Christmas comes early for the real-life Scrooges of Worst Street – with a recommendation at tonight’s full council meeting of a bumper boost in the allowances of top councillors only and another contract extension for Boston’s highly-paid Chief Executive.
Unlike Scrooge, we suspect that there will be no eleventh hour Damascene conversion to bring about a change of heart – and the recommendation for a 20% rise in allowances to councillors with special responsibilities is particularly ill-timed, coming as it does against a backdrop of reports that as many 120 council staff face cuts in pay and conditions to try to save £1 million.
We mentioned both of these briefly last week – but today want  to concentrate on Chief Executive Richard Harbord’s contract.
It was last extended in September last year “for a further,  final period to 31st May 2013.”
It now apparently suits the council leadership to ignore this decision and propose extending the contract until 31^st July 2015.
Sometimes, Council Leader Pete Bedford prefers to fall in with previous recommendations – as he did during the controversy over the sale of the town’s Assembly Rooms.
Councillor Bedford told the BBC:  “… the actual decision was taken in 2006 at a cabinet meeting then, and it has never been rescinded, so the original decision in 2006 is the one that we are actually working on.”
We wonder whether the decision to extend Mr Harbord’s tenure for a “final” time will be rescinded tonight before a vote is taken – but suspect that this will not happen.
Mr Harbord’s pay is well documented.
He will get £121,500 a year for just 15 days’ “work” a month. Pro rata, this places him among the highest paid local government officers in the country – whilst working for one of the smallest and poorest councils.
Boston is ranked 331st out of 354 English local councils.
Not bad for  an official "old age pensioner" – as we believe he is passed his 65th birthday!
At an annualised rate, Mr Harbord receives £243,000 a year – compared with Prime Minister David Cameron, who is paid £142,500.
Mr Harbord is paid through a contract with his own company Mrf UK – formerly Modular Raised Floors (UK) – an arrangement that brings with it certain tax benefits.
Councillor Bedford has been at pains in the past to stress that this also brings benefits for Boston Borough Council.
In a BBC radio interview in February last year, he said: “Our Chief Executive is only a part-time position. He is perfectly at liberty to work for other clients on the days he does not work for us. The council’s contract with the company means that the council has no liability for holiday pay, sick pay, national insurance or pension contributions.
"There is also no question of employment rights and the cost arising from that.”
We are puzzled at the way these comments conflict – given   a warning in tonight’s recommendation to the council, which has appeared before.
Under the section “Legal Implications” we are told:  “As the Chief Executive has been employed continuously since August 2009, albeit on a series of short term contracts, he may have statutory employment rights. This broadly means that if he were to be dismissed the council would have to follow a fair and legally recognised procedure for dismissal. If the position were to be made redundant, redundancy pay may be payable.
An earlier version of this caveat includes the sentence: “If an employee does not have unfair dismissal rights, then these steps are not necessary, although with an organisation the size of the council, these steps should not be omitted even where they legally can be.”
This sounds to us to be paving the way for a possible payment – despite Councillor Bedford’s claims to the contrary.
These warnings also carry the implication that failure to renew a contract on expiry constitutes dismissal – which is nonsense.
We have worked on contracts in the past, and the arrangement is quite unambiguous. A contract is drawn up for agreed services, to be provided for an agreed period, and at an agreed rate.
When that time is up – that’s it!
We know of people who have worked on annual renewable contracts which have not been renewed after twenty years – with absolutely no employment rights whatsoever.
This is the advantage of such contracts to the people who hold them – they can work for more than one employer – and  this is usually whythey work under the umbrella of their own company.
However, an interesting line in the council recommendation mentions a “contract of employment for a peppercorn sum of £10 per annum.”
So on one hand, we appear to have an employee on contract, but also with a foothold on the staff ladder.

This is something that needs questioning at tonight’s meeting.

Another worrying aspect of all this is the decision to extend the contract to 31^st July 2015 – almost three months after the next local elections.
Ostensibly, this will “allow the current Chief Executive to remain  …  to provide stability and oversee any changes that may occur at the next election in May 2015.”
Superficially, this sounds a good idea, as it appears to presume a change in political control of the council – which would be excellent.
However, what it also does – if Mr Harbord were to qualify for redundancy pay – is to drop that particular time bomb into the lap of a future administration … and allow our present so-called leadership neatly to pass the buck on to their successors.
In recent months, many decisions by Boston’s un-magnificent seven cabinet members have attracted major criticism – including  the sale of the Assembly Rooms, and charging disabled blue badge holders to park.
However, these protests have fallen into the “all mouth and no trousers” category – creating nothing more than noise … and no real action.
In the case of Mr Harbord’s contract, a senior Labour councillor wrote to the Chief Executive of the Audit Commission  – motto “Protecting the public purse” –  to ask for an investigation. The reply was received to say that an auditor would be in touch “shortly."
On 31^st October the post of district auditor ceased to exist.
A final point concerns the report to tonight’s meeting.
Its subject is “Role of the Chief Executive.”
And the report’s author?
“Head of Chief Executive’s Office.”
Ought it not have been written from more of a distance?
If no questions are raised about this tonight, then our so-called representatives are guilty of negligence in their duties toward Boston and its council taxpayers.

 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

 

In a classic case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, Andy Fisher, Boston Borough Council’s head of Housing, Property and Communities, earlier this week e-mailed staff and councillors to let them know that the public toilets beneath the Assembly Rooms would close tonight – just three days after the news was released to the local newspapers. After months of secrecy, he has promised that once the sale is completed, it will be possible to release further information – you know, the small stuff … such as who has bought the building, and what they plan to do with it. And unless all our sources and those of others are also wrong, we believe that one or two people involved in this clandestine deal may prove to have been economical with the truth – to say the least. Meanwhile, traders in the Assembly Room shops were complaining on local radio as late as yesterday that they are still in the dark as to their future, because Boston Borough Council has told them nothing at all. Ignorant – or what?

It seems that the borough is in estate agent mode at the moment, as a deal has also been done with Lincolnshire County Council to transfer its registration service to the borough’s Worst Street offices. For those who like such things, it will be possible from December to get hitched in the council chamber and Mayor’s Parlour – local symphonies in stained glass and polished panelling. As a venue, they mark an improvement on the previous Register Office, which more closely resembled a private viewing theatre that somewhere suitable for a civic union. But at least it was possible to park there without any problems. We wonder whether this has been taken into consideration with the new facility, as West Street is notorious for being a hard place to park, and we feel sure that the borough is unlikely to make any of its free staff and councillor parking available.
Mr  Fisher reassures critics that “both of these property transactions have a positive effect on our current financial position”  – which is probably just as well given that Monday night’s full council meeting is being recommended to hike special responsibility allowances by 20% over a two year period. As usual, the  argument being trotted out is that Boston’s allowances are among the lowest in the country and that bigger payments will attract more people to consider become councillors. Unfortunately the people to benefit under this plan number the 19 most senior councillors such as leader Pete Bedford, who will pocket another £1,567. The deputy leaders would get another £913 and the members of the cabinet £652. You have to admire the nerve of our leaders. It’s only a couple of months or so since the council made the headlines in the Daily Mail for  topping the black list of  allowance hikes with a total of 85% over three years – which was one of the first actions taken after the Tories gained control of Boston in May last year.
Still, the extra money may well come in handy given the latest rise in gas and electricity prices, which have caused shockwaves as winter approaches.  But a chance for us lesser mortals to save as much as £200 pounds a year could be available despite Boston Borough Council thanks to  a scheme being offered by South Holland and East Lindsey District Councils. The scheme works by signing up as many people as possible and then inviting power companies to bid for their custom - with the lowest bidder getting the business.  Gary Porter, the leader of South Holland District Council was asked why only two of Lincolnshire’s seven district councils were involved in the scheme. “We’ve offered the ability to come in to the other districts and we haven’t heard anything back, so we are just pressing ahead with it.” The good news is that if you live in Boston you can still register for the scheme if you apply by 21^st.  Just follow this link http://southholland.ichoosr.com/product/index.rails?actionId=253 . The bad – but not surprising news – is that once again the leadership of Boston Borough Council has let its citizens down.
Now for the first and last in our local political lookalikes series! After his recent stunning appearance on film –   in which he trashed local motorists for their parking naiveté –   we were struck by the close resemblance between Boston’s Lord Of the Town Centre, Councillor Derek Richmond, and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles.

 

What do you think?
For a council that encourages us to demand better and faster internet services, we have noticed some Luddite tendencies creeping in recently. The latest is tucked away in the recommendations for big pay rises for the elite band of “top” councillors. The report notes that there is no provision in the allowance system to support Members’ IT expenses – and therefore declares them to be part of the basic allowance. This leads seamlessly to the decision that in order to achieve fairness and consistency, the current arrangements which provide members with IT connections and consumables via the council should cease immediately.  The pompous wording disguises a simple meaning … any councillor currently supplied with a laptop computer must give it back and in future use buy one from his or her allowances – which have already been declared as pitifully low. In an age when computers and internet access are very cheap, this is an interesting “economy” that will hinder councillors by removing support for essential services and demanding that they pay from their own pockets.
Also coming up at next week’s council meeting – and which is something that we will be discussing in more detail after the weekend – is the recommendation to extend the contract of Boston’s “acting” “interim” “part-time” Chief Executive, Richard Harbord. The plan is that he will now continue in post until after the 2015 elections – which we suspect will make him one of the longest serving chief executives … even though he has never held the substantive post.  Mr Harbord will receive £121,500 a year for just 15 days’ “work” a month. Pro rata, this places him among the highest paid local government officers in the country –  whilst working for one of the smallest and poorest councils. Not only that – at an annualised rate, he receives £243,000 a year – whilst Prime Minister David Cameron is paid £142,500. We are seeking comment on this from a number of organisations... and will keep you informed.
We note that the Boston Business “Improvement” District is bragging that it has negotiated free parking in all Boston Borough Council car parks from 5pm on Friday 30^th November for the start of the Christmas Market. What this will cost is unclear … but it has happened before. Whilst we don’t have a date, we note from earlier council papers that free parking for the day in all Boston Borough Council car park represented a “loss of revenue estimated at between £3,000 and £4,000.” At some point, the sums need to be done – and the question of what financial benefit is earned for the Boston from the funding of a Christmas Market  and expensive “star” names must be calculated before we carry out such similar exercises in future.
Our attempts to subscribe to the new, excitingly redesigned Boston Standard have now entered their fifth week. We have been assured that our bank details – and those of many others – were lost merely because of computer problems, and thus unlikely to lead us to become victims of any attempts at hacking or other forms of illegal infiltration, and promised that our direct debit will be taken on or around the 21^st November with our vouchers arriving within 21 days. This means that we will have been paying the higher price for our paper for several weeks since we first tried to take out a subscription – but that’s  good news for the publisher isn’t it?

Still with the Standard, and its growing tendency for typographical errors and misspellings, we had to smile at the following, which appeared last week.

Eeking? Is he making horror films these days? And what’s all this about a “resident film expert?” In our days on local papers, that job was occupied by whoever was lucky enough to grab the free tickets when they arrived. These days a “resident expert” is a luxury on only the leading national   and regional newspapers. They can’t really mean it!

But it does seem that the mauling of the language happens everywhere – as in this extract from a Boston Borough Council report …

 “Shall be begun?”  How about “shall start?” Or is that too simple?

Finally, don’t forget that the last of Boston Borough Council’s garden waste collections will end this year with collections scheduled for the weeks starting next  Monday, 19^th  and 26^th November. There will be a one-off collection in January - coinciding with scheduled collections in the blue bin  week starting January 13^th and the green bin week starting January 20^th – to help get rid of Christmas trees and late leaf fall. We don’t know about “late” leaf fall – most of ours are still clinging to the trees!

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

 



It is  eighteen months since plans to stage a protest march in Boston over the impact of high levels of immigration on the town were first voiced  – and barring any last-minute changes of plan, Sunday will see a watered down “static” protest involving around 100 people.

It barely seems worthwhile.
The original march was planned for November last year, but postponed because of fears of counter demonstrations – and because of a promise by Boston Borough Council thoroughly to investigate the issues and marecommend how they might be addressed.
That investigation took the form of a Task and Finish Group, which held eight “evidence” gathering sessions from the likes of employers, educationalists and the police.
This led to a final report containing 28 recommendations –   many of which are unlikely ever to happen.
A few are national, and many of the local ones involve tinkering, rather than change.
When the report was published, reaction from the protesters was one of disappointment – from which emerged this Sunday’s “static” protest.
A closing debate took place on BBC TV’s Look North earlier in the week, when protest organiser Dean Everitt complained that services were overloaded and that the recent task and finish study didn’t go far enough.
Councillor Paul Kenny – the Labour group leader who chaired the sessions – said that whilst the council could get involved in local issues it couldn’t change national policy on issues such as immigration.
Organisers say they are hoping to send a clear message to both local and national politicians – and that the demonstration may be one of many to take place – including the possibility of one in London.
Frankly, we’d advise against this.
A hundred or so people standing still in the capital tends to be regarded as a bus queue – and as such unlikely to make much impression.
Whilst it may not have been the main aim, the council working party that took months to meet and report, was a form of attrition – and  a year on, only a handful of the 2,354 members of the protest group will be attending on Sunday.
Whatever may be achieved will merely be some sort of catch-up exercise – as one significant line from the council report tells us: “What is clear is that the recent changes are set to continue.”
Over time, vigorous voices have become muted mutterings - and if nothing else, the report has made it clear that little can be done.
Ironically – given concerns over education – an advertisement for a Boston primary school in this week’s local newspapers appears in English, Polish, Latvian and Portuguese.
Four languages – in a school that has just 217 pupils.
Sadly, the powers that be seem to think that the answer lies in the soil, and that indigenous Bostonians must return to caulie cutting which will  then encourage migrant workers to move on.
To this end, one of their main recommendations is to form closer ties between agriculture and education so that schools can pave the way to the packhouse – which is a shameful dismissal of the next generation of Bostonians that will doom them to a lifetime of low pay, and thankless work.
It seems to us that the best thing now that everyone has had their say is that after this one – and hopefully final – protest that the town should strive to make the best of the situation.

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

 



Tomorrow sees elections for a Police and Crime Commissioner for Lincolnshire – which are likely to be received with as much enthusiasm as a doubling of the income tax rate might be.

It will see the biggest change for the county police force since it was established in 1856.
A big change, certainly.
But how necessary is it?
Here’s the story so far …
To date, Lincolnshire Police has been overseen by a committee of nine Lincolnshire County Councillors, and eight independent members – one of whom has to be a Justice of the Peace.
That seemed to be a well-balanced set up which kept the police free from political meddling.
But the coalition has decided that a single commissioner, who will replace the police authorities in 41 areas, will improve police accountability, free up officers for front line duties and increase public confidence in the service.
Commissioners’ duties will include hiring and firing chief constables, agreeing budgets and setting local policing priorities.
The turnout for the election is expected to be disastrous – with the Electoral Reform Society estimating that it could be as low as 18.5% … which would be the lowest in British polling history.
Commissioners will be paid between £65,000 and £100,000, depending on the size of the territory – and as one of the five smallest forces, Lincolnshire will get the lowest rate … although even then it remains very high in local terms.
Tomorrow’s election poses a dilemma for us at Boston Eye.
We believe that voting is not just a luxury that can be taken or left on a whim – it is a duty.
But in the case of the elections for Lincolnshire Police and Crime Commissioner there has been a huge communications gap – not just between the candidates and the voters, but from the government, which has done little to set out the “value” of this particular job.
We have four candidates for the Lincolnshire role – one Conservative, two Independent, and one Labour.
Each candidate has skills of their own, and have done well in their chosen careers.
But whether they have what it takes to oversee the running of a police force is a different matter.
We do not think that this job should be a political one, nor do we believe that the duty to vote should be exercised willy-nilly by picking one candidate out of the electoral bran tub just for the sake of it.
We know a number of people who plan to vote for a candidate because they regard him as a “good egg.”
Here at Boston Eye, we have had dealings with two of the four candidates over the years, and whilst we consider them fine fellows both, that is just not enough.
Sadly – and for the first time since we first voted almost half a century ago – we plan to “spoil” our ballot papers.
We shall go to our local polling station, armed with a pre-printed statement, and a mini stapling machine to attach it to our ballot paper.
Our statement will read:  

I do not wish to surrender my right to vote, but I do not consider any of the candidates standing today to be electable to the post of Police and Crime Commissioner for Lincolnshire – nor do I believe that the post is necessary in the first place. I attach this notice to my ballot paper knowing that my vote will be recorded as spoiled, and therefore rejected – but will still be counted.  Not to vote is not to care about our society – but to vote for no reason other than to place one candidate above another three is a pointless waste of democracy.

If you feel the same – please feel free to copy and print our declaration and attach it to your own ballot paper.

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

 



It seems that our cloak and dagger leadership at Boston Borough Council has managed to cock up its handling of the sale of the town’s assembly rooms and the knock-on closure of the public toilets in the Market Place – by giving the dates to the local press before telling their fellow councillors.

On Friday, the Boston Standard website reported that notices going up at the toilets were giving the date of closure as 6pm this coming Friday – 16^th November.
As if the notice wasn’t short enough, several councillors were less than happy to read this morsel of news in the local media – rather than enjoying what they considered to be a normal courtesy of hearing about it from someone within the Worst Street walls.
We understand that Council Leader Peter Bedford – never the world’s best communicator – is apparently trying to pull a George Entwistle by claiming to be out of the office when the deed was done and unaware that the dates were being given to the press – whilst intending all along to notify this council colleagues yesterday … three days after the news became public.
At least Mr Entwistle had the good grace to resign when he realised what a mess he had made of matters.
Now, one of the two councillors in whose ward the Assembly Rooms are located, has issued an open letter to the new owners – which is just as well, as her fellow councillor remains silent.
Independent Councillor Carol Taylor says in her letter: “It has been no secret that councillors from opposition parties were prohibited from obtaining the views of the public before the sale went ahead under a cloud of mystery.
“The people of Boston deserved better.
“To lose the Assembly Rooms will be a very sad day indeed, but the plans to renovate them will ease the public's loss of this Grade II  listed building.
“The loss of the public toilets, however, will have a detrimental effect on our local economy –  especially with Christmas festivities planned including the Christmas markets.
“Boston is hoping to attract more shoppers, which is partly why £2 million was spent on the Market Place refurbishment – as yet to prove a success with the public.
“I wish to make an appeal to the new owners of the Assembly Rooms and toilet block and ask them to liaise with the council and keep them open at least until after the Christmas markets and St Botolph’s Christmas fair.
“The toilets also provide footfall for the businesses of Church Street –   whose livelihood will suffer as a consequence of the toilet closure –  but if the facilities could be kept open for these festive events, it would go some way towards a successful Christmas for businesses and shoppers alike.
“Having just five days’ notice of the toilet closure does not give people enough warning and when coaches arrive, the passengers will have to queue for the three toilets in the bus station or walk through town to the other much smaller amenities. “This will not encourage shoppers or visitors.
“Also, on 3^rd December, civil parking enforcement will be introduced in Boston – and woe betide  anyone who parks in the wrong place … they will receive a hefty fine.
“If those people buying the Assembly Rooms and toilets have any consideration for the good people of Boston they will keep these toilets open and help us celebrate what could be a very successful and happy Christmas time for everyone including themselves.
“I urge you on behalf of the public, keep these toilets open ... please.
“Show us you care about Boston.”
We think that Councillor Taylor’s arguments are persuasive – but somehow fear that even if the new owners were willing to liaise with the council to keep the toilets open, Councillor Bedford and his henchpeople would find reasons not to go along with the idea.
The best that the leader has come up with so far is to suggest that the loss of the Assembly Rooms’ public toilets could be offset by using some of the proceeds of the sale on the Cattle Market toilets and “probably” the bus station - which fails to address the fact that there will still be no toilets in the Market Place.
We also note with wry amusement, that news of the completion of the Assembly Rooms sale coincided with the loss of access to planning applications on Boston Borough Council’s website – due to a software upgrade.
This was all due to be back to normal yesterday – but  then an announcement declared  some difficulties with processing applications and viewing the online register … with the hope that “normal service” will be restored “soon.”
Despite the fact that the completion of the Assembly Rooms sale might also be contingent on certain planning permissions, we are sure that this is nothing more than mere coincidence!

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

 

 

If you want to see a true video nasty, then look no further than the Boston Standard’s coverage of the ceremony to install a plaque in Boston’s new refurbished Market Place to celebrate the completion of the £2 million “refurbishment.”

Once again, Boston Borough Councillor and portfolio holder for the town centre Derek Richmond, seized the chance to attack the people he allegedly serves – this time the town’s car drivers.
Parking in the Market Place has been a problem ever since it reopened to traffic in July – with the sound of the buck being passed being heard every time it was suggested that someone in authority did something about it.
The borough council blamed the police.
The police said that they lacked the manpower.
Then the borough council started making threats on behalf of Lincolnshire County Council, which takes responsibility for parking enforcement next month – and plans to issue comedy dummy tickets ahead of time as a way of softening drivers up for the hefty fines to come.
Councillor Richmond did give a passing nod to the reason for the event – telling us how “exciting” it was to have the Market Place back again to its old medieval state … although whether he meant that its growing use as an open air latrine to enhance the impression is another matter.
What next? – an open sewer flowing through the centre in which dead dogs and cats float serenely by between piles of offal and other disgusting debris.
With Boston Borough Council, you never can tell. They would probably declare it a theme park!
But it was really parking that obsessed Councillor Richmond.
“On 3^rd December, civil parking enforcement comes in and then we’ll all find out whether people knows (sic) where they should park or not, otherwise they’ll be prosecuted.”
A quick interruption from the council’s head of planning, Steve Lumb – another senior figure who thinks that a tie is unnecessary on formal occasions, apparently – tried to quash the suggestion … made by a senior local police officer, no less … that the Market Place is a dangerous place.    
“The whole issue about the plaque unveiling today is to reveal what is a really fantastic space. What this allows is for people to walk across the space to appreciate the buildings and to use what really was before a rather sad looking car park …”   
He declared this to be “the start of a future for Boston …”
Unfortunately, a tracking shot of the "fantastic space" showed it to be awash with cars in places where they apparently ought not to be ...
All of which helped Councillor Richmond return his fire to the issue of parking.
“I would imagine that everybody driving through here has passed their driving test, and if they’ve read the Highway Code, they know what the parking rules are anyway. So it’s a bit naïve to say they don’t know where they can park or where they can’t park…”
Yes, the Market Place is now a fantastic space.
But please don’t try to walk across it, as Mr Lumb suggests, unless you are confident that you have adequate life insurance.
Traffic comes from all directions and all sides.
IntoTown buses treat the space as if a road still runs through it – and drive accordingly.
And frankly, at present, there is nothing special about the buildings that ring the Market Place.
At ground floor level, they are mostly modern shop fronts that are poorly decorated. Above, they are older and potentially interesting – but still poorly decorated.
And even though there are hundreds of thousands available in grant aid for restoration and improvement work, for some reason, the council has not been able to sell the idea to local businesses.
The Five Lamps – mentioned by Mr Lumb – are well done …  but sadly used as an
adjunct to a bus stop rather than a centrepiece.
The reason for the parking problems is that the few bays remaining after the refurbishment were lightly marked in contrasting stone, which – when wet – became invisible.
And the laudable idea of avoiding brash yellow lines and signs denoting where to park has left motorists with no clue as to where they can park and where they can’t.
Matters might have been made easier had someone bothered to put out the signs that told people to park only in the spaces provided  – instead of leaving them stacked in a heap. But these signs were seldom displayed – and nor was any easy to follow guide made available.
Drivers are confused because they have not been helped with basic information regarding parking since the Market Place reopened.
But for Councillor Richmond – who of course does not have to pay to park …  unlike the rest of us – it  is easy to be pious and patronising.
Already, he is under fire from viewers of the Boston Standard video.
“Councillor Richmond demonstrates his lack of understanding of what the council have done to the market place,” says one commentator. “He typically shifts the blame to drivers for the mayhem that he helped create.
“It's not just a few drivers that are mistaken, its hundreds every day so it’s obvious that it is not the drivers that are in the wrong it’s our silly system.”
Another says: “Who on earth does this councillor think he is? The Highway Code has nothing to do with it. Insufficient signage, no road markings … Bostonians say it’s dangerous, the police say it’s dangerous, and all the councillor does is give himself a pat on the back and collects his fees. Shame on him.”
Another reader refers to Councillor Richmond as being “naïve” himself, whilst a fourth contributor declares: “We the public (and voters) of Boston should not be surprised by these rather obnoxious comments. It seems to me that the dictatorship in charge feel they can afford to be arrogant with the electorate. It is a "we are in charge attitude, we make the rules, and you must follow.”

 

 

 

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

 

 

We’ve often asked what Boston Business “Improvement” District is doing to justify its existence – and the question emerges again  with the news that its counterpart in Lincoln – the Business Improvement Group – has won an £18,000 grant to tackle street drinking, noise nuisance, and related anti-social behaviour in the city centre. The money is from the Baroness Newlove Alcohol Fund,  which runs a £1m pound  project to help communities across England tackle alcohol-fuelled anti-social behaviour. To date, twenty communities have been supported by the fund to develop their innovative ideas to make a real difference – and by all accounts there is plenty of money still available. Why is it that Lincoln BIG can track down grant sources such as these, while Boston BID has barely raised a penny in matched funding since it began almost four years ago? Could competence have something to do with it?
The confusion over the sale of Boston’s Assembly Rooms is not getting any clearer.   We hear that one tenant of a shop beneath the facility has had to pay November's rent to Boston Borough Council and not to the new landlord as agreed.  Meanwhile another tenant has cancelled the direct debit until the council explains what is going on. The latest news is that the sale should take another three weeks to complete.
Another sale being suggested according to the rumour mill is that of Boston Borough Council’s aging and decrepit refuse collection fleet.   Each month, the borough’s list of spending lists repairs to keep this particular show on the road – and over time the cost must have run into thousands. Now we hear that one of our Tory leaders is keen to sell the old rubbish lorries to India.  An insider fumes: “What a bloody insult to this country if true. These lorries have been past their sell by date for many years and are positively dangerous. Wouldn't the scrap metal value be better? Surely, surely this cannot be a serious suggestion.”
Hopefully, the brouhaha over Boston’s Central Park Jubilee Fountain has run its course, and now that Boston Borough Council has fixed it with compound SBR – “a styrene butadiene latex admixture for cement systems which is added to mortar and acts as a reinforcing structure … whilst also waterproofing and increasing durability” – it will no longer be possible for a couple of nine-year-olds to be villified as vandals after they climbed on it and damaged it before this superglue had “gone off.” Hopefully, there is a lesson in semantics to be learned here.  The police decided that this incident should not be classed as criminal damage as there was no suggestion that it was malicious – and in any case the culprits were below the age of criminal responsibility. We suspect that the same is true of the earlier incident involving a couple of 13 year-old girls. The temptation to shoot from the lip and call people vandals when they are not should be avoided – as should the automatic and clichéd addition of “mindless” ahead of the noun.
But again, the episode was enough for Boston to make the bad news headlines on the BBC’s Look North – despite our warnings about playing into the hands of the media over next week’s Boston immigration protest. In a programme that also highlighted last Sunday morning’s siren debacle, Parks and Cemeteries supremo Councillor Yvonne Gunter took to our TV screens to discuss the latest damage – and in doing so incurred the wrath of a fellow councillor and joint member of the Boston Town Area Committee – Independent Carol Taylor. In an e-mail to all councillors, she said: “I watched in sheer amazement your interview … to say ‘I was going to put it somewhere else but I ‘had second thoughts’ … is not true!  At the BTAC meeting on 6^th September … WE, as in BTAC committee, had a vote. Seven voted for it to be put back in the park and four were against. You, Councillor Gunter, were one of those who voted against. We are all aware of your dedication and commitment to ‘The Camera' –  but in this instance, to go on television and blatantly lie, is unacceptable for a portfolio holder and member of the Cabinet. Why didn't you say that it was a democratic decision?”
Now that the fountain affair is hopefully over, we just have a couple of postscripts to the debate. One came from Boston Eye reader, Emily, who said:  “Why not have it made in cast iron.  It would then not be possible either to break it or remove it and would remain lovely for years.”   And we also note that in the absence of the fountain, the commemorative plaque that caused so much acrimonious debate  (see our picture on the right) has also vanished. Will it return alongside the fountain, we wonder? If so, perhaps it could be edited along the way.
The earlier-mentioned siren affair prompted a suggestion from a regular reader, who e-mailed to say: “How about a 'tongue in cheek' prize for the most effective 'authority' backed way of depriving us Boston residents of sleep? I thought the unexplained 'training' mission that involved a Chinook helicopter taking off from a residential area in the early hours of the morning earlier this year was hard to beat but I think the 'decommissioned' flood siren that started at about 3am and played until about 8am may be the best one so far this year. Recognising it as a flood siren I called the local number for Boston police station in the early hours, just in case I did need to take my loved ones to high ground. The nice lady who I spoke to explained that they had received quite a few phone calls and they thought the siren was located on top of the Pilgrim Hospital but they weren’t sure, but it was nothing to worry about.” Whilst that is not very comforting, what made matters worse was the attempt by Boston Borough Council to claim some sort of credit in the matter. The council’s website boasted that councillors and staff were involved in getting the siren silenced. “At least two borough councillors and four members of staff were alerted and made efforts to facilitate access to the water tower in Horncastle Road so that the siren could be switched off. The tower is now in private ownership and the owner, who doesn't live at the tower but lives in Boston, was located so access could be gained to turn the rooftop siren off.”  What no-one has told us is why did it take so long? The owner must surely pay some sort of rates on the property – either private or business – so it should not have taken four hours to track him or her down
Yesterday’s item about the dangers in Boston’s Market Place has revived the debate about the number of traders attending the market. A reader wrote to say: “ I think the picture of the Market Place shows what many people have been saying ever since the refurbishment was finished - that there are not as many stalls there as there used to be, despite what the council says! I noticed several large spaces for stalls on Wednesday when walking through, and have been told that sometimes on market days if traders don't turn up their stalls are taken away so that it appears they ALL are filled up.” Our sharp-eyed reader also commented: “Incidentally, did you notice in the latest Borough Bulletin that the picture on the front page showed lines of traffic parked wrongly in the Market Place? Apparently it was taken on a Wednesday when cars aren't supposed to park there!!”  Well spotted, reader. Looking at the photo in more detail shows that it was clearly not taken on a Market Day, as there isn't a stall in sight. But why would the borough want to mislead us?
We note that our local MP Mark Simmonds continues to grapple with the big issues since his elevation to Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office a couple of months ago. Whilst Boston battles the problems caused by the Market Place refurbishment, street drinking, and falling fountains, Mr Simmonds was assuring MPs that no-one working for the FCO will be involved in an independent assessment commissioned by the Cayman Turtle Farm into allegations of inhumane turtle husbandry at the farm. In case you were worried, responsibility for the Cayman Turtle Farm rests with the Cayman Islands Government. That’s all right then.
As if business isn’t bad enough for the town’s beleaguered shopkeepers, Boston Borough Council is now applying its heavy hand to “encourage” business owners not waste money on steel security shutters for their premises if they haven’t applied for planning permission. This apparently follows a series of complaints  over the appearance of new shutters overnight.  Councillor Derek Richmond, portfolio holder for the town centre – and  famous in  local legend for his insensitive approach towards the disabled over blue badge parking, and his menacing noises about parking in the Market Place generally – is quoted as saying: "The council does understand that shopkeepers might be worried about how they secure their stock, so officers are on hand to advise on the numerous types of measures that could be available – some without needing planning permission. We don't want the town centre to begin to look as if it is closed for business -  it needs to remain attractive, encouraging and safe at all times of the day and night." We assume that Councillor Richmond has visited his town centre fiefdom  recently.  If that has been the case, he might have noticed the increasing numbers of empty shops, which combined with the general chaos in the Market Place and the disgraceful invasion by the Into Town buses does more to make the town look closed to business and unwelcoming to shoppers than any number of steel security shutters.
Our attempt to subscribe to the Boston Standard  to avoid its disgraceful price rise has now entered a third week. Despite registering our bank account details to create a direct debit, we were told to repeat the procedure – but having handed over confidential information once, we were reluctant to do so again. Two e-mails – each a week apart – have since promised urgent action, which has not materialised. The latest communication is to say that no investigation can proceed until we supply a postal address. That was done at the time of the initial complaint – and so it seems that this information has also been lost. Should it really be necessary to waste so much time and effort to buy something from  people who seem so reluctant to sell it?
Finally for this week – a photograph that caught our eye and made us smile. It appears on one of the websites of Boston North West’s Lincolnshire County  Councillor, Andrea Jenkyns  –  and shows her at work for a charity that is close to her heart.
What tickled us was the dog apparently sitting in a bucket labelled “collection for Doris Banham dog charity.”  Most people find it easier to collect money –   rather than dogs!

 

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