We mentioned Boston’s Big Local project last week – and the resignation of the “facilitator” for the venture, which has received £1 million from the Big Lottery Fund for the benefit of the town.

Since then we’ve seen e-mails which point to divisions within the organisation and dissatisfaction with the Lincoln based representative, Ivan Annibal – who was appointed to oversee the project and guide the committee tasked with spending the money.

In her letter of resignation shown to Boston Eye, the facilitator, Rachel Lauberts, says that she has been “deeply concerned” with the management of the project,

She goes on: “My opinions have been ignored which has resulted in me feeling disempowered and disillusioned. I joined this project because I believed that it was going to be, and clearly should be, resident led and felt that it was a fantastic opportunity for Boston.

“Having been appointed as the Facilitator for Boston Big Local I have naturally made it my business to do extensive research in to the process and procedures as laid down in all the guidelines under the Big Local Trust, from starting the conversation right though to completing and submitting the Big Local Plan.

“My decision to resign is based purely on the facts of how Boston Big Local should be conducted, and despite many efforts on my part to follow the correct guidelines I have often met with obstruction and dismissal which has made my position as Facilitator untenable.”

The resignation comes after the project steering group posed a series of questions for Mr Annibal to answer which raise several points about his role.

The gift to Boston is a once in a lifetime opportunity for the town.

The intention is that the decisions on where the money goes are in the hands of the people, and that Boston Borough Council and other such "worthy" organisations do not have any control over the spending.

Since the announcement of the project at the end of 2012, little has been heard of the progress the group is making.

Now it seems the message from the project is “not waving, but drowning” and it seems high time that the members get their act together.

Read more about the Big Local project and some of its ideas in future issues of Boston Eye.

***

In just a few weeks, we bid farewell to Councillor Paul Kenny as Boston’s 479^th Mayor.

His year in office has seen one of the greatest contributions from a mayor that we can remember – and perhaps the best ever.

He has attended countless functions and events, and was out and about throughout last year’s flooding, lending help and support and generally boosting morale.

We have to say that he also looked the part – more than adequately filling the official robes in the way of a civic Mr Pickwick or Mr Fezziwig – which is an added bonus.

The next Mayor will be Councillor Alison Austin, and from what we know of her warmth, charisma, human kindness and communication skills, we think that councillor Kenny’s legacy has nothing to fear for the 12 months ahead.

Interestingly, when it was agreed to restore the seniority selection process to pick the mayor – on an accumulated service basis, so that a councillor’s previous service would be included in the calculation –  the  first post holder on that basis was Conservative Councillor Colin Brotherton.

But after that, we were told that  things became complicated because the next seven in line all have equal service.

It was decided that the democratic way around this was to choose a mayor by drawing lots – or that's what we were told.

The magnificent seven in question were: Councillors Paul Kenny, Alison and Richard Austin, Michael Gilbert, Brian Rush, Helen Staples, and David Witts.

So far, Councillor Kenny and Mrs Austin have made the cut, and next year's candidate will be in the unenviable position of possibly being appointed and then getting thrown out of office in the elections on 7th May next year.

But here's a question.

Does anyone recall a ballot taking place?

We certainly don't – although like so much that goes on in Worst Street, it may well have been done in secret and behind closed doors.

***

If you’re at a loose end over the Easter weekend holiday, then why not spend a few minutes – because that’s all it takes – to complete Boston Borough Council’s “Drinking in Public Places survey.”

It's being conducted because the current Drinking in Public Places Order (DPPO), introduced to help control drinking of alcohol in public places in certain circumstances, is being repealed.

As the council tirelessly points out, it was never a ban, but a way to prevent alcohol consumption where it resulted in anti-social behaviour.

With the apparent introduction of “new rules” Boston Borough Council wants “to plot a way forwards.”

The council, having pooh-poohed public concerns for years, is now saying that a complete ban on drinking alcohol in the town centre and Central Park may now be the only solution  to “disgusting” anti-social behaviour as councillors "are now at their wit’s end”  – although for some of them, this is perhaps not too long a journey.

Councillor Yvonne Gunter, head of flags, planters, bridges, cemeteries, and parks is pictured grim faced in a recent Boston Target fulminating about drunkenness, coupled with urination and even defecation in the streets as well as the park.

“We have tried everything else – polite notices, warning notices, threats, face-to-face confrontation, reduction of corners they can hide away in, lowering the height of shrubs – but nothing has worked …

“ ... I really do think the only solution will be to completely ban drinking alcohol in the town centre and the park. If it’s illegal then firmer action can be taken against those who choose to flout the law.”

Problems in Central Park have been going on since policemen wore high hats and the involvement of alcohol has increased their severity.

But we do not think that a ban on alcohol should be the knee jerk reaction to the problem.

Such a law would make it impossible for a picnicker in the park to enjoy a tin of beer or a glass of wine – which is part of what a park should be for.

Over the past few years, Boston’s response to the problems of drinking has had the result of ruining the enjoyment of everyone other than the culprits.

We have seen amenity benches removed across the town, attractive shrubbery uprooted and flower borders ploughed over … all because of a handful of drinkers.

“Trying everything” does not seem to have included enforcement  of the DPPO at any stage – otherwise we are sure that the council would have shouted about it from the rooftops.

And at no time can we recall court appearances by any of the ne’er do wells who commit these unpleasant offences.

The police have announced the occasional “crackdown” on street drinking – the most recent being the preposterously named “Operation Dakota*” – which like all such exercises is a sop to public opinion that lulls people into a false belief that our police are really doing something, and which is shortly to be resurrected now that the lighter evenings have arrived.

It is the inaction in all of this that is most aggravating.

The council simply blows hot air.

The police do nothing.

Yet both authorities have the manpower and resources to act.

The bulk of the offences are confined to Central Park, where the council has ground staff and the presence of several volunteer groups.

The police have Neighbourhood Police officers for the town centre.

The idea when they appeared was that they would be “out and about” and the quote “more bobbies back on the beat” was brandished like swords at Agincourt.

We also have Police Community Support Officers.

The idea when they appeared was that they would be “out and about” and the quote “more bobbies back on the beat” was brandished like swords at a musketeers’ training camp.

Now, they all ride around in cars – allowing the public a brief glimpse of broken promises in action.

Boston Borough Council also has an Anti-Social Behaviour team.

Yet between all these people and their fancy titles, it seems that we can’t muster an organised effort to rid Central Park of the drinkers and piddlers once and for all.

So the next thing will be the imposition of an outright ban – if it actually is possible.

And if it becomes possible to impose one, then that’s what will happen, without a doubt.

The borough council survey asks only three questions posed in a way which makes the answers a foregone conclusion.

The handful of people who complete it will comprise only those who want to ban drinking– so expect the triumphal announcement of “overwhelming” public support.

What else could you expect from three questions …?

1 Should people be allowed to drink alcohol in a public place (e.g. streets, parks, car parks etc

2 Do you think there is a problem with drinking alcohol in a public place in the following areas?

3 If Boston Borough Council had sufficient evidence to BAN the drinking of alcohol in "defined" public places would you support this?

Not for the first time, the answer to the problems seems to be to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut, when some positive policing could doubtless bring matters to an end and let the park remain a place for families to enjoy a glass of wine with their picnic if they wish – and that’s the important thing … the ability to live our lives with as few rules and regulations as possible.

And don’t forget – even if stringent new laws are enacted, they will be useless without enforcement … and if that had been done earlier, we wouldn’t have reached this sorry pass.

***

At long last, a good idea has been hatched in the corridors of Worst Street – an official calendar that hopefully will look different from the usual run-of-the-mill stuff.

The pictures will be the work of Boston photographer Christopher Lewis.

We have seen some samples, and they certainly are outstanding.

The borough has been seeking sponsorship to cover the costs and Boston Eye has been delighted to buy one of the pages.

***

Last week’s suggestion that Boston town centre is now in such a state of decay that it could well be twinned with Havana in Cuba was, as you probably guessed, tongue in cheek.

But has the idea struck a chord with one of our senior council members?

We’re told that no lesser figure than Boston’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, Councillor Raymond Singleton-McGuire has paid the Caribbean paradise a visit – and who knows, when he sees things first hand he may agree with us about the similarities with Boston.

But just one thing, Regimental Sergeant Major … watch out for the "no parking" signs.

Although Cuba hasn't employed it for years, we understand it still has the firing squad for miscreants.

***

Finally, if you decide on a day out over Easter – rather than spending time filling out a survey on drinking in public places – we assume that there is something going on in Boston to entertain you. We say “assume” after reading the heavily promoted “Discover Lincolnshire” day being publicised by Lincolnshire County Council – which features news of events in Lincoln, Gainsborough, Lincoln, Spalding,  Lincoln and Alford. Mention of Boston is there none – which is often the case where the county council is concerned. And nearer home, the borough’s so-called “guide”  to Easter activities (pictured left) lists no fewer than five events at RSPB Frampton Marsh Nature Reserve – although two of them finish before the holiday break – and a distinctly non-Easterish coaching session at Boston Bowls Club.

 

*Dakota has a variety of connotations and definitions – none of which has any connection to binge drinking in the streets.

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

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

 



 





The words from the book of Matthew, Chapter 26 Verse 41 might have been written with Boston in mind when the apostle famously noted: “the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.”
Because yet again, it seems that Boston is unable to get to grips with the important issues that could change life in the town for the better.
Two current examples show how an initial enthusiasm to light a way forward are already guttering like candles at a rainy barbeque.
The first of the is the Boston Big Local project, announced more than a year ago, under which the town is to receive a million pounds from the Big Lottery Fund to be spent over a ten-year period.
Already long forgotten is the fact that the allocation is for an area designated “Central Boston” which embraces the six most deprived wards in town – Staniland South, Pilgrim Ward, Skirbeck Ward, Boston Central, a small portion of Fenside and Witham Ward.
However, a number of people not associated with these wards have been quick to cry “foul!” and demand to know why a wider area cannot be included.
Usually, these people have political connections – which is interesting, given that everyone has been at great pains to point out that there is to be no political string pulling of any kind.
So what’s happened in the 16 months since the ballyhoo began?
From out of nowhere, a committee appeared to take on the task of deciding how the money should be spent.
Where the members came from is unclear, and who they are is unknown, but until now they have had a helping hand in the form of a “facilitator” who acts as a “mentor, critical friend and expert advisor” for the partnership and is there to provide a “support and challenge” role.
Wafflers of the world unite – you have nothing to lose but your brains.
There was an air of mystery when this solitary paid appointment was announced, and the plot has now thickened with the abrupt and unexplained resignation of the post holder which has not been helped by the refusal of the Big Local area representative to comment either.
So what’s the story so far ...?
We apparently have some money, which a virtually self-appointed ragtag group is to decide how it is to be spent. – although one suggestion was to blow £200,000 a year on a Party in the Park. Brilliant!
And that’s about it.
The structure of all this is already falling apart and nothing much by way of any bright ideas seem to have emerged.
Although the meetings are open to the public, their dates don’t appear to be well publicised, and unless our local “newspapers” attend to report proceedings, the punters remain in the dark.
Such a huge and potentially important project as this deserves better.
A good starting point would be a dedicated website, where we could see what was going on, and know who the members of the committee are – and to which we could contribute.
Sadly, we do not expect any of this to happen, and we sense a shroud of failure settling over the whole sorry circus.
How long will it be before the vultures start circling and declare that if Boston can’t decide how it wants to spend a million pounds, there are plenty of other places which can?

***

On a lesser – but nonetheless important note – we are disappointed to learn that the committee set up to try to celebrate Christmas in Boston after last year’s debacle is already foundering.
From what we’ve read it appears that there is more than a hint of the prima donna from at least one quarter – which the dictionary defines as “a person who thinks she or he is better than everyone else and who does not work well as part of a team or group.”
Well done to those who are hanging in there and doing their best. Boston needs a decent event this Christmas, and if things were to fail for a second year, then we think that the damage to business and the town’s social cohesion would be irreparable.

***

How grand to find a councillor who stands up for justice, law and order and appropriate punishment when an offence is committed...
Behold Councillor Raymond Singleton-McGuire, Chancellor of the Exchequer for the Borough of Boston, who was nothing if not forthright after a benefits cheat was ordered to repay the £20,000 she “fiddled” from the system.
Beneath the heading “We’ll get you in the end” Councillor Singleton-McGuire, trumpeted in the borough’s local Pravda:  “Benefits fraud is not a victimless crime – we all end up paying for it. It’s perfectly laudable that residents who work hard and pay their taxes supply information to us about benefits cheats.
“Benefits are meant to be a safety net for those in genuine need – not a bouncy
castle for those who want to thumb their nose at the rest of society. For this reason
I have now introduced a zero-tolerance policy protecting taxpayers’ money.”
Give that man a medal …
Hang on though …
Is this the same Councillor Singleton-McGuire whose response to a member of the public alerting his partner to the fact that she was parked illegally responded by calling in the police?
It surely is.
And is this the same Councillor Singleton-McGuire who – after the police talked to both parties involved and found that there “was no evidence to substantiate that an offence had been committed” – told the Boston Standard that as a result of what he called “a storm in a teacup” he “no longer wished to do business with the complainant’s employers through one of his firms.”
It surely is.
We thought that blacklisting went out with McCarthyism and the Hollywood purges.
Quotations such as “one law for the rich and one for the poor” and “power without responsibility” come to mind in situations like this.
But nothing we could say can be better expressed that the comments made to the Standard after the story appeared …

***

We mentioned a couple of editions ago that the first tottering attempts to bring   democracy to Boston Borough Council meetings were not without their obstacles.
When cabinet members answered questions from the floor of the council chamber, the problem was that they could not be seen – giving the illusion of a talking pillar rather than a responding councillor.
It would be unkind to suggest that this may have been deliberate, and the efforts to remedy the problem generated some success in that the last meeting we watched on video councillors could be better seen – but unfortunately not heard!
The council chamber has microphones for councillors to use, and we seem to recall that many years ago it was possible to record proceedings by the simple insertion of an audio jack plug from a recorder into the council’s own system.

***

With elections for Europe just around the corner, we are pleased to see that life is set to remain simple for voters – assuming that the naming of parties remains much the same as it did in 2009.
Then, in the East Midlands there were 13 candidates – and the four available seats went to the Conservatives with two, followed by Labour, UKIP, and the Lib Dems, who won a seat apiece.
With UKIP tipped to do even better this time around, we wondered how things might look if voters were being asked to place their tick in the appropriate box in Lincolnshire.
Here, after a series of spats, the party has fragmented and in so doing threw away the chance to make a real difference in the corridors of power at County Hall.
The group includes two county and Boston borough councillors – who have decided that they now wish to be known as the “Independence from Europe Group.”
This means that the line-up for Lincolnshire County Council now comprises 35 Conservatives, 12 Labour, 10 “real” UK Independence Party members, 7 Lincolnshire Independents, 4 Independence from Europe, 4 Liberal Democrats, 3 Independents, and 2 UKIP Lincolnshire.
We’re not quite sure what this tells us about UKIP – but it says a lot about our local councillors … none of it very good.

***

 Most readers know our views on the Big Boston Clean-up by now – in a nutshell, it’s an effective community stunt, which lets Boston Borough Council duck responsibility for keeping the place clean for most of the year.

The problem is that for just one week the borough looks spick and span, and then the litter slowly accumulates over the next 51 weeks leading to the commonly voiced complaints about the mess that Boston is in.
Whilst this argument is refuted by the powers that be – a contradictory impression has been given out in the run up to this year’s event … which starts on Monday.
According to the council: “The Big Boston Clean-up's annual grot spot amnesty, applied every year since the initiative first took place in 2008, is over.
 “The gloves are off and businesses with untidy areas of land are to be written to telling them to clean it up, get involved in this year's Big Boston Clean-up or stand by to receive a litter control notice which could cost them a £100 fine.”
Does this mean that for the past seven years the council has deliberately turned a blind eye to the legal responsibility that businesses have to keep their premises tidy?
It would appear so.
According to Councillor Michael Brookes, Boston Borough Council's portfolio holder for waste services, businesses “have a legal responsibility to keep their land clean and tidy. But every year some commercial businesses rely on volunteers to do it for them. That's not on, and this year it ends.
“Those written to after a pre clean-up inspection who do not tidy up, or who have not contributed something to the effort will be fined."
So does this mean that helping out a Boston Borough Council publicity stunt can free you from the rule of law?
The answer would seem to be a resounding “yes.”

***

Just when we thought Boston’s flood drama was over comes news that ceiling tiles in Clarks newsagents on Fish Hill were brought down after water from a blocked drain in the Assembly Rooms above the shop overflowed.
Yet another blow for an iconic building, which – although it might be wonderful inside, we wouldn’t know – is decaying visibly despite repeated promises that it would be painted externally to a high standard.
Painting the building was a condition of sale – which stipulated it should be done within a year of the purchase almost 18 months ago.
Incredibly, the Assembly Rooms seem to be deteriorating more rapidly than ever they did during the years of neglect as successive council administrations refused to spend money on its maintenance.
But we’re now starting to wonder whether this is perhaps part of a cunning master plan designed to bring tourists to the town in their droves ...

The similarities between Boston town centre and the Cuban capital Havana are just too great to ignore – which makes us wonder whether Boston will be joining the likes of Cuzco in Peru, Mobile in Alabama, Tehran, Madrid and Glasgow to become the 26th place to be twinned with Fidel Castro’s home town.

And who knows if the idea catches on, maybe the council leader “Pedro” Bedford might be persuaded to get into the spirit of the thing and sport a Castro-style beard – but blue, of course!

***

Finally, although this time of year is when we celebrate resurrection, we think that unless Boston Borough Council believes in miracles the time has come to update its details of our local representation.
The following appears on the borough’s website beneath the heading “meet your local councillors.”

Councillor Mould died in February last year.

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

 

 

 

Last week, we mentioned the absence of information as to where our hard-earned wages go once they are turned into local government confetti – otherwise known as the council tax.Since then, we have been looking back on some recent spending by Boston Borough Council on the town’s Geoff Moulder Leisure Centre, the figures for which are only available by poring through spreadsheets that list every sou over and above £250 that the council spends each month.

Whilst this may pay lip service to the buzzwords of openness and transparency, we still think that the presentation could be improved if the powers that be really wanted us to find out what they’re up to.

Regular readers will recall that  the council came to the rescue of the Moulder pool by creating a five-year partnership with the Witham Schools Federation and Boston Amateur Swimming Club, which started late in 2011.

The plan involved spending £195,000 from reserves, with £150,000 being repaid over five years from the “partners,” and the remaining £45,000 being funded from the capital reserve – in other words, written off.

A rough tally of spending between the start of the deal until mid-2012 saw spending reach almost £275,000 – and without any apparent discussion.

But the spending doesn’t appear to have ceased.

In November last year, the cost of “GMLC Equipment” was listed at £54,000, and alterations at Creations Gym were more than £71,000.

Another £4,000 was spent the following month.

But supposedly it wasn’t all bad news.

A couple of years ago, Boston Borough Council approved the installation of solar panels at the GMLC – rushing  through a £125,000 spend which was heavily criticised at the time – along with other energy “efficiencies.”

Whilst huge savings were trumpeted, we note that  the GMLC electricity bill for last October was £6,100 – compared with just under £5,000 in February 2011 …  a year before the super saving panels were installed.

 ***

Just as an aside, another item that caught our Boston Eye was a charge of £875 for a “safety officer for Boston Christmas market. Would that be the same Christmas Market that was cancelled after the much welcomed demise of Boston Business “Improvement” District? It surely would!

 ***

However, accounting of some sort is available on the Boston Borough Council website in the form of a virtual booklet of the kind that would, no doubt, have been sent with our tax demand had the need for savings apparently not been so great.

The assumption behind such a production is that people will seek out information of this kind on the internet – but it is still no substitute for making sure that taxpayers properly understand where their money is going.

And nor is it even that.

In the case of this year’s booklet, it tells us little about how money has been spent on items that are of direct benefit to us as contributors – but merely looks forward to blowing next year’s contributions.

After explanations of the tax itself and details of payments and exemptions, we are told: “Your Council Tax goes towards paying for the following (examples given, not an exhaustive list.)”

Hmmmm.

“Leisure” will spend £823,500 in the coming year, on such things as the Geoff Moulder Leisure Complex – there’s a surprise – plus healthy walks and sports and play development.

“Housing, property and communities” will get through £1,970,000 to pay for the Municipal Buildings, helping the homeless, footway lighting, country parks, and property services.

“Operations” – no, nothing to do with the Pilgrim Hospital –  will spend £1,722,000 on  refuse collection, markets, the Central Park and play areas (why this doesn’t come under the leisure heading is a mystery)  bereavement services, street cleaning, trade waste, recycling, tree management, vehicles, toilets, grounds maintenance, and office cleaning.

“Finance” will cost £23,330,480 gross, less £21,832,840 income, leaving £1,497,640  to be spent on benefits, staff salaries, accountancy, internal audit, debt management, treasury management, insurance, VAT, creditor payments.

A fairly modest £26,400 expenditure on IT buys computer and technology services.

Something called “built environment and development" will pay £529,100 for planning, building controls, advice and enforcement, parking, and the May Fair.

“HR and Business transformation" will blow £308,000 on civic functions, communications, training, recruitment, payroll, and graphics.

And so it goes on …

What all this comes down to is that Boston Borough Council – unlike days gone by, when councils were truly responsible for our local community – now spends most of its income on its own existence.

And what is that existence for …?

Mainly to collect the council tax for the benefit of Lincolnshire County Council and Lincolnshire Police since – as the borough council continues to remind us, it retains less than 12% of the tax it collects for is own needs – and much of that goes on salaries, offices, IT and all the rest of the costly razzamatazz that accompanies top heavy bureaucracy.

As we observed last week, the thrust continually to save money by sharing services with neighbouring authorities is little more than a lemming-like leap from the cliff top that will eventually result in district councils themselves being merged in favour of an even more Lincoln centric situation than we have already. 

***

Even worse, when Boston Borough Council tries to justify its charges with promises of service, what does it come up with?

Improving our town centre … It was supposed to happen but despite all the expense never did. The mess in the Market Place bears daily witness to this.

Supporting rural communities … to do what, exactly?

Delivering “one-stop” council services in Boston … presumably this means a gradual closure of facilities until there is just one place to stop at to pay bills, get advice, etc, etc.  The back end of W H Smith’s shop, perhaps?

Improving prospects for business … the figures speak for themselves.

Investment and employment … by whom, and where? See above.

Protecting our history and heritage … See “improving our town centre.”

Promoting tourism … too many opportunities have already been missed for this promise to have a snowball’s chance in hell – the road to which we are told is paved with good intentions.

 ***

Talk about rubbing salt in the wound to squeeze that extra morsel of satisfaction out of a one-sided victory …

With no apparent sense of irony Council Leader Pete Bedford has written to a local “newspaper” to “praise” council staff  “for all they have done to safeguard services.” He goes on to talk of the recent “100 per cent voluntary sign-up to changes in terms and conditions” against a history of pay freezes.

“As everyone is aware the continued economic difficulties have impacted severely on the public sector and local government and this will only worsen into the future rather than improve,” he goes on.

“However, much has been achieved in the most difficult circumstances of the past few years and none of this would have been possible if the staff had not been willing to work with us.”

So what form did this willingness take?

At the beginning of the year, the council told us that whilst it hoped that the proposed changes to terms and conditions would be voluntarily accepted by all staff, “the council intends to issue notices of dismissal with the offer of re-engagement on the new terms and conditions for those who do not voluntarily accept.”

If you put a gun to someone’s head, it is scarcely surprising if they go along with whatever you ask them to “volunteer.”

Treating the electorate with similar contempt by assuming that their attention span is so short that they will be stupid enough to overlook the fact that a threat of redundancy becomes heroic team playing in the space of just three months adds insult to injury.

 

***

Last week’s revelations about the visit by the Latvian Ambassador almost beggared belief – but one interesting side effect was that it apparently lured Boston’s sole English Democrat Councillor, David Owens out of hibernation to join the howls of protest.

We use the H word because at the last count of figures for attendance at meetings, Councillor Owens has missed every one of the Boston Town Area Committee meetings – which is where his ward is most greatly affected – and every other meeting of the full council.

That’s the bad news.  The good news is that he doesn’t have a place on any other committees – or else his record would probably be worse.

As far as the Latvian “invasion” was concerned, we hear that Councillor Owens was concerned that everyone – rather than a select few – should have been invited to attend the meeting.

We’re sure that he would have attended.

***

Still more news of the enthusiasm with which our local police tackle problems in Boston.

A reader tells us that at 3-30pm on Monday, no fewer than nine youths on cycles were riding through Strait Bargate in a group with several stragglers following behind – doubtless seeing the area as a Haven for their Hijinks

One of them was pedalling whilst holding holding a second bike which he passed to another youth who came from New Street, who joined them, doing wheelies among the pedestrians.

We’ve lost count of the number of times that the police have promised to “clamp down” and “get tough” with cyclists who ignore the rules.

But it was good to hear from our mystery shopper that the police were to be seen out and about at the time.

A few minutes later in Pescod Square, he spotted two PCSOs standing around outside Wilko chatting to a couple of local schoolgirls. – doubtless stressing the importance of crime prevention.

***

Finally as you've been so kind since our return, we're giving you a week off for good behaviour – well, actually we're out of circulation for a few days, and back on Friday 11^th  April

 

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

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



 

As Russia flexes its might against the West, a Cold War of a much lower magnitude seems to have broken out in Boston.
It follows a visit to the town by no lesser a dignitary than the Latvian Ambassador to the UK, Andris Teikmanis, in response to an invitation by the Boston Community Forum – a vague group which has done little to make its presence felt despite the obvious need for such an organisation.
The invitation to the Ambassador annoyed quite a number of Boston borough councillors for the quite obvious reason that scarcely any of them were aware of it.
It was a Saturday affair apparently instigated by the Forum Chairman Robert Lauberts “an active community volunteer” with a finger in more local pies than he has fingers, and another member of the group
As part of a busy day in the town, the arrangements included a meeting between the Ambassador and members of the Social Impact of Population Change in Boston Task and Finish Group, “group leaders” (except for one) and a senior council officer to boot.
However, when challenged about why so few councillors were involved, Chief Executive Richard Harbord, fell back on his “nuthin’ to do with me, or with the council, guv” defence that has proved so convenient recently – claiming an absence of any formal contact, leaving him out of the loop entirely.
This argument still failed to cut much ice in some quarters – especially since the meeting was held at the Worst Street offices
We have to say that we are sympathetic to the way councillors appear to have been roughed up – and the apparent lack of concern that any Tom, Dick or Harry with vague claims to “community” credentials can snap his fingers and summon senior political figures to a meeting at which he chooses the attendees.
It’s a serious case of the tail wagging the dog – and one that requires closer investigation and a less dismissive approach to the relevant concerns of elected members

 

***

Boston hit the headlines in the Daily Mail again last week – which invariably means that the story will not be a good one.

The headline reported: “Library forced to employ SECURITY GUARDS to prevent visitors viewing pornography on its computers.”
And the story drooled on: “A library has been forced to employ security guards to clamp down on visitors constantly watching porn on its public computers.
“Members of the public are regularly flocking to Boston Library, Lincolnshire, to take advantage of the free internet facilities.
“However, library users have reported seeing middle-aged men sitting at the desktop computers shamelessly gawping at X-rated videos.”
Granted, the Mail account seemed to be more triple X-rated than our local “newspaper” reports, but it nonetheless begs the question of why Lincolnshire County Council is doing nothing to prevent such prurient activity in our halls of learning. County Hall’s head of libraries – what few that remain of them – said: “We have software in place to help stop people downloading inappropriate material, which works on both English and foreign language sites.
“Anyone misusing our computers will be asked to leave the library, and repeat offenders will be banned.
“If we suspect illegal material has been downloaded, we will report the matter to the police.”
Surely this is too little, too late.
Local authorities elsewhere in the country can render it well-nigh impossible for library users to access this sort of material.
But in easy-going Boston, it seems to be a case of three or four strikes before you’re out.

***

The inexorable move away from the concept of a district council being responsible for err – a particular district – has taken another step forward … yet again, helped by Boston Borough Council.

Last month we heard that Boston had formed a partnership with East Lindsey District Council in a move which is expected to result in unspecified but “substantial” savings when Boston's binmen collect household waste from some residents over the East Lindsey border.
This follows an earlier decision by the two authorities to share a statutory post – again to save money.
Now, Boston Borough Council is taking control of South Holland’s closed circuit television scheme.
Aside from the obvious opportunity this presents for the Big Brothers of Worst Street to slather the streets of Spalding, Holbeach, Crowland, Long Sutton and Sutton Bridge with posters aimed at making ordinary citizens feel like criminals as well as scaring them half to death, is anyone prepared to speculate how soon it will be before the powers that be decide first to merge districts into larger, more cost efficient groupings before ultimately devolving the entire district tier of local government to county level?

***

It’s everyone’s favourite time of year when their council tax demands drop through the letterbox – and this year they’re accompanied by multi-lingual “DIY guide to help keep floodwater at bay.”
It includes some useful ideas to use binbags filled with soil or sand to stop water backing up through ground floor toilets and sinks – but some less clever suggestions such as taping up air bricks, which is fine at a time of flood but could also, if misunderstood, result in stopping essential ventilation to rooms containing gas fires and the like.
Nevertheless, extra information is always useful – but this year sees the disappearance of some as well.
Until now, our annual tax demand has been accompanied by a handy booklet in which Lincolnshire County Council, Boston Borough Council and Lincolnshire Police offered some sort of cursory accounting of the way they have parted with our hard earned pounds.
Whilst nine out of every ten of these probably travel straight from the letterbox to the recycling bin, there are still enough people – some of whom have written to Boston Eye to tell us – who resent the fact that the powers that be no longer feel a duty to tell us in simple terms what they are doing with our money.
It seems that so long as we pay up, that’s the most we can expect.

***

Speaking of flooding … although the Boston deluge receded long ago, Boston Borough Council seems reluctant to drop the event from its webpages and local version of Pravda.
At its peak, council leader Pete Bedford spoke of the “devastation” caused by the floods in which “the lives of many people, including business owners, have been turned upside down.  Talking to those affected you can see the heartache in their eyes – personal belongings ruined; their homes and businesses destroyed.”
We were struck by a certain irony in these quotes when we noted Councillor Bedford’s earlier comments in one of his many local “newspaper” comment columns. In August last year  he used his monthly propaganda facility  “to urge all home owners to shop around for their flood insurance now that the landscape has changed, due, in part, to representations made by Boston Borough Council,” going on to chortle about how much money he had saved on his house insurance cover,
Given that last December’s floods in and around the town far surpassed even the events of 1953, we wonder whether the landscape has changed yet again – and if Councillor Bedford might be regretting his over-confidence.

***

Some news is better late than never – not least the information that Boston Borough Council’s garden waste collections resumed at the start of this week. However, despite all the gung-ho waffle about what a difference a few sunny days make to the way our gardens grow, we suspect that some people would have welcomed slightly more by way of lead time to start filling their bins. We hope the assurance that brown bin collections will follow the same routes and days as last year means exactly that – because we seem to recall problems arising pretty much every year since the service started which left some people less than happy.
But as we scoured the borough’s website to ensure that this will be the case, we were left wondering.  A section about recycling told us that – among several methods – extra supplies of blue collection bags are available by visiting the council depot at Fen Road.
Would this be the same Fen Road depot where staff were left “dewy eyed” and cliché ridden by the “end of an era” as the final load of waste for recycling left the site last September?
It surely would.

***

Finally, we reported the absence of any police enthusiasm a few weeks ago after a break in which caused a lot of damage and distress. Since then we have heard of at least two more such offences nearby. In every case, the police came, and went – and that was that as far as they were concerned. However, we note in one of our local “newspapers” that –  after reports of daffodils planted by volunteers being picked by local people who probably think that there’s nothing wrong in what they are doing – the police have issued a warning that they will take the matter “seriously.”
Anyone taking daffodils could be arrested for anti-social behaviour or theft.
A spokesman said – whilst presumably keeping a straight face: “Picking flowers may be viewed as an anti-social behaviour offence, and if a person digs up a bulb and sells it for profit, they may have committed a theft so we would warn anyone considering such action that we do take such incidents seriously and would deal with any offenders under the appropriate legislation.”
Remind us to keep a bunch or two of daffs in our garage from now on.

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

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

 

Welcome to our new look blog. We have changed the appearance of Boston Eye in response to comments by readers. We hope that you will find it is easier to read. And please, let us know if there are other changes which might make it better.



Last week we continued our coverage of the saga in which a vehicle owned by a Really Senior Member of Boston Borough Council was parked in the Market Place by an employee – not only in contravention of a clear ban on parking … but displaying a council permit which allows free parking only if the occupant is a councillor on council business, which was not the case.
The action was challenged by a member of the public, who was reported to the police for his pains, and who subsequently protested in very strong terms to the powers that b’ain’t in Worst Street.
As we said, a complaint form was completed and returned – but given the reluctance of anyone dealing with the matter up to that point, we did not suggest anticipating a result too soon.
However, we bargained without the speed with which the council can muster when its interests are served by a rapid reaction – and especially when an obvious opportunity to pass the buck presents itself.
Within days of the complaint a reply came back from the Chief Executive, Richard Harbord.
And guess what – the bottom line of the response was the convenient “nothin’ to do with us, guv.”
And why was that, we hear you cry?
“As it happens the vehicle was in an area which is subject to County Council rather than Borough enforcement.”
This response was like a red rag to a bull, and prompted the reply: “Can I presume you will be passing this atrocious misuse on to the County then, to see that this is tackled – as the borough seems to treat this as something no one wants to tackle in Boston. Do you think this is an awful case of ‘do as we say not as we do?’ It’s certainly a case of looking after your own.”
Back came the smooth reply: “I think you have misunderstood my response to you.*
“It was open to the County to enforce their parking regulations in this case. Regardless of anything else, Members Parking Permits do not allow them to park on County land or highway in any case. It was therefore not a breach of the permit more a breach of parking process. In other words as it happens the parking permit was irrelevant in this instance.”
So That’s All Right Then.
By way of one small crumb of comfort, Mr Harbord said that he had “re-iterated to all Elected Members the conditions under which they have a Parking Permit.”
We’re sure that this will make a lot of difference!
Interestingly, the councillor at the centre of this affair appeared at least until recently to believe that the police enquiry he instigated was being hotly pursued.
But this view is not shared by the man who reported the parking infringement. He recalls an amicable and sympathetic discussion with the police and the strong impression that a line had been drawn under the incident as a result of their visit.

 

A stroll around the town last Sunday morning produced an interesting insight into the way that our hard-earned wages are spent once they become council tax.
On two different occasions and at two different sites we noted vehicles belonging to the Lincolnshire County Council Highways Alliance (that’s road menders to you and us) parked up while maintenance was being carried out to traffic light columns. In one case, one man stood importantly by whilst a second scraped rust bubbles from the paint on a metal pillar. In another, a vehicle checked in with a second one where a similar job had been completed. The Lincolnshire County Council Highways Alliance is a partnership between May Gurney, Mouchel, Imtech Traffic and Infra (traffic signals) and the county council’s highways department. Perhaps that’s why it needs at least two vehicles and at least three men, most probably travelling from Lincoln to Boston at double time for a Sunday to do a job that could easily have been done more cheaply by someone local on a normal working day.

 

We note without surprise that five of the ten UKIP county councillors elected last year –   among them Boston borough councillors Bob McAuley and Patrisha Ann Keywood-Wainwright no longer want to be associated with the party because they think officials have shown them a “complete lack of respect.” The quintet stuck with councillor Chris Pain in a breakaway group after he was removed as county leader by the national party – a move which cost the party its place as the official opposition at county hall. It also saw the group members suspended from the party and rename themselves “UKIP Lincolnshire.”
An appeal fell on deaf ears so the group decided that “owing to the complete lack of respect, and the unprofessionalism which the party officers have shown in this matter, we no longer have any desire to be associated with UKIP. To comply with council rules we must have a group name but one no longer including the word UKIP.
“A group name will be registered once we have consulted with the council.”
Whilst we never expected much from UKIP, all these delicate little blossoms have done is thrown away a chance to have a greater impact on Lincolnshire politics than they do now by behaving like spoiled brats.
Stuck for a new name?
How about Politicians Resigning Are Truly Stupid?
That’s PRATS  for short!

Hats off to whoever came up with the great idea that a council that always tries to portray itself as caring, kindly and thoughtful should now adopt the concept of fear and intrusion into privacy as a way of whipping residents into submission – albeit in the interests of good public order.

The picture on the right shows the original movie poster and below it the borough's brilliant  burlesque – with threats in four languages – which is its big idea to stop people using Hatters Lane between Bridge Street and West Street for defecation and urination... “during broad daylight.”
Whether this means that taking a pee and doing one’s big jobs at night is ok isn’t clear.
But our Big Brother Council thinks that “the psychological effect of a pair of staring eyes”   will put an end to the problem once and for all.
Whilst we know that some of our residents aren’t particularly fussy when it comes to obeying the call of nature, we think that a cynic might suggest that the closure of the toilet facility that used to be just a few yards away could a contributory factor.
And we were struck by the council fanfare trumpeting the campaign which said that Hatter’s Lane “is close to the town centre, little used and very narrow.” Could something similar be said about the Worst Street mind that dreamed up this feeble idea?

 

It was great to see Boston taking part in the worldwide celebrations to mark Commonwealth Day. But what a pity that the Commonwealth Day flag – which paled into insignificance when pictured beside Councillor Yvonne Gunter in Boston’s daily Pravda on  February 18^th  – was flown from the council offices in Worst Street. The idea of a flag atop a pole is that the height dominates the scene – so that it can be seen from a wide distance. To fly the flag – or any flag for that matter from a ledge on the side of the council offices – is a waste of time, pure and simple.

The borough’s propaganda picture of that showed something more resembling a tatty duster strung like a home-made surrender flag from an episode of Dad’s Army  flapping limply from a shonky broom handle.
All this served to remind us of something which we hoped that some of our councillors might have remembered.
When Boston’s Assembly Rooms were sold for peanuts to become a much needed night club in November 2012, we were told: “Flags will continue to fly over the Assembly Rooms at times of public celebration and for civic occasions despite change of ownership.
“Owner Matt Clark said: ‘I stressed at the time of the handover that I wanted to see a continuation of community uses at the Assembly Rooms, and this includes use of the flagpole. I have said on many public forums that the flagpole is not lost and will not be. I am very happy in continuing to fly any flag that the council would like'"
This, of course, is the same Matt Clark who signed a deal which promised external re-painting of the Assembly Rooms within a year of the deal going through.
Although our old eyes are not as good as once they were, even without our specs we can see that this was a broken promise.
Has the same thing happened again – or did the council “not like” the Commonwealth Flag enough to ask for it to be flown from where the whole town could see it?
If so, it seems surprising that the council “leader” Pete Bedford said at the time the promise was made: “This was important to us. He has made no secret of his support for community uses and it went without saying, we thought, that this would include public use of the flagpole, which the council is obviously very pleased to support."
Yeah. Blah, blah, blah …

 

One of the saddest and most feeble political excuses is to blame a previous government/council/manager/postman/dogsbody for the inability of the current incumbent to achieve as much as they could have done.

What’s even sadder locally is to see that argument proffered by Tory councillor and cabinet member Mike Gilbert, who is quoted as saying: “We were subject to an administration that weren’t doing things as efficiently as I would argue we are as a Conservative administration.”
He underlined his colleagues’ feeble performance to date by boasting: “I think we’ve done an extremely good job, getting efficiencies, delivering excellent services and improving some of the things we inherited from the last administration.”
All this is rather disappointing, coming as it does from a councillor that we have always regarded as the one bright firework in a cabinet box of otherwise damp squibs and duds.
Whilst we  were as critical of the Boston Bypass Independents as anyone, their former leader – and current Boston councillor Richard Austin – pointed out in an e-mail at the time we stopped blogging in May:“ The BBI inherited a financial overspend that had been kept going by very large increases in council tax that were well above the rate of inflation. In addition there had been a catalogue of maladministrative blunders such as failure to sign contracts. A new and very experienced Chief Executive was appointed and a financial recovery plan put in place. A big reduction in staffing costs was achieved at the same time as increasing staff morale. By the end of our four-year term we were described by our auditor as one of the most improved councils in the country.”
Interestingly, the newly arrived Tory administration was quick to hijack the retrospective plaudits from the auditor, and overlook the fact that the previous administration to the BBI – although technically one of No Overall Control – was in fact run by the Conservatives.
As far as the appointment of the Chief Executive is concerned, instead of regarding him as something “inherited” from the previous administration, the Tories have fallen over themselves to extend his contract time and again – most recently until after next year’s local elections. Not only that but they continue to pay his company – the former Modular Raised Floors (UK) – £9,780 a month for just 15 days work.
Not only is this equivalent to an annual pay packet of £230,000 a year – one of the highest pay packets for a chief executive anywhere in the country – but  its final extension goes beyond next May’s elections.
Check out comments by the local government minister Eric Pickles over the last several months, and you will find that the local Tories are quite happy to ignore the party pronouncements when it apparently suits them.

 

Finally, despite last week’s mutterings of discontent, we note that Councillor Yvonne Gunter remains undeterred as far as her enthusiasm to be photographed is concerned. Aside from appearances on both the Boston Standard newspaper and website she turns up in both the borough’s daily Pravda and website as well.

The latter story concerns a stunt involving local schoolchildren on national no-smoking day.

In one of the council’s photos children are pictured flanked by Councillor Gunter and Councillor Stephen Woodliffe, the borough’s regulatory services portfolio holder, which has a vague connection to health issues, and therefore, presumably, smoking

So why is Councillor Gunter in the picture?

Well, the photo is taken in Central Park, and Councillor G’s portfolio includes parks along with bridges, planters, flags and cemeteries.

As far as we can tell, that’s the only reason – in fact, even Big Cig, “a grumpy-looking giant cigarette” was worried when someone stole his thunder!

* It never fails to amuse us when highly paid public “servants” decide that the best form of reply is to treat their respondents as if they are idiots.

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

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

 

Welcome to this week’s Boston Eye – a week of pith and moment – but, as you might expect … mostly pith.
After all the hoo-hah, the new St Botolph’s footbridge was officially opened last week – only to close immediately for a few days for the handrail and lighting to be fitted – eventually opening on Tuesday.
Did it not occur to anyone that it might be better to delay the opening so that the bridge could be all singing and all dancing from Day One? But no, that would most likely not have fitted in with their diaries at County Hall in Lincoln.
The £750,000 bridge – jointly funded by Lincolnshire County Council and a European Union grant – was chosen from three possible designs, and the county council said it would take the public feedback into consideration before it chose the winner … a line we have heard more recently in connection with the move of the post office in Boston – and with a similar outcome, i.e. that after public consultation the consulter does exactly as it pleases..
Unsurprisingly, it chose what was probably the cheapest and easiest bridge to build  – despite there being at least one design that was far more appropriate to such an historic setting.

As you might expect, the great and the good were out in force – but even though this was a distinctly local event, the dead hand of Lincolnshire County Council cast its shadow over the proceedings.
The county had apparently decided that Boston’s two ward councillors for the area – Conservative Mary Wright and Independent Carol Taylor – who had put a lot of effort into planning the day – should attend, and also announced that that Boston’s Mayor would be there as well.
This came as news to our first citizen, who wasn’t available, but his deputy was able to take on the job of cutting the ribbon to open the bridge.
The county had decided that their portfolio holder for highways, Councillor Richard Davies, was the man formally to open the bridge, but also wanted at least one borough bigwig to attend as well – as something of an afterthought, it would appear.
The leader was otherwise engaged, as was Councillor Derek “Knocker” Richmond, who would seem a sensible choice (!) as portfolio holder for the town centre. After that, one might have thought that either of the joint deputy leaders would have been next on the call sheet.
But no – the third time lucky-for-some choice was Councillor Yvonne Gunter, who is already Portfolio Holder for Flags and Town Centre Planters, and has now added Bridges to her impressive civic briefs.
So with a bigwig at last appointed, the event went ahead.
The Boston contingent treated the event with the gravity it deserved – turning out smartly as befits an significant civic event.
But County Councillor Davies surprised some people by turning up tieless in jeans and a reflective high-viz safety vest.

His appearance divided opinion – some thought that he had mistaken the event for the sod-turning ceremony rather than the official opening, whilst others thought he had decided that as young schoolchildren were attending the event, dressing as Bob the Builder would make them feel more at home.
And although added as a civic makeweight, Councillor Gunter ruffled a few feathers by standing front and left when the civic camera was clicking – which always ensures that one dominates a photo … and thus gets pole position when the front page honours are handed out for the Boston Borough Council’s daily local edition of Pravda. However, the entry on the borough’s website sought to pour oil on troubled waters. Although Councillor Gunter was seen lurking in one or two photos, the one in which she dominated did not appear – and neither did her name!

Parking complaint makes all the indifference at Worst Street

After last week’s report of the parking infringement by a vehicle belonging to a Really Senior Member of Boston Borough Council, a wave of reluctance followed when the authority was asked to address the matter.  The complaint was sent to town centre portfolio holder Derek “Knocker" Richmond who gave the impression that the councillor concerned would be in touch with the complainant. Whilst this failed to materialise, the now famous knock on the door from two Lincolnshire Police officers did.  The complaint then passed hither, thither and yon like the political hot potato that it was without a response. Only after chasing the officer with whom the issue was also raised, was the complainant contacted – by yet another officer (council, not police.)  A complaint form has now been completed and returned – but given the performance so far, we would not recommend holding your breath for a result.

It’s speech all right – but is it free?

In recent times, Boston Borough Council has made a big deal about its so-called transparency, and its openness to the public. The latest in this reluctant line of democratic moves has been to allow cameras into the council chamber. The first bold step – on the Boston Standard’s website – saw half of the people concerned hidden behind pillars when their turn came to answer questions, which was something of a disappointmen

In the meantime, however, one part of local democracy seems to have engaged reverse gear. This week’s meeting of the cabinet piggybank – also known as the Boston Town Area Committee – had eight items on the agenda. In the good old days before openness was adopted, agenda items were usually accompanied by detailed written reports which interested members of the public could read. Not so any more. Of the eight items before the committee, five – that’s more than 60 per-cent - were down for verbal responses.

This means that anyone living in the Boston town ward who wants to know what their “parish council” is up to was denied the privilege – unless they turned up at the meeting to witness proceedings. This is often none-too-easy to do … especially when the meeting starts at 6-30pm. Yes, we know that the councillors manage it – well, some of them, anyway – but then that’s what they signed up for. Taking verbal reports instead of providing ones that can easily be accessed by the public is tantamount to holding the discussions in secret. Or perhaps that is the idea.

Price up – readership most probably down

They say that everyone loves a surprise, but we wonder whether that was necessarily true for readers of the Boston Standard, who opened last week issue to be told: “You will no doubt have noticed when you bought today’s paper  that the price has gone up by 5p – bringing it to 70p a week” – that’s a tad over seven per-cent. Co-incidentally, the price hike came as the latest circulation figures for weekly papers were announced.
They showed that only a handful of weekly newspaper titles audited by the Audit Bureau of Circulation increased their print sales year on year in 2013.  The figures are no longer as comprehensive as they once were.  At the end of 2012 some 373 paid-for weekly titles were audited by ABC, whereas last week’s figure totalled around 270. The picture is further complicated by the fact that some titles are now audited six-monthly and some annually.
The Boston Target has not been afraid to grasp the nettle, and reported a circulation fall of 16.7% on last year to a weekly total of 11,769
So what about the Boston Standard? Some 71 Johnston Press titles have resigned from the ABC, and the Standard’s disappearance from the list suggests that it is one of them. Given that the circulation trend for almost all local weekly papers is a downward one, we can only assume that it has plunged ever lower, but that its owners are simply too cowardly to tell us just how bad things are. The last time that the Standard owned up to how many copies it sold was in the second half of  2012 when it declared a drop of 12.4% to 7,684 – a truly terrible figure which must nudge it towards the threat of closure.

Down memory lane …. 2

An update in the on-going saga involving Mark James – one time Chief Executive of Boston Borough Council. ...  A vote of no confidence in the leadership of Carmarthenshire council where he now rules, has failed by 28 votes to 41, and councillors agreed to accept the findings of a Wales Audit Office report which ruled payments made to Mr James were "unlawful".
Mr James has stepped aside while police investigate why he was allowed to opt out of a pension scheme and receive cash instead. Payments for this and for libel action costs in an action involving a local blogger were unlawful, the WAO ruled.
The council has defended its actions and welcomed the police investigation.


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