We wrote last week about Worst Street’s long-standing habit of pretending that bad news doesn’t exist by simply ignoring it.

But even we were surprised to see that an extension to this is apparently to be selective where the good news is concerned by cherry-picking what to publish and what not to publish.

***

Last week, under the headline Think Boston - Think Business, WorstWeb – the borough’s half-hearted website – declared: “Latest figures show that Boston is bucking the trend for new business and job opportunities.

“Independent statistics reveal that Boston had a positive outcome when comparing new business start-ups with those which went to the wall in 2016. There were 300 business "births" compared to 225 business "deaths," making Boston one of the most successful areas for business in the county.”

***

As far as it went this was true. But the report to the council's environment and performance scrutiny committee apparently omitted the full picture.

The report told councillors “over the last two years which we have data from the ONS 2015 and 2016 we have seen a net increase (birth minus business deaths) of 116 new businesses.

***

The ONS is the Office for National Statistics – an organisation that we have often consulted in the past.

It has always struck us as being pretty much on the ball, which is why we were surprised to see that its most recent figures quoted were for 2015 and 2016 rather than later.

***

So we took a look – and lo and behold, the figures for 2017 had also been published – even though they weren’t mentioned in the report.

Yes: birth minus business deaths in 2015 totalled 50, and the following year were even higher at 65 – giving a total of 115, rather than 116.

But in 2017 they lurched lemming-like over the cliff edge with 250 ‘births’ and 245 ‘deaths’– a fall in the first and an increase in the over the previous two years – leaving a surplus of just five.

***

Was a decision to cherry-pick the good years and ignore the bad taken deliberately, we wonder.

We hope not – as the facts always emerge eventually and we are sure that some councillors … and taxpayers as well – will not be happy to think that the wool might have been pulled over their eyes.

***

We said last week that we would take a look at what the future holds by way of council tax increases – and whilst those of us who pay on the ten-month instalment plan are currently enjoying a two-month reprieve, rest assured that Mr and Mrs Dandyliver’s son Stan Dandyliver will be dropping you a line soon.
It’s a three horse race – you pay money to Lincolnshire County Council, Lincolnshire Police and in our case Boston Borough Council … which acts as collector and enforcer in the event of non-payment, which is why it needs so many staff.

So far Clownty Hall has come up with the biggest proposed rise of all – almost five-per-cent.

This is made up of a 3% rise in basic council tax – plus 1.95% for adult social care. The rise was proposed by council leader Martin Hill, who said was hoped that this will be the last year that tax has to be put up by such a level. Amen to that.

The council says it will make £18 million in savings next year, and use £23 million from reserves to balance the books.

Councillor Colin Davie, executive member for Economy and “Place,” said it was important to realise  that Clownty Hall has had a significant reduction in its budget from central government.

This is apparently all that needs saying to mitigate such a rapacious charge – ‘the government won’t give us any money so we’ll take it from you.’

The final plans for the county budget will come back to the authority’s executive on February 5^th  and go to the full council on the 25^{th .}

***

Next to declare was Worst Street which wants another 2.99%. for a budget “designed to meet the council’s challenges and responsibilities, and ensure that the best possible services continue to be provided to Boston’s residents, businesses and visitors” – but only the services that it is compelled to provide!

As with both councils the price rise is presented in pence per week to make anyone harbouring a complaint feel a little petty.
But great oaks from little acorns grow –  as do pennies incrementally added to our council tax.

But the fact is that both councils are proposing to charge more for less without giving value for money.

***

That leaves Lincolnshire Police's demand. A budget briefing was scheduled last week – to be followed by another on 8^th February to “consider and make report/recommendations on the proposed precept.”

***

By an interesting coincidence all this money stuff comes at a time when Police and Crime Commissioner Marc Jones is conducting a survey which includes a warning that if funding is not increased, the force will have to reduce the number of police officers by 60 and police community support officers (PCSOs) by more than 50.

Respondents are asked whether they think the police should have more money – and if so how much.

Regardless of answers, we have to say that this is not the first time that we have heard threats of staff cuts – and last year, Lincolnshire Police walloped us with an increase of 5.8 per-cent for its share of council tax.

We await with bated breath the final piece in the financial jigsaw puzzle

***

On now to that police survey – and it seems that Boston is at the bottom of the  enthusiasm stakes when it comes to completing it – prompting Mr Jones to chase us up to get clicking with our opinions.

Boston’s relationship with local law and order has been patchy for quite some time – more often than not because of claims of inaction on issues such as anti-social behaviour, street drinking and the like.

Looking at the survey, we cannot help but wonder how much use it is to fill it in.

***

It starts by asking for your age and the district you live in, plus how long you have lived in the local area –  cryptically defined as being “within about a 15 minute walk from your current address.”

The questions tend to be what you might expect thereafter …

The kick-off question asks “How much is your own quality of life affected by FEAR OF CRIME on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is no effect and 10 is a total effect on your quality of life?

“Most of us worry at some time or other about being the victim of a crime. Please indicate how worried you are or aren't about each of the following …” a range which covers the gamut from Very worried, to Fairly worried, Not very worried,  and Not at all worried.

And the array of things which might worry you is equally wide – everything from being raped, having your car stolen, being a victim of online or cyber-crime, being mugged or robbed, a victim of identity theft,  having things stolen from your car,  being  physically attacked by strangers, and having your home broken into and something stolen.

***

Participants are also asked about problems in their local area – ranging from noisy neighbours, to burglary, assault, drunken or rowdy behaviour, antisocial street drinking, vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to property or vehicles, and ending with speeding traffic.

*** 

There follow questions about whether anyone has personally fallen victim to any of the above lot and whether they have reported it –  and how people would prefer to report crimes in future.

The choice ranges from calling 999 or the hopeless 101, to reporting online at either the police website, Facebook or Twitter or to a police officer in person, to a police station in person (fat chance) or via Neighbourhood Watch or Crimestoppers. 

***

Then there’s an exercise in which you can draw up your own budget – which, whilst it pairs up most of the usual couplings, (for example drug abuse and dealing, theft and burglary) puts together others which leave options for choice wide open to whatever interpretation the police wish to make – for instance “Rural and heritage crime (e.g. hare coursing, poaching, lead theft from church roof, etc)” and “Human trafficking and missing persons.”

***

Another exercise concerns the imaginary priorities in deployment of five officers when eleven incidents have been called in –  followed by a number of less interesting questions .
But the big one we are left with is …  as we said at the outset …what use is a survey such as this?

***

If Lincolnshire Police have a halfway decent record system they will know which problems exist in which areas – so why bother asking people about their fear of crime … something which over the years has been readily dismissed on the grounds that such fears are imaginary?
See next week's blog for some very recent examples...

***

We hope that someone, somewhere among the great and the good has drawn up a list of New Year resolutions.

And if anyone among them has responsibilities for highways, pavements and such stuff we would like to remind them that it was two and a half months ago, on Friday 2^nd November,  that a car crashed through the pedestrian safety railing and showered vehicles parked behind and below it with bricks and debris.

The picture above was taken just last week.

*** 

We are fairly sure if something like this had happened anywhere in Lincolnshire other than Boston that the mess would have been repaired long ago.

As it is, leaving things in their present state much longer risks yet another accident of some sort.

So how about it, whoever is responsible?

***

Still with road matters, in an unexpected burst of largesse, Lincolnshire County Council tells us that “a number of residential roads in Boston are reaching the end of their life and will be fully reconstructed.”

Whilst it gives the impression that at long last Clownty Hall is paying Boston some sort of attention, we learn that the project is expected to cost around £183,000 to rebuild seven roads – about £26,000 per road.

Not quite as generous as it sounds, is it?

***

We’re still playing catch-up with our last couple of items.

At the end of last year, Boston Councillor Barrie Pierpoint fired off a stinging attack on Worst Street’s Boston Town Area Committee – wearing his hat as chairman of a local registered charity – Boston Community Transport.

He branded BTAC-ky “incompetent and unprofessional” and accused it of “mistreating” the charity after BCT applied three times for a grant of £1,000 to help run the scheme and was turned down each time due to “minor conflicting and nonsensical issues.”

He said the charity was advised to apply and even given advice as well as being told on one occasion that it was a “good application and worthy of a grant” – even though it was subsequently turned down.

The paper smouldered beneath his final attack: “We shouldn’t have expected anything better from that bunch of incompetent amateurs – councillors who clearly haven’t a clue what they are doing.”

“We are caught between the conflicting advice and direction given by the officer working with BTAC and the BTAC panel – both of whom clearly appear to be unprofessional, incompetent and like wasting charitable organisations’ valuable time. 

“We have wasted so much time, effort and resources on this, and our time is money which could have been better spent on helping others.”

“BTAC really got our hopes up each time yet turned down each application with feeble excuses – it really is unacceptable and they should be ashamed of their lack of professionalism.”

***

BTAC-ky is usually a soft touch when it comes to giving away our money – and we would have thought it would have become more so since ramping up its council tax take from just a few thousand to a requirement of £680,303 for the coming year.

However this time – regardless of merit, we think we can understand by the repeated appeals for money were turned down

With reserves of almost £30,000 we – as a BTAC-ky taxpayer – would certainly be less than happy to see a grand of our money handed to a group with so much in the kitty.

*** 

           

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