£5,000 for hopeless visitor site

- and who knows

how much to plug

somewhere in Exeter?

Yesterday we looked at some of the areas where Boston Borough Council spends its – or rather our - money, and came up with some interesting and unusual items.
Another - which there wasn’t room to mention yesterday - was a contribution of £5,000 towards the running of the Visit Lincolnshire website – but the council’s spending list doesn’t say whether this is annual, or quarterly, or what.
Lincolnshire County Council took on the running of this website after funding was withdrawn from the quango of the same name which previously ran Visit Lincolnshire.
Hopefully, this is an annual charge – because assuming similar contributions are being made by the county’s six other district councils, then Lincolnshire County Council is raking in £35,000 for running a small website within its huge internet presence. Nice work if you can get it.
As for value – a search for Boston on the website generates a so-called 118 entries, although many of these are in neighbouring local authority districts, and a large number appear to be adverts for accommodation and the like.
A random check of the site shows just how hopeless it is.
The Boston Beat one-day music festival is still listed for Central Park next month – even though it was cancelled weeks ago.
The Mill Inn on Spilsby Road appears in the index as being in South Holland.
Boston Farmers’ Market is billed as a weekly event and apparently located halfway down Threadneedle Street.
Whilst Boston Tourist Information Centre in the Guildhall is listed, its severely restricted opening hours are not.
And although we mentioned some time ago that the Boston Community Showcase was not listed on the site, it is still conspicuous by its absence.
What seems clear is that no-one at Boston Borough Council is tasked with checking whether this website is doing its job properly – but when County Hall sends in a bill for £5,000, the cheque wings its way to Lincoln.
Frankly, to pay that much money for such indifferent service is unforgivable.
Someone from Worst Street needs to give Lincolnshire County Council a kick up the backside – but we know that won’t happen, don’t we?
Also on the subject of indifferent service, Boston Borough Council’s website carries a link to another site called locations4business.
The organisation calls itself “The Inward Investment Portal” providing “a complete, free and indispensable business-to-business resource that every company will turn to when deciding where to locate their business operations. In turn, we plan to be the site where every economic development agency will want to be seen.”
Whilst the service is apparently free to business – there is presumably a charge to local authorities such as Boston for having an entry.
Click on the link to the borough council “gallery” on the locations4business site, and you will see the following

click on photo to enlarge

If you look closely, you will see an aerial photograph of the Market Place – but, mysteriously, captioned Marsh Barton.
Would you like a clue?
Marsh Barton is Exeter's largest trading estate, supporting over 500 diverse businesses including showrooms, builders merchants, tool and plant hire.
Yet again, we ask: What is the point of paying for services to “sell” Boston - but not checking to see whether they are delivering what they are supposed to?
In recently months it has been said more than once that Boston needs much more by way of promotion and publicity.
Why not start by chasing up these existing sloppy “providers” and getting them to do their job properly?
You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

It's only money - but it is ours!

Boston Borough Council’s spending figures over £500 always make interesting reading, as they give a clue – but nothing more – as to what the borough does with our money.
For example …
We recently read a report about a programme run by Garden Organic, a national charity for organic growing, which has been working with Boston and East Lindsey district councils to support community growing spaces - including one in Central Park.
It recruits local volunteer Master Gardeners to pass on their expertise to other locals. So far there are 17 - of which only six are listed as operating in Boston, and a new group is currently being sought.
The charity offers a two-day training session, supported by a dedicated manual and interactive website, support from the Lincolnshire volunteer co-ordinator, and “free” resources, including a badge, clothing, safe working policies, insurance, expenses, and awards.
It all sounds so mellow and green, and a perfect example of self-help at little or no cost.
Until, that is,  you look at the real cost to Boston council taxpayers.
For the period between March 1st and June 30th, the borough forked over £5,461.96 – that’s a lot of green if you’ll forgive the pun!
A far more expensive bedfellow is the also one of the borough’s favourite needy causes - the South Lincs Community and Voluntary Service, which once upon a time was the humble Boston and District Volunteer Bureau.
Last month, Boston Borough Council paid SLCVS £12,750 under a service level agreement covering July to September this year.
The organisation is by no means hard up.
Just five years ago it got by on an income of £350,000 – but last year took in nearly £800,000, and also has generous surpluses in the bank.
Perhaps a review of whether Boston really needs to chip in so much money – equivalent to an annual contribution of £50,000 a year – might lead to some savings to taxpayers.
It may be, of course, that no one thinks to query such things - because so many staff now appear to work for agencies.
July’s figures show more than £20,000 was spent on agency staff – mainly in the finance, street cleaning and refuse collection services – although one single charge of almost £5,000 was for development control “assistance” in June alone.
Although it is no doubt cheaper to hire staff than to keep them on the books, there are some areas where we think that someone with more commitment than a week or two might be better for the job.
In the way that more information might be helpful to see where some of our money goes, we wondered what a housing court desk is, and why the council paid the Ringrose Law Group £5,000 for it  for the period between April and June.
At that rate it’s a yearly cost of £20,000 – but for what, exactly?
Is there a clue in a document published by Boston Borough Council in May last year, under the snappy headline: “Having problems paying for your home? Are you threatened with repossession due to mortgage or rent arrears?”
It asks: “Did you know that FREE representation is available at Boston County Court for all rent or mortgage possession cases? The duty desk is hosted by Ringrose Law in partnership with Boston Borough Council.”
The Ringrose logo and web address also appears in the brochure, and a visit to their site refers to “Our newly established Housing Department” which offers help to clients with issues including possession and repossession.
However, we can find no mention of free representation – or of Boston Borough Council.
If this is indeed the same thing – and has to be the case – then £5,000 a quarter seems a lot to pay.
Might it not be better to see if it was cheaper to pay case-by-case,  rather than a fixed fee?
Finally, we note that Liability Orders – issued to recover money owed to the council using the court system, cost £6,642 between May and July.
Some of these orders are used to obtain unpaid council tax – but they are also used to hound further the desperate local business owners who have not paid their levy to the equally but differently desperate Boston Business Improvement District.
It would be interesting to know how many orders are put to this purpose – and also how much money in total that the orders will claw back.
Tomorrow, we’ll be looking at one particular payment where the borough clearly doesn’t bother to see if it is getting value – and finding an unexpected link between Boston and the West Country

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

Our Friday miscellany

of the week's

news and events

After all the trumpeting about the deal to “save” the Geoff Moulder Leisure Centre training pool, it seems that the plan isn’t quite as original as it was cracked up to be. Frampton and Holme’s Independent Councillor Brian Rush, writes to say: “It is ironic isn’t it, that this ‘new idea’ was put forward by the Better Boston Group way back? We had many meetings with Adrian Reed (executive headmaster of the Witham Schools Federation) and the Swimming Club, regarding just such a take over at the time. Had this idea not been talked down by Boston Borough Council officers, but taken forward - instead of running with the Leisure Connections debacle - so much time could have been saved, along with lots and lots of taxpayers money. I know success is never guaranteed, and I do hope the Conservatives will be big enough to give credit where it is due. Sometimes local people do know best, and maybe, just maybe, if our officers began to listen to local ideas, Boston might just be a better place.”
After our attempts earlier in the week to clarify exactly what the election of a mayor might mean for Boston, a reader sent us details of developments at Labour-run Leicester City Council – which recently abolished the post of chief executive. Directly-elected mayor Sir Peter Soulsby said the post was "redundant" because his role included most of the responsibilities of a chief executive, and that the council could save £175,000 a year by abolishing the post. Critics who say that changing the system would be more expensive, please take note!
What a funny old world it is when freedom of speech is threatened in a place like Boston! We accept that some people don't like what we say about our local politicians - invariably the politicians themselves - but have always remained satirical, and nothing more.  We once said that if identified we would cease blogging, and until recently that would have been the case. However, earlier this week we were confronted by something quite sinister.  An e-mail apparently from a senior councillor - couched humorously, but unambiguously -  claimed to know where a team member lived and included the words "be careful what you write ... "  We replied and questioned the implied threats in this communication and sought clarification, without success. We are not scared by bullyboy tactics and claims of knowing things which can be no more than guesses.   It is sad when politicians stoop so low to avoid criticism, but Boston Eye is made of sterner stuff. We would also be grateful if whoever has been repeatedly trying to hack our site would call it a day!
There seem to be some strange attitudes where our so-called visitor “attractions” are concerned. We note that the Guildhall – one of our few historic buildings – will close at noon tomorrow, then again at 12.30pm on 3rd September and 1pm on 24th September. The reason is that it has been booked for private functions on those dates. The Guildhall’s opening times are already pathetic – just 10-30am to 3-30pm Wednesday to Saturday. Surely an accommodation could have been made so that the private events started a couple of hours later to avoid the possibility of  potential visitors being disappointed? Apparently not.
But it gets worse. Now, the Maud Foster windmill has closed its tearooms after months of disruption from roadworks that made no difference at all to the traffic problems on Spilsby Road that they were designed to alleviate. 
Much further down the chain, we note that the giles52gallery  -which cost taxpayers so much money when it was created as part of a “community hub,” has been closed for the last fortnight – during what is probably the busiest time of the year for visitors. It seems that the goal of wrecking the town’s small businesses by closing the Market Place for at least  eight months is not enough. The plan now appears to be to run down what few visitor attractions we have as well.
Talking of the Market Place, we note that this week’s Boston Standard claims credit for the opening of an information centre to keep business owners abreast of developments. It was planned anyway, but according to the Standard came “just days after we called for a meeting.” Unfortunately, we can’t quite trace this call being made in the "newspaper" or on its website. Not only that, but as businesses can see their livelihoods being destroyed before their eyes, we see little to be gained from the presence of  a mostly unmanned information centre and a comments book – though some of the comments might well prove interesting!   Staff from the contractors will be available for three hours each Wednesday and Friday – but what can they say to make people feel better?  They can sympathise - possibly - but nothing is going to change. Hurrah for the Boston Standard. File the story under the same category as its “demand” for answers concerning North Sea camp made three weeks ago – which apparently have yet to materialise.
And still with the Market Place refurbishment – we have raised the point several times that works such as this seem to take far longer than they once did. An especially good example was the previously-mentioned Spilsby Road fiasco – which took twelve weeks to complete – possibly because on some occasions there were as few as three workers on site.

A  reader sent the picture on the right, which goes a long way to explaining why it will take  at least eight months to complete the Market Place works. Two men prepare for the arrival of a two foot length of kerbstone - which is being manoeuvred into place by a third man using a mini crane. How long it takes to lay each kerbstone is anyone’s guess – but we bet that in the old days of manual labour it would have taken a fraction of the time.

We are sure that the change of name from the Boston Bypass Independents to the Boston District Independents will do much to win the hearts and minds of the borough’s electorate. Accompanying the news is the same old waffle about independent thinking - and the suggestion that individual independents have little influence ...  whereas combining "independence" wins places on committees and greater power. Going it alone doesn’t seem to have harmed our individual independents so far, as they are well represented on committees. It sounds to us like the mixture as before – and as far as we can tell, the BBI/BDI hasn’t exactly blazed a trail at Worst Street since May’s elections. But now that it has finally thrown in the towel, it might find time to delete the BBI blog which began on 12th May 2007 and ended fifteen days later - and which still lists all the founder members of that ill-starred council  ... despite the claim that “this blog will be updated regularly to keep you informed on our progress…” Its earliest broken promise perhaps …?
Finally, in a move which could come back to haunt him, Skirbeck Ward Labour Councillor Paul Gleeson is inviting Boston people to name their local “grot spots.” He says – quite rightly – “We feel it is essential to run an all year round campaign on cleaning up our town and our estates.” The idea is that we send in photos of our grot spots and the reasons why we have nominated them. The details will then be highlighted on the local Labour Party website. We hope that they are prepared for the site to crash due to the sheer volume of contributions!
That’s it for this week – we’ll be back on Wednesday after a a slightly extended Bank Holiday break – but we’re not going away - and if you need us,  you can get in touch by e-mail.

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

Booze - and cheers
- Boston drinks
to it all!

It was interesting to read a recent item about Boston’s Street Pastors – a group of volunteers of whom few people in the town aged twenty-five and over will probably have ever heard.

Their job is to patrol the streets of Boston late on Saturday night - and watch for unfortunates who get into difficulties through too much drinking.
Interestingly, they see a slice of Boston life that many of the town's great and good - who should know better - are keen to deny exists.
The pastors carry bottles of water, flip-flops, foil blankets, sick bags and face wipes, and patrol the town’s nightclub areas into the wee small hours.
If you wonder about the flip-flops, they are issued to young women who shed their shoes when booze overtakes them – and so risk treading barefoot in the broken glass that litters our town these days.
The pastors also carry dustpans to collect glass from the streets – and pick up the empties left so they don’t join the deadly debris.
Their co-ordinator says: “We are very much part of the peace-keeping in the town.”
It makes Boston sound like Dodge City.
Whilst it is good to know that there is help available to frame this dystopian portrait – it highlights one more problem facing Boston.
The pastors have become another tier of society that helps people who can’t – or won’t – help themselves.
They represent a safety net for those whose sole aim is to hit Boston town centre on a Saturday night and get legless, regardless of the risk.
Whilst they don’t take on a policing role, the pastors take the weight off the police and avoid charges of drunkenness which would otherwise end in a short sharp shock for an offender and a few hours in the cells with a fine next morning – once enough to prevent a second offence.
We’re sure that the police are happy because it makes their job easier, and according to one nightclub owner, the pastors “do a great service for the town at night time. They look after our customers and other people’s customers.”
And that, of course, spares club owners the trouble of looking out for the best interests of their clients.
By way of illustration, this week’s local “newspapers” carry the story of a judge who wants an investigation into the selfsame nightclub whose manager was quoted – regarding its fitness to have an alcohol licence.
His comments followed evidence about the amount of alcohol served to four people who later carried out an unprovoked attack on a total stranger.
Between them, they consumed jugs of vodka based cocktails; WKD – an alcopop – lager and bitter ... serving one defendant who had already drunk twelve pints of beer.
Doubtless, this manager was comfortable with the Street Pastors “looking after” his customers – but who “looked after” the assault victim was probably not his concern either.
It’s all so brainless.
What do you make of the man on a night out whose best quote was: “I really respect the Street Pastors, because their job is rubbish?”
Or the women who approached them to ask if they would be distributing flip-flops later – making their intentions for a good night out completely unambiguous.
Boston’s attitude to drinking and public order is ambivalent at least.
We have a Designated Public Place Order, which bans drinking in the town centre – but as our picture sent in by a reader clearly shows, you can tip a tinnie within yards of the town’s police station without a problem.
And whenever someone comes up with an idea to sell Boston, by staging an event in Central Park – which always seems to require a beer tent ... the borough council cynically and hypocritically waives the DPPO and looks the other way.
Increasingly, public order in Boston is in the hands of non-empowered individuals, and not the police who represent law and order …
We have the Town Rangers, who appear to spend most of their time loafing about in shop doorways, chatting; we think that we still have Police Community Support Officers – though these days they are never seen – and their “real” colleagues are also invisible.
It appears that we are making no effort to curb the problems that occur on Friday and Saturday nights in the town by trying to educate people to moderate their behaviour.
Instead we encourage a lifestyle that cossets them if they don’t – even though … in a worst case scenario – they could end up in intensive care or as a victim of rape.

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

It seems that when it comes to bypasses, nothing is too good for the people of Lincoln. The Tory leadership of Lincolnshire County Council has just taken what they call a “calculated risk” with a last-ditch £48 million offer towards a 4.88-mile Lincoln eastern bypass.

It represents an increase of £33.9 million on the previous figure of £13.8 million, and if the government takes the bait, the county council expects to take the money from reserves rather than borrowing. The extra money will be blagged back over twenty years from housing developers, district councils and other groups who will benefit from the bypass.
Astonishingly for a £10 million a mile price tag, the road has already been downgraded from a dual to a single carriageway to try to keep the government onside.
Some bypass!
The county council’s desperation has been noted by Boston’s Labour councillors, who want to know when our local Tory administration is going to put pressure on “their Conservative friends” at County Hall to make the same kind of commitment that they are making to Lincoln.
“What we don’t want to see happen in the next four years is Boston’s new administration staying silent to the County Council, similar to the previous administration,” they say. “So let’s see some action, as the recent benefits will soon be lost again by the ever increasing amount of traffic on our roads.”
The councillors also comment on the ironic situation in Spalding, which has a choice of two routes for a Spalding Western Relief Road. But both routes would cut through local allotments - which has provoked objections to the plans.
“Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have that option?” says the Labour group. “Isn’t Boston just as deserving of a bypass as Lincoln and Spalding for our economic success?”
Of course it is – it’s just that our local leaders appear willing to be led by their masters in Lincoln – which means we’ll probably never hear about a bypass for Boston again.
At the same time as the Spalding bypass issue, comes news of cash help to revamp and renovate historic shops and offices in Spalding, Crowland, Holbeach and Long Sutton
Traditional work to reinstate the authentic look of properties could be part paid through a something called the Partnership Schemes in Conservation Areas, which is run by South Holland District Council and English Heritage - and since 2007, more than £600,000 has been handed out.
Twenty-five buildings have been worked on - with an average grant of more than £24,000.
What intrigues us is that whilst South Holland District Council can walk the walk – all Boston Borough Council seems capable of is talking the talk.
As long ago as 2004, the Heritage Lottery Fund granted the council a Townscape Heritage Initiative worth up to £860,000 - but it was withdrawn in 2008 as it was unable to be delivered.
More recently, but still as long ago as 2008, the council was talking to English Heritage about investing in just such a project as the one that’s operating in South Holland.
An English Heritage spokesman said at the time: “We don't invest massive amounts every year but when we're interested in a place we'll consistently invest over a period of time. It might take seven or eight years to regenerate a place. In Boston it might take longer" In one town they spent 15 years helping shop owners do their places up and convert space over shops for residential use.
How is it that other local authorities seem able to short circuit the system and get money released in quantity for essential projects, whilst in Boston, they sit on their backsides while absolutely nothing happens?
In the time that Boston has been talking, South Holland has spent more than half a million pounds.

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