Despite repeated claims that street drinking is under control and not the problem it once was, the response to a complaint to Boston Borough Council raises issues of major concern.

A regular reader has sent a copy of the Worst Street reply to a complaint made when he saw “a regular incident” of drinking in Central Park.

The reply summarised: “You approached the council’s workmen who were in the park at that time and asked them if they were going to challenge the drinkers.

“You said their response was ‘no because it’s a waste of time.’

“You said to the workmen that if they were not prepared to do anything then they should ask the CCTV to look and get someone down who would do something about it.

“You said the response was that ‘CCTV is a waste of time and that it’s going to get worse.’

“You made it clear to the workmen that you were not happy with their reply and their response was they would not act because the drinkers ‘might get a knife out.’”

The reply concludes by saying that the council is taking the “appropriate action” to ensure employees are aware of their role in dealing with potential breaches of the PSPO Alcohol regulations and to the manner in which they communicate with customers.

Ominously, it adds: “We are also taking appropriate action against the individual employee you spoke to who gave rise to your complaint.”

***

This raises more questions than it answers.

The fact that drinkers are still congregating in the park and the complaint mentioned  that this was a regular occurrence is proof that tackling the culprits is a waste of time.

We see no reason to doubt that the employee who feared the possibility of a knife attack was genuinely worried – and it would not surprise us to know that his colleagues felt much the same way.

The numbers on either side in this event are not spelt out – but our experience is that there are generally half a dozen or so drinkers to a bench when they congregate in the park.

Even if the council workers were equal in numbers, the offenders were doubtless emboldened by alcohol, and who knows what might have been the result.

Sadly, we read accounts of people dying for the most trivial reasons almost every day.

***

The council upheld the part of the complaint relating to the defeatist attitude of staff in the war on drinking in public places.

But the police and the private enforcement officers are the people we expect to tackle things such as this hands on.

The Worst Street response says at one point: “Members of the public are encouraged to report incidents of drinking they witness within the PSPO area directly to Lincolnshire Police on their non-emergency number by dialling 101. Quite how this is done is not clear.

“This is more effective than passing information onto a third party to relay information onto the police, who act on our behalf to enforce the PSPO Alcohol.”

Somehow, we doubt this.

The 101 non-emergency system is notoriously slow and unreliable, and often connects with call takers who believe that Boston is in Massachusetts – whereas a third party complaint relayed to the police by borough council staff  … perhaps using a special number … could bring a rapid response which would impress complainants and deal with the problem without potentially risking the lives of people who ought not be put in that position.

The subtext of the Worst Street reply says “don’t bother us with this – even though offences are taking place in a public park for which we are responsible and the problem has not gone away.”

***

We always imagined that such things as the drawing up of accounts was a precise affair – and that the bottom line would stay the same whoever totted them up.

But that doesn’t seem to be the case with the Christmas in Boston group (CIB.)

Regular readers will recall our reports about disharmony in this civilian group of volunteers which resulted in a splinter group – mostly comprising electricians – declaring themselves the official Christmas in Boston group and expelling those who disagreed with them in the run up to the lights being switched on last December.

***

By that time, though, the group’s original treasurer had completed the accounts and forwarded them to the chairman of BTAC-ky as well as paying a surplus of £2,093.39 into council funds.

Since then the group that hijacked the committee has beefed its membership numbers up to eleven –  including a couple of local shopkeepers one of whom has been appointed treasurer.

Because the original accounts were a source of contention, BTAC-ky had them audited – and they were found to be in order.

A copy of the expenditure accounts appears below

But now a new set of accounts shows much that is different and apparently contradictory – again, we reproduce the expenditure figures as an example.

Interestingly – for a group dominated by electricians for much of the time – it may not be surprising to note the appearance of almost £2,000 for “electrical items” when no such entry appeared on the original report … although a lot of other items that might have been included beneath this headline are listed separately.

And whilst we won’t burden you with all the details of the group’s income accounts, we can’t understand why – after £2,093.39 was paid into and banked by Boston Borough Council as a “surplus” from the event  – an identical amount was subsequently paid out to the new chairman … electrician Andrew Lovelace … as a “loan” from Boston Borough Council early last month.

The same figure then subsequently appeared in the “new” treasurer’s report as “A. Lovelace loan to CIB.”

Transparency is the big buzzword at Worst Street, and whilst Christmas in Boston is independent to a degree, it remains answerable to BTAC-ky – which in turn is answerable to the taxpayers.

And as this mishmash of accounts has become almost unaccountable, we think that an explanation should be forthcoming.

***

At Easter, we heard that the electricians tried to make their mark with some illuminated symbolism at Boston’s memorial gardens – but perhaps let their enthusiasm run a little wild.

Perhaps someone should have told them that we live in South Lincolnshire rather than 1870s South Carolina!

***

A year ago as of now, Councillor Michael Cooper became the leader of Boston Borough Council – taking the helm from Councillor Peter Bedford after another of those internal political spats that puts Worst Street head and shoulders below the rest.

Almost two months later he went into print – declaring his passion for Boston and his gritty determination to make life here better for everyone – even though he lives outside the borough.

There followed the usual cut and paste statement of intent that has served previous leaders so often and so well.

At the end of the year, Councillor Cooper said much of the same in his Christmas message – in particular citing the arrival of new businesses that his predecessor had also quoted.

***

At the leader’s first twelve month mark ...

No big announcements.

No sign of movement.

No removal of cabinet dead wood.

Nothing.

But disappointingly, a stroll down memory lane throws up a couple of headlines that we are sure the leader would rather not have appeared.

The first concerned a complaint about remarks which involved two uses of the F-word and what appeared to be a suggestion of violence after comments were made about his non-dom status.

In that case, the official Worst Street whitewash squad quickly dismissed the complaint going as far as saying that the phrase “I will punch him in the f*****g face” carried  “no intent to actually cause you physical harm.”

Hmmmm.

***

But the really serious, disappointing and most prominent act by the leader in the past twelve months was to spearhead a campaign to force Boston Mayor Brian Rush to resign over some vaguely-specified complaints of  allegedly racist comments on Facebook – but more importantly to the chamber potties,  criticising their chums as borough and county level.

Cooper proposed the motion that Councillor Rush should quit – and when outmanoeuvred issued copies of the Facebook and Twitter entries at the centre of the complaint to the media to keep the pot boiling.

In between all this he further embarrassed Worst Street with an execrable radio interview where listeners heard him expel a reporter from his office in an arrogant and contemptuous way.

***

Most recently he resurfaced with a demonstration of his lack of knowledge of how local commerce works.

In a quivering contribution to the local free magazine Simply Boston he whooped that a bypass for Boston was closer to becoming a reality than ever before.

Not only was the Boston barrier on its way to becoming a reality but: “More new businesses, more new jobs, existing businesses expanding, exciting business news yet to come – all also reality (sic)”

***

His list is endless – and includes the conversion of the former Clarks Shoe shop to “a coffee house, increasing the leisure and recreational offer in the town …”

Perhaps he could advise Mrs Eye where to find shoes locally now that there are only two outlets left in town.

Even at this late stage, he is still dining out on the relocated Duckworth Jaguar/Land Rover showroom and extension to Sports Bike Direct – first cited by his predecessor almost two years ago.

***

As with his predecessor, he turns a blind eye to the fact that commerce is a two way street.

Granted, we are gaining new businesses in Boston – but as Cooper the Whooper was celebrating the arrival of new business, the Trespass outdoor shopping outlet was closing down in Wide Bargate – leaving another black hole in the town’s most important business centre.

Time and again, we remind our leaders that Boston has lost more than it has gained with the commercial churn that has seen the town centre become home to ‘phone shops, bookmakers charity shops, pound shops and vaping shops galore – as yet another coffee shop  will bring the town total to around a dozen.

There was a time when a coffee shop was a welcome break from a morning spent browsing and buying from real shops that sold the sort of stuff that real people wanted to buy.

***

As you park your Jaguar then sit and sup yet another overpriced coffee in yet another shop, ask yourself whether you would rather be checking out places such as the Edinburgh Woollen Mill Shop, McKay’s, Milletts, Thornton’s, Jessops and QD – all of which you can find in other towns a few miles from Boston – but  all of which once occupied shops in the heart of the town.

***

By a remarkable happenstance, scarcely had we finished writing our tribute to Councillor Cooper’s first year in office than we received an e-mail from the man himself.

Written in his now familiar combative style, it began:

 “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

“UPVC windows --- again you fail to report the facts --- But why let the truth get in the way of a good story  ----

“The case in question was not only refused by BBC planning department ,but also by the planning inspectorate after the BBC decision was appealed ,  who agreed with the BBC planners over the status of the building in question .The planning inspectorate is completely independent and based in Bristol . The owner of the property was given numerous opportunities to change the windows . Court action was only taken after every other avenue had been exhausted over a considerable period -- You make the accusation of the council being heavy handed but that is completely untrue, if you looked at the facts this would be very obvious “

***

We are always pleased to receive feedback from readers – especially when they are as aggrieved as Councillor Cooper, and we welcome the opportunity to explain things further – despite our accuser casting us as fakes and liars from the outset.

BUT …

The issue over who pays what and to whom by way of their council tax is one that is exploited by all the authorities who share the spoils.

In the case of internal drainage boards, they impose a tax on Worst Street which is passed on as part of the money it collects – effectively robbing Peter (the taxpayer) to pay Paul (the drainage board)  without wanting to include any numbers which make them look bad.

For many years Worst Street has joined the others who finick the figures to try to put themselves in the best possible light.

We based our calculations on the borough’s council tax booklet which we doubt that many people have seen.

It used to be posted out with the council tax bills – but now seems to be available only on the borough’s website – WorstWeb … if you can find it.

***

According to the booklet, council tax on the Eye’s offices have risen by 4.52% – yet Councillor Cooper takes us to task for not doing the council’s work for it and massaging the  figures to exclude the drainage board charges.

Taking up Councillor Cooper’s challenge, we not only took a look at our council tax bill – we reproduce the relevant section below.

Conspicuous by its absence is any mention of a drainage board.

And try to make sense of the figures if you can.

The entire confusing cavalcade of charges is an exercise in smoke and mirrors, with no participating authority willing to put its hands up to demanding more for less.

***

WorstWeb is similarly obfuscatory – telling readers “From April 1^st band D properties will have to pay an additional 10p a week. As almost 90 per cent of properties are rated below band D most households will pay less.”

Whilst this is entirely true, it relates to the Boston figures alone – minus the drainage board charges – and is nothing more than an attempt to massage the figures to make Worst Street look good.

We’re sorry if this doesn’t sit well with the leader – but when councils manipulate the figures for image purposes they have only themselves to blame when other try to paint the true picture.

We wonder what is more important to people – how the kitty is divided, or how much more money is being handed to local authorities for an ever-declining service.

And at the end of the day, the job of the Eye is to comment on what it sees – rather than what the powers that be would wish us to see.

***

Whilst we thought that Councillor Cooper had some argument – albeit a niggling one – over the issue of local taxes, we think that he is way adrift in his comments about our piece on the council’s treatment of the owner of a listed shop in West Street who refused to replace UPVC windows with wooden ones. You can read it here. The whole thrust of our piece was to highlight the nonsense spouted about some listed buildings and to call into question the need to make any prosecutions at all over a building that is now in such a pitiful state.

It was an appeal for common sense, rather than pedantry.

***

Finally, whilst Worst Street gets so many things wrong, it can at least claim to be more or less even-handed when it comes to pay issues.

Its annual gender pay report says that half of its 296 employees are male and half are female.

“The mean gender pay gap is 10.0% which in terms of hourly rates equates to £12.76 an hour for men compared with £11.49 for women.

“The median gender pay gap is 0% – or £10 an hour regardless.”

Broadly speaking, that level of pay works out at around 25k a year – about 10% lower than the national average wage.

One argument could be that Worst Street is among the smallest of councils, and pay rates reflect the fact.

But it doesn’t explain why – according to the Taxpayers’ Alliance Town Hall Rich List –  two members of top management are getting more than £100k a year.

Last time we looked around the council’s transparent website, we found the Chief Executive on £95,000 – with no one else in sight.

So what’s been going on?

But perhaps some savings might be on the cards.

A secretive meeting of Chief Officer Employment Panel recently met to hear a report from the Chief Executive on the senior management structure – and we hear that this may mean one of the high-faluters may be jumping ship.

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