Friday 28 August 2015


Just a few weeks ago, our so-called council leader Pete “Nipper” Bedford was telling us that one of his responsibilities was to do all that he could to make Boston a better place to do business in.
So we wonder what he makes of this particular tale about Worst Street which shows that such promises are apparently not worth the paper they are printed on.
For the past twenty years a local man has been operating a business from premises with no near neighbours – employing four people.
Throughout this time he has paid his business rates to Boston Borough Council, as well as paying for their trade waste collection service,
Recently, he decided to cut down a hedge surrounding his premises and replace it with a fence to neaten up the look of the place.
At some point a passing motorist noticed the business for the first time.
It’s not much of a reach to assume that this traveller had links with Boston Borough Council, because out of the blue and merely 7,300 days late, came a letter saying that the business was operating without planning permission, which meant that it could have to close.
No complaints had been received about it, and until the hedge was cut back, no one had a problem with it.
Doubtless, if a fence had been erected before the jobsworth cruised by, the status quo would have maintained.
The businessman decided to turn to his local councillor for help.
This was no ordinary councillor – but a member of the cabinet.
Yet apparently, the idea of making waves with colleagues – the Blue leader deplores “mavericks,” remember – overcame any sense of duty to a voter, who was told quite bluntly “I’d rather not get involved.”
Instead the victim was told to take his concerns to another councillor – a UKIP member in a different ward, with a reputation for taking on lost causes.
The businessman – whose operation is also registered with Companies House – has so far had to spend £5,000 in legal fees to try to fight this absurd decision.
Not unreasonably, he asked the people at Worst Street who have been taking his money for the past 20 years if it had ever occurred to them to see if he had the necessary permission to operate.
The answer – and you couldn't make it up – it’s a different department.
We understand that the best the planners can come up with is for a retrospective application to be put before the Planning Committee at a future date.
This, of course, involves an innocent party having to pay a fee to place the matter into the hands of a bunch of amateurs for a decision with no guarantee that the outcome will go in his favour.
It could lend a whole new meaning to the term pay as you go!
Surely, a more humane solution would be to  agree that a 20 year-old, trouble-free, fully paid up operation should be allowed some sort of planning “squatters rights” and allowed to continue without suffering any more stress.
But not in Worst Street.

***

Last week’s reports about the trumpeting from Worst Street and Boston’s equivalent of Scotland Yard about how the problem of drinking in the town centre has been solved, cut little ice with Boston Eye readers.
Regular reader Robin commented: “All the backslapping and self-congratulating by those who in their hermetically sealed bubbles seem to think that they have solved the on-street drinking fiasco, just makes the mind boggle.
“Here in the real universe outside of Munchkin Towers and Police HQ our eyes tell a somewhat different story.
"Last Saturday mid-morning I was walking down the Haven Bank where there was a group of around 15 street drinkers in full swing, not only were they drinking in a prohibited area but were within a few hundred yards of the police station, but then who in authority in this town cares a jot about reality – and law enforcement now appears to be a thing of the past.
“My daughter, who lives adjacent to Witham Bank West, tells me that Saturday evening down there was also a drink fest despite also being a prohibited zone.  Who cares?  Not anyone in authority, they are too busy back-slapping telling each other how brilliant they are.”
Former Independent councillor Carol Taylor – who was genuinely independent ... unlike some that we can think of – also criticised the claims.
She described them as “nothing but a self-congratulatory report by Boston Borough Council and the police.”
The reduction of alcohol consumption around the Ingram Memorial and other key areas in the town had the result that “sadly these street drinkers have moved to other areas including Park Street and Red Lion Street.”
And she found little that was constructive in the call by local police Inspector Jim Manning for the public to phone 101 if they saw anyone drinking alcohol in the designated Public Space Protection Order area.
“He is assuming that everyone has a mobile phone, which is a necessity because there are no public phone booths any more ....  
“Many people nowadays do have a mobile phone but there are still many who don't.  If you dial 101, there may be a long wait depending on how busy they are.
“When they have been informed of the street drinkers, does this mean that the police will drop everything and come running to remove them?
“Of course it doesn't – and we don't expect them to, as there is no immediate threat to life or immediate danger.
“There is no doubt that that the police and council are trying hard to address this on-going issue but to brag about being the first council to introduce the PSPO when legislation was passed, does not help people like me who remain greatly concerned that street drinking is still rife in Boston ...
“Perhaps we can have less patting of backs and more frequent reassurances that everything is being done to clear our streets of these inebriates. That is all we can hope for and the public will always try and help.”

***

Both writers comment on the lack of policing and the difficulty to get in touch with the cops when needed – but think how much worse things might become if the proposal for all three emergency services in Lincolnshire to share resources and buildings comes to fruition.
Reports say that discussions between Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue, Lincolnshire Police and East Midlands Ambulance Service could see the development of a single emergency services hub at South Park – in Lincoln, of course.
There could also be a merger of back office services as well as a shared control room.
The last time we attempted to call the police on a non-emergency number we were left aghast by the time it took to get through.
We also assumed that someone taking the call would have an inkling of where we were ringing from but that was not the case.
Worse still the operator seemed to have some difficulty in understanding that Boston was a town in Lincolnshire.
And to cap it all, our call was followed by the most disinterested response that we have ever encountered from a so-called “service.”

***

It seems that ex-councillor Taylor has a better memory than her former colleagues at Worst Street when it comes to the declaration that the replacement of planters in the Market Place is the “next stage” in the development of the area.
She told Boston Eye: “The planned erection of bollards to replace the planters is a contra-indication in the original design.
“It was stated in the original design documents that bollards, etc. should not be placed in the area.
“Also in the 'new Market Place' there is a recommendation that seating should be strategically placed around the area so that people can sit and view the historical buildings from the best vantage point.
“Mind you, at least the Seventh Heaven Café benefited greatly when the planters were put in, and of course anyone else who wishes to put seating outside would benefit too.
“Sadly the only other eating establishment is Kentucky Fried Chicken – and I can't really see this happening, can you?”

***



All of this is absolutely right.
The final report to the council’s cabinet ahead of the £2 million “refurbishment” was published in January 2010 – .getting on for six years ago –   and said amongst other things that “a dedicated public area should be created, which provides additional seating within the Market Place.  
“If seating is introduced, ensure that it is special to Boston, and is grouped in locations where people will want to sit – sheltered, out of wind, with a good view.
“Existing cafés should be encouraged to create an outside café area within any new public area.  However, if these are on the public realm, the quality of the fittings used and the means of enclosing the areas needs to be carefully controlled to ensure they enhance and not detract.
“Remove superfluous or redundant items.
“Rationalise the use of cycle racks to increase the provision of secure cycle racks and locate them close to the main shopping areas.
Avoid additional railings or bollards.
“Consider use of flower boxes/baskets to improve appearance.
“Retain and add to wooden street name signs or new incised stone street name signs as part of the local identity ...
“Group traffic signs together to reduce clutter and use the minimum required.”
Hands up if you don't recognise much – or any – of these things as having happened.
Had this simple set of guidelines been followed, the Market Place would now look completely different, and might perhaps have achieved the aims for it –  one of the most important being the ambition “to attract private sector investment into the town,” to help drive forward a number of projects identified earlier in the report.
These included shop frontage design guides and grants, the refurbishment of Wormgate and Pump Square,brownfield developments, and waterways development – the last of which we were told “may be broken down to a number of projects.”
These can scarcely have been called projects, as nothing has been done about them since the report appeared all that time ago.
The nearest we got was the waterways project –  but that has now succumbed to County Hall’s desperation to save money, and we somehow doubt that much will happen in the foreseeable future.
It isn’t as though the powers that be haven’t had enough time to think about all of this.
The so-called Boston “Masterplan” identified the need to make the Market Place a more attractive area as long ago as June 2004 – and was “refreshed” in September 2006 when regeneration of the Market Place was identified as a “key area” to take forward.
The fiasco that eventually followed is unforgettable.
Between them, Worst Street and Clownty Hall cocked up the entire job, leaving behind the mess that we see today.
The suggestion that a “next phase” involving replacing the planters was in someone's mind all along is laughable.
As we said last week, the introduction of planters was to disguise the fact that motorists and pedestrians were left fearful and confused by a vast expanse of dull stone setts void of any easily recognisable signs denoting priorities for either.
Not only that.
Worst Street had the nerve at the time to seek sponsorship of the planters and to link them to the Boston in Bloom competition.
Now, the planters are to be moved here, there and everywhere – doubtless to become neglected and vandalised ... and perhaps even converted into firewood.
The suggestion that the bollards were part of a long term plan is Worst Street’s idea of “spin.”
Unfortunately it is nothing more than yet another example of how our leaders try to treat us as though we are half-witted by telling us tales and expecting us to believe them.

***

Masterplans notwithstanding, the on-going decline of Boston is yet again charted in the council's quarterly “performance” figures – without any hint as to how the rot might be eradicated.
A comparison between trends for the first quarter of 2014-15 and the same period for this year shows a decline in the average daily pedestrian footfall – the barometer of how many people visit the town centre shops – of 8% ... down from 2,585 to 2,366.
Perhaps the reason is that there are fewer shops to visit – the number of vacant retail units has increased from 14% to 18%.
Car parking ticket sales – another indicator of the health of a town centre –   are down from 146,064 to 142,063 ... a fall of 3%, meaning a drop in total car parking fee income (including passes and fines) of 9%, from £247,935 to £227,628.
Visits to the historic but hardly ever publicised Guildhall are down by 8% from 2,518 to  2,341 – which works out at fewer than 50 visitors a day. 
And the so-called Tourist Information Centre in the same building has seen visitor numbers drop by 6% from 2,518 to 2,341.
Of course, the lion’s share of Worst Street’s recent investment has been in the Geoff Moulder Leisure Centre and the Princess Royal Sports Arena – and whilst the Moulder appears to be going swimmingly, figures for the PRSA show that fitness class participants stand at 3,677 against a target of 4,650 whilst the numbers taking a dip totalled 3,502 against a target of 3,900.
Comparisons with the GMLC for the same period show the number of adult swims at 16,676 against a target of 15,000; the number of junior swims at  9,330 ... well in excess of the target of 8,000 and the number of people signed up to learn to swim at 54 above the 700 target.
The sorry thing about all of this is that the unpalatable statistics are simply reported – without any suggestion as to how things might be improved.
But we had to smile on one occasion where efforts were made to play down a particularly bad set of figures for the percentage of major planning applications determined within 13 weeks –   which last year was 88.24% against a target of 75%, but which collapsed this year to 57.14% against a 75% target.
The report told us: “The reduction in performance should be seen in context – the 'Land East of Toot Lane' decision which was released after the conclusion of an obligation was over the 13 week target period. Being the first quarter cumulative figures only and the relatively low number of applications that single application has a large effect on the headline figure ...”
“The Land East of Toot Lane” has a fairy tale ring to it redolent of The Magical Land of Oz, Narnia, Wonderland, the Hundred Acre Wood,or Neverland.
But unlike the fictional titles, it is a Land Where Bad Things Happen To Planners.

***

Some numbers even worse than those visiting the Guildhall or the PRSA came in the form of the Borough's annual Have Your Say survey which ran from November 2014 to January 2015.
Over three months it received a meagre 294 replies – fewer than one a day –  which was so small that it could not be compared with the previous year.
The findings disclosed that 69% of people were satisfied with the local area as a place to live (9% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and 23% were dissatisfied); 46% were satisfied with the way Boston Borough Council runs things (24% neither; 30% dissatisfied); 39% agreed that the local area is a place where people from different ethnic backgrounds get on well together (26% neither; 34% disagreed); 36% agreed that Boston Borough Council provides value for money (36% neither; 28% disagreed)
The highest levels of satisfaction were for garden waste collection (82%) and refuse and recycling (80%) with Boston Market – at only 65% – an especially disappointing figure.
Most of this falls into the category known as damning with faint praise, and shows the mountain that Boston Borough Council has to climb – without the oxygen of a good idea to help.
No wonder that the mayoral campaign to get people to submit favourable comments about Boston is struggling so hard.

***

But as we have said before, it is not being helped by the borough’s own publication –   the Goody Two Shoes News ... a sort of in-house fifth column with a circulation of 784.
As we have said before, whilst we wouldn’t expect the council to fail to grasp the nettle when necessary – although it seldom, if ever, does – it fails to take on board that this publication is a window on the world of Boston through which anyone, anywhere in the world, can peer and form a view of the place as somewhere to live and work, perhaps.
At the end of last week, a GTSN banner headline declared ... “We’ll clean it up but you’ll pay” – a story about one man whose name and address were published who had defied requests to remove rubbish from his garden.
Enter Boston Borough Council in the shape of eight dustmen – oops ... sorry, “council refuse operatives" – with three bin lorries who took an hour to clear the garden.
Even more significant that that the story invoked the condemnation of the so-called council leader “Nipper” Bedford.
The man involved, he said, “had been given every opportunity to clear his garden himself, but chose to ignore the council and will now have to pay the price of us doing the work for him. We have to take into account the distress such negligence causes to other residents and this demonstrates we will use the legislative powers available to us to seek a solution when necessary.”
Tough talking … and we don't disagree about the distressful aspect.
But – as with The Case of the Vile Young People and Their Woodland Drinks Den and The Pink Poo Peril, these were minor, local events, worthy of a few lines in a local newspaper – but not as brushstrokes on the world wide canvas that the internet paints of Boston.
The other thing that concerns us is the way that in accounts of this kind the council tends to gloat about its might – rubbing the perpetrator’s nose in it with such lines as “you’ll pay” and the threat to “use the legislative powers available to us ...”
We’ve referred to this before – it’s the iron fist in the iron glove approach, or the “I’ll get you, Butler” philosophy.

***

The beleaguered daily bulletin (circulation 784) went from one extreme to the other in the last week – after beefing up a parish pump story about garden rubbish, it followed through with reports that were really nothing to do with the authority.
Tuesday saw the tale of a nine year-old rightly concerned about the dangers to wildlife caused by rubbish in a local waterway who wrote to “a number of organisations including the council.”
She was invited in for a chat, and a member of staff designed a poster which has now been put up along the entire waterway.
Forgive us for pointing out that maintenance of waterways is down to the Environment Agency.
We know this because on more than one occasion, we have written to Boston Borough Council is a similar vein as the star of Tuesday's GTSN – with one big difference.
On each occasion we were told to stick our head up a bear’s bum and to take our gripes to the EA..
Funny how different the response is when the council detects a piece of cheap publicity that it can exploit to try to make Worst Street look good.

***

Even more interesting was how quickly our prediction last week that Worst Street would be among the first in the queue to milk the funds of the Boston Big Local project came to pass – using the waterways stunt to, err, test the water!
Despite the oft-repeated promises that spending from the £1 million fund is “down to the residents” and “will not be dictated by Boston Borough Council or by the Lincolnshire Community and Voluntary Service” we note the quote from an officer saying “we would like to thank the Boston Big Local for funding the printing and installation of the signage.”
Yet again the powers that be are treating us as fools.
And how long will it be, we wonder, before – having got a taste of the money available – Boston Borough Council will be nosing into the trough for bigger and greedier mouthsful?

***

We hear that things went from bad to worse for the beleaguered 102 workers at Norprint who lost their jobs though a “pre-pack” agreement to wind the company up.
In July 1998 – almost 17 years before the crash, the then parent company Norcros sold the Norprint labelling business for £8 million in a management buyout.
Unfortunately –  and not because they weren't told about it –  the government department calculating redundancy payments to ex-staff took this date as the one when the company started up.
This meant that the payments were calculated on a maximum service entitlement of 17 years – even though some staff had almost half a century’s service.
Fortunately, this is now being corrected, and extra payments are finding their way to veteran ex-staff.

***

We had to raise a smile when one of our so-called local “newspapers” reviewed the first 100 days since the borough council was returned in May – something which we had done a few days earlier.
What made us chuckle in particular was the way that the affiliations of two politicians were described.
The dynamic duo in question is the Clan Austin.
In the newspaper piece, Mrs Austin was described as the “Independents Leader” – which conjures up an interesting vision, given that the only person she “leads” is her husband, Richard.
But he’s the mayor this year – so does that subordinate her role to his?
Frankly, we find it rather sad that just two people can constitute a group.
Labour does the same thing at Worst Street as well – but at least it is a political party.
Something else that struck our eye was the way that Worst Street lists the current political composition of the council ... Conservative - 13, UKIP - 12, Independent - 2, Labour - 2 and Unaligned - 1.
The so-called “unaligned” member is Councillor Barrie Pierpoint, who defected from UKIP on election day, and who has since clearly described himself as an Independent councillor.
So why is he described as “unaligned?”
We suspect that this is because the Austins – positioned politically somewhere between the Thane of Cawdor and Lady Gruoch Macbeth and Pearl Carr and Teddy Johnson – wouldn't be seen in the same room with him except during a full council meeting as he is not “their sort of independent” … and that Worst Street’s concept of diplomacy is to appease the Austins and demean another's status through the implication that he’s someone who can’t make his mind up.
The dictionary defines “unaligned” as “not allied with or giving support to a particular organization or cause.”
This is as true of the Austins as it is of Councillor Pierpoint –  although the Austins have thrown their hats into the Conservative ring since the election to keep UKIP out of power.
Wheels within wheels, eh?

***

A terrible rumour is going the rounds suggesting that last week’s dramatic picture in the Boston sub-Standard of a hooded man swigging from a bottle hidden in a brown paper bag against the backdrop of Boston Stump might have been posed by a member of staff.
Wash your mouth out with soap for even thinking such a thing.
Common practice is to indicate that a picture has been posed by “models” if such is the case – and no such alert appears with this particular picture, so it can’t have been meant to mislead us.
Having said that, it was most fortuitous to find such a perfect picture so perfectly posed with such an agreeable subject.
Wasn’t it?

***

Finally, it’s back to the GTSN (circulation 784.)
As a “council” publication – though some days you would scarcely know it – we expect it to report the goings on in Worst Street ... which are of course engineered by a Conservative “leadership.”
But Tuesday’s edition stepped over the mark as far as we were concerned when –  beneath the headline –  “Chance to meet your MP” it listed  locations where  Boston and Skegness MP Matt Warman will be parking up during his camper van tour this weekend.
It helpfully included the MP’s website and email addresses as well as his London and Boston ’phone numbers. 
Doubtless it was thought that this could be passed off as vital public information – but we see it as nothing more than a political plug by the ruling group for their man in Westminster – and we are sure that its appearance in the GTSN was as much of a surprise to Mr Warman as it was to us.
And what of our own councillors?
Once upon a time they used to hold local surgeries, which were briefly listed on the council website after we mentioned their absence.
If councillors still go in for this sort of thing, some publicity would surely be of use to them.

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





Friday 21 August 2015



The whole sorry saga of the decline and collapse of Norprint has emerged at last after its assets were sold under what is casually known in the business as a "pre-pack" agreement.
It began three months before the company crashed, when costs were cut in April and May, and an attempt to borrow more money to bolster the business up in June ended in failure –  all this against the background of the loss of two contracts worth around £2 million at the start of the year.
There followed a spiralling descent into decline, with a lack of money to buy the stock needed to meet orders driving customers elsewhere – accompanied by a ban by the suppliers that remained.
To  make matters worse –  if that were possible –  the company was significantly behind with the rent and also owed HM Revenue and Customs, which collects the likes of income tax and VAT.
Paragon – which took over the Magnadata arm of the company – had shown interest in Norprint as well but this was overtaken by events, and the administrators were called in on 30th July
In terms of equipment, the plant and machinery was valued at £580,000 in situ and £300,000 after any auction and removal costs were taken into account.
But a large amount the equipment was in hock, and eventually a company called Paragon Transaction (UK) – part of the Paragon Group, offered £170,000 including some of the assets against which borrowings had been made.
The company also offered to help recover Norprint's book debts – with both offers  condition on BemroseBooth –  another part of the Paragon Group –   acquiring certain Magnadata assets.
Magnadata also had money problems by this time and could no longer afford the stock to produce tickets for the Association of Train Operator Companies.
If nothing was done, “the potential implications could be catastrophic through serious disruption to national rail travel”   says Robert Adamson, one of the administrators at the accountancy firm Mazars.
So – although the offer for plant and machinery was very low –  it was accepted because of the threat to the UK rail system if Magnadata had gone bust.
The sale went ahead on 3rd August with a down payment of £75,000 to be followed by five monthly instalments of £19,000.
Transaction UK was given permission to occupy the Horncastle Road factory until December – which seems to be the date when the lease on the premises expires.

***

It seems ironic that Magnadata –  one of a handful of companies worldwide that make train tickets –  and whose demise would apparently bring the UK rail system to its knees –  could have found itself  with money problems alongside its sister company.
It’s also ironic that Norprint played a pivotal role in the famous 1968 “I’m backing Britain campaign” which took the nation by storm and provided 100,000 free badges featuring the slogan.
It’s to be hoped that Paragon – which the dictionary defines as “a model of excellence” lives up to its name.

***

But what does the future have in store?
Around 100 jobs were “saved” by the takeover of Paragon.
Paragon Group UK is based at Sunderland, Wakefield Europort, Rotherham and Accrington.
It bought Hull-based BemroseBooth out of administration five years ago.
When the lease on the old Magnadata/Norprint site expires at the end of the year, where will the workforce go?
It’s the nature of the “rescue” that concerns us.
At the sharp end of the business, things could not have worked out more serendipitously, with the expiry of the lease almost coinciding with the collapse of Norprint as Paragon lurked in the wings with an interest in Magnadata.
If the remnants of the company have to leave the site at the end of December – and no-one has said that they haven’t – where does the workforce go?
Without alternative premises being found in Boston and equipped in double quick time they presumably go to Hull ... in a handcart, perhaps.
What happens to the plant and machinery?
It probably follows them.

***

Sadly these days, it seems that there is an inevitability which says that when comparisons between best and worst are being made, Boston always appears low down on the list – if not at the bottom.
Such was the case on Monday, when a map, devised by Hampton International and the Daily Telegraph, guided us to the areas with the cheapest homes and the happiest residents, based on house price-to-income ratios and the Life Satisfaction Index from the Office of National Statistics.


We were not surprised to see that whilst East Lindsey was fair to middling in its evaluation, and South Holland had a top rating, poor old Boston was exactly that – rated in the low satisfaction category.
Boston Borough Council is forever telling us how hard it is working to improve our image and make the place better to live.
But when you ask the people who matter – those who live there –  they invariably give Boston nul points.
Why?
That’s a question that requires an urgent answer ... and some urgent action as well.

***

Worst Street is never slow to boast if it thinks it's got something to preen about. At the moment, the munchkins are basking in the reflected glory of last week’s beach party in Central Park – even though it was a co-promotion with Mayflower Housing, Family Action, Boston Children’s Centre and Boston United in the Community and funded by Boston Big Local.
In local coverage, the event went from merely using a quote about it by an officer, to being “managed” by Boston Borough Council to being “organised” by it.
And – as seems de rigueur these days – Councillor Claire Rylott, the council’s portfolio holder for leisure services, parks and open spaces had something to say about it as well.
For the first time –  and we are sure not for the last –  we note the involvement of Boston Big Local with the organisations led by the great and the good ... notably the Lincolnshire Community and Voluntary Service alongside the council.
And just recently, Boston Big Local announced that is has commissioned LCVS to administer a new £18,000 grants scheme to encourage “events which bring people together and build community spirit in Boston.”
The fund will support six small events and at least one larger scale event between now and end of March, 2017, with the projects being chosen by an “independent” panel.
When Boston Big Local was created five years ago, Mandy Exley, the community development officer for LCVS went to great lengths to stress the independence of the group.
Asked what she would like to see the money spent on, her response was unambiguous.
“It’s not up to me. I wouldn’t dream of saying because it’s not about what I think what any of the other partners think – it’s about what the community want and we are just the facilitators. We’re the tools to galvanise these people into action to want to make a difference to their neighbourhood, and it will be down to them.
“It’s not down to me, it really isn’t. It’s down to the residents and I can’t stress that enough. It is totally resident led and that’s the uniqueness of it.”
Later she added: “This money will not be dictated by Boston Borough Council it will not be dictated by our organisation, the LCVS.  It will be totally dictated by the local community ... it is their say where this money is spent.”
By the way, if you’d like to apply for a share of the latest grants scheme, you need to ring LCVS – and ask for ... Mandy Exley.
Do we detect the dead hand of the likes of Worst Street and the Volunteer Brigade hammering the thin end of a wedge into a million pound treasure chest?
We believe we do.

***

More back-slapping at Munchkin HQ with the report in the borough’s Goody Two Shoes News (circulation 784) that Boston’s street drinking controls have been declared a success.
Both the council and the cops say that far fewer people are now consuming alcohol in the town centre since the new rules came in at the beginning of the year.



Inspector Jim Manning told Boston GTSN (circulation 784): “There has been a noticeable reduction in street drinking in the town centre itself, which is welcome. The purpose of this order was to remove street drinkers from the town centre and it looks like it is working.”
Fortunately for those tasked with policing the Public Spaces Protection Order (pronounced Spo) the main area involved is a gentle, none too tiring stroll away from the police station and municipal buildings.
Whilst the PSPO might well have been a success, the inevitable follow on has taken place – with more people being seen drinking outside of the designated area.
The evidence of our own eyes tells us this – and other people have reported seeing drunkenness in streets where it has previously been absent.
Of course, the impact of widespread drinking in the town centre is concerning, and it is quite right to do something about it.
But we wonder if the powers that be have a cunning plan to solve the problem that has been created by their concerns for the town centre – which always takes precedence over the places where ordinary folk try to live a peaceful life.


***

Sad news for lovers of the wit and wisdom of our so-called council leader.
Peter’s Notes” are missing from the August issue of the local free magazine Simply Boston.
As regular readers will know, this is not something that we regard as a great loss –  as the page allegedly written by blue leader Bedford has for as long as we can remember been a repeat of some earlier piece published in the Boston sub-Standard.
It would be interesting to know whether his absence from Simply Boston is a) because he has nothing to say; b) he’s at last developed a conscience about serving up reheated leftovers in a manner that borders on contempt for the readers; or c) that Simply Boston has at last decided that a) he has nothing to say; b) they are fed up with him serving reheated leftovers in a manner that borders on contempt for their readers.

***

Mention of treating readers with contempt reminds us of another guilty party –  this time the Boston off-Target and its handful of followers on Twitter.
Once, the Target could be relied on (sort of) to tell us what was going on in Boston.
But now, its Twitter feed is peppered with stories with headlines such as: “the most middle class graffiti yet? Broadchurch actor spots ‘quinoa’ sprayed on wall  ... Moving tributes pour in for Plymouth's 'Bucket Man' who has sadly died  ...  Another superhero joins The Bromley Batman in the quest for justice” ... and  Hairdresser (from Stoke-on-Trent) fears for her life after parking row video goes viral on Facebook.”
You don’t need us to point out that none of the above stories have anything to do with Boston.
Following the link on the Target’s Twitter page takes you to a website called Quirker which is run by a company called Local World, whose shareholders include the Target’s parent company.
The site exists to promote “the funniest and weirdest stories found in its local newspapers,” and “celebrate “the best of real life eccentric content”.
Local World’s digital content director, says: “is a terrific home for the most eccentric, funny, man-bites-dog, weird and real life Quirker stories we produce as a group every day. “This platform gives us an opportunity to really capitalise on the vitality of this content ..." whilst another executive says: “There is no more enticing, or commercially exciting, opportunity in digital today than re imagining the power of local content.”
The keywords here are capitalise and commercial.
They’re another version of the links that are increasingly found on internet newspaper websites which sneer at people they deem to be ugly, or list film stars who’ve aged badly – and make money for the sites that carry them if people are stupid enough to visit.
Our local newspapers in Boston are bad enough as it is – witness the recent coverage of the Norprint closure –  but to stoop to treating us like idiots  and dis-serve us with irrelevant stories designed simply to make them more money is dumbing down even further.

***

The apparently endless trawl for our memories of Boston goes on.
A plug for “Boston Memories Drop-in event” in Tuesday's GTSN (circulation 784) appealed for any old photos and stories about Boston’s past.
It published a photo as an example and asked:  “Who remembers Boston’s “H-House”? It stood on Wainfleet Road, near the Ball House, until its demolition in 1959.”
We were told that the photograph of the house “will help spark memories of the property – a local landmark” and that memories like this are just what a new Boston project wants because they will help “inform” plans for “new and improved heritage signage in the town centre.”
So if we read this aright, we might soon see a sign in the town centre directing us to an out of town site where a house stood until it was knocked down 56 years ago.
It might be an idea to go back to the drawing board for this project before it goes any further.

***

Almost as if it is such a shock to succeed at something, Worst Street seems to lose confidence on the rare occasions that it actually comes up with a good idea.
This time last year the first official Boston Borough Council calendar was in an advanced stage of preparation.
It was sponsored by 12 local businesses and supporters, put on a good display of photos of the town, and eventually turned in a profit which went to good causes.
It was a good start – one well worth building on.
But is that happening?
We don't think so!

***

We offer the following statements about the amalgamation of all Lincolnshire district councils into a single unitary authority for your consideration without further comment.
Council “leader” Pete Bedford speaking in May after Lincolnshire County Council leader Martin Hill spoke of the devolution of powers from the government to local authorities and their possible future merger: "There are no plans to abolish district councils. We continue to focus on making a difference for our residents and communities.
“We have a strong track record of delivery and clear plans for the future, with robust financial strategies and a great team. We can be proud of what we have achieved, and we can move forward with confidence."
Council “leader” Pete Bedford speaking in August: “Phil (chief executive Phil Drury) and myself have been to London and Nottingham to hear about the government's plans to hand down power to councils under the Devolved Powers Act. This will be a very hard process to achieve but with all districts, county and City of Lincoln working together we are convinced that it is the only way forward for local district councils like ours to compete.
“This has to be Number One priority.”
Trust him – he’s a councillor!

***

What we are told is the “next stage” in the development  of Boston  Market Place starts on Monday with the installation of metal bollards cunningly disguised to look as if they are made from cast iron.
The words “next stage” in this context really means “papering over the cracks.”
Since the Market Place was “refurbished” three years ago at a cost of £2 million, there have been repeated attempts to make a halfway decent job of it – all of which have failed to far.
As far as we are aware this is the first time that a “next stage” of work has been mentioned – and wonder whether this means that more changes are on the way.
The hitherto silent cabinet portfolio holder for the town centre, Councillor Paul Skinner is quoted as saying: "The trial planters have been a success in providing separation to an area of the Market Place, as well as colour.
"I look forward to the installation of a more permanent and manageable solution for the Market Place, along with the area building upon its successes."
Again, as far as we are aware, the planters were not a “trial” –  they were simply an even earlier desperate attempt to paper over the cracks to stop the chaos and potential danger in an area where neither vehicles or pedestrians could be certain who took precedence.
A council spokesman is quoted as saying that there will be no chains linking the bollards, but they will be close enough that vehicles won't be able to get through – which, to take into account smaller vehicles, will mean every 4-5 feet.
And what about motorcycles? They’ll still be able to get through the gaps.
And what about pedal cycles? – plenty of bollards mean plenty of places to chain up your bike, which will play merry hell with the ambience and visual perspective of the area.
The hope, apparently is that the new bollards will “help maintain the open aspect of the historic town centre area” whilst the wooden planters will be re-used to “provide a lift to other areas of the town where they can add attractive amounts of colour” –   and where, doubtless, they will stand forgotten until they wither and die (see Boston Eye Friday 14th August.) 


This would seem to put the kibosh on future plans for Boston in Bloom, which has relied on the Market Place as a showpiece.
Soon, we will have bollards bristling everywhere – and only the absence of machine-gun nests at regular intervals will help us differentiate between Boston Market Place and the parade ground in Colditz Castle.

***

Hard on the heels of last week’s mention of the Quadrant development at Wyberton comes a report that the start of work on Boston United's new stadium is now likely to slip into next season because efforts are still being made to find the money needed to fund the 5,000-capacity stadium after the project missed out on £2m worth of funding from Sport England.
Times really seem to have changed in the world of developers making huge profits.
Not so long ago, a speculator acquired land, and planned developments that would cover the cost of whatever was built on it plus a generous profit.
In July last year, the Quadrant scheme was given a £4.75 million grant under the Government’s Single Local Growth Fund, which David Newton – the chairman of Boston United and boss of  developers Chestnut homes – apparently felt was not enough, saying that “other funding streams” would also need to be secured.
But he added that “this is a huge step forward for the Quadrant development, and will enable work to start in 2015 subject to planning permission being granted, giving a great boost to the local economy.”
We are now beginning to wonder when ... and possibly even if ... the stadium will ever take shape.
Time is getting short – the lease on Boston United’s York Street stadium runs out in January 2018 ... when we are sure that the vacant site will see whoever buys it drawing up huge and profitable plans to shove up even more houses on that site.


***

Last week’s clip of a young cyclist carving across the path of a moving car highlighted the risks that motorists face.
As we said then, whenever a car and a cycle collide, the motorist is usually the one who gets the blame.
But to show that it’s not just youngsters who take their lives into their hand, take a look at this clip...


A close inspection will show that the kamikaze granny in the picture just stuck her arm out and swerved across the road – without once looking back.
Had the car been a few yards further on she might have ridden into the side of it – or beneath the wheels.
Just more evidence that two wheeled riders also need to be aware of their responsibilities on Boston’s roads.
Note: The above video will not be visible if you are trying to view it on an Apple iPad. It's a compatibility thing!

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




Friday 14 August 2015


Last Friday we observed how poorly things were going for the “Boston – a great past and a bright future campaign” launched by Mayor Richard Austin.
And as if in rebuttal,  Monday’s edition of the Worst Street Goody Two Shoes News (circulation 784) came up with the blistering headline: “Why we think Boston’s great.” alongside the claim that “more have risen to the challenge” thrown down by the once-Independent  Councillor Austin.
This list comprised four entries – two of which appear in the original and therefore cannot be claimed as “more” names.
It’s around two months since Councillor Austin launched his appeal, since when – from a borough with a population of 66,000 – just 24 people have written in, of whom almost half feature among the local great and the good, who would be expected to toe the line.
Pretty feeble, isn't it?

***

Apparently hand-in-hand with this lacklustre effort is another Worst Street campaign called “Memories are made of this” – another “new” project that wants your memories to “help inform” plans for new and improved heritage signage in the town centre.
And, “as a spin-off” it is also hoped that fond memories of Boston past will be retold in published form, together with any photographs which are made available.
Boston's memories will be gathered on large-scale map in the Stump, a “Boston Memories” drop-in will be held at the Guildhall and Fydell House  next week, there are also plans for a young person's' postcard design competition and a social media campaign –  #MyBoston  “where selfies outside your favourite heritage spot in Boston and the surrounding area can be posted.”
Unfortunately, as far as the latter is concerned, that hashtag already seems to have been claimed by our bigger, younger sister in Massachusetts – which might have crossed someone’s mind.
All this was launched on an unsuspecting world in a Boston GTSN (circulation 784) which tried –  and as always not quite succeeded  –  to press the idea home via a Proustian analogy in the style of  “À la recherche du temps perdu  ( aka Remembrance of Things Past) but with Cherryade replacing the famous madeleine.
The only redeeming thing about the Boston piece is that it didn’t run to the seven volumes that it took Proust to tell his tale.

***

The idea of involving the public is always a good one – although in Boston’s case we suspect that it has more to do with getting other people to do the work.
But the sorry fact is that by and large most ordinary people seem not to be interested.
And those who have responded alternate between seeing Boston through rose-tinted spectacles or else damning it with faint praise.
Examples include mention of Blackfriars and the Sam Newsom Centre in the same breath as “culture” (don't forget that Worst Street closed what might have been a decent art gallery some years ago) and the suggestion that the appallingly bodged and lifeless Market Place “competes on an international scale.”
Perhaps with the likes of Chernobyl.
Another comment about sums it up: “I would certainly consider the facilities here as good if not better than some towns.”
The “campaigns” referred to are totally out of date and reek of a lack of imagination.
They serve only to highlight how lacking the Worst Street Munchkins are when it comes to creative and positive campaigning both to improve the town’s “offer” and to tell people about it.

***

We wrote last week about the borough council leadership’s determination to sleep through the present term and hope that doing nothing will make the world go away
So it was pleasing to learn that the disenfranchised UKIP members are planning to rattle a few cages.
The Kippers have been stung by what they perceive to be a cosy arrangement between the so-called council leader Bedford and Labour Leader Paul Gleeson under which the chairmanships and vice-chairmanships of the two overview and scrutiny committees – Environment and Performance, and Corporate and Community, were shared out between their two parties.
UKIP argues that – as it is the role of these committees to scrutinise the work of the ruling executive and hold its actions to account – then the opposition party which has twelve councillors as opposed to Labour's two would be best placed to hold these positions.
A similar argument could be put forward with regard to the Audit and Governance Committee where Conservative councillors are both chairman and vice-chairman.
By an interesting irony, the manner of these appointments was seen as less than  appropriate some  2½ years ago when former Independent Councillor Richard Leggott resigned as chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee.
He told Boston Eye at the time: “My resignation was to distance myself from the present exclusive way that local government is being operated in Boston.
“The BBI operated somewhat similarly after their first year and I declined then to be part of that system, taking no chair or v/chair positions offered, on principle.
“The present administration has become so like the last administration in its decision making process that I again felt it necessary to adopt the same position.”
And readers with long memories will also recall how the late Councillor Paul Mould claimed to have been “offered” a committee chairmanship if he withdrew his support for an Independent councillor of whom the leadership disapproved who was seeking the chairmanship of another committee.

***

We’re told that reserved matters on the first phase of houses to be built on the Quadrant site in Wyberton are being consulted on at present – and that despite a promise to build low level properties alongside the existing homes the plan shows no bungalows and even a block of flats to maximise the number of homes that can be squeezed in.
A local tells us that the urgency has apparently gone out of the building of the new Boston United stadium and that many residents have sold up at a reduced price –  in some cases dropping their asking prices by as much as £30,000 whilst properties on the east side of A16  cannot sell at all.

***

Talking of planning matters – word on the street says that Lidl may have had second thoughts about building a shop in Tawney Street.
If it's true, remember that you read it first on Boston Eye.
WOTS also says that not all the jobs at Norprint were lost when the receivers were called in last week.
According to a former employee, “managers” at Norprint were transferred to Magnadata a month earlier using the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations.
The way the affair was handled also seems less than equitable
Reports say that Norprint staff were sacked before the receivers were called in – which we understand relieved the company of redundancy payment obligations and transferred them to the government redundancy payment scheme.
It would seem that Magnadata was confident of being rescued, which is why the Norprint staff were ditched ahead of calling in the receivers.
What a fine reward for years of loyal service by scores of Boston people!

***

Much whooping at Worst Street over the news that something has gone right for once.
A job created a year ago to  track down unpaid business rates has trousered  an unpaid £1 million  for the borough to share with the wastrels at Clownty Hall and the government.
Whilst it is good news in its way – and will probably be spent on monogrammed Crown Derby coffee mugs for the Geoff Moulder Leisure Pool caff – our only disappointment is that once again, we see ordinary people trying to run a business being tarred with the brush of criminality.
For instance, Boston’s answer to George Osborne – Aaron, Councillor Spencer (think Alfred, Lord Tennyson) – is quoted in Worst Street’s GTSN (circulation 784) as saying: “This is about detecting and remedying deliberate or accidental rates avoidance.”
Later, the story says: “If the premises are not rated (perhaps because they have never been picked up or were previously exempt), or if you think that the rating assessment is out of date  ... please call our Business Rates Assurance manager.”
The report ends by saying that it is “important” for owners, tenants and occupiers of premises “to keep us informed of any relevant changes that could affect their rates bills  ....  Therefore, please help us to keep our records up to date by contacting our business rates service..."
So far, the new department has uncovered 61 new businesses and 111 under-rated business premises in their trawl for more money.
As far as we can tell, there is no legal obligation on a business owner to  inform the borough council  about matters to help it collect business rates –  though clearly there will be people who know of their responsibilities and either ignore them or turn a blind eye in the event that they don’t receive a bill.
But once again, in the matter of diplomacy and good public relations, Worst Street falls short.
Those who have not paid inadvertently are made to sound as guilty as those who have deliberately dodged their tax.
A simple tweak in the wording would show courtesy rather than contempt for these people and perhaps win them over ... but they still might wonder why they should be doing the council’s job for it!

***

The Boston Barrier apparently took “another important step forward” with the opening of a Community Hub at the beginning of the month.
Residents can visit the hub to find out the latest information about the tidal barrier and meet with the project team to ask any questions.
To begin with, the Environment Agency plans to open every Wednesday from 10am to 4pm – although it may open more at “key periods” as the scheme progresses.
In the past, events about the barrier have usually been staged at the Black Sluice Lock Cottages – which are difficult enough to park up for at the best of times.
They were once fittingly intended as the site for a new heritage centre about Boston’s waterways – displaying artefacts and memorabilia as well as becoming a community information point signposting users to local businesses and events.
But somehow, they became subsumed into the TaylorITEX “personal community development company” – which presumably means that they can’t be used by the Environment Agency on a more regular basis.
So where has the EA set up its hub?
Somewhere in Marsh Lane on the Riverside Industrial Estate – as far as we can discover no directions have been provided!
Far be it from us to suggest that the EA wants to make it as hard as possible for local people to keep tabs on the progress of the Boston Barrier by opening a community hub infrequently and in the middle of nowhere.
Suffice it to say that we are reminded of the inability of the hero of the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Arthur Dent, to find the planning application to destroy the planet Earth to make way for a pan-galactic superhighway.
“The plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months."
"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."
"But the plans were on display ..."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a flashlight."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"
"Yes, I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."

***

A while ago we mentioned the upset caused to a member of the public concerned that his presentation to a meeting of Boston’s “parish council” – B-Tacky – had been received with a snigger by Independent/Conservative Councillor Alison Austin.
What a silly mistake to make!
The presentation concerned an appeal for a speed monitoring device to be used on London Road, and the council's reply to the complaint claimed that Councillor Austin “had been surprised to hear about a deer being killed.”
The letter went on: “It was a reflex action reflecting her surprise at what you said but not aimed at you.”
Not surprisingly, the explanation failed to cut much ice with the complainant, who responded: “Does Councillor Austin really want to offer the reason for laughing at a member of the public in a council meeting was that the thought of a deer being killed was funny.
“Remind me to never watch Bambi with Mrs Austin – she will be rolling in the aisles”

***

They say that every picture tells a story – well here are two,  side by side, which have a lot to say for themselves.
Last week, we mentioned the preposterous diversion cobbled together by Lincolnshire County Council for the durations of the Tawney Street road works.
In a nutshell, it diverted drivers for Boston Crematorium and Tawney Street along a tortuous route that eventually brought them back to the point they had started from
Boston Eye highlighted this last Friday, and by early this week, the signs had been changed.
 The sign on the left has now been moved to the Spilsby Road side of Boston, and replaced by the one on the right which makes rather more sense, but still falls short of decent information.
Whilst we would like to say Well Done to Clownty Hall, the best we can come up with is Medium Rare.
That’s because the Tawney Street junction just after the sign on the right is OPEN for access, not closed.
Quite importantly this is the only way by car to reach a major doctors’ surgery, pharmacy and an optician – and whilst locals may know to use the road, others might not.
There is also a very large car park which can only be reached via this route – although it is privately owned, and it may not therefore be in the interests of Clownty Hall and Worst Street to let motorists know about that.
As with so many things in the relationship between Boston and Lincoln, the county efforts are half-hearted, substandard and fall short of expectations.
At least we are beginning to understand why it takes a month to replace a set of traffic lights.
On a walk into town on Wednesday we noted one workman watching whilst a second laid a paving slab.
No other workers or activity was in sight.
We think it high time that Boston’s masters in Lincoln asked for a serious breakdown of the cost of work such as this.
A few years ago such a job would have been done in a week – tops.
But a time quote of four weeks means four times the cost.
No wonder there is no money left in the county’s coffers.

***

Our mention of last week’s cleverly chosen crime figures that show what a safe place Boston is –  when it actually has the second worst crime figures in Lincolnshire after Lincoln –  coincided with another of those annual but pointless surveys that are intended to inform the powers that be of our concerns with the implication that this will help resolve them.
The East Lincolnshire Community Safety Partnership claims to work to create “local solutions” to local problems, to tackle issues of crime and disorder and improve the quality of life for people living, working or visiting the area.
So how does it do this?
By asking a series of questions
After wanting to know where you live,  how old and what sex you are, plus your ethnicity and nationality, the questionnaire asks you to grade  your “perception” of problems  within “your local area” –  defined as a 15-20 minute walk of where you live.
Here’s where the skill of the person setting the questions begins to emerge …
It would seem reasonable to assume that most of the respondents will live in neighbourhoods which are unlikely to see much if any at all of the crimes on the list –  “noisy neighbours or loud parties, teenagers hanging around the streets,  rubbish and litter lying around, vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to property or vehicles, people using or dealing drugs, people being drunk or rowdy in public places and abandoned or burnt-out cars.”
In most cases, we believe that people would struggle to say that the above list constituted either a “very” big, or even a “fairly” big problem.
And the clever plan to dilute their concerns still further continues with the questions: “What, if anything, are you most worried about being a victim of in your local area?  followed by the option: ‘I’m not worried.’
“Do you feel more or less safe in your LOCAL AREA than you felt 12 months ago? To what extent do you agree or disagree that your LOCAL AREA is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together?  Do you feel that people drinking in public places is an issue in your LOCAL AREA?”
The repeated emphasis on the words LOCAL AREA invites a level of consideration that will tend to divert people from selecting the higher problem levels – which is probably the intention.
The questionnaire has been trotted out for years now in much the same form.
Usually the claim is made that people as a whole are largely happy with the situation and the  job that is being done, and we cannot recall whether any proactive efforts as a result of all these questions has ever resulted.
The final piece of daftness is the degree of agreement that it always required in surveys of this kind.
You are asked: “How much would you agree or disagree that the police and other local public services are successfully dealing with crime and anti-social behaviour?” – and can choose from “strongly agree, tend to agree, neither agree or disagree, tend to disagree, strongly disagree, or don’t know.”
What an earth are they on about?
If you agree ... you agree – there no strength or propensity about it.
Similarly if you disagree – that’s the end of it.
But again, respondents who may not wish to appear bombastic will almost certainly opt for the more wishy-washy option and “tend” to agree or disagree.
The bottom line is that a survey such as this is pointless, costs money that could better be spent elsewhere and allows the interrogators to choose the result that they wanted all along.

***

Earlier, we mentioned Boston GTSN (circulation 784 – have we mentioned that?) which we thought was supposed to offer us a daily digest of information from Boston Borough Council.
Not only is this not proving to be the case, but increasingly, the content has nothing to do with Worst Street – even though there ought to be plenty to write about.
One of the more interesting recent contributions not only had nothing to do with Worst Street, but reached GTSN by an interesting route.
The report concerned the 30th anniversary of the Medlock charitable trust.
It was issued as a press release on Wednesday  22nd July by the Lincolnshire Community Voluntary Service and tagged as being authored “by Miranda Payne and kindly supplied for use on the LCVS website.”
A week later it appeared in both our local “newspapers.”
But readers of the Boston Bulletin were treated to the report on Friday 31st  July –  fully ten days after it appeared.
In a nutshell, the report was irrelevant to Worst Street, out of date, and not even produced by any of the people paid to fill the bulletin.
Another example also involved a LCVS press release ...  about the merger of two neighbourhood action groups which appeared on their website on 22nd July and was lifted word for word to appear in the Boston Bulletin on 27th July.
Some people argue that the bulletin is a costly and needless adjunct to the borough’s website because it has so few readers – the circulation is only 784 – and should cease publication.
Not only do we agree with that, but an increasingly compelling reason is that it tells us scarcely anything about Boston Borough Council.
And are our representatives really happy with the willingness of Worst Street to show that so little happens of interest within their walls, that they have so look elsewhere for padding?
If they are, then they are in the wrong job

***

The risk to cyclists using our local roads is constantly being brought to the attention of motorists.
But the need  for them to “think bike” is no less important as that of cyclists to “think car.”
Here in Boston, velocipedists come and go as they please.
They jump red lights, scare the daylights out of pedestrians on pavements and carve their way through traffic without a care – ignoring the Highway Code and the law of the land both.


A few years ago, this young cyclist might not have behaved like this because he would have had some training in safe and considerate riding.
Had he been knocked off his machine, there is no doubt that the driver of the car would have been wrongly blamed because cyclists – especially when they are young – are always assumed to be the innocent party.

***

Finally –  as is so often the case with Boston – the idea of bringing the seaside to the town is not a new one, but has been hijacked by Boston Big Local as a starter for wasting the £1 million it has been given to spend.
Sadly –   as is so often the case with Boston – when an idea is half-inched from elsewhere it is always on a pared down scale that questions whether the effort was worth it.
In recent weeks, the seaside has come to Lincoln ... from Monday 20th July to Sunday 26th.


... and Gainsborough on  ...  a busy Saturday 8th  and Sunday 9th August



And finally, to Boston ...  on Wednesday and Thursday of this week – a market day and a half day closing.


Call that a beach?
We’ve seen bigger cat litter trays!





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