Friday 27 February 2015

69 days to the elections

Suddenly, we seem to have general election candidates coming at us from all directions.
We now have eight declared candidates – with a possibility of nine should Paul Wooding decide to throw his hat into the ring..
But as of now, we have Matt Warman (Conservative,) Paul Kenny (Labour,) David Watts (Lib Dem,) Robin Hunter-Clarke (UKIP,) Victoria Percival (Green,) “Rev” Robert West (BNP,) Chris Pain (An Independence from Europe,) and Lyn Luxton (Lincolnshire Independents.)
Whilst on the face of it, this appears to be an eclectic range of political choices come 7th May, the fact is that there is a strong streak of Conservatism – other than the official candidate – running through the list, in the form of one-time Tories Boy Wonder Robin Hunter-Clarke, “Rev” West … both of whom have been Conservative councillors, and Lyn Luxton, who made an unsuccessful bid to be selected for the Boston and Skegness seat at Westminster..
In case you’re wondering why we keep referring to “Rev” West (pictured left) – it is that by some accounts he is as entitled to that honorific as we are to call ourselves King Boston of Eye.
According to a BBC report when he quit South Holland District Council as a Tory back in 2006, “he has set up his own church, based in a house in Holbeach, to preach ‘traditional bible beliefs,’”
The last yearly report for this church – “The Christian Council of Britain” – was published in 2010, when membership stood as around 45.
The choice seems a wide one, but frankly, we consider it to be between the Conservatives and UKIP – with Labour coming in third place.

***

As time goes by, the tide seems to be turning for UKIP – but perhaps not in the direction that they might wish.
In September last year, a Survation opinion poll commissioned by the Kippers gave the Tories  26% of the vote, Labour 21%   and UKIP a political earthquake measuring 46% on the Richter scale!
Having said that, the sample was criticised for being smaller than people who take these things seriously like to see – and was just 595.
That was then – this is now, and the most recent survey done specifically with Boston and Skegness in mind was published at the end of last week by the Conservative peer Lord Michael Ashcroft..


Of the 1,000 people questioned, 39% declared that they would be voting Conservative; 17% Labour; 5%  Lib Dem;  35%  UKIP;  Green 3%   and  “Others” 2%.
Lord Ashcroft found UKIP “within striking distance” of the Tories for the General Election and said they had the edge in the ground campaign.
Meanwhile, UKIP says the figures were “skewed” – and so it goes on.
Only one thing is certain …
We’ll know more on Friday 8th May.

***

As the campaign gathers pace, we wonder whether we have seen the first sign of what might be called “shenanigans”
A Tweet from the leader of the Labour Group on Boston Borough Council, Paul Gleeson suggests that UKIP door steppers might not be playing the game with voters.


***

After all those claims about the “Name and Shame” campaign aimed at preventing anti-social behaviour in Boston town centre, we at last have some solid information – thanks to a Freedom of Information request to Boston Borough Council by a Boston Eye reader.
So far, it seems that 30 pictures of alleged offenders have been published, resulting in nine identifications of the person in the photo – note that we do not use the word “culprit” as one of them was “incorrectly identified.”
In response to the question: “How many have been publicly been named and shamed?” the borough council replied: “The question is ambiguous. So far 30 images have been published (shamed) and of those eight have been correctly identified to the council (named.)
“To cover any ambiguity – it has never been the intention of the campaign to publicly name anyone.
Such an answer suggests still further ambiguity – or vagueness, doubt, puzzle, uncertainty, obscurity, enigma, equivocation, inconclusiveness, indefiniteness, dubiety, dubiousness, tergiversation, indeterminateness, equivocality, doubtfulness, and equivocacy.
We have better things to do with our time than to count the number of occasions on which Boston Borough Council has employed the phrase “name and shame” to describe this well-past-its-sell-by-date publicity stunt – and now the council has the effrontery to claim that this precisely worded campaign never intended to name anyone in the first place.
Perhaps that is just as well, since one of the people “named” to the council, turned out to be guilty of … nothing at all.
But back to the FoI request.
Of the nine – oops, sorry – eight people named – oops, sorry – “identified to the council” just four have been issued with fixed penalty notices, of whom only three have paid.
Not terribly good, really, is it?
However, in a last ditch attempt to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, the council claimed: “There has been a marked decline in littering, coinciding with the campaign and the introduction of the new drink control zone.”
We look forward to the next issue of Boston Borough’s Council’s “Help us not fine people whose names we get wrong” campaign.

***

When information such as this reaches the public domain, it does much to undermine the perceived efficacy of things such as CCTV monitoring.
In Boston, it already costs a fortune – with little to show for it.
Recently, Lincolnshire Police raised concerns that a proposed CCTV control room merger between Boston and East Lindsey would diminish the service – with fears that incidents could be missed because there will be  too many cameras to monitor.
Boston has already announced that it is taking over the South Holland District Council’s CCTV scheme, which covers Spalding, Holbeach, Crowland, Long Sutton and Sutton Bridge.
We think that keeping a watchful eye on the nefarious goings-on in three such large districts is an accident waiting to happen.

***

As the skies above the PRSA become ever more crowded with flying elephants and slices of pie, we found ourselves musing over the conundrum of why Boston is not a far fitter place than it is.
For what may well be the first time, a report before the full council meeting in Worst Street on Monday spells out just how much has been spent on sporting facilities in recent years.
The report – “Leisure, Health and Wellbeing Services” – looks at the “progress” made on the borough’s three main leisure facilities … the Peter Paine Sports Centre, the Geoff Moulder Leisure Centre, and best beloved of all, the Princess Royal Sports Arena. (PRSA) and considers options for “affordable investment” to protect the facilities and services for the residents of the borough.
It is interesting to see the Peter Paine listed with the other two facilities – given that it was leased to Boston College by the borough council at a “peppercorn” rent after what some saw as an iron fist in the iron glove approach to wrest the centre back from the board of charitable trustees tasked with running it.
As a result the college was able to acquire funding to improve the centre – but also benefited from being able to put assets up for sale that were worth many times more, and which are not for sharing with the riff raff who pay the council tax,
The report describes the success of the venture since then, claiming that the Peter Paine attracts between 25,000 and 30,000 visitors a year “compared to diminishing numbers being experienced by the previous operations” – which contradictorily are listed as “not available” in the same section of the report.
But it has to be asked how many of those attending the centre are members of the “public” – as opposed to students benefitting from a generous gift funded by Boston taxpayers and government grants.
The centre’s website says that the Peter Paine offers the public “shared facilities”  and is available to the hoi-polloi on “weekday evenings, Saturdays and school holidays.”
Based on that, we think it unlikely that the non-college take-up of facilities is especially high.
On now to the Geoff Moulder Leisure Centre ...
Regular readers will recall another “deal” between the council and outside organisations under which a local schools federation and swimming group got first dibs on facilities in exchange for signing up to a partnership under which Worst Street stumped up £150,000 from reserves for “improvements” to be paid back over a number of years.
We long ago lost track of the amount of money being poured into the Moulder pool – but in this respect, the report is most helpful … showing as it does a total revenue investment of £2,878,000 between 2009/10 and 2014/15.
By comparison, the PRSA seems cheap, having cost a mere £1,060,000 over the same period.
All of that is before the bio-massive plan to blow up to £840,000 from the reserves to fund PRSA repairs and improvements to be repaid by the savings gained once  another £560,000 from the reserves is spent on energy efficiency projects at the  two centres.
Interestingly, the forecast income and savings are a combination of fuel savings, the Renewable Heating Incentive the Feed in Tariff and sale of discounted green electricity to PRSA operator.
We’d like to know a little more about that one!

***

So, with all this spending, and thousands of people using the facilities each week, why do the borough’s health statistics make such depressing reading?
The health and leisure report claims that 30,000 a year attend the Peter Paine, 260,000 use the Moulder while 16,400 opt for the PRSA.
Whilst the figures seem impressive at first sight, the daily attendances are much smaller than the grand totals imply.
The Moulder figures in particular are beefed up by the fact that the pool is used by the Witham Schools federation on a regular basis – the council recently disclosed that the organisation sends almost 600 pupils a week to the pool – 30,000 visits a year … whilst other visits by children add another 20,000 to the figures.
It is essential in this part of the world that our youngsters learn to swim, and as the schools in the federation are paying an annual fee to use the pool, we would expect high numbers.
But how about the grown-ups?
Last year’s Health Profile for Boston highlighted a number of sectors with a red circle, which means that they are significantly worse than the average for England.
They included the percentage of physically active adults which is much lower than  the rest of England  – as is the incidence of obesity and diabetes … both of which are lifestyle related.
In fact no section of the report dealing with adults' health and lifestyle or children's and young people's health scores significantly better than the England average
At a guess, we would say that the council is preaching to the converted when it comes to attendances at the sports centres – which makes them puff with pride  rather than exercise, and brag incessantly about their “achievements.”

***

One problem area that we know all about in Boston is drinking in the street, which is now to be the subject of yet another expensive implementation of legislation designed to stamp it out.
But we sincerely hope that a suggestion from one of our councillors goes no further.
A recent “newspaper” report told us that after hearing of the failure of a course designed to prevent alcohol related offences in Grantham – only one person turned up – our Time Lord related Councillor Stephen Woodliffe (Councillor Who?) – told Lincolnshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner, Alan Hardwick: “I urge you strongly to take it to Boston. The town is a prime target for this.
“I am sure the borough council will support this. The long term plan is to deter people from street drinking so this would be worthwhile.”
The course is offered by Lincolnshire Police and Addaction, and targets offenders who have received fixed penalty notices for committing low-level alcohol related crime such as being drunk and disorderly.
We don’t know about drinking – but we wonder what Councillor Woodliffe has been smoking … and where we might buy some!

***

The scraping of bottoms of barrels continues with a final report to the council on joining Die Hanse – a resurrected modern alliance of the medieval trade association known as the Hanseatic League … of which Boston was once a member.
In much the same way that Boston overeggs the pudding where its Pilgrim Fathers connections are concerned, history is again being rewritten to infer that the Hanseatic League would have been nothing without us – even though our involvement was little more than as a medieval trading post, in which Hanseatic merchants held a “house” and an area to conduct trade, a “steelyard” in the town.
Because connection to the league works well in other places which have more to offer visitors, Boston Borough Council is again keen to leap on another’s bandwagon.
Be that as it may … to paraphrase the opening of a legendary television series …
There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man, as vast as space and as timeless as infinity … it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. It is an area which we call the Acronym Zone.
According to the report on joining Die Hansa, the opportunity has been recognised both within the authority and with those partners and stakeholders which include the Boston Area Partnership (BAP) and the Boston Visitor Economy Partnership (BVEP.)
So, what’s this BVEP?
According to the Lincolnshire Chamber – whose dead hand is on the tiller in so many things to do with Boston – BVEP is a mix of public and private sector organisations with a common vision - to grow Boston's visitor economy. BVEP meets around four times a year, and its “key driver” for activity is the Boston Area Destination Management Plan (DMP) which “sets out the context of the area’s visitor economy and identifies actions to support development.”
So far so confusing – although we can appreciate why the Boston Area Destination Management Plan is not more precisely initialised as BADMP!
Which brings us to BAP.
In recent years the word has had just one meaning in Boston –  large filled bread rolls which locals take for a walk around the town centre whilst chewing them to death in the process.
But the other BAP is proving slightly more vague.
The last reference to it appears on Boston Borough Council’s website and is dated June 2013.
It says: “One of the key mechanisms which we use to support partnership working is Boston Area Partnership (BAP) which includes key partners such as Boston College and Boston Mayflower. The partnership is administered by the borough council and meets quarterly to share information, co-ordinate activity and to identify gaps where partnership working could 'add value.'  BAP is underpinned by other key local partnerships, particularly the Boston Strategic Health Group and the East Lincolnshire Community Safety Partnership.
But look any further and you reach a dead end.
Although  it is a publicly accountable organisation, we can find no trace of its  meeting dates and minutes.
Even worse, the most recent document available online is the “Boston Area Partnership Community Strategy 2004-2009.”
Even though it is six years out of date, it says nothing different to every borough council aim and objective published since Noah was a lad – few of which have been achieved.
So … is there a BAP – and if so what has it been doing?
Would Boston’s chances of seeing improvements be better if there were fewer talking shops and acronymised gatherings of the great and the good  coming up with slogans rather than actions?
We are sure that our chances would be much enhanced – but if the members of these groups were forced to act rather than talk we suspect that an avalanche of resignations would be in the post almost immediately.

***

Perhaps it’s as well that BAP has no recent minutes to read.
A report in 2013 on the Boston Visitor Economy, detailed the headline role of the BADMP thus:
Address and combine the diversity of offers … Recognise, strengthen and coordinate different functions … Manage and monitor impacts … Prioritise and allocate resources …  Generate further support and resource  and … Identify the opportunities and threats to the destination which involves “enabling objectives to be relevant, long term visions to be captured, opportunities to be harnessed and issues addressed.”
Pass the waffle iron, please.

***

A persistent headline on Boston Borough Council’s website announces: “Hatter Lane lockout proposed”
Recommendation for the deed to be done was on the agenda of the Boston Town Area Committee – B-Tacky – on Wednesday.
By this morning, it will
A:  doubtless have been passed
And
B: been celebrated as yet another get-tough measure by Boston Borough Council in the war in anti-social behaviour.
But is it a big problem?
Not really, according to Lincolnshire Police.
Between July and December last year  only two police incidents linked to Hatter Lane were reported   – neither of which was defined as a crime.
On November 29th last year, two men were seen “apparently” removing jeans with tags from beneath their jumpers.
“Officers attended and stop/searched two males; no instruments or apparently stolen property was found on them although officers did find two pairs of well-worn jeans in a bin (no tags or instruments suitable for de-tagging found). No offences having been disclosed the males’ details were recorded and they were allowed to go on their way.”
The second “incident” was on 9th December 2014 when police were told of a female, “who was apparently heavily in drink” using the alleyway as a toilet.
“Officers attended but the female had already left and was not found.”
Ever eager to assist, the police searched earlier dates and discovered that on 21st March 2014, officers attended a report of males causing a disturbance and being verbally abusive at the rear of Pickwick’s Wine Bar. Names were taken, and alcohol was poured down a drain.
On 31st March a PCSO saw a man drinking alcohol and “moved him on” after words of advice.
On 5th April a PCSO saw evidence that alcohol was still being drunk in the area in the shape of empty bottles and cans – although no-one was present.
On 24th April a PCSO noted the presence of human faeces but no signs of drinking.
None of the above appears to make Hatter Lane the Hell’s Kitchen that Boston Borough Council depicts.
The feeble idea that clearing detritus from the lane daily would prevent future problems was exactly that – and it seems almost that this was the hope in Worst Street so as to justify what appears to be yet another sledgehammer to crack a nut.

***

Having mentioned B-Tacky once – there is just one other point that emerges from this week’s meeting.
B-Tacky is famous for giving money away like there is no tomorrow – and there is never a shortage of people lining up to dip their sticky paws in this bran tub of largesse.
By the time you read this, the committee will almost certainly have approved yet another payment to the Friends of Witham Way Country Park.
The Friends have received a donation from BTAC “each year for several years” to cover the cost of hiring a portaloo for volunteers from North Sea Camp to use while carrying out “essential work.”
A report to the committee said: “BTAC makes the donation of approximately £600 as an annual payment to cover the cost of the hire from May to September each year.
“The Friends ask that this amount is increased to £750 per year, which will enable them to hire the portaloo from April until the end of September or even early October, and so allow the volunteers to extend the period of their work.”
Whilst this sort of thing is praiseworthy, it has become too much of a habit for our liking.
B-Tacky has a kitty available for people to tap into each year – supposedly to benefit areas of the town on which it levies a special charge to “serve.”
In an ideal world, this money should be shared fairly and even handedly.
But when an organisation sees it as little more than an annual birthday treat from a kind old Uncle, something is not right.
The Friends appear to regard this grant as something of an entitlement, for which they no longer have to budget – as is the case with the “volunteer” convicts  who do all the hard work.
This year they are looking for a 25% hike in their donation so it might be an idea to check the prices available.
But none of this will have worried B-Tacky.

***

As they well know at Boston Borough Council, rogue landlords are a very bad thing – but a news item that caught our eye this week raised yet another question.
Next month the £110,000 gift from the government to attack the problem runs out – but, we are told, Boston Borough Council has decided to release “a fresh pot of money” to continue the scheme.
So many pots of money seem to be around these days that it is hard to swallow the Worst Street bleat that times are as hard as they claim.

***

No where is this better demonstrated than in a job advert that recently appeared online.



That's what we call a good starting wage ... and for an apprentice, too!

***
A sorry sign of the times appeared in a recent cabinet agenda item concerning such an apparently simple thing as reviewing cab fares in Boston.
It appear in the form of a request by the Boston Hackney Carriage Association for the addition of a “soiling charge” as well as increasing charges.
At first, we wondered if this was some sort of throwback to Victorian days, when a horse drawn cab might leave a steaming pile of rose manure in its wake for some other poor devil to clear up.
But no.
Further inquiries showed this to be a request for claims for compensation to be paid to taxi drivers in the event of someone – for example – throwing up all over the interior of their cab.
If, as they say, there is no smoke without fire, we assume that the problem has now become so acute that our cabbies feel the need for positive discrimination against those who lose their grip on their alimentary canal during the journey home from one of our local nightclubs.
First, the streets and gutters fell prey to this foulness, now the taxis.
Where will it all end?
On an Into Town bus, we suspect.

***

After such gloomy news – a ray of sunshine.
The one week of the year when Boston becomes a clean and presentable place falls next month with the eighth annual Big Boston Clean Up.
Which has seen local people fed up with finding rubbish everywhere they go collecting more than 71 tons of rubbish so far.
Once again, the need for such an occasion highlights the inadequacy of the actions by Boston Borough Council so far to prevent littering – rather than sweep up after the horse has bolted.

***
Finally …
After all the thousands of words devoted to flooding in Boston, a recent entry on the borough council website brought a smile to our lips  and made us think of Corporal Jones from Dad’s Army…


For some unaccountable reason, the page in question is no longer available.


Can’t think why.



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



Friday 13 February 2015

83 days to the elections


History will decide whether the Princess Royal Sports Arena is or is not a white elephant.
Large numbers of people believe that it is, whilst Boston Borough Council clings to the wreckage of yet another plan that was going to “put the town on the map”  proclaiming the contrary as the costs continue to mount.
By a happy co-incidence, (or unhappy, depending on your point of view)  the report of the trustees and financial statements for the year ended 31st  March 2014 made a timely appearance on the Charity Commission website at the end of January – and to say that it makes interesting reading is an understatement.
Follow the link here  to read the full report.
The Boston Sports Initiative – which is the charity with overall responsibility for the PRSA – has just three trustees … one of whom is also the company secretary.
Under the terms of the company's Articles of Association, there should be a minimum of six trustees and a maximum of 12.
The quorum for meetings is three – so it is perhaps just as well that meetings are held on an ad hoc basis.
Having said that, the trustees have taken legal advice regarding the required minimum number of six.
“When the number of trustees has fallen below six, the directors have continued to make decisions for the charity. All decisions have been made within the quorum requirements,” says the annual report, which adds that:  “the on-going issues have meant that attracting further trustees has been considered not appropriate.”
We wonder why that should be.
The charity's aim is that the board should, if possible, include trustees with “a wide range of relevant interests and skills”, in particular:
- Involvement with the sports of athletics and rugby, or in the promotion of sport and recreation generally, in the Boston area
- Experience in the management of sports facilities
- Relevant business skills, e.g. finance, legal skills, marketing, human resources or property skills.
The three trustees named in the report are Janet Inman, David Wylde and Councillor Yvonne Gunter.
Mrs Inman appears to be the only one of the trio with seriously relevant qualifications.
As well as her roles with the PRSA, she heads the Lincolnshire Sports Partnership – whose directors coincidentally include Phil Drury, Boston Borough Council’s Interim Chief Executive – and holds senior positions in a Lincolnshire network community interest company, and Lincoln City FC sport and education trust. She also spent 14 years as Development Director for Volleyball England.
The other trustees are listed as David Wylde, who we understand is an accountant with a London address, and Councillor Yvonne Gunter – whose position is not mentioned in her Boston Borough Council website CV, and nor listed as an outside organisation to which councillors are appointed.
Her credentials on Company Director Check UK  gives her background as nail technician, involvement in PR promotions, and a shopkeeper.
Whilst the current trustees apparently don’t think that any more are needed, we have to disagree.
Enthusiasm for a trusteeship has never been great – even though, if the whole project crashed in flames, individual liability is limited to just £1.
Five years ago, there were six trustees – a number from the great and the good of the local community … including people who knew something about sport … and the PRSA secretary was a separate member of the team.
Over time, this has dwindled – and three years ago we saw a dash for the exit when there were seven resignations!
If local council taxpayers are to continue to be forced to fund the PRSA, they deserve a broader based board of trustees – including members who will monitor the on-going use of public funds to support the arena.

***

The monetary side of the operation continues to amaze and confound observers.
Boston Borough Council’s so-called “rescue plan” for the PRSA has as its foundation the concept that spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on a biomass boiler heating system for the PRSA and the Moulder Leisure Centre will “save” enough to allow £840,000 to be ploughed into maintenance and repairs at the PRSA.
On paper, this may seem feasible.
But a look at the latest PRSA accounts makes it seem less simple.
According to the latest report, the arena’s total income – including £188,000 in grant funding resources was £721,777 against spending totalling £843,994.
This includes an astounding “management” fee of £48,000 for the appointed operator, which was Nuffield Health until the end of May 2013 and which then became the much criticised Leisure Connection (now born again as 1Life.).
So at face value, it would seem that the borough council is supporting the PRSA in terms of on-going maintenance for the coming decades – but the unanswered question is that of where the money will be coming from to underwrite the continuing shortfall in income?
The latest  Boston Sports Initiative report – under the heading “Achievement and performance” says that “The trustees have given significant attention to the going concern position of the charitable company, and are pleased that negotiations are continuing, and that resolutions to the major uncertainties surrounding both the future operator and financial arrangements appear to be in sight.
“This was supported by the decision of Boston Borough Council's cabinet in May 2013 to pursue negotiations to keep the Arena open and use the £88,000 included in the council's 2013/14 budget, until leases are signed.
A further £175,000 of funding included in the council's 2014/15 budget has been made available to support the charitable company.”
Later, the report says: “From 1st June 2013 Leisure Connection (… which is now known as 1Life), took over the running of the Arena for an initial interim period of six months. This has now been extended on a month by month rolling basis.
“This enables further discussions to be held between the charity, the interim operator, and Boston Borough Council to investigate potential future operational arrangements.
“The trustees have sought assurances from Boston Borough Council that support for the current operational agreement with Leisure Connection, (now known as 1Life), will be extended.
“Boston Borough Council referred Boston Sports Initiative to the minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 15th May 2013, which set out the Council's position. To assist readers, these are set out below:-
“(1) That negotiations be pursued to keep the PRSA open.
“(2) That the amount in the budget for 2013-2014 of £88,000 be used until final leases are signed.
“(3) That all the Council's and land donor's necessary legal costs incurred in drawing up the BSI lease and both sides' costs for the Covenant with the donor be met."
“In addition, Boston Borough Council confirmed that: ‘Whilst the current agency arrangement with Leisure Connection is due to expire on 30th November 2013, rolling monthly extensions will be put in place until the outstanding issues are finalised."
“In the view of the trustees, this gives sufficient confidence that Boston Borough Council will continue to support operational arrangements until the on-going lease negotiations have been concluded, and a sustainable future for the Arena is achieved.”
So exactly what constitutes a “sustainable future?”
Clearly, it has to be one where the PRSA pays its way – and perhaps even shows a profit … but we don’t see that happening overnight.
In that it would seem far from likely that the borough council’s rescue plan will do anything more than fund repairs – the trustees seem to have an underlying faith that the borough won’t let them down.
Somehow, we do not see the council taxpayers of Boston being released from the borough council’s obsession with the PRSA, and expect to hear of many more “rescues” in the years ahead.
It would also be interesting to know with whom the BSI “negotiates” at Boston Borough Council – especially as Councillor Gunter’s role  as a trustee would seem to be ex-officio and unconnected with her civic duties.

***

One final piece of mystification in the report appears beneath the headline: “Tangible fixed assets,” and reads:  “The land on which the leasehold buildings have been constructed is held as leasehold under a 125 year lease that is to be granted to Boston Sports Initiative on completion of the project by Boston Borough Council.
“This lease remains unsigned at the year-end date.
“The cost of this leasehold land, on which no depreciation has been provided, is £215,000.
“The trustees have once again considered the carrying value of the charitable company's principle asset, being the Arena including the stadium and attached facilities. These assets are currently recorded at the net book value of £6,108,785 (2013 - £6,309,348).
“During the year ended 31st March 2010 the trustees commissioned the District Valuer to establish the value of the lease.
“The District Valuer informed the charitable company that, in his opinion, with the property being subject to certain covenants and the fact that the lease is currently unsigned then the lease has a negligible value and that any surrender of the lease should take place at a nil value.
“Whilst the District Valuer's report reflects the market value of the lease it does not reflect the value in use to the charitable company of the assets.
“The trustees therefore consider that to include the assets in the financial statements at a nil value would be inappropriate as there is intrinsic value based on the delivery of the charitable company's aims and objectives.
“The charitable company has also noted that the stadium and attached facilities are currently insured at an amount of £11,250,421 (2013 - £11,029,825.)”
Hmmm.

***

Aside from the PRSA, it’s not often that the chance to waste more than a million pounds comes one’s way – but once again Boston Borough Council is the exception to the rule.
On Tuesday, the borough’s Daily Drivel bragged that the council, working with Heritage Lincolnshire, had won initial support for a Townscape Heritage bid from the Heritage Lottery Fund for Boston town centre.
Development funding of £73,000 will allow the two organisations to progress plans eventually to apply for a full grant of £1,069,000.
“The project aims to make a further investment to the eastern side of the Market Place in Boston, continuing the regeneration of the area through the conservation and enhancement of its historic architecture and street layout,” waffled The Drivel.
“It will enable essential repairs to historic buildings in parts of Market Place, Dolphin Lane and Pump Square, including work that enhances those properties, such as the reinstatement of traditional shop fronts.”
This would be good news if we hadn’t heard it all before.
First there was the £2 million “refurbishment” of the Market Place.
The result was endless chaos and mess which resulted in a bodged job that has left the area looking like a cobbled wilderness with some shabby planters dotted here and there to  bring some sort of order to the place and to try to prevent cars meandering willy-nilly.
Then – four years ago – we were told that a £650,000 scheme to help with the cost of restoration and repair to buildings in the conservation area had been introduced by English Heritage.
Most of the eligible buildings were either listed or “sensitive,” and Boston Borough Council claimed that the availability of grants to renovate them and restore missing features, would be “a huge benefit to the revitalisation of the area.”
Owners of eligible properties were told that they needed to move quickly because the cash would be allocated on a first come-first served basis in the form of a straight 50% of eligible costs for repairs and 90% for reinstatements.
So, what happened?
Almost nothing.
There were few takers, and the scheme all but sank without trace – until a reminder by Boston Borough Council that it had been such a success, that it had been “extended” into what was actually scheduled to be its final year.

***

Now, it’s a case of “Play it again, Sam,” to misquote the legendary Humphrey Bogart, and round up the usual suspects …
Council “Leader”  Pete Bedford, it quoted thus: “It is encouraging to hear that what Boston has to offer is considered good enough by the Heritage Lottery Fund to attract funding. This has the potential to be a very exciting project helping maintain and restore the most attractive aspects of some of our most historic town centre properties.”
And echoing his words – as you might expect – Councillor Derek Richmond, head of all things town centre, said: “This can only be good in further enhancing the vitality and viability of Boston.”
No, it wasn’t an echo, they did say that only this week …
And a few weeks ago …
And a few months ago …
And a few years ago.

***

But the largesse doesn’t end there.
We learn from the powers that be in Worst Street that “Boston’s exceptional historic and heritage offer has also proved a magic ingredient in convincing the Heritage Lottery Fund to make £50,000 available for new direction and information signage.”
Worded so as to ensure that it’s impossible to hold anyone to anything by way of tangibility, the chortle goes on: “The project will maximise the use of existing fingerposts, deliver new signs in the town and establish a cohesive look and feel to the new signage, which will help to illustrate the town’s special character.
“New maps, incorporating character and retail/business zones will also be installed. “The project is aimed specifically at encouraging people to engage with the cultural and historic offer of Boston as well as its allied retail and visitor economy and to create a cohesive and intuitive signage solution which gives confidence to visitors and users in understanding and exploring the area.
“The project will not redesign but maximise the impact of the existing street furniture, which is mostly traditional in nature, ensuring it is sympathetic to and complementary of the historic town centre.”
We think that what all this means is that if you go for a stroll around the Market Place, you will not only have to keep your eyes peeled to avoid cars and planters, but also guard against the risk of bumping into a sign or three, or impaling yourself on a maximised fingerpost.
We hope that’s cohesive enough for you.
By the way, we think that the existing sympathetic and complementary traditional street furniture means those specially-designed-to-be-as-uncomfortable-as-possible curly blue benches which resemble an aerial drain grating – and which many people fail to understand how to use, instead sitting on the backrest whilst resting their feet on the seats.

***

Whatever changes are made to Boston Market Place, still more are on the cards for other central areas of the town in the future.
Two adverts this week are offering large retail sites for sale or lease.
click on the photo to enlarge it
The first is the current clutch of eyesores at the top of Wide Bargate and Strait Bargate comprising the former Age Concern and Community Rooms at 32-34 and 36 Strait Bargate  and the former beauty salon at number 4 Strait Bargate  currently being used by UKIP – plus the NCP car park behind the site which is let until  2021.
The asking price for the site is £3,250,000.
The other site on offer is the current QD shop, which was formerly occupied by Woolworths, and which is being offered to let for the princely sum of £195,000 a year – plus VAT.

click on the photo to enlarge it
There have been recent rumours that QD was planning to relocate to bigger premises – with the soon to be vacated Homebase premises on Grantham Road as a strong possibility when it closes on March7th.
This may come as news to the staff at QD – and unfortunately, whilst the agent seeking to lease the Strait Bargate  premises lists the instructions as “confidential” because the staff are “unaware” that idea falls at the first fence when the particulars are put out on the internet.
Finally, on both listings, Boston is described as a “bustling” market town.
We assume that this is because of the buses that use the pedestrian areas as a rat run, fouling it with noise, pollution and potential harm to pedestrians  – despite the political promises to end the practice … especially from the ruling Conservative group, which has, of course, done what you might expect.
Absolutely nothing!

***

We mentioned Councillor Yvonne Gunter earlier, and she bobbed up again in the letters column of the Boston Standard recently, fulminating against the paper’s commentator.
We feel some sympathy for her victim here, as he so often echoes what we write in Boston Eye, and were disappointed at Councillor Gunter’s reaction.
She attacks the writer for drawing attention – if it were needed – to litter dropped in the streets, traders lacking commercial success, lack of a bypass, impact of population change  and the decline and decay of the town and describes all this as “a one-man demolition job of running it down.”
Sadly this is typical of senior councillors when called to account.
“How about helping put the pride back into Boston for a change?” she witters – with the implication that restoring pride means denying reality.
Failing that, Councillor Gunter suggests that such consistent criticism might cause readers to think that the writer has “some sort of obsessive/compulsive/depressive disorder” – a line which we feel all sufferers of such malaises found side-splittingly hilarious.
Signing herself Proud of Boston,  she concludes: “I’m not saying we always get it right. I am saying we always TRY to get it right. Constructive criticism is always welcome, but there’s a big difference between constructive criticism and week in, week out moaning …”
Not for the first time, Councillor Gunter has missed an important point.
To be proud of Boston, sadly includes lamenting the way the town has been dis-served by its elected members in the past few years – not least by the current leadership of which she is a dignitary.
To the statement: “We always TRY to get it right,” we would say: “Please try to get it right FOR ONCE.”

***

In similar vein – and not for the first time – we are struck by how neighbouring district councils deal with the same problems that Boston faces but in a much subtler way.
Here, we have problems with litter – which we have tackled for years with the futile name and shame campaign.
The fact that it has gone on for so long is a testament to its ineffectiveness.
Not only that, but the way the campaign is mounted – through the borough’s website and from there to the local “newspapers” might well be likened to the charge by Councillor Gunter of “a demolition job of running it down.”
In South Kesteven on the other hand, the tactic is local and in its own way quite attractive – using banners on lampposts to push the message home.
Similarly, in South Holland the approach encourages public participation rather than highlighting the anti-social activities of residents, with a Pride in South Holland campaign which appears to be making big inroads into problem areas.
We know that Boston has the Big Clean-up, but it is now heading towards something like its seventh year – and at the end of the day serves only to ensure that the streets of Boston are clean for just one week out of 52.
The amount of litter collected in that week also highlights just how much is left lying around for the rest of the year.




***

We had to supress a smile when we looked at the planning application to build a Lidl store in Tawney Street – and later when we read reports of the  meeting which gave it reluctant approval.
Those of you with long memories will recall the incessant meddling by Boston Borough Council when ASDA wanted to build its new store, which might well have led another, less patient, company to change its mind.
There was a lot of long-winded debate about  saving a money puzzle tree, which droned on for months, and then another about conserving a listed building – which led to a house being abandoned on an island in the middle of the entrance which neither helps the building nor the traffic flow.
Throughout all of this ASDA maintained what we considered to be an almost soporific calm – but not so Lidl.
With Teutonic determination, it brooked no nonsense about arguments concerning the so called “look” of the so-called “Conservation area.”
The report to councillors admitted: “Discussions have taken place with the applicant regarding modifications to this scheme but the applicant does not wish to change the design and requests that the application is assessed as submitted.”
Which is just what happened.
When it came to the meeting to discuss the plans the most vocal attendee was Councillor Alison Austin, who asserted: “I feel like everyone is sitting, grinning and bearing it – but we do not have to do this.
We should say what we would like done to our town as Boston deserves better.”
Fortunately,  despite this presumptuous declaration, common-sense prevailed and the application was approved  – with … this is Boston, never forget … strings attached – by a tooth-grinding vote of nine in favour, two  against,  and two abstentions.
Amidst all the objections, we were especially struck by one, which said: “The fact that Lidl offers a wide range of goods at low prices will encourage a large amount of people to use this store as so many families are on low incomes especially in this area of Boston.”
Dear Lord, don’t let it be a magnet for poor people – and in the heart of the conservation area as well. And, as a colleague pointed out, Iceland isn’t exactly Fortnum and Mason, is it?

***

Just how bothered are the Tories about hanging on to Boston in May’s general election, we wonder?
After the last election, it was considered a safe seat – although a poll some time ago predicted it falling to UKIP.
Now, a report in Conservative Home – the cleverly named  “Home of Conservatism” – says that a “schoolboy error” at  Tory headquarters inadvertently made public a list of 101 seats the Tories consider “non-target.”
The website says “non-target” appears to include several different categories of constituency – some are safe Tory seats, some are safe seats held by other parties, but others are, on the face of it, potential marginals.
Conservative Home comments “Individual seats aside, there’s a more general issue here, too. We’ve written before about the growing resentment among non-40/40 candidates about the way they are treated by the centre.
“Being publicly labelled due to a cock-up like this won’t do anything to improve relations.
The 40/40 strategy aimed at winning the next election is based on holding 40 marginal seats and winning 40 target seats – and does not include Boston and Skegness.
However, listing our constituency as a “non-target” seat paints an interesting picture.
We cannot believe that the Tories would be so naïve as to consider Boston a safe seat in the light of recent polls.
It is clearly not a safe seat held by another party – so all that remains is the implications that Head Office considers us to be a marginal seat.
If that were the case, we would have thought Boston and Skegness should be among the 40/40 batch – as with such a large majority in 2010, a determined push ought to drive UKIP into the North Sea.
Unless, of course, the seat is considered worth sacrificing in the minds of Tory grandees.

***

Christmas seems like a long time ago – but among the echoes that we recall are questions about the tree in the town centre … which was lit with a £1,000 donation from local business Magnadata.
Certainly disappointment was voiced that such a large donation resulted in such a relatively low-key display.
We also raised the question about the borough council’s on-going commitment to spend £30,000 a year on hiring lights for the festive season.
Some clarity has emerged at last with the long awaited publication by Boston Borough Council of its spending in December.



We are told that the first line of the account represents the Magnadata donation – but it has apparently been spent on hire, and falls well below the £1,000 donation … even allowing for VAT.
The other entries – totalling almost £30,000 are clearly for hire as well … but of what?
Our perambulations around the town over the festive season and conversations with people that we met raise the question: “where were the lights?”
Perhaps, Worst Street’s Head of Christmas Lights could enlighten us!

***

A few days ago, we read reports that foreign nurses recruited to plug staff shortages at Lincolnshire's hospitals are leaving the county because it was “too rural.”
A BBC report said that in November 2013, United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust hired nurses from Greece, Spain and Portugal to reduce spending on agency staff, but since then about a third of the 99 foreign nurses have left.
ULHT's Gary Marsh, who was involved in the recruitment process, is quoted as saying: “We have met with those nurses and fully understand why they are leaving.
"It's not about the quality of their working experience – it's about the locality of the hospitals."
Mr Marsh said most of the nurses who left worked in Boston and wanted to move closer to airports so they could visit their families more often.
But it seems, every cloud has a silver lining – for the hospital trust at least.
A report in Tuesday’s Daily Telegraph disclosed that United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust sent teams to Italy, Greece, Spain and Portugal in 2013 and 2014.
Five staff went to the Hotel Divani Caravel in Athens, which boasts a spa, and a rooftop pool with views of the Acropolis.
Their visit in October 2013 cost more than £100,000, including recruitment agency fees.
They hired 39 Greek nurses– at least 10 of whom have since left.
Five staff from ULHT also went on a trip last March to the four-star Hotel Universo in Rome, and Crowne Plaza, Athens, at an estimated cost of £72,000, including agency fees. The visit recruited 29 nurses, 23 of whom were still in post eight months later.
Is it any wonder that the trust has financial problems?

***

We hope that they’re not reading this at the Pilgrim – because a couple of visits next week mean that that there will be no blog on Friday 20th .  All things being equal we hope to be back on the 27th.


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



Friday 6 February 2015

90 days to the elections

Boston Borough Council has continued to try to suspend our disbelief by maintaining that the PRSA biomass boiler “survival” plan – which will cost taxpayers many more hundreds of thousands on top of the millions already spent – is a “no brainer” and that the arena is not the white elephant that critics claim it to be.
The “no brainer” declaration was especially entertaining.
It came from another of the council’s political kinsmen of the Time Lord, Doctor Who – Councillor David Witts – who apparently based his assertion on the fact that he “has run a biomass boiler himself for eight years.”
Well, that’s good enough, then.
How fortunate that people no longer raise a pig or two in the back garden as was once the case – or we might be looking at a methane-based system
There does, however, seem to be some confusion about the definition of a white elephant.
The one we quoted last week summed it up very succinctly:-
“Any investment that nobody wants because it will most likely end up being unprofitable. An unprofitable investment, property or business that is so expensive to operate and maintain that it is extremely difficult to actually make a profit.
An item whose cost of upkeep is not in line with how useful or valuable the item is.
We have highlighted the final paragraph to emphasise that it is entirely possible for something to be popular and useful – but to be a white elephant, nonetheless.
In local “newspaper” reports, Councillor Bedford is quoted as blaming “previous administrations” for the debacle (there’s a new one) – and forecasting that the PRSA “once it’s on proper footing, will fly.”
*If the words in our headline seem familiar, but you can’t quite place them, they feature in a song – from the appropriately named Walt Disney film … Dumbo.

***

We worry that Boston Borough Council is again being seduced into major expenditure by the lure of subsidies – such as the present case involving biomass installations, and a few years ago at that other money pit, the Moulder Leisure Centre.
The borough says that £560,000 spent on biomass boilers and other green energy measures at the PRSA and the Moulder will save enough to pay for £840,000 worth of repairs and improvements at the PRSA.
But a race is apparently on to get a move on before subsidy levels are reduced, and we just hope that this urgency will not override the need for scrutiny and caution where taxpayers’ money is concerned.
“Total income generation from biomass boilers and solar panels at both sites over 20 years are estimated to be £2.4 million,” breezed the Boston Daily Windbag.
Spending on the Moulder complex is well above the amount originally published, and when the borough blew £140,000 on solar panels three years ago it was said that that the roofs on which they would be mounted were in good condition and would have a life of at least 15 to 20 years.
Now it seems that income is being anticipated right until the very moment when the roofs might need replacement – and what state the PRSA might be in twenty years hence is anyone’s guess.

 ***

Still it’s not the councillors’ money, so why should they care?
And talking of which, we noticed tucked away in the small print of Windbag report “It was agreed to recommend that up to £75,000 is made available to deliver new management arrangements for the PRSA.”
Would anyone care to explain in more detail?
The PRSA is currently overseen by the charity Boston Sports Initiative, and managed by a company called 1Life.
Quite whom Boston Borough Council plans to pay £75,000 to for  “new management arrangements” isn’t (as is so often the case with our local spending) made clear – but why should taxpayers be shouldering the additional burden?

***

As might be expected, Worst Street’s gung-ho coverage of the latest PRSA calamity tended to toe the leadership line.
After our coverage, and criticism of the lack of opposition being shown, we were e-mailed by the leader of the council’s Labour Group, Paul Gleeson, who said:
“In our manifesto for the 2011 borough elections we gave a commitment not to spend any more money on the PRSA and we have not voted for any of the funding proposals during this council.
“At Wednesday’s scrutiny meeting discussing the proposed expenditure all three Labour councillors attended and spoke against the spending of more money on the PRSA.
“I tweeted “…Boston Borough has history of bad decision making over PRSA yet ruling group determined to bounce council into a decision pre-election…” ".
This – and a reported comment by Labour councillor and Prospective Parliamentary Candidate Paul Kenny … which said he was “impressed by Peter Paine and GMLC but was not convinced about the PRSA.
“He said he had not spoken to one person who had said the council should support it. ‘I am not joining you on this journey,’” were all that rated a mention.
Fewer than 75 words from an 875 word report.

***

Worse was to come.
A few days after the first Windbag report, a clarification appeared, which read



Whilst the tautology of the wording makes it hard to follow, it is unclear whether the clarification has been made at Councillor Kenny’s request, or is an attempt by Worst Street to make his opposition seem less robust than intended.

***

The in-house coverage has also become a cause of political concern – and Councillor Gleeson has made a formal complaint about the “biased nature” of the PRSA article in the 26th January Boston Bulletin headed “White elephant? Thousands beg to differ.”
He told Boston Eye: “I have a series of issues with the Boston Bulletin and have been in discussion with the borough for a period of time.
“Council publications are covered by the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity which was issued by the Conservative Government on 31st March 2011.
“Paragraph 28 of the code states:
“...Local authorities should not publish or incur expenditure in commissioning in hard copy or on any website, newsletters, newssheets or similar communications which seek to emulate commercial newspapers in style or content. Where local authorities do commission or publish newsletters, newssheets or similar communications, they should not issue them more frequently than quarterly, apart from parish councils which should not issue them more frequently than monthly. Such communications should not include material other than information for the public about the business, services and amenities of the council or other local service providers..."
“(Bold type is mine and not the code’s)
“It is my contention that Paragraph 28 covers two eventualities. The first stops local authorities from issuing newsletters, newssheets or similar communications in the style of a commercial newspaper.
 “‘Should not publish or incur expenditure" –  the fact that there is no expenditure does not take the publication out of the code
 “’Hard copy or on any website"  –  the fact that it is not produced in hard copy does not take it out of the code.
“’Seek to emulate commercial newspapers in style or content" –  the Boston Bulletin is questionably in the style of a commercial newspaper
 “The next eventuality is when a local authority issues  newsletters, newssheets or similar communications which by inference are not in the style of a commercial newspaper (that already being prohibited by the first part of the code) and would apply to the Boston Bulletin if it was held not to fall foul of the first restriction. 
“As Boston Borough is not a parish council, such publications are not to be more frequent than quarterly.
“The other issue is section 4 of the code states
 “Publicity by local authorities should:-
• be lawful
• be cost effective
• be objective
• be even-handed
• be appropriate
• have regard to equality and diversity
• be issued with care during periods of heightened sensitivity
I have raised concerns about partiality in the publication.”

 ***

We were taken to task after last week’s rant about an effective opposition standing up to and perhaps loosening the stranglehold of the ruling Tory group on the decision making process.
A reader calculates  – correctly, unlike us – that the council composition of 16 Conservatives … who will jump however high the leadership tells them to … versus three Labour,  four Independent, four Independent 2’s, two Lincolnshire Independents (ex-Kippers) two “unaligned”  and one English Democrat (remember him?) gives 16 Conservative and 16 “opposition” councillors.
As the mayor does not vote in full council unless there is a tied vote, any outcome would be 16-15 to the Conservatives.
We stand corrected – corrected but regretful!

***

The current debate on funding the PRSA reminds us of the wilful neglect demonstrated by successive councils over the years which led to the appalling decline in the condition of the Assembly Rooms – which we were told forced its closure because it was too costly to remedy the damage.
Perhaps someone could tell us why – in light of the amount being poured down the PRSA/Moulder drains – it was impossible to have come up with a far smaller sum to retain an important piece of our community heritage?
Unless, as we have said before, the PRSA was little more than a vanity project –  which Leader Bedford now tells us involved too much being done by a “gentlemen’s agreement” – which ensuing leadership have felt compelled to underwrite.

***

In the way that history repeats itself, it may well be that Boston Crematorium will be next to feel the pinch.
Although it needs a decent overhaul to make it more presentable and to be more competitive, the crem will instead have to settle for a “programme of improvements” including road resurfacing, carpet renewal, redecoration of “other areas,” LED replacement lighting, removal of the illuminated cross and replacement with “a multimedia screen which will be able to display a cross for Christian services.”
Why?
It seems that “half of all services now had no religious content and requests were made to cover the cross.”
Last time we looked, this was still a Christian country – but in the light of such politically correct kowtowing – we wonder how long before councillors vote to remove all those annoying crosses which currently litter the cemetery.         
However, the thirst for progress continues with the news that “Mourners on the other side of the world could ‘attend’ funerals at Boston Crematorium without ever leaving their homes” – assuming that anyone is likely to do that.
The idea was promoted by the borough after the council’s environment and performance committee was told by Independent Councillor Carol Taylor that she had attended a funeral service where similar equipment was used – and although she did not know the deceased well, the screen and use of family images made her feel that she really had known the person.
From the borough’s website to the BBC’s local news website is but a short hop electronically, but by the time it reached the bigger audience, the portfolio holder and Dignitary-in-Charge of cemeteries, Councillor Yvonne Gunter, was reportedly the person who had attended the funeral, with a polished quote ready for consumption.
Who knows, if this sort of thing catches on, we could see the most interesting service of the week aired as “Despatch of the Day” with suitable, non-denominational commentary, of course.

***

As if prompted by the recent re-publicising of its policy on rubbish removal, Boston Borough Council has resorted to its usual iron fist in the iron glove approach by warning ratepayers that “Household rubbish in a litter bin could end up costing you £2,500.”
That apparently is the maximum fine if you choose to “displace” general pedestrian litter with household rubbish.
Whilst we have seen evidence of this grievous abuse, we find it hard to imagine that the problem is so serious as to invoke Worst Street’s favoured bully-boy instincts, and feel sure that the problem might be better addressed without threats of punishment.
But we shan’t hold our breath.

***

As we feared, the first meeting of the new group aiming to boost business in Boston lived down to expectations with a poor turnout, despite being moderately well publicised in advance.
And sadly, the result echoed that which we have seen so many times before with similar organisations.
It seems almost inevitable that those who did take the trouble to attend will soon tire of the whole thing.
For the umpteenth time, suggestions included having more visitor events to attract people into the town and making better use of our history and tourism opportunities.
This is eminently doable, and none too difficult, but no one ever seems to bother.
Certainly, it would require willingness from Boston Borough Council which seems all but absent – except for riding on the coat-tails of other places which have embraced their local opportunities.

***



Our comments are well illustrated with the arrival of the 72-page Visit Lincolnshire brochure for 2015.
As always, Lincoln predominates –  and this year the Magna Carta and Castle revamp give an extra excuse.
Boston rates a brief mention in the Market Towns section, a line or two if you’re a cycling enthusiast, a small splash about the River Witham, a mere two events for the entire year – including the misspelled Boston “Mayfair” – which indicates the dead hand of Worst Street, since the borough persistently misnames one of its major attractions.
Presumably, someone, somewhere in the corridors of power at Worst Street will consider all this a job done – and we will see no more by way of so-called “promotion” for another year.
We sincerely hope that any contributions to the paean of praise for Lincoln is pro-rata, so at least it won't have cost Boston taxpayers too much.

***

Meanwhile, the borough’s disheartening and gloomy coverage of Boston continued this week on the Daily Bulletin-the-back, which does so much to diminish the town when read by potential visitors or would-be residents.
Following the page of threats to those who put rubbish in, er, a … litter bin … there is yet another episode of the “name and shame” feature – you know the one, it never names or shames anyone at all.
Beneath the headline “Name these men – threw rubbish into river from town bridge, left pile of dog poo in middle of pavement,” we have the usual mug shots  of desperadoes guilty of  such heinous crimes as leaving  a can on a bench, a cigarette on the ground, and – perhaps more seriously, throwing litter into the river.
We agree that people like this should be hounded to the ends of the earth, and once captured, consider that flogging  is far too good for them.
But we also feel that a line needs to be drawn between a reasonable reaction to what is really very minor anti-social behaviour, and the endless depiction of Boston as a cross between Dodge City and Gomorrah by the very authority that is supposed to represent its best interests.
Let us not forget that the so-called "Bulletin" is Boston's only front-of-the-house contact with the public at large.

***

Apparently, we really did strike a nerve in last week’s blog when we light-heartedly suggested that the Monday “White elephant? Thousands beg to differ” borough bulletin was a knee-jerk reaction to our criticisms of the previous Friday.
But a Twit –  sorry, that should be Tweet – from the Boston Standard  deputy editor Andrew "Babbling" Brookes couldn't contemplate such a suggestion.
“Were the council stung on the PRSA comments he made or by the quote on the front page of our paper?" he wrote. "You decide ...”
To us, it’s what is popularly called a no-brainer.
The timescale makes it clear to anyone who can’t see the obvious.
Standard headline on Wednesday = No reaction from Boston Borough Council.
Standard headline still there on Thursday = No reaction from Boston Borough Council.
Standard headline still there on Friday = No reaction from Boston Borough Council.
Boston Eye headline on Friday = Boston Borough Council reaction on Monday.
We’re not claiming that we did nettle Worst Street – but the sub-Standard clearly didn’t.

***

Will-he-or-won’t-he stand Independent Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Boston and Skegness Paul Wooding is asking potential voters to put their money where his mouth is.
He has launched a page on the gofundme website headed  Overcoming the Westminster Elite which sets out the background to his candidature and his arguments for our vote – and, of course, asking for our contributions in the hope of raising £750.
gofundme describes itself as “The World's #1 Personal Fundraising Website” and hit the headlines this week by amassing  promised donations of  more than £300,000 in support of 67 year-old Alan Barnes who has sight and growth problems  and who was attacked and knocked to the ground outside his home by a thug who tried to rob him. 
He suffered a broken collar bone and has been left extremely distressed and too frightened to return to his home.
We hadn’t realised, incidentally, that gofundme deducts a 5% fee from each donation received – plus a “small” processing fee of about 3% – which is a nice little earner of £21,000 in the case of Alan Barnes.
So far, we have to report that things are not going quite so well for Mr Wooding.


Of his appeal for £750 the amount raised earlier this week was Nil.

***

Finally, after the “clarification” of Councillor Kenny’s comments on the PRSA, we were reminded of a couple of other famous corrections, which we thought might make you smile.

 

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