The term “snowflake generation” is now recognised by Collins Dictionary as meaning “young adults viewed as being less resilient and more prone to taking offence than previous generations.”

But it seems that the term may not necessarily apply exclusively to the young.

We’re referring to the gang of five Worst Street councillors who are demanding the resignation of Mayor Brian Rush at an extraordinary council meeting tonight.

Their proposal declares:

This Council is deeply concerned with the actions of the Mayor in posting offensive and political comments on his Facebook page.

The Council believes the Mayor should reflect carefully on the words he has used.  He has caused significant personal distress to those named and demeaned the great office that is The Worshipful the Mayor of Boston.

The Mayor, who is the 483rd person to hold this position of historic office, has sullied the role of First Citizen and champion of the Borough with petty, political point scoring that is factually incorrect.

This Council calls for the Mayor’s resignation with immediate effect.

***

The photo at the top of the page was of a Facebook entry purportedly posted by Councillor Rush which appeared in a BBC Look North news item about the call for the Mayor to resign.

Does it appear to be offensive, distressing, petty or demeaning to the office of Mayor?

We don’t think so.

It appears to be reasonable comment on a matter of public interest – and although the Mayor is assumed to remain apolitical during his term in office, this is not written in stone.

***

After Boston Eye broke the story in last week’s blog, a Boston sub-Standard follow-up reported: “it is understood that in one of the comments he said he had no problem with the Muslim people of Britain, however called on ‘new entrants’ to undertake an oath of allegiance to Britain, its values and its population, adding that those who didn’t comply should be extradited. In another, he is understood to have criticised several councillors at borough and county level and the town’s MP.”

Also, according to the report, it is understood that Lincolnshire Police were made aware of the comments.

So what’s all the fuss about?

Well, that’s the question we asked after looking at accounts of a government-commissioned review of community cohesion and extremism by Dame Louise Casey – the findings of which were published in October 2016.

Key among the recommendations was that migrants should swear an oath of allegiance as soon as they arrive in the UK, along with the warning that that Muslims increasingly did not identify themselves as being British.

***

Whilst her report was deemed controversial, we don’t recall anyone going to the police about it or demanding her resignation.

You can read the reports yourself this one from the Daily Mail which also makes mention of Boston, and this from the Daily Telegraph 

***

So what about Councillor Rush’s other grave offence – criticising councillors at borough and county level and the town’s MP – which in some cases we understand were made before he became Mayor.

Many years ago, Worst Street’s former leader Peter Bedford told us: “Councillors do have to develop thick skins to deal with the slings and arrows of public criticism – that goes with the territory …

“ … No one entering public office expects an easy ride. Often it can be a thankless task, but one we voluntarily and willingly accept.

“And we all expect there to be criticism of what we do. In fact, we welcome constructive criticism and suggestions and ideas from any source. None of us pretends that we have all the answers.”

It seems that this is no longer the case – and that criticism now causes “significant” personal distress, which sends our Snowflake councillors bursting into floods of tears.

***

As for our MP – we hope that he was as surprised as we were to find the Feeble Five lining up in his corner to fight his battles for him.

He’s always struck us as the sort of bloke who can stand up for himself without the need of help from the bunch of ninnies behind this grubby plot to oust the Mayor.

Interestingly, one of these five once caused us grave offence with an unpleasant and totally untrue accusation – made privately, of course.

Did we do anything other than take it in our stride?

Of course not.

***

That leaves the issue of going to the police.

According to the newspaper account, a spokesman said: “We were made aware of a Facebook post which we were told caused concern to some individuals in the community.

“An investigation into this was initiated and found that no hate crime or any other criminal offence was committed.

“We have referred the incident back to the associated organisation as there will be no further police involvement.”

Yet still the Fatuous Five have persisted.

The only good news about this is that even if the vote is carried, Councillor Rush is entitled to ignore and carry on Mayoring until the end of his term – and he has already declared that this is what he will do.

***

At this point the planned extraordinary meeting says more about the five signatories than their complaint.

Council leader Michael Cooper proposed it, seconded by Tory Councillor David Brown with also-rans “Independent” Alison Austin, Sue Ransome from UKIP, and deputy leader Aaron Spencer.

Despite the flamboyant language of the motion, no details of the complaints have been produced – so unless the council delivers its usual rubber stamp tonight we would expect details to emerge at the meeting.

We do not think that either the leader or his deputy should have signed the motion. Their “rank” alone should have made them stay aloof and above this sort of thing.

However, all of them show a lack of political and diplomatic skills in that they shoot from the lip and air the council’s dirty linen in public instead of behaving like grown-ups and seeking negotiation rather than confrontation.

***

The BBC Look North report that we mentioned earlier raised one seriously important issue.

Whilst Councillor Rush stepped up to the plate to explain himself, NOT ONE of his five accusers was willing to specify the charges against him.

Will they remain silent at tonight’s meeting?

Have their allegations been circulated privately in the hope that they will be rubber stamped by the meeting without discussion?

We worry that the meeting might begin with a call for the Mayor to step aside as chairman for the night – but there is no reason why he should …

We also wonder whether the spineless critics who dare not show themselves will call for the meeting to be held with members of the public and press excluded under the

Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 which permits a meeting to be held in closed session “when publicity would be prejudicial to the public interest by reason of the confidential nature of the business to be transacted or for other special reasons stated in the resolution and arising from the nature of that business or of the proceedings.”

At this point, nothing would surprise us.

  

***

The numbers are in so now we can see what the powers that be want to tap us up for the coming year’s council tax.

Lincolnshire County Council wants 4.95% – made up of 2.95% general council tax, and a further 2.00% for authorities with adult social care responsibilities.

Boston Borough Council wants 2.98% and Lincolnshire Police have proposed a 5.8% increase.

Cumulatively everyone is keen to point out that these price hikes represent just a few pounds a year more.

But as always, the question has to be asked about how the money is being spent.

For example, the police budget of £118 million is reported to include nearly £1m for “victims’ services” – but is this an area that should be funded by the police or ought it to be met from some sort social funding budget? 

We are also told that the money from the increase will enable the force to retain its complement of 1,100 officers and up to 120 PCSOs – who as ever all remain conspicuous by their absence.

***

As far as Worst Street is concerned, we continue to be baffled by claims that whilst swingeing cuts of millions of pounds to budgets and services have been made, there has been scarcely any impact on staffing.

It should be axiomatic that if you cut services – or hand them over to volunteers, or private contractors – then fewer people would be needed on the Base Camp Worst Street payroll.

Not so.

In 2015, the council budget assumed that by 2018/19 the number of full-time equivalent staff would be 250.

It now stands at 263.

That’s an increase of thirteen after cuts galore have been made; promises about services have been broken and tasks such as environmental enforcement have been contracted  to third party organisations.

In 2013-2014, staffing levels were running at 99% – a figure that has stayed the same and is predicted to remain so for another TEN years.

What has changed are the amounts of money that top officers are being paid.

In recent years, we have seen several big money jobs coming in – for managers who are taking quite some time to show their worth.

Meanwhile, it seems that a lot of people are carrying on regardless – earning the same as before when there is nothing for them to do.

And interestingly, it is very difficult to discover the total cost of the Worst Street wages bill amidst the midden of paperwork issued by the council.

***

A blog or two ago, we observed that Worst Street would be well employed to report on some of the decisions taken by committees, rather than padding its website with irrelevant stuff that’s nothing to do with the council.

Oddly enough, this came to pass last week – but only by way of the council policy of treating its taxpayers as gullible idiots.

Beneath the headline Boston 'special rate': Less than 19p a day, we were told that

Boston Town Area Committee ward residents “may have to pay less than 19p a day” as their "parish" portion of their overall council tax bill for 2018/19 to fund the £648,327 needed to help pay for public toilets, Central Park, footway lights and open spaces.

Presumably this was deemed good news and a small price to pay.

BTAC-ky made a recommendation to increase its precept in line with inflation – three per cent, a £71.98 annual charge for a band D property.

Better still,  said Worst Street, “the majority of properties in the area are rated less than band D, so will pay less than this.”

Such good news must be greeted with delight – surely

But just look back a few years to 2015-16 – before BTAC-ky re-wrote its constitution to take on costs previously met by the council centrally – an exercise that let our leaders off the hook and enabled them to look good in financial terms, whilst shovelling expenses on to what was once a penny-ante do-nothing committee.

In those good old days, BTAC-ky rubbed by with a budget of £114,000, and a band D taxpayer paid just £12.72.

Next year’s charge is a mere 565 per-cent increase compared with two or three years ago.

***

By a quirky co-incidence this brings us to our Cheek of the Week award – which goes to Worst Street Councillor Stephen Woodliffe.

Mr Woodliffe is a member of the Lincolnshire Police and Crime Panel, which met last week to approve the previously mentioned council tax rise for our people in blue.

According to reports of the meeting, up popped Mr W to ask how our Police and Crime Commissioner expected “hard-pressed residents” to fund such a significant increase.

Spool back to July 2016 when BTAC-ky – of which Mr Woodliffe is a member – was ramping up its precept like there was no tomorrow.

We wrote to all members of BTAC to protest their breach of constitution and also the high charges being imposed on a poor area.

Back came the response: “I also take issue with your assertion that the extra precept charges will be imposed upon residents of the poorest wards in the town.  The precept depends upon the valuation of the property and not upon its location. Thus, the greatest charge falls on those living in the highest rated band H properties, who pay much more than that of a band A property ...

“Looking to the future, as a BTAC resident, it is my view that a charge of one pound a week on a band D property (£50 a year – ed) , and much less for a band A property, for BTAC would be a very reasonable charge to make to ensure that Boston remains an attractive pleasant place to live; and I hope that the public see the sense of such a proposal.”

It’s good to see that Councillor Woodliffe now seems to be developing a conscience – albeit a bit late in the say.

***

Better late than never, the Labour and  UKIP candidates for the  borough council by-election for the Old Leake and Wrangle Ward on 22^nd February, have sent in pen portraits of themselves.

Labour’s Joseph Pearson says: “I attended Giles School until after my GCSEs in 2003.

“I have lived in both Old Leake and Wrangle for over half of my life and am proud to call Wrangle my home, this is where I grew up. I have worked in the NHS at Pilgrim Hospital for ten years, most as a portering supervisor.

“I know of the shortage of housing in the area, the state of the roads, and the ever reducing public services and want to work to make a difference.

“In the past I have volunteered at the Citizens Advice Bureau in Boston and assisted people with issues that matter to them.

“Perhaps the most important thing I learnt whilst volunteering is that what one person considers insignificant may be of the most importance to another.

“From my experience I know life can be challenging and that some need support in overcoming those challenges, that the schools and councils need to be held to account to support those who need it if they are to better themselves.”

UKIP candidate Don Ransome says: “I joined UKIP back in 1999 and a vote for me is a vote for UKIP.

 “I promise to stay a UKIP councillor.

“I have lived here for over 25 years, am ex-forces, self-employed and married with four children. 

“Vote UKIP If you want a Pro-Brexit Pro-Active Pro-Community Councillor instead of Tory voting fodder.”

We’re still awaiting a reply from the Conservative candidate – who is seeking a fourth councillor role – but now that a fortnight has passed since we asked  we will not be holding our breath.

***

Finally – some comments from opponents of the football stadium development which is part of the Quadrant project at Wyberton.

An e-mail says: “No doubt you have now heard the news that the project known as the Quadrant has been awarded another dollop of taxpayers’ money to help Chestnut Homes Managing Director David Newton with his stadium to the tune of £3.5m. 

“Even in Mr Newton’s words, he says that it will be built but perhaps not in the original format.

“If this does not go back to Boston Borough Council as a completely new application there may be a wave of condemnation from the residents of Wyberton.  The money should be spent on infrastructure and community assets, not on just a few football supporters. 

“After all there were only 77 people who voted for the stadium plans back in 2014 when we held a referendum in Wyberton.

“Some have had their properties put on hold for long enough, whether to sell or not.

 “Mr Newton says he will build a stadium for less money – that means he should have to submit a new planning application to amend changes.”

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com   

E– mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

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

We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston