Week ending 30th April

Our Friday miscellany of the week's news and events
Back in business ... For some unknown reason we fell to musing about the whereabouts of the borough's late but largely unlamented Chief Executive Mick Gallagher. A couple of clicks on Google found him listed as a board member of something called "Cultivate" which describes itself as "an innovative new company launched to work with cultural organisations of all scales to maximise potential, stimulate growth and enable them to become more successful, so that people in the East Midlands can enjoy a vibrant and thriving cultural sector." It all sounds delightfully vague, and Mr Gallagher is described as someone "who has specialised in strategic planning and management especially in the creation and development of culturally led regeneration schemes." It says nothing about the Mr Gallagher's rapid departure after a damning Audit Commission report, but informs us that "Mick is presently a self employed consultant working both independently and with other consultancies, to provide a range of services to the public and voluntary sectors. He is also a Governor of Boston FE College and a former Board Member of Culture East Midlands (Regional Cultural Consortium) and of the Blackfriars Arts Centre in Boston." Search as we might, we could find no further trace of him.
Where's the problem ...? Yesterday we mentioned Boston's ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, in the context of doing unnecessary harm to the town's broader image. As with the flood report nonsense, so it is with the news that a group which helped bring peace to Northern Ireland is now helping "ease community tension" in Boston. The Centre for Good Relations also played a part in tackling racial tensions in Burnley. In Boston it is recommending setting-up a local mediation team to help people deal with disputes, improve reporting of hate crime, publicising positive developments and building confidence. There are also plans to "bring representatives from the Government, gangmasters, farmers, councillors, community leaders and migrant workers together to explore the perceptions of the impact of migration in Boston." It all sounds very fine, but have we missed something important here? Where are the community tensions and incidents that need such sledgehammer tactics? The biggest impact from immigration seems to be in our courts, where so often new arrivals seem unaware or the rules on drinking and driving. It scarcely makes us another Belfast, does it?
Avoid this championship ... One minute we're talking about easing community tensions, whilst the next we are considering ways to increase them. An entry on the Bostoninnies' blog poses the question "Do you want to be a litter champion?" Apparently, the idea is that people sign up as permanent litter collectors for their area. "As a 'Litter Champion' you might also be suggesting where to put both litter penalty and other persuasive signs. You will also be in a good position to be reporting fly tipping, needles and the like," twitters the blog (or blogs the twit.) Yes, and you might also run the risk of getting beaten up by disgruntled litterers in the process. Whilst we have nothing by praise for the teams of volunteers who took part in the Big Boston Clean Up, we fear that encouraging possibly over-zealous individuals to get involved could be putting them in harm's way. And we would also dispute the claim that "Usually once an area is litter free there is less chance of more being dropped." Perhaps someone would remind us how often Daisy Dale has been cleared of rubbish only for the inhabitants to see it as an opportunity to start dumping all over again. Aside from that, the evidence of our own eyes tells us that Boston was only litter free for a day before the mess started to accumulated once again.
Scared ...us ...? Barely had we posed the question than the BBI explained why it would not be fielding a candidate a next week's general election. "Partly this is because the BBI is a broad church, as is befitting a group of independents, and there are those within it who feel that we have no more right to interfere in Westminster than the national political elite has to interfere in West Street," explained the party blog. "A General Election is a matter for the nation and Boston, as part of that nation, has a right and a duty to add its council (sic) to the great and weighty deliberation of our country. Many of our supporters feel that the issues currently at stake are of so grave a nature as that it is necessary to put the issue of Parliamentary reform to one side until such a time as the nation has leisure to re-examine it. As such BBI supporters with probably be found in all camps during the electoral contest in Boston." Oh, right. It's not that you were scared of losing, then?
BBC stands for B****y Bad Coverage ... Not for the first time, Boston United takes its supporters to a nail biting final which will determine whether they win promotion from the Unibond League. We hope that if BBC Radio Lincolnshire is planning coverage once again that it does its best to get it right this time. Coverage of the previous two games has been on the medium wave, which many fans complain can't be picked up on their radio sets. This is because the signal is so weak that it is almost impossible to receive in Boston - yet instead of switching frequencies and broadcasting Boston games on FM, which covers the county, the station continues to lick the Imps' muddy boots by giving them the quality coverage regardless. Moving Boston on to FM for the few special occasions that warrant it would provide a service to the town that would earn Radio Lincoln a lot of listeners, but they prefer to show the town the red card. Not only that, but their internet commentary has also been prone to breaking down at critical times during the past two crucial matches. Is it unreasonable to expect the BBC to do things professionally? Apparently so. We recommend that fans follow Craig Singleton's excellent written live coverage and treat the BBC with the contempt that it deserves.
Take the day off .. There will be no blog on Monday because of the Bank Holiday, and we are sure that you all have far better things to do than read Boston Eye. We'll be back on Tuesday, when County and Borough Councillor Michael Brookes explains his decision to cease to be an Independent councillor and switch to the Tory group on both authorities, and BNP borough councillor David Owens says why he's made an alliance with the Independents on the council. Meanwhile, ignore the childish "three in a bed" nonsense on the Bostoninnies' blog.  Boston Eye will help explain all.  Have a good long weekend.

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

Always look on the dark side of life ...

It's not that long ago that we went to the exhibition staged by the Environment Agency to view the plans for the proposed Boston Barrier aimed at protecting the borough from flooding. According to reports, the barrier could be in place as early as 2014, and the good news for the 900 businesses and 10,000 homes at risk was that the EA told us on the day that flood insurance cover would once again be available to those Bostonians presently denied it, and also at a price which those who are currently lucky enough to find it can afford. We were also assured that once the barrier was in place and working, the Environment Agency would redraw its flood maps and that Boston would have its "high risk" status removed.

Yet in the same way that Boston always seems to be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, we read on the borough's website about a new study of how possible future coastal flooding could limit where new homes can be built.

A report says that whilst the coast is well protected the risk of tidal flooding remains - although the proposed Boston Barrier and associated Haven works will give the town one of the best standards of protection against tidal flooding in the country.

So far, so good.

But the study has produced an alarming "hazard map" on the consequences of coastal flooding - not the risk or probability of flooding.

It conjures up a "worst scenario" based on the assumption that in a 1 in 200-year storm/flood/surge event from the North Sea, the defences on the coast and in the town have not merely overtopped but breached.

Not bad enough yet? Well, then, let's assume that the breaches won't be closed for 72 hours, and for good measure add the assumption that defences on the inland Haven have a lesser breach than those on the coast.

Whilst it would be foolish to minimise the risk of flooding, we think that disaster movie style speculation is just as unhelpful.

Surprisingly for an area which is so well defended against the waves, Environment Agency maps calculate areas at risk as if there were no defences at all, which seems daft, to say the least.

And it's also worth noting that despite major flooding occurring in other parts of the country and county in recent years Boston, because of its flood defences and location inland from the coast, has not suffered any major flooding for 200 years.

All that assumptions like this do is give insurance companies the chance they need to refuse insurance cover or effectively to make it unaffordable for the majority of  residents and businesses in Boston.

The last thing we need in these difficult times is for Boston to get a reputation as a disaster prone zone, when it is simply not true.

Be cautious by all means, but don't scaremonger.

Having said that, what if a volcano were suddenly to erupt in the Market Place, flooding the town with molten lava, and raining down volcanic ash and turning us into another Pompeii or Herculaneum? We ought to plan for it. It might just happen in a few millennia. Better rush out a report.

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

Petty planning rules stifle new business

Planning matters are seldom made of the stuff that sets the pulses racing, but we have to say that we were moved by the case reported in last week's local papers.
It concerns an enterprising young businessman who converted a former hairdresser's shop in Dolphin Lane into a smoothie bar some nine months ago, and who, since then has been doing rather well, with 8,000 customers coming through the door, and no apparent complaints of problems with the neighbours.
Perhaps naively, he imagined that as the building had formerly been a shop, that using it as a milk bar would be ... well ... continuing to use it as a shop, and so failed to apply for planning permission for change of use - solely, he says, due to inexperience as a first time business owner.
But he bargained without Boston Borough Council's planners and and the awesome policies G1 and RTC7 of the Boston Borough Local Plan and G1 and RTC5 of the Boston Borough Interim Plan (Non-statutory Development Control Policy (February 2006).
Now, having complied with the rules and applied for retrospective permission, he has - as you might somehow have expected - been turned down, and unless an appeal against the decision succeeds, his shop will close and his small staff will find themselves out of work.
The only thing that makes us laugh in all of this is the ruling by the planners, which says: "The change of use from a class A1 to a class A3 use further reduces the already depleted retail character of one of the town centre's 'other prime shopping frontages,' as identified in the Adopted Local Plan and 'other main shopping frontages' as identified in the Interim Plan. The development is detrimental to the viability and vitality of the town centre and is contrary to policies G1 and RTC7 of the Boston Borough Local Plan and G1 and RTC5 of the Boston Borough Interim Plan (Non-statutory Development Control Policy (February 2006.)"
We struggle to imagine in what way the retail "character" of Dolphin Lane might be further depleted by the arrival of a milk bar.
Depletion is in the eye of the beholder, and in recent times Boston's planners have allowed a slew of shops offering services connected with improving our looks to the extent that if you include the barber's shop and the scent shop, there are no fewer than six such outlets in the lane.
Granted, there are already two cafe-style outlets, but one of those is recent, and apparently caused planners no angst.
What does that leave, a pet shop, an estate agent, a side window of an outdoor goods store and the side wall of a less than salubrious pub.
Not much to merit the grand title of " prime shopping frontages" is it?
Not long ago, Boston Borough Council was trumpeting its big plans for helping improve the town centre.
Unfortunately, they turned out to be nothing more than throwing £30,000 of a £53,000 government grant at creating yet another charity shop, and blowing £12,000 on window stickers to blot out the unsightly interiors of the depressing number of empty shops.
Now the borough plans to create one more empty shop and to add a few more names to the roll of the town's unemployed over what is nothing more than a petty technicality.
If the quality of Dolphin Lane's shops is "depleted," it is entirely because of planning permissions previously granted by a department that probably now - for reasons most likely of pique - is seeking to crush a burgeoning business. And to suggest that a service attracting thousands of customers is "detrimental to the viability and vitality of the town centre" is nothing more than rubbish and a complete reversal of the truth.
Doubtless in their mind's eye, the planners think of Dolphin Lane as a rival to The Shambles in York.
Well, it is a shambles, that's for sure, and it's their fault to boot.
We need to be smoothing the path for people who want to bring new business ideas to the town ... not stifling them.

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

More questions on that mystery million

Our piece last week on the mysterious million pound loan has prompted this contribution from a reader who wishes to remain anonymous.

Four and a half administrations.
The half is not just a time thing, in terms of the BBI - it is also descriptive of the quality of their administration. Even that may be flattering, only reaching such heights when measured against their forerunners.
In defence of the explanations of the Chief Executive Richard Harbord, and given your exoneration afforded to the BBI, it is true that this vast and increasing sum is thankfully for once, not the fault of the current council.
But it is still hard to believe that we mushrooms, for so long have been deafened by silence, and oblivious to the existence and reasons for a loan of this size. To say nothing of the magnitude of such a crippling interest rate.
Your point is well made about the identification of past financial advisers employed by Boston Council, who one would hope may still be treading the planet.
If they are, it must surely, in this global village age, be possible and expected that someone is charged to seek him/her/them out and simply ask the question.
But why do such actions need to be taken, why is there so much mystery surrounding the source and reason for this borrowing?
Clearly it seems to me that no one knows very much about the 'councils' need for the sum of money.
One assumes that even in 1991 records of meetings would have been necessary, ledgers of expenditure and income listed and configured.
It beggars belief that, over 19 years, no one has questioned the 'massive interest payments' that were being paid out monthly.
If they didn`t, how were 19 annual budgets set and agreed upon without question?
My comments are not going to help us escape the repayment, nor should it: a deal is a deal. I do however worry that having entrusted these public servants with our taxes, paid employees and elected members casually threw this hard earned cash into some unidentified abyss without record, explanation or accountability.
So what would the effect have been on the fabric of Boston had such a loan not been taken?
The finance officer of the time must have been some kind of numbskull to have accepted such a rigid, extended, inflexible and expensive deal?
What was it that we so badly needed at that time, that convinced the councillors of the day to approve such a loan and terms without question?
For £1m it must have been quite a project in 1991.
Here are a final few simple lines of enquiry that should be followed,
Who was the Chief Executive at the time?
Is it not normal practice for applicants to declare the purpose for which any such finance is required, and wouldn't it be indicated on the application form?
Surely we have a copy of the loan agreement, haven't we?
If not, why not, and can we get one?
If the council's loan agreement is a public document within the Freedom of Information Act, then surely the council is duty bound to have the documentary facility to provide all information surrounding this?
Nineteen years and no questions asked or noted or documents or admissions or knowledge. You couldn't make it up.

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

Editor's note: Although these are very broad brush figures, Boston Eye has been taking a stab at how much a million pounds would have represented as a slice of Boston's budget around the time this loan was taken out. When council tax was introduced in 1993, the average county charge was around £550 for a band D property. Today, Lincolnshire's total band D charge is £1,400 - broadly two and a half times as much. Boston's share today with grants added generates £10 million, so dividing that by 2.5 suggests a budget in the early 90's of around £4 million. So what on earth did the borough need to borrow an extra quarter of its annual budget for - two months before the end of its financial year?

Council meeting tonight highlights wrongs of cabinet rule

Some wise words about local government are in the air these days following the Audit Commission report into the running of Doncaster Council.
Although the report discusses different issues, a number of our readers have written to suggest that it also highlights similarities with Boston Borough Council under the iron fist in the iron glove known as the Boston Bypass Independent party.
We're not going to get into that, but one quote from the Commission's report did stand out when we read the document.
"Good governance is about running things properly. It is the means by which a public authority shows it is taking decisions for the good of the people of the area, in a fair, equitable, and open way. It also requires standards of behaviour that support good decision making – collective and individual integrity, openness and honesty.
It is the foundation for the delivery of good quality services that meet all local people's needs. It is fundamental to showing public money is well spent. Without good governance councils will struggle to improve services when they perform poorly."
The keyword here is openness.
We have mentioned more times than we care to count the lack of openness in the proceedings of Boston Borough Council - and a good example of this will happen tonight at the full meeting of the council.
Where, a few years ago, the agenda would be brimming with items, there are just two matters up for discussion. The first is engine room stuff - to review the current arrangements to ensure that both the Joint Consultative Committee and Chief Officer Employment Panel arrangements are fit for purpose in the future, and the second is to agree the way forward regarding how economic development and physical regeneration will be delivered in the Borough, post the winding up of the Boston Area Regeneration Committee - something which has already been stitched up by the cabinet.
Once again, we have to say that the previous administration and not the BBI was responsible for using the cabinet structure to smother transparency in the council, but the BBI has since taken that particular ball and run with it.
Which brings us to some more wise words. This time they come from James Morrison, a senior lecturer in journalism at Kingston University, writing in the journalists' bible UK Press Gazette.
He reminds us that: "Not so long ago, the most humdrum council sub-committees could generate notepads full of potential stories for canny cub reporters. While town hall debates were rarely dynamite, there was a sense that, if it could be staffed, no local authority meeting should be missed – from the monthly musings of a sleepy parish council to full gatherings of major unitary authorities."
Now, he says: "In ten short years, most town-halls have been downgraded from arenas of rigorous (if occasionally turgid) argument to supine talking-shops in which all but the most tenacious overview and scrutiny committee kowtows to the diktats of a Westminster-style cabinet."
The result, he continues, is "a localised version of cabinet government and a new form of elective dictatorship gave the biggest parties disproportionate sway over their own 'backbench' councillors, opposition groupings, and, more importantly, the voting public.
"Of greatest concern to journalists has not been the increased concentration of power but the means the Local Government Act 2000 gave cabinets to formulate - and largely determine - policy in secret."
Morrison says his research research confirms, widespread frustration about the culture of cabinet decision-making.
"When asked about its impact on their work, editor after editor criticised their local councils as secretive, with several commenting that, despite nominally meeting in public, cabinets appeared to routinely take decisions privately beforehand. Hardly surprising that, as a Press Association survey found last year, two-thirds of local newspapers are devoting fewer staff and less time to chasing council stories than in 1999.
"Even in an age when burgeoning web operations mean there’s more space than ever to be 'filled,' the prospect of returning empty-handed from a meeting means it’s simply not worth staffing it."
He concludes:" Today most items are steamrollered through full council meetings (House of Commons-style) after largely being sewn up beforehand."
Only last week, we reported on the launch of the new Boston Bulletin, an online newsletter which Interim Chief Executive Richard Harbord said he hoped would help the workings of the council become "ever more transparent and open."
Transparency and openness are movable feasts.
If, as is the case in Boston, the ruling administration keeps as much of its operation as it can a secret, then to dole out a few crumbs of information scarcely counts as transparency.
It more closely resembles contempt, and that is something that voters have become well familiar with during these past three years.

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

Sheep who hide their heads in the sand

Comment by Councillor Brian Rush of the Better Boston Group

I read just recently about the high regard in which you guys were held by the Mouth of the Haven, Councillor Newell post Election '07, as he loudly welcomed the hope and praise shown by the Boston Eye toward this group of new politicians.
His respect for your position was of course born out of your exhaustion and disappointment with the former administration; his thoughts were mirrored exactly.
Your expectations of great things to come were not just complimentary, but clear recognition by the Eye of the great talents and intelligentsia that would now be available to Boston from himself and the Bypass Group.
S`funny but when you began reapplying the same performance measurements to them, you became completely wrong...unreliable, prejudiced. Hmmmm.
Right from very beginning the whole thing was a charade; Richard Austin stole the clothes of the Bypass Pressure Group, and sought and gained election to County (only to lose his home seat at his first attempt to be re-elected.)
Immediately he dispensed his Independence, and aligned himself with the ambitious Councillor Marianne Overton, who had gathered about her a group of insecure individuals that would become 'Lincolnshire First.' Just as he abandoned the Boston Pressure Group, he did so again with thoughts of BYPASS issues.
Despite blatant denials, it is accepted by even the most trusting, that the now infamous attempt by the doubtful leadership duo, did in fact offer to sacrifice aspirations of Bypass candidates as County representatives.
The increase in 'Pink' secret discussions documents which exclude the public, the constant refusal to suspend standing orders, thereby curtailing questions on controversial items at Full Council, the cow-towing and continuance of finance to the inept board of Boston Sports Initiative, displays a total disregard of community opinion, proves the depth of fear they have for inspection, openness and transparency.
Sheep burying their heads in the sand is at least novel!
The roll over on road widening, the Geoff Moulder Liesure pool debacle The glowing recommendations of the former Deputy Leader who offered to go to bed with the now defunct West Street Project organisation, shows a serious lack of qualification on due diligence practices, followed by overdue reticence to disband the dysfunctional BARC quango.
There are many more unaddressed and several other incidences that have become part of the hallmark of this ruling group.
What other council would refuse to recognise such abject failure, who declare and re-brand block voting and gagging as democratic, who cowardly ignore and allow bullying tactics to occur in order to sterilise challenge.
The following must strike a chord with the members who have loyally supported this failing regime.
Right from the very beginning, the lie began, with the mission to oppose all 32 seats in May 07.
As the desire to find quality candidates became increasingly difficult, Richard Austin took the suggestion of one Chris Brewis, County Councillor, that paper candidates be sought to fill any vacancies. To those that value honest politics, this is a despicable practice.
I will respect and refrain from naming those willing souls, satisfied that they themselves know this to be true, and on this basis they themselves must realise that for him to have enacted such a disgraceful tactic on the people of Boston, is symbolic of the level of trustworthiness, of him and of those around him.

Councillor Brian Rush


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

Week ending 23rd April

Our Friday miscellany of the week's news and events ...
No way forward ... a reader sensed a certain degree of irony in the following communication and decided to share it with us: "TO MEMBERS OF THE WAY FORWARD GROUP AND OTHER MEMBERS FOR INFORMATION. Dear Councillor, With the permission of the Chairman, Councillor Blaylock, the next meeting of the Way Forward Group scheduled for 27th April has been cancelled due to lack of business. Regards ..."
Countdown to what ...? Less than a fortnight to the general election and Boston is still scarcely ablaze with excitement. But one or two quirky sidebars to the campaign have caught our attention, as you might expect.
Vote for who ...? A dilemma for Boston Borough Council Leader Richard Austin if he stands by his words on the Lincolnshire Independents' website. Back in the days when he was still a member of their county council branch he said: "There is deep disillusionment with the old politics - Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat. People just do not trust them - they do not answer to local people and they have failed to deliver practical policies that help people. Lincolnshire deserves better!" Who gets your 'X' then Councillor?
Not his lot ... With nominations now closed, there are six candidates for the Boston and Skegness constituency. They are: Paul Kenny, Labour; David Owens, British National Party; Christopher Pain, United Kingdom Independence Party; Mark Simmonds, Conservative; Philip Smith, Liberal Democrat; and Peter Wilson, Independent. No sign of the world's greatest political party, that invincible band of heroes known as the Boston Bypass Independents, then? Of course not. The result would be so predictably disastrous that we knew they wouldn't dare to test their "popularity." No, they'll just carry on smarming around the Tories.

Price of fame ... After a long delay, the BNP's David Owens has at last persuaded the BBC to acknowledge his candidacy on their website. A reader who took the omission up with the BBC a couple of weeks ago received the frosty reply: "We're currently putting in candidate data, some of which was provided to us only very recently by party leaders and some of which is coming in from the candidates themselves and the public, all of which is subject to accuracy checks. I'm sure you can appreciate there is a fair amount of data to format and publish. This can take time but we are trying our very best to update our pages with accurate and up-to-date information as quickly as possible, normally within 36 hours." We wonder why the list of candidates posed no such similar problem for Sky News, who had a complete list of candidates available online the day the election was called. Now all Mr Owens has to do is to overcome local incompetence, such as that demonstrated by the Boston Standard, who crushed his campaign advertisement to make him look like the Teflon scientist in the old adverts.

Silly Tweet ... Meanwhile, Labour's Paul Kenny continues to entertain with his pithy, petty Tweets. One of the most recent made us smile. ""Tories avoid tough issues, duck key issues and can't meet Labour commitments on front-line services of schools, hospitals and policing." We wondered whether the "duck key issues" to which he referred concerned getting access for Donald and his chums to the nice houses bought for them on expenses by Tory MPs?

Faceless ... We note the arrival of Boston Borough Council on Facebook - although we're not quite sure why. The message on the main page says "Boston Borough Council has no recent posts" and a further look around shows that there haven't apparently been any prior to that either. What's even sadder is that more than 20 people have signed up as "friends" of the borough - including a number of staff. We guess it's one way to try to keep your job safe.

Leave us alone ... We mentioned the other day about the absence of a phone number on Lincolnshire Police handouts affecting Boston. The other day a reader who wanted to contact the nick had no end of a problem finding a number. An obvious starting point for such information was the internet, where the following page was found. Once again, no number. Meanwhile a news release from the police on thefts from 12 cars were in Boston within a few days, tells us that the inspector concerned "is happy to give interviews and/or a further comment on these thefts but is not available until Monday 26 April."  Not that concerned, then?
Dizzy idiots ... Having said that, we feel some sympathy for the local bobbies when their efforts to warn of the dangers of climbing rooftops are countered by some local halfwit who claims to be "Urbexing" - exploring areas which are normally out of bounds to the public to photograph them. Call it what you like, but you end up just as dead if you fall from the roof.

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

Join us tomorrow for a Saturday extra blog from Councillor Brian Rush of the Better Boston Group

Rival bloggers have it all wrong

We don't usually waste time trading words with critics of our blog, but we feel that there's a growing misconception over the aims and objectives of Boston Eye.
We say this after a couple of ill informed comments on a couple of other blog sites which we visit regularly to see what they have to say.
The first came on the Bostonninnes blog - the site run by the Boston Bypass Independents to promulgate their views to anyone who will listen, and to say great things about themselves because no-one else will.
Although the site managers censor comments, they did permit one anonymous contributor (no, not us) who wrote "If you want the truth, don't waste time here; go to Boston Eye site."
The BBI response to this flattering suggestion was to say: "We encourage readers of this blog to take an interest in all opinions on matters relating to Boston. We are confident in the ability of the people of Boston to differentiate between people who are passionate about the future of this excellent town and are determined to serve it to be the best of their ability and those whose main concern is to stamp out the Great Boston Rebellion, lest other communities take note.
"This is the fundamental difference between the BBI and the Old Guard. We believe in their good judgment of the people, we believe that they have the capacity to make reasoned decisions, we want them to take part in the political life of our town. They want the people to behave like good sheep or serfs and elect the representatives selected by the national elite’s political parties and then shut up for four years, and they think they can make the people do this with minimal effort and crude misrepresentations such is their estimation of Bostonians.
"Plus our blog is manifestly better in all respects than the reactionary monotone monochrome drone of our 'competitors' and thus we fear them not at all."
Elsewhere, the blog refers to Boston as a "rotten borough" in 2007, run by a coalition of the main national political parties. "Over one third (eleven) of those returned as
Boston councillors in 2003 received not a single vote from their electorate."
So what does this mean? It means that in common with most of the rest of the country, political apathy at a local level was such that in many seats only one candidate bothered to stand, and was therefore elected by default.
There was no conspiracy to yoke voters to the old party system - they did it voluntarily through indifference, and to proclaim otherwise reeks of paranoia.
Presumably, "the great Boston rebellion" refers to a small bunch of chancers who saw a window of opportunity to gain power by making promises they knew they couldn't keep concerning the provision of a by-pass. To make matters worse they duped a bloc of sympathisers into believing this was possible - enough to take control of the council, then systematically run it down.
In their view, this apparently qualifies them as folk heroes in the style of Robin Hood, with blogs like ours cast in the role of the Sheriff of Nottingham. We see it in a similar light, except that the BBI is robbing the poor to give to the rich (see yesterday's blog on the PRSA.)
Another blogsite - well more a rant than a blog, really - brands Boston Eye as "vindictive" as well as "bitter" and "right wing" and calls us "the sort who rubs shoulders with the creme-de-la-creme of our local Conservative learned and enlightened politicians."
Both blogs are wrong in all respects.
The history of Boston Eye goes back well before the election of May 2007.
It was actually started because we had become disenchanted with the leadership of the then borough council, of which we were highly critical.
When the Boston Bypass Independents were elected we welcomed them with open arms.
It was only as they demonstrated that they lacked the skills and abilities to run the council efficiently that our position changed and hardened over time to become increasingly critical.
To brand us bitter and vindictive and right wing is plainly daft, as we are completely apolitical.
We stand for better government for Boston; an end to secrecy and contempt for the electorate, and openness instead of fudge and propaganda.
In the unlikely event that the BBI does something worth praising we will be at the front of the queue waving our flags.
Until then we are flying them at half mast.

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

More millions down the drain

Boston Borough Council's Cabinet is really blitzing through the money this week.
As well as all but forgetting the million pound loan that is costing taxpayers more than £100,000 a year in interest due to what has laughingly been dismissed as "a very major case of very poor judgement," our rulers in the Bostonninnies have carried on by chucking another £8 million down the drain.
This time it's a series of write-offs for the town's great white elephant, the Princess Royal Sports Arena.
A report to tonight's meeting has been produced to provide a review of key items which have cropped up as part of the leisure services contract award to a company called Leisure Connections - under which the council hands over the PRSA and the Geoff Moulder Leisure Centre, whilst still retaining responsibility for maintenance of the PRSA, and after refurbishing the Geoff Moulder at a cost of £2 milliion.
Although serious concerns have been voiced about the suitability of Leisure Connections as the preferred operator of the two Boston centres, these seem to have been brushed aside (where have we seen that before?) and we have a nasty feeling that in a few years, when the BBI's reign is nothing more than a sour memory, the turkeys will come home to roost.
The PRSA was conceived in 1997 through the Boston Sports Forum - formed to promote sport in the Borough - and the council, which was a member, originally agreed to contribute £3 million to its construction.
But rising costs, lower than expected contributions from others and an operating deficit each year left the council digging into the taxpayers' pockets to provide more and more money for the Boston Sports Initiative which runs the arena.
In June 2003 as a result of the projected shortfall, the council chipped in a loan of £1.9 million and guaranteed two further loans totalling £1.4 million so construction could continue and also agreed to support "operating" deficits (which excluded interest charges) of the arena over the five years of operation, which was extended in December 2008.
At the end of the day the grand total to emerge is a staggering £8,275,298.
The cabinet is now being asked to recommend to the council the write off of the outstanding long term loan of £1.9 million, and the write off to the general fund balance, of any outstanding current liabilities held by Boston Sports Initiative with the council, conditional on the surrender of the lease.
The council also had to advance cash to the charity during 2008/09, which exceeded their in year operating deficit, for the repayment of the Lloyds TSB overdraft facility, and it is likely that this amount will not be fully recovered. This means the council must charge its general fund balance for writing off this advance- and impact of between £100,000 and £200,000, and a formal write off conditional upon the surrender of the asset is recommended to the council.
Students of irony might recall that Boston's chief executive at the inception of the PRSA was Mark James, who is quoted as saying that it "wouldn’t cost the taxpayer a penny."
Mr James left the borough in February 2002- six months before building work began, to become chief executive of Carmarthenshire County Council in Wales. There, his most high-profile project has been ... the construction of a multi-million pound rugby and athletics arena. Mr James's council is a 'joint partner' alongside Llanelli Scarlets rugby team and pledged £15 million towards its construction. The anticipated £1m profit in 2009 at the new Parc Y Scarlets stadium has been reported as a £3.3m loss. For more on this, see Boston Borough Councillor Raymond Singleton-McGuire's blog at http://www.smgblog.co.uk/?p=1873
Echoes of the past.


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

Another day older and deeper in debt ...*

The extraordinary case of the million pound loan that is beggaring Boston's council taxpayers is something that for once cannot be laid at the door of the Boston Bypass Independents - even though it combines all the elements of farce that we normally associate with the party.
The details appear in a report to Wednesday's meeting of the cabinet.
The £1 million was borrowed in January 1991 to finance the council's capital programme.
Then as now, the normal route for cash strapped councils was to borrow from the Public Works Loan Board - a department of the UK Debt Management Office, which lends to local authorities and collects the repayments.
In 1991, the Bank Rate, as it was then known, was 14%.  The report by the Acting Chief Executive Richard Harbord says that whilst he cannot find the PWLD rate for 60 year loans at the time, the 60 year gilt yield - the income from government bonds was 4.25%. That rate was lower than it is today and broadly comparable with rates charged by the PWLB.
Initially the loan was from Scottish Provident, but they assigned the benefit to a company called State Street Nominees at the end of 1993.
All those years ago local authority treasury matters were delegated to the Section 151 Officer, who is usually the council's treasurer and must be a qualified accountant - ie someone who apparently knows whereof he speaks.
Whilst you might think that taking out a loan as huge as £1 million would involve a long and detailed discussion and decision process, in 1991 most authorities would have reported loans in retrospect to a Committee to note by which time the deal would have been done.
Mr Harbord reports that in July last year legal opinion was sought on the loan.
Tantalisingly, he mentions that the loan receipt is shown in the report and that the counsel's opinion is attached.
But sadly, that information is not to be shared with us, the riff-raff. Nor is the information as to what the loan was for - although it is apparently specified in the receipt.
But then, we're only the ones paying for this mega cock-up.
The legal opinion says "the terms of the loan agreement are harsh, " which whilst true is simply the council's bad luck, as it was accepted. And whilst State Street have no problems meeting the council they believe that the loan is legal and can be defended in court.
Mr Harbord's contacts in the world of public finance reckon the loan could be paid off if £2.23m was offered, which would fully compensate State Street for the remaining 40 years. But Mr Harbord adds: "My contacts who operate at the highest level with Banks tell me an offer of £1.75m may be negotiable, although that could not be guaranteed."
The current 50 year rate at the PWLB is 4.73% and borrowing £2.23m now to clear the debt would cost £195,490 a year, compared with the cost of the current loan costs of £111,250.
But, says the report, it is not even that simple. "The premium over the £1m represents the net present value of interest due over the next 40 years and is a revenue charge. Thus we would need to find between £0.75m and £1.23m from our revenue budget to pay off the loan.
"I have made enquiries to see if Central Government would allow us exceptionally to capitalise this premium and they firmly say they cannot do so. This is as I would expect.
"Based on these figures it is extremely unlikely that the Authority will ever be able to repay the loan, although the cost of doing so will reduce over time and so the loan will need reviewing every 5 years or so. Repayment would bring an immediate revenue saving of £111,125 per annum."
Mr Harbord poses a number of questions - most of which have already occurred to us.
· Given that at the time borrowing seems to have been from the PWLB, why did Boston go for this commercial lender?
· Why did they borrow for 60 years when interest rates were so high?
· Was there no alternative of borrowing short term and seeing what happened to interest rates?
· Why was the rate so high when long term gilt rates were so relatively low?
Mr Harbord recommends that the loan is kept under review in case market conditions become favourable or revenue monies become available.
And in a piece of classic understatement,  he concludes: "I can only surmise that there was some crisis which required immediate borrowing but on the face of it perhaps unfairly with the benefit of hindsight it does look like a very major case of very poor judgement. The residents of Boston will have paid over £6m in interest by the time this loan is repaid."
Boston Eye says: We think that calling this a case of poor judgement is putting it too mildly.
And we have some questions of our own that we think need answering as well.
Are there no records or minutes relating to this loan? We understand that a receipt was apparently all that was needed, but there must have been further information published at the time.
Who was the Section 151 officer at the time? It must be possible to find out. Then perhaps it might be possible to discover why these decisions were taken.
Those are just starters for ten. To accept the recommendation of an on-going review merely sweeps the issue under the carpet.
And if you think a million pounds plus five in interest sounds big time ... read tomorrow's blog, when another eight million goes down the drain.
* From the song "Sixteen Tons."
You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Friday was a big day for us, a day spent eagerly awaiting the delivery to our e-mail inbox of the first issue of the Boston Bulletin.
As a publication, it superficially resembles the lamentably bad "Boston Matters," which used to arrive on an ad hoc basis through every letter box in the borough before making the rapid transition from doormat to blue bin.
But having said that, the new electronic bulletin has a nicer look to it and is much better written than its predecessor.
The content is, as you might expect, a compilation of good news stories about Boston Borough Council - with a tasty carrot on the first page in the form of a competition with £800 in prizes for the people judged to have the best kept front gardens.
There's also an upbeat assessment of Boston's future from Interim Chief Executive Richard Harbord, who expresses the hope that the new bulletin will help the workings of the council become "ever more transparent and open."
As the man tasked with slapping the useless ruling BBI group into some sort of shape, we wish him luck - but are sure that he'll meet resistance right down the line.
Much of the remainder of the bulletin is a rehash of council press releases, but all in all it's a considerable improvement on previous offerings.
It's also cost neutral, and available only to those people who ask to receive it ... unlike the inflicted "Boston Matters" which threw several thousand pounds of taxpayers' money into the wheelie bin with every issue.
But one thing that raised our Boston Eyebrow was the discovery that the bulletin exists in two different forms, each numbered consecutively.
The one that we received ran to ten pages, but another copy, sent to us by a well-wisher, was two pages longer.
The additional material appears beneath the banner "Council Noticeboard," and is presumably intended for the eyes of the staff rather than the riff-raff who pay their wages.
Interestingly, under the heading "Value for money must be our watchwords" we get to meet for the first time the borough's new Director of Resources.
Boston Eye readers will recall that this post was advertised at the end of last year at the eye-watering salary of £87,500 a year - although we were told that the subsequent salary on appointment was substantially less.
In a spectacular piece of non-transparency the announcement that the appointment had been filled was made at a full council meeting under a cloak of secrecy - and details were even withheld from non BBI councillors who were asked to approve it.
And as far as we are aware there has still been no public announcement of this appointment, which suggests that Chief Executive Harbord has some way to go in his desire to make the council "ever more transparent" - although by definition" transparent" is a superlative and cannot be made clearer than it is.
Forgive the pun, but we think there is a clear absence of transparency when a publication promoted as being for general consumption appears in two forms - one of which is clearly intended to conceal information rather than reveal it.
Surely Boston Borough Council has better ways to keep its staff up to date than resorting to subterfuge - or perhaps it has by now become second nature to the Boston Bypass Independents to use a corkscrew when a ruler is required.
Ironically, another item in the redacted pages is a staff forum question about the council's policy on "awaydays."
Hands up those of you who remember the infamous awayday two years ago, when Cabinet members and some senior officers decided that only the George Hotel at Stamford - one of Lincolnshire's priciest hotels - would do for a meeting ... at a rumoured cost of £680.
And so you don't feel left out, you can read the missing Boston Bulletin pages below... click on the picture for an enlargement.

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

Week ending 16th April

Our Friday miscellany of the week's news and events
Flying the flag ... The decision to fly the EU flag at half mast over Boston's Assembly Rooms as an act of condolence following the death of the Polish President Lech Kaczynski in an air crash was a touching gesture, but one that should have been given a little more thought. We are told that as many as 64 foreign languages are spoken in Boston - which in turn tells us how many nationalities are represented in the town. Earlier this week there was a major earthquake in China, and before that others in Haiti and Mexico, as well as flooding in Bangladesh, Tajikstan and Brazil. If Boston's powers that be fly a national flag every time there is a disaster of some kind in the world, we may never again see the Union Jack flying at full mast over the town.
Chinese whispers ... after Wednesday's blog about press releases from Boston Police, even we were surprised at the naivete of our local papers in their treatment of these "stories." The Boston Standard took a routine summer warning about the dangers of climbing and turned it into a "Rooftop Rampage." The dictionary defines the word rampage as "a course of violent, frenzied behaviour or action," which we scarcely feel is not really le mot juste in this case. Not to be outdone, the Boston Target takes a prosaic handout about the issue of yet another free car to local bobbies, and turns it into: "A new weapon in the fight against nuisance behaviour was unleashed on the streets of Boston on Monday." The italics are ours.  For pity's sake, it's a Skoda Roomster, not the Batmobile! In the old days hacks could claim "journalistic licence" when they produced such written excesses. We think it's high time some penalty points were handed out to a few local reporters. If the the police follow their usual schedule, their next summer handout will be about the dangers of young people playing in our rivers and drains. What will the papers turn that into we wonder?
Poet Scorner - 2  ... Our piece this time last week has brought out the poet in at least one reader. If you recall, we were challenged to come up with a modern take on the 17th century rhyme (sung to the tune Lillibullero) about English rule in Ireland. The trick was to come up with something about Boston under BBI rule, and we think our poet has done rather well. Try this for size ...

"There was an old prophecy found in a rick;

'Boston will be ruled by the thick and a Dick'

Seeing our Cabinet is lead by a Dick,

So much for that prophesy found in that rick."

We're still open to contributions if you'd like to send them.

Sum hopes ... Interestingly, the writer adds "PS: Have you yet had it drawn to your attention that the BBI party's accounts reveal that the person who drew them up could not recognise the difference between Debtors and Creditors? Was it one of the thick or Dick? Writing seems to indicate/identify Dick." We're not very good with balance sheets, but we do see from the BBI's accounts for the year ending 2008, that membership has fallen to 47 from 69 in 2007. The list of councillors also spells the husband and wife team of Ramonde and Sheila Newell as "Ray Newall and Shieela Newall" with the second "e" in Shieela struck out. No wonder people are leaving!  Click on our photo  to enlarge it... 
It's my party ... The BBC has finally acknowledged that the British National Party is contesting parliamentary seats in Lincolnshire, and has also recognised a number of independent candidates. But not in Boston for some peculiar reason. When last we looked (0600 today) neither David Owens for the BNP, nor Independent candidate Peter Wilson got a mention. Ironically, the omissions come as the trade paper for hacks, UK Press Gazette reports Caroline Thomson, the chief operating officer of the BBC, expressing concern about the quality of some bloggers versus journalists who are "trained to keep within ethical guidelines." We think that omitting parties from constituency lists - whilst perhaps not unethical - is certainly not good journalism.
Back of a fag packet politics ... A flashback to the Policy and Projects last week, and the mysterious Appendix 2 (see Week Ending 9th April.) Someone who was at the meeting said members were told that Appendix 2 was merely the notes of the chairman of the working group looking into the formation of an appropriate forum to replace Boston Area Regeneration Committee, and were to be ignored. There was no satisfactory explanation as to why this document, if it was to be ignored, had been appended in the first place. However, as the possible recommendation to the committee was very much in line with apparent proposals within appendix 2, members had to remove this recommendation and substitute a further one requiring formal consultation with all groups on the council as to the make up of any such body. This was supported by all parties/groups present and voting at the meeting. A further point regarding the necessary early role of Scrutiny Committees to allow all members (as against just the cabinet) the chance to discuss possible regeneration schemes was also, after some resistance, included in revised recommendations - again with support from all groups present. Policy and Projects, as a Scrutiny committee, has only an advisory/recommending role to the Cabinet. Our fly on the wall reports: "One will have to wait and see whether the Cabinet is prepared to accept members' revised recommendations on these matters. It will be quite interesting to follow the fate of these recommendations, because present at the meeting was the Head of Lincolnshire County Council's Democratic Services, Debbie Cook - attending as an observer - with a remit to report back to the mainly externally populated Improvement Panel operating at Boston Borough Council to discover what is wrong within the present governance at West Street."

Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full, sir ... It may be our suspicious nature, but when we saw the photo  on the right on the BBI's blog, a wicked thought crossed our minds. Having seen some of the volunteer litter collectors trooping around the town, we've noted that - despite the fact that Boston is by and large a very filthy place - not one of them had anything like a full collection bag. Yet here we see Council Leader Richard Austin and BBI colleague David Lingard with three neatly tied plastic bags positively jam-packed with litter. Could it be possible - no, perish the thought - that these bags were some that someone else filled earlier? Whatever the answer, it makes a change to see Councillor Austin apparently collecting rubbish rather than spouting it.
Twit of the week award ... goes to Labour Party general election hopeful Paul Kenny. With all the issues to go at he commented the best he could come up with after Tuesday Tory manifesto launch on this Twitter site was: "Tories played Keane music at manifesto launch - pity they didn't ask the band's persmission (sic) first - just lost some more voters." We're sure he's right,  and just that bet voters are deserting the Tories in their droves because of this petty oversight.

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

Time for rethink on tourist info

We're not even going to shed crocodile tears at the news that the big glass box of art and artifacts has closed.
The Haven was a disaster from the outset, and we note that even the handful of protesters who shuffled forward when its demise was first mooted have remained silent now that the axe has fallen.
The big glass box is now neither half full nor half empty - it's now only a window of opportunity for ... a window cleaner ... that's if anyone decides to bother.
The Haven staged disappointing exhibition after disappointing exhibition, and only once in a blue moon came up with relevant topics celebrating localness and the art of the town.
Most of the time it appeared to be little more than a creche where the town's largely single mothers could dump their offspring for a cheap day of doing pointless things with paint, paper, glue and string.
The real victim of the Haven closure is yet again the hapless Tourist Information Centre which has changed location so often that the staff must feel like tourists themselves.
It is now relocated to the Guildhall, which is not a good place for it at all.
When visitors come to town they should not be made to troop to the outskirts of the centre to find out what that town has to offer.
We've come up with the obvious answer more than once before, and that answer is to locate the centre inside Boston Stump.
It's taken 700 years, but at last the Borough Council seems to be showing the sort of interest in Boston Stump that it should have done for a long time.
The council recently tried to claim that the kind heartedness and generosity of the BBI was behind a grant of £141,000 for repairs to the chancel, but that was the usual guff, as the council has a legal duty to fund these repairs.
But among the regeneration projects for the town listed recently was a new café and shop refurbishment for the church, costing around £100,000, and if this goes ahead it is a clear and obvious setting in which to house a Tourist Information centre.
St Botolph's Church is the heart of Boston, and the place that everyone who visits the town goes to see.
Where better, then, than to showcase the other attractions that the town and the area has to offer?
And any charges paid in rent would help the church budget and put to the best possible use.

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

Armchair policemen take it easy ...

Tomorrow Lincolnshire Police take on another cosy little number when when their Boston North Rural Neighbourhood Policing Team moves into Pilgrim Hospital.
There is much trumpeting of the fact that this is " the first such permanently staffed office on the NHS estate for Lincolnshire," which will benefit "patients, visitors and staff."
PC Glen Palmer said: "It's really important to us to be as close as possible to the communities we serve, and by taking up a new office in the grounds of Pilgrim hospital we will be very central. I’m looking forward to finding out more about the issues concerning people who work at the hospital, or use it. Once we find out what these are, we’ll look for ways to resolve them and help people feel safer where they live and work. I would encourage people to call in and see us even if it’s just for a chat”.

The population of the Boston North Rural area was 18,567 persons at the 2001 census with 7,577 houses in the area. It's a huge territory (see illustration right - click on it to enlarge.)    
We will guarantee that the lion's share of the police team's work will be related to the hospital - at the expense of the residents of the area the police are meant to be "covering."
The implication is already there with the announcement that the people to benefit are patients, visitors and staff - many of whom will not be from the area serviced by the team.
And inviting residents to drop drop in for a chat, means trawling the Pilgrim's ridiculous car parks for ages whilst searching for a space - then paying a minimum of £1.20 for the privilege of parking.
Next, the police will be charging admission to their office.
We know we have a reputation for cop bashing, but we only do it because we believe that Lincolnshire Police are letting the people of Boston down.
Increasingly, they take the easy option.
But rather than be accused of making things up, here are the latest three snippets about Boston Police "service" - in their own words, from the news releases on their website.
Handout Number One:
"Officers from Boston Town Neighbourhood Policing Team are urging young people in the town to think about the dangers of trespassing on to the roofs of shops and buildings. There has been an increase in reports of youths risking serious injury by climbing fire escapes and scaffolding and accessing roofs.
"PC Martyn Chambers, the Community Beat Manager for the team, said “Many roof structures are not intended to be walked upon and they pose a real danger. The town experienced a tragic death a few years ago when a young man fell through the roof of a building and we never want that to happen again.'
"Officers will be working alongside Boston Borough Council’s Community Safety partnership to tackle the problem and deal with offenders.
"PC Chambers explained 'we have procedures in place for addressing anti-social behaviour but young people should be fully aware that, in cases where criminal damage to buildings occurs, those responsible will be dealt with very robustly and may well end up with a criminal record.'"
We be sure that you, like us, will not be holding your breath for a result.
Handout Number Two:
"Officers from Boston Town’s Neighbourhood Policing Team are cracking down on behaviour around the Boston Stump that has resulted in damage to the church’s windows.
"Valuable stained glass windows have been broken by footballs hitting the building and smaller panes of glass have been deliberately damaged by stones being thrown.
"PC Martyn Chambers, Community Beat Manager for the town centre, explained 'There have been numerous incidents of damage over the past year but the inconsiderate playing of football has caused a lot of breakages in just the past few weeks. We are determined to put a stop to this and will be making use of all covert facilities available to
us as well as ensuring a highly visible presence in the area.'"
Again, we shan't hold our breath for a result.
In the case of the both items above, the releases end with the sentence "The public is asked to report such activity to Boston Police Station on ."
On what? They can't even be bothered to include the number to call. A handout written in head office by someone who leaves it to other to finish the job ... others who fail to do so.
Handout Number Three:
"A new vehicle has taken to the streets of Boston as part of a joint approach to tackle anti-social behaviour in the town. The Skoda Roomster is a new Partnership Awareness Vehicle that has been purchased with a grant from the Accelerated Neighbourhood Partnership Fund, an initiative implemented by the government.
The vehicle will be shared by Boston Borough Council ASB Caseworkers and Police Community Support Officers and it will enable them to respond to incidents, visit victims of crime and access all areas where anti-social behaviour is occurring. As well as being a vital mode of transport, the Roomster has also been supplied with magnetic signage displaying Police and Borough Council logos identifying it as a partnership vehicle. Other signs will also promote campaigns and raise awareness of the work being carried out by the partnership.
"Chief Inspector Phil Clark who is responsible for Community Safety explained 'We have an excellent relationship with Boston Borough Council's Community Safety Team and work together to tackle the issues which affect local people. This vehicle will be an extremely useful addition to that effort".'
"Pete Hunn, Community Safety Manager at the council believes the Roomster has already begun to make a difference.
"'Anti-social behaviour is not something limited to the town centre,' he said, 'The Skoda enables officers to visit people in their homes in more rural parts of the Borough, addressing those issues which affect their quality of life. It is an eye-catching vehicle that sends out the clear message that Boston Borough Council and Lincolnshire Police are committed to working together for the benefit of the whole community.'"
What a waste of money and resources. And what the hell is "the Accelerated Neighbourhood Partnership Fund?" How on earth did the police manage to travel out of town before they had their buckshee Skoda? By bicycle?

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

Boston - for sale or rent ...

Efforts to combat the blight caused by the high number of empty shops in Boston are currently underway - but are they too little, too late? The best that the BBI can come up with is to slap a load of stickers on the windows of empty shops, and create another charity shop in a town that's already overwhelmed with the things.The money is coming from the government in the shape of a £52,000 grant ... part of a £3 million kitty offered by the government's communities and local government department- "to improve the appearance and vibrancy of town centres."
The stickers will cost £12,000, the charity shop another £30,000, and the remaining £10,000 will go towards reducing start up and operating costs to attract new businesses.
Despite the fact that these are rotten ideas, they might be expected to achieve some sort of result.
But the reason we ask whether it is too little, too late comes after a worrying glimpse to the property pages in the local papers.
This week, just one local estate agency is offering no fewer than ten shops for sale or rent.
Nor are they hole and corner operations.
The former T Mobile shop in the Market Place next to Millets, the Italian take-away in Wide Bargate, the former beauty salon in Fountains Lane and the framing shop in Wide Bargate are all to let.
Still in Wide Bargate, the bakery is for sale, as is the tanning salon in Wormgate, the Polish restaurant in West Street, Beijing Buffet in the Market Place, the restaurant in South Street and another shop in the High Street.
Presumably so many premises are on the market because of the decline in the local economy.
Several of them are listed as available immediately, which means that they are either empty - or shortly to become so.
This is potentially a huge problem, and like so many things in these days of BBI rule, is going apparently unnoticed and unaddressed.
The best they can come up with is a few stickers and another charity shop.
As we said when last we wrote on this vexing subject charity shops in a town centre thrive because the town is declining, and to encourage more just makes matters worse.
Unless someone gives the future of Boston's town centre some urgent thought, it is in danger of becoming a ghost town, and all the stickers and do-gooders in the world will be unable to change it.

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

Not exactly election fever ...

It's two blogs for the price of one today, as we catch up after the Easter holidays....
We rather expected our wannabe MPs to be out in farce in Boston town centre on Saturday.
As far as we could tell, only UKIP made the effort, giving away bright yellow carriers full of bumph to anyone who asked - and quite a lot of people seemed to be showing an interest ... unless they just felt the need for a spare carrier bag or two to help with their market day shopping.
Otherwise things seem strangely quiet.
A look round the websites and blogs of candidates, shows a note from Conservative Mark Simmonds telling us: "This website was established whilst I was a Member of Parliament. As Parliament has been dissolved there are no Members of Parliament until after the election on May 6 2010. Any reference on this website to my position or work as an MP is purely historical."
His Labour opponent Paul Kenny is relying on Twitter to carry his messages - short, pithy pieces which pose rhetorical questions such as: "Environment Agency are putting out leaflets warning about flood risk in Lincs-would the new flood barrage in Boston be one of the Tory cuts?"
In fact the leaflets in question are being sent out specifically in Louth, so we wonder what the relevance of the question is. Unless it's just spin to inculcate fear into us that a vote for the Conservatives would see Boston disappear under twenty feet of flood water. Doubtless Labour will promise to turn back the tides a la Canute.
Another Tweet tells us: "Labour government give Lincs county council £2.7M to repair roads. Pity council won't say how much will go to repairing potholes - why not?"
Has he asked, we wonder?
The local Lib Dem website stays calm in a crisis with nothing to say so far, but BNP candidate Boston Councillor David Owens is back blogging after an absence of more than a month with an upbeat report on increasing support.
Interestingly, whilst all the main media outlets offer assessments of the Boston and Skegness constituency, their coverage of candidates is less than thorough.
At the time of writing, the BBC, in particular, does not list the BNP as fielding candidates anywhere in Lincolnshire - even though the party is fighting all seven seats.
The final candidate - Independent Peter Wilson - is due to publish another pitch in the local papers .... possibly this week.
Watch this space for future developments.


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

Don't miss today's other posting, which appears below ...

Sow's this for overdoing the tourist information?

We've all heard the adage about making a silk purse from a sow's ear, but seldom has it been better exemplified than by Boston Borough Council in a posting on its website called "The Boston Experience."
It begins with an entertaining piece of gibberish ... "Boston stands proud in the Lincolnshire fens, its place in history marked out for miles around by the famous world-beating 'Stump.' "
It invites us to read more about "The Boston Experience" – a guide to where to go and what to see and learn during your visit to this "attractive and unspoilt medieval market and port town."
We hate to say it, because we love Boston as much as anyone, but attractive and unspoilt it ain't, and we feel that it is unfair to lure visitors to the town on a false prospectus.
Back to the gibberish ... "If you are able to climb the 365 steps, you will be rewarded with spectacular views for 20 miles around and, on a clear day, Lincoln Cathedral can sometimes be seen!"
We don't quite understand why, on a clear day, Lincoln Cathedral can only be seen "sometimes." Perhaps the answer could be that if your spectacular viewing range is twenty miles and Lincoln Cathedral is 27.663 miles from Boston as the crow flies, there could be a little difficulty.
Moving on ...
"History shows the impact Boston has had on the world - Pilgrim Fathers sailed from the town for new lives in the New World, naming their new homes in honour of the places they had known and loved and sadly left behind."
No they didn't.
As any Boston fule kno, they were arrested in a "sting" operation in 1607, and briefly detained in the town's Guildhall, and it was not until 1620 that the historic journey to the New World began ... from Plymouth.
"The town has strong links with its daughter city, Boston, Massachusetts."
Strong?
There is an organisation called the Partnership of the Historic Bostons, which was established in 1999 which has Bostonians John and Judy Cammack among its trustees. There is a section on the Partnership's website devoted to Boston UK - but it has been "under construction" since Noah was a lad. Aside from this "strong link" we have heard of no others. In fact our information is that the typical inhabitant of Boston, Massachusetts, doesn't even know of the existence of Boston, Lincolnshire, and when told, is overwhelmed with indifference.
Back to the bumph ...
"The award-winning Boston Guildhall, one of Lincolnshire's secret medieval gems and dating back to 1390, re-opened its doors after a six-year major restoration project ... "
In fact the restoration was supposed to have lasted two years, and in our view the Guildhall has now been turned into a garish visitor attraction that has all sense of history and character erased from it.
Oddly, it is described as an "historic monument to 600 years of time" - whatever that means.
Getting up to date, we read that the town "is evolving into a modern and vibrant cosmopolitan town ...
"Boston is home to the finest live theatre, the very best of British and international films, comedy, and all kinds of music."
C'mon ... we're talking Blackfriars, the West End Cinema and a few pub entertainers.
"Modern day Boston is a busy college town."
Well, it's got a college, but Oxford or Cambridge it ain't.
We mention the the May Fair, the market - general as well as the feeble effort laughingly dubbed a "farmers'" market.
Then we move from the bluff to the bizarre.
"The borough sits in the midst of 'Waterland' – a network of rivers, drains and channels, rich in wildlife and ideal for boaters and anglers."
Waterland? Whose idea is that, and how daft does it sound?
The only Waterland we know of is the Dutch municipality of cities, towns, villages and/or districts of Broek, Ilpendam, Katwoude, Marken, Monnickendam, Overleek, Uitdam, Watergang, and Zuiderwoude, whom we feel may well resent Boston's attempt to hijack their name.
Then we move to Boston's famous sons and daughters.
John Foxe, author of the Book of Martyrs, published in 1563; Herbert Ingram, 1811–1860, founded the Illustrated London News; John Taverner, c1490 - 1545, a leading composer of church music of the Tudor era; John Cotton, the first vicar of Boston, Massachusetts; Sir Joseph Banks,1743 – 1820, naturalist, botanist and explorer, was a Recorder of Boston, and Catherine Mumford, 1829 - 1890, the co-founder of The Salvation Army and "probably the most extraordinary woman in Victorian England."
They're all interesting in various ways, but we think that the word "famous" is perhaps a little excessive.
And please don't think that we're attacking the council for trying to promote the town.
Heaven knows, we need it.
But again it is a case of over-egging the pudding, making a lot of what is in fact not very much at all.
Even the Boston Standard struggled to find content to pad the story beneath the recent headline "Boston has got plenty to offer."
What did they come up with?
Boston Stump, Fydell House, the Guildhall and a trip to Central Park with the kids.
It's not a lot to write home about, is it?
And a final note to the author of the council piece.
Boston's "Mayfair" is a fair, that is held in May. As we have said before, the correct way to designate it is Boston's May Fair.That's what it's been for centuries. It ain't broke, so it doesn't need fixing!

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

Week ending 9th April

Our Friday miscellany of the week's news and events
Democracy inaction ... After our piece earlier in the week about the borough's regeneration dreams, a reader sent the following e-mail: "Surprised you made no comment re appendix 2 on first item of business. Here we are told that recommendations from Cross Party Working Group include: The Regeneration forum to be established will consist of a politically balanced view of between 3 and 5 (presumably 4 then) members to be chosen by the chair(person). Why the CPWG wished to discard the usual council protocol whereby political and/or independent groups discuss and decide themselves who will be their representatives on various council bodies, such as this, is not made clear. Further down the same appendix, all council decision making on regeneration projects would seem to be reserved to cabinet members. Call-in of decisions would be permitted by non-cabinet members. As call-in committees have an inbuilt majority of BBI members, such a course of action, for whatever reasons, can often prove to be futile."
Side splitting ... The Boston Bypass Independents' new blog is now trying to woo us with humour, but once again has scored a spectacular own goal. In synopsis the gag tells of an MP who dies and is duped into believing that Hell is preferable to Heaven as a place to spend eternity. He's shown it as a golf club filled with all his old friends, whilst Heaven is pleasant ... but a tad insipid. Only after he opts for Hell is he shown what it is really like - a barren land covered with waste and garbage. When he protests at being duped, the Devil responds:" Yesterday we were campaigning ....... TODAY you voted." The "own goal?" Substitute "Boston" for" Hell," and the" BBI" for "the Devil" and the whole thing ceases to be funny. That BBI! They can't even tell a joke!
What a corker ... As well at their new blog, we though for a moment that the BBI had got itself a website as well. During a random search of the web we came across headlines such as: "A report on the BBI Annual Dinner 2009," "BBI visits Robert McBride at Middleton, Manchester," and "The BBI will be at the PPMA 09 Show." It was only when we looked more closely that we realised that the BBI in question was the the British Bottlers' Institute - "a forum for those concerned with the bottling, canning and packaging of beverages and other products, enabling them to pool their experience and to discuss the important issues relating to plant, equipment, containers, closures, labels and ancillary subjects affecting such products." One BBI sounds almost as fascinating as the other, even though one has found its bottle and the other has lost it.
Poet scorner ... A reader who liked our Good Friday/bad egg photo has come up with a suggestion for further piece. He writes: "During the 17th Century there was a contemporary rhyme (sung to the tune Lillibullero) about the English rule in Ireland that went (loosely) thus;

'There was an old prophesy found in a bog -

Ireland will be ruled by an ass and a dog.

Now, if ------ is the ass and ------'s the dog,

So much for that prophesy found in the bog.'

"The blanks are there because there were apparently two versions- one vilifying the Commonwealth leaders and the other castigating King James and his military leaders.
I don't know why this little ditty comes to mind when I now look at how we are 'governed' by BBI, but it just keeps popping up! I have even tried to write a contemporary version but, starting with the new first line 'There was an old prophesy found in a rick' I keep finding my self short of acceptable/printable rhyming words; however apt maybe the ones that do keep coming to mind. Perhaps you would like to throw it open to your readers for their own suggestions/versions." Idea to us at the e-mail address below.
Snap Happy ... 1 ...Our headline of the week award goes to the Boston Standard for this effort on its website.

Find us a mugging where no one is assaulted, and you win the prize!
Snap Happy ... 2 ...Just when we thought that the Boston Bypass Independents had the monopoly on silly pricks, up popped this comedy cactus at Johnson's Garden Centre.

Unlike many, it seems someone in the plant world at least got excited about working over the Easter holiday! And for the benefit of our pre-decimal innumerate male readers - don't feel inferior ... 11cm is only 4.33070866 inches. As we've said before, if you don't get the joke, please don't ask, as the answer might offend!

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