I
|
t’s been the week that Boston Borough Council introduced
prohibition – and we can’t wait to see quite what effect it will have.
We cannot for a moment imagine that the council would have
done other than vote to ban street drinking – in the form of a PSPO … a Public
Space Protection Order. Scarcely had the gavel fallen to confirm the order than
Boston Borough Council’s website was chortling: “Drinking alcohol in the street
in Boston town centre will be illegal from January 12th.
“Boston Borough Council agreed to be among the first in the
country to introduce new legislation declaring the town centre a drink-free
area.
“Anyone found drinking alcohol in the designated area will
be subject to arrest if, when requested by a police officer, they do not stop
drinking or surrender the drink.”
Therefore, if we read it correctly, drinking alcohol in the
town centre will not be “illegal.”
In the unlikely event of a police officer (and it can only
be a police officer) losing his way to the nick and winding up in the town
centre and then having the misfortune to bump into someone drinking, an offence
will be committed “if, when requested … they do not stop drinking or surrender
the drink.”
So …
If someone is drinking in the town centre – or that Hell’s
Kitchen included in the prohibition zone known as the Grand Sluice Bridge – a
police officer has a) to see the consumption of alcohol and b) to have the
request to stop refused before c) an offence is committed.
Previous schemes have failed because they have not been
enforced – and in those days, a greater selection of officials had authority to
do the job.
Councillors were told that despite fears over future
funding, Lincolnshire’s Chief Constable Neil Rhodes had given an undertaking
that the area could be policed – although it is possible that the pledge was
a long-lost echo that bounced from the marble pillars of the council chamber after
been trapped there for some years.
It will now cost council taxpayers around £10,000 to
publicise a scheme that was dead in the water before it was even floated.
Despite that, council leader, Pete Bedford, said: “This one
of the best good news stories we have had for a while” – a mauling of superlatives
that suggests he really needs to get out more.
***
In tandem with all this we noted Boston Borough Council’s
somewhat inconsistent embrace of tipple in connection with last year’s floods.
On Wednesday 26th November, the Boston Standard ran a promotion – rather
loosely tied to the flood anniversary – about the launch of a bottled beer
named Resilience Ale … which readers could
buy cheap with a cut-out coupon from the paper.
Two days later the story appeared almost word for word in
the borough council’s bulletin, with the claim that Boston Borough Council had
“teamed up” with East Lindsey, Lincolnshire County Council, the Environment
Agency and the Standard to produce
the beer.
So irresistible was the chance of a cheap drink, that the
council bulletin mentioned it several times more over the following days –
apparently without any sense of irony..
***
I
|
nterestingly, as the issue of the PSPOs reached the full
council at the beginning of the week, the leadership came under fire from a
councillor who lamented an en bloc
vote by the Conservative group “to not allow proper debate of the topic.”
So let’s see if we have this right …
… It’s ok for our “transparency”
obsessed council apparently to collaborate with a brewery to produce supplies
of cut-price “celebratory” booze …
… But it is not ok to allow the
council as a whole to debate the introduction of new regulations to control
street drinking.
Could someone please tell us how this self-serving approach makes
any kind of sense?
***
S
|
omeone else who might benefit from an outing with our leader
is our aforementioned Chief Constable Neil Rhodes, who has stepped up his recent warnings about the effects of cuts by writing to the Home Secretary Theresa May to claim
that the force will effectively go out of business within three years under the
current funding arrangements, and will be the “first in the country to fall”.
The Daily Telegraph,
which gave prominence to the leaked letter, said:
“Mr Rhodes warned that under that structure, bobbies on the
beat would be a thing of the past in Lincolnshire, while those officers left
would take much longer to respond to 999 calls.
He said minor offences such as criminal damage and theft
would have to be largely ignored … and that the current budget proposals mean a
further 236 front line officers will have to go."
Hold hard, as they say.
And as for cuts – why is the front line at risk?
It’s equivalent to sacking the foot soldiers in order to
keep the generals in work, and makes no sense at all
History reminds us that Sir Robert Peel, who was widely
regarded as the father of modern policing, was heavily influenced by the social
and legal philosophy of Jeremy Bentham, a British social reformer who called
for a strong and centralised, but politically neutral, police force for the
maintenance of social order, for the protection of people from crime and to act
as a visible deterrent to urban crime and disorder.
You can’t do that from the back office.
***
A
|
n intriguing little message from Lincolnshire police appeared
on Twitter earlier in the month, and caused
us a little concern.
It was posted – presumably by way of explanation- after the
force named a person charged with crimes in Boston.
“We name those charged with burglary 'before guilty' as well
as those charged with drink driving. Way UK justice works.”
Say again.
We name those charged “before guilty” smacks of overconfidence
and more than a little by way of prejudgement – and we hope that they didn’t
mean it the way it sounded.
***
W
|
e have acquired yet another candidate who wants to be
Boston’s next MP.
He’s Chris Pain, a Lincolnshire County Councillor, who will
be fighting Boston and Skegness as “An Independence from Europe Party”
candidate.
He said: “The current electorate have got the choice of
three ‘Conservative’ candidates – the Conservative lead candidate (Matt Warman)
works at the Telegraph in London and lives there.
“The Lincolnshire Independent (Lyn Luxton) failed to be
selected at the Conservative hustings.
“The UKIP candidate (Robin Hunter-Clarke,) who is a 22 year-old
ex-Conservative member, has never held a job and comes straight for (sic)
college.”
Taken at face value, this is an interesting analysis – but
also somewhat disingenuous. Crucially, it overlooks the fact that there is a
Labour Party candidate in the ample form of Councillor Paul Kenny – who is
fighting the Boston and Skegness seat for the third consecutive election.
There is also another Independent candidate – Paul Wooding –
who had hoped to be the UKIP choice until a last minute piece of
sleight-of-hand saw Robin the Boy Wonder win the day.
Mr Pain’s background is no less interesting than some of the
other candidates that he has highlighted because of their change of allegiance.
He had led UKIP in Lincolnshire until 2013 and was the
official leader of the opposition on the county council after the party came
second last May.
He was then ousted from the party and his departure, along
with that of several “breakaway” councillors – including two representing
Boston, who are now Lincolnshire Independent councillors – gifted the official
opposition to Labour.
He summarises his bumpy ride on his website here which includes the c-word … conspiracy.
If you are wondering about “An Independence from Europe
Party,” then worry no more.
It was launched by Mike Nattrass in 2013 after UKIP de-selected
him as a candidate – so it would appear that political disgruntlement will be a
driving force at next year’s general election
Confused?
If you aren’t already, then you certainly will be by the
time that 7th May next year dawns.
***
W
|
hoever wins, we reckon that it can be said with some
confidence that not much will change.
Despite the promises at national, county and local level, it
came as no surprise to see Lincolnshire omitted from the government’s heavily
publicised £15 billion scheme to invest in more than 100 new road schemes which
will see more than 1,300 new lane miles of motorways and trunk roads, and in
the words of Transport Secretary Patrick
McLoughlin tackle congestion and fix some of the “most notorious and
longstanding problem areas” on the network.
“When 90% of journeys are taking place on our roads this
work is vital to help people get on and get around.”
You might have thought that this would have almost certainly
included our part of the world – after all, Boston has been recognised for
years as having an antiquated road network which is totally unsuitable for
purpose.
But no.
When the map was published to show where the Whitehall largesse was arriving, Lincolnshire
might well have been the Kalahari Desert.
And if that wasn’t bad enough McLoughlin rubbed salt further
into our wounds by branding his announcement “the biggest, boldest and most
far-reaching roads programme for decades.
“It will dramatically improve our road network and unlock
Britain’s economic potential.”
The latter phrase served as an ironic reminder that Boston’s
plight is exacerbated by the fact that inadequate road communications are
frequently cited as a key reason why industry is unwilling to set up shop here.
If it’s the biggest for decades, we suppose that gives some
sort of clue of how long we must wait before we get a decent road network.
But let’s not be pessimistic …
Perhaps the railways will come to Boston in the not too
distant future!
***
M
|
eanwhile, many of our election candidates are making use of
social media– especially Twitter – to
keep voters in touch with what they are up … sometimes delivering what seems to be an almost
minute by minute account.
Probably the most prolific is Lyn Luxton, followed by Paul
Wooding, whose more recent offerings have comprised a rant against the party he
formerly sought to represent in Westminster.
Shortly after our last issue was published, he posed six
open questions for Robin Hunter-Clarke concerning the candidate selection
process.
He has asked Hunter-Clarke to explain how he emerged as the
"winner" when he did not enter the original contest in the first place;
why, as a member of the selection committee did he not choose any local
candidates for a shortlist; his reasoning for selecting former Tory Neil
Hamilton for the shortlist and his relationship with him; why, when the NEC
elevated him to the shortlist, he did not refuse on the grounds of it being
unfair to the other candidates; when he became aware of the NEC's decision to
add his name into the equation and why did he not, at that point, inform the
other candidates; and, as he was aware of the contents of all the other
candidates’ CVs and additional candidate information with motives for
contesting the seat, why did he not declare this information to the NEC and ask
to be ruled out.
Although the answers might prove interesting, we don’t
somehow expect that they will be forthcoming.
***
O
|
ne might think that with so many candidates already lined up
on the starting grid that we are in for an interesting time ahead – but history
shows that this is unlikely to be the case.
Whilst we applaud the chutzpah
of the two independents to declare so far (or three, realistically, if you
include Mr Pain) there are currently just three “independent” MPs out of the
650 “serving” at Westminster.
The pressure on an independent to persuade the electorate is
so much greater than it is on any of the party apparatchiks who are contesting
the seat.
An advantage of standing for a party is that there is a hard
core of voters who will put their ‘X’ in your box regardless.
It is not necessary to demonstrate charisma or any other charms
– as we have seen over the years.
For any of our “independent” candidates to persuade voters
of their potential abilities and thus be elected is an uphill struggle
comparable to climbing Mount Everest in bare feet, a T-shirt and shorts, and
without oxygen whilst carrying an anvil in their knapsack!
We fear that there will be a few deposits of £500 forfeited
before the day is out.
***
A
|
nother independent further down the food chain who deserves
some sympathy is Boston Borough Councillor Raymond Singleton-McGuire. No sooner had he been suspended from his cabinet
and portfolio responsibilities “pending” the outcome of legal proceedings
relating to his business activities, than he was replaced by Councillor Aaron
Spencer.
When he appeared in court – on video for the entire world to
see, thanks to the Boston Standard –
the case was adjourned to Lincoln Magistrates’ Court, where a two-day trial is
scheduled to open on April 28th.
The local elections are scheduled to take place on Thursday 7th
– just nine days later.
***
M
|
eanwhile, sitting MP Mark Simmonds has decided that reports
of his death have been greatly exaggerated, to quote Mark Twain.
He has bobbed up in newspaper reports claiming that the
benefit cap is helping to cut unemployment across Lincolnshire.
And it’s no small beer.
"Because of this cap, fifty-two households in Boston and Skegness **(see footnote) are no
longer able to claim more in benefits than the average family earns by going
out to work.
"This means more families in Boston and Skegness with
the self-respect and security that comes with a good job and a regular pay
packet.
"The worst thing we could do now is abandon the plan
that is working, delivering a brighter, more secure future for families in
Boston and Skegness."
If Mr Simmonds could explain how more families have gained
self-respect and security because a mere 52 have had their benefits docked, we
would like to hear.
***
A
|
s we get older, we sometimes wonder whether our memory is as
acute as it once was – so it is always welcome to receive some reassurance.
Recently, we raised an Eyebrow
at Boston Borough Council’s claim that the English Heritage and Boston Borough
Council Partnership Scheme in Conservation Areas had been “so successful” that
English Heritage had extended it into 2015.
Our recollection was that the scheme, which was launched in
December 2011, was always intended to run for five years – and that far from
being a roaring success, only a handful of the grant money available had been
handed out.
Much of this has been confirmed by the council’s Overview
and Scrutiny annual report which says that there is still about £100,000 in the
kitty, with a “definite possibility” of further funding being made available.
And the report added: “The scheme was to be re-launched to
encourage further applications.”
Now that’s more
like it!
***
W
|
e take a cock-eyed approach to the way we do some things
here in Boston.
Last weekend saw the national Small Business Saturday event,
which in some districts of Lincolnshire – notably South Kesteven – was
enthusiastically embraced.
But in Boston we had become so obsessed with last year’s
floods, that we appear not to have bothered with the event much at all – which
was a sadly missed opportunity … especially given that plenty of free support
and promotional material was available to participants.
More bizarrely in Wormgate a so-called “bite back” event
(why?) was staged to mark the flood anniversary the previous day, which could
have made an excellent springboard for the national event.
The flood anniversary has become something of an obsession
with Boston Borough Council, which seems unable to draw a line under it, and reminds
us about it on an almost daily basis.
But we think that it was a step too far to publish the above item on Twitter – which might have caused some to fear that history was repeating
itself!
***
T
|
alking of events, we have had the great Christmas light
celebrations since our last blog.
It’s still shameful that the management of Pescod Square,
and more disappointingly Oldrids not only distanced themselves from the
council’s own offering, but seemed almost to have planned a “spoiler” to steal
the borough’s thunder.
We know that there was a slight hitch with the lights on
the borough’s effort, but what we wondered more was what has happened to the incredibly expensive
lights that made an appearance a couple of years ago, and which we understood
were hired on a five year contract costing £30,000 a year.
Certainly the look of the town does not reflect a spend of
that magnitude, so what is going on?
Also there were murmurings about the shortage of lights on
the borough’s tree in the Market Place, and bearing in mind that the council
had been given £1,000 for the project by local company Magnadata we do feel
that Worst Street could have come up with better value for money – unless,
perish the thought, they resorted to renting yet again.
However, depending on who’s taking the pictures, every photo
tells a different story.
The above photo on the left accompanied coverage by the Boston Standard, whilst its neighbour
appeared in the council’s bulletin.
***
A
|
couple of side bars to the Christmas activities included an
annoyed message from a visitor during one of the much trumpeted free parking session
in the council’s car parks.
“Shame it was written on small cards nowhere near the button
on the machines” said the writer adding ruefully “I paid!”
And our favourite photo has to be the one of the Mayor,
Councillor Alison Austin and her consort, husband Richard, apparently being
greeted by three members of the borough council’s cabinet – who are all easily
recognisable!
**Footnote: Boston has 27,291 households, and Skegness has 8,445.
The 52 no longer receiving big benefit payments represent 0.14% of the total.
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
Welcome back NBE....you have been missed
ReplyDelete