Jeagshemash! Let's celebrate

 Boston Business Improvement District has its begging bowl out again in the latest issue of the Business Target.

“Traders in a market town are being asked to think of ways to make it more vibrant and commercially successful,” says the introduction to the story.

Aside from the fact that this is supposed to be the BID’s job, the piece goes on to promise – in the now familiar Boston style – jam tomorrow, rather than jam today.
There is mention of a “bumpy ride” after businesses that were forced to pay a levy merely because they had premises in the BID catchment area – demanded that the costly quango be disbanded.
But without any sense of irony BID manager Niall Armstrong reminds us “of course, it had been democratically voted in…”
Yes, it had, after a fashion. The vote in favour was small – just enough to establish it under the rules. But the bottom line is that of all the businesses now forced into membership only a minority was actually in favour.
So how’s it all going, then?
Looking at the BID’s website, we note that so few people bothered to attend board meetings in October and December that they were abandoned.
During the middle month, the board considered two projects, both of which seem hell-bent on throwing money down the drain.
In November board member Iwona Lebiedowicz proposed an event to “celebrate Central and Eastern European culture” in Central Park on June 24th and 25th
Also at that meeting, the much vaunted map project resulted in an initial order of 10,000 maps at a cost of £17,000 – a staggering £1.70 per map.
This is despite a report from September’s meeting which talked of a £9,000 charge for producing the maps and £7,500 for an initial purchase of 25,000 copies.
Trust the BID to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by purchasing 10,000 maps for £17,000, when they could have bought a further 15,000 copies for the £500 less, and paid 66p a copy rather than £1.70.
The idea of a festival celebrating Central and Eastern European culture just about squeaks in as one of the BID aims and objectives – but the first question most people will ask is WHY?
So far the BID has done nothing to celebrate our own locality – so why doesn’t it start with an event that focuses closer to home?
The next thing is the cost.
A “festival” as it has been described, sounds like a major event.
The Party in the Party – RIP – could rightly have been called such an event … and that cost £25,000 some years ago – by now the figure would be nearer £30,000 with inflation. And where is the money coming from?
The BID levy brings in £130,000 a year – most of which is swallowed up by the cost of the Town Rangers, the BID manager and administration. Hopefully, Boston Borough Council won’t be lured into parting with any money towards this event, and to be frank, we can’t see it ever getting off the ground.
It would also be unthinkable to stage such something like this without alcohol, which we think would a) be risky, and b) compromise the council’s booze ban in the park.
To be honest, we hoped that the BID could have come up with something better by now.
Without irony, the headline on the Business Target feature exhorts: “Join the BID to bring more business into market town.”
The fact is that the BID joins you if you are unlucky enough to operate within its boundaries and that most members would rather not be.
Membership is compulsory – and failure to pay means a summons from Boston Borough Council and the risk of criminal conviction.
One final point….
Might it be possible to use Central Park for something other than making political statements?
If the European Festival goes ahead, it will be followed in September by the annual do-gooders convention known as the Boston Community Showcase – which this year will be focussing on hate crime, and encouraging us to report it at any cost.
Forty years ago, the park saw 500 people gather in the middle of the week to cheer on a pancake race to mark Shrove Tuesday.
Now it seems the only things that happen in the park more closely resemble former highlights of the communist calendar such as the Fifth Peasant Deputies Convention, or a Let’s All Cheer for the Five Year Plan Party.
For pity’s sake, can’t the park be used for some fun for a change?

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 25th February

Our Friday miscellany

of the week's

news and events

Letters to the editor are the lifeblood of local newspapers, and reflect the interest that people have in the place where they live. However, in recent weeks, the letters pages have become little more than a campaign arena for our local political parties. The Boston Target in particular seems to have a particularly soft spot for the Boston Bypass Independents - publishing no fewer than seven letters from their councillors in just four issues. The two which appear this week – one from the regrettably irrepressible Councillor Ramonde Newell and the other from former BNP activist turned BBI candidate Spencer Pearson – are both nothing more than blatant electioneering. We really think that our local press should exercise more by way of discretion.
Talking of local newspapers – if you have your Boston Standard delivered and pay at the weekend, prepare for a shock. An unannounced price rise, which also went unmentioned in the paper, now means that you will be paying 50p a week – up from 45 pence. It’s the third cover price change in a year– last February it rose from 42p to 45p. Co-incidentally, the latest 12.5 per-cent rise is almost exactly the same as the fall in circulation published by the Audit Bureau of Circulations earlier this week. Whilst more than 95% of weekly papers lost circulation in the second-half of last year, only 53 of the 383 ABC registered titles suffered double-digit losses – in the Standard’s case, one of the highest at 12.6%. Put into perspective, the Standard readership has fallen from 11,305 in 2008, to 10,017 a year ago, then 9,412 – and is now 8,756. By a further co-incidence, this week also saw the announcement by the Standard’s owners – Johnston Press – of the appointment of a group editor for several of its weeklies in Lincolnshire and Leicestershire. We have to say that somehow we doubt that even two editors can save the Standard from what looks like terminal decline.
On Wednesday we speculated about what sort of turnout there might be for that night's meeting for people who are thinking of standing as councillors - and now we know. The affair was very well attended – but mostly by councillors and people already declared as candidates. One BBI member was busy taking notes, and bizarrely visitors were then asked to fill in a form to request a nomination pack - which included a box for the ward they were intending to stand in. By a rough count there were around fifteen people hovering over two or three wannabees. It sounds more as if the intention was to scare these people off, rather than to encourage them into the fold. Perhaps it was.
Earlier this week we commented on Councillor Ramonde Newell’s plea for people from a broader walk of life to consider becoming councillors – which also posed an interesting conundrum. “A young or part-time worker can be as important as a landowner, a millionaire, a property developer, a farm or a banker,” he wrote. Now we know who the landowner, the property developer, and farmer on the council are, but can someone tell us who the millionaire and the banker are? In this day and age, they’re probably one and the same!
We are told that there is no truth in rumours that refurbishment of the Geoff Moulder Leisure Centre is to be kicked into touch. Apparently, bids from contractors have been received "but no final decisions have yet been made" says Deputy Chief executive Phil Drury. However, his comment comes in the context of the £2 million scheme being listed among those requiring an "affordable business case." Hands on hearts now - can you really see Boston Borough Council finding that sort of money in this day and age? If for any reason Mr Drury is mistaken, the refurbishment will join a long list of projects that never were. Twenty years ago plans for a £5 million leisure complex on the site of the former Haven Cinema site were being drawn up by developers to include to cinemas, a ten-pin bowling alley, sport and health facilities, "upmarket" bingo, plus bars and restaurants. More recently, Boston College trumpeted a move to West Street, as part of the Merchants Quay project, then, when that fell through, the college was to undergo a major redevelopment on its existing site - but that fell through as well And what about the smaller shopping "malls" proposed for West Street and Red Lion Street? And weren't there plans for more shops opposite the ASDA supermarket... and a second floor for Marks and Spencer .... the list goes on an on. But then, if you live in Boston, you have to learn to live with disappointment
Many people are getting exercised about parking problems at Boston’s Pilgrim Hospital. A quick look at the figures makes the nature of the difficulties obvious. The Pilgrim has 418 car parking spaces for patients and visitors, and more than 500 beds. It’s always going to be the case that that there will not be enough parking place, and, of course, many visitors who flout the “no more than two visitors to a bed” rule make the situation far worse. Issuing tickets to people who are forced to park on Spilsby Road won’t change a thing – they park there because there is nowhere else. We were recently told that Boston has a surplus of parking spaces. Why doesn’t the council set up a park and ride scheme from its nearest car park to the hospital. It would ease congestion and make money for the cash strapped council to boot.
Another traffic issue that has been exercising people is the proposed improvement to the Spilsby Road/Freiston Road/Willoughby Road junction – in particular the plan for an experimental one-way system along Willoughby Road. Willoughby Road is used solely by neighbourhood traffic, and since the days when it was used by horse drawn vehicles, local people have operated their own sensible and courteous traffic system which has seldom seen any problems arise. Co-incidentally, it is forty years ago this week that members of Boston Borough Council discussed a recommendation not to make Willoughby Road one way . Guess what? They agreed that it would be impractical, and voted to take no action. It wasn’t broken then. It doesn’t need mending now.
The inherent danger of the extended metaphor is admirably demonstrated in this cutting from the current issue of the Boston Standard.

Please don’t ask if you need an explanation – you either undertand the joke or you don’t!
Finally, We note that the former Past Times shop in Boston has become yet another hairdresser. One thing puzzles us. With so many hairdressers and beauty salons around the town, why are most of the people we see walking the streets so scruffy and ugly?

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

 Is it the end

of the road for 

Boston  dream?

 To mix a metaphor or two … pigs might fly, but will crash-land in the jam tomorrow.

That’s the synopsis of the county council’s third local transport plan, which was on the agenda of its Highways, Transport and Technology Scrutiny committee earlier this week.

The plan looks forward from now until 2014, and includes the next step towards easing traffic congestion in Boston.

The second local transport plan included the £10 million transport strategy for Boston – including the £5.2 million A16/A52 widening scheme – which should be completed next month - and which it’s claimed could cut journey times across town by 20%.

The works included £2 million of enhancements to public transport - with the IntoTown bus service seeing a 300% increase in “ridership” - typically carrying 25,000 passengers a month.
And although you might not have noticed, a £200,000 car parking and signing strategy to make it easier for people to move around the town has apparently taken place.
That’s the story so far – so what’s in store for the next two years?
The report says that the £2 million Market Place enhancement scheme will focus on improving the streetscape, refurbishment of the footways and making the area more
pedestrian friendly by removing a large percentage of car parking.
Worryingly, it adds that other elements of the transport strategy will be taken forward “as funding permits.”
Meanwhile, Boston Borough Council is identifying areas of land to be allocated for future development which will help facilitate the possibility of a distributor road to the west of Boston.
Reading between the lines, the future looks less than bright.

Whilst we suppose we should be grateful for what’s been done to date – it won’t be long before the general increase in car ownership counters any improvements in journey times.
There is little doubt in our minds that the road improvements that are soon to be completed will mark the end of the chapter as far as Lincolnshire County Council is concerned.
There has never been any question of Boston getting a by-pass.
The IntoTown buses may be carrying a shed-load of passengers, but a glimpse through their windows as they grind along  Strait Bargate, destroying the paved surface and polluting the shopping centre with noise and fumes, shows a gaggle of grey heads.
Most of them are travelling for free, and again, we are sure that the majority would never previously have come into town by car, so there can be no claims that the service has reduced vehicle numbers.
Finally, and realistically, we cannot see the aim of grabbing land for a distributor road ever succeeding.
A road has to follow a line, and the likelihood of land becoming conveniently available to match any route dreamed up for a baby bypass is beyond the realms of possibility.
In any case, it would be so far in the future that the oil will probably have run out, and cars will no longer be a problem.

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

Farsighted BBI saw

cuts coming!

Boston Borough Council’s cabinet (pictured left)meets tonight to fix its budget, a session that is accompanied by a host of indecipherable documents which we are sure cannot be understood by anyone other than the most accomplished.
Ahead of the meeting, council leader Richard Austin has coincidentally gone to press on the BBI blogsite to claim yet another masterpiece of prescience following the last cabinet meeting three weeks ago which discussed cutting staff costs.
“Considerable savings will have to be made, but advance planning and staff co-operation has meant that very few, if any, council workers in Boston will be made redundant," he writes.
“Over the last two years we have anticipated these cuts. The senior management has been halved and vacancies have not generally been filled. As a result we are able to maintain vital services in Boston, and do not have to find massive redundancy payouts like so many other councils.”
Not for the first time, this is a BBI claim which we find hard to believe.
The global financial crisis started in September 2008, and from what Councillor Austin is claiming, the BBI realised the awesome implications within a matter of months, and set out on a path to minimise their effects.
This was well before the general election, and well before any of the major political parties had produced any public assessment of the impact on the UK.
We think its fair to say that the coalition government didn’t really get its act together on public service cuts until after Councillor Austin claims that his merrie band had not only figured out what needed to be done, but had gone ahead and done it.
If only Gordon Brown had offered the BBI seats in a real cabinet, the world might well have been a totally different place.
Among the copious reports to today’s cabinet meeting is a list of priorities.
These include providing better services with less money, sharing opportunities and responsibilities, and “a successful Borough, a great past, an exciting future.”
The first of these is achievable; a major opportunity to achieve the second has already been allowed to slip through the council’s fingers, and the third is nothing less than ephemeral sloganising – what do you mean, your priority is “a successful Borough, a great past, an exciting future?”
Our credulity was stretched still further by some of the “values” listed for achievement.
Being “open and honest with people” is the first. We don’t know about honesty – but the council fails to be open almost on a daily basis.
“Open to new ideas and willing to learn.” We’ll believe it when we see it.
A double whammy - “caring and to treat people with respect, consistency and fairness” is followed by “patient with people and take time to understand their concerns.”
This depends on the context – but we know of several instances where the BBI has turned a deaf ear to valid concerns of both councillors and members of the electorate.
The budget setting comes at an historic moment, as a report tells us that since November 1999, the council’s capital resources have mainly come from the disposal of its housing stock.
“These resources have now all but been consumed and the council needs to consider how its future capital requirements can be financed.”
It is a sad reflection on administrations past and present that they have allowed twelve years to elapse and for the reserves to run dry without looking at how to generate more income in the interim.
And as far as redundancies are concerned, we hope that the BBI has not spoken too soon.
Staff turnover recently stood at 1.41%, when the council’s target was 10%.
A ten per-cent turnover gives room for savings by leaving vacancies unfilled, whereas 1.41 does not … and with no financial room to manoeuvre, we think that redundancies could still be on the cards.

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

Of course you

want to be a

councillor!

If someone opened a booth selling tickets to Hell, we would lay a bet that sooner rather than later a queue would form.
So it’s perhaps not surprising that despite all the infernal aspects of being a councillor, there still appear to be some who want to do the job.
Tomorrow, there’s yet another meeting for anyone interested in standing for the local council elections in May.
One has already been organised by the Independent members, and a second by the BBI – and as neither has mentioned attendance figures, we can assume that they were not great.
Wednesday’s event starts at 6 pm on in the Committee Room in Worst Street and is being arranged by the Returning Officer – Chief Executive Richard Harbord - and has nothing to do with any of the political parties.
Being elected gives you the chance to spend long and often anti-social hours doing tedious tasks like setting budgets, in exchange in Boston for a pitiful allowance and the chance between now and May at least to be lorded over by a bunch of wiseacres who think they know all the answers.
Once there was a time when local councillors really did run the borough, but in Boston, many of the more interesting and socially important responsibilities such as housing, and leisure have been hived off to other organisations.
Now, the work of a district council mostly covers building and development control, council tax collection and housing benefits, elections, waste collection and recycling, food safety, health and safety, car parks, public conveniences, economic development, grants to voluntary organisations and parks.
Exciting, eh?
There’s lots of gossip about how the parties are planning their election campaigns.
The BBI will be losing several members but appears to be recruiting enough to fill the gaps. We hear that at least a couple of BBI members wanted to defect to the Tories, but hope that the Conservatives will have more sense than to welcome them aboard.
The Tories are fielding a full compliment of candidates, which we fear will also include a number of former councillors or candidates. We don’t regard this as a good move in some cases, as there are enough voters with long memories to associate names with the previous authority which – whilst not Tory led, was Tory dominated - and which in many ways was as bad as the council it was defeated by in 2007.
Nothing much at all has been heard from Labour or the Liberal Democrats, and we suspect that any candidates put forward will have a tough time of things.
The Better Boston Group heads for the election in disarray, with at least two of its four members not seeking re-election. Unless it recruits new candidates, it scarcely seems worth standing under a party banner on 5th May.
Do not, by the way, assume that we see the result as a shoo-in for the Conservatives. We have already said that we do not, and our comments are underlined by no lesser an expert than Tim Montgomerie, a joint editor of Conservative Home.
Writing in Sunday’s Telegraph newspaper, he says that May’s vote will be the first big test of the coalition’s popularity,.
“It’s unlikely to be pretty,” he wrote. “On the Tory side, 5,000 councillors are walking into heavy gunfire. With the Tories defending vast gains from 2007, a fifth are expected to fall, and Lib Dem losses may be proportionately greater. The bloodiness of the nose will depend upon whether voters blame cutbacks in local government – which are taking place ahead of those in the rest of the public sector – on councils or central government.”
In an ideal world, Boston borough councillors should be drawn from all sections of the local community – as BBI councillor Ramonde Newell points out in a letter to the Boston Standard.
Where, he asks, are the councillors “on minimum wage; or shop workers; or 24-45 years of age; or with young children?”
The answer is that all these groups have more pressing demands on their time – and until councillors’ allowances are increased to around £20,000 a year ... which would start a riot … few if any from this group are likely to offer their services.
One observer told Boston Eye: My big concern is that we have been unable to unearth other true Independents, Labour and Lib Dems have not shown any signs of activity so far, the consequence of all this of course is that the Conservatives might gain a very large majority against weak opposition. “
We’re not so sure.
The way things are going, we can see the BBI continuing in office with a substantial number of councillors – but perhaps not a majority.
Abraham Lincoln may well have been wrong when he said “you can’t fool all the people all the time."

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

Meetings to be

like a local Yalta -

but without Stalin

In a bizarre turn of events, members of a group set up as a forum for political leaders on Boston Borough Council have demanded the exclusion of the ruling Boston Bypass Independents.
Leaders of the Opposition groups have voiced serious concerns at the value of attending the informal group discussions because of what they see as the negative attitude of BBI leader Richard Austin.
The idea for the leaders’ meeting came from an Improvement Panel created when it was finally recognised that Boston Borough Council had such serious problems that it faced outside intervention.
The object was to share concerns and ideas, and allow information to be examined informally under the chairmanship of the Chief Executive.
“It was the panel’s intention to set in place an opportunity for dialogue and openness, to lead to a much-needed improvement of relations between opposition members and the ruling group, and there was a clear expectation of compliance from all who attended,” Boston Eye was told by someone who knows about these things.
“Unfortunately, the Leader’s contribution, when he bothered to attend, was one of almost complete silence, except when he was accompanied by the grumpy and aggressive Councillor Richard Dungworth – the man who christened Mayor Councillor Peter Jordan ‘Old Grumpy’ - and whose presence in any meeting only ever results in discord.
“Opposition members have adopted and complied with the recommendation both in spirit and effort, but now see little point in continuing under the original format and have asked that future meetings do take place - but without Councillor Austin.
“They have each written to the Chief Executive informing him of their frustrations, and suggested that he adopts a new approach as chair which will be to inform, note, and relay information across this widening divide.
“We accept that this might seem an impractical solution, and far from ideal, but for all of us who have witnessed the lack of enthusiasm from Richard Austin, we feel there is no alternative.”
The next Leaders’ Meeting is on 14th March, and when Chief Executive Richard Harbord was warned that the Tories would probably walk out if the BBI attended, it was decided to exclude the BBI from the meeting.

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 18th February

Our Friday miscellany

of the week's

news and events

Is crime a problem in Boston or isn’t it? After the borough was caught telling porkies on its website about December’s crime figures,  Council Leader Richard Austin tells the local papers that we should not be overly concerned about the level of offending in the borough as it’s really only penny-ante stuff. “We have a small minority of persistent low grade offenders who blight and shame our town,” he writes. So what he seems to be saying is that if suits you to massage the crime statistics so they don’t look so bad by dismissing some offences as “low grade” – that makes it all right. We’re further confused as this “apparently high amount of reported anti-social behaviour” comes so soon after the borough claimed that “new statistics show a marked reduction in the number of incidents of anti-social behaviour in the Boston area.” A while ago, we were encouraged to report anti social behaviour – and this is the result. Don’t forget that throughout this year we’re now also being encouraged to report “hate crime” – whether real or imagined. How will the council explain away the increases in that area in a few months’ time, we wonder?

According to Councillor Austin, one reason why the £100,000 Placecheck Project was established in Boston was to help fight anti-social behaviour, By our reckoning, that brings Boston’s spending on crime to more than half a million pounds - doing the job of the police at a time when the council is badly starved of money.

Secret squirrel strikes again … A couple of days ago the agenda for next Wednesday’s special cabinet meeting to fix Boston’s budget appeared online. On the first day we noted with interest that a report on Leisure Services by the Chief Executive and Strategic Director and Deputy Chief Executive was listed in the general business, but was unavailable at the time. A day later the item had been moved to the confidential agenda section – which means that the press and public will be thrown out of the meeting when it is discussed. Even our normally lethargic local “newspapers” are becoming a little tired of the BBI’s obsession with secrecy. They protested at being excluded when changes to staffing conditions were under discussion last week, and we hope that they might yet again in this case. Earlier this week we warned that it looks as though the borough’s leisure service plans were slipping into chaos with the Geoff Moulder Leisure Centre likely to be most seriously affected. Let’s not forget that this council has frittered away millions on the Princess Royal Sports Arena and has dragged its heels in the matter of pushing ahead with the “privatisation” of both the arena and the GMLC. All of this is important stuff which is of direct interest to taxpayers. It should be discussed in the open air not the stifling atmosphere of the committee room.

Still on sporting matters, it’s now more than six months since we were told that sport in Boston could benefit from 'substantial investment' with an application by Boston College for funding from the Skills Funding Agency to expand and improve its sporting curriculum by investing in land at the Peter Paine Sports Centre. Then, the cabinet gave its backing to a proposed lease between the authority and the college for the land it owns at the Rosebery Avenue site. Council leader Richard Austin said at the time: "It looks like a marriage made in heaven at first glance and wants to be pursued with enthusiasm are my initial thoughts." So what’s going on then…?

Earlier we mentioned the Placecheck programme, and that reminded us of last week’s headlines featuring the chairman and secretary of the Main Ridge scheme praising community volunteers for the efforts that have apparently “claimed back” the “no-go zone of Burgess Pit. A little bird tells us that co-incidentally the couple are both prospective BBI candidates. Another publicity coup for the BBI election machine!
We’re not sure whether it’s good news or not, but the latest figures from the Local Data Company show that Boston has fewer empty shops than when last surveyed. The figures say that the town now has 7.6% of empty shops which is down from 8.3%. These figures have in the past been vigorously contested by Boston BID – which like the BBI only believes in good news. The fact is that empty shops are still too many, and too obvious. For the umpteenth time, we ask what has happened to the government grant money that was allocated to decorate the windows of empty shops to make them less unsightly to passers-by. The amount in question was £12,000, we seem to recall. We’d hate for it to find its way into another budget because of time constraints.

Just as spring is coming into its own it was very disappointing to see all the bushes on the plantation besides John Adams Way between the air monitoring station and the Salvation Army citadel being hacked down by borough workmen. All right, we know that it is used as an overnight haven for some of our migrant population, but there must be a better solution than to spoil an otherwise attractive amenity area that makes the journey in and out of town look slightly more attractive.

At last Boston has a healthy claim to fame. Apparently Britain's largest purple sprouting broccoli farm is nearby - or so all the national papers told us yesterday as news that the tasty vegetable was in short supply after a bad winter dominated the headlines. We knew you'd be impressed.

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

Cemetery questions must

be answered



In a poor state - Boston's cemetery chapel

Our late but irrepressible pseudonymous correspondent Herbert Ingram is one of the few people apparently less than happy after last week’s visit to Boston by an army of English Heritage delegates

After a day wandering the town and peering through their rose-tinted spectacles they declared it a “true gem.”

However, in an e-mail to Boston Eye, Herbert asks: “Why was it that the distinguished visitors were kept away from the Victorian cemetery? The cemetery grounds are listed Grade 2 as an historic park and garden, and the chapel, gatehouse and mortuary buildings all listed Grade 2.
“Would it be because of the 'minimum maintenance' management policy makes the place look derelict and unwanted … except by the birds and RSPB 'twitchers' - council officers amongst them. ?
“Why is it that English Heritage regional office at Northampton were not (they are now) aware that there has been a string of complaints and freedom of information requests to the borough council?
“Why in local 'press' coverage was there no mention of this site’s existence as one of Boston’s English Heritage sites, or that efforts are being made to have it added to the English Heritage 'At Risk Register’?
“Why does there seem to be a stone wall when it comes to local conservation and heritage groups and organisations?
“Why have the council continued to sell plots in the Victorian cemetery after changing the maintenance status from that of cemetery to that of 'wildlife reserve?'
“When will Boston council start to answer these questions and restore proper access to the Victorian park, garden and cemetery to the people of Boston - including disabled and their dogs ....? This is scandalous behaviour!”
“Boston changed the grounds management policy at the Victorian Cemetery some years ago using the Local Authorities Cemeteries Act 1977 saying that they had sought the advice of some 'local amateur wildlife conservationists' (no names forthcoming despite Freedom of Information Requests) and that the change was in 'the best interests of the cemetery.’
“Signs went up declaring this change and included banning dogs including guide dogs (unless accompanying mourners at a funeral ) which effectively discriminates against sections of the disabled community (breaking the Disability Discrimination Act). Every time this has been raised the answer was that English Heritage supported the change - not so - but just to be sure that this 'unofficial' addition to the RSPB’s local empire remains so, the public, interested local groups, English Heritage and anyone challenging the position are discouraged from visiting or asking awkward questions.
“Where was local democracy and the people’s right to know who in the council has a personal interest in all of this I wonder?”
Without knowing all the ins and outs of this issue, there is clearly a cause for concern if any borough heritage asset is being neglected, and we know that there has been considerable debate on this issue in the past.
Whilst English Heritage says it is concerned about the deteriorating condition of the Grade II listed cemetery buildings and the Grade II registered cemetery, it cannot put them on the Heritage at Risk Register as this is only for Grade I and II* assets.
So what next?
Boston has few enough heritage assets, and should be focusing on preserving everything that we have – or is it yet another case of finance dictating policy?

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

Millions spent on

non-council projects

It looks as though Boston’s troubled leisure services are lurching towards yet another crisis.
Tomorrow’s Performance Review Committee agenda includes the latest Governance and Performance Monitoring Quarterly Report for the period April to December last year, which warns that the Geoff Moulder leisure centre is now subject to a review of the capital programme to be considered by the cabinet.
Readers will recall that the centre – along with the Princess Royal Sports Arena – was due to be “privatised” in a deal with a company called Leisure Connections.
Leisure Connections is in a class of its own, as it has a website dedicated to the scores of complaints from users of the local authority sporting facilities that it administers – many of them here in Lincolnshire.
The announcement of the deal was made a year ago with promises of major savings for taxpayers.
Unusually for a BBI promise, this has not been the case, and some crucial paperwork needed to clinch the deal has not been forthcoming until now – although the council has yet to see a copy.
The deal includes the borough taking responsibility for maintaining the PRSA – a wooden structure which began leaking within months of opening – and also to carry out a revamp of the Moulder facility … but this £2.2 million plan is now on hold.
Leisure Connection has proposed alternative schemes to cut costs, and the Chief Executive will report on this to the council.
Meanwhile, consultancy costs of £130,000 on the GMLC are to be written off to the council’s revenue budget.
We don’t know about you, but we can’t see anything good coming out of all this.
Some other interesting items from the report include the latest on usage of the £3.6 million Boston Enterprise Centre.
A while ago it had an occupancy rate of just 17% - but it now stands at 81% which means that 36 of the 45 office suites are occupied.
It may sound good, but we are also told that in the 12 months between April 2009 and March 2010 the centre hosted 3,074 visitors. That equates to 256 a month … 64 a week, or 12 a day.
Value for money?
We think not.
Finally a look at the council’s projected spending by priority again underlines our argument that Boston splashes out too much on areas which are pepripheral responsibilities.
The figures include £1,551,000 on “health and wellbeing” – an overspend of £60,000 – and £448,000 on “crime” … another overspend - this time of £31,000. Lincolnshire NHS and the county police must be laughing all the way to the bank when they see how much money Boston is spending on work which is their job.
Also interesting is “housing strategy” which is estimated to overspend £23,000 out of a total of £1,394,000.
It’s twelve years since Boston flogged its housing stock to Mayflower, and its “policy” now appears to comprise homeless prevention and offering quality homes at affordable rents.
Clearly a sum of £1.3 million won’t provide much by way of bricks and mortar, so how does this cost break down?
It would be interesting to know.

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

Money down the drain?

No! BBI wants

to get it out!

After recent reports that the BBI was trying to ditch improvements to Boston bus station in the hope of saving money come claims that that they have been trying a smoke and mirrors stunt involving something far more serious.
A reader in the know tells Boston Eye: “During the last two weeks they have been sending their equivalent of Big Issue salesmen round the local Internal Drainage Boards (some of the organisations on whom we depend to keep our feet dry and our homes and businesses safe from flooding) begging for reductions of up to 29% in drainage rates.”
Apparently the BBI - despite having been told otherwise more than once during the past four years - think the money that the council is required to collect from drainage ratepayers of Boston and pass on to the three local boards to be used in maintain our drainage wellbeing, is other than just that.
“The BBI have revealed that such drainage rates collected are still, in their opinion, income that should be considered as disposable income for the BBC/BBI administration.
“And if that doesn’t frighten you, then it should. Just imagine the BBI, with their usual competence, dictating to our local IDBs whether or how to spend the money to look after us all drainagewise!
“It was noted that our BBI leader Cllr Richard Austin, demonstrating his strong leadership qualities, abstained on a vote for a decrease in drainage rates at the Black Sluice IDB where he is a borough-appointed representative.
“At the Witham Fourth IDB it was pointed out to BBI representatives that even a standstill on rates, when funds are needed to deliver the required infrastructure maintenance and improvements, was not the best way to look after the safety of our borough and its populace.
“All of which reminds me; what have the BBI been doing during the last three years to keep our council tax in line with requirements for their service delivery? They have refused to even contemplate inflation/RPI increases!
“Perhaps the BBI should be looking at their local IDBs as a good example of how to look after things.”


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

Boston's road "debt"

should be

settled soon

The other day we mentioned a sum of around a million pounds said to be owed to Lincolnshire County Council by Boston Borough Council (aka the Bypass Independents Party) for certain works on the town’s road improvement scheme.
Our enquiries suggested that the sum related to work on the bus station and provision to assist people with disabilities.
Now the issue has found its way into a wider arena – with a question at last Friday’s Lincolnshire County Council meeting from Councillor Steve Williams, the Conservative county councillor for Spalding Elloe, and South Holland district councillor for Spalding St Paul's*.
This was the reply he received from Councillor William Webb, Lincolnshire’s Executive Councillor for Highways.
“The Boston improvement schemes (which) include highways widening, the widening of the railway crossing, the improvement of the flow of traffic through the town – and also improvements to public transport and the transport infrastructure – was a package deal between the County Council and Boston Borough Council … a package of £10 million over three years.
“Boston Borough Council intimated to us that they were unwilling for their share of that £10 million - even if it was a pooled budget - to be used on tarmac. Therefore they suggested that they should use their share on the infrastructure to the public transport system. The £7½ million towards the black top if you like – the highways improvement – are nearly used up, and in fact the scheme is nearly completed on time and on budget and negotiations are ongoing with Boston Borough Council.
“I understand that meetings are to take place shortly – on which I can’t comment – as to the funding of the remaining part of the system which includes the public transport infrastructure, but I can assure Councillor Williams that the county council’s part of the procedure will be completed very shortly, and that they should be aware that £300,000 was vired to Boston Borough Council for the development of their local development infrastructure a couple of years ago. So we’re hoping that that matter can be resolved in negotiation with Boston Borough Council in the very near future.”
Hmmm…
Another version of events says that the BBI thought that the bus station improvement works might be cancelled to save money. Unfortunately for the BBI contracts had been issued and so, reluctantly, Boston agreed to stump up around £¾ million for the time being.
From Councillor Webb’s response, it seems likely that the council won’t be able to wriggle out of paying the balance either. We just hope that they get it out of the way in the current financial year – rather than try to burden whoever takes on the running of the council after May 5th  with still more debt.
Meanwhile – with an eye to a future that may not see his party playing a role – Councillor Ramonde Newell ( Independent at County Hall rather than BBI) came up with an interesting but shaky idea to progress his party’s alternative to the bypass they promised … the distributor road.
Pointing out that funding for the road will need to come mainly from land development projects, Councillor Newell told Councillor William Webb: “The government has just made £560 million available to encourage green travel. Could sections of a distributor road around Boston be part of such a green travel plan…?
“Boston has 25 borough car parks that ring the town. They could be linked to a green town centre for electric vehicles together with recharging points. Would the LCC be prepared to work with Boston to see if they could come up with green proposals that might meet the government’s green funding requirements?”
In reply, Councillor Webb had this to say….”We are quite excited by the proposals to encourage green transport. This is something which we will most definitely look at in conjunction with Boston Borough Council. There are, we think, quite exciting possibilities throughout the county - but none more so than in a situation such as Boston, where we know that if we could only get the funding from the correct place then a distributor road is more than necessary. We’ve always said this, there’s never been any argument about that. And if we have the opportunity to tap into another fund then we will grab this opportunity with both hands - and we look forward to working with you.”
Aside from the fact that we are sure that whilst the present leadership maintains, the idea of working with Boston is as popular with Lincolnshire County Council as a cyanide sandwich, we somehow don’t see this idea coming to fruition.
Councillor Newell’s idea is not clear enough.
Do the car parks form steps in a chain linked by a series of distributor roads? If so they are too close to town and will do nothing to relieve traffic congestion.
Do the car parks become a gathering point for electric vehicles? If so what’s the point? These vehicles may produce less by way of pollution but are still a source of congestion.
What exactly is “a green town centre for electric vehicles?”
If you want cleaner air, how about banning the polluting Brylaine fleet from Strait Bargate?
A look at the map shows Boston’s outermost car parks as still being almost in the town itself – such as Boston Shopping Park (the old ASDA site,) Tunnard Street, Station Approach and Blue Street.
Councillor Newell’s idea might have some merit, but at the moment – dare we say it – it appears to have been drawn up on the back of a fag packet.

* Yes we wondered too, so we e-mailed Councillor Williams to ask what prompted him to raise the issue. He told us: Sorry for the delay in replying to your email, but I have had no access to my emails until today. I raised the subject of funding for highways at Boston after a conversation with a Boston resident who had concerns that in the present economic climate, and taking into account Bostons' financial situation, "would there still be a new bus terminal and disabled facilities". I may not be a Boston councillor but I am a County Councillor and represent the people of Lincolnshire first and Spalding Elloe second.

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 11th February

Our Friday miscellany

of the week's

news and events

Politically incorrect … As everyone knows, BBI Councillor Ramonde Newell never makes a mistake. So it was eerie to find a flaw in his argument in a letter to one of our local “newspapers” headed “We need to invest in our young people.” In it, he launched one of his tireless tirades against the coalition government and the Conservatives in particular for “attacking our young people.” Part of the letter cited the £79 million plan for a new Boston College (pictured right)
-  the one that looked as if it was designed by someone after a night out on the town. The scheme was shelved after the government-funded Learning and Skills Council ran out of money – affecting scores of colleges. The announcement came in March last year - almost two months before the general election. By our reckoning, that makes Labour the guilty party, and not the Conservatives. The first part of Councillor Newell’s letter also mystified us. “Boston’s education tragedy – Sam Newson must be turning in his grave,” it read. Harsh words indeed.

County haul - 1 … Boston gets a couple of honourable mentions in reports at today’s full meeting of Lincolnshire County Council. The first is from Councillor William Webb, the Highways and Transport supreme, who tells us that work on the A16 and A52 roadworks is progressing well, and on target for completion in April. He adds: “We are currently exploring options for improvements to the bus station. These improvements will be targeted towards ensuring the facilities comply with the Disability Discrimination Act, improving efficiency and enhancing the passenger experience. This is, however, dependent on the funding being in place from all partners, including Boston Borough Council.” Does this mean that Boston is being a little reticent in paying its share of the booty? We do hope not.

County haul – 2 … Boston’s second mention is from Councillor Lewis Strange, Executive Councillor for the far less glamorous area of Waste Services and Green Issues. He quotes figures recently released from the Environment Agency which show that recycling countywide averaged 51.4% for 2009-2010 , with Boston lagging far behind on 31.5% and North Kesteven goody two-shoes with 56.3%. Councillor Strange says: “Working within the joint recycling group next year, we hope to promote green waste collection in Boston, should Boston wish to follow that route.” Again, there’s that hint of doubt which suggests that Boston is not quite as onside as it ought to be.
This is Boston – and you’re welcome to it … A reader tells us of an unedifying sight that he witnessed on Wednesday on The Green in Boston. A perfectly harmless looking young man was rummaging through a box of items up for auction when he was approached by another man apparently connected with the auctioneers, who demanded to search him. It was no half-hearted affair, either – the young man was ordered to stand with his arms out and legs apart and submit to an excessively-vigorous patting down. He had been pointed out by a third party, who was heard to say that he was sure something had been taken. The victim was of foreign extraction, and perhaps came from a country where such deplorable behaviour is accepted as normal. The fact that anyone should be ordered to submit to such a search other than by the police is disgraceful. The fact that the search was carried out by someone who felt that he had the right to do it – when he almost certainly did not - is even worse.
It’s the way I tell ‘em … Just recently, Boston Borough Council was trumpeting that the borough had maintained its claim to have the county’s biggest percentage decrease in crime, up to and including December 2010. That may well be the case but the Police.UK website tells another story. Its newly available crime maps show that in December Boston fell victim to more crime than any other town in the county. We’re sure that someone in Worst Street will turn this misfortune into a yet another case for keeping the CCTV cameras – and perhaps even increasing them.
What a load of hyperbolics … We were blogging from afar last week, which meant that we were denied the dubious pleasures of our local “newspapers” until the weekend. But we couldn’t let the daft comments by two Boston Bypass Independent councillors go unremarked. In a story about planned road improvements to the A16 at the Spilsby Road/Freiston Road/Willoughby road junction, Councillor Gerry Clare denounced the junction as a “death trap.” Hmmm. Isn’t that a place where people die? And has that ever happened? We believe not. In his own way, Councillor Graham Dovey was even more hyperbolic - using the phrase “the road rage capital of Europe” to illustrate his point. Both men are regular users of this stretch of road, so they really should know better than to talk in such flamboyant terms. However, it’s good to see that something at last can stir these two BBI members to make an utterance – even if it’s just because it’s in their own backyard.
Not waving - but drowning … It must have been with a sense of great relief that Lorna Beachaump and her friend Louise Tree noted an alteration to Boston Borough Council’s website. For the first half of the week their plan to raise money for cancer research by swimming the cross channel distance in the relative safety of the Geoff Moulder pool appeared thus … (click on photos to enlarge them)

Then someone realised that it would be a swim too far – even for the most dedicated aquanaut – and was corrected to something far more manageable.

We think that the council should make a donation to make up for scaring the good ladies silly!
And finally … the Boston Target wins this week’s Mangledanguage Award for these two items. Whilst the headline on the first – about potholes - headed “Drivers warned to be on guard or face a hole lot of grief” was clearly a pun .. although not a very clever one … the mistake in the text was clearly unintentional.

Having said that, drivers may well, of course, break if a hole is deep enough.
Meanwhile, on the Announcements pages, we found this request, which might have confounded some of Boston’s less sartorially-aware.

Does that mean the grey topper and tails will be ok, then?


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

Borough blows £55,000

in two months on

"community projects"

A report to last night’s cabinet of curiosities included an update on the future of the Boston Area Partnership – a gaggle of the great and the good whose objective is “to improve the local quality of life and regeneration of the Borough through improved planning and delivery of services and activities.”
It unites organisations, such as the police, NHS, Boston College, Boston Borough Council and Lincolnshire County Councils, and representatives from the voluntary, community and private sectors.
BAP was on the agenda because local strategic partnerships are under review after changes to government policy and the overhaul of partnership arrangements at a county level.
The recommendation was for a slimmed-down organisation to ensure that a structure continues to help coordinate and deliver services to meet community needs.
To us this sounds likes the rose by any other name that will smell as much – and we suspect that little, if anything will change.
Boston Borough Council clings like a limpet on a rock to supporting things that it equally need not bother with – which would mean considerable savings for local taxpayers.
The report to the cabinet said that the involvement of partners had been particularly crucial in the areas of health improvement.
It drew attention to the fact that Boston is no longer the fattest and least fit town in England, mentioned the utterly pointless Placecheck scheme, investment from its GP Cluster for health trainers which doubled staffing, plus getting £5,000 sponsorship for the ‘Go Walking in Boston’ booklet.
As if all that were not enough the Big Boston Clean Up – in which taxpayers do a job they pay the council for - and the Boston Community Showcase, at which the borough do-gooders peddle their wares – this year focussing on making us all feel hated. And let’s not forget the laudable but ungrammatical schemes for growing and eating your own food.
In more prosperous days all this might have been ok – but we are hoping that new, fitter BAP will also go embrace a financial diet.
Even if it does, the fact remains that at the bottom line, taxpayers will continue to foot the bill for all this non-essential stuff.
A look at the first two months’ figures for expenditure by Boston Borough Council that exceeds £500, shows little by way of a partnership with anyone – simply the council throwing tens of thousands of pounds at “community” projects largely being carried out in the name of other organisations.
The figures include £3,106 on “promotional items” for community safety projects.
But that’s small beer compared with a payment of £17,194 to South Lincolnshire Community and Voluntary Service for something to do with “health and well-being” between October and December
The “community rooms” refit blew £23,000 of government grant, and the Boston Community Showcase Partnership was handed £12,000 sponsorship for its event later in the year, which draws only about 8,000 visitors. The key mover in the event is the South Lincolnshire Community and Voluntary Service which records show has cash reserves of £365,997.
The total spend comes to £55,000 in just two months – for functions that are not the job of Boston Borough Council – and do not appear to be ...  because they are credited to other groups.
This is profligacy gone mad.
The council has become obsessed with issues, many of which are not its concern.
In a climate where economy and savings are now watchwords, it is not enough for a token slimming down of a local quango – it is time for concrete action to stop wasting money.

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

Short back and

sides for the ermine

It looks as though future mayors of Boston will have to tighten their belts – which considering some incumbents over the years would be a sight worth seeing!
A report today to the borough’s cabinet of curiosities suggests considering cutting the annual spend of around £80,000 by anything between 15% and 50%.
An avalanche of suggestions has been forthcoming from the borough’s Performance Review Committee and also the Way Forward Group.
Former mayors have said that they believe that savings can be made, but that there could still be “a valuable contribution to the history of the office and the borough and also the valuable role of promoting Boston.”
The office dates back 465 years, and back in the day was a post of great significance.
Now it has been diluted to a largely ceremonial office that involves fewer than ten functions arranged by the borough each year plus attendance at other events by invitation.
The Performance Review report says that the greater the savings, the “further reaching” are the implications – but that is not for the likes of riff raff such as us to know about as this is dealt with in another of the borough’s notorious confidential reports.
In pursuit of this, the Performance Review Committee actually went so far as to say that there should be no public consultation on its recommendations. How nice to see them emerging in their true colours after all this time.
This conflicted with the ideas of the Way Forward Group which was in favour of asking the punters what they thought. Another suggestion from the Way Forward Group is to cuts costs charging invited guests to relevant functions.
Frankly this sounds like a non-starter, as the idea of inviting someone to a mayoral bash and then asking them to pay for the “privilege” encourages a polite but definite refusal.
As we said earlier, the role of mayor has diminished by degrees down the centuries – but we think it was irrevocably debased when the Boston Bypass Independents took over the council helm.
In their rush to hijack the borough, they changed the rules that saw the mayor elected by virtue of length of service.
That was a sensible way of doing things, which saw the borough honour those councillors who had given most public service – and whose loyalty to Boston had been recognised by regular re-election.
In their rush to make sure that a BBI mayor was appointed as soon as possible, this civilised procedure was swept aside – although even then the BBI was forced to wait a year or two.
Now a mayor is no longer elected on merit, but through political wrangling and connivance.
If the council changes direction at the May election the old system could perhaps be readopted – and there will hopefully be enough former, long serving members to make it work.
But we also wonder what any public consultation exercise might come up with – as to most people nowadays a mayor is just a jolly-looking figure in a quaint, santa-style red coat, sporting loads of bling and a funny hat. We doubt that they would consider the job worth upwards of £100,000 a year.
The cabinet will consider the recommendations of both meetings and deliver its voting orders to the council meeting on 2nd March.

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

A kick up the  assets -

more milliions mired

in mystery

They say that money talks - and when it talks in Boston, it’s usually to say “where am I?”
First there was the case of the infamous State Street loan - £1 million borrowed over 60 years at 11% in January 1991 to finance the council's capital programme for a purpose that remains a mystery. The considered view is that we’re stuck with it – but if it were possible, repayment would bring immediate revenue saving of £111,125 a year.
Now, we have an interesting fact from last week’s Policy and Projects Scrutiny committee meeting where a copy of Boston Borough Council’s draft corporate plan – ironically subtitled “A great past and an exciting future” – who writes this stuff? - showed that the borough’s assets have slumped by six million pounds between 31st March 2009, when they stood at £35m, and 31st March 2010, when they had fallen to £29 million.
No explanation was given to the meeting by Councillor Richard Lenton, the finance portfolio holder or the leader Councillor Richard Austin who, an insider tells us, according to his own criteria, was apparently boycotting the meeting.
One who knows about this sort of thing tells Boston Eye “It is possible to dispose of assets and explain to the council; it is possible to spend your reserves and explain to the council. But what the hell, this is the BBI we're talking about here.”
The small print in the report – such as it is – shows a fall in the value of the council’s land and assets of £3 million, a further £1 million drop in cash and investments, and a fall of £2 million in “money owed to the council” – which we presume means debts that have been written off rather than paid off.
We’ve written before about the contempt in which the BBI holds the rest of the council – including its non-cabinet members – and the voters who trusted them as a safe pair of hands to run the borough.
But simply to dispose of roughly 17% of council owned – and therefore publicly owned assets – without so much as a by your leave is disgraceful.
The council is already in a black hole from which there seems to be no escape, and instead of being open, honest and transparent about its finances, chooses instead to be secretive and to dance on the deck of the Titanic for as long as the orchestra continues to play.
As if all these millions are not enough, there is talk of a further £1 million – or thereabouts – due to Lincolnshire County Council’s Highway Department that we don’t know about. But what’s a mere million to the BBI?

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

Keeping CCTV is

not necessary

At the same time as it is looking at staff cuts to make economies, Boston Borough Council - aka the Bypass Independents - have guaranteed the town's CCTV system will not be switched off to save money.
Two other district councils - North Kesteven and Lincoln - are both considering turning off their CCTV, but as is so often the case, Boston thinks that rowing in the opposite direction is more practical.
A spokesman said: "There are no plans to shut down Boston's CCTV service, but we will be looking at ways of making it more cost effective. Reducing crime and the fear of crime remain council priorities."
That’s all very fine, but as we have said before - that is the job of the police.
Whilst the service is being maintained, the “cost effective" hint suggests there may be job cuts among the ten staff who many the 72 cameras around the clock.
We have said before that we regard CCTV as a far from perfect substitute for good old fashioned policing in the form of bobbies on the beat.
The way CCTV works conjures two phrases to mind.
The first is “shooting fish in a barrel.”
It’s a nice, cosy way to fight crime - sitting in an office watching offences happen and sorting them out afterwards.
Which brings us to the second phrase - “closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.”
It’s all very fine to watch a crime take place and subsequently identify and arrest the offender - but that is of little consolation to the victim.
We’re talking of situations in which people are often badly assaulted - or traumatised by robbery.
The fact that their aggressor is caught is small consolation as their bones heal or their stitches are removed - or as they struggle to regain the confidence to go out and live a normal life again without fear that they could be mugged.
A year ago the council was looking at cutting £72,000 a year from the costs of its cameras through a rearrangement of contracts. We have no idea whether it was done - but if such a level of savings was achievable, then we shudder to think what the full cost of the CCTV operation works out at. Perhaps someone can tell us.
At the time that discussion was taking place, Boston had just switched on its 70th camera.
Now there are 72 - so the overall cost must gone up by something in the region of £25,000.
There is a popular myth that CCTV cameras reduce crime, but that is not the case.
In London, where 10,000 "crime fighting cameras" cost £200 million, 80% of crime goes unsolved, whilst a Home Office study showed that more than half the closed-circuit television schemes in city centres, housing estates and on public transport had no effect on the crime rate.
We have already said that the council should also be looking at whether so many cameras are necessary - and it would be interesting to know how many of the have proved useful in any form of crime prevention. We suspect that there will be some which have never proved of benefit at all. If a city the size of Lincoln, with a university and more pubs that you can shake a stick at, believes it can manage without CCTV, then there is no question that Boston can.
In 2009, when the borough’s asked taxpayers what options they preferred for CCTV, 63% of all respondents said they thought there should be joint funding between the police, local business and the council. But when local business and the police were approached about CCTV no offers for funding were forthcoming.
That in itself gives a clue as to how important they consider it - and the police preference to hang on to their monetary coppers rather than shell out a few quid on CCTV speaks volumes.
This really is an area where money could and should be saved, and the BBI must think again rather than than announce intentions aimed more at securing votes in May than saving the borough money, and providing yet another soapbox for the Portfolio holder for community safety Councillor Ramonde Newell.

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 4th February

Our Friday miscellany

of the week's

news and events

Good news – bad news ... The good news is that Boston's road widening scheme is on schedule, and should be completed by the end of April – and congratulations to Lincolnshire highways team for doing such a difficult job so well. The bad news is that we should brace ourselves for a load of BBI bragging about how they have made all this possible, despite the fact that this is not the case. Even worse, they may try to hoodwink us into believing that there is still a chance that we will get some sort of relief road – the famous “distributor” road ... though what else roads do if they don't distribute traffic eludes us. If they try this election ploy, just ignore it. If there is a chance of such a road it is so far in the future that no one reading this today will live to see it.

You'll do as we say .... Are we being consulted, or are we not? According to the latest edition of Boston Borough Council's internet bulletin we got our first look at “ the fine detail” proposed for the revamp of Boston’s historic Market Place, based on feedback from public consultation, undertaken in 2009 and “an and extensive Conservation Area Appraisal.” We seem to recall spending quite some time a couple of weeks ago completing forms and returning them to the council's tent in the Market Place. Was this just a token and really to no avail? We know that the borough seldom, if ever, heeds what the punters have to say. But to ask their opinions when you've apparently already decided the answer takes the biscuit...
Over the hill ... Talking of the bulletin, we love the advert on page seven “Want to know what's wicked?” Aside from the inherent nonsense of such a question, the purpose of the photo of a gape-jawed, pop-eyed, simian-browed woolly-hatted “yoof” is to tell us: “It's not just for the oldies, y'know.” Two pages later, a more restrained recruiting poster for would be councillors depicts a group in which fifty per-cent of the four people pictured are clearly of the older generation. Is the intention of the adverts to offend young would-be councillors ... or older ones? The answer seems to be “both.” And is the overall idea to tell us that the bulk of our present council is comprised of members who are well past their sell-by date? Doubtless lots of young faces are being lined up as the parties search for candidates.
Memorial after all-ial? ... Not that long ago we printed a lament from the late Herbert Ingram that his 200th birthday on May 27th seemed likely to go unremarked. Now though, it seems possible that an exhibition may take place after all – perhaps in Boston Stump. Watch this space ...
More grot than not ... We note that the call is out for volunteers to take part in this year's Big Boston Clean-up. As with past events, people are being asked to nominate a town “grot spot” that needs attention. A walk around town – especially one that takes in more than just the centre – shows so much litter, fouling and general other mess that we think it might be easier to ask people to nominate neat and tidy areas which could then be left alone whilst the rest of the town is attacked.
Longer lasting ... We hear that our no longer interim chief executive may well have had his contract extended until December. It was due to expire in June, so an extension would seem prudent given the likelihood of a new look council to knock into shape after May. Poor man, the job must be the nearest thing to a local government equivalent of painting the Forth Bridge!
Lines crossed ... We're entertained by the idea that Boston could possibly get a direct rail link to London. As is always the case when the town is in line for any possible benefit, it is usually as a crumb from someone else's table. In this case we could get a link if one between Skegness and King's Cross is created – and the possibility of that seems little more than a gleam in a stationmaster's eye. If ever it did happen though, we somehow doubt that a route which would include stops at stops at Spalding and Sleaford en route would make shopping trips, nights out in the West End or even commuting to the city could “much easier” as one of our local “newspapers” suggests.
Picture postcript ... Finally a reader sends us this e-mail: Dear Boston Eye, Having read your latest pieces over the last few months about the behaviour of BBI councillors, I have decided to treat myself to a “NEW” T shirt for the May Elections, please find enclosed pictures of the front and back!

There's nothing we can add!

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

Are BBI leopards

trying to change

their spots?

In recent days, we've received several e-mails suggesting that a number of BBI politicians are considering defecting from their party – most likely in the direction of the Conservative group.
In one sense this would appear to be a sound move - given that in three months' time the BBI might all but vanish from the political map, but it also raises a number of questions.
First and foremost is the issue of loyalty.
Throughout its shaky reign, the BBI has always clung to the nonsense that its members are true, free thinking independents – unfettered by old style political loyalties.
Why, then, are they making a beeline for the safety of the Tory wagons instead of announcing themselves as Independents, or joining the Better Boston Group?
The answer, or course, is that they think they have a better chance of re-election with the Tories than if they go it alone or with a small group.
So why are they considering a move now?
If it is because of dissatisfaction with the Bypass Independents Party, then has it taken far too long, and a sudden Damascene conversion also seems unlikely - as the BBI has been the same bad kettle of fish almost since it was formed.
In many ways what's happening now mirrors events from a few months after the 2007 elections.
Once a handful of then BBI members got a glimpse of what the party was really like, they quit in disgust.
Now, the reverse may well be true. As hitherto loyal members who enjoy the power and the glory sense a rout of the BBI on 5th May they – like generals in a ruling junta on the brink of overthrow – decide to reclothe themselves in a garb of electoral respectability ahead of a peasants' revolt that could see them lose their seat if they stay put.
This smacks of self-service rather than public service.
Already, at least a couple of party members are not standing for re-election, and we suspect that more will follow.
Meanwhile, given the latest suggestion that others are trying to desert the sinking ship, the BBI may well implode before the voters have their say.
In some ways it reminds us of the county elections in June 2009, when a lifelong Labour supporter suddenly announced his candidacy as an Independent ... because of “the writing in the press of the excesses in Westminster which finally confirmed my disillusionment with the party political system.”
Unfortunately, as we pointed out at the time, the press items began the day after nominations closed – but at a time when any sane candidate would have known that standing on a Labour ticket would buy a one way trip to the political graveyard.
Whatever the reason , the voters sent him packing as they doubtless sensed that his argument was specious.
We would hope the same would happen to any BBI member who changes political colours to save their own skin. And we also hope that the Tories would have the good sense to see through such a ploy and deny them a safe haven.
In the pursuit of openness and transparency, we e-mailed a BBI member or two to ask them about their political intentions.
In the pursuit of rudeness and arrogance, they did not bother to reply. Clinging to their tainted old values to the end.

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