Tonight’s full meeting of Boston Borough Council will – not for the first time – be looking at disposing of yet another chunk of the taxpayers’ family silver.

This time it’s looking at a deal with a company called Magna Vitae – which means great things of life – and which is a major leisure and cultural service provider for neighbouring East Lindsey District Council.

Magna Vitae calls itself a charitable trust with the mission to provide “an extraordinary range” of cultural, leisure and health related facilities and services that allow local people to live a great life.

The company is regulated by the Charities Commission and Companies House, and any profits are re-invested to develop and improve services for the people of East Lindsey.

***

Tonight’s meeting is taking the first tentative steps under the heading “alternative delivery arrangements for leisure, culture and community services” – and if the idea takes off, a three phase consultation will be complete by the end of the year.

Working with Magna Vitae has already cut East Lindsey’s costs by £700k with a plan to increase this to £1.5m by 2022/23.

Worst Street’s transformation programme is looking to save £200k rising to £400k.

The services under review include the Geoff Moulder Leisure Centre, Heritage, the Guildhall, Tourism, Sports and Play, Events (including BTAC), the May Fair – and not Mayfair as the council persistently and incorrectly calls it – and community support projects including “controlling migration” – for which the council has just been given £1.39m in government aid.

Presumably, any jobs that go with these services will be passed on to the charity to take over.

***

So it seems that the Moulder Leisure Centre will go the way of the Princess Royal Sports Arena which is run by a company called 1Life – but only after Worst Street stumped up a pile of taxpayers’ cash for repairs and improvements to bring the centre up to an improved handover condition.

Not only that, but the PRSA – like the Moulder – enjoys biomass fuelled heating from systems that cost £¾million to install after some underestimates were adjusted – and which we still appear to be funding at the PRSA two years after the place was farmed out to the private sector.

The PRSA also benefits from a £100,000 solar heating system paid for by taxpayers.

***

So – over the years we have poured millions into leisure services that we can now no longer afford to operate or maintain which we are now handing over to third parties to enjoy at public expense.

It all makes sound financial sense, doesn’t it? – as did selling of Boston’s council housing stock and the town’s Port – both of which are now profitable in the hands of people who know what they’re doing.

***

The thing that struck us most forcibly in the report was the news that Worst Street already operates in partnership with East Lindsey District Council on finance, building control, refuse, CCTV and community safety and property services.

Add to that the proposed “Geoff Moulder Leisure Centre, heritage, guildhall, tourism, sports and play events, the May Fair and community support projects” and we wonder whether you would agree with us that it might be a better option for Worst Street to merge with Manby its entirety – and do away with Boston Borough Council altogether!

***

Now that the flames from Worst Street’s attempted witch burning have died down, the ashes have yielded a new political group which could leave some of those who sought the resignation of Mayor Councillor Brian Rush with more than a little egg on their faces.

For all the crocodile tears of pain shed by councillors, the end result was a feeling that the charges against the Mayor were mostly trumped-up, ill-judged and rooted in personal dislike rather than grounded in any solid political foundation.

The Mayor was told to quit and said that he wouldn’t, which is his entitlement.

Morever, he cannot be sacked.

Even a piece of political prestidigitation by Councillor Richard ‘Dick Dastardly’ Austin to withhold administrative support from the Mayor sputtered out among the faggots piled high for the intended Mayoral pyre.

***

Within hours of the disastrous emergency Show Trial (definition: a trial held in public with the intention of influencing or satisfying public opinion, rather than of ensuring justice) it was clear that not only would the Mayor remain – but that the council would be honour (!!) bound to support all engagements in the diary up to and including the date of the meeting that tried to kick him out.

As his term of office is up in just a few weeks, the diary is already well stocked with engagements, and since then Councillor Rush has declared that he will make his own arrangements to honour any other requests for a civic appearance.

So after all the expense and bad-mouthing, Boston borough councillors have emerged toothless.

As Councillor Rush aptly declared in a radio interview last week: “We’re looking foolish, aren’t we?; we’re looking foolish.”

And who has more egg on their faces than most?

Council leader Michael Cooper who proposed the motion – and then embarrassed himself further in a botched  radio interview – seconder Tory councillor David Brown and the rump of  three  needed to validate it … the so-called Independent Alison Austin, UKIP’s Sue Ransome, and deputy leader Aaron Spencer.
And let's not forget Councillor Richard Austin as well.

An eloquent speaker at the Worst Street kangaroo court was Councillor Barrie Pierpoint, who delivered a stirring defence of Councillor Rush, with support also forthcoming from Councillor Anton Dani.

Now, these two have joined Councillor Rush and Councillor Stephen Ball to form “a new independent group for the people of Boston, putting them first before party politics – Bostonian Independents Group (BiG).”

All four were listed on WorstWeb after the meeting as unaligned – Deputy Mayor Councillor Pierpont did what he called the “honourable” thing and quit the “independent” group comprising the Austins, former leader Peter Bedford and one-time Labour leader Paul Gleeson as he ended his speech.

***

So, who are the members of the new independent party?

Councillor Rush and Councillor Pierpoint have become well-known to us in recent weeks.

The former represents Staniland Ward, and the latter is one of two councillors for Old Leake and Wrangle.

Councillor Dani is the member for Fenside, whilst Councillor Ball is one of three members for Skirbeck.

In attendance terms, Councillor Rush has attended all lessons in the past year, with Councillor Pierpoint running a close second – having attended 85% of meetings.

Councillor Dani has attended 60% of meetings in the past year – but lurking at the bottom of the list is Councillor Ball, who attended a mere two meetings out of a possible 16 … a wretched 12%, and just enough to remain in office, as failure to attended at least one meeting every six months means automatic exclusion from the council.

If the Bostonian Independents Group is to succeed, it can only do so by making its presence felt – and members who fail to turn up will be wasting their time with the voters.

***

In an introductory press release, the four have set out a 20-point plan to ensure that the residents in the borough take priority with regards to getting value for money, quality services, and making a difference to Boston.

“The four councillors found that from speaking to the Boston public many residents said they are now getting fed up and tired of the main political parties’ lacklustre councillors, who have no ambition, are stale, lack direction and leadership, and put their party before the local people.”

According to Councillor Dani – who somewhat contradictorily “leads” the “independents” – “We embrace all communities and faiths within our group. We are here to serve the public of Boston, and we will challenge other councillors, officers, and some of the decisions taken by the cabinet – which is a closed shop – on behalf of all the residents in Boston if it is not in their best interests.”

“It’s now time for change, transparency and openness – and put Boston back on the map, ensure local communities are confident about their future, and work with local people, groups and partnerships to promote a more positive, vibrant and flourishing Boston.”

***

So what are these 20 points?

We’ll not overload you with the full list – as many of them are goals that have already been set – in some cases years ago.

A couple of others are really things over which a political splinter group can have little influence.

But five that caught our eye included banning buses from the town centre due to toxic diesel fumes; continually to push for a road scheme around Boston leading to a bypass, and/or a new bridge over the River Witham to cut congestion; taking back control of the Market Place from Lincolnshire County Council; reducing the powers of the Boston Town Area Committee; and to create a Boston Citizen’s Forum to work with councillors and officers to involve them with consultation, ideas, feedback and improvements to shape the future of their borough, and acting as Boston Ambassadors.

We wish the group well in their efforts – and if we could add a 21^st point to their plan, it would be to break new ground by doing away with the unnecessary use of capital letters!

***

One thing is certain – the role of the Mayor will never be quite the same again … despite the shenanigans of the past few weeks

A meeting of the Worst Street Cabinet of Curiosities has to approved a series of long-overdue economies aimed at bring the role of first citizen into something approaching the 21^st century.

These included the arduous demand that the Mayor should drive the civic personage her/himself rather than be chauffeured; a 30% reduction in allowances from £6,000 a year to £4,000 – and a limit on travel to remain within Lincolnshire except in special cases.

In 2015/16, the Mayor attended 187 events and in 2016/17 the Mayor attended 192 events – which is around the same number when we published a Freedom of Information request almost five years ago.

Of those, around 60 involved scratching the backs of fellow mayors … and included such exotic items as a trip to Lincoln for the mayor’s “Whisky Tour”

Nor were the jollies confined to the county – the year saw civic visits as far afield as Kings Lynn, Peterborough, Wisbech, Fenland District Council in March, Cambs, plus Melton Mowbray, Downham Market and Newark.

Now – and not before time – it seems that this is to be reined in.

The only disappointment is that councillors have fought so long and so hard to keep their perks and put their own importance ahead the importance of the voters.

One benefit will be that the Mayor of the day will have more time to attend local events – which we are sure will do much to improve the public view of the role within the borough … enhancing civic pride and perhaps even the image of Worst Street Central along the way.

We can only hope.

***

Yet again the changes to the Mayoral role open the door for a suggestion we made at the end of last year, when we commented: “It’s been said that the hoi polloi don’t have much understanding of the role of the first citizen; so why doesn’t Worst Street take a leaf from other authorities’ books – and publish a list of mayoral engagements on its website, which  would have the benefit  replacing an irrelevant story in its so-called newsletter with something that is actually germane to Boston Borough Council.

“Then taxpayers could see for themselves what the mayor does and perhaps gain a better appreciation of the role.”

***

One rather sad aspect of the report concerned the annual Service to the Community Awards, which have been presented since 1980.

“In recent years the number of nominations has reduced year on year and in 2017 only one was received,” we were told.

“The cost of making the award was approximately £700 including scroll and reception.

“Noting the lack of nominations it is unclear what value these awards have within the community.”

Know the workings of the Worst Street “mind” as we do, we imagine that the knee-jerk reaction will be to save a few more quid and do away with the awards.

But it would be shameful beyond belief to confess that a borough the size of Boston can find  no one to honour who goes that extra mile to help the people where they live.

Someone needs to grasp this concept by the scruff of the neck and give it a good dusting off to some up with worthy nominees – but not the usual ranks of the great and the good.

It’s not difficult – a round robin letter to the borough’s 18 parish councils would be a good starter for ten.

And assuming that the councillors representing BTAC-ky are in touch with their ward roots, they ought to be able to furnish some more.

Our aim should be to be spoiled for choice – not contemplating defeat because of the usual Worst Street indifference.

***

Early last week MP Matt Warman popped up on Facebook with a 43 second, 127-word progress report on what’s being done to solve Boston’s traffic problems.

He tottered all the way down from his first floor office on John Adams Way to pose  at the roadside  in an underexposed piece of footage to tell us: “Traffic in Boston has been an issue for a number of years and it’s an issue that I have raised in parliament on a number of occasions – but late last year Transport Secretary Chris Grayling used Boston as an example of how the government’s bypass funds could help.

“So this morning I had a meeting with Councillor Martin Hill, the leader of the county council, Councillor Mike Cooper, the leader of the borough council, and Councillor Colin Davie from the county council as well.

“It’s the latest step in moves to strive to put serious proposals to government on how Boston can finally alleviate these long running traffic problems and it’s something that I will be keeping up the pressure on in parliament and locally as well.”

It’s not what you’d call earth-shattering – and we can’t honestly visualise what, if anything might have been achieved by such a meeting.

And as far as it being “an issue that I have raised in parliament on a number of occasions,” the records of the political website They work for you indicate that of the 296 questions posed in parliament since he was elected, Mr Warman has raised just two about a bypass/distributor road for Boston – in June 2015 and October last year.

That’s almost as many questions as he has asked about same-sex marriage in Bermuda … an issue he addressed earlier this month.

***

Shock headline: No surprises in Old Leake and Wrangle by-election.

In the way that some people collect car numbers or go train spotting, local farmer Tom Ashton held the seat for the Tories last Thursday – to acquire his fifth Lincolnshire council seat.

The turnout was poor – at 722, it as less than a quarter of the 2,950 who voted in 2015.

The result was: Tom Ashton (Cons) - 536

Joseph Pearson (Lab) - 123

Don Ransome (UKIP)  - 50

Richard Thornalley (Blue Revolution) - 13

As well as representing OLaW on Boston Borough Council, farmer Ashton is also a Lincolnshire county councillor for Tattershall Castle,  an East Lindsey district councillor for Sibsey and Stickney, and a parish councillor for  both Wrangle and Old Leake.

***

The pathetic turnout will doubtless be blamed on a number of things – but we feel that high on the list should be the fact that neither Boston Borough Council website reminded voters of the event on the day – and nor did either of our so-called local “newspapers.”

Perhaps the Tory leadership at Worst Street felt it would give their candidate a better chance if no-one knew that a by-election was taking place – but what excuse our local bastions of democracy might come up with is anyone’s guess.

Poor forward diarying, laziness or sheer incompetence?

Take your pick.

***

The Worst Street line-up in the chamber now looks like this…

Conservatives - 16

UKIP - 6      

Independents - 4

Bostonian Independents’  Group - 4

***

We always welcome letters from readers, and were very pleased to receive the following via e-mail.

“The wonderful warm reception I received at the Danny Flear Centre farmers’ dinner on Friday night was absolutely fantastic.

“I think such an outpouring of support proves, yet again, that our farming community also shares the same opinion as most sections of Boston's society regarding our precious right to free speech!

“I will not claim that every single person in attendance agreed with my recent controversial opinion – that would not be fair – but the warmth of the response by the vast majority of those in attendance clearly indicated that they agreed with my right to say what I thought ...

“And guess who actually led the charge.... yes! None other than Matt Warman, MP.

“Well done him ... he is clearly not as precious about such things as our wonderful Boston borough councillors. 

“Hip! Hip! Hooray!

“Matt, you get my vote on this one!

“This, incidentally, is the private opinion of a resident of Boston, 'Brian Rush' speaking as a private individual.

“Thank you.”

***

Finally …

Is it the case that even Worst Street felt shamefaced about the assault on the Mayor and the ignominy it brought upon the council?

The picture below is a screenshot from WorstWeb – the borough’s somewhat grimy internet window on the world.

Was it an inadvertent juxtaposition … or an admission byWorst Street that even it had exceeded its normal low standards?

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com   

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 Boston Borough councillors were so distressed at being called dummies why on earth did they spend so much time and taxpayers’ money proving they were exactly that at last week’s special meeting demanding the resignation of Mayor Brian Rush?

Councillor Rush was ordered to quit after being accused of posting offensive and political comments on his Facebook page.

The motion calling for him to go added that he had caused “significant personal distress to those named” and demeaned the great office that is The Worshipful the Mayor of Boston.

As is customary in kangaroo courts such as this, the Mayor was not in the chamber to hear the charges against him – having to leave the meeting that he would normally chair because of what Worst Street termed “a disclosable pecuniary interest.”

Reports of the meeting that followed can be found all over the place – in our local newspapers as well as local radio and television – so we won’t go through it all again.

***

Some wishy-washy allegations – several made when Councillor Rush was not even the Mayor and another ineptly deemed as possibly racist – set the crocodile tears flowing as the trial progressed.

Aggrieved councillors spoke of their hurt.

We never knew that some of them were such sensitive wallflowers.

And whilst the meeting was ostensibly public, attendees must have been baffled by the proceedings – especially as although little by way of evidence materialised to support the charges against Councillor Rush, the councillors had been presented with a sheaf of allegations for their eyes only.

***

One of the few voices of sanity was that of Councillor Barrie Pierpoint – who as deputy Mayor chaired the meeting in Councillor Rush’s enforced absence – but who stressed that he spoke as a councillor only.

The motion was proposed by the council leader, Michael Cooper, seconded by Conservative Councillor David Brown  with the required number  made up of Councillor Alison Austin, a so-called Independent, UKIP Councillor Sue Ransome, the Vice-Chairman of BTAC, and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee, and deputy leader Councillor Aaron Spencer, who is also portfolio older for finance.

Councillor Pierpoint said that there was no supporting documentation in relation to the motion – and asked why this information wasn’t attached.

He said he had spoken to some councillors when the notice came out and most had no real idea what the reasoning was behind the motion.

“Firstly, I was told it was to do with Mr Rush criticising some Lincolnshire county councillors in Boston.

“It looks as though another item was added as an afterthought, to do with supposed racist comments.

“This is all very vague, hearsay and mixed messages.

“To me, this has been handled most unprofessionally and I would like to have seen the motion explained in detail.”

***

He asked why Councillor Rush wasn’t invited to a meeting with his accusers – adding: “These five clearly lack the guts to tackle Mr Rush directly on these issues, and I am fearful they may have had some other hidden agenda.”

He said that a Facebook article where Councillor Rush was very critical of county councillors being inactive on behalf of Boston borough appeared beneath his own name and not as a councillor, nor the Mayor, and added: “It looks as if the so-called racist item was added to the motion as an afterthought, considering the article was published in 2016, and Mr Rush re-sent it with his own views in the same year.

“Why has it taken two years for this to be brought up now?

“Mr Rush was not the mayor at that time, and as far as I am aware nor did the item mention he was a councillor.”

***

His conclusion was damning.

“As for wasting taxpayer’s money, wasting officers’ time, wasting councillors’ time, wasting police time… and tarnishing the borough council and the role of Mayor, the actions of these five councillors have demeaned the role of Mayor, Boston borough council and its councillors.

Councillor Pierpoint added:  “In my opinion this is not a motion, this is a direct personal attack on Mr Rush.”

And at this point he said that he felt bound to do the “honourable” thing and resign immediately from the independent group and asked all councillors to consider their position, and examine their conscience carefully.

***

Why then, did it come as no surprise that 21 councillors voted for the motion, only two voted against and one abstained?

Because that’s the way the council works in Worst Street – forget democracy, forget wanting to see the background before you vote.

Just do as you’re told.

***

From the moment the meeting was called, Councillor Rush insisted that he had done nothing wrong, and that whilst the meeting could demand his resignation he was under no obligation to submit it.

But it was thanks to the wiliness of Councillor Richard ‘Dick Dastardly’ Austin that a mechanism was created to ensure Councillor Rush would still get a rough ride.

Austin proposed an addition to the motion, seconded by Aaron Spencer (what a loyal and trusty deputy that man is) to withdraw administrative support if the meeting agreed the Mayor should resign and he refused – which would leave him without  a wealth of essential help and make the job all but impossible.

Presumably, though the people who work for the Mayor will be put on  unpaid sabbatical if the idea comes to fruition and their services aren’t needed for a couple of months.

***

So what about Councillor Pierpoint’s suggestion that there were personal undertones to the move to unseat the Mayor?

We know that Councillor Rush has not been popular with many of his peers in the council chamber, and has also been something of a political chameleon – nor do we believe is he particularly liked by some officers.

***

You need a very long memory to recall the bad old days of the Boston Bypass Independents – but it is exactly ten years ago that our local “newspapers” reported on a night when ‘unseemly behaviour and personal insults’ filled the council chamber.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Councillor Rush was one of two BBI members to quit the party at that meeting sometime after being sacked from the cabinet after speaking out against the leadership.

The leader then was of course none other than ... Councillor Richard ‘Papa Dick’ Austin,

The number of defectors swelled to five during that year – and after that life for the BBI was a slippery downhill slope ending as an ignominious footnote in political history books.

Is it mere co-incidence that two of the most prominent councillors involved in Councillor Rush’s fall from grace are Alison and Richard Austin – and we can also think of another couple within the group who called on him to quit who would be pleased to see the Mayor bright to heel.

Certainly, Councillor Pierpoint has a peer point!

***

The man who proposed the original motion – council leader Michael Cooper – showed that he has a lot to learn when it comes to dealing with the media.

In an impressively inept radio interview with the BBC he abruptly concluded matters by demanding that the reporter left the room.

Her “crime” was to point out that there were people in Boston who are sleeping rough, and to ask why councillors weren’t as concerned about them as they were about entries on Facebook.

MC: I’m not answering that question because that’s not what we’re here to do.

BBC: I think it’s an honest question in the interests of the public. Do you want to go on record as saying you’re refusing to answer?

MC: No (asks reporter to leave sotto voce.)

BBC: Aren’t you playing into the public perception that this is incredibly petty?

MC: You can leave …

***

As a one-time radio journalist, I can say that there is nothing nicer than a jumped-up, arrogant, overweening individual who thinks he sits Dextera Domini and treats hacks as lowlife.

When a newspaper reporter is given no comment and asked to leave, the result is an unemotional paragraph.

But when that same interviewee does a Cooper on tape or film we get an entirely different picture – and in this case it wasn’t a flattering one.

Cooper failed to realise that when you talk to a newspaper reporter, or a radio and television journalist, you are talking directly to the man/woman in the street – who in an instant can form a view of the sort of person you are.

And we weren't surprised at what most people who heard the BBC interview told us.

Time for some media training Mr Cooper.

***

An interesting take on last Monday’s meeting came from former Conservative Councillor Mike Gilbert – now the man behind the new Blue Revolution political party.

He described last week’s meeting as “a sad example of the power of party politics. 

“It allowed a range of party grandees to round in his absence on Councillor Brian Rush whose attitude towards his fellow councillors was considered too 21^st century for his essentially 16^th century council role as Mayor.

“As a ratepayer, I felt like I had financed what at times seemed like a “Kangaroo Court" rather than a council meeting.

“The evidence on the ‘indictment’ was non-existent with various comments relating to feelings of upset, the embarrassment of councillors or the making of inappropriate remarks on social media.

“At no point did councillors make a link with specific wrongdoing being committed whilst undertaking the duties of Mayor. 

“I am afraid in the 21^st century with the widespread use of social media Mayoral duties have come to the end of their day.

“The Mayor should be judged only on his impartiality when robed or on ceremonial duty, the rest of the time should be considered his.

“Perhaps 16^th century expectations are the problem in the 21^st century.

“Finally, as a councillor in 2007, I remember the Conservative group objecting to a constitutional change that required the Mayor to be selected by council vote and not "Buggins turn" as was the tradition.

“The Boston Bypass Independents eventually introduced this change, only for the Conservative group to adopt "Buggins turn" again when they returned to power in 2011.

“The Austins were passionate advocates of the BBI approach and cited "the wrong kind of chap" getting to be Mayor under the traditional and Conservative approach.

“Rather than a retrospective attempt to unseat the Mayor or rather get the Mayor to unseat himself, a better debate would have been for the Austins to once again challenge the system of Mayoral selection.

“That would have required some serious, considered and thoughtful debate – and not the collective 'stick the boot in' of Monday 12^th  February 2018.”

***

And still keeping in touch from 375 miles away is former Boston Borough Councillor Carol Taylor, who said: “Please allow me to convey my best wishes to the worshipful the mayor councillor Brian Rush. I sincerely hope that he will show the good people of Boston just how vindictive, spiteful and nasty some councillors can be. (I was on the receiving end of this behaviour many times!)

“Councillor Alison Austin has always had a personal dislike of Brian Rush so her opinion is purely subjective.

“As for Aaron Spencer, what a great shame that this young councillor has been taken in by these old school councillors.

“When Councillor Spencer was elected back in 2011 as one of the youngest councillors in the country, Councillor Bedford recognised qualities in him that many of us didn't see and offered him tremendous opportunities to develop his political career. I always thought that Aaron would have been a future candidate for MP for Boston and Skegness.

“I am not so sure now.”

***

Just a reminder that polling day for the Old Leake and Wrangle by-election is on Thursday.

The seat has become vacant through the departure of Conservative Maureen Dennis who shared electoral honours in 2015 with UKIP-cum-Unaligned-cum-Independent-cum-Unaligned Councillor Barrie Pierpoint. Four candidates fought the seat on that occasion – with the other two being Tory and UKIP.

This time around there are four candidates yet again – but from four different parties.

Local farmer Tom Ashton – who already sits on three other councils – is standing for the Conservatives; Joseph Pearson, also from Wrangle, represents Labour; Don Ransome of Boston is standing for UKIP and Richard Thornalley – also of Boston – represents the Blue Revolution Party.

  

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com   

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

The term “snowflake generation” is now recognised by Collins Dictionary as meaning “young adults viewed as being less resilient and more prone to taking offence than previous generations.”

But it seems that the term may not necessarily apply exclusively to the young.

We’re referring to the gang of five Worst Street councillors who are demanding the resignation of Mayor Brian Rush at an extraordinary council meeting tonight.

Their proposal declares:

This Council is deeply concerned with the actions of the Mayor in posting offensive and political comments on his Facebook page.

The Council believes the Mayor should reflect carefully on the words he has used.  He has caused significant personal distress to those named and demeaned the great office that is The Worshipful the Mayor of Boston.

The Mayor, who is the 483rd person to hold this position of historic office, has sullied the role of First Citizen and champion of the Borough with petty, political point scoring that is factually incorrect.

This Council calls for the Mayor’s resignation with immediate effect.

***

The photo at the top of the page was of a Facebook entry purportedly posted by Councillor Rush which appeared in a BBC Look North news item about the call for the Mayor to resign.

Does it appear to be offensive, distressing, petty or demeaning to the office of Mayor?

We don’t think so.

It appears to be reasonable comment on a matter of public interest – and although the Mayor is assumed to remain apolitical during his term in office, this is not written in stone.

***

After Boston Eye broke the story in last week’s blog, a Boston sub-Standard follow-up reported: “it is understood that in one of the comments he said he had no problem with the Muslim people of Britain, however called on ‘new entrants’ to undertake an oath of allegiance to Britain, its values and its population, adding that those who didn’t comply should be extradited. In another, he is understood to have criticised several councillors at borough and county level and the town’s MP.”

Also, according to the report, it is understood that Lincolnshire Police were made aware of the comments.

So what’s all the fuss about?

Well, that’s the question we asked after looking at accounts of a government-commissioned review of community cohesion and extremism by Dame Louise Casey – the findings of which were published in October 2016.

Key among the recommendations was that migrants should swear an oath of allegiance as soon as they arrive in the UK, along with the warning that that Muslims increasingly did not identify themselves as being British.

***

Whilst her report was deemed controversial, we don’t recall anyone going to the police about it or demanding her resignation.

You can read the reports yourself this one from the Daily Mail which also makes mention of Boston, and this from the Daily Telegraph 

***

So what about Councillor Rush’s other grave offence – criticising councillors at borough and county level and the town’s MP – which in some cases we understand were made before he became Mayor.

Many years ago, Worst Street’s former leader Peter Bedford told us: “Councillors do have to develop thick skins to deal with the slings and arrows of public criticism – that goes with the territory …

“ … No one entering public office expects an easy ride. Often it can be a thankless task, but one we voluntarily and willingly accept.

“And we all expect there to be criticism of what we do. In fact, we welcome constructive criticism and suggestions and ideas from any source. None of us pretends that we have all the answers.”

It seems that this is no longer the case – and that criticism now causes “significant” personal distress, which sends our Snowflake councillors bursting into floods of tears.

***

As for our MP – we hope that he was as surprised as we were to find the Feeble Five lining up in his corner to fight his battles for him.

He’s always struck us as the sort of bloke who can stand up for himself without the need of help from the bunch of ninnies behind this grubby plot to oust the Mayor.

Interestingly, one of these five once caused us grave offence with an unpleasant and totally untrue accusation – made privately, of course.

Did we do anything other than take it in our stride?

Of course not.

***

That leaves the issue of going to the police.

According to the newspaper account, a spokesman said: “We were made aware of a Facebook post which we were told caused concern to some individuals in the community.

“An investigation into this was initiated and found that no hate crime or any other criminal offence was committed.

“We have referred the incident back to the associated organisation as there will be no further police involvement.”

Yet still the Fatuous Five have persisted.

The only good news about this is that even if the vote is carried, Councillor Rush is entitled to ignore and carry on Mayoring until the end of his term – and he has already declared that this is what he will do.

***

At this point the planned extraordinary meeting says more about the five signatories than their complaint.

Council leader Michael Cooper proposed it, seconded by Tory Councillor David Brown with also-rans “Independent” Alison Austin, Sue Ransome from UKIP, and deputy leader Aaron Spencer.

Despite the flamboyant language of the motion, no details of the complaints have been produced – so unless the council delivers its usual rubber stamp tonight we would expect details to emerge at the meeting.

We do not think that either the leader or his deputy should have signed the motion. Their “rank” alone should have made them stay aloof and above this sort of thing.

However, all of them show a lack of political and diplomatic skills in that they shoot from the lip and air the council’s dirty linen in public instead of behaving like grown-ups and seeking negotiation rather than confrontation.

***

The BBC Look North report that we mentioned earlier raised one seriously important issue.

Whilst Councillor Rush stepped up to the plate to explain himself, NOT ONE of his five accusers was willing to specify the charges against him.

Will they remain silent at tonight’s meeting?

Have their allegations been circulated privately in the hope that they will be rubber stamped by the meeting without discussion?

We worry that the meeting might begin with a call for the Mayor to step aside as chairman for the night – but there is no reason why he should …

We also wonder whether the spineless critics who dare not show themselves will call for the meeting to be held with members of the public and press excluded under the

Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 which permits a meeting to be held in closed session “when publicity would be prejudicial to the public interest by reason of the confidential nature of the business to be transacted or for other special reasons stated in the resolution and arising from the nature of that business or of the proceedings.”

At this point, nothing would surprise us.

  

***

The numbers are in so now we can see what the powers that be want to tap us up for the coming year’s council tax.

Lincolnshire County Council wants 4.95% – made up of 2.95% general council tax, and a further 2.00% for authorities with adult social care responsibilities.

Boston Borough Council wants 2.98% and Lincolnshire Police have proposed a 5.8% increase.

Cumulatively everyone is keen to point out that these price hikes represent just a few pounds a year more.

But as always, the question has to be asked about how the money is being spent.

For example, the police budget of £118 million is reported to include nearly £1m for “victims’ services” – but is this an area that should be funded by the police or ought it to be met from some sort social funding budget? 

We are also told that the money from the increase will enable the force to retain its complement of 1,100 officers and up to 120 PCSOs – who as ever all remain conspicuous by their absence.

***

As far as Worst Street is concerned, we continue to be baffled by claims that whilst swingeing cuts of millions of pounds to budgets and services have been made, there has been scarcely any impact on staffing.

It should be axiomatic that if you cut services – or hand them over to volunteers, or private contractors – then fewer people would be needed on the Base Camp Worst Street payroll.

Not so.

In 2015, the council budget assumed that by 2018/19 the number of full-time equivalent staff would be 250.

It now stands at 263.

That’s an increase of thirteen after cuts galore have been made; promises about services have been broken and tasks such as environmental enforcement have been contracted  to third party organisations.

In 2013-2014, staffing levels were running at 99% – a figure that has stayed the same and is predicted to remain so for another TEN years.

What has changed are the amounts of money that top officers are being paid.

In recent years, we have seen several big money jobs coming in – for managers who are taking quite some time to show their worth.

Meanwhile, it seems that a lot of people are carrying on regardless – earning the same as before when there is nothing for them to do.

And interestingly, it is very difficult to discover the total cost of the Worst Street wages bill amidst the midden of paperwork issued by the council.

***

A blog or two ago, we observed that Worst Street would be well employed to report on some of the decisions taken by committees, rather than padding its website with irrelevant stuff that’s nothing to do with the council.

Oddly enough, this came to pass last week – but only by way of the council policy of treating its taxpayers as gullible idiots.

Beneath the headline Boston 'special rate': Less than 19p a day, we were told that

Boston Town Area Committee ward residents “may have to pay less than 19p a day” as their "parish" portion of their overall council tax bill for 2018/19 to fund the £648,327 needed to help pay for public toilets, Central Park, footway lights and open spaces.

Presumably this was deemed good news and a small price to pay.

BTAC-ky made a recommendation to increase its precept in line with inflation – three per cent, a £71.98 annual charge for a band D property.

Better still,  said Worst Street, “the majority of properties in the area are rated less than band D, so will pay less than this.”

Such good news must be greeted with delight – surely

But just look back a few years to 2015-16 – before BTAC-ky re-wrote its constitution to take on costs previously met by the council centrally – an exercise that let our leaders off the hook and enabled them to look good in financial terms, whilst shovelling expenses on to what was once a penny-ante do-nothing committee.

In those good old days, BTAC-ky rubbed by with a budget of £114,000, and a band D taxpayer paid just £12.72.

Next year’s charge is a mere 565 per-cent increase compared with two or three years ago.

***

By a quirky co-incidence this brings us to our Cheek of the Week award – which goes to Worst Street Councillor Stephen Woodliffe.

Mr Woodliffe is a member of the Lincolnshire Police and Crime Panel, which met last week to approve the previously mentioned council tax rise for our people in blue.

According to reports of the meeting, up popped Mr W to ask how our Police and Crime Commissioner expected “hard-pressed residents” to fund such a significant increase.

Spool back to July 2016 when BTAC-ky – of which Mr Woodliffe is a member – was ramping up its precept like there was no tomorrow.

We wrote to all members of BTAC to protest their breach of constitution and also the high charges being imposed on a poor area.

Back came the response: “I also take issue with your assertion that the extra precept charges will be imposed upon residents of the poorest wards in the town.  The precept depends upon the valuation of the property and not upon its location. Thus, the greatest charge falls on those living in the highest rated band H properties, who pay much more than that of a band A property ...

“Looking to the future, as a BTAC resident, it is my view that a charge of one pound a week on a band D property (£50 a year – ed) , and much less for a band A property, for BTAC would be a very reasonable charge to make to ensure that Boston remains an attractive pleasant place to live; and I hope that the public see the sense of such a proposal.”

It’s good to see that Councillor Woodliffe now seems to be developing a conscience – albeit a bit late in the say.

***

Better late than never, the Labour and  UKIP candidates for the  borough council by-election for the Old Leake and Wrangle Ward on 22^nd February, have sent in pen portraits of themselves.

Labour’s Joseph Pearson says: “I attended Giles School until after my GCSEs in 2003.

“I have lived in both Old Leake and Wrangle for over half of my life and am proud to call Wrangle my home, this is where I grew up. I have worked in the NHS at Pilgrim Hospital for ten years, most as a portering supervisor.

“I know of the shortage of housing in the area, the state of the roads, and the ever reducing public services and want to work to make a difference.

“In the past I have volunteered at the Citizens Advice Bureau in Boston and assisted people with issues that matter to them.

“Perhaps the most important thing I learnt whilst volunteering is that what one person considers insignificant may be of the most importance to another.

“From my experience I know life can be challenging and that some need support in overcoming those challenges, that the schools and councils need to be held to account to support those who need it if they are to better themselves.”

UKIP candidate Don Ransome says: “I joined UKIP back in 1999 and a vote for me is a vote for UKIP.

 “I promise to stay a UKIP councillor.

“I have lived here for over 25 years, am ex-forces, self-employed and married with four children. 

“Vote UKIP If you want a Pro-Brexit Pro-Active Pro-Community Councillor instead of Tory voting fodder.”

We’re still awaiting a reply from the Conservative candidate – who is seeking a fourth councillor role – but now that a fortnight has passed since we asked  we will not be holding our breath.

***

Finally – some comments from opponents of the football stadium development which is part of the Quadrant project at Wyberton.

An e-mail says: “No doubt you have now heard the news that the project known as the Quadrant has been awarded another dollop of taxpayers’ money to help Chestnut Homes Managing Director David Newton with his stadium to the tune of £3.5m. 

“Even in Mr Newton’s words, he says that it will be built but perhaps not in the original format.

“If this does not go back to Boston Borough Council as a completely new application there may be a wave of condemnation from the residents of Wyberton.  The money should be spent on infrastructure and community assets, not on just a few football supporters. 

“After all there were only 77 people who voted for the stadium plans back in 2014 when we held a referendum in Wyberton.

“Some have had their properties put on hold for long enough, whether to sell or not.

 “Mr Newton says he will build a stadium for less money – that means he should have to submit a new planning application to amend changes.”

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com   

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