Last week’s mention of street drinking in Boston sparked yet another wave of comment.

Opinions popped up on several Facebook sites where issues affecting Boston are discussed, as well as in a number of e-mails.

Even Boston Borough Council joined in the debate by listing a week’s work for its 3GS Enforcement ‘team.’

***

According to Worst Street, 3GS provides enforcement officers who patrol the streets issuing fixed penalty notices for ‘a variety’ of different environmental crimes including littering, fly-tipping, graffiti, dog fouling, ‘etc.’

Amazingly, this costs the council taxpayers nothing, as 3GS keeps all the money from the fines – usually £70 quid a throw.

Yet it is claimed “their officers are not financially incentivised” – step back in amazement – and their work also helps the council “carry out awareness raising and educational initiatives.”

***

When 3GS was first given the contract, the Worst Street spinster hit an hysterical high.

“The service level agreement with 3GS has been widely (do they mean wildly? – Ed) successful during its pilot.

“The council issued only seven fixed penalty notices for environmental crime offences in 2016/17.

“This rose to 514 between April and December 2017 as a result of our use of 3GS.”

***

Sidestepping the fact that this either showed up the council’s own efforts as less than half-hearted – or contradicted the idea that issuing shedloads of tickets was not an incentive because the company kept the money, the figures were nonetheless substantial.

Unhappily for Worst Street they also confirmed what many had been saying – that the council was merely paying lip service to the problem … let’s not forget that this was back in the heyday of the council/local ‘newspaper’ name and shame ‘partnerships’ which neither named nor shamed anyone at all.

***

However, what the figures showed was a vigorous attack on some environmental crimes – enough to get the 3GS contract extended until April next year.

Some simple division shows that the tickets averaged around 60 a month, or 16 a week.

Sixteen a week is two or three a day by a ‘team’ the size of which is not specified.

***

Fast forward a few months from the meeting which extended the contract and look at Worst Street’s recent weekly figures

In the week commencing 8^th October, the ‘team’ issued six tickets for fly-tipping, four for cigarette littering and one for urinating – that’s eleven in all.

The following week beginning 15^th October, four tickets were handed out for cigarette littering, three for fly-tipping and one Number One – a total of eight.

***

What we’re looking at here is a definite decline in tickets issued – and whilst fly-tipping sounds serious it doesn’t necessarily involve huge amounts of waste.

But when it does, you can bet your boots that Worst Street will look the other way if it can.

Witness this recent dialogue a taxpayer and Worst Street after an attempt to report some fly-tipping.

 To Worst Street: “Another fly tip load on Norfolk street for your attention…”

From Worst Street: “We are grateful when people report fly-tips but as previously stated we do not collect from peoples’ properties unless they book bulky collections. Which they may have done.”

To Worst Street: “More obstruction of footpath, and looks an eyesore.  Further info was (that it was) dumped by rough sleeper in derelict building close by.

“Why don't you get your CCTV right next to incident to actually trace what actually happened?

Are you not going to tackle this then?”

From Worst Street: “This looks like it is on a driveway?

“It is only classed as a fly-tip if it is on the highway. Please advise?

To Worst Street: “Looks like (it has) been dumped, would think someone moved to edge to not obstruct path?

“Are you not willing to tackle then?

“Thought you'd be grateful of public reporting such blight on our streets…”

At this point, the dialogue ended.

***

Given that the 3GS contract is up for renewal next April – and that the elections for the full council will be held on 2^nd May ... we think that if nothing else, any decision to renew should be pushed back for a few weeks so that the decision can be taken by whomever is elected to the new council.

***

A more serious episode concerned a reader who encountered a threatening attitude from two men he encountered in a park with a children’s play area.

He saw evidence of drug taking, cannabis smoking and drinking within a few feet of a CCTV camera at a time when two council staff were present and asked whether – whilst they may not have been allowed to issue a challenge, whether they should at least have made a phone call?

He added: “The two youths became threatening when challenged, so I rang 999, only to be told to report it on 101.”

***

What’s emerging here is a clear case of too many cooks spoiling the broth.

The streets are now watched – physically or otherwise – by the police, the 3GS team, Worst Street’s own anti-social behaviour squad and CCTV.

The police appear to be under the impression that the problem of street drinking has largely been solved – although the reality seems more likely that it has simply moved elsewhere … away from the town centre.

Recently observers say they have been seeing less of 3GS on the street – which seems borne out by the fall in the issue of tickets, as we are sure that the problems are not solving themselves..

Worst Street’s merry band – who knows?

CCTV, meanwhile, is now operated by Boston Borough Council not only covering the borough but also South Holland, East Lindsey and parts of North Kesteven.

Whilst this makes money for Worst Street – always a top priority – and has involved some extra staff input from outside districts, at the end of the day the more thinly you spread the jam on you bread the less palatable the sandwich becomes.

***

Between April last year and the end of March this year, CCTV operators recorded 18,405 daily log entries, and completed 1,855 incident records – which included 985 Boston incidents … plus 609 for East Lindsey, 198 in South Holland and 63 in North Kesteven.

If that wasn’t enough to keep them busy, they also dealt with 556 out of hours telephone calls for Boston Borough Council and 1,014 for East Lindsey.

***

The ‘daily log entries’ – running at more than fifty a day – sound like paperwork for its own sake, as ‘proper’ incident records represent only about 10% of the top line.

Over the year, there were 346 arrests where CCTV provided a direct contribution in Boston – fewer than one a day.

***

 Interestingly, the proximity of incidents in relation to town’s police station continue to suggest that a couple of patrolling Bobbies/Robertas would do more to dissuade people from misbehaving and therefore reduce the number of incidents to be dealt with and remove many other attendant pressures.

***

What becomes increasingly obvious is that between the various groups focussing on the town’s issues there are a number of omissions within each that collectively create a black hole through which much of what exercises the taxpaying residents is allowed to slip.

What’s needed is a wheels-up restoration of the system, where all the parties involved get together to analyse the causes and sources of the trouble and look at where their systems are failing.

This should also include the much-derided 101 phone system – which so many people complain costs them 15p to make a call which  takes an eternity to get a response … unless they give up in despair first.

***

End of rant. For now

***

Last week we highlighted some interesting items from the Worst Street spending list – and there will be more to come.

In the meantime here’s a riddle for you … we all know that Ryanair is a low cost budget airline whose tickets are sold for give away prices.

The question?

How many of the Great and the Good can you fly to Boston’s twin town Laval for £1,215.18?

***

Another highlight from last week demonstrated the convenience of a parked-up Worst Street trailer as a repository for used booze bottles.

Whilst this mess was selflessly cleared up by none other than the town centre portfolio holder, it seems that where there’s another trailer, there’s another unofficial bottle bank!

Poor old Worst Street.

***

Finally, our Forward Planning Smile of the Week award goes to whomever spent hours with his Letraset kit  painstakingly to put together the sign below.

Thankth to thith thign, oneth the oneth cometh, no-one will have an excuseth if they parkth where they shouldnth.

That's why we have restictions!

***

We clock up yet another undeserved birthday this week, so  we're taking a few days off . 
Our next blog will appear on Monday 12^th November.

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

Not for the first time, the list of how Boston Borough Council spends our money each month contains some interesting entries.

Their publication is purportedly an exercise in ‘transparency’ – but quite often raises questions to which the answers are not found easily … if at all.

The list – of expenditure more than £250 – also shows a steady stream of costs which we have been led to believe were being curbed or even done away with altogether.

***

A good example here is the borough’s sporting facilities.

Just over three years ago there was great fanfare when ‘full responsibility’ for the Princess Royal Sports Arena was taken on by an organisation called 1Life.

WorstWeb – the borough’s website – reported at the time: “1Life now has the go-ahead to arrange repairs and improvements to bring the centre up to an improved handover condition – the final bill to be paid by the borough council.

“But these costs will be covered by savings made by energy efficiency improvements, some of which are already complete and providing a return.

“The sport, leisure and recreation experts will have a full repair and renew lease for the site, relieving borough council tax payers of any future financial responsibility.”

***

Really?

Ahead of this announcement, in 2015 WorstWeb tootled ‘Here comes the sun... and FREE energy.’  

We were told that the roof of the Princess Royal Sports Arena had been covered by 364 state-of-the-art high-tech solar panels as the first part of a project to save and make cash to help pay for the building’s refurbishment.

“The solar array is set to begin delivering free energy to the PRSA later this week and will generate electricity even on dull days.

“The green energy measures for the PRSA, which will also include installation of a wood-fired biomass boiler, were part of agreed council proposals which include agreeing lease arrangements with an operator so that the PRSA has a long-term future without on-going revenue support from the council.

***

In May last year, there was more good news …

“… the PRSA … was costing the taxpayer £300,000 pa in subsidy to keep it going.

“In 2016 the new arrangements with 1life have seen the facility operate for the first time at a zero cost to the taxpayer which has the potential to save the taxpayer £6m over the lifetime of the lease.

“This has in part been made possible by the investment in biomass heating boilers …”

***

Despite these repeated claims that the PRSA costs us nothing, we appear still to be paying for biomass woodchip at well over £1,000 a month, alongside a bill of gas and electricity around £3,500 a month … in March this year it was over £5,000.

Add that little lot together and it makes quite a serious subsidy –  rather than costing us nothing at all.

***

A point that makes this particularly worth highlighting is because Worst Street is currently talking with companies which have expressed an interest in running the Geoff Moulder Leisure Complex – along with the Guildhall and sport and ‘play development’ services.

The story going out at present is that the council will retain ownership of the facilities, but engage with organisations to help it save money whilst retaining or even improving services.

***

As with the PRSA, the Moulder benefits from solar panels and the biomass boiler – although the gas and electricity bills remain about the same as ever.

Not only that – but a couple of items in May show a capital spend of £23,000 plus a further £15,000 from revenue on ‘GMLC alterations, new floor finishes’ –  and not even spent with a local business.

***

So, instead of achieving transparency in its doings, Worst Street is raising shedloads of questions concerning its spending on fuel. As well as that its use of phrases such as ‘no cost to the taxpayer’ appear alongside the spending of  large sums on  improvements at a time when it is thinking of handing over control of the centre.

And let’s not lose sight of the recent announcement that £95,000 is coming from the Government’s Controlling Migration Fund on a major refurbishment and expansion of the Moulder gym

It just seems that prudence with spending our money is of no concern to Worst Street.

***

Further examination of the figures continues to throw up interesting anomalies.

What the council called an on-going ‘revolution’ in West Street has seen ‘better and more economic use’ of  the council offices’ space, leading to the probation service, the registrar's office and a range of other Lincolnshire County Council services being accommodated within the Municipal Buildings.

And a year ago we heard that the current ‘remodelling’ work would allow the Department for Work and Pensions to move in.

“This generates much-needed revenue for the council, achieves significant accommodation savings for the DWP and will provide a more efficient service for the public” trumpeted the Worst Street spinster.

Back to the spending figures.

We assume that someone somewhere is saving money, but it will certainly take Boston Borough Council a while to show a profit after apparently spending around £300,000 on the DWP relocation exercise.

***

A while ago there was understandable concern over news that households could be charged directly for the amount of rubbish they put in their general waste bin under proposals to increase recycling.

Fears were voiced that the system – inevitably dubbed pay as you throw – could mean that large families who produce lots of rubbish paying more than households of only one or two people.

The proposal was made by the Local Authority Recycling Advisory Committee (LARAC), which represents waste collection officers at about 70 per cent of UK local authorities.

The story appeared back in April – a month after Worst Street reported spending £600 on each of five of its bin collection lorries to supply and fit standalone weighing scales.

Is the council planning a stealth tax rise or ruse, we wonder?

Perhaps someone could tell us.

***

Boston’s ‘parish council’ – BTAC-ky – has moved into the silly area of paying other departments at Worst Street grants to provide the services they can’t find the money for.

One example appeared in the shape of  the recent combined emergency services’ Blue Light Day in Central Park, organised by Boston Borough Council in association with Lincolnshire Police.

As with money, Boston Borough Council maintained its inability to count by claiming that ‘hundreds’ attended the event – even though the WorstWeb photos showed otherwise.

Ahead of the occasion, the Boston Borough Council Community Safety Team asked for money from BTAC-ky’s small grants scheme totalling £970.07 for two projects.

The first of these was the Blue Light Day and totalled just under £400 – and when a member asked why funding had not been sourced from the Controlling Migration Fund, back came the reply that the Controlling Migration Fund had delivered the funds requested for the new Anti-Social Behaviour Officer post, but no money to take the role forward:  it was the officer’s job to find the funding.

***

So the Controlling Migration Fund – which in this case is Boston Borough Council wearing another hat – funds a job but no money to make it workable.

Another member of the committee asked if the emergency services taking part had been approached for funds to support the event.

Unsurprisingly, an officer couldn’t answer that, but felt that the invitation to attend had been ‘in-kind’ and it was the support of the services at the event which was the priority.

A sort of ‘I’ll show you mine if you’ll show me yours’ arrangement.

Nonetheless, this event was part organised by Worst Street – which means that money had to be found from somewhere to pay for it – so why is everyone being so silly about costs?

We make no apology for a second mention in today’s issue of the generosity of the Controlling Migration Fund in funding a £90k facelift for the Moulder gym – which will more greatly benefit a future operator rather than the users – whilst appointing a new Anti-Social Behaviour Officer and leaving him/her with both hands tied behind his/her back.

***

At long last, though, it seems that BTAC-ky is addressing some well overdue issues.

Perhaps the most important of these is the regular report sought by the committee on behalf of the local police inspector.

Given the difference of opinion between the Boston public and the Boston police over things such as the maintenance of public order and what many still see as the high level of drinking in public places, you might think that a regular report to councillors would help build confidence and calm fears. 

***

But a look at the minutes of the last few months’ BTAC-ky meetings shows that the police representative showed up just once in four meetings – and the regular agenda item on this week’s BTAC-ky meeting has vanished from the agenda.

However, all may not be lost.

At its meeting last month the minutes tell us that the committee agreed: “That a letter be … sent to the area supervisor or Assistant Chief Constable stating that if Inspector Morrice was unable to attend a meeting, a representative on his behalf, attend instead.

“It was a standing item on the agenda and questions arose at each meeting in respect of policing matters.

“Due to grave concerns in respect of serious issues of safety within the town centre in the evening, coupled with the potential future cuts to policing within the county, Lincolnshire Crime Commissioner Mr Marc Jones be requested to attend a meeting of the committee to identify how such potential future cuts to policing would further impact on Boston.

“In the event that Mr Jones be unable to attend, then a Chief Officer from Lincolnshire Headquarters be requested to attend on his behalf.”

***

We do find it odd that whilst our publicly-appointed representatives share ‘grave concerns in respect of serious issues of safety within the town centre’ the police apparently do not.

Only last week a story appeared on a local news website beneath the headline: “‘Street drinking is a blight on our town’ – Boston people dismiss police claims that problem is being successfully tackled….’”

The report begins: “People in Boston feel street drinking is still a huge problem plaguing the town – despite police insisting enforcement of areas of the town is at an all-time high …”

It is claimed that some people say fewer reports are only being made because people have lost faith that their complaints will be tackled.”

The debate on this is endless and repetitive – and some sort of result will only be reached when the local police and Worst Street truly get together to find common ground to get to the facts.

***

And – titter ye not – the following photo was taken in a car park a mere tinny’s throw from the Municipal Buildings.

***

Another item that cropped up at last month’s meeting was a call for an update on bus operator Brylaine’s  intentions for a future routing of services away from the Market Place – being ‘mindful’ of the committee’s overwhelming support and request for the re-routing.

Despite no shortage of political debate, the buses continue to grind their polluting path through Strait Bargate – often in mini convoys … something that we were promised from the outset would never happen.

The damage to the surface of what was designed to be a pedestrian precinct is clearly visible – as is the trail of oil dribbles along the route.

But pollution in this case is not simply defined by fumes and oil – the noise created by the alarms from these buses as they haul their cargo of a handful of passengers past people who thought that they were out for a pleasant shopping experience is an insult to residents and visitors alike … as is being herded aside to make way for traffic whether there should be none.

***

In the past, Brylaine justified the Strait Bargate route because the buses could not turn round at either the Post Office or the Market Place ends.

Even so, as long ago as 2013 it was being claimed that Lincolnshire County Council and Brylaine were looking at alternative routes.

As we all know things move glacier-like in the World of Worst Street, and it was only a year ago that Boston Borough Council's Cabinet agreed to organise a meeting with Brylaine Travel and Lincolnshire County Council to discuss rerouting the Into Town bus service to avoid Strait Bargate.

Brylaine's Operations Director helpfully suggested that a bus stop at Fish Hill would allow buses to enter and leave the Market Place without going through Strait Bargate – and on the other side of town could make a U-turn in Wide Bargate. 
That sounds very sensible and obvious – so why is it taking so long?

Once upon a time most of the main political groups in Worst Street pledged to reroute the service.

The Conservatives even went so far  as to claim that there were six options for a service put forward which were all agreed – but the option for the buses to go through the town centre itself was not put out to open debate, or even to other councillors.

It was described as a decision made in private behind closed doors by the long defunct and little mourned Boston Bypass Independents party during their disappointing flirtation with power.

With an election in sight, perhaps it might be a shrewd political move to resurrect the idea of rerouting of the Into Town service away from the shoppers into a manifesto for May next year.

It could be a winner. 

***

Finally – you can take a horse to water …

Last Wednesday’s cabinet of curiosities' meeting allocated 15 places for students as part of Local Democracy Week.

In the event, none turned up – but as the meeting was done and dusted in just 21 minutes, the guests might have been delayed by the traffic and got there too late!

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

This week is uncharacteristic for Boston Borough Council in that there seems to have been an outbreak of democracy in Worst Street.

***

Today sees the start of National Democracy Week – and Worst Street is demonstrating that it is bang up to date up there with the best of them by promoting a debate for students which reads: “This house believes that women should not be afforded the right to vote...”

The council claims that a debate on Women's Right to Vote is particularly relevant as this year is the 100^th anniversary of the act which gave some women the right to vote for the first time.

“Boston's Guildhall will be transformed into its own house of commons and, in keeping with that time, it is expected to be a very vocal and enthusiastic debate ably encouraged from the public gallery” says WorstWeb – the council’s website.

At least it sounds a little more exciting that normal meetings of the council where the only sound for much of the time is that of a rubber stamp being applied.

***

Tomorrow the council will be staging a mock scrutiny meeting and on Wednesday students will be attending that day’s Cabinet meeting.

Thursday involves a visit to the CCTV suite and a chance to look at the family silver and join the deputy mayor for a cucumber sandwich, whilst Friday completes the week with an open day at the Guildhall to see how the council works.

Councillors will be there too, as will MP Matt Warman to field questions.

Whilst all the other sessions are private – the Guildhall is open as usual, so there is a rare opportunity to quiz the great and the good.

But synchronise your clocks and watches – the session only last from 10am until 2pm.

***

All this makes a pleasant change coming from a council that normally prefers to hide its light under as big a bushel as possible – although we have just one niggle.

Whilst the aim of the week is to promote local democracy, particularly among young people in schools and colleges, nothing at all is on offer for anyone over the age of 18.

According to recent population figures for the borough, just 12% of residents are aged between 10 and 19 years. That leaves an awful lot of people who might appreciate a lesson or two in how the council works with nothing to get involved in whatever … unless they pop along to Friday’s Guildhall session.

Still, at least it’s a tottering step in the right direction.

***

However, the 18-plusses do get a look in tomorrow night at 6pm where there is an open meeting for anyone interested in becoming a councillor in the Committee Room of the municipal buildings in West Street.

The session will provide information on the election process and an overview of the role and responsibilities of being a councillor.

All 30 seats on Boston Borough Council will be up for election on May 2^nd next year – less than 200 days away – when we expect to see some to see some serious changes

WorstWeb tantalisingly asks: “Have you ever ... wanted to get something done for your community?

“Thought that the council could spend money better?

“Wanted to improve public services?

“Thought that you could do a better job given the chance?

“Well now's your chance.”

***

We think that’s being a little over-optimistic, as there is no money left to spend for better or for worse, and public services broadly are deteriorating rather than the reverse.

Having said that, doing a better job than some of our current flock of councillors should not be too difficult, and as we have seen, no specific skills or qualifications are required – so why not give it a go?

***

Talk of councillors reminds us of a couple of noteworthy episodes that have caught our eye in the past few days.

***

Step forward Councillor Stephen Woodliffe.

Earlier this month Mr Woodliffe hit the headlines at a meeting of the Lincolnshire Police and Crime Panel during a debate on police funding when he asked if PCSOs should be funded by parish councils.

Mr Woodliffe, who represents Boston Borough Council on the panel, said he believed there was ‘little option.’

After the meeting, he was quoted as saying: “It’s my view that if the police grant from the government cannot be increased and Lincolnshire faces a situation where there are not enough officers to provide the security people want then people will have to pay for PCSOs, as an example, out of parish funds.

“The parishes themselves would have to fund the police officers who will patrol their communities.”

He was also said to have added that the idea could be extended to include other services.

 “I’m afraid there is little option since government finances are in the precarious state they are, ordinary citizens are going to have to pay more money for the services that they want,” he said.

***

In the early says of PCSO-ing the bill was picked up by the districts, but that was taken over by Lincolnshire County Council, which withdrew the £2 million funding because of financial constraints nearly three years ago.

***

In Mr Woodliffe’s political world a parish council would be BTAC-ky, of which he is a member.

Yet his track record here is rather contradictory.

Spool back to July 2016 when BTAC-ky was ramping up its precept to buy more and more power and approved a council tax rise of 94.6%, followed by another the following year of 185%.

We wrote to all members of BTAC to protest at the high charges being imposed on the borough’s poorest area, as the BTAC catchment has long been recognised.

He responded: “I 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.”

***

Yet between his idea to pay for PCSOs from the parish purse and rejecting the idea that people living in the BTAC area might have trouble paying their council tax bills came the February meeting of the Lincolnshire Police and Crime Panel, which increase the police share of council tax by 5.8% to raise an extra £2.7m a year.

But this time, 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.”

It really has to be make your mind up time for Mr Woodliffe.

Either he has sympathy with the hard-pressed or he sees them as a milch cow that is there to fund all and sundry.

What Mr Woodliffe fails to have taken into account is that Boston Borough Council is in exactly the same boat as Lincolnshire Police and that if they can’t afford the service provided by PCSOs there is no reason for local councils to pick up the tab.

***

Any attempt so to do would place Worst Street in a precarious position where public confidence is concerned.

After all, we have put up with ever-increasing cuts to services over the years against a backdrop of increasing council tax based on the argument that the council’s budget is being cut by the government and that only a similar exercise by Worst Street can help make ends meet.

Back in the days when PCSOs cost a mere £2 million, the basic but perhaps disproportionate division of that figure by the seven district councils would mean chipping in £285,000 – and if that amount of money was sloshing about  to be given away willy-nilly it could have been spent on something that Worst Street and its residents had a choice about.

We hope that Mr Woodliffe’s seat on the panel is one that carries no authority to authorise spending money from our purse – and that if it might, he would consult more widely than merely shooting from the lip.

***

Still with money – and questions still remain over whether or not Boston has benefitted from a £111,000 windfall from its investments.

The claim was reported just over a month ago, when Worst Street’s finance ‘chief’ is highlighted the potential of a £20 million loan “after the authority’s previous investment had an 11% return.”

The report told us: “Councillor Aaron Spencer has been buoyed by the success of a £1 million property fund investment made three years ago, which on March 31^st  had returned £1.111 million – giving the council an additional £111,000 capital.

“It comes as the authority and East Lindsey District Council look at how to spend a further £20 million loan.

“After revealing the news to cabinet leaders, councillor Spencer said: “When you consider we put in to our capital budget £100k every year in order to make capital available to replace our refuse fleet or whatever we need, another £111k from an investment, from £1m, you can scale that up to the £20m.”

***

Boston Eye regulars will recall that some of our readers were less than happy with the maths involved here – and one has gone as far as a Freedom of Information request to find out more.

The question asked for full details of  with whom the investment was placed, the type of property fund it was placed in and the term of the investment – along with copies of the minutes where the terms of this investment and the approval of the investment were discussed.

As well as that, the request sought important clarification: “In the borough's accounts for the year ended 31^st March 2018 the investment seems to appear under long term investments.

“In his interview Councillor Spencer seems to suggest the investment has now matured and returned £111,000 cash to the council’s coffers; whereas the accounts seem to suggest that this is a long term investment and the valuation of this investment as at 31^st March 2018 was £1,111,000.

***

Boston Borough Council replied to say: during 2016/17 it invested £1m in three property funds – £0.5m in BlackRock UK Property Fund  £0.25m in Schroder’s Real Estate Fund  and the same amount in Threadneedle Property Unit Trust                       

“These investments are long-term and have no set maturity date. The council still hold units in all three funds, and performance is reported on a quarterly basis to the Audit and Governance Committee.

“Copies of the minutes from the Audit and Governance, Cabinet and Full Council where the terms of this investment and the approval of the investment were discussed. “Minutes of meetings (and agendas) are available at http://moderngov.boston.gov.uk/ieDocHome.aspx?bcr=1 – specific reports can be accessed by selecting the appropriate committee and date.

“The Treasury Management Strategy Statement 2016-17 was approved by the council on 29^th February 2016.

“The Treasury Management 2016-17 Quarter 1 update report was presented to the Audit and Governance Committee on 25^th July 2016.

“The Annual Treasury Management Report 2017-18 was presented to the Audit and Governance Committee on 30^th May 2018

“The council’s 2017-18 Financial Statements were presented to Audit and Governance Committee on 30^th May 2018, and can be found at http://www.boston.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=23587&p=0

***

Amusingly – depending on your sense of humour – Blackrock is the company that pays George Osborne £650,000 a year for one day's work a week. We hope that he's keeping a watchful eye on our paltry half a million!

Interestingly, all three companies invest in property in broadly the same proportions – split between UK retail, UK offices, UK industrial and other UK properties … so if disaster strikes, all three will be in the same boat.

We always thought that the general idea was to spread investments so that if one suffered, others might not.

But then, what do we know?

One answer to that which we do know is that the investments are on-going – and any profit shown appears to be on paper … and not in hard cash.

***

We hope that people are keeping a cool head over the news that a major television series is to be filmed in Boston.

Wild Bill, starring Rob Lowe – an actor with forty years’ experience in film, television and theatre, including a starring role in The West Wing – features high-flying US police chief Bill Hixon who comes to Boston to lead the ‘East Lincolnshire’ police force.

According to the ITV blurb … “he lands in Boston, Lincolnshire, with his 14 year-old daughter Kelsey in tow, hoping they can flee their painful recent past.

“But this unfamiliar, unimpressed community will force Bill to question everything about himself and leave him asking whether it's Boston that needs Bill, or Bill that needs Boston?”

It goes on: “With a first class degree in criminology, a Masters in psychopathology and a Doctorate in statistical mapping, Bill Hixon is impressively qualified to tackle the county’s crime figures with his graphs, charts, algorithms and a tapestry of digits. 

“Whip-smart, acerbic and unstoppable, Bill is very good at what he does. 

"America’s Top Metropolitan Police Chief three years running is the ideal candidate to make his mark on the East Lincolnshire force, not least by driving through drastic cuts. From the outset Bill isn’t about making friends. He’s here to get the job done and get the hell out as quick as his spin-class-toned legs will carry him.

“But Bill discovers the people of Boston are just as smart-mouthed, cynical and difficult to impress as he is. They don’t suffer fools, authority or algorithms gladly. 

“And the man who’s spent his life keeping the messiness of human intimacy at arm’s length is reluctantly propelled into frontline policing and forced to reconsider his relationship with those closest to him. 

"It’s funny and dangerous in equal measure.”

Why is it that we think Boston is unlikely to emerge smelling of roses from its skirmish with the movie makers?

***

Finally – and still on a monetary theme – we mentioned last week that Boston Borough Council was using part of  the £1.39 million grant from the Government's Controlling Migration Fund … made available to promote community cohesion in partnership with various local charities and organisations … to blow £95,000 on a major refurbishment and expansion of Boston's Geoff Moulder Leisure Complex.

We thought this a little strange, as projects mentioned at the time included improving access to English lessons and bolstering advice services as well as an increased focus on tackling and remedying the impact that rogue landlords and anti-social behaviour have had on the area.

So you can guess our surprise when we saw this advert online last week on the Boston English Academy Facebook page.

News of the Moulder improvements must surely come as a tonic for Lincolnshire County Council, the Boston Lithuanian Community, Cultural Solutions UK, Boston Police and the two teachers who are providing the courses – for free!

***

Back next Monday.

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