yet to materialise.
And still with the Market Place refurbishment – we have raised the point several times that works such as this seem to take far longer than they once did. An especially good example was the previously-mentioned Spilsby Road fiasco – which took twelve weeks to complete – possibly because on some occasions there were as few as three workers on site.

A  reader sent the picture on the right, which goes a long way to explaining why it will take  at least eight months to complete the Market Place works. Two men prepare for the arrival of a two foot length of kerbstone - which is being manoeuvred into place by a third man using a mini crane. How long it takes to lay each kerbstone is anyone’s guess – but we bet that in the old days of manual labour it would have taken a fraction of the time.

We are sure that the change of name from the Boston Bypass Independents to the Boston District Independents will do much to win the hearts and minds of the borough’s electorate. Accompanying the news is the same old waffle about independent thinking - and the suggestion that individual independents have little influence ...  whereas combining "independence" wins places on committees and greater power. Going it alone doesn’t seem to have harmed our individual independents so far, as they are well represented on committees. It sounds to us like the mixture as before – and as far as we can tell, the BBI/BDI hasn’t exactly blazed a trail at Worst Street since May’s elections. But now that it has finally thrown in the towel, it might find time to delete the BBI blog which began on 12th May 2007 and ended fifteen days later - and which still lists all the founder members of that ill-starred council  ... despite the claim that “this blog will be updated regularly to keep you informed on our progress…” Its earliest broken promise perhaps …?
Finally, in a move which could come back to haunt him, Skirbeck Ward Labour Councillor Paul Gleeson is inviting Boston people to name their local “grot spots.” He says – quite rightly – “We feel it is essential to run an all year round campaign on cleaning up our town and our estates.” The idea is that we send in photos of our grot spots and the reasons why we have nominated them. The details will then be highlighted on the local Labour Party website. We hope that they are prepared for the site to crash due to the sheer volume of contributions!
That’s it for this week – we’ll be back on Wednesday after a a slightly extended Bank Holiday break – but we’re not going away - and if you need us,  you can get in touch by e-mail.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Booze - and cheers
- Boston drinks
to it all!

It was interesting to read a recent item about Boston’s Street Pastors – a group of volunteers of whom few people in the town aged twenty-five and over will probably have ever heard.

Their job is to patrol the streets of Boston late on Saturday night - and watch for unfortunates who get into difficulties through too much drinking.
Interestingly, they see a slice of Boston life that many of the town's great and good - who should know better - are keen to deny exists.
The pastors carry bottles of water, flip-flops, foil blankets, sick bags and face wipes, and patrol the town’s nightclub areas into the wee small hours.
If you wonder about the flip-flops, they are issued to young women who shed their shoes when booze overtakes them – and so risk treading barefoot in the broken glass that litters our town these days.
The pastors also carry dustpans to collect glass from the streets – and pick up the empties left so they don’t join the deadly debris.
Their co-ordinator says: “We are very much part of the peace-keeping in the town.”
It makes Boston sound like Dodge City.
Whilst it is good to know that there is help available to frame this dystopian portrait – it highlights one more problem facing Boston.
The pastors have become another tier of society that helps people who can’t – or won’t – help themselves.
They represent a safety net for those whose sole aim is to hit Boston town centre on a Saturday night and get legless, regardless of the risk.
Whilst they don’t take on a policing role, the pastors take the weight off the police and avoid charges of drunkenness which would otherwise end in a short sharp shock for an offender and a few hours in the cells with a fine next morning – once enough to prevent a second offence.
We’re sure that the police are happy because it makes their job easier, and according to one nightclub owner, the pastors “do a great service for the town at night time. They look after our customers and other people’s customers.”
And that, of course, spares club owners the trouble of looking out for the best interests of their clients.
By way of illustration, this week’s local “newspapers” carry the story of a judge who wants an investigation into the selfsame nightclub whose manager was quoted – regarding its fitness to have an alcohol licence.
His comments followed evidence about the amount of alcohol served to four people who later carried out an unprovoked attack on a total stranger.
Between them, they consumed jugs of vodka based cocktails; WKD – an alcopop – lager and bitter ... serving one defendant who had already drunk twelve pints of beer.
Doubtless, this manager was comfortable with the Street Pastors “looking after” his customers – but who “looked after” the assault victim was probably not his concern either.
It’s all so brainless.
What do you make of the man on a night out whose best quote was: “I really respect the Street Pastors, because their job is rubbish?”
Or the women who approached them to ask if they would be distributing flip-flops later – making their intentions for a good night out completely unambiguous.
Boston’s attitude to drinking and public order is ambivalent at least.
We have a Designated Public Place Order, which bans drinking in the town centre – but as our picture sent in by a reader clearly shows, you can tip a tinnie within yards of the town’s police station without a problem.
And whenever someone comes up with an idea to sell Boston, by staging an event in Central Park – which always seems to require a beer tent ... the borough council cynically and hypocritically waives the DPPO and looks the other way.
Increasingly, public order in Boston is in the hands of non-empowered individuals, and not the police who represent law and order …
We have the Town Rangers, who appear to spend most of their time loafing about in shop doorways, chatting; we think that we still have Police Community Support Officers – though these days they are never seen – and their “real” colleagues are also invisible.
It appears that we are making no effort to curb the problems that occur on Friday and Saturday nights in the town by trying to educate people to moderate their behaviour.
Instead we encourage a lifestyle that cossets them if they don’t – even though … in a worst case scenario – they could end up in intensive care or as a victim of rape.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

It seems that when it comes to bypasses, nothing is too good for the people of Lincoln. The Tory leadership of Lincolnshire County Council has just taken what they call a “calculated risk” with a last-ditch £48 million offer towards a 4.88-mile Lincoln eastern bypass.

It represents an increase of £33.9 million on the previous figure of £13.8 million, and if the government takes the bait, the county council expects to take the money from reserves rather than borrowing. The extra money will be blagged back over twenty years from housing developers, district councils and other groups who will benefit from the bypass.
Astonishingly for a £10 million a mile price tag, the road has already been downgraded from a dual to a single carriageway to try to keep the government onside.
Some bypass!
The county council’s desperation has been noted by Boston’s Labour councillors, who want to know when our local Tory administration is going to put pressure on “their Conservative friends” at County Hall to make the same kind of commitment that they are making to Lincoln.
“What we don’t want to see happen in the next four years is Boston’s new administration staying silent to the County Council, similar to the previous administration,” they say. “So let’s see some action, as the recent benefits will soon be lost again by the ever increasing amount of traffic on our roads.”
The councillors also comment on the ironic situation in Spalding, which has a choice of two routes for a Spalding Western Relief Road. But both routes would cut through local allotments - which has provoked objections to the plans.
“Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have that option?” says the Labour group. “Isn’t Boston just as deserving of a bypass as Lincoln and Spalding for our economic success?”
Of course it is – it’s just that our local leaders appear willing to be led by their masters in Lincoln – which means we’ll probably never hear about a bypass for Boston again.
At the same time as the Spalding bypass issue, comes news of cash help to revamp and renovate historic shops and offices in Spalding, Crowland, Holbeach and Long Sutton
Traditional work to reinstate the authentic look of properties could be part paid through a something called the Partnership Schemes in Conservation Areas, which is run by South Holland District Council and English Heritage - and since 2007, more than £600,000 has been handed out.
Twenty-five buildings have been worked on - with an average grant of more than £24,000.
What intrigues us is that whilst South Holland District Council can walk the walk – all Boston Borough Council seems capable of is talking the talk.
As long ago as 2004, the Heritage Lottery Fund granted the council a Townscape Heritage Initiative worth up to £860,000 - but it was withdrawn in 2008 as it was unable to be delivered.
More recently, but still as long ago as 2008, the council was talking to English Heritage about investing in just such a project as the one that’s operating in South Holland.
An English Heritage spokesman said at the time: “We don't invest massive amounts every year but when we're interested in a place we'll consistently invest over a period of time. It might take seven or eight years to regenerate a place. In Boston it might take longer" In one town they spent 15 years helping shop owners do their places up and convert space over shops for residential use.
How is it that other local authorities seem able to short circuit the system and get money released in quantity for essential projects, whilst in Boston, they sit on their backsides while absolutely nothing happens?
In the time that Boston has been talking, South Holland has spent more than half a million pounds.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com   Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

H'Angus won in Hartelpool

Let's see if Boston wants an elected mayor - and no monkey business!As the debate rumbles on about whether Boston needs an elected mayor - which would replace the shambolic system we have at present – it seems that people are unclear on what it means.The confusion was compounded in the Observer column in last week’s Boston Standard – but since the writer needs a card with his name  written on it stuck in his hatband as an aide memoir, we are not especially surprised.
When a borough appoints an elected mayor, the historic office is not affected.
The “electricians, truck drivers and businessmen” can still potter around in their ermine robes and silly hats as they have for centuries.
Fortunately in most cases, the mayor has little to do with the real running of a council – except to “impartially” referee a tied vote.
The real power is in the hands of whomever a council elects – or otherwise – as its leader, who then appoints a cabinet of like thinking individuals unlikely to do anything than his or her bidding … but who can be sacked if they don’t.
Defined like this, we can see why the concept of an elected mayor is appealing.
The functionary in this post is put there by a majority vote of local people – in other words, people who consider the candidate the best for the job.
Again the difference from the current system is quite distinct.
At present, a leader's power  comes from the combined votes for his or her party - not as an individual.
And let’s not forget that, often,  elected councillors who won the votes don't  necessarily support their leader’s appointment.
More significantly,  a leader is often unknown to the electors he represents.
Another misconception – which seems widely held in Boston - is that the person campaigning for a referendum will automatically get the job.
All that is happening at present is that local people are being petitioned to call for a referendum which – if one is held – will cost £50,000, and not the £70,000 being touted.
If the petition succeeds, and a referendum is held and a majority votes to elect a mayor,  the next step is open to anyone who wants to throw their hat into the ring.
For example, it could provide an interesting opportunity for a council leader to see if he or she had the real support of the electorate; for a prominent business person to stand; or even – and it’s been done before … in Hartlepool … for the local football mascot to stand; and the man who wore it  it to be elected (see photo at top of page.)
The cost of an elected mayor is, of course, an issue  - and opponents are quick to say that it is unaffordable.
But this year, the "historic" office of mayor  - which is a token piece of pantomime these days - will cost  taxpayers £80,000 ... and even when the budget is trimmed, will be £60,000 a year  - more than £1,000 a week.
Certainly, some improvement to the way that Boston is managed is clearly needed.
The previous council voted for a government structure called “the new Leader and Cabinet Executive (England) Model.”
This required that  “the Leader is elected at the annual council meeting after his/her election to the council and he/she will remain in office for a 4 year term corresponding to his/her term as councillor.”
This key provision regarding tenure in office was designed to ensure that councils were run more harmoniously, more smoothly, and most importantly more efficiently and professionally – but it has already been rejected by the current leader.
Surely then, all bets are  now off.
If voters want  a referendum, they should have  one.
Perhaps the money could come from the reserves – as it has for the up-front funding of the Moulder training pool deal.
And as for the result – all we can say is that it could be interesting!

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Pool plan to

make splash

with reserves

We were pleased to see that a special meeting of Boston Borough Council’s cabinet of curosities has been called for Wednesday - particularly as the previous meeting for the month was cancelled.
In our mind’s eye we pictured their bath chairs creaking off the sundecks and squeaking down Worst Street for a session doubtless to be filled with pith and moment –  probably mostly pith, given the track record of our leaders to date.
But, no.
The meeting will only consider the reopening of the training pool at the Geoff Moulder Leisure complex – plans for which have already been announced in some detail.
Flying in the face of their promise of openness and transparency – one of the few pledges the Tories made to bamboozle Bostonians to put them in charge – after a standing item snappily entitled "Recommendations from Overview and Scrutiny," the meeting will go into secret session.
In fairness, we have to say that a short "public version of the report" was slipped on to the agenda a few days after the initial details appeared – but it tells us next to nothing.
More than that, it creates confusion.
According to the original announcement, a five-year partnership between Boston Borough Council, the Witham Schools Federation and Boston Amateur Swimming Club, is looking at a service level agreement “which will cover the £100,000 a year cost of running the pool and lead to cash generation to help fund the facility.”
But later on, the same statement says that under the deal, the federation and the club will jointly invest £30,000 a year "to help with improvements and refurbishment at the pool."
That was the situation reported around three weeks ago – but now we see a different version ahead of Wednesday’s meeting.
Cabinet members will be asked to approve spending £195,000 from reserves, with £150,000 being repaid over five years from third party contributions, and the remaining £45,000 funded from the capital reserve – in other words, written off.
So what exactly is going on?
The original statement contradicted itself – firstly by saying that third party contributions would cover the pool’s running costs – then saying they would be used for improvements and refurbishment.
Now, it seems the plan is to dig into Boston’s reserves to the tune of almost two years' worth of running costs - of which £150,000 appears to be an “advance” on what the partners will be expected to repay over five years.
It would be nice to have all this explained more fully before the cabinet rubber stamps it - as it assuredly will – but sadly that is impossible, because the public and press are banned from hearing the discussions.
We learned last week that the borough’s record with sports facilities was worse than previously thought.
Veteran Boston journalist George Wheatman disclosed in his column in the Boston Target that trustees at the Peter Paine sports centre –  which was recently given away amidst great fanfare by the borough council to Boston College – were threatened that the centre would be closed if they didn’t spend £400,000 on refurbishment … or hand the lease back to Boston Borough Council.
It’s known as a carrot and stick approach – but without the carrot.
The iron fist in the iron glove.
Given the record of Boston Borough Councils and sporting facilities over the years, we get very nervous.
Are we looking another PRSA in the making, we wonder?

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Week ending

Our Friday miscellany

of the week's

news and events

There was an ominous phrase among the e-mails in circulation earlier this week from the portfolio holder for town centre development and management, Councillor Derek Richmond. Take a deep breath and read on – the italics are ours, but not the punctuation  ... “I too have the interests of the people and businesses of this Town at heart, that's why I put so much time trying to improve Boston in order to achieve more footfall, more spending and ultimately more businesses opening in the future, unfortunately despite everybody's efforts I can't see any of this happening whilst the Market Place is being re-furbished and the economic situation remains as it is, but at least we will have everything in place ready for when all this changes.” Given that the Market Place refurbishment is going on at least until March – and who knows how long the economy will take to recover - we are sure that Boston businesses will go from being gloomy to positively suicidal at this news. If we ran a Market Place business, we’d shut up shop here and now, rather than endure a steady decline and ongoing loss of profits.
Still with Councillor Richmond, we were heartily cheered by the news that the great and the good in Boston Borough Council’s cabinet are working so hard on our behalf. In another e-mail, he wrote: “We are already making great inroads in the Council thanks to everybodys hard work as I am sure the Officers would be only too pleased to tell you. I would say every member of the Cabinet are putting in in excess of 40 hours a week.” We’re sure that he would say it, but we have to say that somehow, we doubt it – unless someone would like to convince us !
We mentioned last week the scruffy plaque that allegedly marks the place where the famous explorer George Bass grew up. However, it appears that not only is the historic plaque in bad nick – but it’s in the wrong place! Reader Robin Smith tells us: “With regard to the state of the Crown and Anchor sign and the plaque with details of George Bass - just one thing concerns me, if the Placecheck/council are keen to spend our money on refurbishing them, can they at least re-install them at the correct location? Yes, George Bass did indeed spend some time residing in Skirbeck Quarter at the Coaching Inn/Posting House under the sign of the Crown and Anchor, but this property was situated at number 16 Skirbeck Quarter. This formerly fine building with its coach arch, on which the sign was originally installed, still stands. The sign, the name and the licence were relocated to the building at number 20 Skirbeck Quarter in around 1850 - approximately 50 years after Bass had died. This building was demolished in 1968 and the sign and plaque placed on the adjacent wall. But this is not the site of the inn where Bass grew up.”
We were pleased to see another list of local “surgeries” being held by Boston councillors appear on the borough’s website – although some of the events appeared to be out of date when they appeared. The list comprises three Conservative councillors, three Labour, and two Independents. That represents only a quarter of the total number of councillors. Surely the people who elected them deserve better than that?
Whilst there was no reason for Boston to have expected trouble during last week’s nationwide riots – the events certainly brought back uncomfortable memories of 2004, when the town did suffer in just such a way. This may well have been in the mind of our MP Mark Simmonds when he declared how appalled he was by the scenes in London, adding that the riot criminals must be confronted. What a shame, then, that he couldn’t apparently make the effort to attend the recall of parliament that debated the matter. In reply to a constituent who asked whether he had been present for the debate, his office said that he hadn’t, and “there hadn’t been any riots in Lincolnshire.” The phrase let them eat cake comes to mind.
There appears to have been a lot of gloating by both the Boston Standard and the borough council because BBC’s Look North came to town to feature their “name and shame anti-litter campaign.” It’s really no big deal, as lazy regional TV programmes check out the front pages of our local papers and proceed accordingly. Add to that the fact that the Look North edition in question is a local programme within a local programme, and we wonder what all the fuss is about. It should be routine for stories about Boston to appear on local television – not something to be regarded as exceptional. Also, wouldn’t it be great if the stories were good news, rather than the reverse? And before anyone objects – a story about a joint effort to punish people who drop litter (a scourge according to the council,) is not a good news story - as it highlights the litter problem in Boston and the extreme measures needed to combat it.
There is surely a message to be taken from this week’s court appearances in our local “newspapers.” Without exception, the surnames for the entire sitting read like an Eastern European telephone directory – Slivinskas, Balans, Lezdins, Moskal, Kaicenko, Jucys, Zielinski. And of these seven, some were repeat offenders, who clearly haven’t taken the hint. In its welcoming message to newcomers to Boston, the borough council says: “More people are moving into Boston from outside the area, and this information has been collected to help all newcomers, especially economic migrants from the European Union, to get information about public services they need, integrate into the community and play a full part in the borough's life. One of the council's main priorities is to ensure Boston is a place for everyone - a place that values diversity.” Boston is also a place that should value law and order – and surely the time has come to explain to newcomers that integration requires a certain standard of behaviour. Perhaps our local solicitors could also try to refrain from coming up with laughable excuses in so-called mitigation.
When Boston town centre was placed under a Designated Public Place Order – a fancy term which just means you can't drink in public – joy was unconfined. Despite the fact that it hasn’t really made much difference, there’s another less pleasant aspect for people who live beyond the DPPO area, whose opinions were pooh-poohed when they expressed fears that the order would simply shift the problem elsewhere.

We encountered these two bins within yards of each other during what should have been a pleasant weekend stroll alongside the Maud Foster waterway. Nearby, a council-owned bench had been uprooted and dumped on the river bank – although by now it is probably to be found full fathom five below old Maudie’s waters. But at least a town centre problem has been addressed – which seems to be all that the council is really concerned about - and why should it care about the poor devils living just a few hundred yards further away … after all they’re just council tax payers.
We mentioned a while ago the apparent determination of Lincolnshire County Council to ensure that the town remains as hard to travel as possible because of roadworks. One such problem has been highlighted at the A52 junction with the Boardsides, where the bridge that leads out of town to Tesco and Oldrids Downtown has been made one-way. The so called “diversion” back to town, is apparently over 20 miles and takes more than half an hour. Why? Another question that we have raised is why it takes so long to complete what ought to be relatively minor road schemes. Yesterday as we headed to Tesco, there were two men working on the bridge, whilst a third watched. Could that be the answer?
Isn’t 20:20 hindsight a wonderful thing? Once again former BBI councillor Sheila Newell has raised her head above the parapet - this time to tell us that Boston is “not as welcoming as it ought to be” and that a mere four-day a week opening of the Guildhall is inappropriate. She adds that the Market Place refurbishment should have included the Assembly Rooms - which are dirty inside and out, poorly presented, and underused. And as for the toilets – only those at Park Gate meet modern standards. How strange that during her four years in office Mrs Newell made little, if anything, of these issues. When she had to opportunity to act, she didn’t – so why is she now so gung-ho about the need for the town to be improved and promoted?
Businesses that must have been cheered when the free concert in Central Park – free to visitors, but at a cost of £10,000 to them if they were members of the Boston Business “Improvement” District – had been called off, may now be less sanguine. Apparently the event has merely been postponed – so their money will be needed next year instead. Not only that, but the event may well be spread over two days, not just one. At least it gives people longer to protest - and perhaps curb the BID’s generosity. Meanwhile, we are still baffled as to why the event reached such an advanced stage before Boston Borough Council ordered its postponement on 'elf and safety grounds - because of the proximity of Boston Market and the park. The event was approved by the BID’s board, which includes a senior officer of Boston Borough Council – so why wasn’t the conflict of interest spotted earlier, particularly as the officer concerned was also responsible for the relocation of the market?
Good to see after our mention last week that the Boston Community Showcase has found its way on to the borough council’s website What’s On Diary. Not only that, but another event is also listed for September. Two things going on in Boston in a whole month – phew … it make us feel quite giddy!


You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com   Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Don't let Boston get trapped in time

We’ve mentioned before the perception that Boston is seen as being in something of a time warp – a medieval town trapped in amber for visitors to come to enjoy, where tourism holds the key to prosperity.
But is this really the image we should be settling for?
Time and again, we see Boston’s “heritage” trumpeted – but what does it really comprise?
Whilst comparisons are made between Boston and York – often by people who really should know better – this is really comparing chalk and cheese.
We have Boston Stump, the Guildhall – now sadly spoiled by its “restoration” - and … er … Fydell House, which is nothing much to write home about, and the Maud Foster Windmill.
In Lincolnshire as a whole, 80% of the workforce is employed in one of just six areas.
Twenty-seven percent are in government services – which means the council or district councils) 18% work in the retail and wholesale sectors – shops - while 14% are in financial and business services – banks and building societies.
The agri-food industry accounts for just 10% of the workforce - almost three times the England average, followed by non-food manufacturing at 8% and tourism at the bottom of the list with 7%.
The employment situation sums up Boston problems in a nutshell – and if we are to avoid unemployment rising in the years ahead, the time to do something is now.
Government services are a contracting rather than expanding area – as is the financial sector.
Shops will always be there – but don’t we want better for the next generations than an eight hour grind behind a Tesco checkout?
Manufacturing has never been a Lincolnshire industry in this part of the world – and even if we got our bypass at some distant point in the future it seems unlikely that serious manufacturing will ever find its way here.
Even the food industry in slowly becoming less labour intensive, and more jobs in this area are being taken by migrant labour rather than the traditional gangmaster core.
Tourism – with such a small share of the jobs market – is not really the basket in which to put Boston’s eggs.
The attractions that we mentioned at the start are unlikely to employ many more people, even if we attract more visitors.
The shops – and therefore the local economy may benefit in increased sales – but with declining “truly local” businesses, most of the money will head out of the borough and into the coffers of the national chains.
The Lincolnshire Local Economic Assessment recognises Boston’s difficulties.
“Job creation will need to be achieved in the places where the need is greatest.” It says. “This includes areas such as the east coast, Gainsborough and Boston, where levels of worklessness are higher and the skills of the workforce lower than the county average.”
Boston does of course have opportunities for development on the jobs front.
The much trumpeted Endeavour Park which was built by Boston Borough Council still has plenty of capacity – and we are sure that there are other such estates with room for new business.
Yet we never seem to hear much about the opportunities available.
This week saw the announcement of major government investment in rural broadband – with Lincolnshire in the top five areas in terms of the cash allocation with an allocation of £14.3m.
All the signs are there.
A sea change could occur in Boston if the right people seized the initiative now.
Lincolnshire is conspicuously absent from the latest list of Enterprise Zones announced by the government yesterday morning. There are now around thirty counties on the list of locations to benefit from initiative which could see tens of thousands of jobs created.
Soon, our part of the world will be famous for nothing at all – unless someone gets a finger out to improve local work and business opportunities.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

"Momentum for referendum

on elected

mayor is there"

We have been taken to task for suggesting that the campaign to hold a referendum on whether Boston should have an elected Mayor was in the doldrums.
English Democrat Councillor Elliott Fountain, who is spearheading the campaign - which needs 2,400 signatures to force the referendum -  says he is sending 250 letters to local businesses and organisations in support of his campaign.
“There are many things going on behind the scenes that are helping me build a strong foundation and build the network I require,” he told us. "I have opened an office on West Street and have been dealing with solicitors to open an English Democrat supporters club.
“There have been two or three big write-ups in the Boston Target in last few weeks, so I think the momentum and awareness is there.
“There is no major rush for me to collect names, so I am not trying to burn myself out because I need to pace myself for the petition, referendum and then the Mayoral election.
“I can easily collect 200 signatures a day myself, and have not yet met one person who has not signed the petition.
“The people/network I am trying to build will give me a strong base, and allow me to use many other resources. I have got over 100 organisations to deal with just with the learning communities for Boston area, who have been supportive, then I have all the retailers who are against Boston BID to see how they are going to support me.
“I have been to meet all the big gangmasters and landlords, and they are willing to help with the campaign. I have just bought a large printer and opened a printer’s just so I can produce my own leaflets and petitions quicker.
“Honestly, I could get the 2,400 signatures by the end of the month if I really wanted to, but I don’t think this would be to my advantage. I want the residential care homes, Mayflower, the police and everyone involved.
“The petition has been downloaded off www.elliottfountain.co.uk  on many occasions already, and I would expect these to get signed by the people then dropped in or posted back to me.”
Councillor Fountain also addresses the matter of offering payments to people who collect signatures, which brought comment from Boston Eye readers.
“I would expect the offer of cash to get a response from many of the people who don’t support me, and this I imagine is what has happened - any excuse to try and paint it in a negative light.
“I am truly disappointed with the Boston Standard’s article and think it is taken out of context, and very poor journalism.
“I was happy for the Standard to report one of my groups on Facebook, which has 1,250 members who all show their support. I did not know the Standard was trying to look for a very poor news scoop on there.
“The main reason I want to save Boston is because of what it has become.
"If the media and other people don’t want to support me, this is disappointing to say the least.
“The momentum is there, I promise you.”
In an email to the paper, Councillor Fountain protests that the headline “paints me in a unfair and negative light for no apparent reason.”
He adds: “The Standard should be interviewing myself and reporting on things I have said, not Facebook statuses where I would compensate and reward someone in the economic recession who has taken lots of their own time to support me and to gain over 500 signatures.
“I would not expect anyone to sacrifice their own time knocking on doors, talking to people to explain and collecting names. I had not even thought any further about what I had put on Facebook until I saw it in the Standard.”

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.