Monday 20 August 2018


A member of the family who featured in our last blog has spoken out about the court case brought by Boston Borough Council – claiming that there was more to it than a row about a fish pond – and calling Worst Street bigoted and racist.
Although Mrs Aila Abdel-Khalek  and her husband Mohamed were ordered to pay 60 per-cent of the £62,000 cost of the case – which came to just over £37,000 – the balance of just under £25,000  was charged to Boston Borough Council.
“The court awarded 40% costs against the council because it supported our neighbours’ Islamophobic complaint,” said Mrs Abdel-Khalek.
She said that the national newspapers reported on it as though it was just about the pond.
“It started off as that but that’s not why it went to court.
“We were taken to court for anti-social behaviour for the display of a Saudi flag, a plastic heron and a Christmas light.”
She said that she and Boston Borough Council have a “massive history” much of it relating to planning issues.
And although the neighbours raised complaints with the council, it refused to investigate scores of counter complaints made by the Abdel-Khaleks – even when a wall was built next door without permission.
“The council said ‘tough’ we’re not going to take any steps to remedy the breach. “How can you have one law for me extending my pond and they built a permanent structure three metres high which abuts my Grade II listed property?
“Why is the council behaving like this do you think?
“My bottom line is that they are bigoted. I think they’re racist.”
“I think that the problem is that when you have a so-called counter-terrorism officer who is also the anti-social behaviour officer supporting individuals who write that – because of your religion – you are a terrorist that you have got serious questions that need answering.”

***

Worst Street played its trump card during the debate – by invoking its ‘Persistent and Vexatious Customer Policy’ which is aimed at “a very small minority of customers who make complaints that are vexatious or unreasonably persistent in order to make life difficult for the Council or individuals, rather than genuinely to resolve a grievance.”
These rules include: “Refusing to accept the decision, i.e. repeatedly arguing the point and complaining about the decision.”

***

“They said that because you have been persistent in making reports of anti-social behaviour as a victim we are not going to respond to you – in writing.”
Mrs Abdel-Khalek continued: “They have no intention of supporting my family but support a white family. 
I am sorry to be as blunt as that but when the only differing factors in the two equations are protected characteristics, then that’s the ugly truth, the elephant in the room that nobody wants to address.
“It sounds really awful but to have read in writing reports made by e-mail to the council stating that because we are Muslim that we are the sort of people who are compared with those who are responsible for the London and Stockholm bombing incidents, and to be reported to the police on more than one occasion for having a Saudi national flag because my stepdaughter, who lives at home with us, is Saudi, that we are terrorists and belong to an ideology of terrorism. My husband is a retired eye surgeon and has served the community of Boston for over 30 years. What is this nonsense, and why?
“To be accused of those things purely because of one’s faith … which is quite frankly a private matter in any event … I find it absolutely despicable for the council to support that action.
“I’ve been complaining about anti-social behaviour with us as victims since about May 2015. In August/September 2016 we held a meeting about why the council weren’t dealing with my complaint. Unknown to me my neighbour had also been complaining about us and that wasn’t raised at the meeting.
“Then out of the blue, a month later came a letter that said there had been complaints about us – not disclosed – asking us to sign an anti-social behaviour contract detailing 17 points. One of the points in that was circumventing the planning permission that I had just obtained. “
Mrs Abdel-Khalek said the contract conditions included housing the pond equipment.
“The moment I signed that I would be in breach of planning because to have any pond equipment in a structure I would need planning permission – so I’m either in breach of my anti-social behaviour contract the moment I sign up or I’m in or in breach of planning if I adhere to the anti-social behaviour contract.
“There were things like not to undertake any work to the garden – including the trimming of plants – without obtaining the council’s permission at least 28 days beforehand;  not to use any equipment capable of making sound at the property; not to have any CCTV equipment at the property higher than two metres … the height of a doorframe. It would render the equipment unfit for purpose.
“It was absolutely outrageous and on top of that I’ve not been told of a single complaint against me. Why was I being asked to sign an anti-social behaviour contract in any event?”
She said that a compromise was offered, but it wasn’t accepted.
“Any change wasn’t acceptable to them.
“An anti-social behaviour agreement is not mandatory it’s voluntary and that’s why we went to court, and it was all about teaching us a lesson for having had our planning permission granted and part of the wider campaign of harassment that is continuing to this day; and the council has confirmed that they have not investigated a single complaint which we have made.
“The council has a duty of care. These are repeat victims being targeted because of their protected characteristics, and I’m reminding the council about the policy, the legislation”

***

Even an appeal to the Local Government Ombudsman fell on deaf ears.
“The ombudsman said that in relation to the planning issues it has no jurisdiction to make any finding against the local authority where it has exercised its discretion in a planning matter.
“In relation to the anti-social activity, because half of what we are talking about has been discussed in a court, the ombudsman has no jurisdiction to make any finding and cannot investigate. And because we had raised a number of complaints about Boston Borough Council it was unlikely that the Ombudsman would investigate it in any event.
“And even if they find in your favour the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to compel a council to adhere to its findings – they have complete autonomy and there’s not a thing you can do about it.”

***

We think that’s what’s known as Catch-22 – and interestingly enough, the judge’s ruling in the case stated that the neighbours complaining about the pond and decorations ‘harboured irrational thoughts about the significance of the display of the Saudi Arabian flag’ – which they complained to the council about 11 times.”

***

Whilst we may be critical, we always try to be fair – and we e-mailed a summary of the above report to Boston’s Chief Executive Phil Drury with a request for any comment he might care to offer about the charges made against the council. We also asked about the process that saw this case taken to court, and also the chain of command involved.
We were interested in this aspect because – as far as we can tell, our councillors were unaware of what was being done in Worst Street’s name … nor the cost involved.

***

Mr Drury responded: “The matter remains a live case before the courts and therefore I am unable to comment further due to legal privilege. Furthermore, information relating to individuals involved in the matter remains confidential.
There are many allegations and accusations in your e-mail which the Council does not recognise as accurate, particularly noting the Local Government Ombudsman has received several complaints relating to this matter and has not found the Council at fault in the way this matter has been conducted.


***

The case remains live?  Not more bills on the way for the taxpayers, we hope!

***

At long last, the petition from the people of Boston asking for a share of  the National Roads Fund which is giving  up to £100 million per bid to help cut congestion, unlock housing and boost economic growth.
Although a consultation period bid for money started on 23rd December last year and ended on 16th March, an announcement from Worst Street said that local MP Matt Warman handed it over to Transport Secretary Chris Grayling about ten days ago.
The petition was raised by readers of the Boston sub-Standard and ‘supported’ by Boston Borough Council, Lincolnshire Chamber of Commerce, the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association.
Mr Warman told Boston Eye that it contained around 1,700 signatures – and demonstrated “the challenge of getting people to sign up to something rather than raise it on social media ...”
Certainly the number of signatures is an improvement on previous efforts by the sub-Standard – and might have been better still had Worst Street’s ‘support’ been  more than the usual cursory item or two on its website abnd a toke presence on a stall in the market..
For instance, a letter included with the council tax demands would have reached every household in the borough – and would surely have attracted considerably more support.

***

As it is, 1,700 signatures is only about 2½ per-cent of the population and when push comes to shove, we would guess that the larger the numbers the louder the voice of a petition is heard in Whitehall.
Not for the first time, the Worst Street motto – Quoque Paulo Nimium Sero (Too Little, Too Late) – springs to mind.
Our best chance now is that Mr Grayling remembers his previous enthusiasm for a Boston bypass – including a BBC interview at the end of last year when he said: “I'm hoping that as we develop the bypass fund some of those towns in Lincolnshire that are desperately in need of a bypass - the obvious one that has been on the stocks for all these years in Boston in Lincolnshire, where I have no doubt there is going to be campaigning for the bypass to be an early project.”
“It's about unlocking the small towns that are seized up by congestion where journeys are just slower going through those town centres.”

***

Given the Worst Street fondness for winning badges – our breath is bated for the results on the In-Bloom competition – we wonder whether the borough has applied to enter this year’s Great British High Street Awards.
We don’t think the borough bothered last year and the closing date for this year is  this Wednesday 22nd August.

The winner – to be announced at an awards ceremony in November – walks away with a £10,000 to spend on the community and there’s no real reason so to get involved, as the categories include a ‘rising star’ category and applications can be made by local councils, town centre partnerships, and chambers of commerce.
We could also have thought that Boston Big Local would be able to make a bid as well.

***

Three years ago we wondered whether someone was trying to tell us something when the list of councillors appointed to external organisations was published.
Three of them were appointed to the Sir Thomas Meddlecott Charity Trust.
The correct spelling of the trust’s name is Middlecott.
It seems that what they were trying to tell us was that no-one gives a monkey’s – as this year’s appointment repeated the inaccuracy.


***

The same is true of Worst Street’s spelling when it comes to one of our most long-celebrated events.
For some reason, the May Fair – so called because it is an annual fair which is held in May – is more often than not referred to as Mayfair … described as ‘an affluent area in the West End of London towards the east edge of Hyde Park, in the City of Westminster, between Oxford Street, Regent Street.’
Not only can the council not spell it – but this year has seen it miss an important opportunity for celebration.
Trading fairs or "marts" have been held in Boston since at least the 12th century, and the earliest historic record of one in the town is in 1132.
It ran from St. Botolph's Day (12th June) to 24th June.
And it was 800 years ago, in 1218,  that a licence was granted for Boston's fair.
The earliest maps of Boston date from that time and the "Market Place" is indicated on them in its current location. 
Once a year the London courts would close so that everyone had a chance to visit the May Fair when  goods at the time such as spices and wines were rare, but could be bought fresh from the port.
What a missed opportunity – a chance to stage a medieval style fair as part of an overall celebration of Boston’s heritage … one which we first mentioned a year ago.

***

Still with the subject of events – we note that Worst Street is bringing back open air cinema to Central Park in mid-September.
Last year – despite warnings – the first show was delayed because it was still too light and on the second week there were complaints of delays in starting, with the film eventually getting underway at 8-30pm.
This year, the gates are opening at 6pm according to the Visit Boston website – 30 minutes earlier than last year. However, the promotions appearing on WorstWeb give the time as 6-30pm, but no time has yet been given for the film to be shown.
It also seems that Worst Street may have conflated the ticket prices – perhaps from last year.
According to the borough website, an early-bird ticket will save “up to £18” on a family ticket (two adults and two children.)

  

“There will be standard online tickets available when all the early-bird ones have gone and tickets will be available on the gate – £30 for a family ticket, adults £10, concessions £9 and children £8.
“But if you book now you could claim a family ticket for a reduced price of just £18.”
By our reckoning, £18 is a saving of £12 – not £18 – on £30.
Unless of course, you buy them individually – two adults and two children – in which case they don’t constitute a family ticket, do they?
Turn to the handbill for the event, and the whole business of pricing becomes a matter of pick’n mix.
At the top, we are told “Standard ticket prices: Adults £7, Children £5, Family ticket £21 and concession £6.
But lower down, the prices are different.
“Early bird prices: Adults £5.50, Children £3.50, Concession £4, Family Ticket £15.
“On the gate tickets: Adults £10, children £9, family ticket £30, concession £9.
We sincerely hope that whoever worked out this mathematical maze doesn’t combine the role with a job in the finance department.

***

As was the case last year, Worst Street is plugging the fact that “There will be a bar, soft-drink refreshments, popcorn and sweets available.”
A bar?
In a Public Space Protection Order area?
A bar was also promised last year – but after some criticism was kicked into touch.
As people rightly questioned: was it really necessary to have a fully licensed bar at an event essentially aimed at children?
Shortly afterwards, Worst Street announced: “This is a family-focused event and there will not now be a licensed bar and patrons are reminded that consumption of alcohol in Central Park is not permitted.”
Have things changed between last year and this, we wonder?
We don’t think so – so why is a bar on the cards yet again?

***

Our holiday/silly season fortnightly publication schedule continues – and our next blog will be on Monday 3rd September.

  

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 6 August 2018

In a spectacular waste of taxpayers’ money, Boston Borough Council has been ordered to pay £24,800 after intervening in a dispute between neighbours over a fishpond after one family refused to sign an Anti-Social Behaviour contract.
The dispute had been going on for three years, and began after the pond was built. Complaints about noise from the pump were resolved but the feud escalated when the neighbours took offence at plastic herons, a Santa Claus figure and a    foot Saudi Arabian flag that  it was claimed was hung above the pond to protect their koi carp but which the complainants said was put up to ‘intimidate’ them.
After regular complaints to the police and Boston Borough Council about the ‘offensive’ items, Worst Street tried to end the dispute by asking the warring neighbours to sign an Anti-Social Behaviour contract. When the pond owners refused, the council sought an injunction against them.
After a number of county court hearings, the case ended up at the High Court of Justice in Birmingham.
The court  ruling stated that the neighbours complaining abut the pond and decorations ‘harboured irrational thoughts about the significance of the display of the Saudi Arabian flag’ – which they complained to the council about 11 times.
Judge Jane George stated that the distress caused by the objects was down to the complainants’ ‘irrational and in some respects frankly bizarre interpretation of what things meant.’
The court ruled that an injunction should be enforced against the pond owners to stop them from hanging items in their garden ‘in plain sight of the neighbours’ property’ but said that they should ‘not be prevented from hanging items over the pond’ should they wish to do so.’

***

The sting in the tail was that the pond owners were ordered to pay 60 per-cent of the £62,000 cost of the case – which came to just over £37,000.
The balance – just under £25,000 – will come out of council coffers … which means our coffers.
Judge George criticised both parties for not being able to settle their differences and costing taxpayers, what she called an 'inordinate amount of public money.'

***

As we have often said in the past, Worst Street is a great believer in the iron fist in the iron glove when it comes to dealing with the public – especially when the  sledgehammer is uses to crack nuts with is not easily within reach.
Not only that, but its track record is less than glittering when it comes using higher ‘courts in the widest sense – especially when applicants appeal against its refusal to grant planning permission...

***

The East Lincolnshire Community Safety Partnership  which comprises Boston Borough, East Lindsey and South Holland district councils  defines anti-social behaviour as ‘anything that affects a person’s quality of life.’
“It is defined in the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014) as “a person causing alarm, harassment or distress to any person.” It includes all behaviour which impacts negatively on other people’s lives in and around our community.
In order, it lists as examples of anti-social behaviour ...

• Verbal abuse
• Shouting and swearing
• Graffiti
• Vehicle related nuisance
• Fighting
• Drunken behaviour
• Throwing stones/eggs at windows
• Litter and vandalism
• Abusive neighbours

***

Frankly, it seems to us to be something of a stretch to include a spat over a fish pond even in the lattermost category.
But then Worst Street does love to throw its weight about doesn’t it?

***

The decision to order Boston Borough Council to pay a large chunk of the costs suggests that Worst Street was considered to have played a role in this fiasco. So, if things had turned out slightly differently, the cost to council tax payers could have been considerably more.

***

So who takes these decisions to hurl huge amounts of our council tax at precarious legal challenges?
Presumably, the officers at Worst Street.
Do they discuss it with councillors?
Presumably not – as several members of the Cabinet  and a number of ordinary councillors knew nothing about it.
Is it us – or does something seem a little awry here?

***

Since last we blogged, two items that we have banged on about over the years re-emerged as if by magic … giving us – if nothing else – a distinct feeling of déjà vu.

*** 

The first concerned the appalling state of the £750,000 St Botolph’s footbridge with – according to one local report – the councillor in charge of Boston’s Town Centre Nigel Welton expressing “frustration” over the grime that has built up since the bridge was opened in 2015.
 “It’s dirty, it looks horrible,” he told the online Lincolnshire Reporter.
“It’s covered in green mould.


“That’s the gateway from the coach station and the car park that side into town.
“Once you get on the bridge you don’t notice it but from a distance it just looks dirty and it’s a brand new bridge.”
According to the report, Richard Waters, Clownty Hall principal engineer (structures), said the authority was aware of the algae and aimed to have it cleaned ‘over the summer.’
He said: “Unfortunately, this isn’t as straightforward as it may sound, and we are having to source specialist equipment that will allow us to reach the extremities of the bridge with a pressure washer.”

***

Whilst this sounds fairly positive, the e-mail on the issue from Clownty Hall was far from constructive.
It read: “Our structures team have already discussed this with Boston Borough Council and are planning to clean it this summer, but it is a low priority.
“Additionally, and in addition to planned works, they are having a run of things falling down/getting knocked down which are taking priority.”
If the warm weather and neglect by Base Camp Lincoln, we fear that this is how things might look before too long.


***

Someone who read the e-mail commented: “It’s not quite what we expected. I’m not sure I want to ask what is falling down or getting knocked down, but I have not been made aware of or seen anything falling down in Boston – so it must be in Lincoln. “The only thing I can think of is the County’s standards … which have definitely fallen down.”

***

It does seem to be the case that Lincoln’s attempts to ‘improve’ Boston invariably go pear-shaped.
The Market Place ‘regeneration’ is a classic example where the result of a £2 million revamp has left us with a mishmash that is neither use nor ornament and which already looks disappointing and tired.

***

The problem with the footbridge was evident from the word go.
After a so-called public consultation in which a total of 143 people voted, the most popular choice was declared to be “bowstring” design with 57 people preferring it.
Conveniently, we understand that this was also the cheapest and easiest to install options on offer.


***

Runner-up was a ‘traditional’ design which with hindsight people appear to consider far more appropriate and in harmony with the historic surroundings which we are always making such a fuss about.  Not only that, but maintenance would have been simple – even to the point of being within the  scope of enthusiastic volunteers. That received a stonking 51 votes.
Lagging in third place with 50 votes was a scaled down version of the big bowstring – which whilst smaller would still have been difficult to clean.
The bridge opened in February 2014 – and the first complaints came in February last year.
A letter to a local ‘newspaper’ lamented: “I got in touch with the county council, whose responsibility it is and was told they were aware of the problem but budgeting meant it was a low priority so would probably be another year before they would even think about getting round to it … what a pity nobody in their extremely well paid jobs thought to cost in the occasional scrub.”

***

As far as the second item that caught our eye is concerned … we hate to say we told you so BUT
We told you so!
A recent report – Who Governs Britain – authored by our local MP Matt Warman and published by the prestigious think-tank the Centre for Policy Studies commissioned a wide-ranging survey on confidence in the various democratic institutions in Britain.
Rather, we should say a lack of confidence – with 40% of those polled saying that they had “no faith at all” in their MP to do the right thing if they had reason to contact them with an issue.
If you want to read the report in full, you will find a copy here 

***

Further down the political food chain – and apparently ‘as expected,’ – support for government was greater the closer it was to the individuals concerned.
“Some 54% of people would trust their parish council and 56% their district/county/borough council to do right by them, vs. 18% and 25% who would not trust them at all,” reported Mr Warman.
“But when it comes to Westminster, the balance is 42% to 40% trust to distrust.”
But don’t run away with the idea that everything in the garden closest to home is rosy.
“What these findings say is that across every level of government, a maximum of 9% of Britons have an adequate level of trust that they will be treated fairly in their dealings with it.”

***

In his report, Mr Warman suggests a series of new laws to improve accountability, including the right to know which elected official is ultimately responsible for a decision in any public-sector body.
He concludes: “Our polling shows us the public do not feel elected officials truly represent them, and worse still if they do there’s no confidence that politicians would act in the best interest of their communities.”

***

Somehow, we don’t think that many politicians at whatever level will lose sleep over this.
But locally is where things really tend to matter – especially now that most of the effort at Westminster appears not to be the organisation of a smooth and no-nonsense departure from Europe, but a jostling for position to see who can become the next leader, and a wilful disregard for the decision of the Brexit referendum

***

As we said in the last Boston Eye, Boston Borough Council appears to revel in being secretive and deliberately out of touch with the voters who give them power.
As a for instance, we highlighted the fact that it had taken three and a half years to find a ‘news’ story about a councillor doing what people expect of them.

***

We were prepared to be taken to task over this – and we were.
One councillor described a ward workload which – combined with committee duties – was time-consuming indeed.

***

But we stand by the comments we made – that Worst Street has a responsibility to the people who pay for its very existence – to tell them what the council … i.e. the elected members and officers … are doing.

***

A good example emerged after our last blog – where we showed that Worst Street failed to highlight questions to a full council meeting.
Because of the leisurely, laid back life adopted by members and senior officers alike, it will take 77 days before taxpayers learn the answers.

***

Why does this matter?
It matters because involvement in local democracy is tightly entailed with communication.
I.e.  – tell people what you do that is useful to them and they will respond with their involvement.
We felt that our argument had been vindicated when – after our remarks about the volley of questions asked at the last council meeting we were given sight of responses relating to the town centre.
They included news of seven new stainless steel benches recently installed in Boston Market Place, a multi-use games area in Central Park, the replacement of 90 litter bins over the next 12 months which are expected to deal effectively with cigarette related litter.
There was also news of more street vacuuming, chewing gum and graffiti removal, new signage and more work to enhance the ‘green’ look of the town.

***

Most councils would be proud of this and want to shout it from the rooftops – but not Worst Street which apparently tries equally to bury the good news along with the bad.

***

Recently we have even seen councillors trying to enhance the bad news that inhabits the Worst Street civic body like fleas on a dog’s coat.
A sensible idea from the Preposterous Boston Task and Finish Group when it sought ideas for the future of the town’s market was to ask pupils from local schools.
But when the students’ reports reached a council committee, two members – ironically both with backgrounds in education – were unsparing in their criticism of a suggestion of a welcome arch to signpost the market.
Councillor Jonathan Noble said: "I think it's an absolutely bonkers idea.
"The market place is the centre of the town, the centre of town's not very big, everybody knows where the market place is."
Later, he said he was very impressed by most of the ideas put forward, but didn’t agree with this particular one
He called it "an insult to people's intelligence" and said it was not an "effective use of taxpayers' money".
Councillor Stephen Woodliffe, added that he thought the idea was "rather tacky".
Subsequently, a head teacher of one of the schools involved hit back.
Andrew Fulbrook of Boston High School said the comments were ‘ill-advised and shameful.’
“I understand people have different opinions and that people share their opinions, but we are talking about a group of students who have worked collectively across four schools – all trying to put Boston on the map.”
He said it was also unfair to focus on the negative comments when the vast majority of people involved had been very supportive and the children had engaged positively with local government.

***

Another member of the committee also weighed into his council colleagues – calling their remarks ‘outrageous and unacceptable.’
“Clearly they do not understand the business of market trading,” said Councillor Barrie Pierpoint. “Nor do they have any entrepreneurial acumen or marketing expertise to offer. The four schools' presentation far outweighed any positive input that those two particular councillors have ever given.”
He continued: These two councillors should publicly apologise to the schools for their misplaced comments, which are themselves ‘tacky’' and ‘a waste-of-time.’
“Praise where praise is due – those schoolchildren from the four schools gave outstanding presentations and really made me look at the markets in a different light too, even though I am a businessman.
“We should be encouraging our young entrepreneurs to take more interest in our community, and not make negative comments about their findings and solutions.
“Well done to all the schools - a great effort.”

***

Even Boston Borough Council found it prudent to put its oar in – with an item on WorstWeb criticising the critical councillors.
It said: “Two members of the committee spoke against the idea. The remaining committee approved the recommendation and to take this along with six more recommendations before Cabinet on Wednesday, September 5th 2018.
“The committee recognised and agree the importance of the contribution of the four schools within the consultation process and the quality of their reporting.
“Chair of scrutiny, Councillor Judith Skinner said: “Myself and other members of the Task and Finish group highly valued the input from the schools and I am extremely disappointed at the other members of the group that made negative comment.”

***

Meanwhile, WorstWeb has had an uneasy relationship with real life in its efforts to make the council look good.
A report headed ‘Hold the front page’ told us … “Boston Borough Council made the front and inside pages of last week's Boston Standard... for a good reason.
“Three members of staff, a former staff member and a councillor were featured for their involvement in a gruelling charity challenge – swimming the River Witham from Lincoln to Boston. A photograph of the five swimmers in the shadow of the Stump dominated the front page with more pictures and an uplifting article on pages 8 and 9.”
We’re grateful to the powers that b’aint for that little morsel.
Without it, we wouldn’t have known – because there was no mention whatever about Boston Borough Council or its staff.

***

Then there was the invitation to ‘Get down to the Central Park beach.’
Worst Street told us: “It's the hottest, sunniest summer for years, so get down to the beach.
“But you don't have to face the journey to Skeg. The beach is here, now, in Boston at Central Park …”
We think that we can guess the reaction in Boston if a market in Skegness was promoted using the suggestion that there was no need to take the trouble to drive to Boston.

***

Then there was the attempt to be helpful using someone else’s jargon.
A warning of a possible heat wave was presented thus on WorstWeb
“There is a 90% risk of high confidence that threshold temperatures will be reached. Temperatures will be hot and humid through the daytime. Thresholds are increasingly likely to be exceeded through the period, and staying above overnight thresholds.”
A translation would have been helpful, wethinks – as would have been  a mention of the possible temperatures!

***

A regular reader has raised an interesting query about how Boston presents itself.
An e-mail says: “Passing the Parkgate at 5.15 pm the other Saturday I saw a well soaked, large mobile visitbostonuk.com advert – which  brought the following question to mind: How effective is that site? Once you can see the advert there, surely you are already visiting Boston.
“Is this a good use of our council tax or any other monies invested in the unit?
“Most people will be able to suggest at least one other more appropriate and effective site for such advertising. (Perhaps the car park at Councillor Rylott's favourite golf club.)
After sleeping on it, our reader added: “Maybe the sign in the park was not advertising 'Visit Boston' but merely begging people to visit the internet site visitbostonuk.com.
“Whatever; it looked very washed out after a shower. Hardly encouraging anyone to get excited about Boston in any form.” 

***

Finally, we are told of a landmark calendar date for one of our councillors who enjoys a role at Lincolnshire County Council as well.
“Two years since I left work,” declares a piece on Twitter. “(I) have done so much it feels like much longer.”
It's good to hear of all that hard work going on in the chambers of Boston and Lincoln.

 ***

Our holiday/silly season fortnightly publication schedule continues – and our next blog will be on Monday 20th August.

  

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



Wednesday 1 August 2018


Despite our ‘Silly Season’ decision to blog fortnightly for a while Monday’s Boston Eye will be one of our biggest ever.
Among the headlines …
Court with their trousers down. Worst Street case involving neighbourhood row over a fishpond costs council taxpayers £25,000 – and many councillors were kept in the dark about it.
Bridge fails to come up trumps. It’s filthy and mouldy – but Lincolnshire County Council says it not a priority/
It’s true – people really don’t have much faith in their councillors and MPs … and that comes from our man in the House of Commons.
Bottom of the class … teacher councillors slam ideas from school kids as ‘bonkers’ – and even Worst Street slaps them down.
All this an much more in Boston Eye – online on Monday from 5am


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