Monday 30 April 2018

Is it a freeze?
No – it’s a flood
of hidden cash for councillors

Worst Street leader Michael Cooper is being recommended for a bumper pay rise – from £8,070 a year to £13,200.
That’s a 63.5 per-cent increase.
The recommendation comes from the council’s shadowy Independent Remuneration Panel and is on the agenda for tonight’s full council meeting – where it will doubtless be rubber-stamped.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg ... 


Whilst in the past, rank and file councillors have enjoyed generous pay rises as well, this time around they apparently get a pay freeze at their current level of £4,400 a year.
But all is not necessarily what it seems.
Whilst Worst Street’s pay is the lowest in Lincolnshire, having taken into account the average basic allowance across the county’s seven councils, the panel considered that the variance “was within an acceptable tolerance.”
Instead, it decided to concentrate most of the review on special responsibility allowances – which have not been increased since 2012 – “to seek to ensure that those who held such positions were fairly compensated for their time, commitment and responsibilities.”
***

The upshot of this means that although bog standard councillors get a pay freeze, many are still cashing in, as the definition of special responsibility has been stretched to include such things as … attending  a committee meeting ...
For instance, the eleven members of the Planning Committee – excluding the Chairman and Vice-Chairman – will get an extra £600 a year.
The eleven licensing hearing panel members will pick up a new allowance of £50 a hearing and with 6-8 meetings a year dealing with at least one hearing at each may look forward to a nice bonus of a few hundred quid.
The Mayor – whose office is seeing a number of economies – ought to be more than pleased with an increase in allowances from £1,344 to £3,300 –around 150%
Opposition group leaders will get a new allowance of £100 a member – excluding the leader of the group.
After setting the leader’s allowance – will be three times the basic allowance – the panel felt the deputy leader’s allowance should be set at 50% of that – from £4,706 to £6,600 … but that there should only be one deputy leader’s allowance paid.
“If the leader felt it necessary to appoint more than one deputy then they should decide whether to split the SRA between those deputies appointed or to nominate one to receive the whole sum of £6,600 with others only receiving the cabinet members’ allowance,” says the report.
“Only” in in this case is an interesting use of word, as that allowance increases from £3,361 to £5,500 – a hike of 33%.
The proposed allowance will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, and  if approved will be linked to staff pay awards for four years, and be reviewed in a year.
With no apparent sense of irony, the report concludes: “Members are reminded that they do have the option of personally rescinding any increase in allowance, or any allowance in full, if they wish.”
Cue FX: Wings flapping,  pigs oinking.
And equally ironic was the decision not to consider at the outset penalising councillors who failed regularly to attend meetings some just meet the minimum requirement to cling on to office – preferring to reward those who are simply doing the job they got elected for, and calling it a special responsibility.

***

Judging from the behaviour of some of them, it  might surprise you to learn that our Worst Street “servants” are bound by a councillor code of conduct intended “to promote and maintain high standards of behaviour by its members and co-opted members whenever they are acting in their capacity as a member of the authority.”
But that’s on tonight’s agenda as well.
The code is intended to reflect what is known as the Seven Principles of Public Life – defined as selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.
Yes, really.
Titter ye not.
The code has just been revised – and ironically given recent events – has seen an expansion of the requirements for members to treat others with respect, equality and diversity.
Without comment, we reproduce some of the guidelines from the code which may or may nor strike a chord with readers.

***

  • Members must not place themselves in situations where their honesty and integrity may be questioned, must not behave improperly and must on all occasions avoid the appearance of such behaviour.

  • Members must not behave towards others in a way which is violent, threatening, malicious or bullying.

  • Members must exhibit (leadership) principles in their own behaviour. They must actively promote and robustly support the principles of leadership, be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs and act in a way that secures or preserves public confidence.

  • Members may take account of the views of others, including their political groups, but must reach their own conclusions on the issues before them and act in accordance with those conclusions.

  • A Member must not act in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing their office or the council into disrepute. This may include; reducing the public’s confidence in that Member being able to fulfil the role of elected representative.

***

Broadly speaking, we have two types of councillor – those who do and those who don’t … the latter of which comprise the bulk of the chamber.
Although these guidelines from the code are just the tip of the iceberg, they cover such important things as failure to attend meetings on a regular basis, and censure those members who raise their hands and rubber stamp the orders of their political masters – even if at heart, they disagree with what they are being asked to do.

***

Another section – and a fairly lengthy one at that – deals with councillors and social media.
Presumably this is to tick all the boxes, otherwise there would be no point in its inclusion given the Luddite stance of almost all Boston councillors towards what has become a vital outlet to share and debate information and opinion – even the code declares that “it is recognised that social media can provide many opportunities for members to engage with the public.”
It’s impossible to produce a reliable figure – but a rule of thumb calculation done for a Local Government Association discussion about councillors and the use of Twitter six years ago calculated that 16% of councillors had a social media account to put them more in touch with their ward members.

***

That figure is probably now much higher – but even at the old rate would see five Boston borough councillors using Twitter to communicate with their voters.
In reality, we can find just one – Boston’s solitary Labour Councillor Paul Gleeson – although his messages by and large have nothing to do with local issues.
Worse still, the latest news on his local party website is the local candidate’s address for the June 2017 general election.

  
Is it really the case that nothing important worth sharing for discussion or debate in Boston has happened since then?
Apparently so.
And what is Paul Kenny up to these days, having stood as prospective parliamentary candidate at the last three general elections?
If in these delicate political times a general election came at us out of the sun, what are his views apropos Boston?
Not that long ago our local “newspapers” carried letters almost weekly which began “Boston’s Labour councillors say …”
Of course, in those days there were a trio not a solo – but voters are still being sidestepped in terms of communication. 

***

We mentioned last week the call by Worst Street for “expressions of interest” from community groups and individuals to work with it on the Christmas event for 2018.
“The power of willing volunteers was ably demonstrated by last year's festive events, culminating in the Christmas lights switch-on” says an entry on WorstWeb.
“You may not want to run a project, but may be willing to offer your skills and time to help out with plans for Christmas in Boston 2018.
“Or you may be a business wanting to light up your street. Your input could form part of a bigger plan.”
This seems to be a sensible idea – as something that became clear last year was the scale of the task versus the number of people seeking to carry it out, when a relatively small number of people found themselves carrying a lot of weight.

***

What is clear to almost everyone is that the council is now looking forward and trying to make a big job more manageable, as well as encouraging more people to get involved with events this Christmas.
Instead of one big project, it  has defined six smaller areas to be decorated and lit    the Market Place and Christmas Tree, Strait Bargate, Wide Bargate,  Bargate End Car Parks, the War Memorial, West Street, the traffic roundabouts – at Boardsides, Tesco’s, Chain bridge, ATS and Spirit of Endeavour, and Wormgate/Pen Street.

***

This is a follow-on to recommendations to the cabinet of curiosities on 4th April which specifically says: “The Cabinet is not seeking to have a town wide solution from a single group.”


***

The only people who seem to have a problem with this is a group involved in last year’s project –  principally the electricians involved – who now call themselves Christmas in Boston 2018.
The have published an “open letter” to Boston Borough Council signed by “chairman” Andrew Lovelace, who says that the  group feels “extremely disappointed  and humiliated” by was has happened.
The letter calls for the council to discard recommendations made on 4th April “and allow us to complete the project again this year” and goes on “Following our success, why should we have to apply again, to do what we did last year? We already have the working document from last year.  This can be amended quite easily for 2018. We hold over fifteen thousand pounds worth of lights to put up this year.  Why are you intending to give this to someone else to light up the town and buy more lights when we have them already? 
“This does not make sense. 
“This also runs the risk of being seen by the public as a misuse of funding and undermines their confidence in the council.”
The group tells councillors that it proposes to be the main hub for all communication with the council and sets out a number of “terms and conditions.”
These include: “The council have ten thousand pounds set aside for Christmas events for 2018/2019 and 2019 /2020, from the migration funding.
“The full ten thousand pounds is paid directly to Christmas in Boston account as soon as possible, to enable us to plan our volunteer work for Christmas 2018.
“Most of this money (80%) will be spent on lights for Boston, with a 10% set aside for any structural reports or pull testing required, with 10% set aside for the main Christmas tree or community Christmas tree which will be sourced locally supporting local businesses.
“We as a community group are representing all the communities of Boston. We are in the best position to decide as a group, where the money for the lights will be best spent on our town.  Together with BMiC (Boston more in common) we are working with all communities as we are inclusive of everyone.”
The “letter” concludes: “We are prepared to work with the council to make our town a better place, lifting the morale for everyone, but we will not be exploited and cast aside. 
“We feel sure that the council have more important things to focus on.  By stepping aside and allowing our group to take over the lights, you will be able to concentrate on other things for the good of our town. 
“In addition, we are a fully sustainable community group.  We consist of experts and professionals working together, with full support from the public and local businesses.”

***

It would take too long to list all the contradictions in a letter that we feel is far more arrogant than appeasing.
It remains to be seen whether Worst Street is prepared to back down and let the tail wag the dog over this issue.
And one matter that needs clarification is: who owns the lights.
The group says that it “holds” more than £15,000 worth of lights, and that to get someone else to take on the task of lighting the town means that they would have to buy more “when we have them already? 
Are they saying that if they don’t get the job that the lights are not available?
Our understanding was that last year’s venture was funded principally by a BTAC-ky grant of £10,000 if the groups raised a similar amount in donations and sponsorship – and that any remaining assets reverted to Boston Borough Council once the project ended.
Answers, please.
  
***

There’s no Boston Eye next week due to the May Day bank holiday. We’ll be back with  again on Monday 14th – but don’t forget we’re always available via e-mail.



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



Monday 23 April 2018

After last week’s piece about CCTV security on Boston’s Fenside estate Boston Eye can now confirm that almost all the cameras are being withdrawn – and that work started at the beginning of the month.
It follows a decision by the Mayflower Housing Association which told Worst Street in an e-mail: “After careful consideration at Corporate Management Team, a decision has been taken not to further financially support the CCTV cameras on Fenside estate from April 2018.
“This followed a review of the cost/benefits to Boston Mayflower and although we recognise the use that CCTV footage can be useful the monies saved would, in our opinion, be better utilised in other ways to maintain a settled and safe environment on the Fenside Estate.”
All but two of the ten cameras are being axed ... the survivors are cameras 18 and 46, and the £3,000 cost of removal will be sneaked into a "suitable budget."

***

As we reminded readers last week this saga goes back six years to a budget setting meeting to discuss  cutting spending on CCTV.
Former Boston Borough Council leader, Peter Bedford singled out Mayflower as a ‘big user’ of the cameras but added that they had ‘never paid a fee’ to help with the upkeep – despite the benefits of surveillance on its properties in Fenside.
A council spokesman said at the time: “As part of our on-going efficiency programme, the council is considering the future of its CCTV coverage of the Fenside estate. Fenside has the highest level of CCTV coverage of any residential area in the borough which, as a consequence of our on-going review, has prompted us to question the value for money these cameras return.”

***

It seems that the question has been a long time in the answering … as it is only now that Mayflower has decided that CCTV isn’t worth the money.
The ten cameras covering the estate have been in place since 2000 – and ironically given that cost is at the root of the decision to remove them   they were not paid for by the council but funded from a successful bid to the Home Office to extend the system.
So Worst Street didn’t spend a penny on them at the time – though in fairness, it must be added that in 2013 a major refit saw an upgrading of the control room and cameras to utilise digital wireless transmission and high definition recordings.

***

Boston Borough Council has always been boastful of its CCTV coverage – and we find it hard to see why Worst Street should single out these eight cameras and point the finger of blame at Mayflower.
Until a few days ago, the cameras were in place and working, and it surely can’t cost much for someone in the control room to glance at them from time to time.

***

The bottom line is that it’s yet another blow for one of the most deprived wards in the country – let alone in Boston.
And residents are still smarting from the recent removal of many of their street lights – with 90% of respondents to a council survey giving a negative response to the decision.
We invited Fenside councillors Anton Dani and Nigel Welton to comment.
Councillor Dani told us: “The security and well-being of our community should be put first, and under no circumstances should the decision to take the CCTV down without consulting with the interested parties have been agreed and taken place.
“I was not aware of the issue until I had a short conversation with the Boston police Inspector Andy Morrice. Also I have not been informed by Boston Borough Council although I am a Fenside councillor.
“Councillor Nigel Welton had known about it, as he is a member of the Cabinet, Town centre portfolio holder and a BTAC Chairman, but unfortunately I didn't see any interest from him in this matter.”
Councillor Welton was unable to comment for professional reasons.

***

Word reaches us of a meeting to be held on Thursday – when the subject under consideration is said to be whether to borrow £20 million at around five per-cent and re-invest it at a rate of 10%.
If this piece of recklessness is true, we hope that someone at Worst Street remembers the bad old days of 2008 when  more than 100 councils in England, Scotland and Wales had deposited £798.95m in Icelandic banks and were faced with the loss of the lot.
Boston wasn’t among them – but who can forget the loan that everyone has forgotten?
In 1991, someone at Worst Street borrowed £1 million over sixty years. We have no idea who the borrower was, or why the money was needed – but ever since then, one of the first payments from the borough’s accounts every year is £111,125 to the lender in interest.
That’s a total of £6,667,500 by the time it's all done and dusted.
Do we really want another loan fiasco like the Icelandic one?
And whether the money is invested on the stock market or in property, there are still huge risks to bear in mind.

***

Without any real sense of urgency, the campaign to snaffle £100 million from a government pot of £1 billion so that Boston can build its long-awaited by-pass/distributor road is moving about as fast as the town’s traffic on a busy day.
Last week saw a rather worrying photo of most of the council cabinet signing the Boston sub-Standard campaign.
Frankly, we would like to hear more about how Worst Street is making the running in this campaign – rather than playing second fiddle to a local “newspaper” publicity stunt that makes filling its pages even easier for a few weeks.

***

One thing which strikes us is the tepidness of all this.
Instead of a loud, forceful banging of the drum, something named Transport for Boston urges people to sign “to petition the government for a share of extra funding to reduce traffic congestion in Boston.”
Not exactly impressive, is it?
The government will announce this summer which schemes, have been selected for money from the National Roads Fund, and petition forms need to be returned to Worst Street by next Monday.
Council leader Michael Cooper is quoted as saying: “It is vital that we send the biggest, loudest message we can to Government that we deserve a share of this new money.
“We tick so many boxes – an opportunity to deal with traffic congestion, a plan for that already at an advanced stage, better transportation in an area vital to the nation's food security, a boost to economic development and job creation, more much-needed housing and a chance to address long-standing air quality issues. It's my ambition that every single resident makes their the leader’s words, the message that appears to be on the way is more on the lines of: “a nice new road would be jolly good if you can spare the money” – which doesn’t sound likely to get  much tarmac laid.

***

Meanwhile, Boston MP Matt Warman joined the fray with one of those mutual grooming questions that parliamentarians love to ask each other.


Note that Mr Warman asks the minister if he agrees that the Standard campaign
“bolsters an already compelling case for an application to be made to his bypass fund for this road in due course?”
Note, too, that the ministerial response in no way answers the question, nor offers any hint of a positive response. He doesn’t even acknowledge that Boston has problems.
Worrying too are the choices of phrase chosen by both men – Mr Warman employing the words “in due course.”
Mr Grayling responds in like mode – talking of “opportunities to build bypasses in the not-too-distant future.”
Which reminds us – we must buy some jam tomorrow.

***

Having said all that, we wonder whether it is possible that Boston is at last showing signs of moving in the right direction.
A confident-sounding report updating events since the Prosperous Boston task and finish review offers several teaspoons of jam tomorrow.
Among the goodies listed by the group – which first met almost 2½ years ago – is the potential redevelopment of the old post office on Wide Bargate by a London developer who wants to convert the first and second floors into residential accommodation with shops on the ground floor.
A couple of potential occupiers have apparently already shown interest.
This will be good news if and when it materialises – as will other discussions on planned retail development sites.

***

But hand in glove with all this is that things can go awry.
For instance, for six months Worst Street has been working with the firm that wants to convert the former Clarks shoe shop into the town's 93rd coffee shop – “to ensure that work is on schedule to be completed by 31st  March 2018.”
But this has been delayed by unforeseen works and is now in a “ready when it’s ready” situation.

***

A large section of the report favours the idea of “saying it with flowers” – with blooms springing up here, there and everywhere – and a proposal of which we wholeheartedly approve to fill the bricked up windows along Petticoat Lane with mosaic displays.

You saw it first on Boston Eye more than six years ago
The idea is one we suggested  6½ years ago – and while we think that mosaics would be ok, we still prefer the idea of historic photographs which appeared in our original proposal.

***

With less than 250 days to go Boston Borough Council is at last thinking about Christmas.
This time last year, plans for the highly successful civilian event were already trundling along smoothly – and it’s to be hoped that this year’s plans will be able to catch up.
Worst Street is looking for expressions of interest from individuals, community groups and businesses and – to drag things out still further – has set a deadline of 14th May for them to reach the town centre services department.
It sounds as if events will be far more heavily regulated this time around  as well – with cautions that people will need a minimum of £5 million pounds worth of public liability insurance, and that risk assessments and method statements will be required before any lights or displays are erected.
You can find out more by clicking here and download a copy of the form here.
And don’t be confused – Pen Street has only one ‘N’ not two!

***


A couple of issues ago we were on the receiving end of an e-mail from the ever-diplomatic Worst Street leader Michael Cooper … who challenged our interpretation of  the council tax demands on local taxpayers.
Never a man to mince his words  the leader said: “Just to put the record straight just in case you should happen to be interested in the truth.
“If you look at your council tax bill the BBB (sic) rise is not what you stated and remember that the drainage board put their rate up by 2% wiping out half of the borough increase – for every £1,000 of council tax collected BBC receives £48, the remainder being passed to other official bodies.”

***

It now appears that the leader’s interpretation may not quite have been on target – as someone who does seem to understand wrote to explain.

“The effect of internal drainage boards’ increased requirements to be collected and handed on by Boston Borough Council has, under capping regulations, to be taken into account when calculating local authority council tax total increases.
“Boston has in the past been very much involved in protest against such accounting requirements as it put them at a disadvantage compared to the local authorities who do not collect, and pass on, such IDB monies.
“The internal drainage boards seriously affecting Boston Borough Council in this respect are Black Sluice and Witham Fourth.  
“Both boards’ requirements are not far from each other in monetary terms – so 50/50.
“And both together add up to approximately half of the Boston Borough Council’s total collection of council tax/drainage rates – so 50/50 again.
“This year only Witham Fourth has had to put up their rate – by 2%. Black Sluice has stood still this year – but watch this space.
“Therefore the total internal drainage board increase requirement could be expressed as 1% of the 2.9% increase mentioned by the council leader. And again, if we do our sums, as this 1% is only applicable to the IDB, then 50% it should therefore be seen as a .5% increase of the Boston Borough Council/IDB collection.
So,  Boston Borough Council has the possibility of a 2.4% increase over the remaining 50% of collection and, to paraphrase Nigel Molesworth, any fule kno that this 2.4%, when applied to the council’s 50%, could be, and is in fact, a 4.8% increase on BBC requirements in order to take the overall rise to the declared 2.9%.”

***

Finally, some silly comments are appearing on Facebook suggesting that Boston Eye has acquired members of staff.
This is completely wrong.
Since we began publishing more than a decade ago the blog has been a one man band.
Over the years we have been lucky enough to attract a number of  excellent contributors – and more are always welcome.
All contributions are always considered – and many are used.
Check out the foot of the page to learn how to get in touch.



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



Monday 16 April 2018

Now you CCTV it
 – now you don’t!
Our piece last week about the on-going problems of drinking in Central Park and the potential risks of non-official action raised another debate – this time about closed circuit television coverage.
In particular, concerns were expressed about lack of coverage in Fenside, where a reader reported that cameras had been removed.

***

This struck a distant chord with us that went back six years to a budget setting meeting.
A report quoted the former Boston Borough Council leader, Peter Bedford, saying that the council needed to cut spending on CCTV provision.
He also urged more businesses in the town to stump up some money if they wanted the cameras to remain in place.
The report went on: “He singled out housing association Boston Mayflower as a ‘big user’ of the cameras and said that they had ‘never paid a fee’ to help with the upkeep – but still reaped the benefits of surveillance on its properties in Fenside.”
A council spokesman said at the time: “As part of our on-going efficiency programme, the council is considering the future of its CCTV coverage of the Fenside estate. Fenside has the highest level of CCTV coverage of any residential area in the borough which, as a consequence of our on-going review, has prompted us to question the value for money these cameras return.”
He added: “We are currently seeking the views of a number of key organisations including Lincolnshire Police and Boston Mayflower about our thoughts.”

***

Fenside received ten cameras in 2000.
One possible reason for so many is that is listed as among the worst deprived areas in the county, and has a fairly steady crime rate.
So why would CCTV camera coverage be removed?
The Worst Street CCTV control room also monitors cameras for South Holland District Council, East Lindsey District Council and North Kesteven District Council as well as its domestic role of monitoring Boston and Kirton – around 200 live cameras.
Selling services to other authorities makes money; giving it away does not.

***

Because Worst Street now apportions value to everything it provides it comes up with the idea that anyone apparently getting something for nothing – in this case Mayflower Housing – has to be jumped on at the earliest opportunity.
Yet how – if Fenside “reaped the benefits of surveillance” can there be any question about “the value for money these cameras return.”
Also, who foots the bill for the town centre coverage – it is the local businesses?
We don’t believe that is the case.

***

But because Fenside appears largely to be a Mayflower housing estate, the association was apparently expected to pay.
Our readers say that the cameras there are conspicuous by their absence – there is no mention of CCTV provision on the Mayflower website and a question directed to the organisation went unanswered.
When Twitter users asked Worst Street whose responsibility it was, they were referred to Mayflower.
So there you have it – a tightly closed circle where no one will offer an explanation … although a final word from a reader said: “I have spoken to Mayflower and the chap I spoke to knew nothing. Didn’t even know they’d been taken down!”

***

As is so often the case with Boston Borough Council, a stroll down memory lane produces distinct feelings of amnesia.
Whilst the initial meeting that discussed charging Mayflower called for a report to     the scrutiny committee’s corporate and community committee which met at the end of 2015, it made no mention of the Fenside CCTV coverage.
Latest score: Worst Street Black Holes United 1 – Communication With Public 0.

***

Speaking of black holes in communication …
It’s now six months since Boston Borough Council's cabinet of curiosities agreed to organise a meeting with Brylaine Travel and Lincolnshire County Council to discuss rerouting the Into Town bus to avoid pedestrianised Strait Bargate following a recommendation by BTAC-ky – the Boston Town Area Committee after talks with Brylaine's Operations Director.
Well?

***

click to enlarge

And in the same vein …
Whilst it’s still early days, little has been heard of much by way of progress in the Boston sub-Standard campaign for the town to receive government money from a £100 billion kitty for road improvements to create the “distributor” road that will apparently solve all our traffic problems.
It’s a couple of weeks or so since the campaign was launched with “support” from Worst Street – though after an initial announcement the council has had nothing more to say.
The Standard meanwhile has been chasing up hauliers for their support – but so far there’s no news of how many signatures have been gathered.
And it’s not as though time is a luxury, as announcements about selected projects will be made in the summer.
Meanwhile, the hilarious official view remains … that most of the traffic heading into the town, does not come out the other side – a view that anyone monitoring traffic beside John Adams Way or Sleaford Road for a few minutes could quickly dismiss as nonsense.

***

Whether a few signatures on some scraps of paper are enough to persuade the government to hand over £100m for a road scheme is anyone’s guess.
What we do know is that past efforts by the sub-Standard in this area have not been a glittering success.
When Royal Mail decided look for alternative premises to relocate the post office the Standard launched a petition and subsequently told us that it had garnered “more than 150 signatures.”
At least that was better than another effort when Boston Borough Council announced its intention to charge disabled blue badge holders to park.
Without even a blush of embarrassment, a reporter presented just 27 – yes, 27 – protest coupons from readers ... and if that wasn't bad enough, three were from people living outside the borough – including one from as far away as Kent.
We wait with bated breath.

***

King George V’s last words are widely, but incorrectly reported as being “Bugger Bognor” – and we are beginning to wonder whether similar sentiments are being expressed by today’s great and good about Boston.

***

As some not very forceful efforts are taking place to prise money from the government for a road to bypass half of Boston, Lincolnshire County Council continues to bang the drum for a by-pass just about everywhere else.
A recent report quoted County Councillor Colin Davie, who is responsible for Lincolnshire’s economy, saying that that any future Lincolnshire Coastal Highway should include a bypass around Horncastle.
The planned highway would run from the A1 at Newark via the A46 to Lincoln, before heading east along the A158 to Skegness.
In a quote that says much about Clowntly Hall’s attitude to Boston, Councillor Davie – who incidentally represents Ingoldmells Rural – said: “We have so many visitors coming to our part of the world and I don’t want them to be stuck in traffic jams anywhere. I want them to move fluidly through the county. If they want to visit Skegness and then visit Mablethorpe and then visit Louth and come back to Lincoln, then I want them to be able to do it at their speed.
“The A158 is what I consider to be the most travelled route. Quite clearly in peak times, there are logjams in Wragby and in Horncastle. I think we need to alleviate those.”
And as Boston nibbles at the edges of the issue, the county council has already held events with councillors, businesses, bus operators and other organisations, asking for potential areas of improvement to the road network.
Bugger Boston.

***

The road debate prompted a pertinent comment from the pseudonymous reader Frontliner, who e-mailed to say: “There may well be some modicum of truth in the suggestion that over past years our farming industry has carried a great deal of blame for being less than ‘encouraging’ towards alternative inward industries.
“Even now, there are very few ‘food providers’ who use local labour and still very little acceptance of alternative inward investment in our borough.
“However, every project offers lessons ... it is clear now that ‘Farming’ has morphed into an Industrial Project – much like car manufacture, or furniture production.
“Sadly, some farmers, and dare I say ‘supportive’ politicians failed to see that the efficient transportation of goods from field to factory and distribution point, and onward to the supermarket, has become an integral part of that industry, which is also reliant upon a ‘speedy and efficient, road structure’ ... and  that for Boston, this is now the missing link!

***

Reports last week announced that a group of Eurosceptics intend to record the story of Brexit for posterity in a Museum of Sovereignty.
An ideal and obvious location immediately springs to mind – but according to the Daily Telegraph’s political correspondent it is likely to be built in the nation’s “leave capital.”
And where might this be, we hear you cry?
You may already have guessed – Lincoln!
The report explains that along with neighbouring constituencies the city recorded “one of the highest leave votes in Britain.”
Wrong!



Not only was Lincoln bottom of the Brexit vote in the county – it was almost 150 places below Boston nationally.
Yet Lincoln may get the museum – although perhaps it may not be the greatest tourist attraction of all time.
But where are the protest voices from Boston Borough Council and our local members at Lincoln?
Silent as usual.
Even our own representatives say Bugger Boston.

***

Last week saw the Boston Big Clean Up – when for a single week of the year the town looks spruce and sparkling.
But what caught the eye of one of our readers was a photo on Worst Street’s Facebook page showing thee members of the council’s staff picking up litter.
Our reader observed: “Interesting to see the big clean-up is being rolled out as a big volunteer success story as usual. What a shame one of the pictures shows members of staff who are being paid for ....er collecting waste when they should be working in their full time paid posts.”
OK, they’re helping make the town cleaner – but we still feel that our reader has a point.

***

The big clean up followed hard on the heels of the appointment of three more members of the town centre maintenance team funded by BTAC-ky to keep the town tidier.
Support was also forthcoming from Boston Big Local which is helping to fund a chewing gum removal machine at a cost somewhere between £2,000 and £4,000
We hope this latest efforts is more successful than the last.
Ten years ago Boston Borough Council spent £7,000 on a machine to remove chewing gum from the town’s pavements.
After a photo opportunity, it disappeared from the public gaze – to appear just one more time before it was found broken at one of the Worst Street depots.
And in yet another example like the previous one of robbing Peter to pay Paul we noted that almost as soon as the extra maintenance staff were in place than they were hijacked by the “voluntary” Boston in Bloom group to do some seriously heavy spadework.

***

Lincolnshire County Council was first to tell us that a new £1.75m household waste recycling centre is open to the public in Bittern Way in Boston.
The official opening ceremony took place last Friday 13th and it opened to the public at 9am this morning.
The former site at Slippery Gowt Lane – a stone’s throw from the new one – closed at 4pm yesterday.

Some Lincolnshire websites, BBC Radio Lincolnshire and MP Matt Warman were quick to share the news.
Not so Boston Borough Council’s website.
Of the 22 stories headlined on WorstWeb none mentioned the change of location for the tip when we looked after close of business on Friday – and detailed information elsewhere said that it was in Slippery Gowt Lane.
The absence from the Worst Street website may also be the reason that the story had not appeared on the Boston sub Standard website either – as Worst Street writes most of the paper these days.
Hopefully the new tip will get a mention when the powers that ba’int totter into West Street later this morning.
Another triumph for the Bugger Boston brigade.

***

Finally, we received an e-mail from a regular reader to say: “I was looking forward to seeing mention of Councillor Mrs Cooper’s court appearance in today’s Eye, shielding someone else in a driving case. 
“I suppose it is a difficult one, and I have not seen much reported anywhere apart from a few lines in the Target.”
Reporting court cases is not something we do – but out of interest, we took a look around and sure enough  found the following on the Boston Target website.


We could find no mention in the Boston sub-Standard.
Mrs Cooper was elected to represent Boston West on Lincolnshire County Council in May last year, and is the wife of Boston Borough Council leader Mike Cooper.
The case has probably given rise to endless speculation in which we will not participate – although some possible explanations are reasonably obvious.



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