This time last week, Boston Borough Council was gleefully showing photos of our local police and firemen helping scrub the Town Bridge clean in time for the arrival of the Boston in Bloom judges. This time last week, some friends of our acquaintance whose relative in their nineties had been robbed of £50 for a second time by a doorstep conman the previous Tuesday were still awaiting a visit from a police officer – which they were told would be made  no later than Sunday. But a badge from Britain in Bloom is obviously far more important, isn’t it?

***

Still with police priorities, we note an appeal to Lincolnshire Twitter users by a force Chief Inspector asking for nominations in this year’s Police Twitter Awards. Categories include sections for the Best Tweeting Corporate Police Account, the Best Tweeting Individual Police Officer, PCSO, Special Constable – and yes … even the​ Best Tweeting Account. 

We note that the officer making the appeal has notched up 24,553 tweets since he started. Even at as little as a minute a time that represents 17 full days. Many officers tweet and there are 16 categories for the awards. How much expensive police time is being wasted nationally on this trivial pursuit, we wonder?

***

Why is it that so many people that think a trifling catchphrase lends a subject more credibility? Boston Borough Council reviews the risks it faces on a regular basis – some might think that daily would be insufficient – and identifies something called the “risk appetite.” The risk to the future of the town centre in terms of retail, housing and car parking was recently identified as “medium” –  although given that is in the shaky hands of the Preposterous Boston task and finish group we would have imagined it to be in greater danger.

But it was the definition of the “risk appetite” that caught our eye.

“Projects and major change – Hungry.”

Of course we are hungry for new projects and major change, but no-one at Worst Street appears to have the wherewithal to come up with any ideas to turn the place around.

And daft buzzwords only serve to make things worse. 

***

The pointless “Ask the Cabinet” session set for Monday night is paraded as a triumph for openness and transparency – but behind the scenes the story appears rather different. We hear of a gradual transformation process under which councillors have been advised to refer any questions asked of them to the Worst Street press office. We fondly remember the days when councillors were approachable and “independent” regardless of their party politics. Now an exclusive gang of six takes all the decisions which are rubber stamped by a full council meeting which tries to ban as much discussion as it can. When did you last see councillor quoted in our local “newspapers” on an issue affecting his or her ward?  And we wonder how many of them offer local “surgery” facilities these days – but instead prefer the punters they “serve” to come cap in hand to them, and let a council officer put words into their mouths instead of answering personally and directly.

*** 

Which brings us neatly to Labour councillor and group leader Paul Gleeson, who has become something of a worldwide talking head on life in Boston in recent months.

His most recent outing was in the pages of the New York Times which tells its readers that migrants no longer feel welcome in the town.

“Something is broken in this town,” he is quoted as saying. “This veneer of propriety has suddenly disappeared.”

What is there to say about such as response? Councillor Gleeson has been at Worst Street for five years – and the problems in the town have been developing throughout that time. Yet the only time we hear his voice is when we read his assessment in the international press. It was Mark Twain who famously said that “Action speaks louder than words but not nearly as often.”

***

But even that level of disinterest is overshadowed by the latest pearls of wisdom from Worst Street "leader" ‘Nipper’ Bedford, who has simply shrugged off  the news that the most recent murder in Boston means that there have been at least 21 unusual or suspicious deaths in the town in 19 months.

“There are no unsolved crimes of murder.” He says. “The incidents we have had have tended to occur in domestic situations and involve people who know one another. The streets are safe.  Any suspicious death in our town is a cause for concern and increases the perception that serious crime is on the increase.” He appears to ignore the reaction of people living in the streets where these unimportant expirations occur. Boston is no longer a happy place for many people and Councillor Bedford’s clear ignorance of the bigger picture shows him up for what he is worth.

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

They think that

we are so

stupid

Yes … the Ovaltinies are back – and happy days are here again.

With customary gung-ho juvenile delight, Worst Street is trailing the third of its totally pointless “Ask the Cabinet" sessions … and is making them even less relevant

The last of the meetings – which were once trailed as likely to be staged quarterly – was in January. It’s time to wind the calendar up, we think!

But unlike previous sessions, this coming Monday night’s dog-hanging is about to get "a whole lot more personal." 

Once upon a time, the one-time less than magnificent seven sat uncomfortably about while badly aimed cameras filmed the nape of their necks or the pillar behind which they were trying to hide. Their often inaudible questions and answers were webcast so that people watching agog on their home computers could soak it up ‘live’ with a summary reported on the Worst Street website.

The cabinet is now down to six members – and of those, only five are turning up on Monday.

In the past, Worst Street preferred written questions submitted in advance to “give portfolio holders an opportunity to present the most comprehensive answers, by having all pertinent information available.”

Now: “Instead of an open public question-and-answer session, residents will be able to get up close and personal with influential executive members and quiz them in a much more private environment.
“There will be no cameras, no microphones and no webcast – just opportunities to chat one-to-one with councillors at a much more personal level.”

Residents can turn up without giving advance warning of their questions – which is great news for victims of the council bar on those they deem “vexatious.”

Whilst Worst Street sees this as pioneering, we view it as lip service to openness and transparency which keeps public criticism out of the public domain.
So-called council “leader” Pete ‘Nipper’ Bedford calls the approach “more like a regular councillor surgery” – without apparently realising that they are seldom staged any more.

“I am hoping this will encourage more to attend. We want to see an interest in what we do, and perhaps what we don't do, and welcome questions on any subject pertinent to the work of the borough council. I think this willingness to change and adapt shows we are transparent and open and prepared to give answers to what may be some quite tricky questioning.”

Having viewed these sessions in the past, we were struck by the lack of quality shown by cabinet members.

Whilst they can’t all be the brightest candles in the box, many are incapable of decent articulation and it is not hard to question their overall intelligence.

Nonetheless, these six people run the council – forget the idea that the remaining 24 even bother much to take part.

Monday night’s absentee is Boston’s Chancellor of the Exchequer Aaron, Councillor Spencer – but ‘Nipper’ is ready to provide what might have been his answers.

Having seen them both in action we feel that nothing would have been gained by Councillor Spencer’s attendance.

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

Recently, meetings of the Boston Town Area Committee BTAC have gone hand in hand with requests for members to fund projects which by the council’s own definition should be paid from central rather than “parish” funds.

Lately, we’ve seen the near doubling of this year’s council tax precept to start a kitty for the benefit of the Preposterous Boston Task and Finish Group, and the allocation of £35,000 for decorative street lighting in December. This is not to be confused with Christmas lights, as the money is for Project Illuminate – which is counting the days until 2020 when the good ship Mayflower reached the Cape Cod having set off from Plymouth with a 102 pilgrims aboard – none of them remotely connected to Boston.

But the money mentioned above pales into insignificance when compared with the demands being suggested tonight, which total £323,190 – for which the lion’s share is funding the public toilets at £179,000, and Central Park at £123,350.

The money wanted represents a 100% increase in the rate for a Band D property.

A constitutional document for BTAC in the public domain says the only items which can legally be charged are those provided exclusively or mainly for its residents, and that when the wider population use facilities they are properly subject to “the council wide council tax.”

However, it appears that this was conveniently tweaked a while ago and is being meddled with still further even as we speak, and that BTAC’s powers and responsibilities may well be “extended and enhanced” even more. A licence to rob Peter to pay Paul. Expect more big council tax increases in the years to come.

Whilst we accept that Worst Street has a cash flow problem – this should not be allowed to supersede the responsibility of the council to the people it claims to serve.

The cost of BTAC is borne by some of the poorest and most deprived wards in the country – let alone Boston, and it is wrong to use them as a cash cow.

If the council lack the skills at officer and member level to create new ideas for funding, then it should find the people who can, and not stoop to daylight robbery.

Another point worth considering is whether there are cuts which could be made which might yet rescue the facilities that need saving before taking the easy way out and billing the taxpayers.

For instance, in some areas, Worst Street is cutting back to the minimum requirement under health and safety rules.

Yet whilst it regularly declares that it has no statutory responsibility to provide toilet facilities, it is clearly scared stiff of doing away with them

Meanwhile, it still sees nothing wrong with offering free parking perks to staff and councillors worth £100,000 a year, and funding the mayoral office to the tune of a further £80,000.

Flushing away these two items alone would cover the cost of keeping the public toilets!

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 fight crime

when it’s easier

to give in …?

Boston Borough Council and Boston Police last week joined forces to ask us not to report perceived examples of street drinking on social media.

Quite rightly, they highlighted a recent photo on Twitter showing an apparently unconscious man on the ground and warned: “Never make an assumption that someone who is unconscious and laying (sic) down in the open is under the influence of drink. They could have hit their head and seriously injured themselves. They may have been laying (sic) out in the open all night and have hypothermia.

“Their life may be at risk. It is not appropriate and does not demonstrate community responsibility to take a photo of someone clearly in need of help and post it on social media.”

So far, so good.

But a key point about social media is that it reports what’s going on – and in the case of street drinking shows how well it is … or isn’t … being dealt with.

The montage above – from photos sent to Boston Eye last week – shows that street drinking is still clearly rife ... despite some claims to the contrary.

Last week’s Boston Borough Beano quoted Boston Community Inspector Andy Morrice saying: “We have only recently been told about a problem area near the Stump. We are having hedges removed, and replaced by flower beds, so there is no screen to hide behind, and are having a tree pruned back for the same reason.”

And whilst not reported by Worst Street for obvious reasons of shame, the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee fountain in Central Park has had its upper tiers removed following persistent vandalism.

Chief Parkie, Councillor Claire Rylott, is quoted as saying: “The cost of constantly repairing it did not make economic sense in these financially straitened times.

“Because of the on-going costs and not being able to use it properly, it was agreed unanimously at a Boston in Bloom meeting to use the base as a planter.”

The fountain was supposed to be a ‘lasting legacy’ to the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, and part of a £10,000 garden.

In all of the above examples, the people with the responsibility to maintain our quality of life are bending the knee and giving in to criminality because it is easier than standing up and fighting.

Regular readers of our so-called local “newspapers” will note that the Co-op in West Street is a regular target for shoplifters.

We wonder if the powers that be plan to force it’s closure to reduce the level of commercial crime.

Nothing would surprise us.

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

Displays of

λεκτική διάρροια

are all Greek to

most of us!

Tonight sees the full meeting of Boston Borough Council – these days a rubber stamp job where even some of the so-called opposition put their teeth in their water glass for the few minutes the meeting lasts and vote with the leadership.

The only real items of interest on the agenda these days are questions from elected members in which they try to wrong-foot their leadership masters.

These questions used to be listed in advance – but alas this is no longer the case … perhaps because it might serve as an appetiser and lure our local “newspapers” to the meeting. Heaven forbid.

It was questions asked during this section that revealed that whilst Worst Street was going hell-for-leather to install biomass boilers at the Moulder Leisure Centre and the PRSA, it had no idea what the fuel would cost.

We still don’t know, but we hope there are no nasty surprises such as when the borough underestimated the cost of the installation which saw the price rocket by 64%, from £456,000 to £749,000.

Tonight, the minutes of the April 4^th meeting report a number of questions from the UKIP contingent, which again held up a mirror to the unattractive face of some of our so-called leaders.

A question from UKIP Leader Brian Rush regarding the running of the PRSA by the preposterously named C-SALT and asking if we have at last seen the end of the long running debacle prompted a feeble stab as what we think he considers politics by the council “leader” Pete ‘Nipper’ Bedford, who said: “As the former portfolio holder for the facility, you did not sort it out. This administration has.” Huzzah!

Another UKIP questioner, Jonathan Noble, listed the rises in Councillor Bedford’s special responsibility allowance from £6,487 in 2012/13 to £7,366 the following year and to £8,070 in 2014/15.

He asked: “Could you enlighten us with the wondrous works you have performed to receive such increases?”

Apparently no ready answer sprang to mind, so Councillor Bedford chose to explain that “The increases were recommended by the Independent Remuneration Panel, originally as a single increase, but the council decided to phase over a three year period …”

He then pointed out that all other Lincolnshire district council leaders got more than he did. Which apparently make everything hunky-dory. Some might say, however, that the low rate of reward reflects the achievements delivered. We couldn’t possibly comment.

‘Nipper’ also claimed that that over the last three years the council had “brought in” £6.5 million to Boston, compared with “only” £14.3 million for the previous 17 years.  A little more detail on that would surely make interesting reading.

The last question to catch our eye was again from Councillor Rush – to Conservative Councillor Doctor Gordon Gregory – the self-appointed investigator of the Million Pound Loan Mystery.

And Councillor Gregory used the Complete Oxford Dictionary as a soapbox on which to stand to deliver his reply.

For example … “in order that I may shine the light of knowledge on the tenebrosity of this question, I sent an email; composed for clarification as to what he would like me to include in my answer. The councillor has reworded his question, though its opacity of purpose is as yet left undiminished …”

He went on: “The specific foci (sic) of my desire for clarification was and is the fact that in the intention, process and findings, in thought, word, and deed, I have openly shared to all members, including with the councillor himself.”
And so he went on …

Whilst we accept that written answers present an opportunity to portray oneself as literate and lucid, this was going too far by any stretch of the imagination and appeared more as an exercise in showing off.

Councillor Doctor Gregory – who given his day job must sure be able to diagnose the  ailment known as verbal diarrhoea – promised  that all would be revealed in a final report, which appeared at the end of May.

Sadly, we have to say that we found it less than enlightening.

Old hacks like us obey a basic rule that the bones of any story will be found by asking the questions “Who, What, Where, When and Why?”

In the case of the Million Pound Loan, the vital information of "Who, What and Why" are unfortunately absent.

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

Whilst a Britain in Bloom award to Boston is a feather in the town’s cap, we think that it is becoming something of an over-obsession for too many people. 
The latest plea broadcast by the Worst Street Daily Dross is the challenge: “Let’s make it as splendid as this all year round.” We would wholeheartedly agree – but for the fact that the effort is narrowly focussed on a specific area chosen in advance to be paraded before the judges.

The picture that this paints for those us live nearby is similar to the Mona Lisa finished off by a four year old.

A five minute or so walk from the centre, and the streets are littered, the verges overgrown and the only flowers to be found are on the weeds.

It’s just not good enough.

Boston in Bloom is largely the work of volunteers – and long may they prosper.

Outside of that area the job is down to Boston Borough Council – and it’s being ignored … disgracefully.

***

Given the Worst Street obsession with badges we wonder why the town shuns the Department for Communities’ “Great British High Street” competition – which has just been launched for 2016.

High Streets Minister Marcus Jones promises that this year’s competition will be “bigger and better” – and as last year attracted a meagre 230 entries the chances for nomination must be worth a try.

If Worst Street fears that it can’t get as close to a prize as the Boston in Bloom squad then perhaps the slumbering Boston Town Team might think of having a try.

***

Boston Borough Council is again banging the drum about food safety – this time with a guide to what food labels mean – unravelling such complex advice such as “use by” and  “best before.”

But we are pleased to see that the Worst Street environmental health page is still apparently offering a handy recipe guide. We first highlighted this some weeks ago, and think it’s high time to take the item down before someone assumes it’s serious.

***

Boston Borough Council has come up with another of those arse-about-face ideas that look good on the back of a fag packet but not so clever in practice.

Nine months after the government introduced charges for plastic carrier bags in supermarkets – which cut their use by the hundreds of millions in favour of a return to sturdier carriers – Worst Street has come up with a limited-edition “bag for life” – to “show your support for the town ... and the environment.”

The bag bears the obvious and bowdlerised slogan “I’m backing Boston” – although whether this means a fiver on Stump Boy in the 3-30 at Kempton Park isn’t clear.

Nor is it a “bag for life” as defined by the government – which explains … “typically, you pay for these once, and can return them for a free replacement when they wear out.”

At present the bags are only available from the Worst Street Offices at a quid a time cost price – but the council has also issued a begging call to shopkeepers asking them to get in touch it they’d like some on sale or return …which ought to have been thought about earlier.

A promising idea overall but yet again let down by bad planning and lack of forethought.

***

A few weeks ago we mentioned Boston Borough Council plans to save money by dumping its spending responsibilities on the district’s 19 parish councils.

One contentious issue is grass cutting – and a reader told us: “At present Wyberton has only been given a price to cut the Cuckoo Land grassed area.

“It is usually cut once or twice a week.  The quote we were given is to only have it cut four times, which is ridiculous, and the price isn’t much better either, at  £659.

“It’s council owned land and they get the rent for it. Admittedly it goes back to the allotment holders – so should they pay, or take it on themselves?”

However, Sue​ Gray, ​chairman of the Cuckoo Land Allotment Association takes issue with this.

She tells Boston Eye that the grassed area – which is accessible to locals – is cut, at most, fortnightly in the growing season and takes one person over eight hours on a large machine.

“Secondly we pay the council rent for the allotments but it does not come back to us in any way.

“We are responsible for the upkeep of the area within the hedges/fence.

“We have no responsibility for the public areas which surround the plots.”

Ms Gray tells us that the Association is holding an Open Day tomorrow – and that visitors are welcome.

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

Feeble Worst Street

takes easy way out

and downgrades job

Not for the first time, Boston Borough Council is parading its ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory – this time with a Sits Vac job advert on its website.

Regular readers will recall that back in January, Worst Street advertised a newly-created top job for a Head of Service: Economic Development and Growth – “a high profile appointment … (with) responsibility for providing strategic, visionary and organisational leadership in all aspects of inward investment, growth and wider regeneration and economic development for the Borough.”

Not just a high profile job either – a highly-paid one at £65,000.

As is so often the case, though, the rot set in almost before the ink on the advert was dry.

Worst Street appointed a high-powered recruitment firm to find the right candidate – but with the advert appearing so soon after Christmas there were no takers.

Undaunted, the council told the head hunters to look for a head with a smaller hat size – and came up with three candidates who might do the job at a pinch.

After months of agonising, the chosen candidate changed his mind, leaving the council back at square zero.

But there were some benefits from the exercise – for the recruitment company Veredus … which charged Worst Street more than £16,000 for advertising and its time.

Now, Boston Borough Council is at it again – with a new job advert for a lower grade post at a salary of £25,000 below the original – a paltry £40,000 …“to lead on economic development”

Whilst it is still “a high profile role” it is also being referred to as “an exciting opportunity to be stretched and develop new skills”

The advert claims that “Boston Borough Council is developing a clear vision for the future development of our Borough that will see us address potential for economic growth as well as housing need and celebrating our rich heritage” – but somehow, we can’t see that coming off.

Closing date for applicants is midnight on 17^th July.

But from what we’ve heard, the plan is to appoint someone who is already on the staff – which seems to be the rule rather than the exception with top jobs in Worst Street.

Consider the hillbilly clans of Kentucky.

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