Whilst we don't doubt Boston Borough Council Leader's faith in the town, we do believe that from time to time he lets enthusiasm triumph over realism.
In his State of the Union New Year message, he quotes some exciting key future plans for the town.
Top of the list is Merchant's Quay - slated for completion in three years even though permission for planning is not expected for a few more months.
According to Councillor Austin it will bring Boston into the top 200 shopping destinations in the UK (we seem to recall that this is a line from the developer's press release.)
As we have already pointed out, whilst this sounds great, according to the UK Webstart site which lists such things, there are only 238 all together, so to get in the top 200 with a development of the type proposed here shouldn't be that hard.
Councillor Austin goes on to claim that English Heritage is to treat Boston as "one of its highest priorities" bringing substantial grant funding to preserve many of our fine and interesting buildings.
Hang on a sec!
The piece we heard on the wireless (see our blog of December 17th - "Market Place is wonderful - Slumb") had an English Heritage spokesman talking about patching up a few roofs, repainting some shopfronts and perhaps converting some of the space above them into accommodation.
And he emphasised: "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."
Finally on the vexed issue of the PRSA, Councillor Austin cites the fact that 600 schoolchildren a week now use it and that this will soon be doubled.
At the same time he tells us, the cost to the Boston council taxpayer has been roughly halved.
But surely, when schools use a facility the bill is met from the budget of the school concerned .... which comes from the Education budget ... which comes from .... you've guessed it .... the County Council tax.
It's a rose by any other name. Virement is one of the closest that springs to mind.
None of this is to say that there aren't good things happening in Boston, but it is wrong of Councillor Austin to over egg the pudding in the belief that we'll all fall over and believe what is essentially what we would expect a politician to say.
Some realism would be helpful - particularly in these difficult times.
We're off to lay down in a darkened room now, and will be back on New Year's Day.
Enjoy your celebrations.
New Year's greetings to all our readers - and thanks for visiting our blog in record numbers.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
Wednesday, December 31
Tuesday, December 30
Consultation? We call it insult-ation!
It was either Benjamin Disraeli or Mark Twain who popularised the phrase "there are lies, damn lies and statistics."
Had either man been alive today, we feel sure that they would add Boston Borough Council questionnaires to the list.
Take the latest 23-question epic on the borough's budget proposals for the next financial year.
Well, actually only around half that number since the rest pose important questions as to age, disability, ethnicity and sexuality.
But as we have often complained in the past, many of the questions posed are pitched in such a way as to create an answer of the sort required.
Take your starter for 1:
"The Council is proposing the suspension of Party in the Park 2009, with its possible reinstatement in 2010 subject to review. This will offer a substantial saving of £82,000. However, if Party in the Park is going to be available in future years there will have to be an entry fee."Please indicate whether you agree with the following two statements.
"A. I would pay £10 adult entry and £7.50 child entry
"B. I would pay more than £10 adult entry and £7.50 child entry"
The result of collecting answers to this question is to be able to claim that people either wish to do 1 or 2, or are not willing to pay as much as 1.
Nowhere is there the chance to cast a vote saying that the Party in the Park is really as Party in the Ark. It is out of date and an impossible luxury in today's spending climate.
Other questions include voting on whether or not improvements to the Geoff Moulder Leisure pool will or will not encourage the responder to take part in regular exercise. The question ignores the possibility that there are categories of people who will not use it because they cannot, even if they would wish to.
The issue of opening hours at the Haven and Guildhall and the transfer of the Tourist Information Centre are neatly fudged into a single question, when there are actually three distinct issues there.
The list of silly questions is as long as the number of questions in a pointless exercise that is largely constructed to produce the sort of answers required.
Read the whole thing on the borough council's website.
And they call this consultation.
At least the "con" syllable has a ring of truth about it!!
Write to us a boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence if requested.
Had either man been alive today, we feel sure that they would add Boston Borough Council questionnaires to the list.
Take the latest 23-question epic on the borough's budget proposals for the next financial year.
Well, actually only around half that number since the rest pose important questions as to age, disability, ethnicity and sexuality.
But as we have often complained in the past, many of the questions posed are pitched in such a way as to create an answer of the sort required.
Take your starter for 1:
"The Council is proposing the suspension of Party in the Park 2009, with its possible reinstatement in 2010 subject to review. This will offer a substantial saving of £82,000. However, if Party in the Park is going to be available in future years there will have to be an entry fee."Please indicate whether you agree with the following two statements.
"A. I would pay £10 adult entry and £7.50 child entry
"B. I would pay more than £10 adult entry and £7.50 child entry"
The result of collecting answers to this question is to be able to claim that people either wish to do 1 or 2, or are not willing to pay as much as 1.
Nowhere is there the chance to cast a vote saying that the Party in the Park is really as Party in the Ark. It is out of date and an impossible luxury in today's spending climate.
Other questions include voting on whether or not improvements to the Geoff Moulder Leisure pool will or will not encourage the responder to take part in regular exercise. The question ignores the possibility that there are categories of people who will not use it because they cannot, even if they would wish to.
The issue of opening hours at the Haven and Guildhall and the transfer of the Tourist Information Centre are neatly fudged into a single question, when there are actually three distinct issues there.
The list of silly questions is as long as the number of questions in a pointless exercise that is largely constructed to produce the sort of answers required.
Read the whole thing on the borough council's website.
And they call this consultation.
At least the "con" syllable has a ring of truth about it!!
Write to us a boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence if requested.
Monday, December 29
Look out for the tumbleweed!
As we remarked on the departure of Woolworths, the names of other high street names thought to be under threat were emerging.
Names such as Jessops, and Clinton Cards joined Adams and Whittards, the Officer's Club, Zavvi, MFI and others.
It's said that as many as 15 big name shops could vanish in the next few weeks, and looking at the list so far, large areas of Boston could soon resemble a ghost town.
In the midst of all this we recalled that a large number of developments for the town have failed to materialise.
Remember the "mini mall" proposed alongside ASDA - and what about ADSA's plan to enlarge the store? Another "mini mall" was mooted for the far end of West Street, and council cash was used to help pave the way for a development that has got no further than a run of hoardings shielding a wasteland. And weren't we supposed to be getting some more shops on the car park behind Woolworth's?
Very quietly, these leaps forward that were trumpeted so enthusiastically seem to have died the death.
The other day we mentioned the silence surrounding the planned development called Merchant's Quay.
Still scheduled to be completed in 2012 according to the publicity, no realistic plans have yet been filed - although there are some very pretty artist's impressions knocking around.
Given how long it to to approve and create Pescod Square - which still has empty units, as does the redeveloped former ASDA site - we think there must be a serious question to be asked about whether this will still go ahead.
Write to us a boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence if requested.
Names such as Jessops, and Clinton Cards joined Adams and Whittards, the Officer's Club, Zavvi, MFI and others.
It's said that as many as 15 big name shops could vanish in the next few weeks, and looking at the list so far, large areas of Boston could soon resemble a ghost town.
In the midst of all this we recalled that a large number of developments for the town have failed to materialise.
Remember the "mini mall" proposed alongside ASDA - and what about ADSA's plan to enlarge the store? Another "mini mall" was mooted for the far end of West Street, and council cash was used to help pave the way for a development that has got no further than a run of hoardings shielding a wasteland. And weren't we supposed to be getting some more shops on the car park behind Woolworth's?
Very quietly, these leaps forward that were trumpeted so enthusiastically seem to have died the death.
The other day we mentioned the silence surrounding the planned development called Merchant's Quay.
Still scheduled to be completed in 2012 according to the publicity, no realistic plans have yet been filed - although there are some very pretty artist's impressions knocking around.
Given how long it to to approve and create Pescod Square - which still has empty units, as does the redeveloped former ASDA site - we think there must be a serious question to be asked about whether this will still go ahead.
Write to us a boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence if requested.
Saturday, December 27
History repeats itself
Today's the day that the Boston branch of Woolworth's closes down.
Although the demise of the store nationally has long been considered inevitable it represents some worrying writing on the wall for the town.
We've lost count of how many other shops have closed in Boston in the past year - among them local names that have been associated with the town for generations and which recalled its enterprising and innovating spirit.
Doubtless many more people will mourn the departure of Woolies than did the demolition of the Red Lion coaching that stood on its site from the Middle Ages.
In hindsight, what a waste it was to destroy a building that had existed for more than 500 years to replace it with one that has survived little more than 50.
Write to us a boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
Although the demise of the store nationally has long been considered inevitable it represents some worrying writing on the wall for the town.
We've lost count of how many other shops have closed in Boston in the past year - among them local names that have been associated with the town for generations and which recalled its enterprising and innovating spirit.
Doubtless many more people will mourn the departure of Woolies than did the demolition of the Red Lion coaching that stood on its site from the Middle Ages.
In hindsight, what a waste it was to destroy a building that had existed for more than 500 years to replace it with one that has survived little more than 50.
Write to us a boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
Friday, December 19
Only 12? We could find many more than that!
Our parting shot for Christmas is a seasonal one - Boston Eye's very own version of "The 12 days of Christmas"
On the first day of Christmas the council promised me
a by-pass eventual-ly
On the second day of Christmas the council gave to me
two drivers drinking
On the third day of Christmas the council gave to me
three In-Town buses meeping
On the fourth day of Christmas the council gave to me
an old cabinet creaking
On the fifth day of Christmas the council gave to me
a dwindling maj-or-it-ee
On the sixth day of Christmas the council gave to me
no hope in sight for anyone to see
On the seventh day of Christmas the council gave to me
huge debts a-mounting
On the eighth day of Christmas the council gave to me
a sports stadium a-wasting lots of muh-uh-huh-ney
On the ninth day of Christmas the council gave to me
the Guildhall always shut ... near-ly
On the tenth day of Christmas the council gave to me
an ever mobile TIC
On the eleventh day of Christmas the council gave to me
less loos to spend a pee
On the twelfth day of Christmas the council gave to me
a chance to vote 'em out ... eventual-ly
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be printed in confidence if requested.
MERRY CHRISTMAS
Thursday, December 18
Plea over allowances confusion
There's still a lot of debate about the issue of councillors' allowances, and a complex question posed by one of our readers.
He tells us:- "There is a further issue which you may care to take forward in the wider interests of democracy, concerning the supposition that community cohesion is based on a system of laws and rules which society changes from time to time in accordance with its needs.
"If you care to examine the recommendations of central government and the formulae which are available to calculate councillors' allowances, whatever the arguments for or against a Boston increase at the present time, I believe it to be a matter for huge concern that an influential committee can sit in secret session, throw the rule book out of the window, ignore official guidelines and finally arrive at a decision which cannot be confirmed using published data.
"The glaring example which comes to mind is the panel's notional 25% deduction to take account of Boston being a 'low pay' area , which is applied on top of the 33.3% further deduction for what it quaintly calls a public service discount.
"Two questions arise from this. Why does the national average wage difference based on Boston versus national advertised vacancies peak at minus 9%? And are these calculations applied to all Boston Borough Council wages and allowances ?
"The questions are, of course, rhetorical!"
Whilst we like a challenge, we could find nothing clear and simple by way of government recommendations and formulae to calculate allowances, so if any other of our readers can help shed light on the matter we would be please to hear from them.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
He tells us:- "There is a further issue which you may care to take forward in the wider interests of democracy, concerning the supposition that community cohesion is based on a system of laws and rules which society changes from time to time in accordance with its needs.
"If you care to examine the recommendations of central government and the formulae which are available to calculate councillors' allowances, whatever the arguments for or against a Boston increase at the present time, I believe it to be a matter for huge concern that an influential committee can sit in secret session, throw the rule book out of the window, ignore official guidelines and finally arrive at a decision which cannot be confirmed using published data.
"The glaring example which comes to mind is the panel's notional 25% deduction to take account of Boston being a 'low pay' area , which is applied on top of the 33.3% further deduction for what it quaintly calls a public service discount.
"Two questions arise from this. Why does the national average wage difference based on Boston versus national advertised vacancies peak at minus 9%? And are these calculations applied to all Boston Borough Council wages and allowances ?
"The questions are, of course, rhetorical!"
Whilst we like a challenge, we could find nothing clear and simple by way of government recommendations and formulae to calculate allowances, so if any other of our readers can help shed light on the matter we would be please to hear from them.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
Wednesday, December 17
Market Place is wonderful - Slumb
Apparently, Boston looks like benefiting from a small sum of money over a long period of time if English Heritage decides to help with the refurbishment and revamping of the town centre.
The oft-told Boston story of jam tomorrow ... rather than jams today.
According to an item on BBC Radio Lincolnshire EH officials fear that Boston risks losing some of its great heritage and considers the town one of the most significant market towns in the country "heritagewise." (sic)
All contributions gratefully received as they say, but what depresses us is the way that people talk when they speak about the town.
Assistant Chief Executive Steve Lumb told the wireless:- "Having a market place, an open square that we have right alongside St Botolph's is actually wonderful, but at the moment as we look at it, it does look rather tired; the street furniture is looking rather tired and essentially it's not much more than perhaps a large car park. So we need to make much more of that - we need to redesign it. We need to keep what's special about it and we need to make it a place that people really enjoy coming to."
So what are you saying Mr Lumb? If it's so wonderful why do we need to redesign it? And if it does look rather tired, whose fault it that? And why are we waiting for English Heritage to come along with a few quid when the council is spending willy nilly on things such as the PRSA and probably another Party in the Park.
Later in his interview, Mr Lumb described Boston's heritage as: ..... "really second to none. Sometimes we smile when we compare it to York, but really it is very comparable to York ... except York has had its money and in terms of listed buildings, in terms of its archaeology. Really there is nothing much else to beat it (Boston) in the East Midlands."
Hmmm.
English Heritage Historic Areas Advisor Clive Fletcher was interviewed as well, and spouted similar guff:- "Boston is one of the most important market towns in the country, but it's more important than that even - partially because of its past. It was a very important port in the medieval period - busier than London at times - so it was a very, very important medieval town and because of that it's got a great heritage of medieval building and also medieval archaeology. "But unfortunately it's fallen on harder times. Over the past number of years it hasn't really had a great deal of investment in a lot of its historic properties so a lot of them are in danger of not collapse necessarily, though there are one or two like that, but certainly they're not being used because they can't be - holes in roofs and things like that - and also general decline in the quality of repairs to things like shop fronts and windows which we think we could possibly help with.
"I know the council is actually looking at a package themselves from the regional development agency but we do this sort of thing up and down the country. 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" (it almost certainly will, as it usually does!)
In one town they spent 15 years helping shop owners do their places up and convert space over shops for residential use.
The whole broadcast piece was linked by Radio Lincolnshire's very own Boston-born star Scott Dalton, whom one might expect to speak English as he works for the BBC.
He tore himself away from the York Street locker rooms to tell us:- "Boston Borough Council are rubbing their hands with glee. They see this as an open goal and they must score and put the ball in the back of the net because this all ties in with Merchants Quay and making more of the river feature."
To drive home the point, he told us that this could really make Boston a gem "and even a tourist attraction possibly in the future."
And he added that "English Heritage have started talking with Boston Borough working up this plan to potentially refurbish the whole of the town centre and work on a long term plan. People at the council are very excited about this . They feel that this, tied in with some of the other developments going on, could finally possibly realise Boston's potential which its felt hasn't possibly made the most of what they've got in the past."
We don't know what it is these chaps are smoking, but we wish we could get hold of some.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
The oft-told Boston story of jam tomorrow ... rather than jams today.
According to an item on BBC Radio Lincolnshire EH officials fear that Boston risks losing some of its great heritage and considers the town one of the most significant market towns in the country "heritagewise." (sic)
All contributions gratefully received as they say, but what depresses us is the way that people talk when they speak about the town.
Assistant Chief Executive Steve Lumb told the wireless:- "Having a market place, an open square that we have right alongside St Botolph's is actually wonderful, but at the moment as we look at it, it does look rather tired; the street furniture is looking rather tired and essentially it's not much more than perhaps a large car park. So we need to make much more of that - we need to redesign it. We need to keep what's special about it and we need to make it a place that people really enjoy coming to."
So what are you saying Mr Lumb? If it's so wonderful why do we need to redesign it? And if it does look rather tired, whose fault it that? And why are we waiting for English Heritage to come along with a few quid when the council is spending willy nilly on things such as the PRSA and probably another Party in the Park.
Later in his interview, Mr Lumb described Boston's heritage as: ..... "really second to none. Sometimes we smile when we compare it to York, but really it is very comparable to York ... except York has had its money and in terms of listed buildings, in terms of its archaeology. Really there is nothing much else to beat it (Boston) in the East Midlands."
Hmmm.
English Heritage Historic Areas Advisor Clive Fletcher was interviewed as well, and spouted similar guff:- "Boston is one of the most important market towns in the country, but it's more important than that even - partially because of its past. It was a very important port in the medieval period - busier than London at times - so it was a very, very important medieval town and because of that it's got a great heritage of medieval building and also medieval archaeology. "But unfortunately it's fallen on harder times. Over the past number of years it hasn't really had a great deal of investment in a lot of its historic properties so a lot of them are in danger of not collapse necessarily, though there are one or two like that, but certainly they're not being used because they can't be - holes in roofs and things like that - and also general decline in the quality of repairs to things like shop fronts and windows which we think we could possibly help with.
"I know the council is actually looking at a package themselves from the regional development agency but we do this sort of thing up and down the country. 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" (it almost certainly will, as it usually does!)
In one town they spent 15 years helping shop owners do their places up and convert space over shops for residential use.
The whole broadcast piece was linked by Radio Lincolnshire's very own Boston-born star Scott Dalton, whom one might expect to speak English as he works for the BBC.
He tore himself away from the York Street locker rooms to tell us:- "Boston Borough Council are rubbing their hands with glee. They see this as an open goal and they must score and put the ball in the back of the net because this all ties in with Merchants Quay and making more of the river feature."
To drive home the point, he told us that this could really make Boston a gem "and even a tourist attraction possibly in the future."
And he added that "English Heritage have started talking with Boston Borough working up this plan to potentially refurbish the whole of the town centre and work on a long term plan. People at the council are very excited about this . They feel that this, tied in with some of the other developments going on, could finally possibly realise Boston's potential which its felt hasn't possibly made the most of what they've got in the past."
We don't know what it is these chaps are smoking, but we wish we could get hold of some.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
Tuesday, December 16
Look after the pennies ...
It's probably not a bad idea to avoid giving money away before you start looking here, there and everywhere for cuts in the budget.
It seems that whilst Boston Borough Council is grubbing around shaving a few thousand from one place or another that it overpaid benefits to the tune of £21,700 in the last financial year.
Admittedly the sum is a drop in the ocean compared with the likes of neighbouring East Lindsey, which overpaid by £80,000 - but if it matters, it matters.
In most cases the overpayments were discovered after residents revealed changes in their circumstances, and across the county they totalled £2.9m.
Matthew Sinclair, of the Taxpayers' Alliance, said the loss of the money was "of a significant scale" but added it was expensive to pay the costs of "clawing back" the funds.
He called the process of recovering the money "an unpleasant task for everyone concerned".
So is paying unnecessary council tax.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
It seems that whilst Boston Borough Council is grubbing around shaving a few thousand from one place or another that it overpaid benefits to the tune of £21,700 in the last financial year.
Admittedly the sum is a drop in the ocean compared with the likes of neighbouring East Lindsey, which overpaid by £80,000 - but if it matters, it matters.
In most cases the overpayments were discovered after residents revealed changes in their circumstances, and across the county they totalled £2.9m.
Matthew Sinclair, of the Taxpayers' Alliance, said the loss of the money was "of a significant scale" but added it was expensive to pay the costs of "clawing back" the funds.
He called the process of recovering the money "an unpleasant task for everyone concerned".
So is paying unnecessary council tax.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
Monday, December 15
Need for better opposition led to Storry resignation
There's clarification of the reasoning behind Councillor John Storry's decision to quit the Bypass Independents and operate as a purely independent councillor.
He tells another website: "Whatever the press may make of my resignation from the Boston Bypass Independents Party, Wyberton residents made the choice for me.
"The majority party decided to continue PRSA funding after the original agreement ended, but two months later the rules changed again!
"Local opinion polls show that 90% of residents wish to end the subsidy but council agreed new deal this week without any guarantee as to 'how much' or for 'how long'!
"In Wyberton everyone I spoke to said 'NO MORE' so, as their councillor, I had no other honourable choice but to vote against the motion.
"My subsequent resignation is based on the belief that, at present, the opposition is too weak to fully represent the will of the people, so joining them as an Independent councillor is all I can do to protect Wyberton’s interests.
"I hope you will agree with my decision and can accept my assurance that I shall continue to faithfully represent your views in council to the best of my ability."
Later, Councillor Storry told Boston Eye:-
"My reference to the PRSA issue was meant to explain to the electorate why I voted the way I did at the end of the council debate.
"The remainder of the comment was intended to portray why I resigned from the BBI Party. "Perhaps I did not make it as clear as I might have done that two entirely separate issues are involved; hence the comment :- 'My subsequent resignation is based on the belief that, at present, the opposition is too weak to fully represent the will of the people, so joining them as an Independent councillor is all I can do to protect Wyberton's interests.'
"I trust this clarifies the situation.
"With Kind regards
"Councillor John G Storry"
Boston Eye salutes Councillor Storry for his candour, and heartily endorses his comments about the weakness of opposition to the BBI juggernaut - in fact we expressed the wish for more independent councillors only a few days ago.
Maybe other councillors will now grasp the nettle....
Perhaps a letter to Santa.......?
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
He tells another website: "Whatever the press may make of my resignation from the Boston Bypass Independents Party, Wyberton residents made the choice for me.
"The majority party decided to continue PRSA funding after the original agreement ended, but two months later the rules changed again!
"Local opinion polls show that 90% of residents wish to end the subsidy but council agreed new deal this week without any guarantee as to 'how much' or for 'how long'!
"In Wyberton everyone I spoke to said 'NO MORE' so, as their councillor, I had no other honourable choice but to vote against the motion.
"My subsequent resignation is based on the belief that, at present, the opposition is too weak to fully represent the will of the people, so joining them as an Independent councillor is all I can do to protect Wyberton’s interests.
"I hope you will agree with my decision and can accept my assurance that I shall continue to faithfully represent your views in council to the best of my ability."
Later, Councillor Storry told Boston Eye:-
"My reference to the PRSA issue was meant to explain to the electorate why I voted the way I did at the end of the council debate.
"The remainder of the comment was intended to portray why I resigned from the BBI Party. "Perhaps I did not make it as clear as I might have done that two entirely separate issues are involved; hence the comment :- 'My subsequent resignation is based on the belief that, at present, the opposition is too weak to fully represent the will of the people, so joining them as an Independent councillor is all I can do to protect Wyberton's interests.'
"I trust this clarifies the situation.
"With Kind regards
"Councillor John G Storry"
Boston Eye salutes Councillor Storry for his candour, and heartily endorses his comments about the weakness of opposition to the BBI juggernaut - in fact we expressed the wish for more independent councillors only a few days ago.
Maybe other councillors will now grasp the nettle....
Perhaps a letter to Santa.......?
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
Friday, December 12
Councillor Storry ..... "a free spirit"
This afternoon, Councillor Austin issued the following statement regarding Councillor Storry's departure from the Boston Bypass Independents:-
"I have enjoyed working closely with Councillor John Storry. There will always be differing shades of opinion in a group and I appreciate John's need to be a free spirit.
"I am particularly grateful for his help with the landmark election victory of the Boston Bypass Independents that created political history last year. It did much to re-invigorate democracy in the Borough.
"I am sure that we will continue to work closely together to serve the needs of the electorate of the area in general and that of our joint ward Wyberton, in particular."
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested
"I have enjoyed working closely with Councillor John Storry. There will always be differing shades of opinion in a group and I appreciate John's need to be a free spirit.
"I am particularly grateful for his help with the landmark election victory of the Boston Bypass Independents that created political history last year. It did much to re-invigorate democracy in the Borough.
"I am sure that we will continue to work closely together to serve the needs of the electorate of the area in general and that of our joint ward Wyberton, in particular."
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested
A Storry that may never be told
There has been an unpublicised change to the balance of membership on Boston Borough Council.
As of Wednesday, the council's website reported the breakdown as:-
Bypass Independents 18
Conservative 6
Better Boston "Group" 4
Independents 3
BNP 1
This time last week there were 19 BBI councillors and two independents.
Scrutiny of the list shows that Councillor John Storry has changed affiliation from the BBI and now represents Wyberton as a stand-alone Independent.
Wyberton is represented by two members on Boston Borough Council - and ironically the other councillor for the ward is none other that the BBI and Council leader Richard Austin.
Councillor Storry politely referred us to councillor Austin for any comment on what he called this "sensitive" issue.
Councillor Austin has so far been unable to locate the "reply" key on his computer, but rest assured that we will let you know if he manages to find it.
Don't hold your breath!
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
As of Wednesday, the council's website reported the breakdown as:-
Bypass Independents 18
Conservative 6
Better Boston "Group" 4
Independents 3
BNP 1
This time last week there were 19 BBI councillors and two independents.
Scrutiny of the list shows that Councillor John Storry has changed affiliation from the BBI and now represents Wyberton as a stand-alone Independent.
Wyberton is represented by two members on Boston Borough Council - and ironically the other councillor for the ward is none other that the BBI and Council leader Richard Austin.
Councillor Storry politely referred us to councillor Austin for any comment on what he called this "sensitive" issue.
Councillor Austin has so far been unable to locate the "reply" key on his computer, but rest assured that we will let you know if he manages to find it.
Don't hold your breath!
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
Thursday, December 11
Council seems confused over allowances
On the one hand, we can applaud the decision by Boston councillors not to award themselves a bumper "pay" rise in these current straitened times.
However, the debate leading up to the vote raised some interesting points - not least the attitude of some councillors to the raison d'etre for seeking office.
Councillor leader Richard "Papa Dick" Austin reportedly told the meeting: "In my view, democracy is suffering from these low allowances because it limits the people who can put themselves forward to be a councillor.
"It is only retired people or those with a private income that can afford to be a councillor and the vast majority of the public are therefore excluded."
We're not so sure about this.
Local government history shows numerous examples of people who seek the vote then do the job in tandem with their own daily jobs.
The payments under debate are allowances to compensate councillors for their additional time and trouble - not a wage for doing the job.
The reason most people don't bother seeking election is because they lack motivation or enthusiasm.
The reason many others seek election is usually biased by some motive or another.
We exclude truly independent councillors from that description, as they are the only people whose reason to want to serve is truly transparent, and we wish that there were more of them.
We had to smile at the naivety of Councillor Jim Blaylock, who is quoted as saying that a way to resolve the issue would be to vote in favour of the increases so that members had the option to take it or not.
We can think of a handful of current members of the council who have contributed little if anything to its work whom we believe would be first in line to accept the extra cash if it were offered, so we're glad that this suggestion never made it past the starting post.
And after smiling, we had to laugh out loud at the suggestion by Councillor Richard Lenton, who was reportedly in favour of the increase, when he was quoted as saying that if councillors didn't get any extra money neither should council staff.
Is this man truly portfolio holder for finance?
If so, someone should explain the difference between allowances and salaries to him sooner rather than later.
And finally, we salute the suggestion from Councillor Anne Dorrian for a results-based remuneration system.
"If you come up with a manifesto and in six months time do a U-turn then you wouldn't get paid," she is reported as saying.
Great suggestion, councillor - and one made by Boston Eye several days before the meeting.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
However, the debate leading up to the vote raised some interesting points - not least the attitude of some councillors to the raison d'etre for seeking office.
Councillor leader Richard "Papa Dick" Austin reportedly told the meeting: "In my view, democracy is suffering from these low allowances because it limits the people who can put themselves forward to be a councillor.
"It is only retired people or those with a private income that can afford to be a councillor and the vast majority of the public are therefore excluded."
We're not so sure about this.
Local government history shows numerous examples of people who seek the vote then do the job in tandem with their own daily jobs.
The payments under debate are allowances to compensate councillors for their additional time and trouble - not a wage for doing the job.
The reason most people don't bother seeking election is because they lack motivation or enthusiasm.
The reason many others seek election is usually biased by some motive or another.
We exclude truly independent councillors from that description, as they are the only people whose reason to want to serve is truly transparent, and we wish that there were more of them.
We had to smile at the naivety of Councillor Jim Blaylock, who is quoted as saying that a way to resolve the issue would be to vote in favour of the increases so that members had the option to take it or not.
We can think of a handful of current members of the council who have contributed little if anything to its work whom we believe would be first in line to accept the extra cash if it were offered, so we're glad that this suggestion never made it past the starting post.
And after smiling, we had to laugh out loud at the suggestion by Councillor Richard Lenton, who was reportedly in favour of the increase, when he was quoted as saying that if councillors didn't get any extra money neither should council staff.
Is this man truly portfolio holder for finance?
If so, someone should explain the difference between allowances and salaries to him sooner rather than later.
And finally, we salute the suggestion from Councillor Anne Dorrian for a results-based remuneration system.
"If you come up with a manifesto and in six months time do a U-turn then you wouldn't get paid," she is reported as saying.
Great suggestion, councillor - and one made by Boston Eye several days before the meeting.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
Wednesday, December 10
Yule not believe this!
We're sure that it's not our imagination, but seem to think that the top item on Boston Borough Council's website extolling the delights of the town's Christmas Market did not appear until after the event.
Certainly, its modification date was on the Monday morning after the weekend before.
Can anyone enlighten us?
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
Certainly, its modification date was on the Monday morning after the weekend before.
Can anyone enlighten us?
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
More debate on BNP
The war of words over the role of the BNP in our political society rumbles on..
Last week Boston Borough councillor Richard Lenton had letters published in both local papers in which he said:
"Regardless of the sinister past of the BNP, the electorate would be wise to think twice before voting for this party particularly at national level purely on the grounds that Britain is for the Brits.
"As beguiling a notion this might be it may not be entirely practical as beside the fact that the Portuguese and Poles are long standing allies of the UK, in one case going back centuries, the fact is our agricultural industry can hardly function without them.
"Furthermore and perhaps more to the point is that our basic state pension for the future is under great threat should these people fail to settle in this country and pay taxes like the rest of us."The state pension works very simply; it's those in work pay the pensions (and benefits) of those in retirement. It's an inescapable fact we, like many of our European neighbours, have an aging population so as the baby boomers (those born just after the war) start to retire in their droves and given the fact we are on average living longer we will soon be in a position that we don't have enough people working to pay for our state pensions. Bearing in mind most of the private sector have not made enough pension provisions to look after their old age we have a disastrous situation staring us in the face.
"Before therefore you run with the idea the BNP may be the saviour of the British nation potentially the opposite may be true. It could be a better option in the long run to look after our foreign friends and encourage them to stay for a number of reasons, not least your own state pension and benefits."
This morning - assuming the letter is published - the papers will carry the following response from Boston's recently elected BNP councillor for Fenside, David Owens, who says in reply:
"Whatever cheap snipe that Cllr Lenton and others may attempt about the British National Party, the reality remains the same.
"This country is full. The vast majority of people realise this and are looking for change."In making that statement does not mean that we 'hate' anyone. It simply means that politicians at borough, county and national level need to start listening to their electorate, as it they, who are directly affected by un-controlled, un-relenting massive scales of immigration into our town and our country.
"Long standing historical allegiances with people from another country and culture simply will not wash when it comes to housing waiting lists, strains on NHS services and the in ability to get a job and pay the bills!
"Who does Councillor Lenton think were doing the low paid agricultural jobs in the past? The very same jobs we keep being told 'Brit’s won’t do'?
"Tricky one that!
"The agricultural industry managed in the past and will have to adapt and manage in the future.
"The real challenge is making these jobs available and indeed attractive to those whom successive governments have ignored and forgotten about, the people who they have thrown welfare payments at to shut up and keep sat in front of the T.V. It is these very same people they failed to give any hope of a prosperous future too.
"In case some did not notice … we are in a recession…. people are losing their jobs…. unemployment is on the rise, and that means we have lots of our very own home grown people desperate for work.
"Ah, but then again it’s easier to keep bringing in cheap labour from other countries, treat them like slaves, tell the public that we need them, and keep paying our own people to sit at home on benefits!! Now I’ve got it!
"As a word of caution however, let us not forget, that this year's cheap migrant worker will become next year's benefit claimant when some other impoverished nation joins the E.U. (and its highly likely that the current entry restrictions will be lifted on Bulgarian and Romanian nationals) and undercuts the current workforce’s wage.
"But not to worry, at least someone is paying for our pension."
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
Last week Boston Borough councillor Richard Lenton had letters published in both local papers in which he said:
"Regardless of the sinister past of the BNP, the electorate would be wise to think twice before voting for this party particularly at national level purely on the grounds that Britain is for the Brits.
"As beguiling a notion this might be it may not be entirely practical as beside the fact that the Portuguese and Poles are long standing allies of the UK, in one case going back centuries, the fact is our agricultural industry can hardly function without them.
"Furthermore and perhaps more to the point is that our basic state pension for the future is under great threat should these people fail to settle in this country and pay taxes like the rest of us."The state pension works very simply; it's those in work pay the pensions (and benefits) of those in retirement. It's an inescapable fact we, like many of our European neighbours, have an aging population so as the baby boomers (those born just after the war) start to retire in their droves and given the fact we are on average living longer we will soon be in a position that we don't have enough people working to pay for our state pensions. Bearing in mind most of the private sector have not made enough pension provisions to look after their old age we have a disastrous situation staring us in the face.
"Before therefore you run with the idea the BNP may be the saviour of the British nation potentially the opposite may be true. It could be a better option in the long run to look after our foreign friends and encourage them to stay for a number of reasons, not least your own state pension and benefits."
This morning - assuming the letter is published - the papers will carry the following response from Boston's recently elected BNP councillor for Fenside, David Owens, who says in reply:
"Whatever cheap snipe that Cllr Lenton and others may attempt about the British National Party, the reality remains the same.
"This country is full. The vast majority of people realise this and are looking for change."In making that statement does not mean that we 'hate' anyone. It simply means that politicians at borough, county and national level need to start listening to their electorate, as it they, who are directly affected by un-controlled, un-relenting massive scales of immigration into our town and our country.
"Long standing historical allegiances with people from another country and culture simply will not wash when it comes to housing waiting lists, strains on NHS services and the in ability to get a job and pay the bills!
"Who does Councillor Lenton think were doing the low paid agricultural jobs in the past? The very same jobs we keep being told 'Brit’s won’t do'?
"Tricky one that!
"The agricultural industry managed in the past and will have to adapt and manage in the future.
"The real challenge is making these jobs available and indeed attractive to those whom successive governments have ignored and forgotten about, the people who they have thrown welfare payments at to shut up and keep sat in front of the T.V. It is these very same people they failed to give any hope of a prosperous future too.
"In case some did not notice … we are in a recession…. people are losing their jobs…. unemployment is on the rise, and that means we have lots of our very own home grown people desperate for work.
"Ah, but then again it’s easier to keep bringing in cheap labour from other countries, treat them like slaves, tell the public that we need them, and keep paying our own people to sit at home on benefits!! Now I’ve got it!
"As a word of caution however, let us not forget, that this year's cheap migrant worker will become next year's benefit claimant when some other impoverished nation joins the E.U. (and its highly likely that the current entry restrictions will be lifted on Bulgarian and Romanian nationals) and undercuts the current workforce’s wage.
"But not to worry, at least someone is paying for our pension."
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
Tuesday, December 9
Why do the police hate Boston so much?
Once again the great and the good are making Boston look bad.
This time it's the local police, who've announced a "multi-agency project" to "safeguard" people enjoying a night out in Boston in the run up to Christmas - to "deter alcohol-related disorder and other anti-social and criminal activity."
A press release says the town will see more high visibility foot patrols by the neighbourhood policing teams, response and patrol officers, special constabulary, street wardens and Boston Borough Council's community safety team.
"We're really going to be out there on the run up to Christmas, engaging with people enjoying the festive spirit and working with our partner agencies and licensees to ensure that everyone remains safe and is sensible," said Inspector Terry Ball, the man in charge of Boston police.
"We're not out to ruin the fun, but we will deal robustly with anyone who ignores our advice and over-indulges," he said.
The police activity will include so-called "safer zones" to "educate" festive revelers, on issues such as personal safety, substance misuse, and health issues including safe sex and alcohol misuse.
Flip-flops, safety packs and condoms are among items being handed out to those enjoying a night out.
In case you're wondering about the flip-flops, Boston Police have nicked the idea from their brothers in blue in Torquay, who hand them out to drunken women in the resort so that they can't hurt themselves when they fall over as they would if they were wearing high heeled shoes.
What a pity that the police can't be more visible and proactive all year round - their Christmas campaign echoes the attention paid to the homeless at this time of year .... by people who then ignore them for the rest of the time.
There's scarcely any need to read between the lines of the police handout to see what they are saying about the people of Boston.
They're a feckless promiscuous bunch who - when they're not having drunken unprotected sex on the pavement - are fighting among themselves or robbing each other.
Boston police are all but invisible in and around the town for 49 weeks of the year, and then decide to insult and nanny us for the remaining three by doing a job that is completely outside their remit.
And how about the implied menace to "deal robustly with anyone who ignores our advice."
And why is Boston Borough Council allying itself with this exercise?
Boston appears to be the only town in the county singled out for this treatment, and we wonder what it is that the police hate about us so much.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
This time it's the local police, who've announced a "multi-agency project" to "safeguard" people enjoying a night out in Boston in the run up to Christmas - to "deter alcohol-related disorder and other anti-social and criminal activity."
A press release says the town will see more high visibility foot patrols by the neighbourhood policing teams, response and patrol officers, special constabulary, street wardens and Boston Borough Council's community safety team.
"We're really going to be out there on the run up to Christmas, engaging with people enjoying the festive spirit and working with our partner agencies and licensees to ensure that everyone remains safe and is sensible," said Inspector Terry Ball, the man in charge of Boston police.
"We're not out to ruin the fun, but we will deal robustly with anyone who ignores our advice and over-indulges," he said.
The police activity will include so-called "safer zones" to "educate" festive revelers, on issues such as personal safety, substance misuse, and health issues including safe sex and alcohol misuse.
Flip-flops, safety packs and condoms are among items being handed out to those enjoying a night out.
In case you're wondering about the flip-flops, Boston Police have nicked the idea from their brothers in blue in Torquay, who hand them out to drunken women in the resort so that they can't hurt themselves when they fall over as they would if they were wearing high heeled shoes.
What a pity that the police can't be more visible and proactive all year round - their Christmas campaign echoes the attention paid to the homeless at this time of year .... by people who then ignore them for the rest of the time.
There's scarcely any need to read between the lines of the police handout to see what they are saying about the people of Boston.
They're a feckless promiscuous bunch who - when they're not having drunken unprotected sex on the pavement - are fighting among themselves or robbing each other.
Boston police are all but invisible in and around the town for 49 weeks of the year, and then decide to insult and nanny us for the remaining three by doing a job that is completely outside their remit.
And how about the implied menace to "deal robustly with anyone who ignores our advice."
And why is Boston Borough Council allying itself with this exercise?
Boston appears to be the only town in the county singled out for this treatment, and we wonder what it is that the police hate about us so much.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
Monday, December 8
Road rage over schools move
Mike Borrill points out that our comment on "Landing Boston in a mess" should read: "No one will be able to get into Boston soon because of the mess!"
He writes to say: "I have said time and time again that before our 'leaders' mess any more with the layout of the town, a better infrastructure with the roads should be put in place. It does not require a university degree to understand this but sheer commonsense.
"The decision to move the High School to the Grammar school site, leaving the financial situation aside, is madness once again.
"They are to move nearly twice as many pupils (give or take a few hundred) to a central part of our clogged up road network.
"Many more buses will have to drop and pick up at this new school together with all the extra cars involved."
Add into this equation that John Adams Way will have an increase of traffic (a total both ways) by 2015 of 10.1% from the 2005 Census figures and you can see why I am angry.
"Let us bring some sanity back to Boston, it deserves it."
We cannot help but share Mike's anger.
Factor in some of the other plans we mentioned - a minimum of 60 new starter homes in the Broadfield Lane area (and by the sound of it the likelihood of at least twice that) which is at the very heart of Boston's congestion problem; a major redevelopment of Boston College and the Merchants Quay project - which as well as all the shops promises 100 "city style apartments" and parking for 700 cars, and the scene is set for traffic chaos of catastrophic proportions.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
He writes to say: "I have said time and time again that before our 'leaders' mess any more with the layout of the town, a better infrastructure with the roads should be put in place. It does not require a university degree to understand this but sheer commonsense.
"The decision to move the High School to the Grammar school site, leaving the financial situation aside, is madness once again.
"They are to move nearly twice as many pupils (give or take a few hundred) to a central part of our clogged up road network.
"Many more buses will have to drop and pick up at this new school together with all the extra cars involved."
Add into this equation that John Adams Way will have an increase of traffic (a total both ways) by 2015 of 10.1% from the 2005 Census figures and you can see why I am angry.
"Let us bring some sanity back to Boston, it deserves it."
We cannot help but share Mike's anger.
Factor in some of the other plans we mentioned - a minimum of 60 new starter homes in the Broadfield Lane area (and by the sound of it the likelihood of at least twice that) which is at the very heart of Boston's congestion problem; a major redevelopment of Boston College and the Merchants Quay project - which as well as all the shops promises 100 "city style apartments" and parking for 700 cars, and the scene is set for traffic chaos of catastrophic proportions.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
Friday, December 5
Wrong time for big "pay" rise
You might expect us to start foaming at the mouth at the report of the Independent Remuneration Panel review of councillors' allowances for the next financial year to be considered Monday's full council meeting - which proposes some enormous increases.
However the panel is independent and it points out that the allowance is the lowest in Lincolnshire and that the gap with other authorities has grown over the years.
But, whatever a councillor's service may be worth, it seems daft to talk about increases of such magnitude at a time of real hardship and recession, and also when the council is grubbing around to make savings of far less than the total it would take to bring allowances up to date.
At any time a rise of 72.5% for the leader - from £6,487 to £11,193 - and 56.8% for all members ... from £2,378 to 3,731 ... would generate a deep intake of breath.
But in the present desperate climate, it could not be justified.
Sensibly, the council rejected big increases last year, and we hope that they will do so again this time around.
How about this for an idea?
Pay the BBI by results - then they wouldn't cost us a penny.
Now there's a thought!
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
However the panel is independent and it points out that the allowance is the lowest in Lincolnshire and that the gap with other authorities has grown over the years.
But, whatever a councillor's service may be worth, it seems daft to talk about increases of such magnitude at a time of real hardship and recession, and also when the council is grubbing around to make savings of far less than the total it would take to bring allowances up to date.
At any time a rise of 72.5% for the leader - from £6,487 to £11,193 - and 56.8% for all members ... from £2,378 to 3,731 ... would generate a deep intake of breath.
But in the present desperate climate, it could not be justified.
Sensibly, the council rejected big increases last year, and we hope that they will do so again this time around.
How about this for an idea?
Pay the BBI by results - then they wouldn't cost us a penny.
Now there's a thought!
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
Thursday, December 4
Landing Boston in a mess
The news for Boston this week is the £20 million new school for the Boston Grammar Schools Federation.
Last week it was the £79 million revamp of Boston College.
And in between came the plans to concrete the entire Broadfield Lane allotment site instead of just one third of it.
And back in days of yore, we had the multil-multi-multi million pound plan to turn most of West Street into "Merchants Quay" a retail led, mixed use scheme comprising 350,000 sq ft including a 60,000 sq ft department store, a 60,000 sq ft food store, five major space units and 17 additional units of various sizes.
Building site Boston for years to come.
At the heart of all these plans - regardless of their size - is land, and the money it makes.
The grammar school project for instance will largely be funded by the sale of the High School site.
However, in case anyone hasn't noticed, we're in a recession.
Building firms have closed.
The value of land banks has slumped.
And as well as that, there is little if any movement in the house buying market, and little is anticipated for years to come.
We fear that the sort of schemes we have mentioned could be under threat because of all that.
Boston already suffers from being on the edge of nowhere with a higher than average number of low paid jobs. It is not a convenient dormitory town for more expensive areas.
So assuming - not unreasonably - that the land thrown into the melting pot by these various proposed developments is turned into housing, who on earth is going to come to live here?
We think that it's time to reconsider the town's development future sooner rather than later, or a right royal mess will result.
Also, given the lack of information regarding Merchants Quay and its scheduled completion date of 2012 - just three years away - we wonder if this project has already quietly slipped from the drawing board and into the waste paper basket.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
Last week it was the £79 million revamp of Boston College.
And in between came the plans to concrete the entire Broadfield Lane allotment site instead of just one third of it.
And back in days of yore, we had the multil-multi-multi million pound plan to turn most of West Street into "Merchants Quay" a retail led, mixed use scheme comprising 350,000 sq ft including a 60,000 sq ft department store, a 60,000 sq ft food store, five major space units and 17 additional units of various sizes.
Building site Boston for years to come.
At the heart of all these plans - regardless of their size - is land, and the money it makes.
The grammar school project for instance will largely be funded by the sale of the High School site.
However, in case anyone hasn't noticed, we're in a recession.
Building firms have closed.
The value of land banks has slumped.
And as well as that, there is little if any movement in the house buying market, and little is anticipated for years to come.
We fear that the sort of schemes we have mentioned could be under threat because of all that.
Boston already suffers from being on the edge of nowhere with a higher than average number of low paid jobs. It is not a convenient dormitory town for more expensive areas.
So assuming - not unreasonably - that the land thrown into the melting pot by these various proposed developments is turned into housing, who on earth is going to come to live here?
We think that it's time to reconsider the town's development future sooner rather than later, or a right royal mess will result.
Also, given the lack of information regarding Merchants Quay and its scheduled completion date of 2012 - just three years away - we wonder if this project has already quietly slipped from the drawing board and into the waste paper basket.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
Wednesday, December 3
Surprise, surprise - there's no surprise
It comes as no surprise to hear that the Into Town bus service has been a resounding success. We would not have expected any other verdict.
We doubt that so much money has been spent in our part of the world for very many years on something that we have been repeatedly told was subject to evaluation (with the implied suggestion that it might not go ahead.)
Look around the town at all the raised kerbs and try to imagine that anyone would say that the scheme was not absolutely marvellous.
We are sure that the service is attracting more users - although we doubt that many of them are people who previously travelled by car ... and we thought that part of the idea was to reduce traffic flows around the town.
Tonight's meeting of the wooden box is being asked to endorse the draft resolution of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to support the Into Town bus consultation process and endorse the decision to involve both Boston and Lincolnshire County Councils in the exercise to ensure maximum comprehension of the strategy.
Whilst we agree that the town has long needed improvements to its local bus services, we still question the invasion of the town centre shopping experience by intrusive, noisy coaches herding shoppers aside to deliver their cargo of free-travelling pensioners.
Is there no possible compromise that would keep the route away from Strait Bargate?
And where are the vocal activists of the Better Boston Group now that there seems to be no publicity to be gained from opposing the Into Town service?
Surely a little commonsense can prevail and allow the townsfolk to shop in peace and quiet.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested
We doubt that so much money has been spent in our part of the world for very many years on something that we have been repeatedly told was subject to evaluation (with the implied suggestion that it might not go ahead.)
Look around the town at all the raised kerbs and try to imagine that anyone would say that the scheme was not absolutely marvellous.
We are sure that the service is attracting more users - although we doubt that many of them are people who previously travelled by car ... and we thought that part of the idea was to reduce traffic flows around the town.
Tonight's meeting of the wooden box is being asked to endorse the draft resolution of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to support the Into Town bus consultation process and endorse the decision to involve both Boston and Lincolnshire County Councils in the exercise to ensure maximum comprehension of the strategy.
Whilst we agree that the town has long needed improvements to its local bus services, we still question the invasion of the town centre shopping experience by intrusive, noisy coaches herding shoppers aside to deliver their cargo of free-travelling pensioners.
Is there no possible compromise that would keep the route away from Strait Bargate?
And where are the vocal activists of the Better Boston Group now that there seems to be no publicity to be gained from opposing the Into Town service?
Surely a little commonsense can prevail and allow the townsfolk to shop in peace and quiet.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested
Tuesday, December 2
Hypocrisy in spades at allotment site!
A report to tomorrow's Boston Town Area Committee rekindles memories of the long-forgotten (doubtless the intention) Broadfield Lane allotment site.
In May last year, the Boston Standard reported that disgruntled allotment-holders attended a special meeting to hear the secretary of the charity which owns their allotments outline detailed plans to sell off a "large chunk" of the site to Longhurst Homes.
The charity hoped to make more than half-a-million pounds from the land sale, to devote to worthy causes around the Boston area.
The bidders, Longhurst, hoped to buy around a third of the site from Boston Municipal Charities to build 60 new affordable houses.
At the meeting, Councillor Ray Newell, who represents Staniland South ward where the allotments lie, warned: "The system that often operates with these 'land grabs' is that first the developer takes one third, then they come back for another third, and in the end they take the lot."
But the charity's secretary, Katherine Bunting, said they would 'never' sell the rest of the land for development, and it was suggested that all existing allotment-holders could be given plots on the remainder of the Broadfield Lane site.
Fast forward to Wednesday night's BTAC meeting.
After summarising the events leading up to the eviction notices being served on the Broadfield Lane allotment holders, a report adds: "In February 2008 Boston Municipal Charities informed us that they required possession of the whole site and that tenants would no longer be able to move to the area not designated for the proposed development. All Broadfield Lane tenants are now relocated on five different sites around the borough."
Whilst the charity has apparently indicated that land may still be available on the site to use as allotments the trustees of the charity are currently unable to make a long term commitment regarding the rest of the site until they know the outcome of Longhurst’s planning application or the extent of the proposed development.
The committee is being recommended to pay to clear the Broadfield Lane site and "to avoid any adverse or damaging publicity with regard to the state of the site" - which has an amount of asbestos that requires disposal.
We highlighted the problems of locating so many starter homes in one place, as well as in the heartland of the town's traffic problems at the time of the initial debate.
Now it looks as though the number of homes might increase almost threefold.
Let us hope that if only to highlight such a spectacular piece of hypocrisy by a so-called "charity" (whose members fought successfully to remain anonymous) that as much manure descends on this allotment scheme as is possible.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
In May last year, the Boston Standard reported that disgruntled allotment-holders attended a special meeting to hear the secretary of the charity which owns their allotments outline detailed plans to sell off a "large chunk" of the site to Longhurst Homes.
The charity hoped to make more than half-a-million pounds from the land sale, to devote to worthy causes around the Boston area.
The bidders, Longhurst, hoped to buy around a third of the site from Boston Municipal Charities to build 60 new affordable houses.
At the meeting, Councillor Ray Newell, who represents Staniland South ward where the allotments lie, warned: "The system that often operates with these 'land grabs' is that first the developer takes one third, then they come back for another third, and in the end they take the lot."
But the charity's secretary, Katherine Bunting, said they would 'never' sell the rest of the land for development, and it was suggested that all existing allotment-holders could be given plots on the remainder of the Broadfield Lane site.
Fast forward to Wednesday night's BTAC meeting.
After summarising the events leading up to the eviction notices being served on the Broadfield Lane allotment holders, a report adds: "In February 2008 Boston Municipal Charities informed us that they required possession of the whole site and that tenants would no longer be able to move to the area not designated for the proposed development. All Broadfield Lane tenants are now relocated on five different sites around the borough."
Whilst the charity has apparently indicated that land may still be available on the site to use as allotments the trustees of the charity are currently unable to make a long term commitment regarding the rest of the site until they know the outcome of Longhurst’s planning application or the extent of the proposed development.
The committee is being recommended to pay to clear the Broadfield Lane site and "to avoid any adverse or damaging publicity with regard to the state of the site" - which has an amount of asbestos that requires disposal.
We highlighted the problems of locating so many starter homes in one place, as well as in the heartland of the town's traffic problems at the time of the initial debate.
Now it looks as though the number of homes might increase almost threefold.
Let us hope that if only to highlight such a spectacular piece of hypocrisy by a so-called "charity" (whose members fought successfully to remain anonymous) that as much manure descends on this allotment scheme as is possible.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
Monday, December 1
Mr Bean would applaud Boston antics
By-pass campaigner Michael Borrill of the Boston Bypass & Economic Growth Pressure Group (BBEG) writes to us to say:-
"Many thanks for your continued highlighting of the facts that concern all of us Bostonians and in fact, the wider public. "Your daily 'news' articles are indeed what the local press should be dwelling on from time to time but, sadly, over recent months, there seems to be a lack of deep reporting.
"Boston is ideally situated from history to reap the tourism benefits from both UK and indeed, the USA. The moving of the tourism office from the Assembly Rooms was an act of great folly and anyone involved in that industry would have gasped in astonishment when the news was first brokered to move it to the Haven Centre when it is a known fact that hardly any visitors to the town venture that way. To now move it to the Museum when the opening hours seem to be "closed for most of the time" beggars belief.
"The antics of this town seem to present Mr Bean with a new theme for a movie!
"We all know that Boston Borough has large debts which have to be taken care of, partly a self inflicted wound, which, if treated properly, would be starting the healing process by now! There is, however, something good they could do which would give them a bit of credence once again which does now involve a cash layout at this time.
"First and foremost, put a stop to the road widening planned to take place (after the County elections in May- I wonder why!) This work which will take many months, will cripple businesses and drive more shoppers away from Boston in this troubled time.
"Secondly, press home to Lincolnshire County Council, the need to re-commence work on the route of a Boston distributor road. The smoke screen of the Local Development Framework should not be used. Lincolnshire County Council do not take account of this requirement when planning for two by-passes for Lincoln City, which incidentally, were turned down by a government inspector.
"Both these two points will not involve Boston Borough Council in placing cash but it will give them some 'brownie points' which have been missing for some time.
"There is no excuse for not doing this."
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested
"Many thanks for your continued highlighting of the facts that concern all of us Bostonians and in fact, the wider public. "Your daily 'news' articles are indeed what the local press should be dwelling on from time to time but, sadly, over recent months, there seems to be a lack of deep reporting.
"Boston is ideally situated from history to reap the tourism benefits from both UK and indeed, the USA. The moving of the tourism office from the Assembly Rooms was an act of great folly and anyone involved in that industry would have gasped in astonishment when the news was first brokered to move it to the Haven Centre when it is a known fact that hardly any visitors to the town venture that way. To now move it to the Museum when the opening hours seem to be "closed for most of the time" beggars belief.
"The antics of this town seem to present Mr Bean with a new theme for a movie!
"We all know that Boston Borough has large debts which have to be taken care of, partly a self inflicted wound, which, if treated properly, would be starting the healing process by now! There is, however, something good they could do which would give them a bit of credence once again which does now involve a cash layout at this time.
"First and foremost, put a stop to the road widening planned to take place (after the County elections in May- I wonder why!) This work which will take many months, will cripple businesses and drive more shoppers away from Boston in this troubled time.
"Secondly, press home to Lincolnshire County Council, the need to re-commence work on the route of a Boston distributor road. The smoke screen of the Local Development Framework should not be used. Lincolnshire County Council do not take account of this requirement when planning for two by-passes for Lincoln City, which incidentally, were turned down by a government inspector.
"Both these two points will not involve Boston Borough Council in placing cash but it will give them some 'brownie points' which have been missing for some time.
"There is no excuse for not doing this."
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested
Friday, November 28
Lack of logic in economy proposals
Just a few more comments on the borough council's proposed economies.
Suspending the Party in the Park will apparently save £82,000 (strange that it only cost £25,000 a couple of years ago but that's inflation for you!) Apparently there is potential to reinstate the event in 2010/11, but it will be subject to review.
The party was originally staged to mark the millennium, but the then ruling regime had a childish love of fireworks and for some reason decided to run it year in, year out.
It has long since passed its sell-by date, and in this day and age it seems impossibly stupid to think that any council in its right mind would resume blowing so much money on a booze-up (and incidentally having the hypocrisy to rescind its own by-laws on drinking in public places in order to do so.
But then, impossibly stupid ... council not in its right mind ... hypocritical ... are all words often associated with the current ruling party.
It also seems that a £2 million investment will bring the popular and conveniently located Geoff Moulder Leisure Centre into the 21st century, which makes us wonder why on earth the borough continues pouring even vaster sums into the unpopular PRSA when it has it failed so spectacularly to deliver its promises either to the disabled or the rest of the local sporting community.
Continuing to fund it as a competitor to the Moulder Centre would seem to be downright stupid.
But then .....
We're told that the biggest saving – £723,000 – will come from "restructuring and staffing proposals."
Chief executive Mick Gallagher has told the local papers that this will mean there will be some redundancies but that they would be kept to a minimum.
It's a bleak day when anyone when loses their job but it has become a sad fact of life in recent months.
The private sector is pragmatic in this respect, and cuts as many jobs as it takes to stop the rot.
To say that redundancies will be kept to a minimum implies that more might be made but are not for the sake of kindness.
It's the equivalent of being told by your surgeon "we could have removed the whole cancer, but kept it down to a minimum."
And finally, another £481,000 is expected to be saved by raising additional income and finding new funding. One idea is to increase the cost of parking for season ticket holders, and to start charging staff and councillors.
We think that season ticket holders should not be used as a cash cow in this way - it could rebound on the council's income in unexpected ways.
As far as charging staff and councillors is concerned .... why on earth were they ever exempted in the first place?
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested
This blog also appears on the Daily Telegraph site at http://my.telegraph.co.uk/boston_eye/
Suspending the Party in the Park will apparently save £82,000 (strange that it only cost £25,000 a couple of years ago but that's inflation for you!) Apparently there is potential to reinstate the event in 2010/11, but it will be subject to review.
The party was originally staged to mark the millennium, but the then ruling regime had a childish love of fireworks and for some reason decided to run it year in, year out.
It has long since passed its sell-by date, and in this day and age it seems impossibly stupid to think that any council in its right mind would resume blowing so much money on a booze-up (and incidentally having the hypocrisy to rescind its own by-laws on drinking in public places in order to do so.
But then, impossibly stupid ... council not in its right mind ... hypocritical ... are all words often associated with the current ruling party.
It also seems that a £2 million investment will bring the popular and conveniently located Geoff Moulder Leisure Centre into the 21st century, which makes us wonder why on earth the borough continues pouring even vaster sums into the unpopular PRSA when it has it failed so spectacularly to deliver its promises either to the disabled or the rest of the local sporting community.
Continuing to fund it as a competitor to the Moulder Centre would seem to be downright stupid.
But then .....
We're told that the biggest saving – £723,000 – will come from "restructuring and staffing proposals."
Chief executive Mick Gallagher has told the local papers that this will mean there will be some redundancies but that they would be kept to a minimum.
It's a bleak day when anyone when loses their job but it has become a sad fact of life in recent months.
The private sector is pragmatic in this respect, and cuts as many jobs as it takes to stop the rot.
To say that redundancies will be kept to a minimum implies that more might be made but are not for the sake of kindness.
It's the equivalent of being told by your surgeon "we could have removed the whole cancer, but kept it down to a minimum."
And finally, another £481,000 is expected to be saved by raising additional income and finding new funding. One idea is to increase the cost of parking for season ticket holders, and to start charging staff and councillors.
We think that season ticket holders should not be used as a cash cow in this way - it could rebound on the council's income in unexpected ways.
As far as charging staff and councillors is concerned .... why on earth were they ever exempted in the first place?
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested
This blog also appears on the Daily Telegraph site at http://my.telegraph.co.uk/boston_eye/
Thursday, November 27
Boston Stump is obvious home for tourist information
Boston Borough Council has declared that tough economic conditions mean it must keep costs down and make £1.8 million savings in the next financial year.
Boston is not alone in its plight - East Lindsey District Council estimates it will have a £2.5m shortfall, Lincoln £1.5m, West Lindsey at least a £500,000 shortfall, and North Kesteven slightly less than £500,000.
Boston has made a number of proposals for savings, and we will look at them over the next couple of days.
Two key areas are the Guildhall, where savings of £15,000 are proposed by revising opening hours from Wednesday to Saturday and allocating Monday and Tuesday for schools.
At the hapless Haven £27,000 will be clawed back through cutting opening on three days only and moving the Tourist Information Centre to the Guildhall.
Poor old TIC!
A move to the Guildhall sounds like a recipe for disaster - particularly in view of the proposed opening times, and the problems for visitors needing help on a schools-only day. Bear in mind also that the Guildhall is only open by appointment across the winter, and it will be an almost forgotten place by the start of the next financial year.
Here's a idea for free.
Next year sees the 700th anniversary of Boston Stump which is being marked with major celebrations and a huge number of events.
Why not see if it is possible to have some space in the Stump's shop/cafe area to house tourist information?
The present arrangement at the Haven is lacklustre to say the least, but is not exactly a great user of space.
A move to the Stump would place tourist information at the heart of the town's main attraction and be a hugely beneficial place from which to promote the area.
Who knows, it could even be run on a voluntary basis as has been done in other areas, and save even more money.
Your opinions, please.
Write to boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
Boston is not alone in its plight - East Lindsey District Council estimates it will have a £2.5m shortfall, Lincoln £1.5m, West Lindsey at least a £500,000 shortfall, and North Kesteven slightly less than £500,000.
Boston has made a number of proposals for savings, and we will look at them over the next couple of days.
Two key areas are the Guildhall, where savings of £15,000 are proposed by revising opening hours from Wednesday to Saturday and allocating Monday and Tuesday for schools.
At the hapless Haven £27,000 will be clawed back through cutting opening on three days only and moving the Tourist Information Centre to the Guildhall.
Poor old TIC!
A move to the Guildhall sounds like a recipe for disaster - particularly in view of the proposed opening times, and the problems for visitors needing help on a schools-only day. Bear in mind also that the Guildhall is only open by appointment across the winter, and it will be an almost forgotten place by the start of the next financial year.
Here's a idea for free.
Next year sees the 700th anniversary of Boston Stump which is being marked with major celebrations and a huge number of events.
Why not see if it is possible to have some space in the Stump's shop/cafe area to house tourist information?
The present arrangement at the Haven is lacklustre to say the least, but is not exactly a great user of space.
A move to the Stump would place tourist information at the heart of the town's main attraction and be a hugely beneficial place from which to promote the area.
Who knows, it could even be run on a voluntary basis as has been done in other areas, and save even more money.
Your opinions, please.
Write to boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
Wednesday, November 26
Sport - no-one gives a toss!
Big stuff on the menu at Boston Borough Council this evening.
The Cabinet - that collection of the great and the wood of the Bypass Independents - is looking at the Community Sports Strategy and Options Appraisal for the borough and the preferred hybrid private sector trust option for its operation.
Hopefully, this would mean the ratepayers might eventually wash their hands of the terrible financial drain that the PRSA has imposed on us all - though it looks as if if it does happen, it may not be for some time.
Frankly, we think that the majority of the borough's population cares little if at all about sports provision in the area - but someone will doubtless tell us that we are wrong.
Elsewhere, a report shows usage statistics for the PRSA.
It appears to show a decline in casual usage, and many classes with attendance rates of less than 20%
We know that the PRSA is an inherited problem, but that doesn't mean the council has to continue to support it.
It is clearly an albatross around the neck of the taxpayer, and the sooner the ancient mariners on the BBI drop it into the ocean, the better.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if you request it.
The Cabinet - that collection of the great and the wood of the Bypass Independents - is looking at the Community Sports Strategy and Options Appraisal for the borough and the preferred hybrid private sector trust option for its operation.
Hopefully, this would mean the ratepayers might eventually wash their hands of the terrible financial drain that the PRSA has imposed on us all - though it looks as if if it does happen, it may not be for some time.
Frankly, we think that the majority of the borough's population cares little if at all about sports provision in the area - but someone will doubtless tell us that we are wrong.
Elsewhere, a report shows usage statistics for the PRSA.
It appears to show a decline in casual usage, and many classes with attendance rates of less than 20%
We know that the PRSA is an inherited problem, but that doesn't mean the council has to continue to support it.
It is clearly an albatross around the neck of the taxpayer, and the sooner the ancient mariners on the BBI drop it into the ocean, the better.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if you request it.
Tuesday, November 25
Another opportunity wasted
Ironically, as the election of a BNP councillor raises the R-word among local politicians, the effects of immigration on Boston are highlighted by both Boston Borough Council and Lincolnshire Police.
The borough is chortling about the launch of a voluntary code on employing migrant workers after Boston played "a key role" in highlighting the issue of improving working conditions in the food sector.
The code is a guide to recruiting, employing and facilitating the integration of migrant workers into the UK, and was developed by one of Prince Charles's charities - Business in the Community's Migrant Worker Integration Group - after a "Seeing is Believing" visit (don't you just love these little titles?) to Boston in 2006.
Chief Executive Mick Gallagher said raising employment standards in this sector would help raise employment standards for all workers, and was very important for the area.
What the borough omits to say is that whilst Boston's population was 57,000 seven years ago, 15,000 migrants have settled here since - and the borough is now home to more than 30 nationalities.
The BiTC report says: "The transient nature of migrants and the lack of public funding (which is allocated on the basis of historic figures) has caused severe problems for Boston Borough Council in dealing with this influx, including the challenges of integrating different cultures and backgrounds."
"While migrants bring a number of benefits, such as raising economic output and filling labour shortages and skill gaps, they also pose a number of challenges for example in relation to community cohesion and the provision of adequate housing and services.
"Overseas migration into rural communities on the scale currently experienced is an unprecedented phenomenon and one to which the local community is, in many cases, struggling to adapt."
The study says there has been a 186% growth in migrant workers in rural areas since 2002, including at least 116,000 Eastern Europeans in 2006/07 alone.
"In many instances, rural communities in these areas lack the necessary resources, skills and infrastructure to adapt to the growing migrant population."
Not that long ago, we seem to recall that Boston's leaden leadership (both civilian and elected) was promising to use statistics like this to persuade the government to boost local budgets. There is certainly a forceful argument that the "historic" population-equals-funding policy should not lag as far behind as it does at present, giving Boston a pay rise that recognises its migrant influx and pays for the ensuing infrastructure costs.
Instead they just accept plaudits (and maybe the odd gong in the New Year honours list) and ignore a persuasive and royally-backed argument for local funding enhancements from the government, which would do much to bale out the council's sagging finances. Another opportunity missed.
Meanwhile, Lincolnshire Police, whilst apparently getting the brush-off from minister Vernon Coaker, whom they met last week to renew their pleas for more money, have announced that translation services covering 49 different languages cost more than £300,000 a year.
The bill of more than £190,000 since April averaged £900 a day, and cost £317,421 between April 2007 and 2008.
"We have a duty to victims and witnesses and to ensure that alleged offenders receive fair treatment under the criminal justice system - this can only be achieved through clear communication," said a police spokesman, who added: "Lincolnshire Police is conscious of the financial implications of interpretation services, and is determined to provide these in the most cost effective way possible."
Lincolnshire Police are famous for spending beyond their means, and we note that the United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust, which one might imagine would have a similar - if not greater -demand for interpreters, spent just £6,200 on translation in the same period.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence if requested.
The borough is chortling about the launch of a voluntary code on employing migrant workers after Boston played "a key role" in highlighting the issue of improving working conditions in the food sector.
The code is a guide to recruiting, employing and facilitating the integration of migrant workers into the UK, and was developed by one of Prince Charles's charities - Business in the Community's Migrant Worker Integration Group - after a "Seeing is Believing" visit (don't you just love these little titles?) to Boston in 2006.
Chief Executive Mick Gallagher said raising employment standards in this sector would help raise employment standards for all workers, and was very important for the area.
What the borough omits to say is that whilst Boston's population was 57,000 seven years ago, 15,000 migrants have settled here since - and the borough is now home to more than 30 nationalities.
The BiTC report says: "The transient nature of migrants and the lack of public funding (which is allocated on the basis of historic figures) has caused severe problems for Boston Borough Council in dealing with this influx, including the challenges of integrating different cultures and backgrounds."
"While migrants bring a number of benefits, such as raising economic output and filling labour shortages and skill gaps, they also pose a number of challenges for example in relation to community cohesion and the provision of adequate housing and services.
"Overseas migration into rural communities on the scale currently experienced is an unprecedented phenomenon and one to which the local community is, in many cases, struggling to adapt."
The study says there has been a 186% growth in migrant workers in rural areas since 2002, including at least 116,000 Eastern Europeans in 2006/07 alone.
"In many instances, rural communities in these areas lack the necessary resources, skills and infrastructure to adapt to the growing migrant population."
Not that long ago, we seem to recall that Boston's leaden leadership (both civilian and elected) was promising to use statistics like this to persuade the government to boost local budgets. There is certainly a forceful argument that the "historic" population-equals-funding policy should not lag as far behind as it does at present, giving Boston a pay rise that recognises its migrant influx and pays for the ensuing infrastructure costs.
Instead they just accept plaudits (and maybe the odd gong in the New Year honours list) and ignore a persuasive and royally-backed argument for local funding enhancements from the government, which would do much to bale out the council's sagging finances. Another opportunity missed.
Meanwhile, Lincolnshire Police, whilst apparently getting the brush-off from minister Vernon Coaker, whom they met last week to renew their pleas for more money, have announced that translation services covering 49 different languages cost more than £300,000 a year.
The bill of more than £190,000 since April averaged £900 a day, and cost £317,421 between April 2007 and 2008.
"We have a duty to victims and witnesses and to ensure that alleged offenders receive fair treatment under the criminal justice system - this can only be achieved through clear communication," said a police spokesman, who added: "Lincolnshire Police is conscious of the financial implications of interpretation services, and is determined to provide these in the most cost effective way possible."
Lincolnshire Police are famous for spending beyond their means, and we note that the United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust, which one might imagine would have a similar - if not greater -demand for interpreters, spent just £6,200 on translation in the same period.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence if requested.
Monday, November 24
BNP hits back at critics
Boston's newest councillor, David Owens, has replied to Scanner's
observations on the recent BNP victory in Fenside.
" I have taken the liberty to keep a copy of every leaflet used in the campaign,
" I have taken the liberty to keep a copy of every leaflet used in the campaign,
and will therefore 'get a few things straight.'
Our first leaflet was the commonly used "people like you voting BNP" that is used to introduce the BNP and its stance on three key issues, all of which affect local people just as much as people throughout Britain.The second leaflet used was entitled “let’s get a few things straight” which carried my photo and a question box on its reverse, this carried also the PO box of Louth, simply as we do not have a group in Boston and therefore no PO box!
The third leaflet, known as the £12,000, spoke of the BBI issues and the cost of this by-election to a cash strapped council, therefore the taxpayer. It made very clear in its content, that this election will not change who runs Boston council, but it will send a firm message to both the council and the Government that the electorate want something better. The reverse of this leaflet spoke specifically of concerns raised by residents from Carlton Road bungalows and detailed six other issues people consider important to them. It included adding my support to pressure the Conservative County Council to act on a by-pass. I wrote a letter to postal voters, along with a letter to people who were still undecided or indeed were considering their voting options.
The next leaflet was a national leaflet “we’ve all had enough” which re-affirmed issues that affect every citizen, local or not.
This was followed by an eve of poll reminder of the choices the electorate had on polling day, followed by a few national “remember to vote” leaflets and a couple of locally produced “remember to vote” leaflets.
Only the national leaflets are used elsewhere, the locally produced are specific to this election.
I think it was fair to say the when the electorate cast their vote for me, they cast it from a well informed position on issues that affect them locally and nationally.
With regard to comments of flooding the area on election day, I think your “informant” may have been confused with the BBI group, or perhaps the Conservatives, or could it have been the Liberal Democrat who turned up on polling day with a loud hailer on his car.
On election day their were five of us out and about, three of whom are local and two from the East Midlands region. As the day progressed and evening arrived a further two people came to lend a hand as tellers at the polling stations. And some friends and fellow supporters from around Lincolnshire turned up at for the count, Not quite a flood!
As for the use of a mini bus, I think you might ask the BBI candidate if he will be including its hire in his election expenses as it was his voters who were being bussed in, using some of the children from Fenside to rally up the vote from the migrant worker part of the ward! I think we could call him the pied piper of Fenside!
This election was won, quite simply because “WE SAY WHAT PEOPLE THINK” , What the other parties do not like is that is exactly what the ELECTORATE WANT!
Now I will get on with representing ALL residents of the Ward and Borough, irrespective of background, nationality, race, creed, colour, religion, or political affiliation. I still await a reply from Mark Simmonds MP, assuring me and at least 43% of the constituents of Fenside who voted for me, that he will represent us in the same manner that I am called to represent my ward constituents. So far he is refusing to speak to a “wasist” party - as detailed below.
From: David Owens Sent: 15 November 2008 01:56
To: SIMMONDS, MarkSubject: Please expand!
Quote “Mark Simmonds, Tory MP for Boston and Skegness, warned: 'The BNP are a threat to our country, who contribute nothing.'” Unquote
Mark, are you really implying that members of the BNP “contribute nothing”? Are you also by default, implying that those who Vote for the BNP “contribute nothing”? Would you be so kind as to explain what you meant in your press comments and therefore give me the right to reply.
Kindest regards
David Owens
From: SIMMONDS, Mark Sent: 19 November 2008 17:33
To: David Owens
Subject: RE: Please expand!
Mr Owens,Further to your email about my comments in the newspapers I do not approve of, nor do I intend to debate with, a political party whose fundamental policy tenant (sic) is racism.
Yours sincerely,
Mark Simmonds MP Boston and Skegness
From: David Owens Sent: 19 November 2008 23:04
To: 'SIMMONDS, Mark
Subject: RE: Please expand!
Mr Simmonds MP, In reply, how very ill informed, narrow minded and indeed un-democratic of you. Perhaps it’s that stance that led to your fellow conservative candidate failing in such spectacular fashion last week.Your response simply confirms how views such as yours, has led this once great country down the road of self destruction. I look forward to meeting you at one of your surgeries, where I will be more than happy to challenge you and your views, which as a parliamentary constituent, I am entitled to do. I would like to remind you sir, that I have the same rights as all of your constituents irrespective of whether you approve of my views or not!. And it would be grossly unfair of you to discriminate against me on that basis. Incidentally as is so typical with you Westminster “types” YOU have not answered the question! You owe an explanation of your comment to at least the 43% of the constituents on Fenside who voted for the British National Party last week, don’t you?
Regards
Cllr David Owens
Now that should “put a few thing’s straight!
David Owens Cllr Fenside Ward "
"Your report of the Fenside election by ‘Scanner’ is totally inaccurate and a little on the sour grapes side. Minibus was actually BBI I believe - it certainly was not ours. Leaflets did have local issues. Agree not on all seven, but on some - details of David Owens were on leaflet two if my memory is right; flooding the area on election day (a trickle more than a flood.) No locals? There were as many from Boston as elsewhere on election day. The by-pass was mentioned on leaflets but is an issue most agree is required.
"The real answer as to why we won was quite simply we worked harder and spoke to people - something the others don’t quite seem able to do.
"The next elections are in June not May as you state and yes I expect the BNP will win county seats next year.
"Boston has been waiting for a serious party to get organised in the area.
"People even voted UKIP before in Boston with some sizable votes.
"As for the BBI they were very confident in the morning, but the mood changed hour by hour as it was obvious we were going to win.
"Labour were not seen, which amazed me as it’s a ward they held not so long ago.
"The BBI were poor until election day but too little too late; imprint were incorrect on leaflets and posters.
"Lib Dem was poor as Labour and UKIP not even a leaflet. The Tories put the second biggest effort in but its just not a Tory area on Fenside.
"David Owens will make a good councillor, and I am sure will only be the first of several BNP councillors."
Write to Boston Eye at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
Friday, November 21
Wow! A view of the Hussey Tower
Boston Eye's waffle of the week award goes to Boston College principal Sue Daley.
Talking of a £79 million plan for a new "state-of-the-art" campus, she says: "We don't just want an iconic building. We want a college which values and enriches its local communities and businesses and which encourages them to be ambitious, fulfilled and successful."
We hope that means something a little more ambitious in the courses and qualifications currently offered, as they are pretty low brow to say the least.
The college is looking to the Learning and Skills Council for funding to the tune of around £60 million, and the building will have distinctive features such as waves, bubbles and "ship's spars" to acknowledge the town's maritime heritage. Not even approved, and already it sounds like a triumph of style over substance.
If it goes ahead it will feature a rooftop restaurant with views of two of what the Boston Target calls Boston's great landmarks – the Stump (no argument from us there) and Hussey Tower (is that the best we can do?)
A glass-fronted shopping mall-style building in the grounds of the Skirbeck Road campus will include shops run by students – such as a salon for the hair and beauty department.
Principal Daley says: "We want to provide our students with hi-tech cutting-edge technology."
New scissors all round for the hairdressing class then?
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested
Talking of a £79 million plan for a new "state-of-the-art" campus, she says: "We don't just want an iconic building. We want a college which values and enriches its local communities and businesses and which encourages them to be ambitious, fulfilled and successful."
We hope that means something a little more ambitious in the courses and qualifications currently offered, as they are pretty low brow to say the least.
The college is looking to the Learning and Skills Council for funding to the tune of around £60 million, and the building will have distinctive features such as waves, bubbles and "ship's spars" to acknowledge the town's maritime heritage. Not even approved, and already it sounds like a triumph of style over substance.
If it goes ahead it will feature a rooftop restaurant with views of two of what the Boston Target calls Boston's great landmarks – the Stump (no argument from us there) and Hussey Tower (is that the best we can do?)
A glass-fronted shopping mall-style building in the grounds of the Skirbeck Road campus will include shops run by students – such as a salon for the hair and beauty department.
Principal Daley says: "We want to provide our students with hi-tech cutting-edge technology."
New scissors all round for the hairdressing class then?
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested
Thursday, November 20
Time to put up or shut up!
Whilst there is not much to be gained from criticising individual members of Boston Borough Council, we have to say that our patience is being sorely tried by Councillor Anne Dorrian of the Better Boston Group.
Her reaction to the emphatic election of a British National Party candidate in the Fenside ward is to tell the Boston Standard that it represents the political equivalent of "laying face down in a pig sty eating muck."
She prefaces this unladylike observation by saying that the two recent by-elections have sent a clear message to the BBI leadership - which is to resign.
Readers may recall that the first of these by-elections was a direct result of actions by Councillor Dorrian which led to the conviction of a BBI councillor for drinking and driving, followed by his inevitable resignation.
She blames the Fenside result on the "weak and incompetent" BBI leadership.
Councillor Dorrian was once a proud standard bearer for that self-same leadership.
She fell out over what some say was nothing more than a technicality, and with colleagues set up the self-styled Better Boston Group.
Since then this third largest party on Boston Borough Council has said and done nothing except to sneer from the sidelines.
The group did not choose to mount a challenge at either of the recent by-elections - doubtless because it knew that the result would have made it a laughing stock.
And whilst quick to demand the departure of others, Councillor Dorrian has ignored calls for her own resignation after riding to victory on one party's bandwagon - then jumping ship whilst refusing to see whether the electors still wish to give her their mandate.
And in 2005, she famously changed her mind about standing as an independent by-pass campaigner at the General Election when she learned that the candidacy would mean resigning her post with the County Council.
In the meantime, we are treated to her inconsequential ramblings in a column in the Standard which began as a newly-elected councillor's take on life in West Street, but which over time has become an unnecessary (and at times quite unpleasant) intimate memoir of interest scarcely to anyone other than its author.
Are we alone in thinking that it's time for Councillor Dorrian to put up or shut up?
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
Her reaction to the emphatic election of a British National Party candidate in the Fenside ward is to tell the Boston Standard that it represents the political equivalent of "laying face down in a pig sty eating muck."
She prefaces this unladylike observation by saying that the two recent by-elections have sent a clear message to the BBI leadership - which is to resign.
Readers may recall that the first of these by-elections was a direct result of actions by Councillor Dorrian which led to the conviction of a BBI councillor for drinking and driving, followed by his inevitable resignation.
She blames the Fenside result on the "weak and incompetent" BBI leadership.
Councillor Dorrian was once a proud standard bearer for that self-same leadership.
She fell out over what some say was nothing more than a technicality, and with colleagues set up the self-styled Better Boston Group.
Since then this third largest party on Boston Borough Council has said and done nothing except to sneer from the sidelines.
The group did not choose to mount a challenge at either of the recent by-elections - doubtless because it knew that the result would have made it a laughing stock.
And whilst quick to demand the departure of others, Councillor Dorrian has ignored calls for her own resignation after riding to victory on one party's bandwagon - then jumping ship whilst refusing to see whether the electors still wish to give her their mandate.
And in 2005, she famously changed her mind about standing as an independent by-pass campaigner at the General Election when she learned that the candidacy would mean resigning her post with the County Council.
In the meantime, we are treated to her inconsequential ramblings in a column in the Standard which began as a newly-elected councillor's take on life in West Street, but which over time has become an unnecessary (and at times quite unpleasant) intimate memoir of interest scarcely to anyone other than its author.
Are we alone in thinking that it's time for Councillor Dorrian to put up or shut up?
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
Wednesday, November 19
Calling time on the PCSOs?
Tonight's meeting of Boston's Policy Development Committee is being asked to recommend ending further funding of the Neighbourhood Policing Teams with effect from 2008/2009 or continue for just one more year after which any future funding will be subject to a full review of the impact of the cessation of the funding by other agencies, particularly the County Council, at the end of 2009/2010.
A report says that over the last three years Boston Borough Council has contributed £81,200 which, with the contribution from Lincolnshire County Council has lead (sic) to an extra 59 PCSOs in Lincolnshire, nine of them in the borough.
In Boston there are currently 15 full time and 1 part time PCSOs, in five different teams - more than double the number before the borough's contribution, with each PCSO earning around £20,000.
The neighbourhood policing teams run 11 panels dealing with community concerns and issues; enforce the town centre booze ban and issue litter tickets. They deal with low scale anti-social behaviour, including neighbourhood disputes, and problems with young people. They also work with other agencies to investigate and gather evidence for ASBOs, visit community groups, schools and other organisations and gather information and intelligence "to assist in police operation and tension monitoring. "
Lincolnshire Police - motto: "refero vel capiemus viaticus usquam" (pay up or we'll take the money anyway") - wants another £30,400 for 2009/10 and say they anticipate yearly recurring requests for funding from councils if the neighbourhood policing teams are to continue in the present form.
If Boston Borough Council refuses more funding, the police say it would mean the loss of at least one PCSO post. The report concludes that the council has financially supported and worked closely with the neighbourhood policing teams over the past three years and also contributes significantly towards ensuring Boston is a safe place - for example the council fully funds the cost of the CCTV service at about £290,000 a year. It also provides a community safety team at a cost of £172,000. The report says funding the PCSO’s would need extra money which is not in budget proposals for 2009/2010, and adds that the loss of one PCSO would not be a significant. We think that PCSOs are mostly cosmetic in the war on crime, and about as much use as a chocolate teapot. We know people in various areas of the borough who have seldom - if ever - seen their PCSO, and commonsense says this is a saving that the council could and should easily make. However, ewe suspect the decision will be to fall in with the Council Council ... it usually is!
Whilst this item is thoroughly, not to say verbosely, written up, the same cannot be said for item 9 on the agenda - " Assembly Rooms Options Going Forward."
Apparently this matter is so sensitive that the press and public will be thrown out the the meeting so that it can be discussed away from our grubby ears.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence if requested.
A report says that over the last three years Boston Borough Council has contributed £81,200 which, with the contribution from Lincolnshire County Council has lead (sic) to an extra 59 PCSOs in Lincolnshire, nine of them in the borough.
In Boston there are currently 15 full time and 1 part time PCSOs, in five different teams - more than double the number before the borough's contribution, with each PCSO earning around £20,000.
The neighbourhood policing teams run 11 panels dealing with community concerns and issues; enforce the town centre booze ban and issue litter tickets. They deal with low scale anti-social behaviour, including neighbourhood disputes, and problems with young people. They also work with other agencies to investigate and gather evidence for ASBOs, visit community groups, schools and other organisations and gather information and intelligence "to assist in police operation and tension monitoring. "
Lincolnshire Police - motto: "refero vel capiemus viaticus usquam" (pay up or we'll take the money anyway") - wants another £30,400 for 2009/10 and say they anticipate yearly recurring requests for funding from councils if the neighbourhood policing teams are to continue in the present form.
If Boston Borough Council refuses more funding, the police say it would mean the loss of at least one PCSO post. The report concludes that the council has financially supported and worked closely with the neighbourhood policing teams over the past three years and also contributes significantly towards ensuring Boston is a safe place - for example the council fully funds the cost of the CCTV service at about £290,000 a year. It also provides a community safety team at a cost of £172,000. The report says funding the PCSO’s would need extra money which is not in budget proposals for 2009/2010, and adds that the loss of one PCSO would not be a significant. We think that PCSOs are mostly cosmetic in the war on crime, and about as much use as a chocolate teapot. We know people in various areas of the borough who have seldom - if ever - seen their PCSO, and commonsense says this is a saving that the council could and should easily make. However, ewe suspect the decision will be to fall in with the Council Council ... it usually is!
Whilst this item is thoroughly, not to say verbosely, written up, the same cannot be said for item 9 on the agenda - " Assembly Rooms Options Going Forward."
Apparently this matter is so sensitive that the press and public will be thrown out the the meeting so that it can be discussed away from our grubby ears.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence if requested.
Tuesday, November 18
Scanner casts eye on BNP campaign
Now that that the dust has settled, people are collecting their thoughts on last week's British National Party victory in the Fenside ward of Boston. Here, our regular contributor Scanner offers his take on: "The BNP Guide On How to Win A By- Election."
- Save money by distributing a leaflet that makes no mention of a single local issue (don’t mention a by-pass!!!!)
- Make your contact point a PO Box no. in a distant town. This leaflet can then be used nationwide with little alteration. (See next point.) It also means you don’t get any awkward phone calls.
- Give no details of the candidate but his name.
- Print several questions each beginning with “Do you feel that……. “ and then tell voters they must vote now and support you to put right these items that you feel are “wrongs.”
- Tell them yours is the only party who speaks for “the silent majority” and, with their support, will put right all those perceived injustices.
- Vilify a group of people that, on the most part, cannot answer for themselves.
- Declare that you have nothing against them and vehemently protest that those who say that you do are all liars.
- Flood the area on election day, and the days before if possible, with workers from distant cities. I don’t think my informant recognized even one local face (I know most parties bring in outside volunteers for parliamentary and county by-elections but not, usually, for a small district council election.) This will give you the advantage of appearing to be a party that has a strong local following when you have little or none at all.
- Use a mini-bus to carry voters to the polling stations. This gives ample time to “talk” to them while the bus is filled.
- Proclaim your patriotism as though it is on par with a religion and don’t forget to infer that God is on your side.
I am sure that is only some of the advice that could be given to our local parties. If they take note before next May’s County Council elections, we could see some interesting campaigns.
Seriously, as I see it, the main reasons for this result stem from:-
- The Government’s apparent lack of concern in recognizing and helping to deal with the difficulties caused by the relatively quick influx of large numbers of migrant workers.
- Relying on the long out of date population statistics used when finance is allocated to this area. The huge sums of cash needed to rescue the banks were soon found!
- As you have already mentioned, the impact the BBI has had on the council’s general reputation in the area.
- The unpopularity of the government. Where was Labour’s election team by the way? I understand that they didn’t even turn up to the election count. - Nationally, the Conservatives are doing well but at local level, the Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives seem to have sunk into obscurity.
- The energetic efforts of the BNP. They even out-campaigned the BBI who must have been confident, given their strong young local candidate and their usual brilliance at fighting elections. - The poor treatment meted out to many migrant workers by some unscrupulous landlords and employers.
But part of the reason must lie with the incomers themselves. Some of them seem oblivious to the feelings of local people and don’t seem to worry about those living around them, as well as ignoring our laws on drinking and driving. Early morning transport noise seems to be a particular issue in some areas. It may only be a minority causing these problems but the mud sticks to all and it must colour the perception of many local people.
I have one last comment to make. It concerns the statement made in the BNP’s election leaflet: “The BNP respects the right of people of all races and all creeds to their cultural religious beliefs and practises and has no wish to interfere with them.”
I ask the PO Box office in Louth: Who distributed hundreds of leaflets in an area of Boston attacking the plans of a small Muslim group who wished to set up a place of worship there? No prizes for the answer, but it wasn’t the “silent majority.”
I congratulate Councillor Owens on his election and I am sure he realises that it is an honour to be a councillor and as such he now pledges to represent EVERY resident of the borough whatever their race, colour or creed, and to offer what assistance he can to them, irrespective of his personal beliefs.
"SCANNER"
Write to us at bostoneye@googlemail.com E-mails will be treated in confidence if requested
"SCANNER"
Write to us at bostoneye@googlemail.com E-mails will be treated in confidence if requested
Skaters will need true grit!
A little bird tells us that as well as bringing ice skating to the town at the end of this month, there will also be a Saharan style touch added to the atmosphere.
You may recall that we expressed some surprise when we learned that the rink will be in the old five lamps area but not - as one might imagine - on the paved "public entertainment" area because the rink is "too big."
Instead, several market stall holders will be re-sited for the duration.
We heard that The Green was rejected as an alternative location because it would cost the council precious parking revenue.
Another alternative - the area used by the farmers' market - was rejected because it would get in the way of the buses.
And apparently, no one thought of using Central Park, which would have been an ideal location.
We reminded readers that a while ago, the council famously miscalculated when it decided to create parking for the new bus service on Fish Hill - because it hadn't measured up properly.
And we went on to speculate that the ice rink might prove impossible to locate in its planned position because the site is not level enough.
Now we hear that this has been taken into consideration, and the answer is to be to mount it on a foundation of sand.
But looking at the slope of the site, we think the job may well prove difficult if not impossible.
Stand by to find grit in all your shopping.
We're planning on setting up a stall selling keffiyeh. If it gets a bit breezy we could well make a fortune.Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence if requested.
You may recall that we expressed some surprise when we learned that the rink will be in the old five lamps area but not - as one might imagine - on the paved "public entertainment" area because the rink is "too big."
Instead, several market stall holders will be re-sited for the duration.
We heard that The Green was rejected as an alternative location because it would cost the council precious parking revenue.
Another alternative - the area used by the farmers' market - was rejected because it would get in the way of the buses.
And apparently, no one thought of using Central Park, which would have been an ideal location.
We reminded readers that a while ago, the council famously miscalculated when it decided to create parking for the new bus service on Fish Hill - because it hadn't measured up properly.
And we went on to speculate that the ice rink might prove impossible to locate in its planned position because the site is not level enough.
Now we hear that this has been taken into consideration, and the answer is to be to mount it on a foundation of sand.
But looking at the slope of the site, we think the job may well prove difficult if not impossible.
Stand by to find grit in all your shopping.
We're planning on setting up a stall selling keffiyeh. If it gets a bit breezy we could well make a fortune.Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence if requested.
Monday, November 17
BBI won't get the messaage
Boston's newest councillor, BNP member David Owens, will doubtless be at his desk today waiting to get stuck in, and to see how the powers that be plan to fit him into the scheme of things.
Between his election on Thursday night and this morning , the borough's website - after a couple of early errors - corrected the spelling of his name and issued a correct link to his new e-mail address.
Whilst council leader Richard Austin continues to "reflect" on what he calls the "serious implications" of the result, the BNP is in no doubt of them.
"The BNP campaign was fought on national issues, and on immigration in particular,” said Councillor Wayne McDermott, the BNP’s East Midlands election officer.
"There are a large number of similar wards in and around Boston, in which this result could easily be replicated. Boston therefore has the potential to become a key area for the BNP."
Doubtless someone will soon bob up to claim that the low turn out for the Fenside ward at 22.1 per-cent was not truly representative of the sort of result that would have been achieved at a general election of the council.
But we think that what we are seeing here is a repeat of what happened in May 2007, when the BBI stormed to victory.
People were clearly unhappy with the status quo - the traditional political hierarchies, with all their incompetencies and broken promises.
So they voted en masse for a party that they believed would actually do something for them.
Eighteen months on, the voters have decided that they are clearly unhappy with the Boston Bypass Independents, with all their incompetencies and broken promises, and their view of the old guard parties clearly remains unchanged.
There is a lesson here for the BBI, but we somehow doubt that they will choose to heed it.
Expect bluster and the usual political cliches concerning the BNP.
Then sit back and expect to be force fed the mixture as before.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence if requested.
Between his election on Thursday night and this morning , the borough's website - after a couple of early errors - corrected the spelling of his name and issued a correct link to his new e-mail address.
Whilst council leader Richard Austin continues to "reflect" on what he calls the "serious implications" of the result, the BNP is in no doubt of them.
"The BNP campaign was fought on national issues, and on immigration in particular,” said Councillor Wayne McDermott, the BNP’s East Midlands election officer.
"There are a large number of similar wards in and around Boston, in which this result could easily be replicated. Boston therefore has the potential to become a key area for the BNP."
Doubtless someone will soon bob up to claim that the low turn out for the Fenside ward at 22.1 per-cent was not truly representative of the sort of result that would have been achieved at a general election of the council.
But we think that what we are seeing here is a repeat of what happened in May 2007, when the BBI stormed to victory.
People were clearly unhappy with the status quo - the traditional political hierarchies, with all their incompetencies and broken promises.
So they voted en masse for a party that they believed would actually do something for them.
Eighteen months on, the voters have decided that they are clearly unhappy with the Boston Bypass Independents, with all their incompetencies and broken promises, and their view of the old guard parties clearly remains unchanged.
There is a lesson here for the BBI, but we somehow doubt that they will choose to heed it.
Expect bluster and the usual political cliches concerning the BNP.
Then sit back and expect to be force fed the mixture as before.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence if requested.
Friday, November 14
Would you BNP it? It's bye-bye BBI once again
The voters of Boston are nothing if not controversial.
Last night they elected the British National Party candidate to fill the vacancy in the town's Fenside ward caused by the resignation of Guy Curley after a drink driving conviction.
David Owens is the first BNP candidate to be voted on to a council in Lincolnshire.
The full result was:
- Gavin Carrington (Lib Dem) - 23
- Norman Hart (Labour) 69
- David Owens (BNP) - 279
- Paul Mould (Conservative) - 119
- Carl Smith (Boston Bypass Independents ) - 141
- Cyril Wakefield (UKIP) - 24
The vote now highlights the issue of immigration in the town, which has been simmering for years.
Mr Owens is quoted as saying: "I think the people of Fenside and the people of Boston have said tonight that immigration is at capacity here." He added that some foreign nationals working in Boston lived in conditions akin to "a third world republic," and he said he wanted better working and living conditions for all.
Boston Borough Council leader Richard "Papa Dick" Austin could fairly be described as gobsmacked. He's quoted as saying "I think this will have serious implications for Boston and I want to reflect on the implications of this result."
The day was marred by a stunt attributed to the Better Boston Group, which hadn't bothered to field a candidate for the seat. A white van was seen driving around Fenside with caricatures of four BBI figures, saying "another by-election due to BBI drink drive - don't vote BBI."
Meanwhile, the BBI also stands accused of slipping in a last minute manifesto by sending two letters to the Boston Standard. Headed "BBI: We are independent and do put Boston first" - the letters were from Councillors Ray Newell and John Storry. They dominated the letters page just the day before the election and one or two contributors have questioned whether the newspaper acted within the electoral rules in publishing it when it did.
The new look council now comprises 19 BBI members, 6 Conservatives, 4 Better Boston Group 2 Independents and 1 BNP.
We do believe that there are interesting times ahead.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence if requested.
Thursday, November 13
Lacklustre campaign comes to a head
To the polls we go.
To Fenside - a black spot on the list of most income-deprived areas in both England and in the borough.
Half a dozen candidates are slogging it out, ranging from the usual suspects, Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat through to the British National Party and the United Kingdom Independence Party. Of course, the Boston Bypass Independents will be hoping that their record to date won't spoil their chances of retaining the seat.
And despite Fenside's need for improvement, the Better Boston Group isn't bothering to field a candidate.
Local democracy is a strange thing.
One organisation that tries to encourage more people to take an interest is called Votewise, which has dedicated a section to the Fenside ballot.
All the candidates have been invited to be involved.
Of the six, only three have offered a manifesto.
And according to Votewise two candidates - Labour and the Bypass Independent -failed even to respond to a request to take part.
What a shame that some of the people who are apparently so keen to be Fenside's next councillor, can't be bothered to take up the offer of a free platform.
Democracy may not be dead, but it's certainly quite poorly around these parts.
We'll have the results for you as soon as possible
E-mail us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Requests for confidentiality are always respected.
To Fenside - a black spot on the list of most income-deprived areas in both England and in the borough.
Half a dozen candidates are slogging it out, ranging from the usual suspects, Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat through to the British National Party and the United Kingdom Independence Party. Of course, the Boston Bypass Independents will be hoping that their record to date won't spoil their chances of retaining the seat.
And despite Fenside's need for improvement, the Better Boston Group isn't bothering to field a candidate.
Local democracy is a strange thing.
One organisation that tries to encourage more people to take an interest is called Votewise, which has dedicated a section to the Fenside ballot.
All the candidates have been invited to be involved.
Of the six, only three have offered a manifesto.
And according to Votewise two candidates - Labour and the Bypass Independent -failed even to respond to a request to take part.
What a shame that some of the people who are apparently so keen to be Fenside's next councillor, can't be bothered to take up the offer of a free platform.
Democracy may not be dead, but it's certainly quite poorly around these parts.
We'll have the results for you as soon as possible
E-mail us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Requests for confidentiality are always respected.
Wednesday, November 12
Numbers that just don't add up
We decided to do our own maths to see what sort of figures emerged for the Into Town bus service following yesterday's entry on the blog.
Last month, 21,000 people travelled on the three services, and there were 23 working days in the month.
That comes to 913 people a day using the service, which averages 304 per route per day.
Again, averaging out across the 12 hours of the service day, we get a figure of 25 passengers per hour.
Of course, we know there are time when the buses have plenty of passengers, but as we've all seen there are many timer when the buses travel empty.
Even assuming two people using a car, it takes an average of six cars an hour off the roads.
Is that worth the chaos in Strait Bargate, and the huge investment in all the bus stops around the area, which invite people to fall off and harm themselves.
One thing is certain.
There is no way that this service is a "trial."
It's obviously here to stay and there is nothing that we can do about it.
E-mail us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Requests for confidentiality are always respected.
Last month, 21,000 people travelled on the three services, and there were 23 working days in the month.
That comes to 913 people a day using the service, which averages 304 per route per day.
Again, averaging out across the 12 hours of the service day, we get a figure of 25 passengers per hour.
Of course, we know there are time when the buses have plenty of passengers, but as we've all seen there are many timer when the buses travel empty.
Even assuming two people using a car, it takes an average of six cars an hour off the roads.
Is that worth the chaos in Strait Bargate, and the huge investment in all the bus stops around the area, which invite people to fall off and harm themselves.
One thing is certain.
There is no way that this service is a "trial."
It's obviously here to stay and there is nothing that we can do about it.
E-mail us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Requests for confidentiality are always respected.
Tuesday, November 11
Let's see the figures
Councillor Ray Newell, the cabinet member for Community Safety, Enforcement and Emergency Planning, who is also fluent in Cantonese, takes critics of the BBI to task when he details his party's steps to reduce traffic congestion in Boston.
He cites the controversial Into Town bus service as one innovation which "has reduced cars on Boston's roads."
In traditional Chinese, we believe this is rendered 減少了汽車對波士頓的道路
Whilst we don't doubt that traffic will have been reduced, a large number of the passengers are clearly non-drivers who are travelling free of charge, and it would be interesting to see Councillor Newell's statement backed up by concrete survey figures, so we could determine whether the cost of the scheme is worth the effort.However, aside from continued lobbying, the BBI now seems to have ground to a halt as far as continuing the work it started to ease the town's traffic problems.
What's needed now is action in Liquorpond Street and Queen Street, where the sequencing of the traffic lights causes major problems at certain times by unnecessarily creating delays.
Drivers sit and fume as traffic snakes back from the Liquorpond Street roundabout while little or no traffic uses either Broadfield Street and George Street. And attention is also needed at the junction with Fitness First and ASDA.
These are problems that can be eased, and we hope that instead of resting on its somewhat wilted laurels, the BBI gets on and does something about it.
E-mail us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Requests for confidentiality are always respected.
He cites the controversial Into Town bus service as one innovation which "has reduced cars on Boston's roads."
In traditional Chinese, we believe this is rendered 減少了汽車對波士頓的道路
Whilst we don't doubt that traffic will have been reduced, a large number of the passengers are clearly non-drivers who are travelling free of charge, and it would be interesting to see Councillor Newell's statement backed up by concrete survey figures, so we could determine whether the cost of the scheme is worth the effort.However, aside from continued lobbying, the BBI now seems to have ground to a halt as far as continuing the work it started to ease the town's traffic problems.
What's needed now is action in Liquorpond Street and Queen Street, where the sequencing of the traffic lights causes major problems at certain times by unnecessarily creating delays.
Drivers sit and fume as traffic snakes back from the Liquorpond Street roundabout while little or no traffic uses either Broadfield Street and George Street. And attention is also needed at the junction with Fitness First and ASDA.
These are problems that can be eased, and we hope that instead of resting on its somewhat wilted laurels, the BBI gets on and does something about it.
E-mail us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Requests for confidentiality are always respected.
Monday, November 10
When it's fine to be fat!
Boston was branded with its usual soubriquet in yesterday's News of the World - "our fattest town with almost a third of adults dangerously overweight."
Yet oddly enough if that IS the case why did we fail to qualify for a place among the nine areas which were today given the go-ahead to become "healthy towns" under a plan by ministers to combat obesity.
Dudley, Halifax, Sheffield, Tower Hamlets in London, Thetford, Middlesbrough, Manchester, Tewkesbury and Portsmouth will share a £30m pot.
If we are as fat as they say, we should have swallowed our pride instead of our sausages and grabbed a share of that sort of cash.
And if we're not now the fatties the papers claim, then why we don't we put the word out so that comics like the NOTW stop rubbishing the town?
E-mail us at boston.eye@googlemail.com
Yet oddly enough if that IS the case why did we fail to qualify for a place among the nine areas which were today given the go-ahead to become "healthy towns" under a plan by ministers to combat obesity.
Dudley, Halifax, Sheffield, Tower Hamlets in London, Thetford, Middlesbrough, Manchester, Tewkesbury and Portsmouth will share a £30m pot.
If we are as fat as they say, we should have swallowed our pride instead of our sausages and grabbed a share of that sort of cash.
And if we're not now the fatties the papers claim, then why we don't we put the word out so that comics like the NOTW stop rubbishing the town?
E-mail us at boston.eye@googlemail.com
Boston Eye contributor "Scanner" agrees that traders must be heard
I was, like your correspondent, ready to praise either the Chamber of Commerce or the borough council for providing an ice rink in the town on the run up to Christmas. Lincoln has had a rink for several years, paid for by the Chamber of Commerce and, at last, Boston is following suit - though it seems that here the borough council is footing the bill. Whoever is paying, I have two left feet so will not dare risk life or limb to try it out but I certainly don’t begrudge giving those that can balance on thin blades the chance to do so.
It was, also, a hopeful sign that the powers that be are reawakening as to how important Christmas could be to the town. If they had not withdrawn their support several years ago, by now we could have had a major visitor attraction for the town. In tandem with Lincoln we could have had two really great events to pull in crowds of Christmas shoppers. It is still not too late to catch up – but is the will really there? I have already said the increasingly expensive Party in the Park should be abandoned. If even half, of the near fifty thousand pounds it cost the council last year, was spent on a Christmas Fayre (or whatever we call it), with market trader goodwill and Chamber of Commerce input, we could soon have something that would be of much more value to everybody who lives, works and shops in our town - not just something that inflates the drink sales of the supermarkets and the off licenses.
Including their fiascoes with the Tourism Information Centre, the Haven, the Guildhall, the Continental Market and now the Farmers' Market, it seems that the council is just paying lip-service to their much-stated aim of attracting tourists to the town. With this latest action of, once more, upsetting the market traders, I wonder if they are going to gradually close down our biggest tourist attraction as well?
If you, like me, regularly walk through the coach station on a Wednesday, you will see at least seven or eight visiting coaches most weeks of the year, with even more in the summer months. We obviously, still have product (to use modern slang) that is enjoyed by our visitors and it is one that they feel is worth coming to see. Apparently, some coach companies run regular Wednesday excursions to the town. And, in spite of the way markets generally are contracting, ours is holding its own. Part of this must be due to the tourists that flock in on a Wednesday. They don’t have to come here. I’m sure there are at lot of places that would welcome them with open arms.
Come on councillors! You can’t blame anyone but yourselves for this. You should be thinking of ways of making the market brighter and bigger - not chipping away at the goodwill of the traders and, so, possibly causing its eventual closure – after at least seven hundred years! In future, before you have grand ideas, like running buses in Strait Bargate or putting a huge pimple in the centre of town, please consider the effect any new proposals may have on the market. Also, please put your money where your aims and objectives are and make our market and town a magnet for tourists from throughout the East Midlands. But please, oh please, make sure you take into account the views of the market traders FIRST before you publish any plans.
"SCANNER"
It was, also, a hopeful sign that the powers that be are reawakening as to how important Christmas could be to the town. If they had not withdrawn their support several years ago, by now we could have had a major visitor attraction for the town. In tandem with Lincoln we could have had two really great events to pull in crowds of Christmas shoppers. It is still not too late to catch up – but is the will really there? I have already said the increasingly expensive Party in the Park should be abandoned. If even half, of the near fifty thousand pounds it cost the council last year, was spent on a Christmas Fayre (or whatever we call it), with market trader goodwill and Chamber of Commerce input, we could soon have something that would be of much more value to everybody who lives, works and shops in our town - not just something that inflates the drink sales of the supermarkets and the off licenses.
Including their fiascoes with the Tourism Information Centre, the Haven, the Guildhall, the Continental Market and now the Farmers' Market, it seems that the council is just paying lip-service to their much-stated aim of attracting tourists to the town. With this latest action of, once more, upsetting the market traders, I wonder if they are going to gradually close down our biggest tourist attraction as well?
If you, like me, regularly walk through the coach station on a Wednesday, you will see at least seven or eight visiting coaches most weeks of the year, with even more in the summer months. We obviously, still have product (to use modern slang) that is enjoyed by our visitors and it is one that they feel is worth coming to see. Apparently, some coach companies run regular Wednesday excursions to the town. And, in spite of the way markets generally are contracting, ours is holding its own. Part of this must be due to the tourists that flock in on a Wednesday. They don’t have to come here. I’m sure there are at lot of places that would welcome them with open arms.
Come on councillors! You can’t blame anyone but yourselves for this. You should be thinking of ways of making the market brighter and bigger - not chipping away at the goodwill of the traders and, so, possibly causing its eventual closure – after at least seven hundred years! In future, before you have grand ideas, like running buses in Strait Bargate or putting a huge pimple in the centre of town, please consider the effect any new proposals may have on the market. Also, please put your money where your aims and objectives are and make our market and town a magnet for tourists from throughout the East Midlands. But please, oh please, make sure you take into account the views of the market traders FIRST before you publish any plans.
"SCANNER"
Saturday, November 8
Ice rink gives traders the cold shoulder!
We are often accused of taking too negative a line in our take on Boston.
But sadly that's because we feel there's a lot to be negative about.
Ironically, we were just about to pen a paean of praise to the ice rink attraction that's coming to town in the run-up to Christmas, when we noted the Market Place location.
So earlier today, we braved the wind blown drizzle to find out exactly where it was to be located.
We learned that it will be in the old five lamps area.
But it will not - as one might imagine - be on the paved section that's supposedly for "public entertainment" because the rink is "too big" (full marks for the borough's forward planning there then.)
Instead, we were told that a number of market stall holders will be re-sited for the duration - something that has not gone down well with those we spoke to, as they have been re-sited for the borough's convenience so many times before.
We asked some of the same questions that they had already put to the jobsworths.
Wouldn't The Green be a better location?
Sorry, that would cost the council precious parking revenue.
How about the area used by the farmers' market stalls?
Sorry, that would get in the way of the magic buses.
Apparently, no one thought of using the Central Park, which with a bit of imaginative input from the borough (oxymoron alert!!) would create a near perfect location.
One stallholder told us that the council cares nothing about moving them wherever it pleases to accommodate other attractions - but couldn't care less about the people who contribute heavily to the local revenue and create a magnet for locals and visitors alike every week of the year which brings an incalculable financial benefit.
A while ago, the council famously got it wrong when it decided to create parking for the new bus service on Fish Hill - because it hadn't measured up properly (no pun intended!!)
It would not surprise us to learn that the ice rink will not be able to be located in its planned position because the site is not level enough.
E-mail us at boston.eye@googlemail.com If you would like your contribution to be treated in confidence, your request will be honoured.
But sadly that's because we feel there's a lot to be negative about.
Ironically, we were just about to pen a paean of praise to the ice rink attraction that's coming to town in the run-up to Christmas, when we noted the Market Place location.
So earlier today, we braved the wind blown drizzle to find out exactly where it was to be located.
We learned that it will be in the old five lamps area.
But it will not - as one might imagine - be on the paved section that's supposedly for "public entertainment" because the rink is "too big" (full marks for the borough's forward planning there then.)
Instead, we were told that a number of market stall holders will be re-sited for the duration - something that has not gone down well with those we spoke to, as they have been re-sited for the borough's convenience so many times before.
We asked some of the same questions that they had already put to the jobsworths.
Wouldn't The Green be a better location?
Sorry, that would cost the council precious parking revenue.
How about the area used by the farmers' market stalls?
Sorry, that would get in the way of the magic buses.
Apparently, no one thought of using the Central Park, which with a bit of imaginative input from the borough (oxymoron alert!!) would create a near perfect location.
One stallholder told us that the council cares nothing about moving them wherever it pleases to accommodate other attractions - but couldn't care less about the people who contribute heavily to the local revenue and create a magnet for locals and visitors alike every week of the year which brings an incalculable financial benefit.
A while ago, the council famously got it wrong when it decided to create parking for the new bus service on Fish Hill - because it hadn't measured up properly (no pun intended!!)
It would not surprise us to learn that the ice rink will not be able to be located in its planned position because the site is not level enough.
E-mail us at boston.eye@googlemail.com If you would like your contribution to be treated in confidence, your request will be honoured.
Friday, November 7
What a bunch of pi££ocks!
We've already slated the borough council's dismissive attitude to council tax payers in the way they delayed issuing refunds until the eleventh hour and hung on to claiming maximum repayments as late as possible.
So it comes as no surprise to learn than the council robbed more than 2,750 people using direct debit five days earlier than the victims expected.
In an area where earnings are so low, it is inevitable that this glittering incompetence will plunge a number of people into the red, and lumber them with eye-watering bank charges.
Not only that, but they may well find that other of their direct debits have been refused, causing problems with their creditworthiness.
How generous of the council then to say it will "consider" compensating anyone who had incurred bank charges as a result "if that is appropriate."
The Direct Debit guarantee seems to be pretty unambiguous when it says "If an error is made by the organisation or your bank or building society, you are guaranteed a full and immediate refund from your branch of the amount paid."
Obviously if that incompetence extends to further charges, there should be no question about reimbursing the victims.
What next, we wonder?
If any members of the borough's finance department would like an alternative membership to Unison, could we suggest that they point their browsers to the Clowns International website, where the organisation is celebrating its 61st anniversary, and would doubtless welcome some new and highly gifted members.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your-mails will be treated in confidence if requested.
So it comes as no surprise to learn than the council robbed more than 2,750 people using direct debit five days earlier than the victims expected.
In an area where earnings are so low, it is inevitable that this glittering incompetence will plunge a number of people into the red, and lumber them with eye-watering bank charges.
Not only that, but they may well find that other of their direct debits have been refused, causing problems with their creditworthiness.
How generous of the council then to say it will "consider" compensating anyone who had incurred bank charges as a result "if that is appropriate."
The Direct Debit guarantee seems to be pretty unambiguous when it says "If an error is made by the organisation or your bank or building society, you are guaranteed a full and immediate refund from your branch of the amount paid."
Obviously if that incompetence extends to further charges, there should be no question about reimbursing the victims.
What next, we wonder?
If any members of the borough's finance department would like an alternative membership to Unison, could we suggest that they point their browsers to the Clowns International website, where the organisation is celebrating its 61st anniversary, and would doubtless welcome some new and highly gifted members.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your-mails will be treated in confidence if requested.
Monday, November 3
Friday, October 31
Has financial climate change nipped flowers in the bud?
Given the current climate of spending cuts at Boston Borough Council, we wonder whether another slicing has gone almost unnoticed.
We refer to the "Boston in Bloom" project, under which local businesses apparently contributed towards the cost of enhancing otherwise neglected areas such as traffic islands and other muddy areas around the town -turning them into an urban oasis of flowers and shrubs, with their contribution recognised by a plaque.
But in recent months we have noticed a tendency for many of the businesses who take part to have their names linked to nothing more than patches of grass.
Has the project slipped quietly in abeyance to save a few quid from the borough coffers?
Please let us know if you have the answer.
E-mail us at boston.eye@googlemail.com We always respect requests for confidentiality if they are made.
See you after the weekend.
We refer to the "Boston in Bloom" project, under which local businesses apparently contributed towards the cost of enhancing otherwise neglected areas such as traffic islands and other muddy areas around the town -turning them into an urban oasis of flowers and shrubs, with their contribution recognised by a plaque.
But in recent months we have noticed a tendency for many of the businesses who take part to have their names linked to nothing more than patches of grass.
Has the project slipped quietly in abeyance to save a few quid from the borough coffers?
Please let us know if you have the answer.
E-mail us at boston.eye@googlemail.com We always respect requests for confidentiality if they are made.
See you after the weekend.
Thursday, October 30
Latest cuts show "Scanner" was right
It's not that long ago that the council leader was chortling because the borough had escaped any financial losses associated with the Icelandic bankruptcy fiasco - and we remarked at the time that perhaps this was just as well given the BBI's ability to waste money in other areas, such as the Princess Royal Sports Arena. Now we learn that the borough's deficit has leaped by £200,000 in just a month, and is hovering near the million pound mark.
This has led to yet another round of proposed savings, including squeezing the opening hours of the Guildhall and the ludicrous Haven Gallery still further to generate another £13,000. Why not simply mothball both places for the winter, and put the Tourist Information Centre somewhere that people can find rather than continue with these salami slices?
Other savings include £193,000 in vacancies (sounds like a few redundancies wouldn't go amiss here) and cutting funding to the Boston Area Regeneration Committee (we often wonder precisely what this is as it seems little other than a sponge for soaking up money) and £35,000 in maintenance.
According to the local papers, Boston's cabinet member for finance Councillor Richard Lenton has listed one of the main areas of concern as reduced income from bereavement services.
If we recall, this is an issue repeatedly raised by our contributor "Scanner," who predicted that raising these costs could mean problems.
He wrote: "Last year crematorium and cemetery charges were hiked to try and fill this year’s council spending black hole and, at the same time, a new crematorium opened in Alford. At that time, I warned that both of these moves could affect our business. Have they done so, and if so, by how much?"
A good question, but one which we doubt anyone at the council will be willing to answer.
E-mail us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Requests for confidentiality are always respected.
This has led to yet another round of proposed savings, including squeezing the opening hours of the Guildhall and the ludicrous Haven Gallery still further to generate another £13,000. Why not simply mothball both places for the winter, and put the Tourist Information Centre somewhere that people can find rather than continue with these salami slices?
Other savings include £193,000 in vacancies (sounds like a few redundancies wouldn't go amiss here) and cutting funding to the Boston Area Regeneration Committee (we often wonder precisely what this is as it seems little other than a sponge for soaking up money) and £35,000 in maintenance.
According to the local papers, Boston's cabinet member for finance Councillor Richard Lenton has listed one of the main areas of concern as reduced income from bereavement services.
If we recall, this is an issue repeatedly raised by our contributor "Scanner," who predicted that raising these costs could mean problems.
He wrote: "Last year crematorium and cemetery charges were hiked to try and fill this year’s council spending black hole and, at the same time, a new crematorium opened in Alford. At that time, I warned that both of these moves could affect our business. Have they done so, and if so, by how much?"
A good question, but one which we doubt anyone at the council will be willing to answer.
E-mail us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Requests for confidentiality are always respected.
Wednesday, October 29
Screen goes blank for Boston
Once in while we come across a new website which is someone's big idea for "putting on the map" places which have been there since since Domesday.
The latest we've found calls itself "Channel:Lincolnshire" and plans to promote the county via a TV web service.
In its promotional blurb, Channel:Lincs boasts
"Channel:Lincolnshire is the culmination of the printing press, television, computers and the Internet rolled together. Never before through any media has the whole of Lincolnshire been as comprehensively represented" (our italics)
It goes on to say that it works with a range of partners throughout the county - including the Federation of Small Businesses, Lincolnshire Sports Partnership, various sports clubs, commercial organisations and local authorities.
And it adds: "Whether your nearest town is Grimsby, Market Rasen, Scunthorpe, Lincoln, Louth, Skegness, Sleaford, Grantham, Spalding, LongSutton (sic), The Deepings, Stamford or Bourne we would like to hear from you, we are here to be your platform."
So they call that comprehensive?
Notice Boston's conspicuity by its absence?
If you want to try to change that, and more importantly are in a position to do so, you can visit the site at http://www.channellincolnshire.co.uk/
If you do manage to get Boston on to their map, please let us know.
E-mail us at http://boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be published anonymously if requested.
The latest we've found calls itself "Channel:Lincolnshire" and plans to promote the county via a TV web service.
In its promotional blurb, Channel:Lincs boasts
"Channel:Lincolnshire is the culmination of the printing press, television, computers and the Internet rolled together. Never before through any media has the whole of Lincolnshire been as comprehensively represented" (our italics)
It goes on to say that it works with a range of partners throughout the county - including the Federation of Small Businesses, Lincolnshire Sports Partnership, various sports clubs, commercial organisations and local authorities.
And it adds: "Whether your nearest town is Grimsby, Market Rasen, Scunthorpe, Lincoln, Louth, Skegness, Sleaford, Grantham, Spalding, LongSutton (sic), The Deepings, Stamford or Bourne we would like to hear from you, we are here to be your platform."
So they call that comprehensive?
Notice Boston's conspicuity by its absence?
If you want to try to change that, and more importantly are in a position to do so, you can visit the site at http://www.channellincolnshire.co.uk/
If you do manage to get Boston on to their map, please let us know.
E-mail us at http://boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be published anonymously if requested.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
