44 days to the elections

On 13^th February, we raised a concerned Eye-brow at the number of trustees running the Boston Sports Initiative – which is the charity with overall responsibility for the PRSA.

There are just three … one of whom is also the company secretary, another an accountant, whilst the third is Councillor Yvonne Gunter, Boston Borough Council’s portfolio holder for leisure services, parks and open spaces, country parks and reserves, playing fields, tree management, crematoria and cemeteries, allotments and grounds maintenance (phew!).

This is despite the fact that under the terms of the company's Articles of Association, there should be a minimum of six trustees and a maximum of 12.

At the time we remarked that Councillor Gunter’s role did not appear on her Boston Borough Council website CV, nor was it listed as an outside organisation to which councillors are appointed.

It now seems that this has been rectified.

As well as a list of councillors’ pecuniary interests, there is also something called  a register of “local choice interests,”  which we hadn’t stumbled across until just recently for the reason, we suspect, that it is a fairly recent addition to the borough council’s website.

On Councillor Gunter’s page – beneath the section “Details of any body directed to charitable purposes of which you are a member or in a position of general control or management" – there appears what seems to be a new entry “Trustee of Boston Sports Initiative.”

.

But alongside the entry it says: “Updated 2-3-15” – just two weeks after Councillor Gunter’s role was drawn to the attention of a wider public by Boston Eye.

Councillor Gunter was appointed to the Boston Sports Initiative in April 2012 – which makes it three years before the appointment was officially listed under the borough’s “transparency” policy.

Scarcely an “update.”

Throughout that period, the BSI – and therefore the PRSA – has relied on the generosity of Boston Borough Council … which means the taxpayers … for the funding it needs to continue.

Indeed, the borough’s own figures show revenue contributions of more than £500,000 towards the PRSA since 2012/13 – and of course the biomass boiler mania which has currently gripped the council in its sway will see hundreds of thousands more being spent to “save” the £800,000 needed for repairs and improvements at the PRSA.

We have to say that we are not happy with a situation where one of the three trustees who presumably negotiate with Worst Street is also a senior member of the authority – and with a responsibility for leisure services to boot.

Such a state of affairs must surely apply an unfair pressure on the person concerned when it comes to choosing which responsibility takes precedence on occasions.

The council got into a similar fix once before, when it appointed a member as a director of the thrillingly useless Boston Business “Improvement” District.

Merely adding an interest as a Trustee three years on raises a lot of questions, and is not the best way to be open with the taxpayers.

By a strange co-incidence, Councillor Gunter’s outside interests came under the spotlight in August 2012 – just a few months after she joined the BSI trustees, when she was the subject of a complaint that she had breached the Members Code of Conduct by not declaring relevant interests on her Declaration of Pecuniary Interest registration form.

Councillor Gunter had declared no employment on her form – although on the internet she was modestly hawking her services as “Lincolnshire’s Premier Wedding Planner.”

A report by the then Chief Executive Richard Harbord concluded:  “Having communicated with Councillor Gunter, it appears there was an oversight on her registration form in respect of her occasional work as a wedding planner.  This has now been corrected.”

Did not bells then ring concerning the PRSA job?

Apparently not.

***

There has been a lot of trumpeting from Worst Street recently about the wonderful sports facilities that it provides.

One almost forgotten place on the list is the Peter Paine sports centre, where the leadership forced the charity trustees to hand over the facility so that they could  charge a token rent to Boston College which in turn would be able to access a government grant scheme to make improvements.

Whilst it was good news for the college, it was less so for the taxpayers who are now limited in their use of what was once a public facility.

Even better news for the college was that it facilitated the sale of the nine-acre Boston College De Montfort campus   which went on the market for £1,500,000.

Now, the college has applied to demolish the campus so that Cyden Homes – a Grimsby based developer formerly known as Chartdale Homes – can build 108 houses and “associated infrastructure” on the site.

We feel sure that the good news monkeys who lead our council will tell us how wonderful all this is for Boston – but less than certain as to how much benefit has been delivered to the people who pay the council tax.

***

As the elections approach, it seems that the knives are out for one of the few genuinely independent councillors at Worst Street – not for the first time, either.

A recent members’ briefing heard from two senior figures at the United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust.

Among those councillors attending was Witham Ward Independent member Carol Taylor, who has just retired after 44 years as a nurse, and who was a former associate of the speakers.

Councillor Taylor wrote on her blog: “It was an excellent presentation and certainly proved to be very informative and productive. After the meeting I came home and wrote a thank you email to the speakers. This is where I committed a heinous crime.

“I wrote ‘Dear ... I would like to take this opportunity to thank you both for taking the time to address council members....". I then continued ‘I am sure I speak for all of us who attended, that the meeting was very informative and productive ...’”

So, what was wrong with that, you may ask?

It appeared to us – as we are sure that it would appear to most other normal, civilised folk – to be a polite reply, from one whose expertise eminently qualified her to respond.

But apparently not.

First came a ‘phone call advising Councillor Taylor that she shouldn't speak for others. Then, the issue of this thank you letter found its way on to the agenda of something called a group leaders meeting because it was felt that Councillor Taylor should not have said "I am sure I speak for all of us who attended...." – even though she says that she was convinced that everyone at the meeting thought it informative and productive too.

Fortunately, a number of councillors at the meeting nipped this piece of pettiness and pettishness in the bud.

Councillor Taylor told her blog readers that she learned afterwards that apparently several councillors had complained instead of the usual few.

And she added: “As long as I don't breach member conduct or bring Boston Borough Council into disrepute, then I will continue to express my opinion when, where and by the method I choose. It is called freedom of speech.”

 It ought not to be necessary to point this out – but sadly it is, because many of our elected members are too big for their boots and have their heads so far up their own backsides that they are blinded by stupidity.

And sadly, we feel that things will get worse as the election nears, rather than better.

***

Meanwhile, the timetable  has emerged for elections to Boston Borough Council.

Fifteen wards will be contested for 30 seats – two fewer than last time after a boundary re-organisation.

Some areas have new ward names –  St Thomas, Station, Trinity and West, whilst  a single Staniland comes into being  – and as we have said previously it would be helpful if Worst Street would produce a map so that voters can see how the changes affect them.

But sadly, this sort of help has not been forthcoming.

These are the ward names, and the number of councillors to be returned in each.

Coastal, two.  Fenside, two. Fishtoft, three. Five Villages, two. Kirton and Frampton, three. Old Leake and Wrangle, two. St. Thomas, one. Skirbeck, three. Staniland, two. Station, one. Swineshead and Holland Fen, two. Trinity, two. West, one. Witham, two. Wyberton, two.

If you’re planning to stand for the council, nomination papers are available from the offices of the Returning Officer’s Worst Street office.

Nomination papers must be in not later than 4pm on Thursday 9^th April.

***

Moving on now to the general election, and it seems that one of our local “newspapers” has fallen through a wormhole in time with its account of UKIP leader Nigel Farage coming to Boston.

“Nigel Farage is set to join other big UKIP names coming to Boston over the coming months as the May general election draws closer” said the report on the Boston Standard website.

The piece – dated 18^th March seemingly overlooks that fact that there are no coming months between then and the election – just seven weeks.

But never mind – our visitor might not be the same Nigel Farage that we have in mind.

The report calls him the leader of the United Kington Independence Party.

When last we looked, Kington was a market town and civil parish in Herefordshire, on the English/Welsh border with a population of 2,626 –and though on the western side of Offa's Dyke, it has been an English town for a thousand years.

Perhaps the Independence issue for Kington’s Mr Farage is one concerning Plaid Cymru – the National party of Wales!

***

We’ve mentioned the drive by our UKIP parliamentary candidate Robin “Boy Wonder” Hunter-Clarke a time or two now – and to date he remains the only one of the eight to have put any literature through our door … and in very large quantities at that.

 Most recently, we saw a special wrapper promoting his campaign wrapped around the Boston (and presumably, Skegness) Target.

All this has to have been a very costly exercise and raises a question in our mind.

Looking at the Electoral Commission guide to spending, it would appear that UKIP is in the “short campaign” spending period which means that it can spend £8,700 plus 6p to 9p a voter – which in Boston and Skegness would be £6,350 at the maximum rate for the constituency’s 70,529  electors. 

Will the money hold out until 7^th May at the present rate, we wonder?

***

But it may well pay off.

Someone described as “a top election pundit” – and that means most of us these days – claimed earlier this week that UKIP would take Clacton, South Thanet, Rochester and Strood, and Thurrock in the general election.

Politics professor Matthew Goodwin, of Nottingham University, set out six other seats he believed UKIP could win – Boston and Skegness, Great Grimsby, Castle Point, Thanet North, Great Yarmouth and Cannock Chase.

We shall see.

***

We note the emergence of two “hustings” for candidates in the Boston and Skegness Westminster race to face members of the public in a “Question Time style atmosphere.”

The first was  being held last night at the Assembly Rooms in Boston, with the other on 10^th April at The Storehouse church in Skegness.  The event organiser is Pauline Morgan of Swineshead, who styles herself “a keen advocate of getting the public heard amongst the ruckus noise of politicians.”

With just 100 seats available at each event we do not foresee any problems. Given the high level of disinterest in politics in Boston, we doubt that anyone will get killed in the rush for a seat.

  

***

Meanwhile, we note the arrival of a website for Lyn Luxton’s Pilgrim Party – subtitle: “Steadying the Ship.”

The team comprises the candidate herself as “Party Director,” a “Communications Director” and a “Campaign Director” – who turns out to be none other than the hustings organiser Pauline Morgan … without any apparent concern regarding conflicts of interest. 

***

With Boston in the record books as a town where obesity was once king, we wonder whether some of our candidates think that there is political capital to be made from scoffing.

By an eerie coincidence UKIP’s Robin Hunter-Clarke and the Pilgrim Party’s Lyn Luxton tweeted pictures of themselves having breakfast.

Based on a morsel count, we would put Ms Luxton ahead by a narrow sausage!

But the war of the snaps didn’t end there.

Another photo contrasted the turnout for a Hunter-Clarke pub evening with that of one for the Conservative candidate Matt Warman.

I’m so busy,  I need a big breakfast … my pub nights are bigger than your pub nights …  Isn’t it good to see that our wannabe MPs are truly grasping the really big issues?

***

We’ve often complained about how few of our political activists take the trouble to make use of the internet – so it comes as a change to find a new voice on the blogosphere

Daniel Elkington, a Tory independent financial adviser, who in a recent letter to a local “newspaper” styled himself “Conservative Party Chairman” has his sights set on a seat on Boston Borough Council after a previous failure.

He now blogs as “Boston Tory” and his first and so far only effort appeared on 11^th March.

Modestly, it begins: “I would like to start my first post on here with a thank-you.

“I'd like to thank all the people who have helped me to become the man that I am and all the people who I would like to consider my friends.”

Political dynamite, eh?

***

The campaign to make our outgoing MP Mark Simmonds return some of the expenses that he claimed for billboard advertising and hospital radio sponsorship is being greeted with the customary enthusiasm.

Independence from Europe candidate Chris Pain started his own campaign on the 38 Degrees website after an earlier one was launched on 4^th March, which has attracted 68,679 of its target 75,000 signatures.

Mr Pain’s campaign seems not to have lit up the sky quite so brightly.

It currently stands at 11 signatures of the 100 required – and has done almost since it began. The last petitioner signed more than a fortnight ago.

One problem may be that – whatever  people might think about Mr Simmonds' expenses – the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has looked into the case and declared that he acted within the spirit of the rules.

***

We hear that despite all the promises to the contrary, Boston Borough Council is in line for some big bucks from the Boston Big Local £1 million fund to help some of the most deprived wards in the town.

So much for the oft-repeated promise “This money will not be dictated by Boston Borough Council ….  It will be totally dictated by the local community.”

Why are we not surprised?

***

Huge amounts of publicity attended the launch of the first-ever Community Clear Up Day, which saw hundreds of events across the country for the first day of spring.

The event was planned by the government and arranged by grass-roots activists including community and faith groups, councils and parishes, and schools and sports teams and could now take place annually.

And what, we hear you cry, went on in Boston to mark this event?

Well ... err … nothing that we know of.

That’s probably because the event was staged a week before the Boston Big Clean Up.

Ok, Boston came up with the idea first, and has dined out on it ever since.

But what a chance was missed to have started on the day of the national drive, and then followed through with the local initiative on the Monday.

However, that would have required imagination, flexibility and a list of other attributes which no-one would associate with Boston Borough Council in a month of Sundays.

Another opportunity wasted.

***

We’re sure that there is scarcely a dry eye in the house after the news that the Boston Daily Bulletin is cutting back on publication during the pre-election period daftly known as “purdah.”

During this period – which Boston Borough Council claims started on Monday … although the government has announced it as 30^th March – sahibs and memsahibs must watch what they say to avoid accusations of electioneering, and restrictions are placed on Worst Street communications.
It seems there is so little going on that the Boston Bulletin will only appear on Monday, Wednesday and Friday during purdah.

Not only that, but apparently, such is the desperation for content that an appeal has gone out to non-profit making non-political groups in the borough  to submit their news for publication.

“There’s no charge and you will be read by thousands who subscribe to the Bulletin or read it online,” burbled the bulletin – amid sounds of wings flapping and pigs oinking,

The bulletin began life as an indigestible lump which appeared once a month.

Then it went daily – but with extra pages at the end of each month.

More recently, it seems to have begun to struggle – with many stories appearing that were totally irrelevant to the council.

Recently, the Labour group leader Councillor Paul Gleeson made a formal complaint about bias in the bulletin, and told Boston Eye: “I have a series of issues and have been in discussion with the borough for a period of time.”

If he has not yet received a satisfactory response, we think that this is a good time to rattle a few cages in the corridors of power.

***

There will be no Boston Eye next week, as it is Good Friday.

The blog will return on Friday 10^th of April – less than a month before the elections.

Easter reminds us that hope must never be lost,  for as dark as the road may seem, there always lies light at the end of it. 
May all your prayers be fulfilled, and may you have a pleasant Easter!

  

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

55 days to the elections

One of the downsides of an approaching election is that shortly we enter a period known as “purdah” when restrictions on pre-election publicity come into force which will rob us of any future “comment” columns by the council “leader” Pete Bedford until after the election.

How Councillor Bedford has confected these glittering nuggets of literature month after month leaves us aghast with amazement.

His parting shot tells us that at local level the election is “more about the people you most feel make the best case for supporting the borough and taking care of delivering the services that the borough council has responsibility for – from refuse collection, street cleaning and provision of leisure services to planning for housing and economic regeneration, helping provide more affordable homes and assisting in future flood prevention.”

By a happy coincidence for Councillor Bedford, this list embraces the entire meagreocrity of the sum of the parts delivered by him and his henchpeople.

But to hammer the point home, he adds “You will make the final decision on who you trust to make best use of the taxes you pay, who you trust to handle a budget of millions of pounds.”

Over the years, we have encountered several such subtly written devices – whose bottom line is the exhortation “Vote for Us.”

His column tells us: “The important business of the council will carry on as normal and I will remain as leader until May 7^th.

“Your current ward councillors remain your ward councillors up to May 7^th and will still be able to deal with any issues you want to raise with them.”

At this point, we say … Hmmm …

The “business” of the council has been reducing in recent weeks and will probably dry up almost entirely as the election closes in.

The claim that our ward councillors will “still be able to deal with any issues you want to raise” is moot.

Our own experience is that some of our ward councillors have tried every trick in the book to side-step issues – to the point where they risked giving offence to voters in order to avoid giving help.

Presumably, many of this ragged band of incompetents will be seeking re-election … riding on the coat-tails of Bedford’s claims of how well he and his cronies have done.

Over the coming weeks, we will be trawling the Boston Eye archives to review what the party that was elected without a policy because it never expected to take control of Boston Borough Council has achieved.

Watch this space.

***

Before we bid farewell to Bedford’s overconfident swansong, other points need addressing.

He tells readers of the Bostory Standard “It is my hope that I will be returned as leader after May 7^th …”

That’s an interesting one.

First of all, it presumes that the Conservatives will retain control of Boston Borough Council.

Then it implies that voters determine the leadership by “returning” the present head honcho.

The Conservatives’ unexpected victory in 2011 left them in a spin, and without policy – since when they have lurched from crisis to crisis trying to paper over the cracks.

But Councillor Bedford goes further still – with the ambition that after all this he will remain as leader.

If the Tories retain a majority – which is not guaranteed given Boston’s electoral history – Bedford’s continuance as leader would … we hope and expect … depend upon his being re-elected by his peers, and not continuing via some feudal right of entitlement.

***

His final comment column comes perilously close to being an election campaign leaflet – listing as it does the sum total of the council’s responsibilities from refuse collection, leisure services, to planning and future flood prevention – and suggesting that the whole thing is down to “trust.”

Trust is not an issue and never has been – the leadership has always worked on the premise “we know best,” stifled democratic debate and refused to consider any alternative.

Worse still, this has been done by an elite group of know-alls who demand that their political minions obey without question – a bad policy which began when the Bypass Independents voted for the dictatorial cabinet system of government.

Finally, although we know that this cannot be possible, we think that Councillor Bedford may be wrong when he claims that what the politicians call purdah starts on 23^rd March.

The government seems to think otherwise, and has set the date as 30^th March.

And why do they call it purdah?

Because that is the name of the practice in certain Muslim and Hindu societies of screening women from men or strangers, especially by means of a curtain.

Aren’t those politicians a caution …?

***

Interestingly as the election approaches, the Tories at County Hall have asked for a cut of at least six from the current total of 77 councillors.

If accepted, the proposals would mean that each councillor would represent slightly less than 8,000 electors – 600 more than at present.

Lincolnshire Tories say that improvements in technology and communications make such a reduction “realistic and sensible” and would save about £100,000 a year.

County Council leader Martin Hill takes the opportunity to remind us that Lincolnshire is a two-tier authority and so voters are also represented at district level.

The idea has been opposed by all Labour and Lincolnshire Independents – most likely because they suspect that the lost seats might well turn out to be ones that they currently hold.

***

Boston is already set to emerge leaner – and probably meaner – from May’s election as two seats are to vanish.

All of this nudges us still further towards the inevitable expectation that Lincolnshire will become a unitary authority sooner rather than later.

We have said many times before that the remorseless  slimming of local services has reduced the borough council to little more than an administrative tax collecting arm of Lincolnshire County Council and Lincolnshire police – and the breakdown of spending that eventually accompanied the latest council tax  settlements tends to underscore this.

Whilst Councillor Bedford’s “trust” list covers what might be called the “business” of the council, he observes that “these are just a few of the responsibilities of the borough council: there are many more.”

And indeed there are. The list is a long one and includes such things as the cost of the municipal buildings, property services, office cleaning, staff salaries, accountancy, internal audit, debt management, treasury management, insurance, councillor services, civic functions, communications, training, recruitment, and the payroll.

A similarly long and expensive list exists at the six other district councils in Lincolnshire as well as at county hall.

Savings of £100,000 are a drop in the ocean compared to those that could be made if the county came under one administrative umbrella.

***

Meanwhile, as elections day draws closer, campaigning continues in tits and farts (shouldn’t this be fits and starts? – Editor.)

As far as the battleground for Westminster is concerned, the only candidate to litter our doormat to date has been UKIP’s Boy Wonder Robin Hunter-Clarke.

Even then, his leaflets have done nothing to answer any of our questions.

We are told that “the old parties” have been far too complacent in the county and taken people’s votes for granted, and that people (presumably that means us) want real change.

But quite what form that change might take is anyone’s guess.

Having said that, Master Hunter-Clarke has issued a survey asking us to tell him what concerns us most – so perhaps some policy ideas will emerge once the punters have responded.

***

UKIP’s Boston office is becoming a popular place. Party loyalists recently assembled for a Young Independence East Midlands action day – complete with an impressive motorcycle flying the UKIP flag.

But is it a good idea to name the machine “Little White Lie,” we wonder?

A few days after this rally, a passing reader spotted a couple of Boston’s finest boys in blue sprawling in chairs in the front window.

We’re sure that it was a security check, and not in the least a chance to warm up with a cuppa. 

***

After last week’s issue, a comment has arrived from Boston and Skegness prospective British National Party parliamentary candidate, Reverend Robert West.

Readers will remember that we queried his clerical credentials after reading some of the news items on the internet – but it seems that all is well.

Rev. West writes: “I am happy to confirm that the title Reverend is both orthodox and genuine, and that I would be happy to take any services in Boston, either during or after the election.”

Does he have a funeral service for the BNP in mind, we wonder?

***

It seems that the period known as purdah will last a lot longer for one general election political hopeful than for the rest.

Paul Wooding had been debating whether to stand as an Independent, but mid-week tweeted the following message

Regular readers will recall that Mr Wooding was originally short-listed as a UKIP candidate for Boston and Skegness but following some head office legerdemain lost out to Robin Hunter-Clarke.

Unfortunately he took it very badly, and spent more time rubbishing UKIP than seeking a way forward.

It’s a shame, as we feel that he would have been a very viable candidate  – but there’s now 2020 to look forward to.

***

Locally, election fever is less noticeable – although it is possible to detect some stirrings of awareness.

One such example comes from Councillor Helen Staples – who after all this time appears to have spotted the amount of litter scattered around the place.

Councillor Staples, who will be next year’s mayor if re-elected, is one of the four members of Independent Group 2 who were elected as members of the disastrous Boston Bypass Independents in 2011 before the party underwent one of those identity crises that have befallen so many of our elected members in recent times.

In a letter to a local “newspaper” she urges people to take their litter home with them rather than drop it on the ground, saying: “Our town attracts a lot of visitors – please let them go home and say what a spick and span town Boston is” adding … almost as an afterthought … “and of course those of us who live here want to feel that too.”

***

Councillor Staples’s party status raises another interesting question – which is how councillors seeking re-election will present themselves to the electorate.

As we have already said, there are four Independent Group 2 members – survivors of the BBI rout of 2011 – and two Lincolnshire Independents … one-time Ukippers who regularly changed their party identity until they settled on the present one.

Councillor Alison Austin – who is an Independent Group 2 councillor in Boston – is a Lincolnshire Independent at County Hall … think Oscar Wilde’s Importance of being Earnest, where a key character is “Ernest in town, and Jack in the country.” Lincolnshire Independents – despite their title – form a party in Lincoln with a leadership structure, although it is hard to see what influence it has at district level … so will those current ex-Kippers in  Worst Street stand on the same ticket, if they seek re-election, that is.

And where does that leave members of Independent Group 2?

It’s not a name that rolls trippingly off the tongue, nor one which voters are likely to warm to.

All that – plus the fact that we still have no idea which councillors are being axed in March, nor the shape and names of the new ward layout would seem to be paving the way for a monumental mess locally on 7^th May.

***

Further confusion might emerge for voters in the parliamentary election after candidate Lyn Luxton fell out with Lincolnshire Independents and quit as their candidate to form the Pilgrim Party.

However, this news appears to have escaped the editors of the Lincolnshire Independents’ website who as recently as yesterday were still listing Ms Luxton as their candidate.

More significantly, she appears thus on the candidate list for the constituency on the website yournextmp.com.

Getting folk to vote these days is like drawing teeth at the best of times but now many people will have no true picture of whom the candidate really represents.

***

On a broader election note, this week’s Ashcroft National Poll, shows the Conservatives retaining their lead  but unchanged on 34%.

Labour  are down a point at 30%, UKIP up one at 15%, the Greens up one at 8%, and the Liberal Democrats down two at 5%,

***

We mentioned a possible softening of heart in last week’s blog after the usual “book ‘em Danno, football one …” threats to bring back hanging for the unauthorised use of a football pitch.

Worst Street back pedalled to agree  grudgingly that children should be allowed to kick a ball about – if for no other reason than to meet the council commitment to improving our health.

There is an aspect of Sod’s Law which often comes back to haunt such episodes – and on this occasion it occurred within days.

The same reader who raised the issue of juvenile kickabouts was strolling the Garfits Lane playing field shortly afterwards when he saw a Boston Borough Council vehicle driving merrily all over the pitch.

First it went to one end, where it dropped a worker off to begin re-lining, then drove to the other end to await his arrival with the machine that does the job …  not withstanding the fact that the equipment has its own wheels and is far lighter that a truck.

Following on from his earlier tongue in cheek e-mail to Worst Street, he wrote again enclosing the photograph shown here and observing: “We are not allowed to play football, so can we drive vans up and down the pitch?”

The response failed to see the funny side of this – nor the fact that the council has exquisitely shot itself in the foot – not for the first time.

“I have been advised, and I am sure you are aware anyway, that the staff are attending to mark out the pitches and their vehicle is being used to carry the tools and equipment necessary to do that. 

“I am also assured that the vehicle should not drive onto the  pitches if the conditions of the pitch were such that it would be foreseeable for it to damage them.

“It would be really helpful if you can let me know if any damage has been caused to the pitch on this occasion as obviously I can raise this further.

“Thank you very much for your assistance.”

Can you doubt for one moment that this final sentence was sincerely meant!

***

Last week’s Boston Eye raised the concerns of former borough councillor Brian Rush over the way some decisions are pushed through at Worst Street.

He also has other concerns – regarding the Quadrant development scheme at Wyberton, which he raised at the recent full council meeting.

He tells us that his questions related mainly to the feeling that the planners, officers and members chose to ignore the opinions of local residents and initially failed properly to inform them of what was going on, failed to take account of increased safety risks and issues that such a proposal might have on the quality of life of local residents and chose not to provide details and plans relating to the health and wellbeing of a large built-up area.

We understand that Mr Rush got something of a hard time from the Mayor as he went to deliver his question – presumably because she saw him as a former councillor rather than as a member of the public who should be deserving of respect.

Council leader Bedford – who responded to the question – made no such assumption as we are told that he referred at least once to Mr Rush as “Councillor Rush.”

As we understand it the reply took the usual political route of ignoring the concerns, instead stressing the “implications and clear benefits for the borough at large,” then saluting the Planning Committee for “soundly and fairly” approving the application – further underlining that he was “proud to be associated with an experienced planning committee that can do such a good job and after a full and transparent debate.”

He must have watched a different webcast to the one that we viewed on the Boston Borough Council website!

However, we understand that local campaigners who remain concerned about the development and its impact on Wyberton are not giving up just yet – and if they keep us in touch with their progress, we will be happy to pass the news on to our readers.

  

***

Despite its small size, Boston continues to punch above its weight in the Lincolnshire parking ticket league.

As you might expect, Lincoln headed the list with more than 10,500 tickets issued between 1^st April last year and the end of January 2015.

East Lindsey came second with 6,300 tickets, followed by South Kesteven on 4,830.

Boston was fourth with 3,250 fines ahead of South Kesteven on 2,540,  North Kesteven on 1,060 and West Lindsey on 945.

What we don’t understand amidst all of this is – why do we still see so many cars illegally parked in Boston … especially in the Market Place?

We’ve suggested before that it might be an idea to run a prolonged offensive in one area at a time until the message gets through.

As things stand,  the traffic wardens spread themselves so thinly around the area that we imagine most motorists think that it’s worth taking a chance, as the odds of getting caught are not that great –the figure represents an average issue of just a dozen tickets across the entire borough each day

***

Some better news for Boston was a surprise appearance in a special Daily Telegraph supplement listing “1,000 companies to inspire Britain.”

Of these fast growing companies, the list – compiled by the London Stock Exchange with help from business data collection company Duedil – contained 61 East Midlands companies that met their criteria.

Of these, just four came from Lincolnshire – but two were from Boston … Staples Vegetables, with revenues of £75 million, and the Bulldog Hotel Group with £8.25 million.

***

The news coincides with the issue of revised contract and procurement requirements for Boston Borough Council – drawn up and overseen by an advisor from King’s Lynn and West Norfolk borough council … it must be one of those Hanseatic things we keep hearing about.

Somewhat disappointingly the point where a line is drawn that opens bids to other than local businesses is no higher than £10,000 – and in the £5-£10,000 range  only one of the minimum two written quotations must be from a local supplier and a local supplier should be used where they provide “the most economically advantageous offer.”

Part of Boston Borough Council’s brief is to encourage local business growth, and these revised rules still seem a little stifling, and we think that it would be nice if we could invest more in the local community than we do at present.

***

As we went to press last night our constipated council had managed just one poo this week – in Monday’s issue of the Boston Daily Droppings beneath the headline  “£1,000: Didn’t clean up dog poo.”

The story related yet another triumph for Boston Borough Council’s war on intestinal waste when it summonsed a local woman who was fined for allowing dog waste to accumulate in the garden of her home.

The story was accompanied by a photograph of the garden in question liberally dotted with droppings for the benefit of anyone living in Boston who doesn’t yet know what a dog turd looks like – although there can’t be many of those.

What a grand accompaniment to breakfast that edition turned out to be.

The council’s determination to mention poo and pee at every verse end is matched only by our own in wanting them to cease and desist unless absolutely necessary.

In this case whilst the episode was clearly unpleasant for the woman’s neighbours we don’t think that it was significant enough to warrant the entire issue of Monday’s bulletin.

We’ve said it before and we’ll keep on saying it – the Boston Daily Bulletin is a shop window for the borough and those who would visit it or make it their home.

To paint the town in varying shade of brown at every opportunity is unnecessary – and is becoming excessive.

You could say it is over-egging the poo-ding!

There was a time when the borough’s bulletins were reviewed by a small group of councillors to ensure that the content was going in the right direction – something which we imagine has long fallen into abeyance.

But the time has now come to review some of the content – and whilst not turning a blind eye to the less savoury aspects of life in Boston, at least not seizing on them at every opportunity and blazoning them across the front page.

Unless of course, the borough is trying to win a Poo-litzer Prize – by producing an omnibus edition of all its articles to date under the headline: Fifty shades of brown.

***

Buoyed up after getting a handful of people to attend a Save our NHS campaign day in Boston and Skegness, the pressure group 38 Degrees then turned its attention to our outgoing MP Mark Simmonds.

It followed a critical story in the Daily Mirror and Daily Mail which said that Mr Simmonds had claimed thousands in expenses for advertising at football grounds and on Pilgrim Hospital Radio.

With all guns blazing, 38 Degrees trumpeted: “While people in Boston and Skegness face cuts and pay freezes, your MP Mark Simmonds used £10,000 of public money to pay for billboard and radio ads to promote himself. It’s almost unbelievable.

"John, a 38 Degrees member from Boston, has started a petition calling for him to apologise and pay the money back immediately.

“Mark Simmonds obviously likes good publicity – so the last thing he’ll want is a big public petition, signed by thousands of people in his area. Every signature helps to embarrass him into paying us back.

“Here’s what John says:

“‘You're standing down at the next election because, apparently, you ‘can’t afford’ to live on an MP’s £67,000 salary. And despite making over half a million pounds in profit from the sale of your taxpayer-funded house, you're still claiming thousands in expenses.

“‘Such claims are greedy, morally indefensible - and just plain wrong. I call on you to apologise and give back the money you have used for self-promotion.’”

We somehow don’t think that Mr Simmonds will be rushing red-faced and apologetic to return the money – especially since the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority said there was a “fine distinction between ‘advertisements’ overtly seeking to enhance the standing of a candidate (outside the rules) and those intended to spread awareness of a local MP’s constituency and parliamentary functions (within the rules”)

After receiving a complaint about the adverts, IPSA visited the constituency and saw the hoardings.

But the compliance officer said the current rules “do not directly address claims for advertising” and so decided there wasn’t “sufficient evidence to open an investigation.”

The campaign by John is one of two, and appears to have attracted almost 67,000 signatures of the 75,000 required

A second … less ambitious … campaign seeking just 100 names had earlier this week been signed by just eleven people.

Interestingly, this campaign has been created by a gentleman named Chris Pain – and from the wording we suspect that he is none other than the prospective parliamentary candidate for Boston and Skegness for the An Independence From Europe party.

We’re sure that he will be hoping for more votes at election time than he has had from 38 Degrees supporters.

***

As the word implies, co-operation takes two to make it work – but not necessarily where Boston Borough Council is concerned.

Instructions concerning wheelie bin collection are quite specific – including as they do orders such as “your bin must be left out by 5.30am on the day of your collection or the night before to guarantee collection … your bin must be placed at the edge of your property with the handles facing outwards and it would really help if you could stand your bin next to your neighbour's for collection …

In the area around Number One Eye Street  these rules have been adhered to for many years and bins were returned to the place where they were left so that householders could then wheel them back where they came from.

More recently, bins have been returned to the most convenient place for the collectors – which in some instances is as much as 25-yard walk away … which is a bit of a pain for some that we know who are elderly or disabled and can manage to drag the bin to their boundary but are less able to undertake a route march to retrieve it.

Whilst we agree that dragging wheelie bins around for a living is not the most pleasant job – and we are old enough to remember the days when binmen dressed like Alfred Doolittle with padded protection and carted rusting metal bins around on their backs – the job is now far more civilised.

And if taxpayers must leap through regulatory hoops to get their rubbish removed, the least that they should expect is even-handed treatment.

***

We are spending another couple of days taking chemistry lessons at the Pilgrim next week, so Boston Eye will be back on 27^th March – but don’t let that stop you from getting in touch either via e-mail or our Twitter account.

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

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

62 days to the elections 

Boston Borough Council's leadership doubtless regards freezing its share of the council tax for a further year as piece of genius – not to mention a vote winner ...

Even though the council is among the minority of Lincolnshire authorities to keep its share of the tax the same – aside from South Holland, which has actually reduced taxes for the fourth consecutive year – most have opted for a rise just below the two-per cent at which government sanctions could be introduced by way of an enforced referendum on any increase.

Lincolnshire Police wants another 1.95%.

The increases mean that a council forfeits a 1% allowance from the government for keeping prices static – but those who have increased the rate argue that the extra income is consolidated into their budget for future years, rather than being a “loss” through the government incentive scheme.

In a burst of mutual grooming at last week’s meeting of the cabinet of curiosities – worthy of a troop of macaques – councillors  slapped themselves so heavily and repeatedly on the back as to run the risk of dislocation.

 “To do this over the four years of this administration has been really good” said Councillor Michael Brookes in perhaps the most tepid adulation of the night.

Borough Chancellor Aaron, Councillor Spencer, said the budget would be delivered “without sacrificing front-line services” – although, as we have already observed, these are hard to identify any more. 

A,CS referred to the refurbishment of facilities such as the public toilets (overlooking the fact that we have sold off the most convenient conveniences as part of the Assembly Rooms fiasco) and CCTV.

Time Lord relative Councillor Stephen Woodliffe added: “It’s been a remarkable achievement and yet we have not raised our council tax.”

Reports say that most of the £1.6 million budget for 2015/16 will go on “housing, disability grants and the broadband project.”

As the borough doesn’t build any houses, and the “broadband project” is unexplained, it's difficult so see why they are all so fired-up

Cabinet members said the public (that’s us, the hoi-polloi, the riff raff) needs to be told that Boston Borough Council had not put its council tax up – and that the increases were the fault of  the police and the county council.

As one who normally demonstrates the savoir faire of a hermit crab, Councillor Derek “Knocker” Richmond correctly wailed: “As usual, we will get the blame for any increase in council tax.

“We really need to be robust in saying we have not increased it and we won’t.”

Whilst he may – for once – be right, the odds are stacked against his proposed argument.

Most council taxpayers in Boston are in Band A – the lowest level … which therefore is more likely to include those who can least afford to pay more.

Last year they stumped up a shade over £960 for the “service” they received from the county council, the borough council and Lincolnshire Police.

This year’s contribution to County Hall will rise by £13.50 and that to Lincolnshire Police by just under £2.50 – and so when Boston Borough Council’s tax demand arrives, it will be £16 more than last year.

In the overall scheme of things, that’s not a lot – but it won’t butter any parsnips with taxpayers – who this year represent a body of voters as well.

Last year’s tax demand notices waved a pathetic flag of semi-surrender above the embattled Worst Street trenches – “Only 12.77% of council tax is for Boston Borough Council.”

To this – most people will respond: “so what.”

At the end of the day, it is Boston Borough Council which collects the cash, drags non-payers into court to be criminalised, and which is seen as the Consigliere to Don Lincone at County Hall.

For what it would have cost, the council should have raised itself from its traditionally bended knee, charged a little more, and done us all a favour by improving rather than "maintaining" services.

Instead, taxpayers will be digging deeper to fund a wider area, and Boston will still be taking the blame.

***

A novel way to save money has been highlighted by that civic trio known as “Boston Labour Councillors” – who even this close to an election opt to remain anonymous in print  ... even though not to do so might assist would-be voters to recognise them at the ballot box.

In a recent blog, they pose what they call a “big question” – which is whether to  give council tax discounts to “community heroes” who give their time voluntarily to improve life in our area “doing things like picking litter, voluntary gardening projects, running voluntary groups, helping at food banks, volunteering in local communities and churches.

“We believe that those who tirelessly commit to running voluntary youth clubs or give their time to regularly help the older people should be among those who would benefit.”

Whilst it sounds good on paper, it could end up being divisive, as most people who do voluntary work do so because of a desire to give something back to society.

Tempting as it might be to reward such people, we suspect that many of them would find the idea insulting, whilst there are always others who might suddenly embrace volunteering for what’s in it for them rather than a more altruistic reason.

And where do you draw a line?

Does everyone who volunteers for this year’s Boston Big Clean-up get a couple of quid off their council tax … or only those who have volunteered for several years?

We already recognise good citizenship in a number of ways, and if a need is felt to do more, then fine – but introducing financial incentives is not a good idea.

***

We mentioned the infamously useless Boston Town Area Committee – B-Tacky – in last week’s blog in the context of the way in which it chooses to spend our money.

Now it seems that not content with frittering away what it receives through its special levy – it’s spreading its net  for even more.

On last week’s agenda, we noted an item about improving play areas which mentioned in passing that “a bid has also been submitted to the Boston Big Local to renovate the existing basketball hoop on the Woodville Road site.”

Hold hard, as they say.

We’ve previously raised an Eyebrow over the relationship between Boston Big Local and B-Tacky – which was privileged to receive a special briefing on the £1 million pound project aimed at improving life in six of the most deprived town centre wards … fewer than the number covered by B-Tacky.

When the Big Local grant for Boston was announced, it was repeatedly emphasised that the organisation running it would be independent and must remain free from meddling by “official” organisations.

At the time, a senior officer of the South Lincolnshire Community Voluntary Service said – and has since repeated more than once – “There’s no government arm in Boston involved in any of this. It is totally community led.”

“This money will not be dictated by Boston Borough Council; it will not be dictated by the CVS.  It will be totally dictated by the local community. We are absolutely there to galvanise this community into action. It is their say where this money is spent”

Until we read of the B-Tacky plan to send a begging letter to Boston Big Local, we were unaware that the group was issuing grants – and in fact we believe that this is not yet the case.

If – as will probably happen – Big Local stumps up some cash for Big Tacky this will be the thin end of what could become a very large wedge.

It also strikes us that B-Tacky is behaving quite improperly to try to access this money, and should withdraw the application and fund the project from its own resources ... which are more than ample.

***

Still with money – and given the largesse being heaped on the PRSA by Boston Borough Council – we think that it high time that the operators of the arena made an effort to get their act together.

A would-be swimmer of our acquaintance recently gave up the ghost after futile attempts to get information from the PRSA website.

Whilst membership information promises “unlimited access to the pool*, gym and studio*” there is no clue as to what qualifying conditions are imposed by the asterisks – but we suspect that the word “unlimited” might well mean quite the opposite to what most people expect.

Prices for membership packages vary – but each one includes a “joining fee.”

How much?

Your guess is as good as ours.

Nor is it clear whether or not it is possible to book a one-off visit to the pool if you want a test-swim.

There is a section headed “prices” at the foot of the webpage – but it is unhelpfully followed by the line ...  “Coming soon.”

Perhaps we should not be surprised that the PRSA is such a stonking financial failure.

***

The borough’s spending on sport caught the eye of former councillor Brian Rush, amid concerns over the way such big decisions are taken – getting approval in this case first from the Environment and Performance Committee followed by a rubber stamping in full council.

“I get the impression,” he told us, “that meetings of ‘committees’ such as this are nothing more than an airing for ‘pet, officer projects.’

“It gives the powers that be a chance to tweak things here and there, before exposing them to the full glare of public scrutiny at full council, comforted by the fact that ‘members of the E&P gave its blessing, agreed the content and welcomed the initiative!’

“So... ‘in power’ members feel the system helps those less able members, of which there are quite a few in this pack, to see how the movers and shakers are ‘voting.’

“They can take note of the recommendation, and hey presto!, who the hell cares what Councillor Kenny thinks or does, we Tories have got ourselves a winner!

“I must say that I found many parts of the content irrelevant and therefore quite confusing.

“Some items and information seemed to be immersed in petty unconnected detail, all presented in council speak.  

“It’s a wonder any members actually understood them .... in fact, having listened to some of the questions being asked, I am inclined to think most did not.

“So an opinion then.

“The PRSA bio-mass boilers, according to ‘members,’ are, it seems, going to save the PRSA.

“However, little was made of the fact that ‘it is necessary to always keep them stocked and running, Apparently they should never be switched off!

“Mmmm.

The fuel, I am told, is freely available, but most of it is in Canada, and some other equally distant places.

“So much for carbon footprints then.

“And the burners ... because of the extended burn time will of course need to be (expensively no doubt) replaced every now and then.

“Same old, same old.” 

***

Is Worst Street softening the hard line attitude usually taken against humankind?

A recent item on the borough council’s website adopted its routine tone of menace by threatening unauthorised football players with fines of up to £80.

Apparently this misuse of pitches at Rosebery Avenue and Garfits Lane causes damage and makes them “un-playable” affecting teams in the Boston and District Football League who pay fees to play there.

But, following a slightly tongue-in-cheek phone call alerting the council to the worrying news that a group of "unauthorised" kids were having a kick-about on one of the pitches,  when the piece was reprinted in the Boston Daily Bulletin there was an additional  paragraph, which read:

“Boston Borough Council would never discourage children using the playing fields for a kickabout, in fact it would actively encourage such activities as part of its work in the borough on health and wellbeing.

“However, it has to be recognised that there is a difference between children enjoying healthy exercise and organised teams of players taking over the pitches for training purposes and spoiling the surface for other users.” (Especially ones who pay the council for the privilege - ed.)

***

That same edition then reverted to its Boston Daily Droppings mode, and the borough’s obsession with recycled dog food beneath the somewhat cryptic headline: “Please don’t decorate the dog poo tree”

Intrigued and mystified, we read on … to learn that in Robin Hood’s Walk, some offenders – maximum fine £50 – are disposing of their doggy droppings by putting them in an appropriate bag, but then hanging them on the boughs of trees in the road … even though a bin is provided. 

Quite how many hundreds of plastic bags this involves is unclear – our photo on the right shows an extreme example from Manchester, which we doubt bears much resemblance to Boston – but the unpleasant problem is being dealt with by the borough council’s environmental crime enforcement team, who will hand deliver letters and leaflets to every property in Robin Hoods Walk reminding dog owners of their responsibilities for cleaning up after their pets.

Assuming that the residents are the culprits – which is by no means likely – this seems an excellent way of handling the problem.

And it seemed to us unnecessary to use an issue of the council’s newsletter to shout about it from the rooftops whilst managing to include the word “poo” six times in 300 words.

As we have often said, the borough website is the portal to the town for potential visitors and residents, and to trumpet a minor local problem most likely does more harm than good.

Even worse, there is now a dedicated link for internet users to find out about dog fouling – with the creation of www.boston.gov.uk/dogpoo.

What will they come up with next?

***

Interestingly, this page is packed with useful information – including a list of areas exempted from the borough’s order under the Dogs (fouling of land) Act 1996.

These include roads with speed limits over 40 mph and the land running alongside them; land used for agriculture or woodlands; land which is predominately marshland; and moor, heath and rural common land.

Frankly, whilst such information is useful for dog owners, we don’t think it particularly helpful to trumpet the fact – especially where woodland and common land is concerned!

***

We assume that being economical with the truth goes hand in glove with politics these days – but even so, Lincolnshire County Council  and Lincolnshire Tories more than over-egged the pudding with this announcement.

The true story was clearly spelt out in the government press release detailing the announcement, which said that the plan was to create 300,000 extra jobs in the Midlands by backing the core strengths of the local economy like advanced manufacturing and engineering.

Aside from the fact that Lincolnshire scarcely has any of the core strengths mentioned, we note that the plan for the extra jobs is for the entire Midlands – not just the eastern conurbation that we, for some unaccountable reason, are lumped into.

But perhaps the powers that be in county hall are hoping that we voters will be so excited by the news that we won’t notice the flaws in the statement.

Whatever the reason, we somehow doubt that too many of these hundreds of thousands of jobs will trickle down into Lincolnshire – still less to us here in Boston.

***

A reader takes us to task over our attitude to CCTV in Boston, saying: “This facility has become a crucial instrument in monitoring the streets of Boston, particularly during night time hours.

“The Boston control room has been very well thought out and is staffed, in my opinion, by very good and competent people.

“In the face of draconian cuts to the police budget, it is well worth the investment and it is about the best investment Boston council has ever made.

“Perhaps more needs to be said about the successful and admirable results the facility consistently provides. There are many Bostonians who can testify to its worth – regrettably there is much that never gets disclosed to the public.

“I am not employed by Boston CCTV, before anybody jumps to a conclusion – but I do benefit from its watchful eye as we all do, albeit unknowingly perhaps.”

***

With the care and consideration towards we little people uppermost in its thoughts, we note that Boston Borough Council is exhorting one and all taxpayers to save “hundreds of pounds” on their fuel bills.

An auction for the Lincolnshire Energy Switch Scheme, which is a collaboration between Lincolnshire councils that is said to have helped more than 1,600 residents in the county switch suppliers and save £300,000 per year on their fuel bills, has been won by E.ON and Scottish Power.

According to the Consumers’ Association, the average saving when switching gas and electricity is £191 – on an average dual fuel annual bill of £1,264 … around 15%.

The borough’s spending figures for December show charges of more than £21,000 on electricity – spent with Scottish Electric – and around £10,000 on gas paid to a public sector owned professional buying organisation called ESPO.

We wonder whether the money men at Worst Street might consider joining the scheme that they are so actively promoting to local taxpayers – we calculate saving for that month alone would have been more than £4,500.

***

So much of everyday life these days seem to be part of a  political charade.

Earlier this week there was much jubilation at the news that a “deep dive” Home Office task force will  review Lincolnshire Police's funding after a visit by the Policing and Crime Minister Mike Penning to Lincoln and Boston.

His visit followed a letter from the county’s Chief Constable Neil Rhodes to Home Secretary Theresa “Daisy” May at the end of last year that said under current funding arrangements the force would be “unsustainable” by 2018 and become the “first in the country to fall”.

Mr Rhodes said the current budget proposals meant a further 236 front line officers would have to go.

But between then and now Police and Crime Commissioner Alan Hardwick announced that  he intended to maintain police officer numbers and those of the irreplaceable police community support officers at their current levels for a further year.

How?

Simply by increasing the police share of the council tax by a maximum of seven pence a week for most of us.

So, between  December and March, we were scared into believing that our police force was falling apart – only for the problem to be solved with barely any fuss, but with the aim of getting  a boost from the exchequer achieved .

What a pantomime!

***

Some bad news this week for our local “newspapers” – at least the only one of the two brave enough to admit it.

Figures from the Audit Bureau of Circulation show that sales of the Boston Target between July and December last year fell by 26.2% to 8,681.

The rival Boston Standard refused to take part in the audit some years ago, and the last available figures were for the July-December period in 2012, when sales stood at 7,684. Comparable sales for the Target in that period were 14,121.

This ratio has been fairly constant over time, and even though the Standard now keeps stumm about its readership, a rough calculation suggests that its current circulation would be around 4,000 copies a week.

They say that the sign of a thriving town is a thriving newspaper – from that, you can draw your own conclusions.

***

Another week nearer the elections … and we welcome another political party – well, sort of.

Lyn Luxton, who after failing to win the Conservative nomination to represent Boston and Skegness at Westminster, set up shop as parliamentary candidate for the Lincolnshire Independents,  has reportedly stood down to form her own party – the Pilgrim Party – citing the move as “a decision of conscience.”

It's reportedly because of  “numerous” internet pages showing comments from a new member of Lincolnshire Independents  … “comments about our diverse community, which we find both unacceptable and offensive.” 

The choice of name for her party is an interesting one.

Given the low level of interest in politics in our neck of the woods, the inclusion of the word “Pilgrim”  on a ballot paper could see her getting a good share of the vote – from people who think that they are either supporting Boston United, opposing the closure of our local hospital, or keen on ordering frozen food. 

***

Still with general election news …

A few blogs ago, when we light-heartedly implied that the Boston Standard might perhaps be of a Conservative persuasion, we were roundly admonished.

Perhaps to emphasis its neutrality, this week’s “newspaper” has a strange omission.

The photo that dominates the front page has three people clearly pictured.

They are Police and Crime Minister and Tory MP Mike Penning, Boston’s prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate Matt Warman, and Council “Leader” Pete Bedford.

Despite this, the accompanying story  makes no mention of Mr Warman whatever.

Quite how the Standard would explain this would be interesting to hear.

***

A last hoorah from outgoing MP Mark Simmons has attracted nationwide coverage with the news that his expenses in the last financial year include some eyebrow raising items.

The Daily Mirror’s Nick Sommerlad says that Mr Simmonds “who once moaned he could not live on his £67,000-a-year Parliamentary salary claimed £170,000 in the last financial year.”

The reporter writes: “Listeners who hear their local MP ‘kindly sponsors’ a hospital radio station might assume he has generously dipped into his own pocket.

“But the Mirror has found that Mark Simmonds has been claiming back the cost of the weekly publicity – £100 a year – from the taxpayer.

“The former Foreign Office minister has also claimed more than £10,000 for the cost of a string of advertising hoardings at local sports clubs, including Boston United FC.

“Privately-educated millionaire Mr Simmonds claimed £170,841.21 in expenses in the 2013/14 financial year, and employs his wife Lizbeth as an office manager.

“Local UKIP candidate for Mr Simmonds’ Boston and Skegness constituency, Councillor Robin Hunter-Clarke, said … “to pretend that he is sponsoring a hospital radio show, boasting of his generosity while in fact charging the taxpayer, is pretty low grade stuff”.

“Paul Kenny, Labour’s Parliamentary Candidate for Boston and Skegness said: ‘There appear to be serious questions to answer for Mark Simmonds. Any abuse of public resources for party campaigning purposes would be a breach of rightly tight rules.

"’I hope he will explain himself immediately.’”

The Mirror report says that Mr Simmonds claimed £10,000 on “sports advertising” including £1,000 a year for hoardings at the home ground of Boston United.

A similar hoarding at Skegness FC cost £300 a year and a poster at a local rugby club was another £150 a year.

“Together with the initial cost of buying the hoardings, Mr Simmonds has claimed more than £10,000 for this advertising.”

Mr Simmonds has reportedly labelled the story “utterly ridiculous” – saying that this advertising is a “crucial” part of his role in the community.

“Making sure my constituents know how to contact me is a key part of my role as an MP and has proved invaluable for some constituents.

“All of my constituents will know how important Pilgrim Hospital is in the local community.

“I will not apologise for ensuring vulnerable people in hospital can contact their member of parliament.”

***

Finally, a much heralded demonstration  by the activist group 38 degrees involving members in Boston and Skegness collecting signatures locally for the group’s “Save our NHS petition” turned out to be a damp squib.

Although around 40 people were expected, just seven turned up.

They included independent Councillor Carol Taylor – who has just retired after a lifetime in nursing, and retired consultant Dr Cyril Nyman.

A couple of prospective borough council candidates were also there, but, we understand, none of the main prospective parliamentary candidates or representatives from Worst Street or county hall.

Shameful!

But won’t they all squeal with indignation if a decision is taken to cut back on services at the Pilgrim Hospital?

  

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