Boston.Eye

2011-09-25T12:06:00.000+01:00

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.

2011-09-04T12:08:00.000+01:00

Out with the old ...

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.

2011-09-03T07:56:00.000+01:00

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.

2011-09-03T05:45:00.000+01:00

2011-09-02T06:00:00.012+01:00

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.

2011-09-01T06:00:00.001+01:00

£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.

2011-08-31T06:00:00.000+01:00

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.

2011-08-26T06:00:00.002+01:00

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.

2011-08-25T06:15:00.002+01:00

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.

2011-08-24T06:15:00.003+01:00

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.

2011-08-23T06:15:00.008+01:00

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.

2011-08-22T06:00:00.004+01:00

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

2011-08-19T06:00:00.007+01:00

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.

2011-08-18T06:00:00.002+01:00

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.

2011-08-17T06:15:00.005+01:00

"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.

2011-08-16T06:00:00.009+01:00

Tories caught napping
in first 100 daze

Four years ago, the Boston Bypass Independents issued a press release to mark their first hundred days in power.
Rightly or wrongly, they were proud of their achievements, and wanted voters to know.
Four years on, and the new tenants at Worst Street - the Big Blue Dragon Corp - are slumbering in their aerie.
When the Tories stormed to power 100 days ago, no one was more surprised than they.
Their manifesto – such as it was – promised to maintain front line services, end “behind closed door” policies, push for cleaner streets and green waste collection, improve safety in Boston and the villages, and share resources with other councils.
They were pedestrian promises, from a party which expected to form a substantial opposition, then be able to snipe at whoever really ran the show without the need to put their money where their mouth was.
The election changed all that.
The Tories won Boston for the first time since local government reorganisation in 1973 – but their victory left them wrong-footed and short on ideas.
The man who led them to victory – Councillor Raymond Singleton-McGuire - “decided” to cede the leadership to Councillor Peter Bedford … an experienced “leader” having just spent the previous year as the boss of Lincolnshire County Council - and who had obviously enjoyed the experience.
Councillor Singleton-McGuire’s explanation was that the borough’s finances demanded so much attention that it would take him a couple of years to sort things out - but then they were signed off as ok within a few weeks.
Since then the formerly ebullient and vocal Councillor Singleton-McGuire has become a political hermit – seldom heard from, and mute on his previously active blog for months.
The party had barely got its carpet slippers beneath the tea table … just 60 days in … when a councillor who dared to challenge the bosses, found it impossible to go on - and joined the independents.
That led the leader to declare that there was no room for “mavericks” in his posse – a clear suggestion that individuality was not tolerated.
Strangely, Councillor Bedford had already shown “maverick” tendencies by rejecting the government’s “strong leadership model,” which says a leader must serve for a council’s full four year term – the idea being to give it a solid grounding and strengthen it by removing internal political wrangling.
Instead, Councillor Bedford clarified his position saying he was dedicated to the job for two years at least. After that he would rethink once Lincolnshire County Council elections were held.
So much for the politics to date – now … what about the promises?
"Maintenance of front line services" is hard to define, as it depends on what you call a front line service.
But within the past week or so we have heard about hiving off the borough’s bereavement services to the private sector. We have also seen a “partnership” at the Geoff Moulder training pool which will let selected groups access the facilities in exchange for a £30,000 a year “entry ticket.” Similarly, the borough has given away the Peter Paine sports centre to Boston College in a peppercorn rent deal which will also almost certainly reduce the access formerly enjoyed by the public.
So the services side of things is contracting all the time – and another election promise, to share working with other councils, may well result in reduced levels also.
Then there was the pledge to end “behind closed door” policies – the infamous “pink paper” agenda items that saw the public and press excluded from meetings.
Despite being in power for more than three months, meetings have been cancelled – including one that would have been the first cabinet session to discuss “real” business – so it is not yet possible to make much of an evaluation.
But what we noticed on the agenda which debated selling off bereavement services, was a warning that if the discussion strayed into “confidential” areas such as staffing implications, then the public would be thrown out.
Note the absence of a pink paper – but also note that, inevitably, the discussion went that way – and the exclusions took place.
The promise on green waste collection was delivered in a sloppy way with a pilot scheme that completely upended the rules on which bins are used for which waste and confused many people. Whilst it is succeeding, there is a clear need to introduce it borough wide and to provide dedicated wheelie bins as soon as possible – and to turn the savings that benefit Lincolnshire County Council into tangible benefits for the people of Boston.
The only other concrete pledge was to work with communities and the police to improve all areas of the borough. To date this appears to constitute the resurrection of a three year old scheme to name and shame litterers – done in conjunction with the Boston Standard.
It’s a start, but there are so many more areas which need to be addressed – especially the reverberations from the Boston explosion and sale of illicit alcohol in the town – and restoring a visible police presence to our streets.
Then there are areas where promises were implied, rather than made.
High on the list was the issue of the Into Town buses using Strait Bargate as a rat run – something condemned by the Tories in opposition.
But now that push has come to shove, they say that nothing can be done until the contract for the service ends in two years’ time – presumably to placate their masters in County Hall - something that they previously accused the BBI of doing.
The Tories also threw their weight behind the Market Place refurbishment scheme – not that they had any choice - but now it is proving such blight on local businesses, they are reluctant to address the problem.
Still, it’s only been a hundred days – so perhaps that’s why there’s not a lot to write home about.
Perhaps we should not have expected too much.
In that case, we wouldn’t have been disappointed.
Instead, we’ll be charitable and call it a honeymoon period.
Whatever, it’s over now - so we expect to see something positive emerging for the people of Boston.

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

2011-08-15T06:00:00.002+01:00

From BID to worse...

Boston’s beleaguered Business Improvement District is at the centre of more controversy after a weekend which saw the announcement of the cancellation of the free concert in Central Park – on the orders of Boston Borough Council - into which the BID had intended to pour £10,000 in levy payers’ money. (See our Saturday blog for details.)
Given the length of time since the concert was announced, and the fact that the event was fully planned and ready, there is speculation that the call to postpone it at such a late stage was more an attempt to defledct the anger of local businesses by saving them money, rather than the “health and safety-ish” pretext of the relocation of the market.
After our reports last week, one of the members of the Task and Finish group set up to look into the affairs of the BID – Independent Councillor Richard Leggott – wrote to Councillor Derek Richmond … the portfolio holder for town centre development and management, car parks, BID, markets and public toilets.
The e-mail appears below.

click to enlarge the image

His reaction was to suggest from the outset that the information in our report was untrue – but that has, of course, subsequently proved not to be the case.
Here’s what Councillor Richmond – a former right hand man of Boston MP Mark Simmonds, and one time chairman of Boston and Skegness Conservative Association “which has given me experience of local politics” – had to say …

click to enlarge the image

Among the achievements listed, we were especially taken by the BID “Area Champion Scheme.” In which “Eight area champions volunteered to represent their areas. Held first meeting in June - but only one Champion attended.”
Champion!!
Councillor Leggott was quick to pick up on aspects of the reply – including the apparently large amount of levy which has gone unpaid.
His reply left the ball firmly in Councillor Richmond’s court.

click to enlarge the image

Over the weekend, Councillor Leggott responded to a request from Boston Eye to comment.
“For a start, let me say that I would like our BID to be successful for the town and individual retailers,” he said.
“As a member of the Task and Finish group that looked into matters BID approximately eight months ago, I have kept up an interest in the reactive outcome to the borough council considerations, findings and recommendations.
“The recommendations were for a really serious attempt to address the communications problems within BID, expressing a hope that a two way flow of information could be implemented.
“BID is a member organisation and I know, from other work in such spheres, that unless members are part of a good two way communication system then members cannot appreciate what is being done and why. Nor can they express their approval, or otherwise, at the relevant times and place.
“Communication in such organisations should allow members to input right to and from the core.
“On hearing what has actually been happening since the Task and Finish group made its recommendation regarding this issue, I contacted Councillor Richmond expressing some concerns.
“I have been told that Councillor Richmond is aware of the ongoing communications problem and has been raising the issue at his monthly meetings with (unidentified) BID members. He has also assured me he will be raising the matter again at next Friday's meeting. Well done.
“However in such correspondence it transpires that two other problems are also 'dogging' BID.
“First; there seems to be much activity in the preparation of lists of 'forthcoming attractions.’ Whether such lists ever get turned into actualities is hard to say as a non BID member. Possibly BID members are better informed but ---?
“Second; it would appear that BID funding can be seen to be procuring services that would normally be provided by Boston Borough Council, paid out of council taxes collected. Am I wrong in thinking that the extra 1% levy was all supposed to be used to provide extra services?
“I feel sure that even if Councillor Richmond does not read your column (as he claims) then his fellow cabinet members, three of whom sat on the BID Task and Finish group, will be able to 'fill him in' on these matters.
But I fear that addressing other issues will be for nought if the lack of communications continues to sour BID members' thinking.
“And that would be a great shame.”
A much lengthier – and in some ways even more telling - email dialogue has taken place between Councillor Richmond and Boston businessman Darron Abbott – a strong critic of the BID – and it has led to some interesting disclosures.
There are too many to publish them here – but what they do show is that Councillor Richmond (pictured below left) appears badly out of touch with some of the issues he is supposed to be knowledgeable about.

In one message, Mr Abbott told Councillor Richmond: “I really do hope that you and the borough take the opportunity to call a meeting and ask the businesses what they think is wrong. Surely you and the council have a duty to listen to all parties; if you fail to do this it will demonstrate to the life blood of this town that they are not important to you as portfolio holder for the town centre, the conservative administration and the officers of the council.
“I hope you will consider my comments as I feel the businesses have had enough and could start to become vocal.
“Remember: ‘Conservatives are the party for business.’"
The response – whilst apparently conciliatory – was also barbed.
“I no objections to a meeting, and am willing to chair it, in fact I welcome every thing being out in the open, I will talk to BID about this.
“I can tell you that BID do a lot of stuff that is necessary for the Town and that in these times of financial constraints, we as a Council, can't afford to do, Boston would be a poorer place without them, what they do need to do is communicate better as I tell them every time I see them.
“If you knew the amount of work I am putting in with other parties to try and revive Boston after four years of neglect I am sure you would not be making offensive remarks regarding the Life blood of Boston.
“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.”
Note the line: “BID do a lot of stuff that is necessary for the Town and that in these times of financial constraints, we as a Council, can't afford to do…”
The rules governing BIDs are explicit – they are to use their resources to enhance the status quo – not to pay for services the local council can no longer afford.
In an earlier exchange about the number of business which had not paid their levies, when Mr Abbott raised the issue of the outstanding levy payments – which Councillor Richmond has described as “colossal” he retorted (with a copy this time sent to two of the council’s most senior officers) “Yes but that will change very shortly” – a line taken to mean that prosecutions may well be launched against non payers soon.
Readers will recall that Boston Borough Council is the BID’s “enforcer” and issues summonses for non payment which could see refuseniks fined and criminalised.
Councillor Richmond’s comment prompted this response from Mr Abbott: “Would it not be better to call a meeting to find out why people are not paying, there must be a reason. Perhaps people want their day in court, and I would advise caution. In a recent case the courts said the levy must be paid but would not allow the costs to be passed on. This set a precedent and could be very costly to BID and the council. Remember whose name will be on the demands and court summons and will look the bad guys. It will not be BID.”
Clearly, the council is now on the horns of a dilemma.
The situation surrounding Boston BID has deteriorated to a ludicrous degree – helped in no small way by a portfolio holder with responsibility in that area.
Perhaps a cabinet reshuffle would help?

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

2011-08-13T07:08:00.000+01:00

Council orders BID's

"free" concert postponed

It’s emerged that Boston Borough Council was behind the move to cancel next month’s free music festival in the town’s Central Park.
An email to the local band Audio Tap from Jo Moscrop, the project manager for the concert at Infodex Events, broke the news.
It read: “Unfortunately Boston Council have requested that Boston BID (the funders) postpone Boston Beat in September due to the temporary relocation of the Market (just outside park gates). We are awaiting a reply back to confirm the new date for the Festival (next year sometime).
“As I'm sure you will agree this is a huge blow and one we could all have done without.
“We are absolutely gutted here and are so sorry that we have to give you this bad news.
“We had everything in place for the event; all the work had been done, just a matter of turning up on the day.”
A comment posted on Audio Tap’s Facebook page (picture below) reads
“Well, no live music in the park this September. THANKS BOSTON COUNCIL.

click on photo to enlarge

“Unfortunately Boston Council have requested that Boston BID (the funders) postpone Boston Beat in September due to the temporary relocation of the Market (just outside park gates).
“I’d have thought it would have helped trade in Boston, with the extra people in the town.”
What we don’t understand is why the project was allowed to develop for so long before the council decided to intervene – thus raising people’s expectations and wasting a lot of the organisers’ time.
Boston Borough Council has an officer on the BID board – and even if he was not present at the meeting which took the decision, he must surely have been aware of it.
The Boston Beat event was announced in the local papers two and a half weeks ago on June 27th – so a decision was clearly taken well before that.
So why did the council take so long?
Was it an indirect way to stop the BID blowing £10,000 of levy payers’ funds after a week of protest against the use of the money for such a project?
If so, it has backfired - as feeling against the BID is now running higher than ever.
See Monday’s Boston Eye to read some interesting e-mail conversations and admissions about Boston BID.

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

2011-08-12T06:14:00.001+01:00

Our Friday miscellany

of the week's

news and events

We’re told that Boston BID has backed out of its planned sponsorship of a pop concert planned for Central Park on 11th September which it planned to back with £10,000 worth of members’ levy fees. Meanwhile, as the turmoil goes on, it appears that the BID is set to get its third chairman in just over a year. It also appears that many traders have refused to pay their levy - leaving the BID with a huge amount in arrears. Last Night BBC Look North featured the BID issue, and among the people interviewed was local butcher Terry Dawson, who said he ignored the BID’s initial letter because it looked like junk mail - but then found that his silence had been interpreted as a vote in favour of its formation. And Judith Meadows, a former director of the company, said that whilst the BID made lots of lists it never did much. Look out for more on the BID debate on Monday’s blog.
The campaign for a referendum to see if voters want an elected mayor for Boston appears to have got off to a sluggish start. Five per-cent of the electorate – just 2,400 people – need to back the idea to force the referendum, which critics say is an expense the borough can’t afford. This week’s Boston Standard makes much of the fact that the man behind the campaign – English Democrat Councillor Elliott Fountain – is offering payments to people who collect more than 500 signatures. It’s something that’s also exercised some of our readers. We guess that it depends whether the payment is compensation for time spent going door-to-door with a petition form, or "buying" signatures per se. Perhaps some clarification would help.
Despite the mutterings about the way it is being conducted, the green waste pilot scheme is said to have collected 70 tons of garden refuse in its first week and been a great success. It’s estimated that that more than £45,000 will be saved in disposal fees during the project. However, the beneficiary is not Boston, but Lincolnshire County Council, and it is unclear whether the borough gets anything out of it or not – although estimates show Boston paying nothing at all if the county council foots its costs to the extent of the savings. One slight problem in all of this is what on earth to do with all the compost created. Within our team, we own something like six compost bins, all working flat out, and producing more compost than we can cobble dogs with – magnify that by hundreds of tons, and it surely becomes something of a problem.
Refurbished or not? The latest edition of the Boston Borough Council bulletin devotes quite a lot of space to local-ish hero George Bass, one of the early explorers of Australia. It makes mention of the plaque in the High Street which marks the place where Bass grew up, and which was erected almost 20 years ago. Sadly as the bulletin picture of it shows, the plaque appears in a dreadful condition.We hope that the picture is merely out of date, as project number six of the High Street South Placecheck scheme announced in January last year included the refurbishment of the memorial. But as this is Placecheck, anything is possible.
A novel idea to make Boston a greener place appears on a website called PledgeBank. The idea is that an individual makes a promise that will be carried out if a specified number of others lend support. The one in question is called Trees for Boston, and the pledge reads: "I will plant five trees a year in the town, but only if 20 other local people will support the transfer of the Victorian Cemetery to a local volunteer trust. It is signed by Jonathon Carr-Brackenbury, a “Bostonian concerned resident.” The deadline for signatures is 27th May 2012, and so far only two people have signed up. A footnote to the appeal adds: “The Victorian cemetery is badly mismanaged by the council and needs transferring to a local volunteer trust to be maintained as a Grade 2 listed cemetery park and garden.” It’s a good idea apart from one small snag – by May next year, the cemetery may well have been hived off to the private sector.

click on photo to enlarge

It’s a sad fact that Boston is at the bottom of so many lists that we’ve lost count. But now it seems that our puny status extends even into the corridors of power. A local talking shop called the Conservative Policy Forum for Lincolnshire has four local MPs giving after dinner talks around the county. As you can see, the session with MPs Karl McCartney and Stephen Phillips will set you back a tenner, followed by £8 to hear Nick Boles. But the buffet supper with our very own Mark Simmonds is a mere £6 a head.
It sounds like it won’t be worth taking a doggy bag!
We note that the Boston Standard has dusted off its big idea of three years ago and teamed up with Boston Borough Council to name and shame litter louts who drop their rubbish in our streets – which the council now admits is a “scourge.” Ideas like this are all well and good, and it is claimed that the scheme was very effective when first tried out three years ago. What we don’t understand was why it was dropped. Presumably, the novelty wore off, but had it continued it might well have all but eradicated the borough’s litter problems by now. We hope that this time the campaign will prove to be more than just a publicity stunt for the council and the Standard. And while they’re about it, how about using the cameras to name and shame the dozens of drivers who jump red traffic lights around the town every day – before they kill or maim some hapless pedestrian.
People who live in glass houses … This week’s Boston Standard has a new comment columnist, who - in the absence of anything much to say - decided to highlight the following.

Aside from the fact that these misspellings could have been picked up by the local staff who theoretically have greater local knowledge, the dangers of highlighting such errors became apparent just a few pages later. In the Standard’s regular stroll down memory lane, the following appeared …

Lindus Road? Surely, Lindis!
Next week will see the first 100 days of the Conservative administration at Boston Borough Council. A time for celebration? We’ll be taking a closer look, as you might expect – most probably in Tuesday’s blog. So if anyone would like to write and tell us what a great job they've been doing, then there’s still time. But we won’t hold our breath!
In a paid for advert in this week’s Boston Target, Independent Councillor Carol Taylor extends her thanks to a couple who helped her out with the price of a car park ticket.

Last week she had a letter in the paper praising the police for their quick response after she tried to disperse a group of drinkers in the town centre – some of whom wouldn’t take the hint. Councillor Taylor recently rose to our challenge to compare councillors with characters from the Bash Street Kids – and nominated herself as Toots. But in light of recent events, we somehow feel that Beryl in Peril would seem nearer the mark! One final question – it may look different in our enlargement, but why does the Target apparently use a drawing of a carrot as a means to say thanks?

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

2011-08-11T06:07:00.000+01:00

Who will help

poor old Boston?

Given the glittering incompetence of Boston Business Improvement District - which we make no apologies for banging on about these past three days - we thought that we would take a look and see whether anyone, anywhere, was flying the flag for Boston.

It seems that there are plenty of places, but none of them show much, if any, interest in our part of the world.
A quick search around comes up with Lincolnshire Enterprise “an independent, business led partnership between the private sector, local authorities, public bodies, voluntary and community groups across the (sic) Lincolnshire.”
It calls itself a “key vehicle” through which Lincolnshire County Council engages and consults with partners to champion economic development and regeneration in the county, which has worked with other business leaders and local authorities to develop a proposal to create a Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) for Lincolnshire.
A trawl though its web pages finds little mention of Boston – except in the context of its heritage value.
Whilst heritage is important, it butters no parsnips, as the bard might have said on an off day.
So what of this Local Enterprise Partnership?
It met for the first time in December – and although it was initially intended to be based on the Lincolnshire County Council area, it now includes North East and North Lincolnshire and will work closely with the LEPs covering Nottinghamshire and Greater Peterborough.
We’re not sure this is a good move.
In the LEP’s own words, “Greater Lincolnshire is largely rural, with much of the population living in market towns, coastal communities and isolated rural settlements. Individuals and businesses looking to grow in these areas face particular challenges, and the LEP will work with partners and local businesses and entrepreneurs to provide support they need to thrive.”
It sounds good – but partnering with the four far more industrialised areas mentioned previously can do nothing but divert much needed assistance from the area the LEP was once intended to serve.
And again, there is an element of secrecy in all of this. The board will meet quarterly – in private – but unlike Boston BID, will publish the minutes of its meetings.
Having said that, we can find no trace of any meeting to date - although by now there should have been at least two - nor any sign of the Prospectus for Action that was promised after the first meeting.
The founding board has 12 members - six from business and six civic leaders from across publicly-funded organisations – and guess what? Boston is not represented.
But the good news for one member at least - Neil Corner, Siemens’ Director of Service – is that the LEP’s first bid included money for a transport infrastructure and to facilitate Siemens’s turbine operations move to Teal Park in North Hykeham near Lincoln.
Oh well, there’s always Visit Lincolnshire, the former tourism quango now run by Lincolnshire County Council after funding was withdrawn.
But even this only pays lip service to Boston.
A search of attractions comes up with 15 places – some of them outside the borough – and does not include Boston Stump. Doubtless it listed elsewhere but ….
The website also lists what’s on events.
We looked for next month’s Boston Community Showcase – a major event that draws thousands of visitors – but it wasn’t listed. Having said that, it doesn’t appear on Boston Borough Council’s website list of events, either, as September is totally blank.
As we mentioned the other week, the draft economic strategy report produced by Boston Borough Council recognised the “poor marketing and image of Boston.”
It’s taken long enough, and we hope that this serious omission is addressed as soon as possible.
But it is also clear that we can look for little, if any help, in funding or promoting the area from the various quangos that are supposed to be taking our needs into account.
We think that one of the best things that could happen would be for Boston to set up its own promotional organisation – but staffed by professionals who know whereof they speak and who have the strength and ability to get things done.

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

2011-08-10T06:15:00.011+01:00

Day three of our special report

The party's over before it's begun.

Boston BID needs looking at before next spring...

Aside from throwing money at free parties Boston BID’s spending to date does not stand close scrutiny.

First there was the spectacularly incompetent 2010 business directory– published in September last year at a cost of £10,000 … which made it almost out of date from the outset.
The 48-page glossy publication listed businesses by category - starting with butchers and bakers, then car, charity, financial, food, hair and beauty, health, “information,” leisure (which included pubs and Boston Conservative Club,) property, and a catch-all called “retail” – which included businesses the directory apparently couldn’t be bothered to categorise, which rendered the entire exercise pointless.
Equally unhelpful was the fact that - aside from the main headings - there was no attempt to put businesses in alphabetical order ... so you had to spend ages wading through the hundreds of randomly listed firms to find the one you wanted.
A list of the town’s “attractions” included the Maude (wrong spelling) Foster Windmill, Church Street, Boston Stump, Pescod Hall (a sandwich shop,) Shodfriars Hall (not open to the general public,) Fydell House, and ... that jewel in the crown of attractions – Cammacks! The Guildhall? Not there.
Now, we have the famous "mapping project" – begun almost a year ago, and due to be delivered by March - but which has not yet materialised.

click to enlarge image

Instead of an ordinary map that everyone can understand, the BID has come up with a 3D version – (pictured right) which whilst decorative and imaginative – fails to deliver a map’s basic promise … to be something people can use to navigate with.
In September last year a board meeting was told that there would be a £9,000 charge for producing the maps and £7,500 for an initial purchase of 25,000 copies – or 66p a copy.
But by the November meeting (October was cancelled because not enough members bothered to turn up) the cost had been “quantified” at a maximum of £17,000 to include 10,000 map booklets – or £1.70p per map – an unexplained rise of £1.04 a copy.
The latest piece of BIDdery pokery concerns tourist information boards.
The BID website proudly proclaims that it “has taken over responsibility for the maintenance of the Tourist Information Point boards (example left) that are located in the town. “There are currently seven of these boards and they have not had any meaningful information in them for some time (a bit like the BID website, then) and are not in the best of condition (again, a bit like the BID.)
“As a first step we have removed the boards and taken them to a secret location where they are undergoing refurbishment which involves a complete strip down, replacement of rubber seals and locks, new perspex windows and a respray. Once the refurbishment is completed the boards will be returned to their original locations and will have useful information about the town and forthcoming events.”
Are they serious?
“A secret location?” What it this – Boy’s Own Paper?
Why is it we think that by the time the BID has finished, it would have been quicker and cheaper to buy new information boards – although given the performance with the maps, this may not have been the case.
Earlier this year, a group appointed by Boston Borough Council examined the BID - after complaints that it was failing to deliver.
A key recommendation was that "overall improvement" was needed in communications between everyone involved in the BID company.
Other suggestions included appointing area representatives as intermediaries between the board and members, and for board members to support dedicated parts of the BID area.
There was also a demand for the issuing of dates of meetings and general correspondence and information from the BID manager to be improved significantly, and that all board meetings should be open to members with a timeslot for questions and statements.
And what has happened?
No recent information has appeared on the website.
The BID has now declared that it will no longer publish minutes of board meetings – because there is no requirement for it to do so.
The borough council group said that a report on the progress of the BID should be bought back to the committee in Spring 2012, for members to monitor the group's recommendations.
Given what is going on, that is far long to wait - as not only have the recommendations that could have been implemented appear to have been ignored - but the situation seems to have worsened ... impossible though it might seem.
The committee that discussed the BID comprised five councillors – all of whom were re-elected in May.
Two of them are now joint deputy leaders Michael Brookes and Raymond Singleton-McGuire, whilst a third is another senior cabinet member, Mike Gilbert.
But many new councillors have now arrived on the scene, whom we believe may know nothing of the dreadful BID debacle.
We urge them to find out more … then press for prompt action if they feel it is necessary - and not let the company bump along the bottom for another six or seven months throwing away members’ hard-earned money like confetti in the meantime.
The council - particularly as it is now run by the party that “represents business” - has a responsibility and a duty of care to local companies trapped in the BID’s sticky web.

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

2011-08-09T06:07:00.002+01:00

After yesterday’s news that Boston BID is now for all practical purposes operating in secret, and refusing the pass information to the members who pay for it, we decided to take a closer look at the organisation which was launched in December 2008.
Today sees the first in a two part report that looks in detail at what the BID promised – and what it has delivered.
Ironically, the BID’s slogan is “Your Town. Your Business. Your Voice. Your Opportunity” – and if the Trades Description Act applied to such meaningless waffle, there would be a case to answer.
We took a look at the company’s business plan, thinking to list the promises made so earnestly that have not been delivered – until we realised that this would take up so much space that it would take hours to read.
A few morsels will give you the general drift.
“A BID creates an organisation through which businesses have influence.”
“This is a five year plan with clear and realistic aims that will be controlled by local businesses.”
“A complaint of business is that they have little or no say in what happens around their premises or indeed within Boston.”
“Businesses know only too well what is needed but are not listened too (sic.) You need to feel consulted and involved.”
Any local business owner who pays the 1% levy on their business rates will certainly agree that they have no influence on what the BID does – and that their voices remain unheard.
The decision no longer to publish the minutes of the board meetings – which have been the only way for members to see what their “representatives” have been up to – may be correct under the rules.
But every meeting from the very first until that of February this year has previously been published – which begs the question of why they have stopped now.
Is something being hidden that the board does not wish members to know?
Visit the BID’s website and look at the “Latest News.”
All the events listed were months ago.
The BID manager used to write a monthly-ish column in the Boston Target. We can’t remember when last we saw one.
A newsletter was launched as long ago as May. Most of the content was a repeat of what members already knew – and nothing more has been issued since.
And what about the financial side of things?
The BID levy raises £125,000 a year
The business plan states “It will be the role of the BID board to obtain matched funding at least to the value of the BID levy throughout the five years of the BID.”
- with the performance indicator of winning funding of £650,000 from non levy sources over the time of the BID.
The plan also said that “Without a BID in place, additional funding will not be possible …” and that “It will be important to monitor the progress of Boston BID. Hard performance data will give you, as investors in Boston BID, evidence that we are delivering the targets in this business plan.”
If the money has been coming in - and by now … two and a half years in … there should be at least a quarter of a million pounds in that particular pot – then where is the “hard data?” If it exists, we have never heard it mentioned – but maybe the board doesn’t want us to know.
A breakdown of the company’s proposed expenditure was:
46% on security, safety and theft reduction

22% on management and additional fund raising

15% on marketing and promotion

4% on accommodation and communications

4% on street scene enhancement

4% on advertising, website and internet

2% on administration

2% on levy collection

And as with so many things involving Boston BID, it doesn’t add up – the total comes to 99%!
This is how it is more specifically spent.

click to enlarge image

As you can see, the bulk of the income goes on staff, including the Rangers, office and administration costs – which makes the BID one of those organisations that needs money to exist simply because if it didn’t get it, it would not exist.
That’s it for today.
Tomorrow, we’ll continue with more on how the BID spends its money – and what sort of value its members are getting out of it – and we urge Boston Borough Council which has a big stake in the BID, to take some action.

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

2011-08-08T06:09:00.001+01:00

Businesses get

the BID-dle

finger!

It seems that once again Boston BID – the Business Improvement District foisted on a large chunk of Boston businesses whether they like it or not – is trying to give as many members the finger as it possibly can.
At the beginning of the year, the BID’s board formed a sub committee to organise an “Eastern European event” at a reported cost of around £30,000 – but by all accounts nothing ever came of it.
However, it seems that once the BID sets it mind on a party, nothing will stand in its way – especially not the press-ganged members who must pay 1p in the pound of their rateable value to fund it – or be dragged through the courts by Boston Borough Council and fined.
The BID’s latest cunning plan is to sling £10,000 of members’ hard earned cash at a free party in Central Park – according to manager Niall Armstrong “ so not only do people have a good time but maybe our members see increased takings.”
He also added that the BID was “only” supplying £10,000 because it was the members’ money. “If it bombs, then effectively they could accuse us of wasting £10,000, and they would have a valid claim for that, but by the same token we have got to take a risk.”
We questioned that at the time – and we still do.
Now it seems that the members are questioning it too – in many cases because they knew nothing about the plan until they read of it in the local press.
Until February, members have at least been able to access decisions taken by the BID board by visiting their website.
Since then, no meeting details have been published.
This issue - among others -was taken up by Boston accountant Darron Abbott – a long-standing campaigner where the BID is concerned – and he asked Mr Armstrong several questions concerning the way the company is run – including the absence of board meeting minutes for the past five months.
Mr Armstrong - theoretically the man where the buck stops - passed the buck. He handed the enquiry to local solicitors Sills and Betteridge who sent Mr Abbott an arrogant e-mail which dismissed the absence of board miniutes thus:.
“Minutes of the meetings of the board of directors of the company will no longer be available on the company’s website. There is no requirement that a company publish such minutes.”
Mr Abbott also raised the issue of the holding of an AGM – and was again given an abrupt brush off. Previous AGMs have been staged in June or July-ish – which would apparently mean that one is now overdue.
“Private companies that are not traded companies need not hold annual general meetings.”
It goes on to say that the only requirement is for the company to hold an AGM “in each period of twelve months beginning with the day following its accounting reference date.”
This means that it could be as late as March 31st next year – and notifications will be sent out to “those entitled to attend and vote” a fortnight before the meeting.
Whether or not this includes members is unclear – as is the authorship of the letter.
Its reference is “JRC” – and we would venture that had “JRC” not entered the law, he or she could have been a doctor with writing like that.

How civil it would have been to let the recipient know your name. How discourteous simply not to bother.
Earlier this year a committee of Boston Borough Council – convened to look at the BID and the way it was run – concluded as its first and most important recommendation: “An overall improvement is required in communications between all persons involved within the BID company.”
Boston Borough Council does not run Boston BID – but it acts as debt collector, paymaster and enforcer – which is a substantial part of the operation.
It also has a senior officer on the BID’s elite nine-person decision-making board.
By association, the council is letting the BID get away with riding roughshod over its members – at a time of economic uncertainty both nationally and locally with the hugely adverse effect of the Market Place refurbishment scheme.
We hope that having once looked at the BID operation and made important and much needed recommendations, that the council does not remain supine in this latest ignorant assault on local business.
The council needs to offer them support – not condone such rough handling.

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

2011-08-05T06:08:00.004+01:00

Our Friday miscellany

of the week's

news and events

We had a very civilised e-mail dialogue with Councillor Mike Gilbert after our comments at the beginning of the week about his appearance on BBC local radio. “On the whole I stand by most of what I said, and make no apology for trying to normalise Boston's reputation nationally - so that when we have an incident we don't get swamped by the nation’s media for all the wrong reasons,” he said. “Boston is a wonderful town and one that deserves better publicity than it has got in the past. Population numbers and funding of services is critical to this and, as was stated on the BBC, this is the major issue - and not specifically the nationality of that population increase.” Councillor Gilbert was also good enough to seek a definitive answer to our differing views as to benefit entitlements for the migrant community, and subsequently wrote to say “This is the response I have had: ‘Just to clarify, all EU nationals, and this includes A8’s must have a NI number to gain employment or claim benefits. Some EU nationals are entitled to benefits even if they are working - for example working tax credits or child benefit. Those who are unemployed may be entitled to Jobseeker’s Allowance but have to evidence this to the DWP and comply with regulations.’ He added: “I believe the facts are clearer in your mail but essentially both say the same thing, as of the first of May 2011, A8 migrants have the same rights as the rest of the EU residents and can claim benefits. Clearly my knowledge was out of date. Thanks for clarifying this aspect of what I said; how embarrassing!!” We thank Councillor Gilbert for checking things out – and hope that those readers who accused us and some of our contributors of being ignorant and racist about benefit entitlement – and those were among the politer terms used – might now have the decency to apologise.
Someone, somewhere must think that we’re a bit stupid here in Boston. On Wednesday, we commented that the “live” webcam from the Boston Big Dig that “refreshed” automatically every minute, had in fact been showing the same scene for days on end – and that the picture was not of the dig, but of piles of gravel. The picture suddenly disappeared and was replaced by another – again with the same claim to being “live” and regularly refreshed. A sharp eyed reader alerted us to the same problem as before, so we looked at the webcam at 7pm last night and again at 9pm and it was unchanged. It was the same at five this morning, when we took the screen grab (below.)

click to enlarge image

Judging by the crisp shadows going East to West it was taken early in the morning. But who’s in charge of all this, and why has it gone so pear-shaped? What a silly question when you note the involvement of Boston Borough Council and Boston College. And as for CIA systems of Kirton, who “install the best CCTV surveillance and security alarm products” – all we can say is that we’ll never trust CCTV again!
One of Boston’s leadership triumvirate, Councillor Michael Brookes, is busy arguing that the experimental green waste collection scheme is not as chaotic as everyone says. He was responding to criticism from local Labour Party branch secretary Pam Kenny, who has launched an online petition for a proper service using dedicated brown bins to collect the waste. Already, 45 people have signed the petition, which closes at the end of December. Despite Councillor Brookes’s reassurances, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say. Consider this comment from one of our readers. “I thought that you may be interested in the progress of the new garden waste collection. Argyle Street, early Tuesday morning. First truck arrives, blue bags loaded and all blue bins checked. Letters placed on bins filled with non-compliant contents. Later in the morning, a second truck arrives and empties compliant bins (garden waste) leaving the large number of non-compliant bins still full. About lunchtime a third truck arrives and empties all the non-compliant bins. As the householders of the non-compliant bins would arrive back from work and find a letter telling them why their bins had not been emptied when in fact they had been, they will be somewhat confused and obviously repeat their error again in two weeks.” We like Mrs Kenny’s idea better. You can support it by clicking here .
Still with Boston’s Labour Party, it has called for a public enquiry by the Health Secretary into the ongoing problems at Boston’s Pilgrim Hospital. A statement says: “They are saddened to hear that around 100 student nurses have been removed from Pilgrim Hospital after the Nursing and Midwifery Council expressed "serious concerns" about it, but what are the real reasons for them being removed? The comments continue:” This comes on top of the hospital being criticised last month by the Care Quality Commission (CQC), which said it had not met required standards in 12 of 16 categories. It is only weeks since our local MP appeared on television and said he wouldn’t send any of his family members to the hospital, so we call upon the Tory-led government to call a public enquiry to find out what are the real problems at Pilgrim Hospital. Boston Labour Party wants the people of Boston to feel they have a hospital that provides quality services and a place where their loved ones feel safe when they have to stay and receive treatment.” This is a sensible call to make – and it’s not the first to come from this minor opposition party within Boston Borough Council. It begs a question of our own … why isn’t the controlling Tory administration – which works so closely with the NHS in Lincolnshire - voicing similar concerns?

It’s good to find there’s a sense of humour in Worst Street after all. Following our suggestion last week to rename the place Bash Street because of all the argy bargy that’s being going on recently, one councillor has come forward to take up our challenge to nominate members of the council as characters from the cartoon strip. “I wish to nominate myself as Toots (right,)” writes Independent Councillor Carol Taylor. “She is described as a tomboy who can be bossy but has more of a heart than her any of her friends. She claims she fancies Dennis the Menace and fires a valentine card at him using a toy rocket. She is also further described as 'one of the boys' - and considering that I am now an Independent, I would be honoured to receive this accolade!!! PS I'm dreading who you think would be Dennis the Menace!!”
We remarked the other day on the slow progress of work on the Market Place regeneration scheme. A reader who spotted the advert pictured below suggests that this may well be due to a shortage of workers.

click to enlarge image

The Jobcentre ad was posted on 19th July – a week after the work theoretically started, and two weeks after the first advert appeared, which suggests a shortage of takers for the work. Again, it does not bode well for the work to be completed on schedule.
The term “damning with faint praise” was exemplified this week in a letter to the press from former BBI councillor Sheila Newell. She congratulated the new council on giving away the Peter Paine sports centre to Boston College – but pointed out that it was agreed by the previous administration. That remained the tone of the letter throughout until a point near the end, when Mrs Newell commented: “The new borough council could not have chosen a worse time to increase their councillors’ basic allowances by more than 85%.” Strange. According to the minutes of the former
Boston Borough Council on 17th January, when allowances were discussed, Mrs Newell’s council colleague and husband Ramonde said that increases in allowances had been put off for the past four years, and that a decision had to be made at some point. He moved a proposal that the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel be accepted in full, with a 20% reduction for “public service discount.” This would have seen allowances soar from £2,378 a year to £4,399.78. Only four councillors voted for this suggestion – including Councillors Raymonde and Shelia Newell - after which it was decided to put off the decision until after May’s elections.
What a good idea to cover the unwelcoming walls of Boston Borough Council’s atrium in the municipal buildings with paintings by local children. It certainly cheers up the bleak, institutionalised look of the place. But we’re less than sure about the idea of billing it as “Boston’s newest, FREE of charge, public art gallery…” Art gallery it isn’t, and how else could it be other than free – unless the council's next big idea to ease the borough’s parlous financial situation is to charge citizens to visit.
The traditional Victorian garden planned for Boston’s Central Park is getting some publicity this week. It will comprise four herb gardens with a water feature in the middle, and cost around £10,000. Regular readers will recall the furore when a drawing that looked as though it had been done on the back of a fag packet was used to illustrate this expensive project.

click to enlarge image

According to the plan, the main features requiring construction are the pergola-type structures leading to the proposed water feature. In the interests of value for money we took a look around the internet, and discovered that the pergola pictured below could be bought for just £269.

click to enlarge image

That would cost exactly £1,076. Presumably the labour costs are in-house and therefore either reasonable or non existent. So where is the other £8,924 going? Perhaps on Boston’s own version of the Trevi!
We often comment on the lack of a visible police presence in Boston. So we were pleased to hear from a reader who told us that he had seen not one, but two, police community support officers on their cycles patrolling the area.

click to enlarge image

Apart from the fact that such sightings are so rare, what made them stand out was the fact that they were cycling across the Hospital Lane footbridge - where of course, cycling is prohibited!
We usually find our comedy cuttings in the pages of the local “newspapers.” But this week’s example comes from unlikely source – the website of the long established Boston business of J Carr and Son.

click to enlarge image

“Hand on roll….” Now there’s a well established Boston tradition for you!

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

2011-08-04T05:54:00.000+01:00

Is crem up for sale?

To get all the bad puns out of the way in one fell swoop, a burning issue of grave importance was on the agenda of last night’s meeting of Boston Borough Council’s Joint Scrutiny Committee – assuming, that is, that it wasn’t cancelled at the last minute.
It concerned the possible sell off of the borough’s bereavement services – the crematorium and cemeteries in the town and at Fosdyke.
This is apparently part of the council’s “transformation programme” – which seems to mean transforming itself from an authority which takes responsibility for local services to one which lets somebody else to all the work.
If you think you’ve heard something like this before, you would be right.
A year or so ago, the council had big plans to hand the running of the Princess Royal Sports Arena and the Geoff Moulder pool to a company called Leisure Connection – which was to take on their management once local taxpayers had footed a massive bill for maintenance to make them acceptable to their new owners.
Leisure Connection had something of a mixed reputation among local authorities – many of whom discovered that once it took on the management of their facilities, public dissatisfaction soon followed.
Eventually, for reasons unspecified, the take over was shelved, and the council has since cobbled together another cunning plan for the two leisure facilities.
As always, the reason why the bereavement service may be sold off is money – not any amount that might be made from the deal, but the cost of providing new equipment to filter out mercury, which becomes a legal requirement at the end of next year.
The service is expected to show a profit of almost £140,000 in 2011-2012 – but as far as we can work out the investment needed could run into millions – which apparently the borough hasn’t got.
We can’t imagine that this costly requirement has come out of the blue, which makes us wonder why it is being addressed so late in the day.
Despite the warnings when a new crematorium was opened at Alford three years ago, Boston increased the cost of an adult cremation from £417 to £430 "to support service investment," further widening the discrepancy with Alford which charged between £360 and £390 – and the demand for cremations has fallen by 28% in the past three years.
If a deal is done to privatise the service it would be for a thirty year concession with two further ten year periods, at the discretion of the council.
For this, the operator would have to provide an efficient and sensitive bereavement service, increase customer numbers (!!) improve facilities and options for the bereaved, reduce the environmental impact of the business, boost profits and improve quality standards.
It sounds like a tall order – yet even so, a couple of operators are showing an interest.
We just hope that it doesn’t end in tears yet again – and that if it goes ahead that it doesn’t merely result in even higher charges.
What’s next for the sell off, we wonder – there aren’t that many services left, but we would imagine that the hard pressed rubbish collection could be next to go under the hammer.

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

2011-08-03T06:04:00.000+01:00

Can Market Place

businesses weather

the storm?

Even at this early stage, we seriously doubt whether the Market Place transformation will be finished on time.
There seems to be a pattern with major works far as Boston is concerned in that they take a long time, and seem to make little difference when completed.
One good example is the Spilsby Road/Freiston Road/Willoughby Road “improvements,” which we are sure could have been done in half the time, and now that they are complete seem to have had little, if any, impact on traffic flow.
We thought that the main idea was to stop the race between vehicles to funnel from two lines of traffic into one.
The obvious place for this to have been arranged was on Bargate Bridge itself, but traffic is still left in two forward lanes there, merging into one when the junction is crossed.
But back to the Market Place. This picture below was taken on Market Day a week ago and shows the stark divide created between the area now occupied by the market stalls, and the prime shopping area.
Note the absence of shoppers – something that we know is already hurting local traders considerably.

click on image to enlarge it

When we walked the area at the weekend, we were surprised to see how little has been done so far – yet for businesses in the area it is already the third week of struggling with rapidly falling returns.
Surely, something can and must be done to make the area more accessible so that people can still shop there with relative ease.
Yesterday the situation had become even worse.
More barricades had been erected so that on the Marks and Spencer side of the Market Place, the automatic doors to the shop - which are so helpful to the elderly and disabled in particular are no longer accessible - and pedestrians are guided through a corridor of barriers.
A similar situation was in operation near Boots Opticians.
It’s possible that one reason for the slow progress could be because of the “Big Dig,” which began on July 18th and ends on Sunday, and which has been made possible by more than £42,000 in grants.
But a reader tells us: “The activities have come to be known rather cynically as a 'scrape' rather than a dig, and have not yielded anything of any significance other than a bit of footwear. General opinion is that insufficient time was allowed on the two 'dig' sites undertaken to date. Which all begs the question - What has £42,800 been spent on?”
It’s a good point. We suspect that far more has probably been spent on children’s activities and musicians that has gone toward the dig itself
There is also a website http://www.bostonbigdig.org/ which includes a webcam “live from the site” with images that refresh automatically “every minute.”

click on image to enlarge it

Except that they don’t. The image is a static one and has been for days. And for some peculiar reason, Millets store name has been smudged out on the photo. And where’s the dig? The camera is pointing at two piles of gravel!

Sadly, a project that offers so much by way of promise has got off to a very poor start, compounded by the usual incompetence we associate with any pie in which Boston Borough Council has its civic finger in.
But the real issue is the future for some of the smaller traders who are being thrown overboard.
Not only must they endure eight months of isolation from the main stream of shoppers, but the next item on the list for the rebuilding of Boston will be the replacement of St Botolph’s footbridge - which will exacerbate matters still further.
Who would blame the owners of many of the smaller shops if they just decided to call it a day?
You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

2011-08-02T06:09:00.000+01:00

Councillors would dismiss

views like these at

their peril

Following yesterday’s blog, we have received letters which we feel are probably more representative of grass roots feeling than our local “politicians” are prepared to admit.
The first came from Robin Smith – “a born Bostonian of 72 years”
He writes: “What an awful state of affairs this town has now descended into.
“It seems that the local young British people, the out of work and, of course, the elderly and law abiding residents have been all but abandoned by our so called local authorities and media - who allow no opinions other than that of their own narrow political correct dictats to be expressed.
“This in a land that once prided itself on its freedom of expression where all views were once aired.
“We now have two parallel realities operating in Boston, the PC reality of the powers that be in which all the young British people in the town are regularly stereotyped and denigrated as uneducated work-shy wasters, and the elderly as an expensive bed blocking drain on the area.
“Radio Lincolnshire recently had a week of propaganda along the lines of the former, with the honourable exception of a Councillor Fountain - who defended the local people and told the true plain unvarnished facts as they actually are.
“The rest of the week’s output was pure anti-Bostonian PC fantasy of a type that even Radio Moscow would have been proud to put out.
“We then have the actual reality which most of the town’s law abiding residents have to endure on a daily basis along with the multitude of imported problems, which are all well known even if they are not allowed to be aired in any meaningful proper and open debate.
“The only one that I will mention is the well known continental urination game … which is very widespread and is played all over the town. But of course it is probably only classed as a myth in the fantasy PC world, as educated continental people would not do such a thing would they?
“I have seen this game played twice in the children's area of the Central Park in full view of the playing children, twice outside Carlton Road School with children present, in Fydell Street in front of a young girl of about 12, in Argyle Street in front of an elderly lady and at several other locations in the town.
“One of my daughters has observed the game played on the Witham Bank four times in the past few weeks, once with her six year-old daughter.
“Reporting it to a passing policeman, it seems that it’s nothing to worry about - it’s only a cultural thing … just turn your head away. Thankfully later a female officer did take it seriously.
“When out walking, the smell of urine can now be detected in many parts of the town. “I do feel somewhat sorry for the lower operational ranks of our local Police Farce as it is not their fault that their superiors sitting atop their greasy pole are turning them into uniformed social workers and away from being the proud guardians of the law that they once were.
“Friday morning on Radio Lincolnshire, we had another ‘lets bash Boston’ diatribe in which a number of identikit PC opinions were aired.
“It was stated that many of the messages the station had received with regard to the recent serious events in Boston were not - to put it mildly - quite along the same lines as the approved version as given by the town’s MP and Vicar. It would appear that many in the town were not, shall we say ‘on message.’
“No great surprise there then. A person from the race relations industry said it would probably take up 30 years to get things sorted in Boston.
“We were treated to the usual myths and misunderstandings by, I think, a councillor who stated that it is not true that people can enter this country and get benefits without paying in first.
“Well, of course, he is wrong - as we all know that as from last May, EEC citizens can in fact claim most benefits on arrival.
“I don’t expect our local authorities to work wonders, but I do expect them to tell the truth and stand up for ALL the law abiding people of the town and along with our supposed MP to stop denigrating the British young people in particular.”
Our second letter from Geoff Rylott , asked: “OH BRITAIN , where did we go wrong? We're ‘broke’ and can't help our own seniors, veterans, orphans, homeless etc?”
As he qualified for his old age person, he compared the level of benefits paid to pensioners with those given to some categories of illegal immigrants and refugees living in Britain and came up with an annual figure of £6,000 for a pensioner compared with £29,900.
“Now that I have reached to ripe old age for my ‘state pension’ the figures now mean much more to me. Now when I look back to the hard working days of the 60’s and 70’s.
I just realise how lucky all of these 17-20,000 immigrants are. I have read your blog for today and to be quite honest, we now urgently need another BBI Party who has the borough at heart, not like today's willy nilly lot, moving when their strings are being pulled from higher authorities such as those at Number 10. Even those in the tea rooms in West Street have nothing to offer that will change this whole situation.
Come on Boston Eye, let's have something strong to put to these willy nilly councillors, because at present all they want is power. Let’s have our borough's future straightened up and in line for our future generation of children, not for those that invade our island and take the rich pickings that some members seem to think is too hard for the local people to carry out.”
Our third e-mail was short and to the point. It came from Wyberton Parish Councillor Don Ransome, and said: “Thank you, Boston Eye, for dispelling the mist of misinformation put out by those who refuse to see a problem with the overwhelming number of EU migrant workers in Boston.”
We know what our local politicians churchmen would say to all this, because we have heard them say it before.
But these three letters have come from people with long connections with Boston and the area who have seen the changes that have occurred.
Yesterday, Councillor Mike Gilbert dismissed the BBC’s vox populi opinions from passers by, saying: “I don’t think that those individuals, whilst their views may be very deeply felt, are representative of the people of Boston in general. I mean, they’re not ambassadors for Boston on the whole.”
We hope he would not say the same about today’s reaction.
Sadly, we think that what they show is just how wide the gulf is between the powers that be at Worst Street and the feelings of local people.

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

2011-08-01T06:17:00.000+01:00

The great, the good

and the gullible

help BBC to

rubbish Boston

You would probably be surprised to learn that the question being asked of tens of thousands of Lincolnshire residents last Friday morning was: “Are racial tensions in Boston about to reach breaking point?”
We were certainly surprised to hear the question being asked – repeatedly – on BBC Lincolnshire, with interviews in both the breakfast and mid morning programmes.
The peg for these two items - which also featured in all the morning news bulletins, and which occupied almost half an hour’s worth of airtime negative to Boston, was a meeting “earlier this month” which was linked by the BBC to the explosion at an illegal distillery on 13th July which killed five Lithuanians from Peterborough.
By all accounts, the meeting at the Home Office was a routine one involving organisations from all over the country – and held before the fatal explosion. Local representatives included East Lindsey, South Holland and the health service as well as Boston.
Yet like lambs to the slaughter, the great and the good went along with the question, and dragged the name of Boston still further through the mud.

Making it worse

To make matters worse, the breakfast programme presenter, Melvyn Prior, set the scene by reading out a relatively restrained but still aggressive comment from among the many posted on internet bulletin boards.
This was followed by a clutch of vox populi clips, which were about 80 per-cent anti migrant – including one demand to pass a law banning foreign language speakers from using anything other than English in the workplace, so that their colleagues would not feel “intimidated.” Try suggesting that boot goes on the other foot when the speaker next heads for a fortnight in Benidorm and see what reaction you get.
Step up to the microphone Councillor Mike Gilbert, the borough’s Communities Portfolio holder - and the man whose declared intention after the explosion was to make sure that everyone knew that Boston was no worse than anywhere else when it came to this sort of thing.

"Not ambassadors for Boston"

“It’s very disappointing the fact that some local people don’t recognise the tragedy associated with a loss of life surrounding the explosion," he lamented "It’s also disappointing that people harbour those very hard and hostile views. I mean, I don’t think that those individuals, whilst their views may be very deeply felt, are representative of the people of Boston in general. I mean, they’re not ambassadors for Boston on the whole, no more so than some of the individuals who come here with difficulties from Eastern Europe are representatives of their communities.”
Councillor Gilbert said they were working hard to bring English and migrant communities together.
He said the council had produced a “myth busting” leaflet and that the myths were mainly related to benefit entitlements.
“Unless someone’s actually been here for a significant period of time, has acquired a National Insurance number and has worked, they‘re not actually entitled to any benefit, and the commonly held view locally is that the migrant community comes to this town and immediately signs on and starts taking money our of the public purse – that’s absolutely not the case. You have to have worked and paid into the national purse before you can take anything out.”
Next to the microphone was Paul Elliott, chief executive of Just Lincolnshire - the county’s equality and human rights council.
Asked if racial tensions in Boston were reaching breaking point, he at least admitted that he didn’t know if breaking point was the right term:
“We are welcoming to tourists and so on and it would be so lovely if we were welcoming to everybody. But it’s not a new phenomenon in Boston. This has been going on literally for centuries.”
Really? We be that not many people know that.

It was "them and us" 200 years ago

But for the benefit of those who didn’t, Mr Elliott produced a cutting from the Boston Gazette dated 21st September 1811, which referred to the “seasonal migrants, the harvest workers whose spirit of laborious industry was commended as against the greedy Lincolnshire labourer who desires to make excessive wages to the necessity of the farmer to whom half a guinea a day at the height of the season will not satisfy and who was further reproved for looking on the Irish auxiliary with jealousy.”
Thanks for that, Mr Elliott. Painting Lincolnshire workers as shiftless and greedy and their migrant counterparts as virtuous and industrious enhances our local sense of equality immensely.
He went on to say: “The interesting thing is that in those days and until recently, migrant workers came into the county and then went. The difference we have at the moment is that people are coming and have settled and making their life here. The 20,000 or so people who were here in 2005-2005 may not be the same 20,000 people that are actually here now in Boston.”

"Not taking our jobs"

What would he say to people who claim that migrants are taking our jobs? “I would say they are not taking our jobs. There’s not a sign at the Jobcentre door saying 'no English.' I’m saying they’re doing the jobs that people locally in this area aren’t particularly interested in doing. We don’t want to be picking cabbages or onions or putting them into boxes in factories. And the people who are taking these jobs are actually highly qualified on the whole - they’re more qualified than they need to be. They are coming in with multi lingual skills and they are well educated. But they are here for economic reasons. The term migrant worker is the clue. They are here to work, not to scrounge. “
With so much time and words spent blackguarding local residents and workers, the reason for the meeting was almost lost – thanks largely in part by BBC Lincolnshire’s sensationalising of the subject and asking all the wrong questions.

The real message

The actual message was that the Home Office really doesn’t know how many migrants live in Boston – and if the true numbers were known, the borough would receive government funding based on the real population figure.
In a sensible point that addressed the real issues, Andy Fisher, Boston Borough Council's head of housing, property and communities, said that the results of the 2011 census could be crucial to gain funding to deal with the issues raised by immigration.
“If we could have one answer, it would be a statistically robust figure for the number of people that live in our local community. At the end of the day for the public sector, the number of people you’re delivering services to is critical. To know that number and to actually have that fed into appropriate funding formulas means that you’re resourced at a fair and equitable basis - and that was my clear message.”
But it sounds as though we shouldn’t hold our breath.
Rev Alan Robson, the Agricultural Chaplain for Lincolnshire, said he could see why tensions still existed.

Nothing's changed

“The issue about numbers has not changed. Five years ago I was at the Home Office with Jim Knight (then Parliamentary under Secretary for Rural Affairs) with the exact same questions. We need the figures, we need the proper funding and resourcing. So I can understand the frustration and the anger and all of that - and local residents saying ‘well, what’s moved on?’”
There are a few loose ends to be tied up from the points raised by Councillor Gilbert.
Yes, there is a “myth busting” leaflet available on the borough council website – but appears to have been the creation of South Kesteven District Council in January 2008. An update is well overdue, we think.
And whilst not wishing to contradict Councillor Gilbert, we would suggest that his information on benefits is now out of date.
According to the Migrants Rights Network, the worker registration scheme affecting A8 nationals – people from the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia – ended on 1st May.
What this means, according to MRN is: “Any A8 national will be able to access income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit by signing on as a jobseeker at Jobcentre Plus and meeting the requirements imposed on British Citizen jobseekers. Any A8 worker in work will be able to access in-work benefits regardless of whether he or she has registered with the WRS. Many A8 workers who are out of work who could not access benefits in the past because they had not registered or had not completed enough time in registered work will be able to access benefits.”

Figures say differently

And again, his statement that: You have to have worked and paid into the national purse before you can take anything out” is not borne out by the figures.
NI registrations in Boston for the past three years were: 2007/08 – 2,160; 2008/09 – 2,140; and 2009/10 - 2,170 are the far and away the highest in Lincolnshire. The area has definitely not seen more than 6,000 new jobs created in the last three years - but someone has been allocated these numbers.
And whilst Councillor Gilbert is critical of some local people who don’t recognise the tragedy associated with a loss of life in the explosion – there is also the point raised by many others.
That is that the explosion resulted from criminal actions carried out by people who rented an industrial unit in another county from the one in which they lived – and that had the explosion not been contained, the consequences for local industries and residents could have been far worse. As it is, many local firms lost thousands of pounds of business after being forcibly shut down for ten days - and who has offered them any sympathy?
There is also the fact that the illicit vodka being manufactured contained ingredients that could have blinded or even killed anyone who drank it.
Even tragedy is sometimes a two-way street.

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 29th July

2011-07-29T06:09:00.001+01:00

Our Friday miscellany

of the week's

news and events

FAQs – geekspeak for frequently asked questions, often frequently produce answers that make things more complicated - rather than the reverse. So it is with Boston Borough Council’s offering to help people understand the chaotic green waste pilot scheme. Examples include: Q. I don’t create any garden waste, so do I have to take part? A. No, but you do still have to present your recycling for collection in the blue bags you have been provided with and not in the blue bin? The question “If I already have a two blue bins, can I use both bins for garden waste? – answer “Yes” – begs the obvious second question “Can I have an extra blue bin for garden waste?” The answer: “No, but if you have extra green waste please place in black bags with the top left open and next to your blue bin for collection.” So now we have green waste collected in blue bins, with any excess going into black bags, and waste for recycling – including glass – being put into blue plastic bags. And beware if until now you have merely uprooted unwanted guests from your garden. Now you must identify at least two specific weeds. “Q. Can I put ragwort and Japanese knotweed in my blue bin? A.No." Were this not Boston, we would suggest going back to the drawing board with this scheme – but we somehow doubt that a drawing board was employed in the first place!
Last week we shed crocodile tears over the demise of the BBI blog - the Bostoninnies. But a cause for some genuine disappointment is the deafening silence that now radiates from the former leader of the Conservative group - and now joint deputy leader - Councillor Raymond Singleton-McGuire. For a long time his blog addressed a variety of issues and he was forthright in his criticism of the former leadership. Now that the boot is on the other foot he has all but stopped blogging - aside from irrepressibly boring lists posted a couple of months ago of who’s who on borough committees and outside organisations. But for someone who was a key advocate of communication, openness and transparency, his departure from the blogging scene is a pity.
A pleasant and unexpected boost for Boston came yesterday in a promotion run by the Daily Mail newspaper, which is currently giving away a series of Michelin touring maps of the UK. Yesterday’s offering covered the East Midlands area, and as you can see from our photo (left) the star of the cover is Boston Stump and the Ingram memorial. The Daily Mail has a circulation of more than two million, which figures from the National Readership Survey say translates into 4,705,000 readers each day. An excellent piece of free advertising – and one which includes a name check for the town as well.
The latest spending figures for items costing more than £500 paid in June have been published by Boston Borough Council. They are always interesting, and include a few items of special note. Under “event costs,” policing the May Fair between May 2nd and 8th came to £4,577 – more than £650 a day. We wonder whether extra police were actually employed or, as officers are seldom if ever seen on foot patrol these days, the cost was compensation to those involved for having to leave their comfy offices to rub shoulders with the hoi polloi. Another item that gave us pause for thought came under the section “monies collected” which shows that in May, the Boston Business Improvement District received £24,880 – doubtless from the levy imposed on anyone with premises in the BID’s area. Given that Boston BID seems to have done absolutely nothing for months on end we are compelled to ask whether all this money is simply for wages and office space – and if so … is it worth it?
But it’s good to see that Boston BID is putting the cash extorted from hard pressed local business to some really worthwhile use. They have thrown £10,000 into the pot to fund a £30,000 music festival in Central Park in September. It’s yet another attempt to resurrect the Party in the Park - and BID manager Niall Armstrong said the BID had wanted to do an event other than the Christmas Market which would bring people into Boston. “Hence the business improvement side of it, so not only do people have a good time, but maybe our members see increased takings. Maybe is the key word here. The event will be free and have a licensed bar, fun fair, art and craft display as well as hot and cold food. It seems that yet again, the park can cease to be a designated public place where drinking is criminalised when it suits Boston Borough Council to allow it. We find it hard to imagine that local traders will benefit much – if at all – from such a knees-up. It’s something that Mr Armstrong has already taken on board. He said the BID was “only” supplying £10,000 because it was the members’ money. “If it bombs, then effectively they could accuse us of wasting £10,000, and they would have a valid claim for that, but by the same token we have got to take a risk.” Our opinion is that such an event won’t bomb, but whilst the organisers - Infodex – who are based near Grantham - will probably turn a tidy profit, we expect that local business will get next to nothing out of it. How can they expect to when the event is self contained, self catering and free to visit? Whether the event “bombs” or not, the BID is still wasting members’ money. We can only assume that - in the way that senior officers and members of Boston Borough Council liked big firework displays some years ago – there are those within Boston BID who are keen on free musical booze-ups, … as they have debated ideas about parties in the park on more than one previous occasion. Aside from that, one of their last big ideas was in October 2009, when the possibility of setting up a golfing tournament between Boston UK and Boston USA was discussed. We have little doubt that the tournament would have been played in the United States, and are sure that it would have been of huge benefit to the businesses in the town who fork out their BID levy.
In the summer people are always on the look out for things to do and places to go – and Boston Borough Council has joined with neighbours South Holland to produce a guide to summer “fun.” We place the word fun in quotation marks because most of the activities listed are sporting, and that is not everyone’s cup of tea. We also think it a shame that of the few suggestions for places to go, the first two of the three listed are the South Holland Centre and Ayscoughee Hall in Spalding – with Boston Guildhall in third place. Are we looking at a case where unless you pay to advertise you don’t get in? We don’t know – but what we do know is that Boston has much more to offer than this, and it is a shame that nothing was listed. Still, if you’re not sporty by nature, you can always visit the borough’s online guide to what’s on in the area – and with August looming, we went and took a look.

Oh well – it looks like a cheerleading course for us, then! Rah rah – humbug!
We wonder how even handed our local “newspapers” are when it comes to the political scene. This week’s announcement by English Democrat Councillor Elliott Fountain that he is trying to get enough signatures to call a referendum on having an elected mayor for Boston was the front page lead story on the Boston Target – but as far as we can see went unmentioned by the Boston Standard. Meanwhile the Target carried just one picture of Mayor Mary Wright - resting her civic foot on a three handled spade. By comparison, the Standard also carried that picture – but also managed four further shots of Mayor Mary at Boston Preservation Trust’s Civic Pride awards. That’s more than 1% of the 238 “local faces” which this week’s paper boasted about on the front page. Certainly, the Standard began life as a conservative paper with a big ‘C’ but after all these years we thought it might be a trifle less partial.
Another story implicitly critical of the Tories which also appears to have failed to catch the Standard’s attention is the one which discloses that our MP Mark Simmonds hires his wife Lizbeth as his office manager at a salary of between £20,000 and £25,000 a year. But it’s all right. A spokesman said: “Mr Simmonds’s staff are based in the constituency and at Westminster and all work incredibly hard delivering a first class service to the constituents of Boston and Skegness.” So is it just a lucky happenstance that Mrs S possesses the skills needed for the job?
Back to that referendum bid - and as only 2,400 signatures are needed to drive it through, it may well have some chance of success. Council leader Peter Bedford has criticised the plan by saying that it would cost taxpayers a lot of money – an estimate is between £60,000 and £70,000 – and there is no budget for it. Somehow, though, money always seems to be available for other things when needed. We’re thinking of the £10,000 herb garden for Central Park, and the £42,800 “big dig” project which has attracted just 82 volunteers – which works out at more than £500 a head.
Talking of the leader, we note that he is following the line suggested by his henchman Councillor Mike Gilbert, and addressing the recent illegal distillery explosion and sales of potentially lethal vodka in dismissive terms. He’s quoted as saying: “We are not the centre of a national illegal alcohol network, but clearly there is a problem here, as there is in many other parts of the country.” It’s a neat paraphrase of Councillor Gilbert’s previously declared ambition – “I would like to make it known that Boston is like everywhere else in relation to this distillery issue rather than a place with worse issues than everywhere else. We must try and avoid giving ourselves a label we can't lose for having serious problems no one else has.” But does either man seriously believe that people will swallow such a line?
We are reminded that – 30 years ago this week our then MP Richard Body declared that Boston Borough Council was of great help to a small businessman who was likely to set up shop in Boston after being given a hard time by South Holland District Council. But when he approached Boston he got a positive response. “Three cheers for Boston Borough Council – in total contrast to the attitude of South Holland District Council” the MP declared. We wonder whether the same story could appear today – but somehow we doubt it.
After yesterday’s piece on the draft Boston strategy report which mentioned the PESTEL analysis - the Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental and Legal factors that can affect an organisation. A reader tells us that pestel is the Old French orthography of the Middle English pestle –“a heavy tool with a rounded end, used for crushing and grinding” which he believes indicates something suspiciously Freudian. To advance the acronym idea our contributor has come up with MORTAR - More Obtuse Rhetoric To Antagonise Retailers, and adds: “See, pestle and mortar do go together.”
Talking of the strategy report, there was a rapid reaction from one of our readers, Brian Robbins. He e-mailed to say: "It is no good ranting to the converted that read your pages. I’ll exclude all the now elected Conservative councillors, as they are roughly the same mob who made most of the mess before the BBI took up the challenge and managed to foul it up further. I’ll just point you to the Lincolnshire County Council website instead - www.lincolnshire.gov.uk - because that says it all about Boston.
According to the County Council we don’t have any historic buildings of interest. Ahhh, Boston Stump (world famous), the Guildhall (American famous as a prison,) the Sessions House (one of only a few left in the country), Shodfriars Hall (rare gem) Fydell House (with its Kennedy Room) , Pescod Hall (saved from demolition by the owners of Olrids), Church Gate House and Blenkin Memorial Hall, ALL in the Market Place area without going to Hussey Tower. The county website also mentions windmills BUT - according to them - we don’t have one.... so the Maud Foster Mill that I see every time I drive through town must a mirage! What gets a mention on the cCounty website.... NOTHING! No wonder Boston is lagging behind, and who do we have to thank? Well, let’s start with our local county councillors many of whom are now also Borough Councillors. In fact Councillor Bedford was Leader of the county council before he took the mantle of Boston Borough Council Leader. Gee, that inspires confidence in the council... I don’t think! The problems in Boston are all council made. Too many councillors and council officers wish to keep Boston small for their own ends instead of delivering what the people of Boston want. After all, better to be a BIG FISH in a small pond than no fish at all.”
Finally, after the Punch and Judy style level of debate seen in the last week over whether or not councillors should receive e-mails that do not interest them from colleagues who deem them of interest, we are reconsidering our naming of the council offices. For a long time, we’re referred to the place as Worst Street – but now we think that Bash Street might be more appropriate.

Those who know them remember the Bash Street Kids with great affection – and we wonder …. given that Teacher is the leader of the group, are there any nominations as to who might represent some of the other characters?

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

2011-07-28T05:59:00.000+01:00

A computer generated "cloud" shows the most used words in the report

Fine words - but we fear

that action won't

be forthcoming

After the events of the past couple of weeks, you might be forgiven for thinking that Boston was stuck in a slough of despond aggravated by an attitude from the powers that be to sweep things under the carpet.
But it appears that Boston Borough Council does have a cunning plan after all – a draft Economic Development Strategy covering the period from now until 2013.
The report – which runs to almost 9,000 words - notes that whilst the area possesses a high number of strengths – unspecified – weaknesses include poor educational attainment, low wage levels, a poor rate of business start ups, reliance on the horticultural/agricultural industries, poor “although improving” road infrastructure and poor access to ICT in some areas.
Four main objectives have been identified to help get Boston back on its feet - or at least back on its knees.
The first is to develop the business environment, which includes ideas such as providing support services for new and existing businesses, engaging with the migrant community to ensure their inclusion in Boston’s economy, and promoting Boston’s potential as a location for inward investment. Ironically, given that supporting new businesses was at the top of the list, we recall that one such opportunity has already been missed. Part of the £53,000 government grant given to Boston Borough Council aimed at brightening up our run-down shopping centre was allocated to help new businesses get started. No grant was made – and readers will remember that the lion’s share on the money was wasted on the useless community “hub” which hardly anyone ever visits.
The second objective aims to improve the built environment and the appearance of the town centre to increase retail and business opportunities within the town centre and act as a catalyst for further regeneration activity. This is nothing new – it has been said time and again for donkey’s years without anything much ever having been done
Next, the scheme talks about developing the skills base – which includes improving access to further education, providing skills training that meets the needs of local businesses, and matching labour supply with local employment opportunities. Improving access to further education is all very well, but looking at the list of courses available from Boston College, we also think that some of the subjects on offer could be a little more ambitious and less lightweight.
The vexed issue of the transport infrastructure is next on the list, and the report says that Boston Borough Council is working in partnership with the county council and other responsible agencies to develop an infrastructure that supports the local economy and encourages inward investment. It sounds good, but in detail it appears to boil down to better road signs to help motorists find their way around; a parking strategy and policy that encourages use of the town centre; schemes to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion; improved public transport to rural areas; supporting the development of the Port of Boston, and improvements to the rail infrastructure. Sadly much of this is in the hands of outside organisations – particularly the county council, which has already hinted that Boston has had its day in terms of road investment.
The problem with much of this, is that whilst it looks good on paper, we would question whether there is the will or ability to deliver.
The report says that its vision for the Borough is to provide: “An easily accessible, dynamic and successful area where business and the visitor economy flourishes and residents have the opportunity to learn, work and enjoy a high quality of life.”
Hand on heart – can you ever see that happening?
One problem is the way we go about delivering what it required. A telling paragraph in the strategy shows just how convoluted the infrastructure is:
As it’s quite long, we’ve taken a snapshot of it which you can enlarge by clicking on the photo below.

As is so often the case, a lot of people are taking the talk – but few, if any, are walking the walk.
It gets worse as it goes on. Not only do we have enough talking shops to start a shopping centre in its own right, but we then start listing such things as a PESTEL analysis which looks at the Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental and Legal factors that can affect an organisation.
PESTEL not enough? Then how about a SWOT analysis of the local environment? What’s SWOT? – it’s a list of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats.
As the strengths listed include the inept and useless Boston BID, the list reminds us of the sound of the bottom of a barrel being scraped.
As far as weakness are concerned, at least the report is big enough to recognise the “poor marketing and image of Boston” – which is something that must be urgently addressed … and not by stressing that we’re as bad as everywhere else, which is the latest big idea from one senior councillor, and already being echoed by others.
We could go on and on. But in a nutshell, the report is too dependent on high hopes and jargon.
It looks great on paper, but the bottom line is that it is unrealistic in its vision of Boston as it is now and as it might be in the future.
We need some down to earth discussion here – not high blown phrases and unachievable objectives.

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

2011-07-27T05:53:00.000+01:00

Education, deprivation

- areas where work

is needed

As if Boston doesn’t have enough problems – couple more have been highlighted in recent days.
The most recent is a report from UCU - the University and College Union - reveals 'two Britains' divided between the educational haves and have nots.
It ranks the 632 parliamentary constituencies in England, Scotland and Wales according to the percentage of working age people between 16 and 64 who have no qualifications – and it places the Boston and Skegness constituency 17th in the bottom twenty – with 22 per-cent of the group being studied having no qualifications.
On the UCU map – reproduced above – the best and worst areas are compared … and look at the dark brown blot where we live.
The union said that the areas with the lowest levels of qualifications were most likely to suffer from a cocktail of government policies that will restrict access to education:
• education maintenance allowances for teenagers have been axed
• up to 300,000 adults on inactive benefits are set to face prohibitive charges of £1,000 a year to study
• tuition fees have tripled and are now the highest public university fees in the world
• fees and loans are to be introduced for working adults who want to retrain.
The UCU General Secretary, Sally Hunt, said: “There are two Britains living side by side - one with education, and the massive personal benefits it can bring, and the other without. “Education is central to our country's future, yet in some places thousands of people still have no qualifications. There is a real danger that children growing up in certain areas will have their ambition blunted and never realise their full potential.
“The government needs to urgently revisit its education policies if we are to really offer improved life chances to all. Introducing fees for people on benefits who wish to study, for example, is incredibly counterproductive. We should be encouraging people to strive for qualifications, not pricing them out.”
The second report, from the Lincolnshire Research Observatory sets out the 2010 English Indices of Deprivation and what it means for Lincolnshire. The figures, produced by the government’s Communities Department, place Boston roughly in the middle of a list ranging from 1 to 326 – with 1 being the most deprived and 326 the least.
The figures also show that in the Index of Deprivation, Boston was more deprived in 2010 than it was in 2007.
The two reports show once again that action is needed to raise the standard of both living in Boston and being educated here.
And yet again, they highlight an area in which our local politicians should be involving themselves.
But luckily for those in the hierarchy of our current council leadership, it’s easy to dismiss the figures by saying that as there are many other areas in exactly the same boat as us it doesn’t matter.
After all, we need to make it known that Boston is like everywhere else rather than a place with worse issues than everywhere else, and avoid giving ourselves a label we can't lose for having serious problems no one else has.

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

2011-07-26T06:14:00.000+01:00

The truth is

out there -

on Boston's

streets

Among our readers we are pleased to number many who are well informed when it comes to the issues facing Boston.
One such person has been in touch after yesterday’s blog which – among other things - quoted a senior Conservative Boston borough councillor as saying: “I would like to make it known that Boston is like everywhere else in relation to this distillery issue rather than a place with worse issues than everywhere else. We must try to avoid giving ourselves a label we can't lose for having serious problems no one else has.”
Our contributor has this to say:
“I am astonished by some of the opinions of those whose duties I assumed included paying attention to due diligence, that have been aired publicly concerning the sociological ills of Boston.
“For a councillor to quote a homeless figure of just twelve in the entire Boston area over the local airwaves, displays an ignorance of galactic proportion. I hear that the ruling party are also now suggesting that the manufacture of illegal substances (both alcoholic and narcotic) in the Boston is merely representative of, and comfortingly in keeping with, the greater National phenomenon. Such naivety and misplaced optimism defies all belief.
“I would suggest that such deluded voices take the opportunity to stroll the streets of this town on a Friday and Saturday night and early morning.
“In so doing they will rapidly realise;
“i) that illegal substances are not only freely available in Boston, but are also manufactured and brewed locally at discount prices. There is both an over the counter and under the counter trade that operates from foreign run 'late night convenience stores and bars'.
“ii) that there is a simmering xenophobia which regularly boils over into violence, fuelled in no small way by the above and is getting worse by the day.
“iii) what happens on the streets of this town and what is actually officially reported are two very different things. Authorities shy away from bad news - at least that part, rightly or wrongly, is understandable.
“iv) a cursory check of various hideaways will reveal considerably more than a dozen individuals (both local and foreign) who have no home to speak of and drift from one enclave to another.
“v) the token removal of licences counts for nothing. Does this Council really think that those who habitually deal in counterfeit and illegal substances are going to let the small issue of a licence deter them from their nefarious activities? But then again, according to our august Leader, this is a Police problem anyway and therefore not one to soil the hands of local government.
“It is now high time for this new council to come out of hiding and start addressing the real issues that are plaguing our historic town. They were certainly quick to criticise the former order but have now been found to be sadly wanting, themselves.”

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

2011-07-25T06:02:00.000+01:00

Take th@!
Councillors
rant over
e-mail flood

One might expect that the tumultuous events of the night of Wednesday 13th July – when five people died in an explosion at Broadfield Lane industrial estate – would have galvanised Boston Borough Council to act to do everything in its power to ensure that such an accident is never repeated.
And yes, the council has leapt into action – but not in the way that you might imagine.
Instead of looking at how it might stem the sales of illicit alcohol and therefore help stifle illegal manufacture, it is involved in a tangled internal debate about …. the sending of e-mails…
It started when Councillor Elliott Fountain, an English Democrat representative for Fenside ward - whose long standing connections with the Eastern European community in Boston has given him a particular interest in recent events - began sending fellow councillors e-mails on the subject.
To ensure that everyone got them, he employed a seldom used facility – the “Elected Members” button which meant that all 32 councillors received a copy.
This annoyed some of them, so they wrote to Councillor Fountain.
Among them was newly Independent councillor for Witham ward, Carol Taylor, who told Councillor Fountain: “I would be most grateful if you would refrain from sending me articles which you think I should read. It is up to me to choose the political/public concerns that I wish to pursue further. If at any time I need advice I will approach the person I think most knowledgeable on a particular subject regardless of political persuasion.”
This led to what can only be called a robust response from Councillor Fountain – which then led to interventions from the Independent group spokesman Councillor Richard Leggott, who wrote to English Democrat group leader Councillor David Owens saying he felt that the reply was “bullying” in tone. He added that if Councillor Taylor’s request to be left out of Councillor Fountain’s e-mails was ignored, he would want a face-to-face conversation – “hopefully to remove the possibility of a complaint to Standards being necessary.”
Another complainant is Conservative Councillor Gurdip Samra, a consultant at Pilgrim Hospital, who represents North ward. He has raised the group e-mails with the council officer responsible for such technicalities.
In his e-mail, he says: “I do not believe that it is reasonable use of group email to all elected members to send us links to web addresses to which we already have free access. I feel I am able to keep myself informed without the unsolicited assistance of a fellow councillor.
“I am not persuaded that it is reasonable conduct to copy all Boston Borough Council e-mail correspondence between members to Boston Eye.
“This would constitute professional misconduct in the NHS under our current email policy. I appreciate this is local ‘politics’ but there has to be fair and responsible use of Local Authority resources. I am obviously able to use the delete button as I have done with many of Councillor Fountain's recent emails. However I should not have my mailbox filled with unnecessary e-traffic.
“Maybe we should restrict the use of elected member group to administrative function as many other professional organisations have done.
This will mean the individual will have to decide the appropriate recipients of their email.”
And in another e-mail Councillor Samra adds: “We need to move on with serving our residents and stop wasting each others time."
Given what we’ve heard recently about the NHS in Boston we are not convinced that adopting any of its procedures as a role model would be a good idea – especially where the object appears to impose censorship on people.
Meanwhile, Boston’s Chief Executive Richard Harbord has written to Councillors Samra and Fountain as well as the council leader, Peter Bedford to say: “The recent usage of the all member e-mail has generated considerable correspondence.
“There is no guidance or rules to its use. In the past it was seldom used.
I have put it on the agenda of the next Group Leaders meeting for any views.”
We opened today’s blog by saying that we though that recent events might have galvanised the council into some sort of action – and it has.
But sadly, the response has Boston’s usual answer in the event of a problem.
It comes in an e-mail from Conservative Councillor Mike Gilbert, who represents the borough’s Central ward and who holds the portfolios for Housing, Community Transport, Property, Homelessness, Older People, Community Development and Voluntary Sector Support.
Councillor Gilbert, whose profile appears to be as high if not higher than the leader – and certainly more so than either of the two deputies – wrote: “As you may have seeen (sic) on Fake Britain (a BBC television programme) the distillery problem is not unique to Boston but is a serious national problem. I would like to make it known that Boston is like everywhere else in relation to this distillry (sic) issue rather than a place with worse issues than everywhere else. We must try and (sic) avoid giving ourselves a label we can't loose (sic) for having serious problems no one else has.”
Well that’s all right then. We just play the whole thing down and we’ve nothing to worry about, have we?

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 Friday 22nd July

2011-07-22T06:17:00.001+01:00

Our Friday miscellany

of the week's

news and events

The promise of more openness and transparency at Boston Borough Council was one of the Big Five pledges made in the Conservative election “manifesto.” And it appears that there is now a Baldrick-style cunning plan to make it appear to be happening. In the bad old days, “pink papers” - confidential documents whose appearance on an agenda signalled the exclusion of the press and public – littered committee meetings like confetti. To all appearances, there were none lurking at Wednesday’s meeting which discussed the financing of the office of Mayor – as the agenda showed.

But wait. In the meeting documents, the preamble says “Appendix B contains exempt information as defined under paragraph 4 of part 1 of schedule 12a to the local government act 1972.” Presumably this is because it contains information relating to staff. But it doesn’t change the fact that the agenda contains no mention of Appendix B – which makes it look as though nothing secret is on it – and it therefore appears more open and transparent than it really is. What a surprise for members of the public and press if they got the old heave-ho halfway through the meeting to that this item could be discussed. It lends a whole new meaning to the expression “taking your appendix out!”

Another interesting insight into the hard work of local government is also available to agenda watchers – or rather it was! The first Cabinet meeting of the new authority was held on June 21st and was little more than a rubber stamp exercise of one or two outstanding matters. The next meeting was scheduled for next week, and as the time approached for the agenda items to be made available to the public, guess what happened? The meeting vanished from the list – apparently cancelled with just days to go. The next meeting is scheduled for early in September. The Cabinet is, or course the decision making inner sanctum of Boston Borough Council, and it is not encouraging that once the Conservative administration got its carpet slippers under the table they have apparently chosen holidays above the business of Boston - as next week and the following one comprise the traditional British fortnight’s break. Any excuse of insufficient business is unacceptable. The business is there – it’s just the politicians who aren’t!
We don’t know who is responsible for keeping the roadside drains clear and free-flowing, but we dearly wish that they would get on and do their job. It’s not the first time we’ve mentioned that large chunks of Boston disappear under several inches of water whenever it rains heavily – which of course it did last Saturday. Pescod Square was awash, as were areas of John Adams Way.

In fact if you look carefully at some of the drains along that road, you will see that they are blocked with dust and debris which is so heavily packed that plants are growing beneath the drain gratings and pushing through the grilles. The entrance to the Botolph Street cark park was under so much water that it was washing over the pavement. This was after a fairly short but heavy downpour. The consequences would be much worse if it rained for some hours.
Talking of who is responsible for what – is someone trying to shut Boston down for good? This week we toured the town, with the intention of winding up at Tesco for a shop. Spilsby Road was still a mess. The job will certainly take the full twelve weeks threatened if - as we saw on Wednesday – just one workman was on duty jet washing the old white lines. Elsewhere, there were four way traffic lights at the junction of Robin Hood’s Walk and Norfolk Street (which is being closed for more than a month from Monday, don’t forget) – and anyone using that route will also encounter the closure of Carlton Road. At the junction of Brothertoft Road and Sleaford Road, there was another set of four way traffic lights – which caused a tail-back from the Boardsides roundabout all the way into town. Elsewhere on our journey, we encountered numerous other small sets of roadworks which – whilst none was serious in itself – added even more minutes to an already frustrating journey. Can no one devise a plan to stagger these major roadworks so as keep the traffic flowing? Apparently not.
We were looking at a copy of the Carlton Road Neighbourhood Action Group newsletter the other day. It’s compiled by “a friendly group of like minded residents” who comprise the steering group for the area’s Placecheck scheme – and we think that it demonstrates very well how money on the project is being wasted. If you remember, Placecheck funding totals £100,000 - of which half is kept for admin and the remaining £50k is split into packages of £10,000 for each of five selected neighbourhoods to use to improve life in their area. The Carlton Road cash has been spent thus: heaters for a local church - £2,000; bulb planting £1,200; paying a supervisor for Lincolnshire Probation service £1,916.34; a basketball post - £2,000; paying Boston Borough Council for “dual purpose bins” - £1,566.42. There were also plans to blow £1,000 on a mural, but these apparently fell through. Instead, the money is to go on an event being staged by a group aimed at promoting equality in Boston called WAM (“What About Me?”) - set up by Boston Youth Council to try to get disabled and ethnic minority groups together into the community with people they would not normally mix with. We don’t know about you, but much of this seems to be spending for the sake of it. Not only that, but 20% of the money is going on yet more admin with the probation service, while almost the same amount is being paid to Boston Borough Council for “bins” – something we would expect them to provide anyway.
And speaking of bins … There is apparently no mixed reaction to the poorly thought out green waste collection pilot scheme. Instead of getting a dedicated bin – which is what most people expected would happen – the guinea pigs selected for the pilot must put their garden waste in the blue bin that so many of us keep dry and clean, and their recyclable waste in plastic bags for collection. One reader tells us: “Day Two of the new green waste service, I need to dispose of three large boxes, I now have two split bags and a pile of soggy cardboard on the back yard along with another bag containing two empty wine bottles that I had to consume to be able to get the cardboard cut down small enough into the now split bags.” Whilst every cloud has a silver lining, we are sure that many others will face similar problems – put perhaps without the wine to sustain them. A second reader e-mails us to say: “I am a person who unfortunately lives in an area selected for the green waste pilot scheme which began yesterday. I am at a total loss to understand the rationale behind this idea which I think is far less than good. I wish it was not happening in the form that it is. Why could not green waste be put into sacks to be taken away? Now, a question, will the council receive any form of payment from the contractor for the green waste? If so how is that income to be channelled? Will it cover the entire cost of the system? As we know there is nothing more permanent than that which is supposed to be a temporary situation for trial purposes. I wonder if the people who thought up this project have ever heard of the Law of Unintended Consequences - an example may be "fly tipping". What an awful idea …”
Whilst we are always sorry to see them demise of free speech, we are prepared to make the occasional exception. The Boston Bypass Independents’ second blog - nicknamed the Bostoninnies - has now been curtailed. Oddly, the original one from 2007 is still accessible.

The fact that a minimal rump of BBI founders remains on Boston Borough Council confirms what we always thought about the absent blog - that it was a private hobbyhorse for a former councillor rejected by voters in May who has now lost interest.
One thing that we've mentioned on several previous occasions are the questions that often outnumber those on the issue in hand that feature in Boston Borough Council questionnaires. You remember the ones? They include whether householders are bisexual, gay, lesbian or straight, whether they have a long-term illness or disability and how this affects them, and their ethnicity, and a host of other things that most people would rather not answer. Now, it appears that these questions are not only unnecessary, but asking them creates an unnecessary expense. They are asked under a requirement to "promote and ensure" diversity under the Equality Act 2010, which consolidated various legislations including the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 - and according to a national newspaper report, there is considerable confusion over whether gathering such information is a legal requirement. Some councils believe it is, whilst others did not send out the forms. After a survey, it was estimated that 359 of the 419 local authorities request information from residents - including Boston. The story emerged after a grandmother in North Norfolk was outraged when she received an equality monitoring form after complaining about her bin collections. John O’Connell of the Taxpayers’ Alliance accused council chiefs of wasting funds on the "irrelevant" and "bizarre" schemes."Spending reductions have to be made and this is exactly the sort of thing that can be cut with no effect on services,"he said. A spokesman for the Home Office, which is responsible for the Equality Act 2010, said: ‘There is nothing in the legislation that states these forms have to be sent out.’ So come on, Boston Borough Council - you can spare our blushes and save a few quid into the bargain if you drop these silly questions. If you want to see a typical of the questions, you can see then by clicking here
There’s good news for allotment holders Lincoln whose plots were almost sold off for housing but are now to be restored after nearly a decade. Forty-four of the 112 plots at Yarborough Crescent were abandoned in 2002 due to lack of demand. Despite the plans for houses, nothing happened, and a surge in popularity for allotments has led to a waiting list of 185. This reminds us of the Broadfield Lane allotments in Boston, where tenants were evicted on the orders of a greedy local charity which thought it could flog the land to developers for around £500,000. The collapse of the housing market has been the site degenerate over time and the area is now more eyesore than environment. If, as seems likely, the land will remain unsold for the foreseeable future, why doesn’t the charity relent and return the land to allotment use for a period of say five years? That way it would get back the small income that it used to receive and distribute before it was blinded by big money numbers that would mostly be poured down the drain if given away.
Given the highbrow attitude of local “mainstream” politicians to the English Democrats party, we were amused to read a piece in the magazine Total Politics about Sir Richard Body – the Tory stalwart who represented our area as a revered MP for 35 years. In an article headed “Where are they now?” Total Politics maps Sir Richard’s chequered political history. It reminds us that he subsequently defected to the UK Independence party, and says that he later joined … the English Democrats. Worse still for our maverick hating local Tories, Sir Richard is also a Vice President of the Society for Individual Freedom – “an association of libertarians, classical liberals and others who seek to promote responsible individual freedom.” We suspect that, if asked, they would now endorse Sir John Mayor’s comment on Sir Richard made in 1994: “When I hear the name of Richard Body I hear the sound of flapping white coats.”
There was a rapid reaction from a reader to yesterday’s piece from South Holland Conservative Councillor Roger Gambba-Jones, attacking our criticism of Boston’s Tories. A reader e-mailed to say: “The opinion of Roger Gambba-Jones beggars belief and is an insult to the intellect of the Boston electorate. I don't think you could wish for a better example of the Big Brother mentality that seems to pervade the halls of Boston Borough Council - they have now taken to roping in an outside defence advocate to kick the critics into touch! Clearly they are already wary of defending the indefensible - and that is only after a few months of office. West Street's silence is deafening on just about every issue - other than the odd good news story. The truth is we presently have a number of councillors who were encouraged into standing as candidates (dare I mention the word paper?) and, horror of horrors, now find themselves out of their depth. Ergo -vote for whatever the leader says and nod when ever given the nod to do so. How appropriate Gambba-Jones' portfolio of Waste Management is - we could do with some here of late, in more ways than one.”
Yet another reason for Sir George Gilbert Scott to go on some sort of list of famous people with links to Boston came in an e-mail after our piece last week. It reminded us that another of his local achievements was Holy Trinity Church, on Spilsby Road. To bad that the surroundings of the building have been ruined – but at least the church is still intact.
Last week we remarked on what a pity it was that the Boston Standard no longer boasted a printing press in the centre of town - as it could have run a special edition on the Broadfield Lane industrial estate explosion. You could have knocked us down with a feather when this week’s paper appeared under the banner “Explosion Special.” The only problem with this – as any seasoned hack will tell you – is that this was not in any way a “special.” The term is used for a one-off production which gives exclusive coverage to a particular issue. Wednesday’s issue was simply a newspaper, published on its customary day which dedicated the front page and four inside pages to coverage - including some highly OTT phrases -of what is probably the biggest news story to affect Boston in the last decade or more. This is to be expected – not “special.” One might call it “bog Standard.”

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

2011-07-21T06:19:00.000+01:00

Roger Gambba-Jones

"Team work needed
- not independence"

Our ongoing criticism of Boston Borough Council has brought a response from a Conservative councillor in neighbouring South Holland.
Councillor Roger Gambba-Jones, who represents Spalding Wygate, and is Portfolio Holder for Waste Management, Green Spaces and Operational Planning, says:
“I would like to address one of your recent comments - ‘Boston needs 32 independently minded councillors,' or words to that effect.
“Surely, given its lack of direction and impact, isn't that what you effectively had prior to the latest elections and are now seeking to repeat through your constant harrying of the current administration?
“Is it not a given that, once in control of a council and responsible for making and delivering the policies of that council, a fundamental requirement is team work?
“As an organisation/individual with the best interests of Boston at their heart, would it not be better to try to encourage strong and cohesive team work, rather than constantly encouraging division and confrontation between members?
“Yes, healthy debate and challenge is the bedrock of our democracy, and long may both continue to be present in the council chamber, but that is not the same thing as stepping out of line every time you don't agree with something or worse still, going against the stated policy in order to pacify a vociferous minority who might be giving you a hard time.
“Principle is one thing - popularism is something far less agreeable.
“By all means continue your detailed scrutiny and comment of your locally elected body - I sometimes wish we had something similar in South Holland just for the entertainment value.
“However, along with the often keen and incisive observation, could you not try, occasionally, to offer some encouragement and positive comment and accept that, having a team of 32 players all kicking the ball in the direction of their choice whenever they get it is unlikely to find the goal.”
We’re grateful for the points raised, but feel that some of them are a little off target.
Whilst party loyalties are clearly cross border, we recall no reaction to our critical stance of the BBI leadership.
Our point then was that whilst the group claimed to be made up of “independent” members, the block voting pattern that epitomised the party’s four years in office indicated – if not an official whip, then an unofficial one.
We fear that the same is true of the current Tory administration. To date, members vote en-bloc and use their majority as a bludgeon to get their own way.
It’s not just us who have criticised this – many non-Conservative members of the council are unhappy about it as well.
Council Leader Peter Bedford defended this by saying in a radio interview: “You can’t have maverick voices. We have a strong line on what we want to achieve for Boston. The electorate put us in on a mandate and we are going to achieve that mandate and that is what the people of Boston expect from us.”
As we’ve said before, the Tories were caught napping when they unexpectedly gained control of the council.
They had not expected victory, and the so-called mandate – which we take to be the five vague promises on their election literature were to maintain front line services, be accountable and transparent, address green waste, litter issues and replacement of the outdated refuse vehicles, work to improve community safety, and to share resources with other councils.
Nothing earth shattering there.
The writer who called for “good, independent, free-minded people to run this town” was not us. It was a former Conservative candidate, who added: “It is proof enough that there is no advantage to our townsfolk of such a dominant leadership considering the totally overwhelming leadership at county level as well - they still cannot stand up and be heard to save the town from deteriorating any further.”
The rejection of a “maverick” in their midst suggests that the decisions being made by the council and slavishly endorsed by the party as a whole are being made by a narrow elite, and are unlikely to be opened to a wider discussion.
At the very least we think that people should be allowed to think for themselves and have their voices heard. The fact that this is apparently not the case is what we are critical of.
And we would also suggest that – to date – the current administration is also showing the “lack of direction and impact” described by our critic.

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

2011-07-20T06:05:00.004+01:00

Even after cuts - is the office of Mayor still too dear?

If we told you that the current cost to Boston taxpayers of the office of Mayor was £1,000 a week, we expect that you would be surprised – if not shocked.

Well you’d better sit down then – before you fall down!
The current cost is a staggering £80,000 a year – more than £1,500 a week.
Now, there are proposals to review the cost … which would see it fall to either £68,000 a year, or £60,000.
The discussion will take place at tonight’s meeting of the Policy and Projects group of Boston Borough Council’s Overview and Scrutiny committee, and it follows a review of civic and mayoral activity which is considered to be a key project in Boston’s “transformation programme” and which was previously considered by various forums during the previous council term.
The office of Mayor dates back to 1545, and although it once carried a bit of clout, today it is primarily ceremonial.
Costs include allowances to the Mayor and deputy to cover such things as hospitality, personal guests at civic events, and attendance at charity or civic events where charges are made. The Mayor also gets a car - driven by one of the two Mayor’s Officers who each work 15 hours a week. Then there’s administrative support from the Civic and Member Services Officer who allocates 50% of her time to mayoral and civic activity.
The cost of all that? Around £55,000 a year.
The council hosts and arranges several civic and ceremonial events during the year which cost around £26,000.
The main events are the Battle of Britain Sunday service, Remembrance Sunday, the May Fair Proclamation - which costs about £1,500 for the reception - “Mayors Sunday,” and “Buoys and Beacons” - for which the hire of a boat is about £450 and buffet and drinks on board another £350.
Then there are the Service to the Community Awards made to three or four people each year. Commemorative scrolls are £150 each, the buffet about £500 and drinks another £150.
The cost of a reception after the council’s annual general meeting is about £650 and funded from the civic budget.
Other events are the Mayor’s Christmas reception, and a dinner, where civic heads and representatives of local businesses are invited in order to reciprocate their hospitality to the Mayor during the year. The cost? A budget of £2,300 is allocated with any overspend coming from the Mayor’s allowance. Members and officers who attend pay for their tickets.
Allowing for three community awards, the specified figures total £6,000 – which leaves £20,000 for the cost of the Battle of Britain Sunday service, Remembrance Sunday, plus the Mayor’s Sunday and Christmas bashes – and average of £5,000 each.
Most of these events are little more than exercises in mutual grooming, and the real question should be how much of this is really necessary – and not how can we trim the costs a bit?
Not that we would advocate it for a minute, but the cost Mayoral activities would fund most of a revived Party in the Park. Think about that.
A Performance Review Committee recommended a spending cut of 15% which would save about £12,000 a year, with the civic dinner to become fully self-financing
There is also scope for bigger savings - but that is set out in a report that is being kept secret from the hoi polloi – the taxpayers.
There is also a proposal to restore the seniority selection process to pick the mayor - on an accumulated service basis, so that a councillor’s previous service would be included in the seniority calculation.
On that basis, the next Mayor would be Kirton’s Conservative Councillor Colin Brotherton – after which things get complicated. The next seven all have equal service, and would be chosen by drawing lots. They are: Councillors Paul Kenny, Alison and Richard Austin, Michael Gilbert, Brian Rush, Helen Staples, and David Witts.

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

2011-07-19T06:12:00.001+01:00

Special report:

your views

Several hundred people took time out to read Sunday’s Boston Eye special report, and a few came back to us with comments. By and large, the item struck a chord with those who wrote - with one or two exceptions.
A former Boston Borough councillor wrote to say “your blog today is a disgrace. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves” – but failed to elaborate.
Another writer, Robert, commented: “Beyond the fact that five foreign criminals can no longer ply their trade, I see no possibility of improvement in the situation.
“As always in Boston, vested interest and self-serving political cowardice will continue to be the order of the day.
“The sickening hand-wringing condolences immediately offered up by the great and good for the 'tragedy' says it all.
“Where is the anger that foreign criminals are allowed to ply their trade in our town unmolested?
“Where is the regret for licensing all those little foreign shops that the hooch was sold through?
“Always-smug local MP Mark Simmonds was on Look North with Peter Levy only a couple of weeks ago.
“It was followed by an appearance on Peter Levy's show on Radio Lincolnshire the following day.
“Those who followed those broadcasts will already know that Simmonds once again refused to stand up for the local population, you know, the ones who gave him his job.
“Naturally, we were, of course, all lazy ne'er do wells, who don't want to have jobs, so we must be willing to accept even more foreign replacement.
“I was surprised he didn't add that we're all fat binge drinkers as well, but then, we all know who drinks what in Boston, don't we?
“Presumably in that parallel reality, prior to the great migrant invasion, no work was ever done and the crops all rotted in the fields.
“Bad enough that we now clearly suffer racial discrimination in our own country, without the local MP supporting it.
“As for newly re-elected Councillor Paul Kenny, let us not forget that he was once part of the Joyce Dobson West Street cabal in his previous political life.
"I seem to recall that particular incompetent administration flatly denying that houses of multiple occupation even existed.”
The issue of HMOs was taken up by another commentator, who said he hoped that our special report would open up the whole debate - but added “However I do feel that once again, as is usual with Boston, after the story has disappeared from the news in the next week or so, the matter will once again become a bit of a taboo subject.
“I am afraid we have seen it all before, with the situation of houses of multiple occupation. The problem has not gone away. I can show you records that suggest that a three bed house in Boston is housing up to eight working adults and I suspect some children. People just no longer complain because they know the authorities will do nothing. Many of the councillors have never had to live next door to one of these premises and the problems that come with; many have not had to sell their homes for than the market value just to get out to save their sanity. Many in power have not had to put up with the 24 hour a day noise, drug dealing and prostitution, threats of physical violence and to burn you out of your home, attempted break ins, and damage to vehicles - only to be told by the Police they can do nothing, and by the council they are prepared to do nothing.”
The pseudonymous “Floff” enjoyed our special report.
“All credit to Boston Eye for giving us the plain facts about a subject which concerns many people in this town - that of unregulated immigration. Although those with their hands on the reins of local government will publicly address home-grown issues such as obesity, drug addiction, teenage pregnancy rates or horrendous traffic problems, and even appear to relish the resulting ‘publicity,’ it seems that certain undesirables escape censure because criticism has been confused with racism. It DOES NOT tar all immigrants with the same brush, if you'll pardon the expression, to say that Boston has acquired more than its fair share of those of a criminally-inclined nature, and many of our newly arrived citizens who are keen to integrate and contribute to the community would almost certainly agree. So let's not be afraid to admit that there are bad apples in every barrel, and they need to be removed before their presence encourages further contamination. Should any town that has the interests of ALL law-abiding citizens, of whatever persuasion, at heart, be afraid to speak out for fear of offending the politically correct and bleeding heart liberals?
Claire from Boston quoted our comment “'There will be some who may level charges of racism against Councillor Fountain – but others might say that his close working relationship with the migrant community over a decade makes him a man who knows whereof he speaks.'"
She remarked: “Perhaps you should look at the close working links between Councillor Fountain and Arturs Liepens, whose licence was revoked this week for .... ooh ... selling illegal alcohol!”
We put the point to Councillor Fountain, who replied: “In my ten years of working with the Eastern Europeans of Boston I have worked with and alongside almost every Eastern European person in Boston in one way or another. If the writer would like to expand on their comments I would be happy to reply."
Referring to the comment that some might consider him racist, he added: “It would be a good question to ask anyone who did think this exactly who am I racist towards? I can only say I am the most experienced person in Boston to comment on East Europeans because I have worked with them for the longest in every sector of business, and I have more Eastern European friends and colleagues than I would say anyone else in Boston.”
Thanks to those who did write to us.
For now, it’s time to move on, and so no further comments will be published.

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

2011-07-18T06:07:00.000+01:00

Green waste plan "will degrade service"

Reaction is still coming to yesterday’s special report, and we will run it tomorrow.
Meanwhile, back to the day to day business.
Criticism continues to mount over the way the Conservatives are handling Boston’s affairs since they took the helm on 5th May.
They made few enough promises at the times, and now even the things they are delivering are claimed to have been watered down.
The decision to run a pilot green waste collection scheme has been dismissed as a mere “publicity stunt” - and there are fears that it may well confuse matters rather than help ease a problem – as the garden waste will be collected in the current blue recycling wheelie bins.
One critic is Darron Abbott, a Conservative candidate for Boston’s South Ward at the elections.
“Having read the proposals for the green waste collection, I am disappointed,” he said. “This is not what I was expecting. During the election campaign we were led to believe every household would have a new bin that would be used for green waste - at no point was it suggested that the recycling service would be degraded, as this is what I believe the new scheme does.
“It has taken a long time to get people educated as to what to put in the blue bin. Asking people now to put these items in blue plastic bags will in my opinion set this back. We fill our blue bin most fortnights; we will now have a pile of blue bags containing soggy paper and cardboard along with glass. What happens when one of these bags splits whilst loading on to the bin lorry? Are the bin men going to have time to pick up the paper and broken glass?
“People will just revert back to putting these items in the green bin.
“Once again the council have come up with a half baked idea, rather than being brave. “If it is down to cost, I for one would be willing to pay the £20 for another bin.”
It’s a good point.
Back in February 2009 that the council announced tough penalties for people who contaminated their blue bins with dog waste, food waste, dirty nappies or black bags.
First time around the bin's owners would get a letter reminding them of what they could and couldn’t dump. If they did it again a sterner warning letter was being sent out, and if the bin was contaminated for a third time the householders would be fined £100. And if that didn’t stop them they would be taken to court.
At the time, Councillor Richard Dungworth, who was the cabinet member for recycling, said: "Recycling rules can be confusing …”
We wonder what he would have to say now …
The council has said it was not looking to impose fines during the pilot green waste collection – but says that rubbish placed in the wrong bin or bag may not be collected.
But the newspaper advert promoting the scheme instructs householders “Landfill waste to continue to be put into the green bin” – which we are sure will be a recipe for confusion.
Meanwhile, another contributor – who wishes to remain anonymous - has identified two other election issues where he feels that the Tories have let voters down.
“I am interested, and disappointed, to read recently within your blog of the apparent ease with which the Conservatives are prepared to throw away the content of their pre-election literature.
“I have spoken on two particular issues with a member of this Conservative administration.
“The following is a précis of the discussion.
“1 - Buses through Strait Bargate. ‘Can't do anything about them mate; still got nearly two years of contract to run. No, can't even try to negotiate any element of it in the interest of saving money. Besides, I'm telling you that I have spoken to the people on the buses and they are in favour of buses going through Strait Bargate’ (Do chocoholics dislike Cadburys?)
“2 - Market Place scheme. ‘Sorry, too late to try to revisit or tweak; those 70 parking spaces are going and that's that!’
“And so will £450,000 of our money on a scheme whose net benefit to the borough, and in particular those stalwart and respected traders within the Market Place area who rely on handy parking to attract their customers, is less than guaranteed.

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

2011-07-17T07:43:00.001+01:00

Less than a week ago, in answer to a question at Boston Borough Council’s full meeting about what the council was doing to stop the sale of black market alcohol and cigarettes from unlicensed premises, Council leader Peter Bedford replied that this was a police matter and did not involve the council.
That was before the explosion on Wednesday night which killed five people and seriously injured a sixth - which it is said occurred at an industrial unit where illicit alcohol was being distilled.
They say that a week is a long time in politics – and now, councillors seem to talk about little else.
Inevitably there been some disharmony in all of this, and the purpose of this special blog is to try to put things into some sort of perspective.
Wednesday night’s incident has led to calls for action in two areas in particular – one on immigration to Boston in general, and the other to curb the burgeoning number of small shops selling alcohol, which is often bootlegged and illicit.

“Thorny issue”

On inward migration, Boston Borough Council’s Labour group leader Councillor Paul Kenny, is urging the council to undertake a multi-agency approach to scrutinise through a task and finish group, the “thorny issue” related to migrant workers/European citizens and the impact they are having on Boston (see reference 1 at the foot of the page)
“The Boston Labour Party believe that the numerous issues relating to housing, health, education, policing/crime, employment, transport, social integration/community development are having major effects on our town,” says Councillor Kenny.
He wants a multi-agency approach, involving council partners such as the county council, police, hospitals, primary care trusts, Boston College, the voluntary sector, housing association and privately rented housing sector and local employers.
“This scrutiny of all of these organisations and their services could address the following issues – social tension, better integration, better planning of and providing appropriate services; where necessary applying the right enforcement and understanding the changing face of Boston.”
This “changing face” is certainly obvious to anyone who has lived in Boston for any length of time.
It is commonplace these days to pass people on the streets, hear them talking, and realise that more of the conversations are in a language other than English.

NI registrations

A recent local economic assessment of Lincolnshire published by the Lincolnshire Research Observatory (reference 2) shows that the number of international migrant workers registering for national insurance has fallen in the county during the recession – except in Boston where they have not declined.
Registrations in Boston for the past three years were: 2007/08 – 2,160; 2008/09 – 2,140; and 2009/10 - 2,170. Compare the figures for last year with East Lindsey with 300 - down from 640 - and the gulf is obvious. Only South Holland, where the figure has declined from 1,610 to 1,340 comes close – and that’s most likely due to proximity to Boston and the food production industry.
So many registrations for National Insurance begs the question of whether all these applicants are working.
The latest unemployment figures for Boston (reference 3) show little change, with 3.2% out of work. Based on one of the many and varied population estimates for the borough, this means that there about 40,000 in jobs – and the area has definitely not seen more than 6,000 new jobs created in the last three years.

Pressure on schools

Does this mean that the registrations are being made for family members rather than direct employees? And if so, it raises the issue of the strain that so many extra people place on local services such as health, education, housing benefits and the like.
Five years ago, Boston’s Haven High School hit the headlines when the headmaster drew attention to the vast number of immigrant families seeking to enrol.
"We were full in every year group, yet within the first few days of term literally 30 families arrived at the door,” he said. “All the schools were full, not only us, but it didn't alter the fact that these children needed to be in a school."
He said then that the school was struggling to cope with the new arrivals. "It has come to just about saturation point for us physically to be able to cope. Class sizes have grown considerably, I have had to put in additional teaching staff and I've had to turn an IT room into a classroom."
Who can guess what the situation is now?
One clue came earlier this week, when Fenside’s English Democrat Councillor Elliott Fountain said he had received many calls and requests from local families who had been told that their children could not attend Carlton Road school because it was full – and that they must choose between Fishtoft or Hawthorn Tree … both of them about three or four miles away, which would require a taxi at a cost to the taxpayer. “This goes to show without a doubt that all our public services are now so overwhelmed that it is the locals and the local children who are suffering unfairly because of the economic migrants. The truth of the matter is that two-thirds of the schools’ first language is not English, and the exam results and education are in dire straits. When Haven High takes over St Bede’s approximately 500 of the 1,100 pupils will be non English.”

How many live in Boston?

Last year, the organisation Global Visas, a leading immigration consultancy (reference 4) reported that Boston’s official population figure of 62,000 is said to be more like 75,000 because of inward migration from Europe.
And more recently, government figures last year disclosed that in Boston one in four of the town’s 72,000 population is foreign. A local survey revealed 30% are Polish, 28% Portuguese, 18% Lithuanian and 10% Latvian - with the rest made up of Russian, Ukrainian, Romanian and Moldovan (reference 5.)
Do you see what we mean about population figures? There isn’t even an accurate number available, so if it is wrongly assessed at a lower level than the true numbers, local public services suffer because they are not allocated enough money to cover the real cost.
Moving on now to the issues surrounding alcohol.
Boston Borough Council tried to put its finger in the dyke by publicising the fact that two Boston shops had their licences to sell alcohol revoked on Thursday after counterfeit vodka and alcohol which had not had duty paid on it was found.

Tip of the iceberg

The actions followed another hearing last month when one shop had its alcohol licence revoked and another had its licence suspended for three months following raids where counterfeit and non-duty paid alcohol was seized. But it is said that this is just the tip of the iceberg.
There are claims that there have been a number of deaths in Boston directly linked to illegal alcohol, which often contains the chemical ingredient methanol, which at its most benign can cause blindness if consumed.
The number of shops opening that apply for licences to sell alcohol is mushrooming – and we wonder why there is a need to allow so many to operate, as it only makes the job of monitoring them more time-consuming and the threat to public heath greater.
In stark contrast, Boston’s planners once rejected an application for a milk bar in Dolphin Lane on the grounds that “the development is detrimental to the viability and vitality of the town centre.” Yet it appears there is no problem with allowing increasing numbers of small shops to retail alcohol – in a town, let’s not forget, that is apparently so obsessed with the demon drink, that it has imposed a DPPO - a designated public places order – outlawing drinking in public on a vast chunk of the central area.

“Bootleggers”

Councillor Fountain has attacked the ease with which licences are granted.
“The licensing authority have become a joke to these people,” he says, “and it’s easy to set up an illegal operation when they are getting licences thrown at them. In my ten years of being near our Eastern European friends I have never seen one buy or smoke an English cigarette. The plentiful supply of new cars, mini buses and coaches arriving with trailers on the back deliver these products to Asda car park with new arrivals on a daily basis. There are many houses operating selling bootleg products as well. Even when certain shops get found selling illegal products the authority does not shut them down and many just change their names and trade again straight away.”
He was responding to former Boston Borough Council Leader Richard Austin, who declared that “the most positive thing that we can do as members and as a council is to encourage our residents to report any suspicious activities relating to illegal alcohol or cigarettes to the police. This of course can be done anonymously.”
Aside from not being terribly “positive,” we feel that this view is reminiscent of the days so cherished by Sir John Major, who spoke of cricket matches on the village green, accompanied by warm beer” - and the policeman probably played by Deryck Guyler!
It may well work in Wyberton – but Boston is a different copper kettle of home cooked alcohol.
Several people came forward after Wednesday’s explosion to say that the operation was the town’s “worst kept secret” claiming to have known about it for a long time – so they are scarcely likely to call the police, are they?
Another point that has been made is that while premises have had their licences withdrawn – no prosecutions have taken place.
Councillor Fountain claims that a number of international “mafias” operate in Boston “including Afghanistan/Kurdish, Turkish, Lithuanian, Latvian, Polish, Russian, Bulgarian, Portugese.”
If true, then this highlights another problem.
Most of Boston is a “no go” area for our local police – simply because they don’t go there! When did you last see anything much of a police presence in anything but the town centre? No wonder crime can flourish.
Inevitably, debate on all these issues will incur charges of racism – and we have to say that some of the discussion boards that we have read in recent days could support such charges.
However, most of the voices raised are inarticulate – which is scarcely surprising given the level of education in Boston today.
There will be some who may level charges of racism against Councillor Fountain – but others might say that his close working relationship with the migrant community over a decade makes him a man who knows whereof he speaks.

MP must catch up

The Independent newspaper, secure in its London-centric ivory tower, declared last week: “What the criminality which lay behind this accident shows is the need to integrate migrant workers into our economic and social systems so that they pay tax and gain the full protection of the law. Most eastern European workers in the UK do jobs that their British counterparts disdain. It is only when they do so in the shadows of the grey economy that disasters like this happen.” (reference 6.)
It’s an easy and obvious thing to say, but “integrating” such a flood as Boston has seen in recent years is well-nigh impossible. It’s like trying to contain a tsunami in a bucket.
Boston’s MP Mark Simmonds has said that we must implement procedures and structures to ensure this tragic event and loss of life do not occur again. This is all very fine, but he appears to have missed the fact that there is a much wider issue here.
The last real mention of immigration that we could find from Mr Simmonds was in 2004 – seven years ago, when his newsletter reported: “Mark recognises the vital contribution that migrant workers make to the Boston and Skegness economy, and therefore understands the importance that all workers are legitimate, and not vulnerable to exploitation.” (reference 7.) The item concluded: "I will be urging the government to review their failing policy and implement a more effective
immigration system.” That was the Labour government, of course.
A lot of water has flowed beneath the bridge since then, and Mr Simmonds would be well advised to get up to speed on this crucial issue for Boston.
Meanwhile, all the old stories about Boston are re-emerging - in news sources as far away as New Zealand where a report says: "Police and local MP Mark Simmonds said that until the blast yesterday there was no indication that illegal liquor was being brewed in Boston, and there was no evidence to link the confiscated alcohol with that being made at the industrial unit." (reference 8)
Yesterday’s Daily Mail devoted two pages to the problems of bootleg liquor, and reminded us that: “In recent years, Boston has gained notoriety for simmering tensions between locals and a growing Eastern European migrant worker community” (reference 9.)
Although most councillors apparently believe that the issue of black market alcohol is one for the police, and not for them, there has nonetheless been no shortage of of the ruling party's great and good willing to go on radio and TV to wring their withers about the loss of life without apparently thinking ofthe potential victims of illegal alcohol.

“The bright ones leave”

In his plea for a searching examination of the immigration issue and its effects on Boston, Councillor Paul Kenny adds: “We have urged the Chief Executive and the Conservative leader of the council to take this request seriously, as we also believe it would enhance the reputation of the borough council when we do our peer review later on in the year, and give us some credibility that we are taking the issues that affect our town seriously. It would give us a real understanding of the issues facing Boston today. It could also assist us with our relationship with central government and may even assist us by attracting additional funding.”
And Councillor Fountain concludes: “I imagine this will fall upon deaf ears because many of you are not seeing what’s happening on a daily basis. Many of Boston's brightest people with good prospects are all leaving for new pastures to start new lives for them and their children because Boston is so bad. If Boston carries on as it is now it will be lost beyond recognition.”
We hope that the council’s ruling group will acknowledge the deep concern felt by so many people in Boston and act accordingly.
And if by any chance, Boston is fortunate to gain special funding, we hope that it will not be poured down the drain on some project that merely pays lip service to the concept of action.

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

References

1: Boston Labour Party
2: Local Economy Assessment
3: Unemployment figures
4: Global Visa
5: Daily Express
6: Independent
7: Mark Simmonds 2002 newsletter
8: New Zealand Herald
9: Daily Mail

2011-07-15T15:02:00.000+01:00

Boston Eye

Sunday special

Since Wednesday night's explosion which claimed five lives - three of them Lithuanian men aged 24, 26 and 32 - the spotlight has moved from the criminal to the political status of events.
Like it or not, Boston Borough Council has now – lately but rightly – become a debating chamber where growing concerns about inward migration and its effect on the town’s present and future are being aired.
On Sunday, Boston Eye will be running a special blog drawing together what’s been said so far and discussing ideas for what can be done in the future.
It will be online from 10am, and we hope you will find time to read it.
In the meantime if you would like to contribute, you can send an e-mail to boston.eye@googlemail.com
Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Week ending 15th July

2011-07-15T06:25:00.001+01:00

Our Friday miscellany

of the week's

news and events

The vexed issue of councillors’ allowances has again come to the fore – leading to big headlines pointing out that they will total 85% of the current £2,378 annual allowance over three years. The borough launched a damage limitation exercise on its website saying that basic allowances have not increased for six years, and are currently far below those paid by other authorities. Whether that can justify the line that “Boston borough councillors are best value in the county, if not the country,” is another matter. A handful of the borough’s 32 councillors voted against the rise – and individuals can refuse to take it if they wish. We’ve long expressed the view that councillors’ allowances are too small to attract the full range of skills and abilities needed to give the borough the best possible service. But what about the payments? They breakdown as follows: 2011-12 £674 - 28.34% 2012-13 £674 - 22.08% and 2013-14 £674 - 18.09%. Overall this gives a pay rise of 85.03%. An average meeting time of say two hours, three times a month - plus time spent on constituency matters comes to around ten hours a month. That’s 120 hours a year which works out at £36.66 per hour – the equivalent of a university lecturer pay grade - and that’s just the basic allowance.
Boston’s Mayor Councillor Mary Wright has caused more than a ripple of amusement among her colleagues after she issued this round-robin e-mail to all councillors. “A statement was made by a Councillor at the Council Meeting that most members were Old Age Pensioners, although I did not pick this up on a point of order which I should have done. Can I please remind Members that it is an offence to call people ‘Old’, they should be referred to as Senior Citizens.” Whilst we appreciate that the law is very stringent in matters of ageism, we can say with some certainty that it is not “an offence” to call people old. In fact, age is often worn as a badge of honour these days. How often do you hear people declare: “I’m a pensioner, you know…?” But how about the claim itself? People wear better these days than they used to - but a quick look at the list of councillors suggests that at least 14 of the 32 members are old age pensioners, and we suspect that the claim that the majority are is not that far adrift. What the council’s average is, would be interesting to know.
An act of kindness was swiftly forthcoming for councillors who might be feeling their age with the delivery of a 1kg bag of Swizzels butterscotch to the members’ lounge with the gift card message “For the seniors amongst the Councillors, Sorry I could not get Werthers Originals. Keep up the good work.” Ironically, when they were delivered they were signed for by someone named "Wright."
Boston Labour councillors Paul Kenny and Paul Goodale have attacked the Tories on the licensing/regulatory and appeals committee for rejecting calls to adopt a taxi fare tariff which was “fair to people living within the town.” A new increase will see a 12% slapped on in-town routes but greatly reduced fares for people living further away. The councillor called the charges “inequitable and unfair.” They said people living near the town centre with disabilities, older people without cars, and anyone who had to depend on taxis to do shopping or attend doctor’s appointments and the like, would have to pay a higher percentage in the new tariff. We wonder whether anyone has concluded that this penalty scale is the perfect way to force more people on to the Into Town bus service – and therefore boost traffic figures and cement it into a permanent feature in Strait Bargate. But surely, no-one would be that cynical, would they?
What a lacklustre affair this week’s first real full meeting of Boston Borough Council turned out to be. Just two items on the agenda – the presentation of the Audit Committee Minutes, and a report by the Chief Executive on Members' Allowances – were there to occupy members. We criticised the previous administration for the way in which it turned what used to be the chance for councillors to discuss wide ranging areas of policy into a stagnant rubber stamping event. All it will do is drive away the few remaining members of the public who bother to attend – and perhaps even the local “newspapers” as well. Again, we ask the question - surely, no-one would be that cynical, would they?
An ironic postscript to the event of the past couple of days has been sent by a reader who tells us at Monday's full council meeting a question was asked about what the council was doing to stop the sale of black market alcohol and cigarettes from unlicensed premises. We're told that Council leader Peter Bedford replied that this was a police matter and did not involve the council. Not any more, we suspect.
We thought that the work on the Market Place was supposed to start at the beginning of the week, but that appears not to have been the case. We now hear that the work will start in earnest next week – a delay before it even gets started. As well as that we understand that parking and traffic movement - outside the cordoned off areas - will now apparently be allowed throughout the works “to be reasonable to the residents of Boston." Meanwhile, townsfolk claim they have never seen the market so busy, but felt that the shops looked deserted as a result of the new layout. And we’d love to know more about an amusing but unseemly incident when a convoy of vehicles drove the wrong way along the one-way section of Bargate on the Threadneedle Street side of the road – from Shephard’s Bakery to Pen Street. The elderly lead driver pulled up to the metal barriers and started sounding the horn of his Jaguar before a colleague from the convoy got out and began to move them, This attracted a string of abuse from a passer-by who shouted “you people think you own the town…” You people? We wonder who he meant. Finally, we’re told that buses have been banned from Strait Bargate on market days for “reasons of public safety” We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again – if the service can run without befouling Strait Bargate for so long, then it can to avoid it for ever.
Despite being dead in the water for months, Boston Borough Council’s feeble Roll of Achievement shows no sign of either being removed or being integrated with some of the existing other material available. The roll now features more additions from research by the local University of the Third Age local history group based on street names than it does genuine nominations. When this feature appeared out of the blue, it was condemned by the Conservatives as a waste of money and a pointless exercise. Now they’re in power, why not kick the idea into touch?
The irony of all this was highlighted earlier in the week, when the 200th birthday of the great Victorian architect Sir George Gilbert Scott (right) - one of the most prolific architects that Great Britain has produced, who designed or altered on 800 buildings including the Albert Memorial. Scott was chiefly associated with the design, building and renovation of churches, cathedrals and workhouses. He built the workhouse on Skirbeck Road, and restored Boston Stump between 1851-53. But his connections with the town go well beyond that, as he married a local woman Caroline Oldrid - another famous name - in 1838. But do Sir George or Lady Scott rate a name check in the Roll of Honour – or the list of “Famous Bostonians?” Of course not!
Another birthday for which the bunting was out was Boston’s “hugely-successful” Placecheck scheme which has celebrated two years working across five neighbourhoods in Boston - High Street South, Main Ridge East, Carlton Road, Witham East and Witham Central. Placecheck is one of these money pits whereby a local authority gets its hands on a pile of cash and feels compelled to spend it regardless. In this case, the amount involved was £100,000 - of which half was retained for administering the scheme, and the remaining £50,000 divided among the five projects areas. In most cases these gobbets of £10,000 a time have been spent on largely cosmetic schemes such as litter collecting, bulb planting and the like. Whilst the idea is probably seen as Boston’s version of the Big Society, we can’t help but think that all the work done in the past two years could have been achieved at a fraction of the cost.
Finally, thanks to the Boston Standard for this week’s comedy cutting.

We guess this dog will never run away – after all, it’s been “flee” treated! But joking aside - congratulations to the Standard reporting team for their online coverage of yesterday's events in Boston. What a shame the paper no longer boasts a printing press in the centre of town - a special edition would have been a real coup. We mustn't forget the Target either. It has a new look "improved" website - and we couldn't find a thing on it except adverts..

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

2011-07-14T15:02:00.001+01:00

Boston blast - reply to zero tolerance call

Boston’s newly Independent Councillor, Carol Taylor, has sent a round robin reply to Councillor David Owens’s earlier e-mail to all council members in which she says:

Dear David

Thank you for your e mail which has been received by so many with a heavy heart. The loss of so many lives due to alleged illegal practices is something that needs to be stopped without question.
As for your apology if your comments were to cause offence, it is not necessary. What you have said and as a consequence of the awful tragic events of yesterday will serve only to unite us all to strive to eliminate any further destruction of human life, regardless of political persuasion.
I am sure my fellow councillors will agree to make a few minutes in our day today to think of those bereaved families who have lost loved ones in such a needless and senseless way.

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

2011-07-14T06:32:00.002+01:00

+++ +++ +++ +++
Call for zero tolerance on bootleg alcohol

+++ +++ +++ +++

"Robberies, protection, local 'mafia'"

There’s been a swift reaction to last night’s events from Boston’s English Democrat councillors.

Group leader Councillor David Owens has written to all councillors to say:

In the light of the tragic events earlier this evening, and the early reports of the cause, I do hope that members of all persuasions will look at ALL licensing challenges this town is currently faced with and take very firm action against ANY licensee who breaches the conditions of their licence.

Tip-toeing around matters relating to bootlegged liquor only keeps this illegal industry going, and all members of this council should insist on a ZERO TOLERANCE approach to dealing with offenders.

Time to get a backbone and use the power delegated to us for the protection of the law abiding citizens of this town.

No apologies if my comment causes offence!!

He told Boston Eye: “My simple message to members of this town’s council, is that people have died tonight and the time for prancing and pontificating is well and truly over!”

His council colleague Elliott Fountain added:

Once again we make the headlines due to our eastern European friends,

I think that one or two dead bodies have been found this week as well, maybe connected to this vodka

There are two licensing meetings at the council on 18^th July for selling illegal vodka - one foreign shop on the bridge has closed down already because of selling illegal vodka and cigarettes; there is only one foreign trading business shop owner in Boston that trades legally, all the rest are fronts for bootleg vodka, beer and cigarettes.

This a fact in Boston. This vodka is available down most streets in Boston from households, Haven Meadows, Castle Street, London Road, Tunnard Street - one man sells £1,000's a day.

Some foreign lads have stopped working on the land because the money is so good.
There are robberies going on, protection money from their mafias - yes all here in little Boston.

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

2011-07-14T06:00:00.000+01:00

DID ILLEGAL ALCOHOL CAUSE DEATH BLAST?

The following has appeared on this mornings BBC local news pages

Lincolnshire
14 July 2011 Last updated at 01:12

Five men have been killed and a sixth has been seriously injured in an explosion at an industrial estate in Lincolnshire.Police, fire and ambulance crews were called to the Broadfield Lane Industrial Estate in Boston at about 1900 BST on Wednesday.
A Lincolnshire Police spokeswoman said she believed the men died instantly in the force of the explosion.
Police are investigating claims the men may have been brewing illegal alcohol.
A spokesman for the force appealed for anyone with information about the men and what activity was taking place at the unit to contact officers.
The sixth man was taken to Boston's Pilgrim Hospital but later transferred to the Queen's Medical Centre (QMC) in Nottingham.
Nerys McGarry, from Lincolnshire Police, said it was not yet clear what had caused the blast.
"We do not have any further information about the men, their ages and where they are from but we will be making inquiries throughout the night and can give a further update in the morning," she said.
BBC Radio Lincolnshire reporter Scott Dalton, who was at the scene, said residents in the area had seen thick, black smoke coming from the industrial estate.
"Locals have been telling me they didn't even hear an explosion or even a bang," he said.
Paul Featherstone, who lives nearby, said: "I didn't hear an explosion, I just saw the smoke.
"If the explosion didn't kill them, the smoke would have done because it was that bad. It was thick, black smoke coming through the roller doors."
He added he was told by another eyewitness that one man ran out "with his arm all ablaze".
It is understood this is the man who is now being treated at the QMC.
Steve Moore, area manager with Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue Service, said the building appeared to have been the scene "of a very hot fire with a very rapid spread".
"When the first crews attended they were faced with a really serious fire and a casualty who was outside the building suffering from burns.
"Their initial reaction was to treat the casualty. The incoming crew then started to fight the fire, it was a really hot, intense fire."
Crews were forced to use hydraulic equipment to get into the unit.
"The intensity of the fire buckled the roller shutters and set alight a car outside," he said.
He added: "For all the firefighters I've spoken to this is the most significant loss of life in a fire that they've ever attended."
Speaking on BBC News, Dick Holmes, of Lincolnshire Police, said the five dead men had been killed "pretty much outright".
He described the sixth man as having been "very seriously injured".
The industrial estate was close to the town centre and made up of between 12 and 15 units that were "relatively small", he said.
Boston Central Councillor Peter Bedford described the incident as a "real shock".
"There is heavy industry in that industrial estate, there's a scrapyard, there's joinery works, it's a real mix."
Boston East councillor Mike Gilbert said: "I'm very anxious to find out exactly what's happened. It's a lot of people dead and a great tragedy."
Canon Robin Whitehead, Rector of Boston, said the incident was "extremely sad and tragic".
Broadfield Lane Industrial Estate includes a furniture store, a scrap yard, a tyre firm and a car maintenance business. The site is surrounded by houses and is close to Boston town centre.
You can also read more at the Boston Standard website.
We’ll have more comment on this later in the morning.

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

2011-07-13T05:52:00.001+01:00

Ex councillor explains expenses

In last week’s Boston Eye we commented on reports that former Conservative councillor Myles Larrington had claimed his full allowances despite only attending two council meetings in a year.
He’s since written to us to clarify matters – and also to deal with one or two other issues mentioned in the media.
In an e-mail to Boston Eye, Mr Larrington says:

“You may wish to consider the following points, with regard to my expenses claim:
“For 2010/11 I claimed the full basic allowance of £2,378.04. This included the first two quarters of the year, prior to me taking up my employment with John Redwood, when I attended meetings regularly. A significant amount of the claim can be attributed to this period, as can my travel claim of £21.15.
“The media claim I was a ‘councillor in absentia since May 2010’. This claim is incorrect. As I made clear when I originally took up my job with John Redwood I would ‘attend meetings as and when required’ and that I would not ‘be an absentee councillor’. For the record, after May 2010, I attended two formal meetings of the council in September and January 2011.
“The (Conservative Party) statement released on 21st May 2010 has caused some confusion. It stated that: “The other Conservative councillors … will be handling any enquiries or concerns from residents of Cllr Larrington’s Pilgrim Ward. Cllr Larrington will continue to attend council meetings in Boston as required but has declined to accept any remuneration or related expenses in the future.”
“As the statement makes clear I intended NOT to claim any allowances, on the basis that the other members of the Conservative Group would take up any future ward enquiries.
“After taking up my job with John Redwood, I decided that I would still have the time and capability to both travel to and from meetings and to communicate directly with my electorate (and thereby continue to handle ward enquiries myself.) I therefore requested my allowance be reinstated, so I could use this to fund my travel to Boston and undertake work as a councillor.
“I always made clear the rescinding of my allowance would only continue in absence of me performing any work in my role as a ward councillor.
“Questions have been asked about the disappearance of my photograph from the council’s website and the alteration of my number from May 2010 onwards.
“I did ask the council to change my contact number to that of the Member Service’s Officer – so she could take and record any messages for me, as this was helpful. In any case, my mobile remained freely available in the ‘contacts’ section of the website. “However, my photograph was removed without my say so and I never gave consent for this to happen.
“After May 2010 I did undertake some unofficial meetings, including that of Placecheck and visits to some ward residents.
“My overall attendance (even after May 2010) was still better than many other councillors.
“It is important to emphasise that all these allowances were claimed properly and legally.”

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

2011-07-12T06:04:00.000+01:00

Sir,

Boston Eye plunged to new depths last week with its unwarranted and deeply cruel piece on Cllr Yvonne Gunter.
Cllr Gunter attended at the Guildhall Museum last Wednesday, out of her own interest and in support of a new exhibition opening that day.
She was asked to pose for a photograph by the press and our own communications manager to help promote the Hallaton Treasure exhibition.
You chose to “capture” this picture from the front page of the council’s monthly e-newspaper to use it to poke fun at Cllr Gunter; not because she was making any controversial political statement, not because she was promoting an unpopular policy, not because she was using tax payers’ money unwisely.
The “fun” at Cllr Gunter’s expense was without reason and very upsetting for her.
Councillors do have to develop thick skins to deal with the slings and arrows of public criticism – that goes with the territory. But this was deeply hurtful at the most personal level.
No one entering public office expects an easy ride. Often it can be a thankless task, but one we voluntarily and willingly accept.
And we all expect there to be criticism of what we do. In fact, we welcome constructive criticism and suggestions and ideas from any source. None of us pretends that we have all the answers.
But Boston Eye’s editorial about Cllr Gunter is beyond the pale. It’s not gutter journalism – it is beyond that. It’s in the sewers.
I hope you can recognise your error and poor judgement on this occasion and take immediate action to remove the offensive article and offer an unreserved public apology to Cllr Gunter.

Peter Bedford,
Leader,
Boston Borough Council.
8th July 2011

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

2011-07-11T06:11:00.001+01:00

Mixture as
before is
bitter pill
for Boston

The political upheavals of the past week or so have sparked much discussion both within and outside Boston Borough Council.
And they have given at least one local politician pause for thought about the direction in which the council is headed.
Independent Councillor Brian Rush believes that all the signs point to trouble ahead.
He told Boston Eye:

“The recent elections were a shock, when the people returned a large Conservative majority.
“I know that even they were taken by surprise.
“But is this good for Boston?
Of course it all depends how they behave. And already the signs from the leadership are not good!
“It is well known that even before the election there was ‘trouble at mill’ - differences of opinion were rife amongst the local Tory executive.
“The campaign was certainly disjointed, and although I guess the leaders will deny it, the gossip was that a shortage of willing candidates forced them to urgently seek paper candidates, just as the former BBI had done in 2007.
“The fact is, of course, those who know they were pressured into candidacy, must surely question the honesty and sincerity of those who approached them, and now deny it.
“Again, if this was the case, then Conservatives who had been in opposition for four years learnt nothing from the BBI.
“Richard Austin found to his cost, that you can’t just go gathering a random group of people around you, cajole them into standing as councillors, then demand that they agree with party dictates, and not expect unrest.
“It is a matter of record how the ignored electorate then also took widespread revenge on the BBI this time around.
“In the few weeks of this new council, it is clear to me that there are a number of new Tory members who are surprised how rigid party expectations are.
“It matters not whether you be Conservative or indeed Labour, the party line will always be the treasure, never the people.
“What we as a town need more than ever are councillors with vision and foresight, spirit and determination, with the guts to stand up and challenge the status quo.
“Look back at the past four years as personal agendas were being pursued and delivered.
“Entitlements demanded, though not earned!
“Any hint of aspirational free thinking crushed.
“I am afraid to say it all looks very similar once again.
“We can only hope there are elected members within all groups that decide it is time to work only for the good of Boston, and hang old fashioned party politics.
“Let’s put them all out to grass.”

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 8th July

2011-07-08T06:16:00.000+01:00

Our Friday miscellany

of the week's

news and events

The vexed issue of green waste collection in Boston was at last addressed by a committee meeting last night with a pilot scheme that could pave the way for something more permanent. If Lincolnshire County Council gives the scheme the nod, a 14 week collection period will start on August 1st. It’s long overdue. A survey across Lincolnshire showed garden waste accounted for 11.3% of rubbish - whilst in Boston it was 31.3% and later rose to 38%. The proposal will cover around 40% of the district in the first instance - but as with all these things, though, nothing’s ever easy. The explanation of the scheme declares: “half of the chosen households will have their collection on a ‘residual’ waste collection (ie green bin) week, with the other 50% being collected on a recycling (blue) week. In other words if your garden waste collection happens to be due on a residual week, you will present your green (residual) and blue bins together-the blue bin being filled with garden waste - and on the blue bin week, you will present only your blue bags containing recycling. Therefore, half of households will have two collections in one week and one the next and vice versa.” We’re sure that it will work flawlessly! Boston’s two English Democrat councillors were the only opponents of the scheme, which Councillor Elliott Fountain dismissed as a “publicity stunt” with the Conservatives “just wanting to be seen doing something.”
We were less than impressed with former Conservative Councillor Myles Larrington’s “defence” for claiming his full £2,380 allowance despite only attending two borough council meetings in a year. Readers may recall that when he took up a job in Westminster, an official Tory statement at the time said: “Councillor Larrington will continue to attend council meetings in Boston as required - but has declined to accept any remuneration or related expenses in the future.” He told us: "I can assure you that I will not be an absentee councillor – my new employer … is willing to be flexible around key or important meetings of the council, so I shall continue to attend as and when required.” So was he only “required” for a mere two meetings? Mr Larrington’s “defence” says: “As for the fact that I only attended two meetings in twelve months, at the end of the day, I complied with the six month attendance rule and therefore met my legal obligation to attend.” And also the legal requirement to claim that which he apparently declined, presumably?
We note a new columnist has joined the ranks of the borough council’s monthly bulletin. Taking up the nannying mantle that epitomises the borough these days, “Litter Champion and smoker Rachel Lauberts” tell readers: “I recently attended a meeting at the borough council offices where someone complained about Boston being turned into a giant ashtray and what could be done about the cigarette litter on our streets?” The article, which runs to the thick end of 500 words, turns out primarily to be a free puff (if you’ll excuse the pun) for a pocket dog-end storage device called a Stubbi – including a price guide, phone number for the company and website link. Is promotion like this really the council’s job? Incidentally there seems little doubt from her credentials that Mrs Lauberts was an unsuccessful Boston Bypass Independent candidate at May’s elections. Are we witnessing an early opening salvo for the 2015 campaign, we wonder?
Another name from the recent political past appears in the newspapers this week in the form of Spencer Pearson – a former shortlisted BNP “activist of the year” who stood for the Boston Bypass Independents in the Staniland North seat, last May. His latest claim to fame? A court appearance on a charge of being drunk and disorderly. Recalling the trials of the former BBI administration and its councillors where the demon drink was concerned, we can only say “phew!”
A lot has been said in the past few days about the spending of quite large sums of money on various projects. English Democrat Councillor David Owens – who sent us the childishly-drawn plan for a £10,000 garden feature in Central Park – has been looking at other areas of the borough’s finances. His enquiries have uncovered that the annual cost to the council of membership of the Local Government Association – “a talking shop for local authorities and of no real value to tax payers in my opinion” - came up with the following spending figures: 2007/08 £16,249.84, 2008/09 £13,485.72, 2009/10 £10,000, 2010/11 £8,180, 2011/12 £ 6,825. We’re not entirely clear whether the figures include some sort of annual membership fee, but certainly the lion’s share of any spending must go on the LGA’s annual conference, which costs around £1,000 a head for delegates to attend – excluding travel and subsistence. It’s a lot of money - £54,740.56 over five years – and we would be interested to know whether anyone would be bold enough claim that it is really value for money. Moving on, Councillor Owens reports on his blog that translation services mopped up another £22,000 across five years, and “International Links and Town twinning” – something that we hardly ever hear of these days ran up a stonking £27,836. The grand total? More than £100,000. Quite rightly, Councillor Owens asks: “Is it any wonder that the council has been struggling to balance the budget when it is haemorrhaging taxpayers’ money on such items?”
On a slightly less expensive note, now that the council has got around to publishing the correct list of its spending over £500 for May, we see an item for slightly over £700 for a “finger buffet” provided at the Building Control Awards evening - despite the fact that the event was purportedly sponsored by a local company. There were only eight categories in the event, and given that there were probably three in each to choose from, we can’t imagine the guest list was that great in number, which makes the spend seem excessive. Not only that, but when events like this are held in the early evening, there is every chance that the attendees have probably already eaten and therefore had no need of seven hundred quids’s worth of buckshee grub. Probably good news if you took your Tupperware along.
It’s good to see that no effort is being spared to gain the best quality recruits for the work on the Market Place renovation scheme. The photo below is from a recruitment advert on the Directgov Jobsite - aka the JobCentre.

click on picture to enlarge it

The text tells us: “This is an IMH vacancy operating as an employment business. Experiecned (sic) ground workers required to work on city centre contract, main duties to include kerbing and block paving. Machines tickets prefered (sic)and recent working references required.” IMH Recruitment is a South Yorkshire based recruitment agency covering the industrial, commercial, construction, transport, private health care and education sectors with “well over 30 years experience in the industry” – but perhaps not in the use of English. And since when was Boston a “city?” What a shame to see such a slapdash opener before a single stone has been turned.
And talking of the Market Place project, the following painting has come to light which shows what the original perimeter wall to Boston Stump looked like around 1840–1850.

It’s a highly impressive piece of stonework and makes us wonder why the plan does not provide for the restoration of the feature – rather than ripping a chunk out of the remaining listed wall to save pedestrians walking a few feet. After all, this is supposed to be in the name of heritage. Isn't it?
Finally, a dictionary moment for you. The word maverick – used by Boston Borough Council Leader Peter Bedford about his former Tory colleague Carol Taylor, who has left the party to join the Independents – is defined as ”an unorthodox or independent-minded person. A free thinker.” Its antonyms are: “conventionalist, pedant, stickler, traditionalist, conservative.” What more can we say?

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

2011-07-07T06:18:00.001+01:00

Tory split:

"We can't have

maverick voices"

After the initial reaction to the departure of Boston Borough Councillor Carol Taylor from the Conservatives to the Independents, things save calmed down a little.

Given the history of party-swapping on the council, it comes as no surprise that there is little enthusiasm for a by election.
Indeed, as one of the most recent changes of allegiance was that of former Independent Councillor Michael Brookes – who switched to the Tories and within a year was appointed Joint Deputy Leader – the Conservatives are not in a position to throw stones.
Group leader Councillor Peter Bedford went on BBC Lincolnshire to address the issue and whilst he must have strutted away from the microphone feeling the warm glow of a job well done, and the removal of an irritating fly from his political ointment, the fact is that he came over as patronising, complacent and conceited.
The interviewer asked if he was sorry to lose a Conservative councillor...
PB: Of course. Always sorry to lose a Conservative councillor.
INT: Were you telling her what to say?
PB: No but like anything else, anybody that’s in politics knows that you have to have a line to follow. As an administration, if you want to get things happening you have to follow a line, otherwise like the last four years of Boston when there was 27 independent people it was a total mess and you cannot rule a party or a council like that.
INT: As leader were you laying down the ground rules?
PB: The group were laying down the ground rules not just me. Let’s say there was a difference of opinion. It’s just the fact that you can’t have maverick voices. We have a strong line on what we want to achieve for Boston. The electorate put us in on a mandate and we are going to achieve that mandate and that is what the people of Boston expect from us.
INT: People who voted Conservative in this ward now haven’t got one
PB: They have one other Conservative councillor in that ward.
INT: Do you feel that some people in that ward might feel miffed?
PB: I’m sure they will.
INT: What about calls for a by-election?
PB: There is absolutely nothing that can be done because it is purely down to Councillor Taylor if she wants to stay as she is it is purely down to personal choice and we have no say in that and nor do the electorate.
INT: It was unusual so quickly after an election, isn’t it?
PB: Yes but if you are new to politics and don’t really understand how councils and politicians work from the outside it very often as though you can just walk in, click your fingers and things will happen. Well, it doesn’t work like that in the real world. And I’m afraid Councillor Taylor found that very quickly.
INT: Surely any councillor has to be true to themselves.
PB: Of course they do and I would expect that and Councillor Taylor at the end of the day whichever side of the fence she sits on as long as she does what she was elected for and that is to represent the people of Boston to her best ability then you can’t ask for more than that.
INT: What a good job you had so many in the party, wasn't it?
PB: It is indeed.
INT: You can afford to lose one, can you?
PB: We can never afford to lose one. But we will carry on, don’t worry. And You just keep watching the results of what’s happening in Boston as the announcements keep coming out within the next few weeks.
Meanwhile, at least one former Conservative candidate has harsh words about his previous political colleagues.
Mark Rawlings, who was also briefly listed as a candidate at the elections last May but did not eventually stand, tells Boston Eye:
“As a life-long resident of Witham Ward and a previous candidate for the Tories in it – who decided to stand down from this year’s proceedings because of being aware of how things operate amongst the Tory group - I have a free mind which, if I had stood, (might have led me) to a take a stand alongside that of Councillor Taylor.
“If, as is being suggested by the English Democrat deputy leader a by election was held I am quite sure Councillor Taylor would retain her seat, as she has been a breath of fresh air and worked tirelessly before and after her election success.
“Her standing by what she feels best for her ward residents should come before toeing the party line, and she should be commended for not becoming one of the spineless sheep who just do en masse as they are told.
“Boston has suffered enough with four years of block voting by the BBI to not repeat for the next four as well.
“It will be interesting to see if the councillor from the English Democrats keeps to his word and stands down for a by election following the latest statement from Councillor Taylor.
“So I say good luck to her and long may she continue.
“Boston needs good independent, free-minded people to run this town and it would be a better place if we had 32 councillors like her.
“It is proof enough that there is no advantage to our townsfolk of such a dominant leadership considering the totally overwhelming leadership at county level as well -they still cannot stand up and be heard to save the town from deteriorating any further.
“I have tried three times to raise a point with one of the cabinet in the last week, only to receive a one line return to date. I can only surmise he is awaiting instruction on what he is allowed to tell me instead of acting on what his own views may be. “Disappointing to say the least.
“We are far from the transparency promised only a few short weeks ago.”
Meanwhile - what progress on English Democrat Councillor Elliott Fountain’s call for what he has dubbed a “bye-bye” election in Witham ward?
In an e-mail to all councillors he said: “If costs are given for an excuse not to have a by-election then I will quit and thus create a by-election for Fenside ward anyway.”
In her resignation statement, Councillor Taylor said she had no intention of resigning, and so far, Councillor Fountain has not received any replies to his e-mail.
But he is determined to press ahead with his plans.
He told Boston Eye: “It looks like she will not be doing the honourable thing and standing down for the public to decide.
”I myself will try to persuade her, and I will be out leafleting and canvassing the Witham ward to get the public’s opinion after the weekend.
“If she will still not stand down, I see no alternative but to stand down in the Fenside area after I can meet the full council and discuss it with them.
“Nevertheless, if there isn't a by-election for Witham Ward, there will be for Fenside very, very soon.
“This will give the public the attention this matter deserves - because an innocent councillor who believes in letting the people choose will stand down - while Carol Taylor will just plod along has if nothing has happened just like all the other "old school" councillors, which is shambolic.”

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

2011-07-06T06:18:00.000+01:00

Why everything in

the garden isn't rosy!

Amidst all the upheavals of the past couple of days, it’s important not to lose sight of some of the more apparently routine issues within Boston Borough Council.
The business of the £10,000 garden project for Central Park, passed by the Tory majority at a recent meeting of BTAC - the Boston Town Area Committee - has given some councillors cause for concern, and two members say that the decision has broken both the spirit and letter of the committee’s raison d’etre.
Labour Councillor Paul Gleeson told Boston Eye that two issues seem to have been merged into one - and he not sure whether the Conservative group understood the proceedings at the meeting.
“The first issue was the construction of an herb garden in Central Park. As Central Park is a benefit to the whole of the borough, Labour councillors questioned whether the works should be paid for by using BTAC money, and argued that it should be paid for using general funds.
“BTAC money is the same as a parish council precept and should only be spent on items solely for the benefit of the town. We proposed, inter alia, that the committee didn’t authorise the expenditure pending clarification of whether it is proper expenditure for BTAC and pending a full review of how BTAC wants to spend project money during the next four years.
“During the subsequent debate, which was on the principal of how BTAC money was spent - not the herb garden - some of the Conservatives seemed to be agreeing with the points we had made.
“When we came to the vote, all the Conservatives voted against, they went on to propose and support the expenditure on the herb garden, using BTAC money on a borough-wide facility and depriving Boston town residents of £10,000 that could have been spent on their local needs.
“The next issue was, under the previous administration each councillor had a small pot of money - £800 - that they could allocate to projects in their area.
“This was different money to the £10,000 spent on an herb garden in Central Park. “Last year most councillors didn’t allocate the money, and the question was what BTAC should do with the money.
“I questioned the propriety of councillors allocating money in this way and doubted the benefit of what could be achieved by money being spent in small-unplanned amounts.
“Labour councillors again proposed that that the committee didn’t authorise the expenditure pending a full review of how BTAC wants to spend project money during the next four years and that the committee should visit all of the major open spaces that they are responsible for. This proposal was passed.”
Another councillor who feels the same way is English Democrat Elliott Fountain.
“To spend the money on the town park was from money already allocated from BTAC committee resources, and to put all the money together from each individual ward into one pot was two totally different subjects.
“May I just add that the Conservatives decided instead on each ward councillor having £2,000 to spend on their own individual ward and do what they thought was best. They decided to put the money into one pot and they - the committee on which the Conservatives have the majority - will decide where that money is best well spent.
“It kind of amuses me when they talk about £2,000 not being a lot of money to spend on items for each ward - £2,000 being spent on my ward is better than ZERO being spent on my ward.
“The main point I need to make is that the people who voted to adjourn this spend on the park only wanted to clarify if this was the best area to spend money on.
“To spend £10,000 on child's drawing is a bit hasty at the very least.”
A child’s drawing?
That was another area of contention, and we now have a copy of the plan as presented to the committee, from Boston’s other English Democrat Councillor, David Owens.

click on the photo to enlarge it

Councillor Owens says: “I think we could have asked for entries from the children of a local primary school and got a better quality drawing, and I am sure they would have found a more imaginative idea of a way to squander £10,000!”
We have to say that we think such an expensive scheme should have been much better depicted, and fully agree that if this represents the level of design quality, then it might have been a better idea to open it to a wider audience – given that no technical craftsmanship was apparently needed.

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

2011-07-05T15:23:00.000+01:00

Councillor Carol Taylor has issued the following statement concerning her resignation.

“My decision to resign from the Conservative party and become an independent councillor is not through any disagreements with my colleagues. It is purely on the basis that I feel that I need to retain my ability to be able to say what I want to say when I want to say it
“I am still the same person who wants to represent the people of Witham ward and Boston, and I hope to continue with my determination to serve the public to the very best of my ability.
“I realise that there may be a request for a by- election but I have no intention of resigning as a Boston Borough Councillor. My rationale for this is that I maintain my total commitment to the people of Witham ward and Boston , none of this changes the person I am and continue to be. I hope that the public will understand and support my decision.
“This decision has not been taken lightly. I have given it a great deal of thought and consideration. To be true to myself, I could not take the easy option which would have been to carry on and say nothing. This alternative would not be in the best interests for the public, myself or the Conservative party.
“I stood for election in May because I felt that I had a lot to offer the people of Witham ward and was overwhelmed when I won the election with 439 votes.
“Whilst I accept that some of the electorate voted for me as a Conservative, the fact that I polled the highest number of votes of all candidates for that ward, leads to believe that many voted for Carol Taylor rather than just for the Conservative candidate.”

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

2011-07-05T11:42:00.001+01:00

There’s been a swift reaction to the news that former Conservative Councillor Carol Taylor has left the council’s ruling Tory group and joined the Independents on Boston Borough Council.
An early call for a by-election has been made by English Democrat Councillor Elliott Fountain.
In a round robin e-mail to every councillor - plus Lorraine Bush, the council’s Democratic Services Manager - he writes:
“With the recent news that Carol Taylor has left the Conservatives and will be Independent, I think that it is very important that a by-election for the Witham ward takes place at the earliest convenience in the name of democracy, and to give the people a fair chance to decide if they want a Conservative councillor for that ward or in fact want an Independent or otherwise.
“It will be totally unfair to wait three years and ten months to let the public voice their opinions at the ballot box as the Boston Bypass Independents did.
“I do hope that Carol and all elected members can agree on this for many reasons but namely it is the "PUBLIC" that we serve and deserve the chance to vote.
“If costs are given for an excuse not to have a by-election then I will quit and thus create a by-election for Fenside ward anyway - but this is true democracy and people deserve this.
“May I also suggest that if anyone else wants to jump ship or quit to have a by-election, now would be the best time …
“To win a seat under the landslide of the Conservatives and then to go to another group is plain wrong, and it is fair to say that the people of Witham ward used their democratic right to vote in a Conservative candidate.
“So at the very least Carol should stand aside and be replaced by a Conservative councillor.
“Without prejudice
“Kind Regards
“Elliott Fountain”
So far there has been no statement from Councillor Taylor – although we understand that one may be issued later.
Nor have we had any reaction from council leader Peter Bedford.
But as soon as we hear anything, you will be the first to know….

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

2011-07-05T06:29:00.001+01:00

Conservative Councillor Carol Taylor - who only yesterday defended the party’s voting strategy as united but individual – has dramatically quit the Tories and joined the Independent Group on Boston Borough Council.
Councillor Taylor, who jointly represents the town’s Witham ward with fellow Conservative and Mayor Mary Wright, is Chairman of the council’s Licensing/Regulatory and Appeals Committee
She has lived in Boston since 2003 and is a NHS registered nurse. In her pre-election address she told voters that she lived in the ward, felt strongly that it should be represented by a resident, and if elected would “work tirelessly to support you, Witham Ward, and the town. I promise you my total commitment. Together we will strive to deliver a better future for everyone.”
Yesterday’s surprise move makes the former Boston bypass independent party seem stable by comparison - at least it took several months before it started to fall apart.
But the Conservatives seem determined to go one better at every level – starting with ignoring the rules and protocol, and ending yesterday with the forced departure of a promising newcomer who took the job of councillor seriously and who wanted do the best possible job for the electorate.
Once again the Big Blue Dragon and captive Dragonistas have put party before people and cut any free thinkers adrift.
The new shape of Boston borough Council is now:
Conservatives 18
Independents. 5
Boston bypass independents 4
Labour 3
English Democrats 2
Councillor Taylor's departure is surely not a spur of the moment decision.
No-one who quits this early into the game does so unless the seeds of doubt were sown well prior to yesterday's decision.
What caused the problem we do not know.
But clearly there have been failures by the new leadership to convince anyone who questions the party line to ignore their conscience and keep in step with the regime.
Problematically, the messages we are receiving are telling us that our new Conservatives masters clearly care little for democracy.
Apparently, they would rather return to the cosy days when things went just the way they wanted rather than deliver on promises of openness and transparency.
The “old school" dominance is clear for all to see.
Only yesterday, Councillor Taylor was at pains in these pages to point out that being a Conservative councillor did not mean that members voted to order; that they did not merely follow the pack and toe the party line.
She said that criticism of a mass vote for a BTAC project in Central Park meant either “1) That we cannot form an individual opinion “or “2) That we are all united in our decision to vote on an issue based on individual opinions which as a team believe is the correct way forward. “I am going for the latter!
Obviously a point was being made here, but there may also have been a possible subtext which saw a defence of the Tory mindset transmute into a difference if opinion between Councillor Taylor and the boys in blue who run the shop.

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

2011-07-04T06:12:00.000+01:00

"Thinking alike

doesn't mean

toeing the party line"

Given the so-called “leadership style” of the former Boston Borough Council administration the BBI – the stick without the carrot, and quite often the cart before the horse – it’s not surprising that people have been keeping a watchful eye on the way that the Conservatives are settling in.
Certainly they did not get off to the best of starts, and now we are hearing impressions that that the new leadership style may differ little in some ways from that their predecessors.
A recent writer to Boston Eye was critical of the en masse support at the last meeting of BTAC – the Boston Town Area Committee, where one agenda item proposed spending £10,000 on a garden area in Central Park.
However, one Conservative councillor has come forward to make the point that a full house in the voting deck does not necessarily mean that everyone involved is unthinking.

"'But all the Conservatives think it's good' and 'because every Conservative on the panel thought it more important...' are part of two statements in last weeks Boston Eye,” Witham Ward Councillor Carol Taylor writes in an e-mail.
“These, to me suggest two things.
1) That we cannot form an individual opinion
“or
“2) That we are all united in our decision to vote on an issue based on individual opinions which as a team believe is the correct way forward.
“I am going for the latter! Why? With regard to the town centre plans, I have yet to form an opinion until I fully understand the benefits or otherwise - proving that not all Conservatives think it is a good idea because I haven't told anyone what I think yet!
“In response to 'the attendee' at the BTAC meeting - there were many comments made during this meeting regarding how and where to spend this money, and it was as a result of these comments which convinced me to vote for the money to be allocated to the town centre project.
“Originally from what I understand, several hundred pounds were available to spend in each ward but as pointed out, there is very little you can buy which would see beneficial results to those individual constituencies.
“I chose to go with the town centre project because I, that is me! thinks it is a good idea for everyone in Boston to reap the benefits.
“My decision was not just based on a diagrammatic view of what it would look like but also on my own, that is my, as in me, being able to look ahead using my, that is my own and not a Conservative ability to visualise the completion, and - dare I say it? - imagine how good it will look for not only the people of Boston but also visitors to our great town
“Finally, I, that is, me, cannot see the point in waiting if the money is readily available.
“The benefits can be enjoyed sooner rather than numerous meetings deciding how to allocate the funds. This decision is representative of a new administration doing something to enhance the town of Boston for its local people and visitors.”

We’re grateful to Councillor Taylor for her e-mail, and are happy to be able to provide a platform for her views – which we hope will be echoed by all of her fellow Conservative councillors.

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