Yet another anomaly emerged this week when  people expressed their astonishment that the town managed to find bunting to mark the passage of the Olympic torch, after failing dismally to do so for the Diamond Jubilee. We don’t know about the colours – but in her infamous quote, Councillor Yvonne Gunter said that she wanted to see Boston “a blaze of patriotic red, white and blue.” to mark the Jubilee. “We want to see all areas of the town pulling together to make this a really special time for Boston - it won't happen again so we want everyone to make the most of it."  And what happened? Nothing.  So why was the reverse true where our hosting of the Olympic torch was concerned – and who was it at Worst Street that decided that a heavily commercially sponsored athletics event was more important than our patriotic duty?

We tottered the few yards from No 1 Eye Street to watch the Olympic procession passing by, and to be honest, were frankly a bit disappointed as the sponsors’ vehicles trundled past. They – plus all the other hangers on – made the arrival of the torch something of an anticlimax. What struck us most was the unnecessary "security" - involving around ten police motorcyclists, four police cars and their occupants and who knows how many others on foot.  It seemed to us to be massive overkill – and we could not help but notice that plenty of police officers of all stripes could be mustered for events that are overtime magnets– the Mayoral service at Boston Stump is another example - yet are never seen on the streets or around  the place when you want them. And once again, Boston appears to have missed the boat in terms of coverage. The BBC’s Look North was very generous towards Grimsby, Skegness, and Lincoln, of course - whilst even lowly Ingoldmells and Hogsthorpe got good airtime. Grimsby abseiled the torch down a tower, whilst Skegness hosted a flypast by our local Lancaster bomber. Their imagination and ingenuity was reflected in the coverage. Boston  managed around three seconds, during which a woman did a handstand. And even though the BBC national website hosted a link to that of Boston Borough Council, details of the torch and its route were sadly absent.

Something which probably boosted the publicity allocated to the coast was East Lindsey’s  coincidental SO Festival  comprising  39 local sporting, heritage and cultural events to showcase the district and attract visitors. Whilst East Lindsey District Council was the primary funder, support was also forthcoming from Arts Council England, Centrica, Lincolnshire County Council, and Lincoln University, as well as the European Regional Development Fund.  Last year's festival cost £200,000 and brought in £1,200,000. This year, the organisers hope that the same investment will bring in £1,500,000.  What a shame that our own district council couldn’t have staged something to coincide with this and possibly have lured a few crumbs from the rich man’s table.
Much of this is down to good promotion, and - whilst the latest edition of Lincolnshire County Council’s County News is  currently transitioning between our doormat and wheelie bin – we note how lacklustre it is when it comes to telling the county what’s going on in Boston. The page dedicated to an “essential” guide to what’s on in Lincolnshire between July and September, contains just two events with a Boston connection – one at Holland Fen and the other in Stickney. Of course, this is a countywide list, so we didn’t expect too much. But whatever happened to the’s on diary that was once hosted on the borough council website? It’s vanished – that’s what..
Yesterday, we mentioned the number of senior officers at Boston Borough Council who no longer work full-time for the authority.  Shortly afterwards, we stumbled on this entry on the social networking page  Linkedin …

click to enlarge photo

Could someone please explain …?

A visitor to  Wednesday night’s final meeting of Boston Borough Council’s immigration task and finish group tells us: “It went quite well, and the chairman made a point of understanding that due to the lateness in forwarding questions, that if we had any problems answering we could have time to send them in. The visiting professor (Gary Craig) made some very valid points, but alas, his visit was only a short one as he had to catch a train at 7.30 pm. It was by far the busiest meeting yet and even a few attendees were given a chance to have a say - so quite refreshing. Alas, it will be September before the findings of the meetings will be put together in a report we were told, So that time scale may not go down to well with those who may vote for the march to go forward at next week’s meeting.”   
Another view of the professor’s offering to the meeting was less charitable. Independent Councillor Carol Taylor records in her blog   "I was not impressed.  Firstly he informed us that he could only stay an hour because he had a train to catch, which questions whether he really understood just how important this meeting was to us. Secondly, he didn't really tell me anything that I didn't already have some knowledge; he was, however, able to execute his delivery more eloquently. Thirdly, at times I felt he was patronising when he said ‘where would we get our take aways from’  if we got rid of non-English people?  Pretty grim, I thought, coming from an eminent professor. He did tell us, though, that his book had come out one month ago …” And one other reader told us: "Professor Craig stated Boston has only 5,000 immigrants, including 15 Lithuanians. I would like to know where he got that figure from, as I believe the general consensus is that we have at least five times that amount. Is there any evidence or proof of numbers available?
Despite last week’s  reminder that the moment is now long gone, Boston’s Business "Improvement" District persists in telling visitors to its website “we believe we have as good a chance as any in being successful” with its  entry to win one of the initial  Portas Pilot prizes of £100,000 for each of 12 towns wanting to improve themselves.  The results were announced almost three week ago, and Boston's bid was a failure.We know that the BID is a snail-like organisation, but do wish – especially given its name – that it could be just a bit more businesslike. Two opportunities to brighten  local businesses with floral  hanging baskets –  in time for the Diamond Jubilee and the Olympic torch procession have now been missed.  At this rate, when the flowers arrive, there will be no-one to see them because we’ll all will be on holiday.
Meanwhile, we read that the BID is having a second go at staging a £10,000  free music festival in Central Park ... on July 21^st. The first  Boston Beat was cancelled at the eleventh hour  last September at the request of Boston Council - due to the temporary relocation of the market to the park area. We questioned the first time round the value of spending so much money on an event that  includes a beer tent, as we cannot see what benefit it will bring to local business. Not only that, it seems an expensive way to showcase local bands.   Despite the fact that the 21^st July event is just three weeks away, we have seen no publicity for it. Given the recent debacle involving the concert planned by Boston Town Football Club –  it is to be hoped that all the appropriate applications and paperwork have been sent in. If not, we hope that Boston BID hasn't paid up front ...
Given the importance of the post of a Lincolnshire Police Commissioner  - for which elections are to be held in November -  we feel that more information should be available by now. This week saw an announcement by Mervyn Barrett from Spalding – whoreceived an OBE in 1999 for services to the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders – that he intended to stand. Several names more local to Boston have appeared in the past few months – and the most up to date list we could find was the one below ...

click to enlarge photo

However, with just four months to go to the election, isn’t it time that we were given a definitive list of who is standing and  - if they are political party candidates, who they are representing. People need time to make up their minds and gather information. If not, they won’t bother to vote, and  the usual  accusations of apathy will be heard yet again.
We note a report in the local “newspapers” this week that a Boston doctor told the council’s immigration inquiry that the arrival of large numbers of immigrants has not put any significant strain on health services. In so doing he was following the politically correct script already trotted out by witnesses such as the police, educationalists, trade unionists, etc etc. Meanwhile, at least one local surgery is currently displaying notices apologising for the difficulty in booking appointments, explaining that they are not allowed to close their lists, and promising to appoint an additional GP as soon as possible. Where on earth are all the extra people are coming from, we wonder? Having said that, we note that the doctor who made the claim recently told newspaper readers that when he was young, his most prized possession was my comfort blanket called Claude.Enough said.
Finally, whilst we have every sympathy with the victims of the flooding in other parts of the county which have caused such devastation in the past week or so, we also have to confess a sense of schadenfreude as – yet again – torrential rain and bad weather has left Boston and the surrounding areas unscathed. This has been the case for some years now, as unexpected flooding has brought chaos to areas of the country previously considered immune.  Meanwhile,  Boston - the number one flood risk area in the country according to all the official definitions –  has more than adequate protection measures in place. Hopefully, someone within the ranks of the borough’s great and good will ensure that the Environment Agency has taken this news on board – and shared it with the British Association of Insurers.

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

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com

We were taken to task after Tuesday’s blog which referred to Boston Borough Council as insignificant and unimportant.
“There are many problems with Boston Borough, but I don't think we are unimportant or insignificant,” one councillor wrote to say.
“We may be in the great scheme of things, of course, but I think labelling us as this is not a fair comment and will serve only to make people like me feel rather dejected,”
We’re sorry about that - but we spoke as we found, and with no intention of criticising the people who work there –or some of the councillors
The fact is that Boston is ranked 331^st out of the 354 English local authorities by population-  which makes it small.
It is also the case that the bulk of its income goes towards paying a dwindling workforce and maintaining its offices, or for the cost of benefit administration and payments - something that is set to change.
No wonder that Lincolnshire County Council’s leader, Martin Hill, appeared on BBC’s Look North late one night before Christmas and declared that that the county should take over the running of Lincolnshire from the current district authorities.
We seem to be paying for admin more than once, which scarcely makes sense in these cash-strapped times.
No, despite local pride, the fact remains that Boston Borough Council is indeed small and insignificant – and as we pointed out in the same blog, currently in the hands of a leadership with no money and no ideas.
Nonetheless, Boston tries to talk the talk – rather like a small terrier barking at the bigger dogs in the park as if to say that it could best them if only it was let off its lead.
The slogan for a number of years now has been “Boston - a great past, an exciting future”
Certainly, the past was better than the present, and although our crystal ball is a little smeary these days, we have a strong feeling that the future will  definitely be less than great.
It always seemed to us that becoming a councillor was a little like being one of those great landscape gardeners of history – such as Lancelot Capability Brown – who, of course, married a Boston girl.
Your job is to take a barren landscape, plan what it will look like in, say, fifty years’ time, plant a few saplings, sow a few seeds and then hope that you got it right – because you’ll be long dead before the garden looks even halfway decent.
Certainly, there has been something seedy about our administrations in recent years, but sadly everything in the garden is not lovely – quite the reverse.
Saplings sown years ago such as the Assembly Rrooms and the Haven Gallery are currently in the process of being felled – to provide for fuel for the bank balances.
To be fair, not all the problems the fault of the authority, as in recent years we have seen severe cuts in local council income.
But it is the way that the issues are being dealt with that causes us concern.
Just as governments hammer smokers, drinkers and drivers to keep their coffers filled, so it is that our leaders in Boston think that motorists will endlessly tolerate increased parking fees – even though the famous Portas Report, which the council enthusiastically embraces in so many respects – advocates provision of free parking to stimulate business and the local economy.
And perhaps they think that we don’t resent swingeing increases in the death duties charged at our local cemetery and crematorium.
If you have the time and patience to struggle through it, Boston’s draft annual financial report was under discussion earlier this week.
It runs to 100 pages of mind-numbing accountancy-speak, and we defy almost anyone to make any kind of sense of it.
In fact, we'd go further, and offer our sympathies to councillors grappling to understand what it's all about.
Whatever happened to plain English?
One interesting point, though, - which in many ways underlines our earlier comments -  is the way that not only have the senior management tiers within the council shrunk, but many of them are no longer full time.
Whilst the report reminds us that our £105,000 a year Chief Executive is not a direct employee of the authority, but is contracted on an interim consultancy basis, it fails to point out that he only works for 15 days a month, making him – pro rata – as highly paid as some of the biggest local authority chief executives  ... even though he works for one of the smallest.
We share the post of Strategic Director (S151) fifty-fifty with East Lindsey District Council - and our Head of Business Transformation works part time.
When the news was announced that the Chief Executive’s contract was being extended until March next year, council leader, Peter Bedford, said there was “still important work for the council to complete with a settled chief executive.”
Perhaps one day soon we may learn what it is – as it would be nice to see something important come from our so-called leaders for once.

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

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com

Assuming that the sojourners from Boston Borough Council can drag themselves away from their Birmingham jolly in time, we expect to see a full house for tomorrow’s special council meeting to rubber stamp the amendments to its  parking policy - which has at its heart the introduction of charges for disabled blue badge holders.
As it is a “special” meeting there is only one agenda item - and “in accordance with the provisions of the council’s constitution” no questions will be allowed from councillors or the public
Fate forfend that anyone would consider easing the rules so as to let a little democratic sunlight into the stygian council chamber.   
To highlight the decision not to allow the public to speak, Boston Disability Forum will be holding a silent protest, from 5.45pm until 6.15pm outside the  Worst Street municipal buildings.
Meanwhile, their petition against the charges on a national website  has reached almost 100.
However, the council is used to dismissing objections.
Time and again, its 86-page, 26,743 word report rebuts objections and even goes so far as to  recommend accepting the report immediately after the two and a half page introductory summary.
Interesting lines such as “Disabled people will not, through the introduction of charges, be treated any less favourably than non-disabled people” echo the pitiful argument of Councillor Derek Richmond - who insisted that disabled people resent free parking because it discriminates against them, and his colleague Gloria Smith, who subsequently uttered the even more pathetic “It’s nice that we are not going to be discriminated against, we are going to be treated as equal and being charged.”
Now, is that crawling, or is that crawling?
One minor but contentious concession has been to allow disabled people an extra 30 “free” minutes of parking time for the same price as able-bodied people to give them time in which to hobble back to their cars. But this is not “free” as the council claims - since it has hitherto not been charged for.
Another is that the charges will not apply to the 147 spaces in the five on-street car parks operated by Boston Borough Council
Given that many drivers use these spaces for parking to avoid the main car parks, such spaces are likely to be at a premium.
A more considerate and imaginative solution would have been to make all  of those spaces available to the disabled – but of course, that would reduce the takings, wouldn’t it?
There is also an issue about the ability of the disabled to use the ticket dispensing machines – for which the council has proposed “some alternative methods of payment.”
But the bottom line – as it so often is with our caring Conservative leadership - is making money.
The report points out “Blue Badge holders occupy up to 16% of spaces in council operated car parks for which they are currently not charged. Income from these spaces could be used to improve the council’s parking stock and to ensure effective ongoing management.”
We hope that this means the council will have more money to spend on the quality of car parks – which in some areas leaves a lot to be desired.
But -  as we pointed out in the case of the Assembly Rooms –  which are now being sold because the council can’t afford to redecorate or maintain them -  a regular and reasonable annual financial allocation in the past few years would have abrogated the need for major spending in one lump.
Instead, the council prooposes to make what it calls  “savings” – and the easiest way to do this is via the opposite route -  “charging” for a service, but to call this an “economy.”
We hope that anyone who can spare the time will try to get along to tomorrow night’s meeting to see our leadership’s idea of democracy in action.
And although we’ve mentioned it several times before, it is worth pointing out yet again that - despite all the flatulent justification for introducing charges in the name of equality – there will soon be just one group of around 200 people in Boston fortunate enough to be able to park for nothing.
They are the members and officers of Boston Borough Council.
As George Orwell so perfectly summarised it in his novel  Animal Farm …

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

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

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com

The biggest annual mutual grooming exercise in local government gets underway today with the start of the  three-day Local Government Association conference – and fear not, good burghers of Boston, your humble borough council will be there representing you.
In previous years, attendance for this bash has been given an advance mention in council agendas – so that members at least have a chance to raise an eyebrow and if they wish, question the value for money of going to it.
But we are told that this year, councillors were only informed of the event last week -  at the same time they were told that Boston Borough Council’ delegates would be the leader, Peter Bedford, his deputy, Michael Brookes, and the spokesman for the next largest group – who this time around is Independent Councillor Richard Leggott.
With such a fait accompli, it has not been possible for anyone to ask if it’s worth it.
But one councillor told Boston Eye: “I was shocked by what I consider to be a massively expensive jolly. How can we quantify the value that this will return to the people of Boston, and indeed across this cash strapped land, whilst jobs are lost and living costs are spiralling?”
Tickets for this dog hanging are £495 each – and that’s the discounted rate for LGA members - which excludes accommodation, and travel costs, or meals.
We estimate the cost of our three delegates won’t leave much change from £2,500.
The conference is claimed to be “one of the biggest political conferences of the year” and “attracts” more than 1,100 delegates and keynote speakers from central and local government.
To receive the discount, councils pay to be a member of the LGA.
Last year, English Democrat Councillor David Owns published the cost of this on his blog.
In 2007/08 membership cost £16,250, in 2008/09 it was £13,485, for 2009/10 the bill was £10,000, followed in 2010/11 by a fee of £8,180 and for 2011/12 £6,825.
The grand total - £54,740.
Although the costs are declining, it would be interesting to know what Boston Borough Council actually gets from its membership.
And what does a small, insignificant and unimportant district council  - whose leaders have no money and no plans - expect to get from their three days in Birmingham.
Obviously there is the chance to rub shoulders with the rest of the great and the good - although how many have much time for or interest in Boston is anyone’s guess.
You can get a feel for the event by looking at some of the subjects under discussion.
WARNING: You may need a  to wear a mackinTOSH for protection.
 “Creative Councils – the Discipline of Innovation” … What are your employees worth? The changing face of pay bargaining in local government” (we are sure that the staff will love that one) … “Improvement science: understanding the opportunity, increasing the pace and injecting the necessary capacity to enable effective delivery” (work that one out for yourself, because we can’t) … “Can we learn from the private sector? How do we reduce workforce costs and still drive innovation?”  (that sounds like another one that will be popular with the staff!)  - and how about “The family silver – to polish or to sell (to support growth?)”
Betwixt and between are  sessions with organisations such  EoN,  pushing cheap electricity, and Ernst and Young  with ideas on how to flog off the family silver.
An irony is that a lot of the session speakers could be heard much closer to home than in Birmingham.
They include Councillor Gary Porter, Leader of South Holland District Council, and Terry Huggins, Joint Chief Executive of South Holland and Breckland, and a talk from South Holland and Deepings MP John Hayes, Minister of State for Further Education.
Also during the conference, Boston delegates can hear the “leader” of the “independents” on Lincolnshire County Council, Marianne Overton, chair one session on the implications of the Localism Bill, another on the Local Government Challenge and contributing to yet a third on councillors as talent spotters, whilst Tony McArdle, Chief Executive of Lincolnshire County Council is participating in a session called “troubled families.”
Frankly, many of the sessions are well about Boston’s pay grade – being more the province of high spending county and metropolitan councils who are responsible for providing real services..
Certainly we could see nothing about how to install a fountain in a park on the agenda – although Boston might have found something like that helpful.
The conference ends on Thursday afternoon with a 30-minute rallying cry from Eric Pickles, Secretary for Communities and Local Government.
It officially closes at 4pm – but is followed by the “Local Government Challenge award and reception.”
However, we suspect that the Boston delegates will have cut and run by then.
In case it’s slipped their minds, they need to be back in Worst Street for the “special” council meeting to rubber stamp the “innovative” plan to fill a financial black hole by charging disabled drivers to park – whilst still enjoying free parking for borough staff and councillors.
In recent nears several councils have decided that membership of the LGA is not worth the money and can constitute a saving in its own right.

Perhaps Boston could consider joining them.

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

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com

If ever there was a time when we would have thought it unlikely that the debate on immigration issues in Boston would go pear-shaped, it would be about now.
The coming week sees the final meeting of the Task and Finish Group set up by Boston Borough Council, which will then head for a darkened room to deliberate and publish its findings and recommendations in the autumn.
But, after listening to BBC Radio Lincolnshire last Friday, it looks as though there may be a few potholes in the road ahead between now and then.
A week today sees a public meeting at the Assembly Rooms at which a vote will be taken on whether the protest march that was postponed last November should go ahead - or whether dialogue with the authorities should continue.

Last resort 

The protest group leader, Dean Everitt told the BBC that he thought a march was a last resort, but added: “It’s the only option we’ve got at the moment because I feel that a lot of talking’s been done and not a lot of action’s been taking place …
“The last time we were going to put the march on, we pulled out because we got into talks with the council. The march would only really have got us into talks. We did the right thing. We knew that there was an element of trouble that was going to be at this march and I think by postponing it a year and looking at the issues, we’re now a little more up to date with what’s going on.”
Asked how things had changed, he said: “We’ve done all the talking we can do with the council, and people just aren’t prepared to admit there’s a problem. It’s now time for a show of people to say there is a problem with immigration.”

"Unanimous" vote to march

What did he think the outcome might be?
“I think it will be a unanimous vote to march, to be truthful.
“The march won’t solve it but I think it will make the authorities realise just how big a problem we’ve got in Boston.”
Over to Councillor Paul Kenny, chairman of the Task and Finish Group on the Social Impact of Population Change on Boston, who again trotted out his catchphrase that it’s “time for talking not walking.”
 “What I’ve been saying to some of the people from the protest group is that I fully  admit that there some issues that need to be dealt with in Boston,” he said, “and all I would be saying to them, seriously, is let’s bear in a bit longer and let’s get some actions put together.
“One of the things I would really be interested in - and I’m going to go to the public meeting - I’d like to know from that group what they’d like to happen, and in some ways they’ve told us they want to march but I  don’t know why they want to march and that will be useful …”

"They disagree ..."

On Dean Everitt’s charge that no-one is taking the group’s concerns seriously, Councillor Kenny responded: “Every time evidence has been given, there are some members of the protest group who disagree with the evidence that’s been given. At the end of the day, what we’ve done at Boston Borough Council is got a group of eminent people across the country from the Border Agency to the police, and education. Occasionally, one of the problems that I think we’ve had is that he and some of his colleagues disagree with what they’re saying.
“I think that most people admit that there are issues in Boston. It’s about what degree they are and how do we come together to resolve them.”
Will an action plan come out of all this, Councillor Kenny was asked.
“One of the things I can guarantee you, in the autumn we will have a report on the kind of issues that are in Boston, and all I’ll be saying to people within the protest groups and people in Boston is that report is going to be made available and at that stage people can either say some of the actions that are coming from it are what they would support or they don’t support.
“I don’t think that anybody in Boston Borough Council admits that there aren’t issues. What we’re not clear at this stage until the report is written is what those issues are  and sometimes, as you realise, you need to make sure they get the right evidence before you make the right action.

"If they don't like report , I'll back their march"

“I know that people want to walk or march – but what are they walking or marching for? I know that they want to put a point over, all that I want to say is that this stage, don’t we need to look at the actions that are coming out … and if they’re not happy with those, I think that they’ve got every right to go and march.”
Q: So hold off any decision on any sort of march until you hear what this report has to say. That’s what you’re saying?
“I think what I am saying is, absolutely.
“If they are completely unhappy with the report that comes from the council, absolutely, I’d support them.”
So what can we make of all this?
Given that the protest group now feels that all the talking so far has led nowhere, it might be time to think of a better phrase than “talking not walking” – as urges what the protesters most object to … endless dialogue without a solution in sight.
Then there is the public meeting. The protest march group has 2,350 members – but it seems likely that only a handful of them will attend the decisive public meeting.
Would a “unanimous” vote by a small number really be considered representative?
Then there is the matter of language.
What does Councillor Kenny mean when he says “I don’t know why they want to march?”
That is one thing that has been made clear time and again. The marchers want publicly and physically to stand up and be counted – we would have thought that anyone could have worked that out.

Is "evidence" fact?

And when Councillor Kenny says: “Every time evidence has been given, there are some members of the protest group who disagree …”  what he appears to be saying is that the evidence is correct and that anyone who disputes it is in the wrong.
Certainly, interpretations can differ.
But we find ourselves hard pressed, for instance, to accept trade union assertions that immigration has had no impact on the employment of local people; or the police denial of any impact on crime statistics, or the NFU’s claim that local people are so lazy that the jobs have gone to others.
Councillor Kenny should avoid confusing evidence with political correctness from witnesses who are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.
As it is, he has now opened a whole new can of worms by saying that he would support a march if people are unhappy with the findings of his group.

  

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

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com

The latest allowances received by Boston Borough councillors have just been published – along with those for Lincolnshire County Council … which has seven members representing Boston.  Quite clearly, some Boston councillors deserve their allowances. They go the extra mile that makes a difference – and could actually be deemed to be “underpaid.” But we also know of some who are making money for jam and who – if Boston was an authority which looked more closely at value for money - would be named and shamed and invited to find someone else to line their wallets. The figures also give a lie to the idea that being a councillor is universally a lowly recompensed  labour of love and service. At the top end of the scale, it’s possible to do quite well in Boston alone – even with a starting basic allowance of around £2,500. At County Hall, allowances start at £8,184 – and at the top end members of the county executive can exceed £20,000. So it is that our local leader, for example, can pocket more than £10,000 in Boston and £11,250 for his county duties including travel. The basic at Boston is £2,578, and at Lincoln, £8184.
Still with matters financial,  the most recent issue of the council’s spending figures over £500 for April,  include payments to the borough’s Chief Executive, Richard Harbord, totalling  £30,375 – accounting for £10,125 each for 15 days’ work in January, February and March.   That’s £675 a day. Mr Harbord is, of course, paid through his private company, Mrf Uk which gives him benefits in tax and national insurance payments not enjoyed by other borough employees. This caused much consternation four months ago, when the Deputy Leader of the Labour Group went so far as to write to the Chief Executive of the Audit Commission and ask for an investigation. However, this is Boston, where storms in a teacup are commonplace, and as you might expect, nothing more seems to have been said or done. Similarly, when a “final” extension to Mr Harbord’s contract was announced, council leader Peter Bedford said that within six months the council would start looking for a new chief executive – which would probably be a shared, part-time post. That was nine months ago.
It seems to be all about money this week, with the news that Boston Borough Council may have found someone on whom to dump the unwanted Assembly Rooms and The Haven Gallery. The two buildings couldn’t be more different. The Assembly Rooms have been declared surplus to requirements because of the huge amount required to redecorate them and improve the inside of the building. This is clearly a self-inflicted injury. The building has been owned by the council for almost 200 years – and was once a considerable asset to the town. It is now in the state it is through neglect – and had the council taken the trouble to create a reasonable annual maintenance budget, it would not be the eyesore it has become. To preside with such disregard over the decline of a listed building is disgraceful.  Worse still,  its new incarnation will probably see it turned into yet another night club which the borough can well do without.
The Haven Gallery is a different kettle of fish entirely. It was a project that was doomed to failure from the outset, as promotion of the “arts” in Boston has never been embraced by the general public. Now it has become just more millions down the drain, and we think it a pity that no-one considered transferring the town’s library to the Haven site, which would have been a commonsense move for which it is ideally suited, and which would also have retained a showcase for local exhibitions. Ironically, last month the council stumped up more than £14,500 in business rates for the premises.
Still, it’s only money – even if it’s ours, the taxpayers. In fact there seems to be an almost tidal pattern about the way Boston Borough Council fritters away our council tax. Firstly, it creates an asset – examples in recent years include a stock of council housing as well as the Haven and to a lesser extent the Assembly Rooms. Then when times are hard – as was the case with the housing stock – a sale is used to replenish the borough’s depleted coffers.  Let’s not talk about the Princess Royal Sports arena. The latest asset in the council's crosshairs  is the Geoff Moulder Leisure Centre. As we mentioned recently, the council  has already appears to have spent £250,000 on improvements, when just £190,000 was allocated.  But that isn't the end. In last month’s spending figures, we note further sums of £8,760 and £5,800 have been spent on unspecified “refurbishment” – and almost £3,000 on “uniforms.” Well, with all that money, you have to dress the part, don’t you? How long, we wonder, before the pool will be deemed too expensive and sold to the private sector.
Whilst there’s been much debate on the damage caused to the Jubilee fountain in Boston’s Central Park, one point seems largely  to have been ignored. It is quite clear that this fountain was not of the build quality appropriate to a public area. The fact that a couple of 13 year-old girls could climb it and wreck it is clear evidence of that. However, what would have been the case had the fountain fallen and injured the vandalettes?  You can bet your boots that in our current compensation culture the angry parents would have blamed the council and wanted damages for the injury and trauma sustained – and they would most like have been awarded it. We always thought that where public structures such as this were concerned, a risk assessment was carried out to identify any potential dangers. Does this mean that no assessment was done? Or worse still, that one was carried out and the potential for damage either missed or ignored?
We mentioned brown garden wheelie bin deliveries last week, and we’re pleased to note that one lucky person has won his bin as a prize. But what about the rest of us?  The first we heard that brown bins were being delivered this week and next was in one of last week’s two local newspapers. The information was  subsequently slipped into the announcement of the bin winner on Boston Borough Council’s website earlier in the week. The story ends: “Deliveries are being made throughout the next two weeks, so all bins are scheduled to have been delivered by close of play on Friday 29^th June. If you have ordered a bin and it hasn't been received by then, please call the Fen Road depot …”   Take that! Surely there must be a better way to do it?
We’ve previously mentioned the Boston Town Area Committee and its generosity where Central Park is concerned. Wednesday’s meeting of BTAC heard concerns that £20,000 had been allocated to the park as a “continuous payment” - agreed by the last administration.   Apparently this has now been withdrawn as a rolling kitty - and about time too!  BTAC has decent reserves, but its income is only around £83,000 to fund projects in the 16 council wards where the bulk of the population live.  It’s time to think twice  before doling out £20,000 for a skate park, £5,000 for a Jubilee party which barely anyone attended, the thick end of £2,000 for a comedy fountain, and £1,000 for chalking on the pavements. Perhaps if the committee made itself more widely known to the voters, some more worthwhile schemes would emerge
Earlier this week we heard a call for more considerate parking in Boston’s Market Place. And yet again, that raises one or two questions. Firstly, the concept that was so widely bandied around was that the area would once again take on a grand look associated with Market Places of yore (granny.) There is still parking available – but it was much reduced in numbers, and discreetly marked out. Sadly, but not surprisingly in Boston,  no one realised that these subtle markings – indicated by a different shade of the York stone setts -  vanished when it rained. So out came the paintbrushes in the good old heavy handed Boston manner. Another problem is that for all practical purposes, there is an unmarked carriageway through the Market Place for the Into Town bus rat run that the Tory leadership is so frightened to challenge.  Ever since the Market Place re-opened – despite being unfinished still, and without any decent ceremony – people have been declaring their sadness at the disappointing way that £2 million has been spent.  We hope that there is still time for the council to snatch some kind of victory from this debacle, but won’t hold our breath.
The big number of the week concerns the report to next week’s special meeting of Boston Borough Council on "objections to the off street parking places and controlled parking zone order 2002 (amendment no.1) order 2012" - the one that charges disabled  blue badge holders to park. This is a meeting where most people are not allowed to speak. Before the 86 page report totalling 26,743 words even begins, the recommendation is “That having considered the objections the Council resolves to introduce the Amendment Order No1 2012 to the Borough of Boston (Off Street Parking Places and Controlled Parking Zone) Order 2002 in its current form. The words open and transparent have apparently acquired completely new meanings.
A smaller number – but one which we think could become even smaller still - concerns the purchase of Sure Shot gooseneck  basket ball hoop by the council’s grounds maintenance section for the kingly sum of £919.95. Looking through websites of suppliers of such equipment, we feel that we would be hard pressed to spend half that  amount on the sort of equipment apparently described.
And staying with sport, we note with a sinking feeling next week’s Olympic Torch relay through the town.  Most disappointing is how few truly local people are involved – and another local commentator tells us that some worthy nominees were rejected in favour of others with no real local connection. Then there is the disruption to the market and the Wide Bargate taxi rank - with the former consigned to Bargate Green, whilst anyone wanting a taxi from the market will have to walk to Custom House Quay to get one.  The route apparently passes through Strait Bargate, but the hype glosses over the fact that the runners are preceded and followed by around 14 vehicles, including huge promotional coaches and eight police motorcycles -  and that's before our local boys in blue stick their oar in. Roads are being closed, parking is being banned – and for what? Two relays, the first - outside the town - lasting just 15 minutes, and the second taking only 32 minutes. Couldn’t they have found  a bypass route around the town? It might have set a good example.

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

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com

As we flipped through the papers of up and coming council meetings the other day, we thought that we heard a sound like the bottom of a barrel being scraped.
On closer examination, we found that it came from the agendas ofthe next couple of meetings of the Task and Finish Group on the Social Impact of Population Change on Boston, the 7th evidence-gathering session which is  being held today, with another next Wednesday.
We were reminded of the Walter Gabriel-style character Joshua Merriweather who, in an episode called “The Bowmans” starring the late, great Tony Hancock refuses to be written out of the script.
Although many people thought that the committee had now run its course, and would be retiring to devise the silver bullet needed to cure the town’s woes, today’s session will hear from a number of council officers including those for community safety, housing  including HMOs, environmental and public health and licensing. A representative from the UK Border Agency will also be there.
So will Councillor Peter Robinson, Lincolnshire County Council’s Executive Member Community Safety, Cohesion and Diversity, and Boston North West County Councillor Andrea Jenkyns, in her capacity of “support councillor for community safety and social cohesion.”
We can’t find this title against her name at County Hall level, and the nearest we have got  is as the person responsible for community cohesion with the now defunct Boston North West Action Group which has become part of the  useless but expensive Placecheck scheme.
Quite what will emerge from today’s meeting is anyone’s guess – but it might be easier to second guess the script at next week’s meeting when Professor Gary Craig, B.Sc., Dip. Ed., Dip C.W., PhD, AcSS, FRSA (pictured above) takes the floor.
Professor Craig is Professor Emeritus* of Social Justice at the University of Hull, Joint Head of the Centre for Social Inclusion and Social Justice and Associate Fellow, WISE (the Wilberforce Institute for the study of Slavery and Emancipation,) where he has led the team working on issues of modern slavery -  and whose recent research projects have included the social and economic impacts on communities of refugees and migrants.
Professsor Craig’s current research interests include modern slavery, community development, poverty and race and ethnicity. His 200-plus publications include seven edited books dealing with local poverty, community care and development, social security, race, food poverty in the UK and rapidly-changing ethnic minority populations.
He was recently made a Trustee of the Desmond Tutu Foundation UK.
Boston Borough Council regards this as a great coup.
But Phil Drury, Boston Borough Council's deputy chief executive, has ruffled feathers by saying: "We are fortunate to have an expert of Professor Craig's standing attending. It is an opportunity for anyone to hear what he has to say and ask questions of him. He will be able to answer with authority, backed by research and fact."
A regular contributor to the Boston Protest March Facebook page found this a little provocative.
He wrote: “By stating that the local people will have an ‘opportunity’ to listen and ask questions, and that his answers are backed by research and fact, is stating a pre-supposition that Professor Craig is correct, and all the local people are wrong. I am willing to bet that the facts that he presents will not represent the experiences of the local people. It's a waste of time submitting questions … this is yet another tactic to waste time”
By all accounts there is now little enthusiasm for a protest march, but yet again the council is demonstrating that it has misread the feelings of local people and how to address them, and we wonder whether at the end of the day the Task and Finish Group’s efforts will have been worth it.
Interestingly, membership of the Task and Finish Group comprises five councillors from non ruling parties and four Conservatives from the controlling group.
Did the Tories decide to distance themselves from the word go by creating a minority position  on the committee from its inception, we wonder?

  * Emeritus = retired

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

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com

We all knew that it was going to happen – the only question was – “how soon?”
Boston Borough Council has asked for “more sensible and considerate car parking” after last week’s first craft market in the newly refurbished Market Place.
The reason?
People can’t work out where they should park.
Apparently, this is the latest in an epidemic of parking disobedience besetting the town.
According to the council: “In recent months there has been an increasing trend in parking on double yellow lines, in loading bays, on bends and in defiance of signs clearly stating that parking is not permitted.
“Buses have had to be diverted to avoid blockages caused by bad parking and drivers have had difficulty in making deliveries.”
As usual, the council has responded with its steamroller, iron first in the iron glove approach, and started handing out parking tickets with abandon.
“… drivers have found their unwillingness to use a permitted parking area very expensive,” gloats the borough website. “They have faced a £60 fine for a single offence - reduced to £30 if they pay up within seven days.
“Drivers continue to park their cars anywhere in the Market Place, in clear defiance of new signage which states the newly-marked bays only should be used. Those who have purchased a car parking ticket and then parked outside the marked bays do not buy themselves immunity from a fine.”
Not for the first time, the sort of problems described could have been avoided had the council given matters  a little more thought.
The first time it rained, was also the first time someone realised that the barely-visible lighter coloured stone setts became all but invisible.
The solution – send in a man with a paint brush to spoil the look of the place from the outset.
The “new signage” being so clearly defied, is the random placing of signs which read “new layout please park in marked bays only.”
Why hasn’t someone thought of sujpplying a few more signs to show just where these marked bays are?
Ian Martin, Boston Borough Council's economic development manager, is quoted as saying that there are 3,500 spaces in Boston where drivers can legally park.
So how about a few signs showing drivers where the nearest of these are?
Councillor Derek Richmond, portfolio holder for car parks, tell us Lincolnshire County Council is set to take over responsibility for on-street car parking in Boston from the police.
"Any perceived honeymoon period will soon be over," he said. "On-street parking will be enforced. We are sounding this reminder now so that motorists still have a little time to adopt better practice and get used to the idea that stricter car parking enforcement will be coming to Boston."
Not for a while yet though, Councillor Richmond.
Lincolnshire County Council submitted its application to take over parking enforcement at Easter and – like Alcoholics Anonymous - the Department for Transport require that a 12-step process must be completed before Parliament grants an authority civil parking enforcement powers.
LCC’s Executive Member for Highways and Transportation, Councillor William Webb, said: “It takes at least 20 weeks for the DfT to process the application, so we expect to be able to introduce CPE in the autumn.”
That does indeed create a “honeymoon period” -  during part of which a thoughtful  and considerate local council could devise a polite and well-structured advisory campaign to explain to motorists  what changes have been made to parking, where the spaces now are, and where the nearest alternative parking might be found.
Surely something like that is preferable to doling out tickets galore along with snarky, holier than thou comments.
Finally, we can’t end today’s blog without commenting on last week’s first craft market.
It looked fine – depending on where you were standing.
Within the semi-circle of stalls it was friendly and welcoming.
But from anywhere else it looked as though the men from BT had camped in for the long haul, and thus, an area well worth avoiding.
A little more thought about presentation might help, wethinks.

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

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com

Does this questionnaire ask what  we want answering?

Or just that which suits its purpose?

Once again, Boston’s Independent County Councillor Ray Newell lets us know how we may be able to influence County Hall to improve the town’s road system – in a way that his Conservative colleagues ... who make up the rest of the representation ...  do not!
He urges us to  complete  a county council questionnaire seeking responses to the latest Lincolnshire Transport  Plan – the fourth to be drawn up ...  covering the period from April next year for the next 10-15 years ahead.
“It is vital that you tell Lincolnshire County Council, in no uncertain terms, what you want included in Boston’s Local Transport Plan,” he says.
“If you believe as fervently as I do, that Boston desperately needs a distributor road, it is essential that you make your views known.”
Councillor Newell points out that any demand for a distributor road for Boston can only be made in the general comments box, which appears after question six.
He adds:  “The people of Boston are only too aware of the need for a distributor road, but this necessity has to be emphasised and documented. As many of us as possible must make our demand for a distributor road.
“On the last page of the document  –  under major highway schemes -  you will read that the Lincoln eastern bypass is being built; that Spalding’s western relief road, Grantham’s east-west link road and Lincoln’s east-west link road have been prioritised in the short to medium term.
“Please help to make Boston’s distributor road another of Lincolnshire County Council’s priorities!"
We couldn’t agree more.
The questionnaire itself is another of those typical local authority exercises which asks for lists of suggested actions to be prioritised.
Because it does not specify anything local, the results are open to generous interpretation when the answers are in.
Not only that, but the omissions speak louder than the questions…
For instance,  on improving transport in larger urban areas,  the choices for prioritisation  begin with  minor highway improvement, cycling, walking and public transport improvements, “smarter choices” -  which encourage less car travel -  “demand management” which actively discourages car travel , and traffic management measures such as one-way streets, speed limits and the like.
Although Boston is mentioned in this section  - along with Lincoln, Grantham and Gainsborough - as areas for which “specific” transport strategies have been developed with the district councils – anyone who does not consider that enough has been done cannot  vote for “major” highway improvements – because it  is simply not on the list.
However, one way around this is to complete section five– which asks how you would allocate £100 in minimum increments of £5 and a maximum of £50 – by spending your £50 maximum  on tackling problems in "larger urban areas" and specifying Boston as the beneficiary in section six.
Sadly, we don’t think this “consultation” will change anything – but every opportunity should be seized with both hands.
Once again, we thank Councillor Newell for drawing this to our attention.
But as we said at the outset - isn’t it a shame that his Conservative colleagues at County Hall couldn’t be bothered.
A copy of the consultation document can be obtained from www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/ltp4  or by phoning 01522-782114, or by phoning Councillor Newell at Boston 316444.
Completed questionnaires must be returned to: LCC Transportation, 3rd Floor City Hall, Lincoln, LN1 1DN no later than 27^th July.

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

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com

Councillor slams colleague's naming on Jubilee plaque

"Smacks of arrogance and shallow self-promotion"

An Independent Boston Borough Councillor has been highly critical of a decision to include the name of a portfolio holder alongside the Mayor on the plaque inscribed to mark the switching on of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee fountain.
The fountain was formally switched on a fortnight ago in a joint ceremony by Boston’s Mayor, Councillor Colin Brotherton, and the borough portfolio holder for leisure, Councillor Yvonne Gunter, before being removed days later after an attack by vandals.
In an e-mail to Boston Eye, Councillor Brian Rush writes:

Let me first state that I wholeheartedly agree that the wanton vandalism that destroyed the fountain in the town park was nothing less than disgraceful. Having said that, given the description of the suspects, it could be suggested that it was a pretty fragile construction, hardly the kind of thing one would expect in a local park, where it would be likely to tempt a few paddlers, if the weather were ever to warm up! The fact that it succumbed so easily, begs the question of its suitability for such a location, and as such the outcome may have well have had far more serious implications.

 Unfortunately however, the unsavoury incident did highlight one worrying little detail, spotted in the Look North news-clip, which as far as I am aware, is a diversion from the norm.

Since when did we begin to include Portfolio Holders on ceremonial Mayoral plates?Who allowed, or thought it right and proper, to engrave for posterity, the details of Councillor Ms Yvonne Gunter on the commemorative plaque? This may seem only a small point but, I have no problem with elected members using their position and publicity to promote or defend important constituent or electorate matters, but arrogance such as this, smacks only of shallow self promotion.

The question might also be rightly asked as to, why in fact Councillor Gunter was ‘put forward’ as the spokesman for BTAC, when in fact it should have been Chairman of this ‘Town’ Parish Council, Councillor  Mike Gilbert and/or Vice Chair Stephen Woodliffe, whose committee  provided the funds. Maybe these two little mild manners were trampled in the crush for camera.

The fact of the matter is that - even if some might question the whys and wherefores of the role of Mayor - until something changes, our Mayor is Boston Borough Council’s official ceremonial representative. The role in this case should therefore be afforded the same level of respect and individuality as any other dignitary invited to perform an official duty. This particular project was also a dedication to Queen Elizabeth’s Diamond Jubilee; therefore these two titles and descriptions are all that deserve to have been recorded.

Why on earth councillors or officers felt it necessary to include any other is beyond me, and a clear explanation should be provided. Unless of course we are unaware of some special reason or effort that Councillor Ms. Gunter considers herself deserving of such a Mention in Despatches.

What gives her the right to an eternal place in history, or is it a sad personal need to establish some longed for credibility! I think I recall, during her previous stint as a Councillor, her constant, and annoying gabbling about some fluffy scheme or other, and back then seemed to turn up at every available photoshoot.

Maybe the leader should relieve himself of his ‘Media Responsibility’ and ‘Give it to Gunter.’ 
I jest! I jest!

He might do well to recognise when any of his members begin acting like the previous bunch of ‘megalomaniac pantomime characters’ they replaced. Remember what happened to them!

Regular readers of Boston Eye will recall that we raised an eyebrow at the time of the announcement of the decision to make the ceremony a joint event – and also questioned the appropriateness of giving the role to the portfolio holder for leisure when both the Jubilee garden and the fountain were funded by Boston Town Area Committee - for reasons that are not quite clear. This should, as Councillor Rush observes, have meant that the BTAC Chairman Councillor Mike Gilbert ought to have been the one to accompany the mayor – if any accompaniment was thought necessary!
In terms of photographs – we again mentioned at an early stage in the life of the current council, that Councillor Gunter was far and away the leader when it came to photos in the Boston Bulletin.
Out of interest, we did a quick count, and note that since the council came to power, she has since been photographed in every bulletin except one – a total of 23 pictures in  13 issues.

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

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com

Week ending - our Friday review of the news and events of the past seven days

 When we asked the other week about how the new brown bins for garden waste were to be delivered, we had hoped for a slightly better answer than the one that has emerged. We raised the question at the time we ordered our bin, and the person we spoke to seemed surprised to be asked. Eventually it was suggested that as most people ordering bins had given their phone numbers, someone would ring and let them know.  Now it appears that deliveries will be made during a two-week period beginning this coming Monday - June 18^th. The request  for anyone who will be away during that time to ring and tell the council so that alternative arrangements can be made ignores the fact that they could be halfway through a two-week break now, and have a delivery scheduled for next week. It also ignores the fact that in some cases bins may be dumped for some time if a householder is at work or keeps the their bins behind locked gates at the rear of the house and only uses the access infrequently. It’s not a problem for Boston Borough Council, though – which says that the bins are not their responsibility. One other small point. So far the take up of brown bins is less than a third of the borough’s households. Stand by for uproar when the rest decide to get rid of the garden rubbish in the way they always have ..
Although we never received a reply from Boston Borough Council to our question concerning the disappearance of the Jubilee Fountain from Central Park, it was nonetheless grudgingly forced to admit that vandalism was the cause. This begs a couple of questions. According to the council, “the damage is the latest in what has become a daily catalogue of mindless vandalism.” In that case, ought it not have occurred to someone that installing a climbable structure in a park was not a very bright idea?  Perhaps a sign like the one pictured on the right might divert attention from whatever replaces it. Although the fountain cost around £1,000, it is clearly of domestic rather than industrial quality, and was always likely to be prone to damage from people jumping up and down on it. This in no way condones the acts of those who damaged it, but we hope that a lesson has been learned.  One final thought. What a shame that the council couldn’t have squirmed out of the offer to splash the story all over Look North - and thus avoid yet another piece of bad publicity for the town.
News that B&M Bargains is moving into the former Kwik Save in town is good because it will create 30 new jobs.  But it will also be just another among many when it comes to the merchandise.  Councillor Derek Richmond, portfolio holder for Boston town centre, is quoted as saying that he hopes  the store will “bring something new” to the town.  B&M sells discounted homeware, toiletries, toys and such – as does QD, Poundstretcher, Home Bargains and Wilko – to name but a few. Scarcely something “new,” Councillor Richmond.  Recently, we asked why Sainsburys has opened shops in almost every Lincolnshire town - except Boston. The town is now neck and neck in a three horse race between discount shops, charity shops and mobile phone shops to see who rules the commercial roost in Boston – and something should be done to change it.

click to enlarge this picture

If it is, though, it probably won’t involve Boston BID, which – as ever – remains firmly rooted in the past. This morening, its website is still telling us that its chances of winning a £100,000 Portas Pilot bid were as good as any in being successful.”
See the picture on the right ...
It’s now more than a fortnight since the results were announced – and Boston was not among the winners.
Meanwhile, as our local BID contemplates its navel and bemoans the absence of outside funding, its opposite number in Lincoln has just announced that it has been given a grant of £612,000 from the European Regional Development Fund – to which will be added £400,000 of local funding. It will also work with Lincolnshire Chamber of Commerce to develop a range of business support measures, including training and business advice. Not for the first time, we ask what Boston BID is doing with the £100,000-plus it extracts from hard pressed local businesses each year …
Congratulations to the Boston Standard on reaching its 100^th anniversary – we worked there for a few years at around the halfway mark - in the days when it was a newspaper. Given the plight of local papers these days, and the apparent kamikaze approach being adopted by the Standard’s parent company Johnston Press, we wonder how many more anniversaries the paper might celebrate. We also note the demise of two Target newspapers in the county -  in  Lincoln and Gainsborough - following the decision to publish the Lincolnshire Echo weekly instead of daily. Without any sense of irony, the Echo editor is quoted as saying “This is a great opportunity to grow the Echo’s readership.” No comment.
Talking of irony … we note the warning from Boston’s most senior police officer that “idiots” wanting to cause trouble in Boston during the Euro 2012 football tournament will be “hit with the hardest punishments possible.”  Chief Inspector Paul Timmins says the authorities will hand out the type of tough sentences given to rioters in London last summer to anyone who commits crimes during the event. He is said to want fans to enjoy the football without fear of violence and disorder. It’s interesting that he can apparently speak for the courts, which we always thought were independent of the police. He added: “I don’t want the reputation of Boston to be muddied. It’s a lovely, friendly market town. There’s a lot of good stuff going on and we don’t want idiots to ruin that.” Worryingly, we are reminded of the knee-jerk reaction by Boston Police during the May Fair – when they ordered it to be closed early because of “trouble” which so far has seen just two people in court on drink related charges. This time we hear that officers will be out “in numbers” when games are on, and will use “dispersal” orders to break up big groups and, if necessary, ban people from the town centre for 48 hours.
Meanwhile, the police appear to have bigger fish to fry in the shape of a Boston pensioner nudging 90 years of age, who wants to display an atheist symbol in the front window of his home. It’s not the first time the sign has been displayed – but on this occasion the police have told him that he could face arrest – as he could breach the Public Order Act by “distressing” passers by.
The logo on the right is the one that is said to be most commonly used to symbolise an atheist’s disbelief – although it could equally be that of a luxury car brand. However, in the interest of free speech, and also the interests of a few people who would like to see  Boston Eye closed down temporarily, we reproduce it here in case someone feels so “distressed” that they would like to see the Maria Noir pitch up at Number 1 Eye Street to cart the editor off in chains.
How sad and disappointing to read that one of Boston’s  Lincolnshire County Councillors  was heard to declare  "what a stupid call-in" when he referred to demands to review the decision by the BAGIBs  - the Boys and Girls in Blue -  to shore up their crumbling budget by charging disabled blue badge holders to park. His comments follow remarks by yet another Lincolnshire representative for Boston who does not have a place on the borough council, denying that Boston is not getting its fair share of the county’s budget. The now famous “six degrees of separation” theory refers to the idea that everyone is roughly six steps away - by way of introduction - from any other person on earth. It seems some of Boston’s Tories have somehow managed to redefine this so that “separation” means having as little to do with the real world  - and especially Boston - as possible.
The “Meetings and Agendas” pages of Boston Borough Council’s website are becoming increasingly confusing. A few days ago, we noted that there were apparently no meetings planned for a lengthy future period. Now the calendar has been changed, and a number are listed. Quite what is going on, we cannot say – unless it the idea is to dilute public interest in the process of the local authority, and thus improve the ambitions of the BAGIBs for  a“democracy” that no longer involves the public.
Not only that. Another transparency issue involves declaring the attendance of councillors at meetings. In the past, this has proved to be an interesting guideline as to how  well councillors are pulling their weight and representing the people who elected them. Sadly, although we are now in June - the sixth month of the year  - the most recent details of attendance go no further than March.
Finally, we  hope that members of the Boston Town Area Committee – which has hurled a small fortune at a shedload of poorly argued applications for money in recent months – were pleased by the result of the £1,000 donation to the pathetic display by the South Lincolnshire Community Volunteer service. The concept was to “celebrate” volunteering by chalking on the pavement outside the Len Medlock Centre.  The result was a series of smudges on the slabs. It’s good to know that we can rely on committees like BTAC  to protect our investment  in the council - and not fritter away the money we so willingly pay them in council tax.

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

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com