The fallout from the annual meeting of Boston “Improvement” District – where free speech was stifled by use of the police and BID-owned Town Rangers forcibly to prevent a legitimate representative of a member business from attending to ask questions – continues unabated.
As well as a number of developments behind the scenes, local businessman Darron Abbott – a former BID director who quit in disgust at the way the company was run … and who was manhandled and physically barred when he tried to enter the meeting – is continuing to pile on the pressure.
Among the flimsy excuses offered by BID Chairman Alan “Obersturmbannführer” Ellis, was that Mr Abbott “could not be trusted to offer a constructive input to the meeting,” and that he “will not work with us.”
In other words … do it our way or we kick you out.
However, the annual meeting was a public affair and since it was reported, Mr Abbott has written to Boston Eye with a few interesting questions – the first being about the unusual plan to use condom dispensing machines to sell maps of the town.
He asks: “Am I correct in assuming that these are the maps that cost around £15,000 to produce a couple of years ago?  If so I have to ask the following questions:-
 
1)     Other towns have dispensers for their maps.  Did BID really spend all that money producing maps before ensuring a machine was out there to dispense them?
2)     Apart from the boxes of maps sold to Boston Borough Council how many others have they sold?
3)     What will English Heritage think to having condom machines hung around the market place, which I believe is a conservation area?
4)    Why has it taken BID so long to decide to do something with these maps?”

He then moves on to the concert planned for Boston’s Central Park, which was cancelled for two years in a row – and because the BID neglected to insure it against this eventuality local business have lost up to £15,000.

“The BID Chairman is quoted as saying ‘it would have cost £4,000 to insure the Central Park based event,’
“I would love to see a copy of the quote, if indeed there was ever a quote gained.
“I have contacted a company called Event Insurance Services and they have quoted me £250 for cancellation, Abandonment cover – up to £20,000. I do hope the chairman has the paper work to justify his £4,000 cost and it was not just a figure he came up with off the top of his head to justify the non-insurance of the event. The quote I gained has been supplied with this letter.” (See picture below)



click on photo to enlarge it

“It appears the Shopwatch scheme is to be reintroduced.
“The previous scheme was closed down due to dwindling attendances at meetings, this time, though, the BID manger has a cunning plan.
“Perhaps he should use this cunning plan to get the BID Directors to attend their own meetings before he expects anyone else to turn out for the shop watch meetings.
“Probably the most interesting idea was the one where the Town Rangers are to be adopted as Special Constables by giving them more powers.
“BID legislation would prevent this, as it quite clearly states:-
“A BID does not pay for services that are already covered by existing business rates.
“The legislation then goes on to list services that are cover by business rates – and it actually lists police services.
“I will be very surprised if Boston BID Limited deliver any of the above, as they have delivered none of their previous ideas.”
We have not contacted either Boston BID or Lincolnshire Police for a comment, as previous attempts have been ignored, and there is no reason to assume that this one would be treated any differently.
 

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com

 

 

For many people, politics is complicated enough, without making it even more so.

But when the nominations for next month’s County Council elections for seats in Boston’s seven wards are announced at noon tomorrow, some voters might be forgiven for wondering where on earth to place their ‘X’ s.
All the main party candidates are as we listed in Boston Eye a fortnight ago – along with our thumbnail sketches of the candidates – and you can read that piece by clicking here 
At that time we listed a couple of independent candidates as well – both of them sitting Boston borough councillors – Ossy  Snell who is standing  for county hall in Fishtoft, and Carol Taylor in Boston North West – and there now are four more - but how “independent” are they?
New names on the list since last we published are: Boston Borough Councillor Alison Austin who is standing in Boston South and Rob Lauberts in Boston West, plus Anne Dorrian and Richard Dungworth  in  Boston East.
Now, time for some confusion.
Are you sitting comfortably?
Then we’ll begin.
The dictionary defines Independent as meaning “Free from outside control; not  depending on another's authority.”
However, three of our “independents”  – Councillor Austin,  Mr Dungworth and Mr Lauberts declare themselves to be “Lincolnshire Independents” – which means that if elected they will presumably ally with other such party members within Lincolnshire County Council.
Is this a problem?
Well… by definition, an independent is – er – independent.
Yet Lincolnshire Independents have a leader – in the shape of County Councillor Marianne Overton – who among a wide range of credentials is a Vice-Chairman of the Local Government Association and Leader of the LGA Independents.
Their six members are enough for them to be regarded as the main opposition party at Lincoln.
We know of traditional independents who become quite annoyed at the suggestion that they can – or might be – led … and we have to say that this is a view with which we sympathise.
We note that one of our Lincolnshire Independents is a former Boston Bypass Independent Councillor … Mr Dungworth … whilst Mr Laubert is a former BBI candidate.
Councillor Austin was formerly a member of the BBI – which on the borough website is now referred to as the BDI – the Boston District Independents. Despite that, we are assured that the term “BDI” is only used by Boston Borough Council to distinguish the two groups of independents, and that the whateveryoucall’ems remain as a separate group because it makes no difference to numbers of committee seats and entitles the independents to additional representation at group leaders’ meetings.
Apparently, they “work closely with the other independents whenever appropriate,” but since all of them are independent councillors, they all vote according to their consciences. 
“Independents never operate a party whip system, unlike the national political parties,” we are told.
Meanwhile, Ms Dorrian – also a former BBI councillor – who resigned to form the Better Boston Group, which she led – is standing as a “mere” Independent – but against a Lincolnshire Independent for the same seat.
How do the voters make a choice?
So, it’s up to us – there are three I’s and there are three LI’s.
The fact that the Lincolnshire Independents have a leader implies a control and power structure.
We recall that after his election to Lincolnshire County Council as a Boston Bypass councillor four years ago Councillor Ray Newell switched from the BBI to the independents, explaining at the time that he made the move to have "a greater stake in the political process at county level.
"What I wanted to do was get on the Highways Committee,” he said at the time. “If I remained as a singleton it would have been impossible."
Although Councillor Newell was at pains to stress he was not collaborating  with a party, but a group, the thesaurus regards the words "party" and "group" as interchangeable
The county council allocates committee seats in proportion to the number of councillors in each party.
It also defines the grouping of Lincolnshire Independents as a political party.
In a “what if?” scenario, let us imagine that we see a local Lincolnshire Independent in the next county council faced with an issue that is good for Boston, but  nowhere else, and which his or her party colleagues opt to oppose.
How does this “independent” vote? With the “party” or for what is best for Boston?
It is a dilemma in the making?

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com

 



 Former councillor Jim Blaylock almost certainly rattled a few cages with his comments about what went on behind the scenes between the Boston Bypass Independents and the Tories at both County Hall and locally. Independent Boston Borough Councillor Richard Leggott wrote to Boston Eye to say: “It was interesting to read Jim's letter and, in places, to compare it with actual events. Yes, there are a lot of things to think about in its contents.  But the most worrying thing must be the tales of political shenanigans to which he refers. If accurate, ‘politics’ have not served Boston well. But when did they ever?  This worry must point clear/free thinking people to recognise the value/desirability of Independents in local government – and there is approaching an opportunity to send this message to those politicians on May 2^nd. “But he adds: “Jim's letter is not too accurate when it comes to the Improvement Board and its members. It omits to list all the external experts shipped into Boston Borough Council to guide the BBI administration back to good governance. Also all group leaders/spokespersons did offer to serve on the Improvement Board, but this offer was declined by Councillor Richard Austin. Maybe he forgot to tell Jim about this, or, 'could not recollect it.' In consultation with other group leaders/spokespersons, Councillor Bedford realised he could not, in all truth, realistically, satisfactorily perform as a representative of all shades of opposition opinion on the Improvement Board as it considered the way out of the mess which BBI ineptitude had created. We (the other group leaders/spokesperson) appreciated Councillor Bedford's honesty and also his support in pressing for a fuller representation from allgGroups on the Improvement Board.
Talking of honesty, we are reminded of the famous quote by Winston Churchill which says: “History is written by the victors.” The letter from the Conservative group on Boston Borough Council which sparked Jim Blaylock’s response saw the Tories blow their own trumpet loud and long – although we did detect a bum note or two in their recital. Perhaps most notably, they made silly claims concerning the Assembly Rooms. “Councillor Austin’s administration could have sold the Assembly Rooms for £1 million,” said the boys and girls in blue, “but failed to do so, choosing to neglect this historic building. The prohibitive cost of restoring the Assembly Rooms meant that we were unable to restore it to its former glory and had to sell it for only £450,000.” That was something of a low ball, as the building had been  systematically neglected by many successive administrations – the majority of them Conservative. In fact, the council leader Pete Bedford went so far as to say at the time of the sale: “Part of the terms of the sale was that the outside has to be redecorated to English Heritage standards every five years, and that’s something that’s never happened in my lifetime.” We said then that this was a  sad admission, as Councillor Bedford’s political history with Boston Borough Council  goes back to 1991 …  which makes him a long standing member of the council club that  allowed the Assembly Rooms to decline so far as to be beyond salvation.
Another interesting point raised by Jim Blaylock was in his covering e-mail to Boston Eye. He suggested that the time had come to ask our local MP Mark Simmonds: “How we can get some of the £3 billion promised by the chancellor (for new infrastructure projects) to deliver the bypass for Boston?” He added “I’m quite fed up with the town constantly being ignored and marginalised” and suggested “Perhaps it’s time to run a campaign for an elected mayor?” We recall that Mr Blaylock was a proponent of an elected Mayor way back when, and the subject has been raised several times in the past few years – although it seems recently to have gone to ground. Given the  pathetic state of our so-called “leadership”  and the fact that we are saddled with it for another two years, this would seem a good time to try for a change.  It only needs 2,417 people to sign a petition and there has to be a mayoral election – so what are you waiting for?
Talking of Mr Simmonds – do you recall the Boston Eye reader who wrote to him after a national newspaper story reported that Butlins in Skegness and other centres was advertising for minimum-wage staff in Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Latvia and Slovakia, instead of recruiting unemployed locals – including of course, those from Boston. He told the MP: “If a firm has a job to offer, then it should actually be available to those here, it should be advertised here and it shouldn't be permissible to fill vacancies with an endless stream of cheap agency workers purely because some employment sectors see it as a convenient means to circumvent basic employment rights.” Almost a month later a reply has at last arrived to say that Mr Simmonds will take the matter up with the director at the Skegness resort
We were told that once Lincolnshire County Council took on responsibility for car parking enforcement in Boston that the chaos in the Market Place would vanish as if by magic and that all those evil motorists would be brought to book with swingeing fines that would teach them what’s what. Perhaps the Boston councillors who made these promises-that-sounded-like-threats were referring to another Boston. The photo below was taken on Tuesday morning.
 

 

Even the Into Town bus that normally carves its way so distressingly through the pedestrians seemed to be struggling to make progress at times, as cars were parked completely randomly – in many cases seemingly abandoned wherever the drivers felt the need to leave them. And guess what – not a traffic warden – or whatever you care to call them these days - was anywhere in sight. We hope that Lincolnshire County Council isn’t being paid by Boston taxpayers – and thereford by us – to manage this mess.

Readers of the Mail on Sunday will have spotted the return of Peter Hitchens with some more comments regarding Boston – some 18 months after his infamous Boston Lincolngrad feature on immigration and the town. His update is far from encouraging. “We had all got used to London being different, long ago. The former mill towns of Yorkshire and Lancashire, with their huge new mosques and veiled women, were a place apart. But Lincolnshire? If it could come here, into Deep England, then it would come to everywhere,” he writes. “It really is not much good the Prime Minister turning round now and saying to the people of Boston ‘this must stop’. Even if anyone believed he can or will do anything … the event has happened. The greatest mass migration in our history has taken place. The newcomers are lawfully here. They have the jobs, live in the houses, use the NHS. Their children are in the schools. Come to that, they are paying tax. Our leaders only had to go to Boston, any time in the past five years, and they would have known. But all our leading politicians were afraid of knowing the truth. If they knew, they would at least have to pretend to act. And the truth was, they liked things as they were.” Read the feature in full by clicking here 
We accept that organising such things as rubbish collection is not an easy job, but our heart sank when for the second year running our brown bin remained unemptied on the first date that it was due for collection.  We wrote to a senior figure responsible for this task – and again some days later when no reply was received. Finally a response came from someone completely different. He told us in the patient terms normally reserved for a slightly truculent child that although we had put our bin out on a Tuesday, “your collection day is a Thursday,” and that “the crew that service the area have confirmed that your bin was behind your gate on the Thursday of collection which they noted. I’m sorry if this may have caused any confusion …” We replied to say that the confusion seemed to be entirely on the part of Boston Borough Council, and attached a copy of the helpful council-produced guide – which is the only source available to the public if they want to know their collection dates – and which clearly listed our collection day as a Tuesday. The response? “I was unaware that this was on the website.” Not for the first time, a left hand in West Street is not told what a right hand is doing … incorrectly as it happens. And was there any hint of apology. Of course not!
When you see the result of a Freedom of Information request it becomes instantly clear why members of the borough council leadership are so anxious to withhold as much as they can from the people who elected them. The cost of running the Garfits Lane playing field – moved at the eleventh hour from the main council budget to that of the Boston Town Area Committee so as to braise the books and let the council to claim that it hadn’t increased its share of the council tax – is just such an example.

click to enlarge

A quick perusal of the figures shows a charge of more than £5,000 just to open and close the gates. Any bidders out there to do the job cheaper?

The latest big idea from the ludicrous Boston “Improvement” District is to try to find a condom machine capable of dispensing the infamous 3D maps that they commissioned almost three years ago. Why they are doing this is beyond our ken, as they apparently already know of such machines tailor made for such a job in use in Stamford and Chester – so why this wasn’t taken into account  beggars belief. Readers with long memories will recall that these maps are worth their weight in gold. At the commissioning stage, the BID board was told that there would be a £9,000 charge for producing the maps and £7,500 for an initial purchase of 25,000 copies – or 66p a copy. But within a couple of months, the cost had been “quantified” at £17,000 to include 10,000 map booklets – or £1.70p per map – an unexplained rise of £1.04 a copy. We have serious doubts about using condom dispensers to issue maps.  Stand by for a series of unwanted pregnancies being blamed on the fact that “the map must have torn!”
Last week’s comparison between a Boston town ranger and the Beano comic character Wilfred from the Bash Street Kids has been successfully challenged …

 

   

We are far more taken by the likeness with one of Doctor Who’s arch-enemy – the Sontaran! Any more offers?

 

 

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com

 

On paper at least, Boston Borough Council’s leadership declares that it wants “to create a climate of openness and dialogue with the public and stakeholders and believes improved access to information about the council will help the development of such an environment.”
In reality, it appears that it is squirming like a worm on an angler’s hook to avoid answering questions from the public.
Whilst the boys and girls in blue haven’t yet gone as far as Boston Business “Improvement” District, in calling the town rangers to strong-arm people seeking information, they’re trying as hard as they can to do the next best thing.
Quite reasonably, the council declares that individuals have a right to privacy and confidentiality that overrides the Freedom of Information Act.
But somewhat darkly, it adds: “The council has a right to discharge its functions effectively. We can therefore use exemptions … to protect public interest.”
Surely, if the public are seeking information, it cannot be in their “interests” to find ways to withhold it.
As always, cost is a factor – and our leaders are more than happy to adopt a set of double standards in the hope that they might eventually wriggle out of being open and transparent.
The council received 128 FoI between October and December 2012 – an increase of 37 on the same period last year.
The council’s resident philosopher, Councillor Derek Richmond, is quoted as saying that it was a big concern.
“It’s costing us a lot of money,” he said, adding obscurely: “Whilst people have a right to this information, it is often just some information. It’s just a search for them. The tax payers are paying for that.”
More rationally, Councillor Mike Gilbert said he thought the council would have to ‘live with FOIs’ and asked if the requests could be put on the council’s website.
But Chief executive Richard Harbord said that some of the requests “not the sort of things we put on the website” adding “Some of the information you wouldn’t want to be general information.”
According to the Ministry of Justice, a local council may either charge for or decline requests for information that would cost more than £450 and should calculate the cost of providing an answer at £25 an hour.
Looking at some recent requests to the council, we doubt that it would take more than a couple of hours to cobble together the answer to a typical question.
So – working on an average of £50 an answer, the October-December total would come to £6,500 – a little over £25,000 a year, which we think is a small price to pay for honesty.
It is, after all, merely a quarter of the sum allocated by the council to provide free parking for its members and staff.
The council already bans the public and the media from meetings if a chance presents itself, and recently we saw the interesting device of an “informal” meeting which from the Tories’ point of view is helpful because no minutes are taken and the hoi polloi are not allowed to attend
At the meeting where the matter was discussed, council leader Pete Bedford said that he and the Chief Executive were thinking of taking the issues to the Local Government Association to find out what information can be “legitimately asked for.”
To us, that sounds suspiciously like finding out how much information they can legitimately avoid – which is bad for everyone concerned.
We are entitled to know as much as possible about our local council – and to seek to avoid giving out information begs the question … what has Boston Borough Council’s leadership got to hide?

 

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com

 



There’s been some argy-bargy in the local “newspapers” in recent weeks between the former Boston Bypass Independents and the current ruling Conservatives on Boston Borough Council.
In a nutshell, they’ve been playing the blame game – each accusing the other of responsibility for the mess that Boston was – and to a large degree – is still in.
The big problem with debates like this is that they are predictable – which is why it was very refreshing to receive an e-mail from a former BBI cabinet member and portfolio holder Jim Blaylock who – this far removed from events of the day –  offers some extremely interesting insights into events.
He writes: “I’m really pleased that the Conservative-led council is not afraid of difficult decisions (read their letter here) because there are a lot to be made if this town is to move forward.
“It’s a shame, however, that they have been economic with the truth in their letter ...
“I was part of the previous administration and can perhaps shed some light on what actually happened.
“Firstly, and perhaps most importantly – The Bypass.
“Boston people made it very clear that this was a major issue for the town. Buoyed up with enthusiasm, the leader, Richard Austin and his deputy Peter Jordan, met up with the leader of Lincolnshire County Council Martin Hill, determined to drive the project through.
“Unfortunately for them, Martin Hill was much too clever. He wanted to ensure that Boston Borough Council was run by Conservatives, and therefore the idea of a bunch of independents telling him what to do did not sit well with him.
“Richard Austin and Peter Jordan were told that Lincolnshire County Council were responsible for the roads and that it would be delivering the transport plan that was in place. They (the BBI) could make minor alterations and indeed contribute £1million of Boston money to the project.
“Effectively the Bypass was dead in the water for the period of the BBI council.
“Indeed this action subsequently ensured the defeat of the BBI and led to the current Conservative led council.
“Not a good start.
“At the time BBI won the election the council was spending more than it received. Staff costs were in excess of income and it had spent considerable quantities of money on projects such as the PRSA and the Haven gallery. The incumbent Chief Executive favoured these sorts of things – and therefore, like many other councils in the UK, the members were convinced by the officers that such things would benefit the town.
“The tail was wagging the dog.
“Previous to the BBI administration, the Boston Area Regeneration Company had been set up by the Chief Executive. Hailed as a new way forward in partnership working, the company was designed to deliver regeneration projects to the town, spending council tax money without the complexity of involving many of the councillors.
“It effectively short cut the democratic process.
“An investigation into BARC led to the Chief Executive leaving with a handsome (I can’t for legal reasons tell you how much) payoff.
“Richard Austin agreed to set up an Improvement Board, a group of established councillors and officials from the audit office to supervise the improvement programme. There were to be three elected members on the board – the leader, Richard Austin, deputy leader, Brenda Owen, and the leader of the majority opposition party (Conservatives) Peter Bedford.
“Peter Bedford refused to take part.
“Strange that the Conservatives now claim the success when the board finished only seven days after they took control!
“The Geoff Moulder Leisure Centre was costing vast sums of money and a number of ways were looked at to contain the costs.
As a town Boston had three pools – two at the Geoff Moulder centre and one at the PRSA.
“The plan was to refurbish the Geoff Moulder centre and operate one pool there – removing the second pool.
“Peter Bedford presented a petition to council instigated by the swimming club to save the training pool from closure.
“The Conservatives, when they got control, therefore had no choice but to maintain all three pools in the town.
“The plans for the college to take over the running of the Peter Payne centre, which was completely run down, were being discussed well before the election.
“Many people, myself included, felt that the college should use the state of art PRSA, which is poorly attended and that the Peter Payne Centre should close.
“Strange that the Conservatives claim responsibility.
“The same can be said about the replacement of the dust cart fleet – it was part of the plans before the election.
“The sale of the Assembly Rooms was discussed well before the election and the £1 million pound price tag was never mentioned. Many felt that the Assembly Rooms were a valuable asset to the town and should be developed as such.
“Selling off capital assets to use as everyday income is not in the long-term interest of the town.
“Ask yourself: How could the building lose half its value in such a short period of time?
Forced sellers never get the best price for anything.
“Car parking makes me smile; the Conservatives immediately increased it, paying no heed to the difficulties of many local businesses.
“Finally the garden waste collection.
“Plans were in place for this, and a pilot project took place. Lincolnshire County Council were asked to help with the capital required for the new bins, but would not help. You now have to pay for them if you want one!
“The savings in landfill tax go directly to the disposal agency – and as the County Council are responsible for the disposal of the waste they receive the savings; the borough collects it, but will not benefit from the reduction in landfill tax.
“This partnership working seems a little one sided to me.
“The Conservative group running the council are at direct odds with their own party – never mind being out of touch with the people of Boston.
“On two occasions Peter Bedford stood up and said that we should increase council tax to ensure that the council could deliver services.
“The mainstay of Conservative policy is to reduce not increase public spending.
“It’s time for politicians on all sides to clean up their act and treat the public with respect and honesty they deserve.
“Until they do we will not progress from the mire we are in.”

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com

 

 

 

 

 

 



Tuesday’s high-handed – or rather jack-booted – solution to protests by Boston Business “Improvement” District have cost that pathetic organisation a friend that it ought not to have lost. One of the founder director appointments comes from Boston Stump, whose representative was Carol Taylor – co-incidentally an Independent Boston Borough Councillor. But not a BID director any more.  In an e-mail to the BID Chairman “Obersturmbannführer” Alan Ellis, she condemns the decision to use police and town rangers to exclude protestor Darron Abbott from Tuesday’s annual meeting – calling it “abhorrent,” and something that should never have happened. “Mr Abbott should have been allowed to come in, and then if any disturbance had occurred we could have acted accordingly. You said to me that the decision to exclude him was made in the afternoon – but as usual you and Mr Armstrong (Niall Armstrong, the BID manager) made that decision without consulting other directors. I was also informed that this year's Xmas market will be on 29^th November and 1^st December. St Botolph's Xmas fayre is the following weekend. This should have been a team effort between the two, thus promoting a very festive few days which included St Botolph's. May I remind you that 'The Stump' is still the biggest tourist attraction for Boston?  The very poor attendance of other directors was unacceptable, and at least two of the absentees very rarely turn up for regular meetings either. I have discussed my decision with Father Hugh (Reverend Doctor Hugh Jones) and Graham Stewart-Smith (the Parish Administrator) and they are in agreement that there is no longer any point for representation of St Botolph's Church on the board of Boston BID.”
It seems that senior members of Boston Borough Council are falling all over themselves to bask in the glory to be had from apparently reducing incidents of anti-social drinking in the town. The council claims that a new policy of removing public seating from anti-social behaviour hot spots has seen complaints fall dramatically. Queuing up to offer their quotes are Councillor Mike Gilbert, portfolio holder for community development, who says that said reported incidents had reduced by half between August and  December in public areas where drinkers congregated were “targeted.”  Step forward council leader Pete Bedford, to add that there had also been a reduction in street drinking since the Ingram Memorial area was opened up to the Market Place. And last – and by all means least – Councillor Derek Richmond portfolio holder for the town centre, chipped in to say said there had also been increased police activity to deal with street drinking … with a number of  arrests. The decision to remove public seating was very much a smokescreen. More than twenty benches have been removed – purportedly after complaints –  but we know of  several where there was no consultation with local people as to whether problems occurred or not. What did benefit the council, though, was to get rid of benches that needed regular inspection,  painting, maintenance and all those other things one associates with street furniture. The result?  Perhaps a diminution of anti-social behaviour – but certainly a much larger saving of money for the cash-strapped council.
In the previous item we mentioned Councillor Derek Richmond – a man with more responsibilities than you can shake a stick at.  Another of these is car parking, and we note with interest that the man who is often so quick to blame any individuals or groups that he can find for problems rather than Boston Borough Council, has now locked his sights on people who park their cars – and don’t pay the council for the privilege. According to a local “newspaper” report he blames drivers who use private or free car parks for a projected loss of £91,000 from the council’s budget. Disability campaigners were singled out for a special mention, as their apparent selfishness in challenging the introduction of charges for blue badge holders delayed them for three months – losing the council income.  In the same way that the government feels we should share the pain by footing the bill for  the political incompetence that led to the collapse of the banks, and wrecked the housing market, Councillor Richmond is quoted as saying: “Thank goodness we increased charges and introduced blue badge charges; otherwise we would be way down.” Amen to that. From now on, we intend always to park in Boston Borough Council parks – and to make sure if there is one with a dearer tariff nearby that we use it in preference to a cheaper alternative.  We hope that the rest of our readers will do the same – apart from  any councillors or borough council staff who, of course, are allowed to park free of charge.
We note that UKIP leader Nigel Farage is to visit Boston next month and will tour the town ahead of a public meeting at Wyberton Sports and Social Club. Among the issues he plans to talk about is the effect of immigration on Boston. Although politics is a serious business, we were amused by the photograph on the Boston Standard website – where Mr Farage has what appears to be a disembodied hand on this shoulder. 

 

It reminded us of a scene from that classic Hammer movie– “Doctor Terror’s House of Horrors” which saw Christopher Lee in a similar predicament! We agree that a helping hand is useful for a politician, but isn’t this taking thinks a little too far?

Talking of Boston and immigration, we note the latest figures in the national press this week. Among the reports, the Daily Mail said that nearly 120,000 Romanians and Bulgarians have already moved to Britain despite not yet being able to work freely in this country. Data from the 2011 census said that migration to Britain – at a rate equivalent to 30,000 a year – began as soon as the two countries joined the EU. “Census figures gave an official figure of 988,123 Eastern European citizens present in the country in March 2011 – including 588,082 Poles, 104,676 Lithuanians, and 73,208 Romanians. Around one and a half million people from the eight Eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004 are thought to have lived and worked in Britain at some stage. The census showed the highest concentration of Eastern European citizens in any town in Britain was in Boston, with 10.7 per cent of the population are Eastern European passport-holders.

 

 

But the figures that the Mail produced (above) Showed that Boston was not alone. Nearby Peterborough was 6^th in the migration top ten on 7.5%, and neighbouring South Holland was tenth, with 5.9 per-cent.

We mentioned last week the pointlessness of petitions which either fail to attract many signatures, or which fall by the wayside due to insufficient promotion.  A long time ago, Boston Borough Council announced the introduction of online petitions, and what has happened since has scarcely set the town alight. Currently, there are no-active petitions. And here’s the score to date … 

click to enlarge photo

The page was last updated in July last year, and tests to see if it was working properly almost outnumber the petitions. Is it just a case that Bostonians don’t care? We hope not – as there is so much to care about.

One such thing is the development and regeneration of Boston.  Towns around us such as Bourne and Spalding seem to be forever improving – and now Sleaford looks set to join them.  Supermarket giant Tesco has confirmed that it is pressing ahead with plans for a new store, which could lead to £100 million pounds worth of redevelopment and up 1,000 new jobs. The proposal is part of wider regeneration plan to redevelop “The Maltings” - Europe's largest at risk heritage site – which already has planning permission and funding for 204 apartments, 24 houses – plus restaurants and shops. North Kesteven’s Chief Executive Ian Fytche said: “"Such a strong expression of investor confidence sends a strong message that Sleaford is somewhere to do business and gives us a boost in pushing forward with our broader regeneration vision.” Whither Boston? Or should that be wither Boston?  Around five years ago we were promised an £80 million development of the West Street area with plans for the a 60,000 sq. ft. department store, a food store, eight "major space units," 17 additional units of various sizes, a new "riverside restaurant quarter," a 700 space "gold standard" car park, more than 100 new "city-style apartments," an hotel and a new "iconic" pedestrian bridge linking to the town centre. Then the company planning it fell flat on its face. What do we have to look forward to now?  Unspecified plans to turn the Assembly Rooms into a “modern entertainment venue” which have just been put back for a third time since Boston Borough Council flogged it off after years of deliberate civic neglect rendered it too expensive for the public purse to repair. Other places have something to look forward to; the hope that things will improve and that better and more varied shops will enhance their towns.  But not, it seems, Boston.
Even the image of Boston as somewhere where there are interesting things to see and do is gradually diminishing. The latest edition of Lincolnshire County Council’s quarterly magazine lists what it calls “The essential guide to what’s on in Lincolnshire for Spring 2013. In Boston, this amounts to a “Where’s Wally” children’s activity on Boston Library on 10^th April – but you’d better be quick, as it only lasts an hour! Never mind. On its front page, the Boston Standard promises a guide to “what to do during the Easter Holiday.” Most of it involves going elsewhere than Boston – but if you’re on the lookout for something really different, you can get hypnotised, hire a skip, buy some new double glazed windows, get your eyes tested, or visit a dentist. Not so much a guide, really as just a list of people daft enough to advertise for no particular reason.
Mention of Lincolnshire County Council brings us neatly to a new blog that has appeared in recent months. Because they’re a lot smarter that we are in Boston, it is called  Oculus Lindum  -  subtitle: “An eye on the goings on in Lincolnshire.” This translates as Lincoln Eye! It’s written by a gentleman named Peter Barton, a local government officer for the last 15 years of his working life, who dangles such interesting buzzwords as “self-interest, sleaze, corruption, and jobs for the boys” among the subject material. It’s worth a read and you can find it by clicking  here

Yesterday’s photographs of a Boston Town Ranger helping the BID keep unwanted visitors away from the company’s annual meeting struck a chord deep in the memory banks of some of our readers.

 

Yes, quite a lot of you – like us, old enough to remember the Beano comic – were struck by the similarity between the star of the BID AGM and the much funnier cartoon character Wilfrid, one of the stars of the Bash Street Kids. Incidentally, now that Boston BID is struggling to find directors, could we offer a couple of nominees that they might wish to consider – local farmer Richard Tater …  known to his friends as Dick …  and Boston shoe repairer  Jack Boot  –  after all the BID should get on well with a load of cobblers.

We’re off for a few days now. Have a great Easter. We’re back again on Wednesday 3^rd April

 

But you can write to us at any time at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.
Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com

 



With a heavy-lidded glare, a Boston town ranger bars the way to the town’s Business “Improvement” District annual meeting.

The ranger – together with a colleague and a Boston police inspector – were waiting outside the Blenkin Memorial Hall in Wormgate to prevent a former BID director going in to ask a series of questions which he had submitted in advance.
Local accountant Darron Abbott – who resigned in protest at the way the BID was operating – had earlier been told by the BID’s chairman that he would be barred from the meeting because he did not have a proxy to show that he was representing a local business – and his own company was not located in the BID area.
Unfortunately for all involved with this act of personal censorship, Mr Abbott had taken the prudent step of obtaining an appointment as a director of a local business within the BID territory and as such was entitled to admission.
But none of the people seeking to prevent his lawful entry to the meeting would look at the proof when it was offered.
The heavy handed treatment he received sparked protests from others who had gone into the meeting.
Local florist Maxine Hill told Boston Eye: “The rangers were actually pushing him, and I heard Darron saying ‘don’t touch me, don’t push me …’
“I can’t see who the hell they think they are to say people can’t come into a meeting – it’s  crazy …
“It was commented in the meeting that it was disgusting that he wasn’t allowed to come in. My thoughts were that he should have been allowed to come in, and to be kicked out if he caused trouble …
“He does have a good input to the meetings normally, but they just weren’t having any of it. I did say to them, ‘if you actually look at the paperwork he has in his hand he should be allowed to come in’ – but they weren’t’ interested, and I just said ‘I think that you’ll find you have egg on your face  when you find out that you have illegally not allowed somebody to come to your meeting.’”
Ms Hill said that the meeting itself was “was much the same as always.”
She said she asked where all the directors were.
“There was basically Alan Ellis, the chairman,  Councillor Carol Taylor who represents Boston Stump, the accountant who’s not part of the board of directors and Niall Armstrong, the manager  – so there were two directors out of twelve there.
“Councillor Derek Richmond was there – but only for about an hour then got up and walked out.”
In terms of business … “It was already said that we were on track for the new Christmas craft fair, but I said aren’t you pre-empting that considering there a ballot  in October – are you going to pay for it out of your own pocket ...?
There were lots and lots of questions as always on the finances. Someone asked for it all to be broken down, because I know about the Boston Beat money (a free concert planned but cancelled two years in a row) that’s gone AWOL – it was asked why it was that the event was not actually insured against cancellation –  it wasn’t – I think it’s a figure of around £14,000 plus that has been lost.
She asked if they were going to get the money – which comes from the compulsory levy on local businesses – back.
“They said they’re ‘trying.’ Six months down the line they still haven’t got it, so I think they’re obviously wasting their time … they’re not going to get it but they’re trying to fob us off saying they’re still trying, but I don’t believe that for one minute.”
Ms Hill said there was “quite a bit of discussion” about the ballot in October  which the BID is hoping will win it a second  five year term, … and if people who  threw their ballot papers away wouldn’t be counted as a ‘yes’ vote this time. 
“They disagreed that that was how it was done, but obviously it was because a lot of people did throw it away because they thought it was just a circular and didn’t bother to read it properly but were counted as in favour …”
“People are saying to me that BID is a successfully run thing. Well, maybe it is, but not in Boston, never.
“In five years all they’ve done, they’ve got the town rangers and so far they’ve lost £15,000 that I know of.
“Have they lost any more in the past that we don’t know anything about?  We got the Mary Portas money. I asked what was happening with that – no, nothing, no answer to that one.
“I really, really hope that the ballot goes the right way this year and Boston BID goes.”
Darron Abbott, meanwhile, has also questioned if the meeting was quorate – whether enough directors were there for the meeting to proceed under the BID’s constitution.
He said that only two founder members were present when three are required, and that no members of the Lincolnshire Chamber of Commerce members were there, when there should be at least one.
Mr Abbott has also filed a written complaint with Lincolnshire Police about the conduct of one officer, and second another who, he says, refused to take details of the complaint or let him report an allegation of assault.
We asked the following for a comment on the events of Tuesday night:-
Alan Ellis, Chairman of Boston BID
Councillor Derek Richmond, Boston Borough Council’s portfolio holder for the town centre and also a director of Boston BID.
Lincolnshire Police.
Not one of them had responded by the time this blog went to press.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

Our former blog is archived at: http://bostoneyelincolnshire.blogspot.com