Last week’s prediction that today’s full council meeting might be a little lacklustre may not after all be the case.

Whilst UKIP has eschewed submitting its customary mound of questions, we know of at least one – from a member of the public – that will be of interest.

It concerns the £1 million loan taken out by Boston Borough Council 25 years ago for a term of sixty years at an interest rate of more than 11%.

This means that by the time repayment is due, Worst Street will have forked over more than £6 million of our council tax in interest.

Despite attempts to find out what all this was about, the history remains obscure.

No one knows who authorised the loan or who – if anyone – approved it.

Apparently the rules regarding this sort of thing were far easier going in those days – although some might prefer the words lax and inefficient.

However, a little more light was shed on this murky transaction after a Freedom of Information request asking for all the documentation regarding the loan turned up 51 items – before that it was always claimed that there was nothing more than a receipt.

Tonight’s question asks where these documents have been all these years and when they were found.

The questioner adds: “The documents quite clearly have names of the people who have knowledge of the loan; these people are still alive and contactable. “Would someone from the council like to take the opportunity to update the Chamber, the press and the public on how the investigations are going in the light of the new documents to give us the answers we have been searching for over the last 25 years?”

Although the question was initially directed to the council’s “leader” ‘Nipper’ Bedford, he has been let off the hook, as it has been decided finance portfolio holder Aaron ‘Frank’ Spencer would be a more appropriate person to respond.

This is despite the fact that Council Bedford was elected in 1991 – the year the loan was taken out, and might even remember the event – whilst Councillor Spencer was a babe in arms that year.

The reply on Monday night will be interesting as will any supplementary question that is raised,

Sadly, we hear that another planned question – from a senior UKipper – was not pursued after the would-be interrogator learned that a member of the public had put one forward ... which seems peculiar, to say the least.

But despite the reluctance of the powers that be in Worst Street, one councillor is determined to get to the bottom of this tawdry tale.

Councillor Doctor Gordon Gregory, who represents Trinity Ward for the Tories, also has concerns about the loan.

“When I was appointed to chairman of audit and governance committee after the election, I too found the lack of evidence odd and suspicious,” he told Boston Eye.

“The newly ‘found’ (material) was sought at my request and somewhat assisted by a FOI request … When I have completed my investigation I will write a publicly available report. 

“I have no reason to defend an administration elected when I was 10 years old, so I have no conflict of interest. 

“Any information would be thankfully received and would contribute to my investigation and report.”

We are sure that many readers will join us in saluting Councillor Doctor Gregory decision to investigate the loan and make his researches public.

However, we fear that the Worst Street political old guard as well as many officers will do everything they can to hinder his efforts.

Footnote: It seem that Boston is not alone when it comes to being indifferent to such a footling sum as £1 million.

A FoI request to Thurrock District Council – which bought the loan from Scottish Provident 22 months after it was issued to Worst Street and three months later transferred it to State Street, who have held it ever since – received the response that the council held no information about any of this..

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

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

We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston

Monday’s full council meeting at which the increased council tax proposals will be rubber stamped looks like being a pretty lacklustre affair. There are just three items on the agenda – a report on a review of the constitution, the council tax stitch-up, and then the expulsion of the public and press to discuss nominations for “service to the community” awards. Guess we haven’t been nominated again!

Instead of an array of questions from the UKIP contingent there appear to be no challenges waiting in the wings. Does this mean that UKIP has given up the ghost? We trust not – as there is much for which to hold the Worst Street leadership rabble accountable. Unless someone keeps them on their toes they will continue to get away with their own specific brand of ineptitude.

***

This past week has seen the police in “safe” Boston reporting five arrests after an attempted burglary in which a firearm was reportedly involved; three brief arrests after an initially “unexplained” death which subsequently turned out to be an apparent suicide; and a witness appeal to identify members of a seven strong group after a local man was “seriously” assaulted outside the Boots store. We wonder how long the powers that be will continue to try to peddle the myth that Boston is a safe place to live and walk the streets.

***

Which reminds us  ... whatever happened to the challenge accepted by MP Matt Warman to spend 24 hours with some local families in the most crime affected areas of the town?  The gauntlet was thrown down by a Boston sub Standard reader a month ago after Mr W rubbished reports branding Boston the murder capital of the country … and apparently taken up. Perhaps in the light of recent events Mr Warman has decided that discretion is the better part of valour and is keeping his head down so as to avoid getting a red face.

***

After our recent criticism of the “announcement” of garden waste collection charges using a tag on a wheelie bin as the messenger, Worst Street has apparently abandoned the idea in favour of a more civilised (and polite) leaflet delivery to all households. But being Boston Borough Council, a few niceties are still missing. The most significant of these is the insistence to go out and buy a permanent ink marker if you don’t already have one – and if you don’t, it’s probably because you didn’t need one before. There’s also the by now familiar undertone that the council expects some people to try to cheat the system in some way or another – which we doubt that Worst Street will ever grow out of.

Given that the entire purpose of all this campaigning is to make money from the punters – and despite promises that the service would remain free – there is an tinge of desperation in the council’s exhortations. Earlier this week we saw the Boston Daily Beano trying to persuade us that parting with at least thirty quid was just what we’ve been waiting for. “Get gardening – today is B-Day … Borough residents can now make arrangements for their garden waste to be collected …” Despite an initial rush of orders, we wonder whether the powers that be fear that the charging plan might not become the cash cow that they are hoping for.

***

Speaking of the Boston Beano begs the question of what is it there for?  When it launched in April 2010 we were promised a bulletin, “packed with information about Boston Borough Council.” Gradually, this dwindled, and was followed  by a move to make it daily, which ought to have eased the problem. However, whilst we have no trouble in finding something to write about Boston Borough Council every day, the bulletin is increasingly struggling. Recent issues have reported on an Alzheimer’s Society’s dementia friends programme; a new law requiring dogs to be micro chipped, a history talk about the buildings of South Street, a stall manned by a Lincolnshire Community and Voluntary Service volunteer  to promote Anglian Water’s Keep It Clear campaign – illustrated with a photo (presumably to make it look as if it has something to do with the council) of Councillor Alison Austin beside a pile of old rags … which first appeared the bulletin  in October 2014 when the campaign was launched …   and a Lincolnshire Safeguarding Children Board campaign to raise awareness of the issues of child sexual exploitation. Most of the organisations given these free puffs have their own publicity outlets. If the contents of the Boston Daily Beano are relevant to the council, then fine. If not, we can make some much needed savings.

***

There was a “jobs fair” in Boston last week – but a visitor who went came away disappointed after finding stands from Boston College and Boston Jobcentre, and about 15 others mainly representing packhouses and nursing homes. Ironically the fair was held as news was breaking of up to 63 job losses at Magnadata, and another 12 at Brantano.

***

As with the local Morrison’s closure, the news went unremarked by council leader ‘Nipper’ Bedford, who was quick to offer condolences when Norprint folded, but whom we suspect has given up trying to push the idea that Boston is on the up when the reverse is true. However, he has taken time to sign a letter of support for the Government’s plans to devolve Sunday trading laws to local councils.

The letter – signed by 40 MPs (including our own Matt Warman) and 150 council leaders declares that “Nowadays people rightly expect greater flexibility in all aspects of their lives, and being able to shop when it’s convenient is one such freedom.” We know from past interviews that Mr Bedford is a big fan of Boston people working in packhouses, and we wonder whether his enthusiasm for more Sunday shopping might be in the hope that it will increase the demand for cut lettuce, and therefore create more jobs locally. We are not religious fanatics, but we fondly recall the days when scarcely any shops opened on Sundays, which gave people time with their families and a day in which to relax and unwind. Perhaps many of today’s problems would not exist if we were to return to those times rather than an “open all hours” philosophy.

***

Yesterday was supposed to be D-day for appointment of the newly created £65,000 a year post of “Head of Service Economic Development and Growth” with the Sisyphean task of “providing strategic, visionary and organisational leadership in all aspects of inward investment, growth and wider regeneration and economic development for the borough.”  We would wish the successful candidate luck – but much more than that will be needed given the narrow minded, entrenched, backward looking philosophy of our so-called leaders. Hopefully Worst Street will introduce us to the winner as soon as possible.

***

Our mention last Friday that at least South Holland District Council had remembered to remind people that the day was the last on which to submit comments on the South Lincolnshire Local Plan clearly struck a chord in Worst Street. No sooner had our piece appeared, than a reminder popped up on the borough council website – and shortly afterwards was lifted by the Boston sub-Standard, for whom Worst Street writes much of its “news.”

***

Finally, proof that someone in Worst Street does read Boston Eye…

In December we drew attention to just one of many signs are around the place which have become open air Petri dishes for mould and dirt.

So, it was interesting to see some action at long last – as our before and after photo shows.

All it took was a bucket and some warm soapy water – although we suspect that Worst Street would have preferred another task and finish group to deal with the problem.

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

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

We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston

It seems that Boston is always on the brink of getting something which never fully materialises – call it the “jam tomorrow” factor if you like – a rule invented by the White Queen in Alice through the looking glass...

A couple of these issues have recently raised their heads – the Boston Barrier and the ever decreasing possibility of some sort of by-pass for the town.

The issue of the barrier was raised at last week’s full meeting of Lincolnshire Clownty Council by borough and county councillor Alison Austin – who manages to speak at virtually every meeting … even though getting picked is supposed be something of a lottery. Her question was posed to the rosy cheeked executive councillor for economic development, environment, planning and tourism Colin Davie.

Noting that the Boston Barrier involves two sections – the actual flood barrier that can be raised in the event of a North Sea surge, with a lock alongside, she pointed out that the current proposal is initially to fill the lock section with rubble and complete it in the second stage.

She asked Councillor Davie to consider the business case for completing the lock while the expensive equipment is present in the river constructing the lifting barrier.

Mr Davie is apparently another of these people who fancy themselves as politicians – which means that their sole aim when asked a question is not to answer.

“Obviously the Boston Barrier is a strategic project for Lincolnshire,” he waffled  – in a statement of the obvious.

“It’s vitally important for Boston and its people that it’s delivered as quickly as possible and we are working towards that with the Environment Agency and all partners.

“I have asked that the Boston Barrier project be looked at at the next flood and drainage committee meeting which will be held in Boston in April, so we can clear up any misunderstandings about how the project is going to be delivered so it can be delivered as quickly as possible.

“So you’ll have a chance at that meeting to clarify these matters.”

With all due respect to Councillor Davie – that was not what you were asked. Unfortunately, there is no right of response for the questioner, so Councillor Austin was unable to pursue the point.

The answer obviously is a clear “no,” though – were it not, we imagine that Councillor Davie would have said so rather than try to be a smart Colin (why should Alec always get the flak?).

So what we appear to be getting is a barrier and a load of rammel – the latter being a replacement for the £11 million promised by the County Council to maintain river levels and open Boston and the Fens up to more tourism.

Our questions about the bypass came after the announcement of more good news if you live in Lincoln – headquarters of Lincolnshire County Council. Work on the city’s “long awaited” £96 million single carriageway eastern bypass will begin in the next three or four months. 

A bypass for Grantham is also underway, and given that Louth, Crowland and even Wainfleet all have bypasses, we would hope that such a crucial project for Boston might now be nearer.

But we were told by Councillor Richard Davies, the executive councillor for highways and transport, that the latest transport assessment shows inbound, not on-going through traffic using Boston’s roads.

When we pointed out that Boston is the main through road to Skegness which must count for something, as hundreds of thousands of people pay the resort a visit each year, he said: “I understand what you mean but surveys and sampling confirmed it. It's being looked at but traffic movements are key.

He added that the analysis of a survey for Boston Transport Strategy had shown 82% of vehicle movements ended up in Boston, with only 18% passing through.

Councillor Davies said that another other “huge” problem is low land values, which limit developer contributions but that he is working with our MP Matt Warman and Boston Borough Council on more options – something that we did not find especially encouraging.

We were referred to page 13 of the Boston Transport Strategy gives more detail as to problems financing a bypass, but this proved elusive.

However, page 234 out of 308 page subtly named “South East Lincolnshire Local Plan Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document Combined Preferred Options and Sustainability Appraisal Report Full Consultation Document (May 2013)” told us: “Whilst the Boston Distributor Road remains an aspiration, it is unlikely to come forward in its entirety in the plan period. However, there is potential for future development at Boston town to contribute to a ‘first phase’ of a new piece of highway infrastructure, although there is no underlying evidence to draw on relating to this at present. There is no evidence to suggest the implementation of a Boston Distributor Road is critical for the delivery of the growth strategy for Boston to 2031.

So as we said at the start – at the moment it’s jam tomorrow on the barrier – but not even a crumb of comfort about alleviating Boston’s traffic woes.

  

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

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

We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston

Open and transparent?

…you must be kidding

Today Boston’s Cabinet of curiosities approves the budget for the year ahead, and next week the full council will rubber stamp it.

Although some time elapsed between the original proposal for a 1.98% increase and the subsequent recommendation of 2.9% – nine pence a week more for an average band D property … and up by 30%, the deadline for voters to respond remained unchanged – and they had less than a week to react to the new proposed charge.

The reason that Worst Street stuck to the original closing date for the CONsultation was said to be the need to produce a report to today’s cabinet meeting – which at that time was almost a fortnight away.

Worst Street claimed that if it had to move the dates forward, it would miss this meeting and that of the full council– and therefore the deadline to approve the increase.

Although there are eleven appendices to today’s council tax report there is not separate mention of any public response.

So the argument that no delay could be brooked because of the need for a report is just so much tosh.

The report does tell us that under the “golden rules” of consultation, a key point is “adequate time for a response” – which has not been the case on this occasion.

The closest we get is part of the main report which says that: “Following the budget consultation process, twelve comments were received through the public exercise, the majority concerned at the proposed increase, although one response was positive.

“They have been taken into account in preparing this report which is now presented for cabinet recommendation, prior to formal Council approval of the budget and council tax on 29^th February.” Note how the words in italics anticipate that the full council will do as it is told.

Interestingly a look back through the Worst Street website and Boston Beano shows that the minimum amount of effort was put into inviting people to take part in the consultation.

An item appeared in the Boston Beano on 29^th January – but apparently without a counterpart on the main website which is usually how Worst Street tries to look busy.

And to further complicate matters for any punter wanting to make a comment, the advice is simple: “Read the draft budget report 2016/17 and the associated

appendices …”

The report itself ran to more than 7,000 words over 28 pages, while the appendices run to tens of thousands of words and numbers – and are not what you might call reader friendly.

It all seems geared to making the task of keeping one’s eye on the borough’s roulette ball hard – if not impossible.

A pretty poor performance from a council that claims to be “open and transparent.”

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

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

We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston

If assets had been

kept, might things

have been different?

  

Tomorrow,  Boston Borough Council’s cabinet of curiosities will be approving a council tax increase of 2.9% – nine pence  a week more for an average band D property … and 30% more than the originally announced 1.98%.

But don’t be fooled into thinking that this means some improvements around the place at long last. The charge will simply be used to alleviate the cuts that Worst Street has to make.

In his report to the rest on the Insignificant Seven, finance portfolio holder Aaron “Frank” Spencer hasn’t minced his words about the looming night of the long knives.

“Let’s be clear – there is no place to hide. Tough decisions will have to be made about the services this council provides going forward. This council can no longer afford to fund all it once could. Residents will see a change to what this council does and how it provides its services.”

In other words – this time around expect to pay more for less rather than the same for less, which we have done for the past few years … excluding the PRSA and Moulder Centre, of course, which have had hundreds of thousands thrown at them.

And after this year’s cuts, expect to be prescribed the mixture as before until 2020 as Worst Street struggles to save a total of £2 million.

This put us in a ruminative state of mind as – during our reporting of the million pound loan fiasco – we saw a copy of Boston Borough Council’s budget from a quarter of a century ago.

It tells a sorry tale of what might have been had the borough not systematically sold off the family silver.

In March 1992, he council had a handsome list of assets then valued at more than £2 million – almost twice that at today's prices.

But those were the good old days.

Two years earlier it had sold the municipally owned docks for £4 million to a company which turned the business around and sold it in 1999 for £8 million.

But there were still assets galore.

In 1992, Worst Street owned 5,385 council houses.

But seven years later, Boston Mayflower was formed when the council transferred more than 4,800 homes to it – presumably the other 500 disappeared along the way.

As a charity, Mayflower doesn’t make a profit, but reinvests any annual surplus – and if the houses were still a council asset, they would be making a fortune.

Worst Street owned two swimming pools, one of which was presumably sold to a developer.

There were 37 shops and industrial units on the asset list.

The council now appears to own just two shops – and they are under review for possible sale.

And of course in those days, the council owned the Assembly Rooms – which it allowed to fall into disrepair before selling it off and losing an income of almost £60,000 a year in the process.

Whatever’s left may soon be for the chop as well. An update to the council’s asset strategy last December said: “Over the next three years we will review all of our community asset holdings and assess the long term options for their use. This will include consideration of community asset transfer together with looking at alternative uses that may better meet our corporate objectives.”

Over 25 years, the council has squandered millions of pounds worth of assets, and we wonder what it will do when there’s nothing left to sell.

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

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

We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston

It began as a simple – and we suspect none too serious – idea to save a few quid in these straitened times.

An item on a Facebook page group called “Buy it and sell it – Boston” suggested a way to save £10 a year on the forthcoming charges for collecting green waste – you remember, the service which Boston Borough Council repeatedly promised would remain free of charge.

The author proposed an arrangement with neighbours to register bins under one address, and said as an example: “Three neighbours would normally pay £90; using the above you would pay £60, a saving of £10 each – not a lot, but better in your pocket than Boston Borough Council’s.”

Enter the Worst Street – wielding its famous Iron Fist in the Iron Glove.

First came a piece on the borough website – headed “Don’t be a garden waste cheat.”

It declared that the writer – who is not identified by the borough but whose name appears on Facebook –  made the recommendation “in order to deceive” which “would be a clear case of obtaining services by deception - a criminal offence under the Theft Act 1978”

It describes the saving made as “paltry”  at less than less than 3p a day – although would work out at 21p a week  … more than twice the increase in council tax.

Wednesday’s foam-flecked invective reappeared the next day in the Boston daily Beano (incorporating Knitting Pattern Gazette) beneath the same headline, with the added tagline: “It’s an offence under the Theft Act,” and was also taken on board by the Boston sub-Standard with the added hint of menace in the line “The council has confirmed to the Standard it will not be taking any action against the individual at this time.”

Does this imply that some Damoclean sword is hanging over this taxpayer’s head?  It certainly sounds like it.

As all this was going on a copy of the terms and conditions of the  garden aste collection service suddenly appeared online – after the Facebook item had appeared, we suspect.

This is because of condition 15, which says: “It is not permitted to share more than one bin between properties, e.g. to have more than one bin at a property for the purposes of sharing bins with other properties to avoid the first bin £30 registration charge.”

This is such an obscure possibility, that we think is was included after the Facebook suggestion appeared –  otherwise there would have been no need to launch such a vicious attack … merely a civilised and unthreatening line to point out that the suggestion was precluded by the rules.

In true Big Brother mode, Worst Street added: “We will regularly check our systems with crew information and in-cab technology to verify bins which are shared between property locations and we reserve the right to reject and not empty or service any additional bins which we have reason to believe are shared outside the terms and conditions.”

How very, very sad.

Boston Borough Council has previous for issuing threats against taxpayers – and it is about time it wound its neck in and started behaving more reasonably.

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

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

We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston

Earlier this week, we highlighted the choices on offer so far of candidates to be the next Police and Crime Commissioner for Lincolnshire at the election on Thursday 5^th May.

Why anyone would want to do this job is beyond us – though a salary in the region of £65,000 a year is a highly alluring incentive, we suppose. Somehow, we doubt that Lincolnshire voters will be any more enthusiastic this time around than they were in 2012, when PCCs were introduced.  The turnout then was 83,736 from an electorate of 547,843 – an apathetic 15.28%.  Nationally, the turnout was the worst for a nationwide poll in British political history.

Before PCCs, we had a county police committee – which seemed far more sensible. It operated under the umbrella of the county council – with proportional cross-party representation and a one-third membership of local magistrates. Why it is now deemed to be a political appointment is anyone’s guess.  As a for instance, if a Home Secretary ordered a Tory PCC to make savage budget cuts, in Lincolnshire the foregone conclusion is that they would bend the knee and say “how much …?”

***

And talking of Home Secretaries …

According to Theresa “Daisy” May, PCCs “have proved that they are vital to making local communities safer.”

In a gung-ho message to the Tory faithful, she reminds them that they hire and fire Chief Constables; are responsible for police budgets; set local priorities (like tackling anti-social behaviour or cracking down on burglaries and thefts) and make sure the police act on them; and have helped to ensure that crime continues to fall and that people in this country continue to be kept safe.

In Lincolnshire, we imagine that our PCC took the first item on the list more literally than others – wrongly suspending the Chief Constable in a move which cost taxpayers £160,000.

As far as the rest of Daisy’s claims are concerned, we are not so sure that they have been greatly successful – though outgoing commissioner Alan Hardwick says: “"I am simply retiring but I can do so knowing that I have achieved what I have set out to do as commissioner.” Perhaps he could remind us.

***

Meanwhile in a report released yesterday, Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary says Lincolnshire Police requires improvement in the way it keeps people safe and needs to improve the quality of its crime investigation.

***

So it shouldn’t have come as a surprise to hear a report from a reader from a reader which beggared belief. After a neighbour had items stolen from her car, the police were offered clear CCTV footage of the thief at work – but declined it. The crime remains unsolved.

***

It was also interesting to note a report which came and went on the Lincolnshire Echo website yesterday which said that “shock” figures show that two thirds of the drug, alcohol and mental health charity Addaction users in Boston are Eastern European. This is the sort of problem which is repeatedly denied. So we were not especially surprised when we tried to revisit the site to be told: “Sorry … page not found. Warning: The page you have requested does not exist or is no longer available.”

***

The Boston Town Area Committee – B-Tacky – meets on Tuesday with just one item on the agenda – a verbal report by the chairman of the “Prosperous Boston” Task and Finish Group, Councillor Judith Skinner. This shadowy group is not only carrying out its 18 month long mission behind the scenes in closed meetings which are not even formally minuted, but is now delivering a report in a way which guarantees that most taxpayers will remain unaware of the contents. Why all the secrecy?

***

Talking of B-Tacky, it’s also disappointing that the committee does so little to serve the purpose for which it is intended. The committee comprises 14 members representing Boston’s “town” wards – which are surcharged to pay for the committee and its services.

Despite having these representatives, seldom – if ever – do we find members raising issues relating to their wards. Instead the committee gives away grants to almost anyone who asks for them. Perhaps if the committee took more trouble to stay in touch with the electorate, they might discover what people really want – instead of advertising once a year with offers of up to £1,000 to individuals and groups who “want to contribute directly to their town centre community.” Invariably this gets a good response, and such brilliant ideas in the past have included a grant for people to chalk on the pavement, and £1,000 for a jumbo street vacuum cleaner that has scarcely been used since it was cantered out for publicity.

The committee also authorised the removal of many amenity benches to try to stop anti-social loitering and drinking – even in areas where there wasn’t a problem. If the council is serious about saving money, it could close B-Tacky down for starters.

***

Worst Street is again rubbing its hands with glee at the prospect of exercising the iron hand in an iron glove policy which it so admires. This time it involves the micro chipping of dogs – which becomes compulsory from April 6^th. The Boston Borough Beano tells us: “Authorised officers from Boston Borough Council and the police will have the powers to issue legal notices to pet owners whose dog is not micro chipped … A fine of up to £500 can be issued or an enforcing authority can seize the dog and microchip it at the owner’s expense.” Normally we would think it unlikely that either the council or the police would bother with this rigmarole. Having said that, we know how Worst Street loves flexing its muscles in this way whenever possible – so we await events with interest.

***

We’re grateful to South Holland District Council’s website for reminding us that today is the last day of public consultation on the new local plan for South East Lincolnshire, which will guide the development and use of land up until 2036, including provision of 18,000 homes in the Boston and Spalding area. Unfortunately Worst Street seems far too preoccupied telescoping consultation dates for the council tax increase, threatening dog owners and harmless brown bin entrepreneurs with a public flogging  or worse than to remind us of any really important news.

***

One of our local lottery outlets is proudly displaying a sign to say that a ticket bought from them has scooped £1 million. If the lucky winner is reading this, please get in touch – we could use a loan to move somewhere nice!

***

Finally, our eye was caught by this recipe for “Medieval filo purses” from the Boston off-Target

“One pack of filo pastry …?”

Just like they made it in King Henry’s day, then.

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

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

We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston

Yet again Worst Street

opts for self-service

rather than public service

Boston Borough Council has never been renowned for its communication skills – but its latest pathetic effort has left us speechless with amazement!

On Tuesday morning we were surprised when we collected our green wheelie bin – the one used for general waste–  to find a purple note attached (in English only)  telling us that the service was being charged for from April.

Only after we detached it did we notice that there was more writing on the other side and it it became clear that whilst the note was on a green bin, it referred to the brown bin collection for garden waste.

“If you wish to continue with your collections, please visit www.boston.gov.uk/gardenwaste from 23^rd February and pay. Charges for the year are £30 for the first bin and £15 for any additional bins.”

There are a number of flaws in this “one size fits all” approach.

In our area, the tags were placed on every bin – which suggests that the borough is seeking the cheapest way to let people know  ... by telling everyone.

Regardless.

However, a number of our neighbours do not have brown bins, and are also not at ease with the language – which may create some confusion for them.

But by far the biggest and most arrogant assumption is that we all have access to the internet, and Worst Street provided no ‘phone numbers for people who might need some help.

Using the net saves time and person power, and it is probably no concern of Worst Street’s if many people fail to get the message.

In Wednesday’s Boston Beano – a line was included to tell anyone who cannot use the online service that they can register and pay by coming into the council offices or by phone.

But again, they need the internet to be aware of this – and if they don’t have it, how will they know?

Doubtless the council will be blowing £600 or more on a couple of ads in our local “newspapers” – but these are poorly read these days.

The upshot is that many people will not get the message, and find that their weeds and lawn cuttings are not removed until they somehow find out the reason.

For a council that repeatedly pledged that garden waste collections would be forever free, then reneged on that promise and lied about ever making it, the civilised and courteous approach would have been to have written to brown bin owners to explain – and perhaps even offer a word of apology for the deceit.

But courtesy seems in short supply in this case – probably  because it costs too much.

We even suspect that the choice of colour for the labels attached to the bins is significant.

We can’t imagine many people choosing purple as a colour for communication – unless the printer happened to be offering it cheap because it was unpopular.

Remember, this is the council which ordered flimsier, less sturdy, brown bins than the previous green and blue ones – then realised that they weren’t strong enough to carry soil … which was banned from being put into garden waste bins forthwith!

  

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

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

We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston

Cop this … three vie for Crime Commissioner job

Yesterday, we wrote about policing – so it’s timely to take a look at the runners and riders so far who want to be the next Lincolnshire Place and Crime Commissioner.

Before Monday there were just two candidates – one Tory and one UKIP, but now there are three ... with the arrival of a contender representing Labour.

Most prominent to date in terms of putting himself about is Marc Jones (pictured left) – a county councillor and Portfolio Holder for Cuts at Clownty Hall.

He has a website which you can visit by clicking here 

It includes a leaflet containing five promises – along with a rather spooky photograph.

As always, tackling street drinking and anti-social behaviour is among them.

The other four are: Taking on new “Parish Constables,” focussing on crime prevention, tackling rural crime, treating victims as people not numbers, and cutting the costs of the commissioner’s office.

Tacking street drinking has not proved successful in the past, and there is no reason to assume that it will in future.

Parish Constables sound great on paper – and donkey’s years ago every village had a police house with a policeman in it on whom they could call.

Sadly, we would expect parish constables to go the way of all such ancillary policing – in that they will wander the streets for a while then disappear into cars, or hold surgeries in the local shop. We’ve seen it before – first with the “real” police and then with the PCSOs.

Not treating people like numbers is a non-starter – it’s what Authority does.

UKIP’s candidate (pictured centre)  is Victoria Ayling – another county councillor and a political chameleon who almost won Grimsby for the Tories in 2010 before defecting to UKIP for the 2015 contest. She came third – not far behind Mr Jones, who lost to Labour.

We can’t find a dedicated website for Ms Ayling’s campaign – but there is a 4m 49s YouTube pitch which you can watch by clicking here 

Shortage of funding has interestingly left Lincolnshire Police “stretched to the bone” – but “more visible policing” can help. … as can using our PCs and phones more to provide evidence.

“Visible policing “on the streets would be “in places where there are likely to be trouble spots.

“A culture of drunkenness in some of our cities means that residents are feeling unsafe.

“And places like Boston, which has become the murder capital of the country with a higher proportion of murders pro rata of the population than anywhere else.  Maybe drunkenness could be behind a lot of this, so we need to target maybe having a bigger police presence in areas like that.”

The third candidate, assistant head teacher at a school in Sleaford, Lucinda Preston  (pictured right) was chosen by Labour on Monday.

She says: “We all need to feel safe and secure in our homes and on the streets we walk down every day, so it’s important that our police force is tackling the problems that we really care about.

 “That’s why I’m listening to what people all across the county have to say.

“We all pay our taxes and everyone deserves effective policing, whether they live in a city, a market town or a small village.

“None of us are under any illusions about the challenges facing our local police. Over the last five years we’ve seen significant cuts in the number of police officers.  We can’t afford to lose any more frontline officers.

 “Lincolnshire needs a PCC that will stand up for local people and fight for a fairer deal for Lincolnshire. I’ll listen to the priorities of local people, set out a credible plan to tackle crime and make Lincolnshire an even safer place to live and work.”

  

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

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

We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston

Why we

won’t be

calling the

police

There are opposing schools of thought about crime in Boston and Lincolnshire as a whole.

On one hand we have seen the town branded as the UK’s “murder capital” – whilst another set of figures says that 90% of burglaries across the county went unsolved.

Deniers of the first charge say that the statistics have been manipulated to “smear” Boston – though why anyone would want to do that escapes us.

The burglary figures have been dismissed as out of date as they cover 2013-14 – and Lincolnshire Police claim the force is now meeting the national average which shows that 12% of these crimes are solved.

So, they scowl at a 10% detection rate and brag about one of 12% – scarcely any improvement.

What it shows is that crime really does pay in Lincolnshire.

And of course they trot out their favourite mantra: “Lincolnshire remains one of the safest places to live and visit in the country.”

We would be more inclined to believe this had we not caught the police red handed being “economical” with the most recent figures.

The headline the force chose was that overall crime was down by 1% in the year to September 2015 – bucking the general national trend of increases.

However, this was somewhat marred by the next sentence, which confessed that violent crime had increased by 9%.

All of this is a roundabout way of explaining why we are not involving Lincolnshire Police after the latest break-in at our property – the fourth of its kind.

It happened last week, when all the recommended crime prevention precautions we had taken were bypassed by the simple expedient of using tools to prise the boards off at the back.

As has happened before, little was taken – but the damage caused in the search for booty was considerable.

The same thing happened 18 months ago. A wooden garage which we then used for storage was broken into and trashed – and as it was primarily asbestos,  it was beyond repair had to be demolished and removed by an approved contractor at considerable cost.

On that occasion we called the police. We rang at 10am on a Sunday and were offered an appointment at 9pm.

Eventually someone came earlier, did not even want to inspect the scene  – "we don’t do forensics unless there’s blood" – and eventually,  rang ten days later to say that the crime was being classified as “undetected.”

Somewhat unkindly our response was to say that we were not surprised – as no effort had been made to detect it.

All in all, involving the police made a bad thing worse, which is why we aren’t going to wake them up this time.

Incidentally, we do not live in what might be considered a “rough” part of town – and our neighbours have been similarly targeted.

There is no police presence in the area – and the much vaunted PCSOs swan around in sponsored cars rather than walk the streets.

So far our visitors have confined their activities to buildings in the garden. But should they venture any nearer they may well be introduced to granddad’s World War 1 souvenir officer’s Luger.

  

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

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

We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston

Week ending …

Boston Borough Council has moved quickly – for once – to cash in on Monday’s government decision to raise the cap on council tax.

Worst Street’s Insignificant Seven, aka the cabinet, originally had recommended an increase of 1.98% – another 6p a week for an average band D property.

Now, when the cabinet meets on February 24^th it will consider raising that tax to 2.9% – an extra 9p per week … roughly 30%

Their obvious decision to vote for this will then go to the full council on February 29^th .

Worst Street says: “You can still give the council your comments on council tax and the budget proposals by going to budget consultation 2016/17.”

But – as is so often the case with our “leadership” – there is a catch.

The closing date to get your comments in is today.

Apparently the council has refused to extend the original deadline because it needs to produce a report to the cabinet meeting – which is almost a fortnight away.

Worst Street says that if the deadline was extended, it would miss these dates and therefore the deadline to approve the increase.

This is not a consultation – this is Worst Street at its finest, putting the council’s interests ahead of those of the electorate.

It is unreasonable to expect people to read the consultation and comment in just a few hours.

And look at this so-called “consultation.”

Readers have to find the budget details themselves because there is no link provided – nor, incidentally, is there any mention of the closing date.

So few people will take the time and trouble to offer their thoughts on what is obviously a foregone conclusion that it would have been quite within  the realms of feasibility to have extended the deadline for a few days.

This would at least have given people time for thought.

But then this is a Worst Street “CONsultation,” – which means: “You tell us what you want … and we do as we please.”

***

We hear that the Worst Street “leadership” is struggling with attendance problems after professional responsibilities have taken two Tory councillors outside the area.

One of the pair has a senior role – and rumour has it that ‘Nipper’ Bedford has had to take matters in hand.

We have had difficulties like this before in Boston with another party – the English Democrats. One was sacked from the council after failing to attend a meeting for more than six months. The second managed to turn up just often enough to avoid this official sanction and thus retain his allowances.

We hope that we will not see a return to the days of absentee councillors.

Our view is that if they can’t attend, they should step aside for someone who can.

***

We’re grateful to the Police and Crime Commissioner candidate for the Tories – Marc Jones – for tweeting the highlights of last week’s Police and Crime Budget meeting, at which he was the only wannabe present.

Like us, he was stunned when the commissioner Alan Hardwick was challenged over his lack of public comment on Boston "murder capital" label. “PCC outrageous reply: ‘I've never been asked for a comment,’” said Mr Jones.

Outrageous indeed.

Mr Hardwick should not have needed to be prodded to comment – an allegation such like this required an unprompted response from the man in charge of the police. Mind you, having said that, why didn’t either of our two so-called local “newspapers” seek his thoughts?

Mr Hardwick, meanwhile, is not seeking re-election on Thursday 5^th May leaving the field – at present –   as a two horse race between Mr Jones, who is a Lincolnshire county councillor and portfolio holder for finance, and ex-Tory election candidate and fellow county councillor Victoria Ayling who defected to UKIP.

Lincolnshire Police and Crime Commissioner Alan Hardwick has said that he won't seek re-election.

Our view is that PCCs are an unnecessary waste of money. The first PCCs were elected in October 2012 by an average of less than 15% of registered voters - the lowest turnout since World War II.

Nationally, they employ more than 500 staff and cost around £50 million a year.

They even have an association – which is currently advertising for a chief executive at up to £99,000 a year.

Show the government a drain, and they’ll pour money down it.

***

As if that wasn’t bad enough, rumours about a Lincolnshire devolution deal having to include an elected mayor are gaining strength, we are told.

The proposed Greater Lincolnshire would restore the historic county borders from the Humber to the outskirts of Peterborough.

What it would cost to hold an election is anyone’s guess – but a recent estimate of a referendum on a mayoral appointment for Bath and North Somerset was put at £180,000,

Then there is the post holder’s salary – which we would expect to be at least £80,000 a year – plus a raft of support staff.

It takes little imagination to come up with a total in the low millions.

The devolution lobby talks of increasing the value of the Greater Lincolnshire economy by £8bn, creating 29,000 new jobs, and delivering 100,000 new homes.

But you can bet your boots that not many will be coming our way.

***

In a coals-to-Newcastle exercise, we are told that head-hunters from Pilgrim Hospital are visiting the Philippines to try to recruit nurses to ease staff shortage problems – something that occurs almost annually.

The trouble is the recruiting process is expensive – as it usually takes about four staff members to go abroad for the drive – and the benefits tend not to last for long.

In November 2013, United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust hired nurses from Greece, Spain and Portugal to reduce spending on agency staff. But little more than a year later a third of the 99 recruits had left.

The Trust blamed the “locality of the hospitals" – and said that most of the nurses who left worked in Boston and wanted to move closer to airports so they could visit their families more often. Other countries have been visited with similar results.

Weather in the Philippines this week was mid-80°f with light breezes and plenty of sunshine – just right for a team of recruiters from chilly, windy Lincolnshire.

But although the head-hunters have travelled 6606.4185 miles from Boston to Manila, the Pilgrim Hospital remains in the same place – and it would be surprising if history doesn’t repeat itself.

***

After Tuesday’s piece about Worst Street’s refusal to help save the Witham Tavern from conversion to flats, a reader sent this extract from a 2008 report by Boston Area Regeneration Company in partnership with Boston Borough Council.

"The long term aim of the Boston Waterways Development Plan is to enable Boston to maximise the potential of the borough’s waterways.

“A key objective is to enable Boston Area Regeneration Company to demonstrate to potential investors, developers and landowners, as well as public sector funding partners, what can be achieved in Boston, and just how the borough can benefit by making better use of waterways and waterside sites.”

Our reader adds by way of comment: “Surely to allow change of use to flats goes against the aim of the waterways plan.”

On a disappointing political note, one of the people fighting to save the pub tells us: “Councillor Steven Raven is voting in favour of the application after having spoken to the landlord, but has ignored all emails from his constituents.”

Hmmm.

***

Finally, an interesting new event is to be staged in Boston tomorrow.

It’s called Pancakes Day Together and is arranged by the local Lithuanian Community with funding from Boston Big Local to the tune of £1,500 – which is a lot of pancakes. What interested us in particular was the location of the event. It’s being held in Boston Market Statue Square.  Is this an attempt to re-brand Boston that we’ve not heard about? “Statue Square” in case you’re wondering is the Ingram Memorial.

***

That’s it for this week. We’re back on Tuesday.

  

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

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

We are on Twitter – visit @eye_boston