Week ending 29th July

Our Friday miscellany

of the week's

news and events

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

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

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

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



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

Fine words - but we fear

that action won't

be forthcoming

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

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

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

Education, deprivation

- areas where work

is needed

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

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

The truth is

out there -

on Boston's

streets

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


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

Take th@!
Councillors
rant over
e-mail flood

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

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

Week ending Friday 22nd July

Our Friday miscellany

  of the week's

news and events

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roger Gambba-Jones

"Team work needed
- not independence"


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

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

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

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

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

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

Special report:

your views

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

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

Green waste plan "will degrade service"

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

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

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

“Thorny issue”

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

NI registrations

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

Pressure on schools

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

How many live in Boston?

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

Tip of the iceberg

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

“Bootleggers”

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

MP must catch up

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

“The bright ones leave”

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

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

References

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