Breaking news: ...  Un oiseau petite tells us that Councillor Aaron Spencer has been named as the Portfolio Holder for Finance after the suspension of Councillor  Raymond Singleton McGuire - although we, the riff-raff,  have not been told anything at this stage

UPDATE:  Boston Borough Council says ...  Councillor Aaron Spencer has been appointed Boston Borough Council's finance portfolio holder.

Council leader, Peter Bedford, said: "I am pleased to announce that Councillor Spencer has taken over the finance portfolio as from today.  I am certain he will carry on the excellent work that Councillor Singleton-McGuire has done."

Councillor Spencer said: "I look forward to the challenge of taking the lead in the financial affairs of the borough council. I recognise the importance of the role - it is something which impacts in some way on practically every person living in the borough. 

"It's a big job, but I have worked in the commercial world and I will have the support of the council's excellent financial team, and I take up the reigns (sic) from a good starting point."

I

ncreasingly, the incurable optimism that seems to be woven into the fabric of Boston Borough Council’s tattered mantle is taking over from what should be a sense of reality.

Last week we took a look at a report which is supposedly addressing what needs to be done to breathe life back into Boston’s ailing town centre.

The bottom line seemed to be that too little was being done, and too late – with much of the action needed to make a difference being beyond the ability of the borough council to deliver.

But never mind.

Not unlike Mr Micawber, whose personal mantra is that something will turn up our leaders in Worst Street are forever panning for gold despite forever coming up with iron pyrites.

As last week’s report was making it clear that nothing much can be done to stem the inevitable decline in our town’s fortunes, what did we hear from the powers that be?

There are no prizes for guessing.

“Good news for town centre.”

The claim was based on yet another report, and centred on the “footfall” figures –jargon for how many people come in and out of the town centre

It was preceded by an interesting question.

“Did you know that Boston Borough Council monitors how many people visit the town centre?”

The answer was “no” – but given that the nosy blighters watch us wherever we go already, yet another piece of sneakiness came as no real surprise.

“Everyone who appears to be over the age of 16 is counted as they pass a fixed point for the same half hour morning and afternoon every third Wednesday of the month, come rain or shine, to give an indication of the popularity of the town centre.”

We can only imagine that this tedious chore is handed out as some sort of punishment – but it has apparently yielded the wonderful news that the latest figures show a four-year high, with an average daily footfall between April and September of 2,572.

This immediately propelled Councillor Derek Richmond, portfolio holder for the town centre, into a frenzy of ecstasy.

“This makes for very good reading – it shows the town centre remains an attractive proposition for shoppers and visitors and is actually showing improvements year on year despite the difficult financial times we have all experienced.”

What the borough fails to mention by contrast is that this footfall figure comes against a background of the worst shop occupancy rate for the same period.

The annual figure – issued in April – showed that there were 36 empty retail units in the town and 229 occupied … whilst four years ago, the figures were 29 and 257 respectively.

A helpful definition of what Boston Borough Council considers to be the “town centre” is also absent from the news, and another omission the presence if which would have been helpful is how long Worst Street spends counting heads.

To have any relevance, the number of hours between counting them in and counting them out would need to be at least five – which averages around 515 people wandering around the town centre each hour.

Phew!

That’s eight and a half people a minute – although those half-people clearly are under 16, and therefore ought not to be counted.

More footfall is good news, of course, but cherry-picking the good news and hyping it up is sadly becoming typical of the spinners at Worst Street.

No matter how bad the news, the borough always finds something positive to say, when often, saying nothing would be far more prudent

Again, it was Mr Micawber who summed up our leaders’ approach: “Welcome poverty! Welcome misery, welcome houselessness, welcome hunger, rags, tempest, and beggary! Mutual confidence will sustain us to the end!”

***

T

alking of leaders, we now have one fewer than a week or so ago, after the borough’s joint deputy leader Councillor Raymond Singleton-McGuire was removed from his duties.

A terse statement from the council – which like other recent bad news does not appear on its website – said: “In the interests of transparency and good governance Councillor Peter Bedford, the leader of Boston Borough Council, has removed Councillor Raymond Singleton-McGuire from all cabinet and committee duties pending completion of proceedings relating to his personal business interests.

“In the interim the leader and deputy leader, Councillor Michael Brookes, will jointly discharge the portfolio responsibilities.

“The council will provide no further comment on this matter pending the outcome of legal proceedings.”

Seemingly, the idea of using the word “transparency” was to suggest that this statement made everything clear – but surely, anything which raises more questions than it answers is far from pellucid.

According to his list of disclosable pecuniary interests, Councillor Singleton-McGuire is first and foremost a landlord and property developer.

How this has somehow placed him into a legal dilemma ought really to be explained, as presumably the options  can range from something relatively trivial to quite serious – and a statement such as the one issued by the council if nothing else should strive to be fair.

The council has subsequently added a line to “clarify” matters by saying: “The borough council and Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue are both taking legal action against Mr Singleton-McGuire in his personal capacity for alleged breaches of housing legislation.”

The omission of his courtesy title is presumably just to rub salt into the wound, as Councillor Singleton-McGuire remains … a councillor.

His responsibilities prior to this brouhaha included the portfolio for finance – one of the most important jobs in the cabinet which is now to be shared between two others who already have a generous workload.

***

T

hen of course, we have Councillor Singleton-McGuire’s role in this bemusing affair …

His reaction has been to take his ball away – to quit the Tory group and start life as an independent councillor

He told a local “newspaper” that his removal from post was a decision made by the leader of Boston Borough Council “fuelled by various internal issues between the council and my own personal property business.”

He went on to say that his efforts to turn the council finances from a deficit left by the previous administration to a positive often encountered difficulties.

“The past three and a half years have been challenging, demanding and, at times, very obstructive when dealing with council members and staff …

And he continued: “My challenging and questionable approach about fundamentally incorrect systems, lack of transparency and scrutiny over financial and other matters has recently led to the leader blocking communication between myself and Boston Borough Council, forcing me to enlist the help of outside authorities such as the Information Commissioner’s Office, Local Government Association, Department for Communities and Local Government and Government Ombudsman.

“… to remove me as deputy leader and finance portfolio holder, in light of openness and transparency, does not reflect well in light of the above experiences.

“I am therefore unable to continue my allegiance with Councillor Peter Bedford as Conservative group leader and leader of the council.

“It is with that in mind and it should not come as a surprise that I have decided to continue the remainder of my term in office as an independent.”

***

A

 surprise it was, though, and one which brought a mixed reaction from the Labour group on the council.

Their leader, Councillor Paul Gleeson, said that the only notification the party received was through the council-issued press release.

He pledged that the leadership’s “insular approach” in dealing with the community, would prompt Labour to ensure that “any enquiry into this matter includes all councillors and is as far as possible carried out in public.”

Subsequently, he tweeted: “Reading Councillor Singleton-McGuire on why he resigned from Tories confirms our campaign for more openness and transparency in the dealings of the council.”

He also declared that he was “Not surprised to hear ousted dep leader of Boro has left Tories. They treated him badly after his campaigning skill won them the Boro in 2011.”

***

S

o, will we see a battle for more openness and transparency or not?

We suspect not.

Councillor Singleton-McGuire’ departure from the Conservatives creates an interesting development in the balance of the council.

Until midweek, the council’s composition was listed on its website as:-

17 Conservatives (which at that point still included Councillor Singleton-McGuire.)

4 Independents

4 Independent Group 2 members

3 Labour

2 Lincolnshire Independents

1 English Democrat

1 Unaligned – which is what you get called when your really are Independent.

Yesterday, that list remained unchanged – although Councillor Singleton-McGuire’s departure changes the equilibrium of the council and sees its once comfy majority wiped out.

On party lines, the council is now 16 Tories facing off 16 other ragged-trousered opponents, who we are certain would never in a million years combine to give the so-called “leadership” any trouble.

Politically, the opportunities are there to give Councillor Bedford and his dwindling bunch of henchpeople a rough ride between now and election day on 7^th May next year – which would if nothing else force some accountability and openness on a regime which has thumbed its nose at democracy since attaining power.

But don’t hold your breath waiting.

Many fine words have been uttered by members of various parties and groups since the Conservative stranglehold on the council took effect – but action has been completely absent.

***

W

orst of all the disclosures is the allegation by Councillor Singleton-McGuire that council members and staff were “obstructive” as he tried to get a handle on the council’s ailing finances.

Also, we are left aghast by the claims that the leader blocked communication between Councillor Singleton-McGuire and Boston Borough Council.

Quite what organisations such as the Information Commissioner’s Office, Local Government Association, Department for Communities and Local Government and Government Ombudsman made of a leading councillor going to them to find out what was going  on in his own authority is anyone’s guess – but  we imagine that it will not have enhanced Boston Borough Council’s reputation.

It would appear that there is clearly more to all this than meets the eye, and some very serious questions have been raised which Councillor Bedford really ought to answer.

***

W

hilst our comments last week comparing Christmas events in Boston with the simultaneous arrival of three buses after none turned up for several hours were meant light-heartedly, it seems that there is a serious issue behind the scenes.

We highlighted the fact that we were suddenly confronted with three festive events over just two days – one from Boston Big Local, in conjunction with Boston Stump – followed a bash in Pescod Square ahead of the Boston Borough Council Christmas event culminating in a light switching-on ceremony.

The Pescod Square event will start an hour after the borough council’s opening celebrations, with the shopping centre’s light switch-on being staged ahead of what will almost certainly be a much bigger event from the council.

If it sounds as though for some reason, the shops are staging a “spoiler” on the borough’s efforts, then that might well be the case.

Certainly the council group behind this year’s event got stared earlier than anyone else – and their progress was well recorded.

We are told that the manager of Pescod Square and the Oldrids management were often invited to these meetings but never came – as it appeared that they had no wish to join up with the council team.

It’s a short-sighted, selfish and miserable viewpoint that would have warmed the heart of Ebenezer Scrooge.

***

I

t seems increasingly apparent that the choice of a brewery as the location in which to select the UKIP candidate to fight next year’s general election seat for Boston and Skegness was an inspired one.

The date had already been moved once, and we were told that a decision would be taken on Thursday 13^th November.

At the eleventh hour in the run up to the event we learned that both of the only known contenders to stick their heads over the parapet had pulled out.

The first of these was Neil Hamilton, a disgraced former Tory minister, whose professed love of the area evaporated like the early morning mist.

During a visit three months ago he was quoted as saying: “I came, I saw, I liked what I saw and that is what has made my mind up."

He added that he had decided to stand in the constituency because it won the highest number of regional votes for UKIP in the European elections in May.

“I obviously want to be in at the kill," he declared.

So much for Neil Hamilton – whom polls showed might not have been a popular choice among local people in any case.

The other would-be candidate was Paul Wooding, who – unlike Mr Hamilton nailed his colours to the mast a lot earlier.

Although he is from the Maidstone area, Mr Wooding told Boston Eye: “I have family who live in the area and I visit quite a few times a year and understand the people, their problems and their angst.

“I chose to put myself forward many months ago for selection as I am not motivated by fame or money.....just to bring attention and help to the region.”

But suddenly, it seems that everything went pear shaped.

In a series of messages on the social networking site Twitter, Mr Wooding spoke of a “pre-ordained” result, and the pointlessness of travelling up for the hustings “to be a guaranteed loser.” He also said that the selection process would include “three ex-Tories.”

Meanwhile, after the selection process, local Ukippers declined to name the successful candidate – promising to do so last Monday … which came and went without a a word.

However, yesterday came the announcement that the victor is none other than – surprise, surprise – Robin Hunter-Clarke … pictured on the left with another well-known comedian. RH-C is a county councillor for Skegness South who is also Chairman of Boston and Skegness UKIP  branch and deputy leader of the UKIP group at Lincolnshire County Council

A couple of years ago – at the tender age of 19 – Mr Hunter-Clarke became the youngest Tory to serve on Skegness Town Council, but defected to UKIP because “the Conservative Party no longer represents the views of local Conservative voters. However, the views that UKIP hold are much more in tune with core conservative values, which is why I have defected.

"The people of Skegness voted me as a Conservative and I am still a conservative, however the Conservative Party no longer is – UKIP is the 'Conservative Party in Exile'.”

Dear us – another Tory defector … and so young.

***

But like so much these days, we are left wondering what has been going on behind the scenes. 

After the announcement, Paul Wooding told Boston Eye: "The winner sat on the original selection committee to choose the shortlist, therefore was ineligible to apply to stand. 

"He chose the weakest four plus Hamilton (his mate) so Hamilton could win. 

"The National Executive Committee removed one name and added Robin Hunter-Clarke to the short-list when he didn't even apply in the first instance. 

"They only informed me of his inclusion the day before the hustings and as I was not prepared to go to a gunfight armed with a knife, I withdrew.

"My ethics of honesty, principle and integrity are diametrically opposed to that of UKIP.

"I was not prepared to lend credibility to a rigged, pre-ordained hustings.

"I believe their decision will cost them dear and they will ultimately snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in May 2015."

***

Y

ou have just a week left in which to make your opinions known in the Lincolnshire Police budget consultation for 2015/16.

Police and Crime Commissioner Alan Hardwick  is asking for answers to just half a dozen questions – and frankly, we cannot see how completing the survey will make the slightest difference to the way that our local police service is managed.

Questions include – should the budget be cut elsewhere to maintain the force strength at 1,100 officers?  … which is, incidentally, almost 100 fewer than it was 35 years ago, when Lincolnshire was a different place to police entirely.

Another question on personpower is about the number of PCSOs, and whether they should be maintained at 149. Our views on that are widely known.

Then there is the issue of whether the police should spend more or less time investigating crimes such as internet fraud, child sexual exploitation, and “modern slavery.”

The choice of answers is: more time, same as they do now, less time and “don't know.”

Given that respondents most probably have no idea of how much time the police spend on these tasks, a sensible answer is impossible to give – but perhaps that is the idea.

It also amused us to encounter the question: “Who do you think is responsible for keeping our community safe and reducing crime? (tick all that apply.) The menu offers the police, the public, businesses, local councils, Fire and Rescue, the ambulance service and the NHS.

If someone will tell us how this question will oil the wheels of planning for next year’s police budget, we would be most grateful.

Not for the first time, we have been presented with a meaningless survey that will be of no assistance whatsoever to the powers that be at police headquarters.

But it allows someone to say that we, the taxpayers, have been consulted.

If you really want to complete it, the link is here  http://www.lincolnshire-pcc.gov.uk/Get-Involved/Budget-Consultation-Form.aspx

  

***

  

M

eanwhile, the police are preparing to farm out more responsibilities by seeking bids for “a single restorative justice service” for victims of crime and anti-social behaviour in Lincolnshire.”

We are told that “restorative justice brings those harmed by crime or conflict, and those responsible for the harm, into communication, enabling everyone affected by a particular incident to play a part in repairing the harm and finding a positive way forward.”

We imagine that this means everyone sitting round in a cosy circle while an offender issues a meaningless apology for the crime committed – which the victim accepts because there is no other option.

All that it does is allow the police and courts to spend less time on their core duties and save money.

And this is called progress.

***

A

 reader kindly sent us a copy of the price list quoted by South Holland District Council after we suggested last week that here in Boston the bulky waste removal  charge of £25 for a “standard white item” and £35 for two seemed a little on the high side.

SHDC is far less demanding asking just £25 for up to three large or bulky items.

The council published a detailed list of what will, or will not be taken, and as always, we found something to make us smile within the contents. Under the heading of “special waste” South Holland told us without a flicker of a smile … “Piano/organs will also be taken on this service.  Please note these can only be collected on a Friday.”

Can anyone tell us why?

***

E

gg on face time for Worst Street after it had to tell anyone seeking a flood grant that they were out of luck – but it was still possible to deflect the blame.

The council website told us that the November edition of the local free magazine Simply Boston had used an item that was “way past its ‘use by’ date.”

The borough said that it had issued the original at the beginning of September – which was actually after the deadline for flood resilience grants of August 31^st.

But the release advised that it might still be worth making enquiries if anyone had missed the deadline.

“This information has been removed from the Simply Boston article.  It is now too far past the cut-off date in November to entertain any late applications for repair and renewal grants,” lamented the powers that be.

Call us cynical, but we wondered whether Simply Boston was simply getting its own back after the countless times that Worst Street has fobbed it off with out-of-date, previously published “notes” from Leader Pete Bedford.

***

F

inally, we are pleased that Boston Borough Council has responded to Boston Eye’s nomination for the Golden Turd award by surpassing even its own already shi**y standards.

Undeturd by our previous remarks, Wednesday’s edition of the increasingly irrelevant Boston Daily Bulletin was clearly energised and inspired by our award – so much so that it sought to push the envelope even further.

Beneath the headline: “DEFILED – DEPRAVED. Would you clean it up?” we read of the unacceptable behaviour of some people using the public lavatories managed by Boston Borough Council.

The preamble to the piece cautioned: “Images connected with this article come with a warning: They show graphic scenes of the disgusting condition some have left Boston’s public toilets in. If you do not have a strong stomach, then do not look at them.”

What a red rag to a bull that was, and the photos were preceded by equally graphic language.

“These images show the Lincoln Lane toilets – inspected and cleaned on a weekday at 11am, but abused and filthy in the most depraved fashion by the time they called again at 1-15pm.

“In one of the incidents someone had defecated in the gent’s urinal trough – not only unsightly but also causing a blockage.

“One of the cleaners said: ‘There was only one way to clean this and that was to put gloves on and remove the contamination by hand.’

“In another incident, also at Lincoln Lane, a toilet seat in one of the cubicles had been deliberately smeared with faeces."

After such vivid “journalism” a reasonable reader might assume that the message had been delivered loud and clear.

But this is Boston Borough Council – where too much is never enough.

A final paragraph addressed to readers re-emphasised: “WARNING: The link below will take you to graphic content that some may find disturbing. Do not view these images if you do not have a strong stomach …

Certainly, the warning was correct.

The pictures were indeed graphic, unpleasant, and depending on your tolerance level on a scale between  nasty and nauseating.

It also goes without saying that they were available to anyone of any age to view, and it is also fair to say that a “health warning” of graphic content is so commonplace these days that it seldom acts as any kind of caution – more commonly as an inducement to view.

What went unsaid was that the publication of such images will do nothing to prevent the offending behaviour.

The people who do this sort of thing are unlikely to have their conscience pricked and vow to mend their ways in the highly improbable event that they read of their malfeasance in the Boston Daily Bulletin.

In fact we are left aghast at the reason why Boston Borough Council took the decision to publish these distasteful, objectionable and obnoxious photographs.

All that we can conclude is that the decision made the correct assumption that our local “newspapers” would seize the council’s initiative as a justification to reproduce it, which would in turn validate the council’s own disagreeable decision.

We wonder how many of our local councillors endorse this latest stunt which – forgive the pun – smears the town with a dirty reputation.

Nor were things helped by the second page of the bulletin which listed the latest offenders in the council’s “Name and Shame” campaign – who are guilty of a combination of public urination and littering in and around Boston town centre.

Sadly, these people are neither named, nor shamed – and the sole thrust of that day’s issue is further to depict Boston as a thoroughly unpleasant place to come to – either as a visitor or to live.

  

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

It was Ralph Waldo Emerson who was credited with identifying that the secret of success was to “build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door.”

We thought of that well-known quote as we read a report to Boston Borough Council’s Environment and Performance Committee by a working group asked to look at options in taking forward economic development in the borough.

If you already have that tingling sense of déjà vu, that’s because this sort of stuff is long familiar in that every so often, Boston decides to try to pick itself up, dust itself off and start all over again.

Sadly, this is about as far as it ever gets, since the lure of a comfy armchair at the familiar fireside is enough rapidly to persuade the great and good of our town that things probably aren’t as bad as they seem, and that a better mousetrap isn‘t needed after all.

The problem is that things are as bad as they seem – but the  G&G’s absence of spirit and enthusiasm has come to epitomise the way things are in our corner of the world.

***

The words of the report are dismally familiar.

It identifies four “targets” which students of the Worst Street process could chant in their sleep.

To protect and enhance the current retail area.

To encourage business development and innovation

To embrace links to the wider UK, and the world beyond

To develop housing and business spaces.

From the outset, the report acknowledges that failure is the most likely outcome – acknowledging that there are “external factors and forces” which can hamper and affect the success of any initiatives led by either the private retail sector or by the borough council.

These include things such as geographic location (we’re an island in the Sea of Nowhere, so why would anyone come here?) “Local demographics” (we’re not prosperous and therefore not worth investing in;) and “rail and road networks and related infrastructure” (back to the Sea of Nowhere.)

***

So what about answers?

“The High Street/Town Centre needs to re-invent its purpose/role. Councils and the private sector require to respond to the needs and demands of the customer, consumer, and community and have a creative and flexible approach to the future role of town centres.

“Rather than being purely retail centres, they will require to become what might be better thought about as destinations in their own right, where people wish to meet, spend time, browse, relax, be housed, enjoy events, history and heritage, eat, drink and shop.”

Sound great – but belay the drinking, don’t forget.

In answer to the question “what have we already done and are we doing?” the report rounds up all the usual suspects:-

The refurbishment of the Market Place … enabling opportunities for more ‘cafe culture’, outside events, craft markets and arts projects – including, if not completely comprising a vintage market, the money-wasting Transported Arts, a buskers day, Boston Bikers night, fun Fridays for children, Boston Mayfair (sic) and the forthcoming Christmas lights switch on.

Forgive us if we don’t writhe in ecstasy at this list of some of the most mundane and obvious activities – and not very many of them either.

Another claim – that the council “enables” the Saturday and Wednesday traditional charter market as well as the Bargate Green Market and a Farmers Market – is an insult to our intelligence.

The spectacularly fruitless English Heritage grant scheme – recently respun as being so successful that it has been extended (!) – which has given away a fraction of the funds available.

The Britain in Bloom project “ensures that the town centre sees some lasting improvements” whilst a bid to the lottery fund is after money for improved signs.

Worst Street also has a minor part in a Water Space Study – playing third fiddle to Lincolnshire County Council and the Environment Agency in the hope of cashing in once the opportunities afforded to the town by the implementation of the Boston Tidal Barrier is completed to “further add strength to Boston as an attractive destination.”

Another plan is to support Boston Stump’s bid for lottery cash “for major project funding, to secure its long term sustainability and future as Boston’s major visitor attraction, destination and historic place.”

Call us old-fashioned, but we remember the days when it was a place of worship.

And the grasping at straws continues with a brief trumpet of the Boston Enterprise Centre – which famously, in the six years since the borough council opened it has made barely a penny in profit.

It also appears that we are forking out £35,000 over five years for a part-time “network development” officer shared with Sleaford, and we believe, not based locally.

  

***

When it comes to “Embracing links to the wider UK, and the world beyond” again we hear  the boast of working closely with the Lincolnshire Chamber in the creation of the Boston Visitor Economy Partnership as well as commissioning the Chamber to develop a Destination Management Plan for Boston with all stakeholders.

This was completed this year and so far embraces the “development of a sustainable business membership base to generate resource to deliver activity for the benefit of the area, the creation and distribution of an annual visitor guide, and an enhanced pedestrian way finding and historical interpretation signage scheme for Boston.

Be still, our beating heart.

But it doesn’t end there – although by now, you might wish that it did.

Promotional  “opportunities” include  advertising in Primary Times, a publication for  families with children of primary school age, the RAF Digby magazine Digby Digest, Coach Tours magazine, which is issued to bus companies, and  The American magazine – but which one is anyone’s guess.

***

Yet despite the fact that Boston seems to be going nowhere, the report boasts that between 1^st April and 30^th September 2014, permission was given for for 332 housing units and in total there are more than 2,000 new homes on the way.

All this housing in an area where 40% of the population depends on low paid work in the food economy.

Ironically – given the disinterest in the prospect for advancement of the “native” inhabitants, the report notes “our population profile has been of growth largely prompted by young, economic migrants.

“It is probably the case that a significant number of these are well qualified and capable for work types over and beyond what they currently undertake.

“Is this untapped potential with the means to up-skill and address some of the low aspiration issues of the area a big future opportunity?”

We suppose that this suggestion should have been expected – after all, our local political top brass are famous for their enthusiasm for people born and bred in the town to spend their lives in the pack houses without any hope of advancement – unless they take their skills and talents elsewhere, and away from the area.

***

 This report is yet another missed opportunity to try to start moving forward.

It is – as usual – the same tired potpourri of buzzwords and catchphrases like partnerships, networks, teams, projects and stakeholders.

The sad fact is that Boston’s history in recent years is littered with failures to deliver – most of which are highlighted in a laudatory ways in the report.

The Market Place “refurbishment” heads this list of costly blunders – incomplete, bodged … then patched over to try to make the best of a bad job.

The activities that have been staged in this dreary mausoleum number a handful of lacklustre events … which are so devoid of imagination that Worst Street is forced to drag in events which have long preceded any so-called “improvements” – the weekly markets, the May Fair, the Bargate Green Market and the Farmers’ Market – which must rate as one of the feeblest in Lincolnshire.

Building on the ruins of history creates foundations which are crumbling before they are even tested.

What Boston needs is a Big Bang of imagination that will redefine our local universe instead of the damp squib that the council has delivered.

***

Oddly, we find ourselves in something of a dichotomy by suggesting that the Boston Big Local £1 million grant might play a role in all this.

Granted, the cash must not be used for things which are the responsibility of the existing authorities, but with so much that needs doing, we would have thought that ring-fenced cash could play a role in an overall scheme of ideas that would really invigorate Boston.

Surely, anything is better that the miserly old Scrooges at Worst Street giving their dwindling pot of tepid, tasteless gruel one last stir in the name of progress.

***

Another question that needs answering is that if the English Heritage scheme for improving listed buildings in the town centre is such a roaring success, why is it that  the Boston Conservation Area has   a regular listing on the organisation’s Heritage at Risk Register?

 Year in, year out, the area appears – but does anyone ever seem to bother to take any action?

Of course not.

***

As all this is going on, we note plans for a branch of Lidl in Boston – which will unquestionably be trumpeted as a turning point for the town that will “put it on the map.”

And whilst any new big business name is welcome – at the end of the day this is just another cheap food store whose presence will further homogenise the appearance of the town that make it indistinguishable from the rest.

Boston must try harder and do better.

***

The poor report mentioned  above underlines how weak our local authority has become, and it may well be that soon we will be seeing changes that will redraw the map of local services.

Lincolnshire's Chief Constable has already warned of a question mark against the future of the county force if more government cuts are imposed. Neil Rhodes told county councillors that budget reductions of £7million were forecast by 2016/7 and £11m by 2017/8, and said that if the cuts were imposed, Lincolnshire Police would be on the brink of going out of business.

Meanwhile, the great and the good at County Hall are becoming increasingly bullish about the idea of a single authority for Lincolnshire and the abolition of the county’s seven district councils.

As the need for economies continues unabated, it seems likely that such a solution might well become irresistible – or at least that we will see the merger of a number of smaller councils.

Boston is a minnow in terms of its budget – and the bulk of its income goes towards paying its wages bill – most of which is spent gathering council tax for head office in Lincoln.

Not only that, as our leaders consistently prove they are unable to organise a booze-up in a brewery, and  as such ill-deserve to continue in office.

***

Talk of the police reminds us of an incident the other day as we drove out of town on Spilsby Road.

A car was parked on double yellow lines, on an almost blind curve, causing traffic to queue back towards the town centre.

Getting past was extremely difficult due to the volume on inbound traffic, and many minutes passed by before we were able to start moving.

Ahead of us was a car prominently marked as being owned by the PCSOs, and indeed there were a pair of them inside pounding their beat in warmth and comfort.

A few years ago, we might have expected the police vehicle to pull in front on the illegally parked car and seek out the driver to ask him to move it.

But that was then, and this is now, so it was with no surprise that we saw them pass the offending vehicle and continue on their way – doubtless to an interesting coffee morning somewhere.

***

It seems that so desperate is Boston Borough Council for some sort of public response that it has taken to bribing the customers.

A reader recently received a survey through the post – reply paid, of course – with the glittering offer of some sort of membership of the Moulder Leisure Centre – which is worth a few quid even at its entry level.

The idea was that you completed the questionnaire; posted it back and your reply went into a draw.

Sounds good, doesn’t it?

But as our reader approaches his ninth decade, it did cross his mind that a prize of a less specific and more prosaic nature might have been more suitable!

***

Last week we mentioned the achingly slow arrival of candidates to fight next year’s parliamentary election in Boston – likening it to a long running soap opera.

Now another cast member has joined Eastfenders to stand as a Lincolnshire Independent candidate for Boston and Skegness next May.

Lyn Luxton was previously a “grassroots Conservative candidate” who planned to stand but was not selected for the open primary.
Last night, of course our local UKIPpers were meeting in secret to select their candidate, and in the run up to the event, some odd  rumblings were being detected.
Assuming that the result is announced fairly promptly, we will update today's blog later.
Watch this space, as they say ...

***

After all these years, it seems that Boston Borough Council is still capable of springing the odd surprise or two.

It’s just been announced that a large proportion of rubbish which is illegally fly-tipped in Boston borough would have been taken away for nothing by our (cliché alert) “local friendly binmen.”

Apparently if  your wheelie bin is full the council will take away what it terms “side waste” – a reasonable amount of excess rubbish that is neither recyclable nor garden waste which cannot fit into your green bin because it is full.

All those people we have asked were unaware of this until now – and although it is presented as a long standing policy, it sounds more of a knee jerk reaction to reduce tipping.

What we need now is for a reduction in the cost of removing bulky waste – £25 for a “standard white item” seems to us  to be a little over the top.

***

“Boston Labour Councillors” as they style themselves – rather than more sensibly using individual names in the run up to the local elections – are flogging the idea of a walk-in clinic in the town to ease pressure on GPs and the town's Accident and Emergency Department.

The group says: “We are told that there are not enough doctors available and we are also told that the A&E department at Pilgrim Hospital is always full as people are using it as an alternative when they wish to see a doctor but can’t get an appointment.”

They want a walk in clinic at Pilgrim Hospital “so our Accident & Emergency department can be just that – for accidents and emergencies and not be crowded with walk in patients who could be treated by a GP or nurse. We believe this will reduce the health pressures that are facing our communities.”

We would not be so cynical as to dismiss this as a purely political stunt  but – hands on hearts, now – is there anyone out there who genuinely believes that this would solve the problem?

All that would happen is that the walk-in clinics would become as log jammed as our surgeries and A&E department, and the problem – instead of abating, would create even more pressure.

***

Try as we might, it seems impossible to separate Boston from flooding.

A report in a national Sunday newspaper at the weekend listed the town as Number 1 on the list of the UK’s most flood-prone towns, with 7,550 homes at “significant flood risk.”

The Sunday Times said that the government is to impose a “levy” on householders, averaging £10.50 a year, to subsidise the home insurance costs of people living in flood-prone areas.

“The money will be added to the cost of home insurance, adding 2.2% to all premiums. That means people with the most expensive policies will pay more of the “tax”, which is designed to raise £180m a year …”

“ …The money will be collected from insurers by Flood Re, a body which is being set up by the Association of British Insurers and will be used to underwrite policies on up to 500,000 homes in areas which are at such high risk of flooding that they might otherwise be uninsurable, such as the Somerset Levels, Boston in Lincolnshire, and along the Thames and Severn.”

We wish that once and for all the authorities would come clean on the flooding issue.

The Environment Agency designates flood risk areas using maps which disregard the existence of any defences.

Whilst Boston has suffered flooding recently, it has escaped some of the worst effects suffered in other areas.

Last December’s episode – billed as the worst tidal surge for sixty years – saw 590 homes and 105 businesses flooded in Boston.

We would hope that soon it should be possible to take a forward looking view of things and be positive rather than negative.

It is claimed that the proposed Boston Barrier will make the town a much safer place to live in and protect us from the excesses of the tides.

Having said that, we wonder why the Environment Agency continued with its bad news policy by displaying a computer projection of the town which resembled the aftermath of Noah’s Flood – a situation that seems beyond all possibility given the history of flooding events.

Whilst we have no wish to see problems minimised, we feel that it high time to recognise that if what we are told by the powers that be is true, Boston should have a major threat of flooding lifted in the future – and that this news should be positively promulgated so that the town can show itself in a more constructive light.

***

It is usually said of buses that you wait ages for one to arrive – and then three turn up together – well in Boston, this seems to be the case where Christmas is concerned this year as well.

After years which have seen us teetering on the brink where celebrations are concerned, we now have three festive events over just two days.

Boston Big Local has come up with something called a Big Thanksgiving in conjunction with Boston Stump – worryingly, the poster illustration includes a turkey!

Then, from 3pm on Thursday 27^th November, Pescod Square and Peppa Pig are holding a “Christmas lights switch-on extravaganza.”

Meanwhile, Boston Borough Council is ploughing its own furrow with “Boston’s Christmas Event” starting at 2pm in the Market Place with stage entertainment at 5pm and a light switching on ceremony at 6-30pm.

It all sounds like a recipe for Christmas consumer fatigue – and we wonder why on earth a few left hands didn’t trouble to find out what some right hands were doing!

***

After all the fuss, the “publicly funded” memorial to commemorate the centenary of the outbreak of the First World War was dedicated on the 96^th anniversary of the end of the conflict.

As expected it prompted a bumper edition of the Boston Borough Council’s daily bulletin including a list of the 350 casualties of the First World War whose names appear on the memorial.

Below it were the 80 or so individuals and organisation that had given money to the appeal – listed on an effusively named “Roll of Honour.”

At the time this idea was announced, we condemned it as a naff one – and to see it in print below so many names of people who gave their most precious possession … their lives …served to underline just how insensitive an idea this was.

The dictionary defines “honour” as meaning “high respect; great esteem.”

The word is listed as synonymous with “distinction, privilege, glory, tribute, kudos, cachet, prestige, fame, renown, merit, credit, importance, illustriousness, notability.”

We know that Boston Borough Council craves recognition and awards at every turn, but how giving a few pounds to an appeal can rank the giver higher than those being commemorated beggars belief.

  

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

B

ack this week but with a reduced blog – our apologies for that, but we’re currently working to a one week at a time agenda.

The main development since our last blog was the selection of  the Daily Telegraph's  Head of Technology, Matthew Warman, as the prospective parliamentary Conservative candidate for Boston and Skegness at next May’s general election.

His move up now makes him Matthew WarmUPman for the Tories – and unless something earth shattering occurs, most likely the next MP for the area.

We are pleasantly surprised by the choice.

Whilst any one of the four shortlisted candidates would have been a fresh face, Mr Warman has – to us at any rate – the added advantage of being fresher than the rest.

As we pointed out recently, a couple of the hopefuls had already been defeated in another constituency, whilst two of them had then gone on to try persuading local Tories elsewhere that they were the best person to be the future MP for Wherevertown.

It seems reasonable to assume that had Mr Warman not cleared his first hurdle so successfully, he would have gone on to try for a seat elsewhere – but perhaps what convinced the pitiful attendance at the “US style Open Primary” was that he had ties to the area through his in-laws which persuaded the 81 people who attended that he was the best man for the job.

In fact the gig was down to 80 votes by the time the first pair of contenders was sieved out – and tied on the choice between Mr Warman and a former Spalding headmaster who  was “looking to return to his home county” after a career move which saw him teaching in London.

That’s understandable.

At the outset, fifteen wannabes had thrown their names into the hat – but a number clearly were not worth the time of day.

Now, it’s down to Mr Warman to make his mark in the six months available to him.

Doubtless since his appointment he has been besieged by fair weather friends who believe that getting on his right side and staying there will give them some shred of influence if he makes the journey to Westminster.

***

S

adly, the Peter Paine sports hall was not the best place to host the event.

We’ve had the dubious pleasure of attending an election count or two there over the years, and whilst it’s ok for that, it’s simply not the sort of place to stage something like the recent candidate selection.

We referred recently to the wretched turnout for the primary at Clacton – despite the public appeal of being both highly controversial and of national interest.

Despite that, only 240 of the 67,000 eligible voters registered to attend.

At the last count – and the number will surely now be significantly higher – the electorate for Boston and Skegness was 71,003.

A turnout in Boston of 81 represented just 0.11%

Who says that people aren’t interested in politics these days?

What on earth the candidates must have made of it is anyone’s guess.

One person who went along described what we expected would be the scene, a cheerless, cold venue, background noise – and disgracefully, no microphone available for the speakers.

The outcome was largely determined by the great and the good of the local Conservative Association, and therefore could comfortably have been staged at the Conservative Club as it always has been before.

All the waffle now is about how Boston is looking forward – but where else is there to look?

***

T

he run up to next year’s general election is taking on the shape of a long running soap opera.

Prior to Mr Warman’s selection, Labour chose former mayor Paul Kenny to stand again – his third crack at the job.

UKIP will pick its candidate on November 13^th  – and sensibly, given that the controversial former Tory MP now UKIP deputy chairman Neil Hamilton  is said to be in contention – will be staging a private, members-only event.

So far the only other interested party is Paul Wooding, who is making his presence felt on social media – whilst Mr Hamilton seems strangely silent. There’s a first!

***

S

hortly after the  Conservative announcement,  the monthly prediction by Electoral Calculus appeared, and  showed that an averaging of  the seven opinion polls published last month showed the Conservatives on 32% (+1), Labour with 33% (-3), the Lib Dems struggling on an unchanged 8% and UKIP with 18% (+3).

The new national prediction is that Labour will be 24 seats short of a majority, winning 302 seats (-44 seats since 27 September.)

***

T

here’s been a spot of eye trouble among our glorious leaders in the past couple of weeks.

The first outbreak came in Big Boston Borough Boss Bedford’s monthly Conservative party political column kindly donated by the Boston Standard.
If you missed it – don't fret ... there will be another chance to read it, we are sure, most probably in the February 2015 issue of Simply Boston.

Even though the duration of the Haven Bridge cycle path road works was declared at the time they were announced, the leader told us with what gave an impression of prescience: “Roadworks which have caused frustrating traffic delays in Boston will soon be at an end.

“I lobbied Lincolnshire County Council’s highways executive member and agreement was obtained for work over the final two weeks of the project to be carried out overnight.”

No light being hidden under any bushels there, then.

But what tribute to our dynamic and far-sighted leader that after all the adverse publicity, badmouthing of the county council highways staff and an absolute onslaught of public outrage, all it apparently took was one snap of the fingers from the Respected and Beloved Leader and the County Hall Highwaymen mounted their steeds and fled.

What a shame that Councillor Bedford’s appreciation of the problem hadn’t kicked in a little earlier, and thus perhaps spared us a couple more weeks of disastrous traffic chaos.

Still, you can’t have everything, and we have Councillor Bedford.

***

T

he second spate of eye trouble came from the portfolio holder whom we recently remarked was often confused with a Time Lord – because whenever Councillor Stephen Woodliffe’s name was uttered, people invariably responded “Councillor Who?”

In its unceasingly futile attempts to stop people drinking in public areas in Boston – which have consistently failed because no-one is ever there to enforce them – the council is grasping yet another straw and consulting on the creation of a Public Space Protection Order … which will be just as toothless if no one follows it though.

Step up Councillor Woodliffe.

“Drinking alcohol in our town will not be tolerated, it is not acceptable to me and more importantly it’s not acceptable to our residents’” said the portfolio holder for community safety.

We’re glad that he got his priorities right – but if it’s more important to our residents, then they should have been given first mention.

A comment like this is just one step up from another favourite among some of our local councillors – to refer to the people who elected them as “the public” … which make them sound like some lower life form.

And we well remember the days when many of these so-called “public servants” would brandish their civic titles around like a club to get their own way. Fortunately, there are only a handful of these dinosaurs left in Worst Street.

Given his stance on street drinking, we were amused to note that one anagram of Councillor Woodliffe’s name is: “He Pelted Off Winos.”

***

C

ouncillor Woodliffe was again in the van in the first issue of this week’s Boston Daily Bore, beneath the headline “Council CCTV helps trap dangerous gunman.”

The gist of the story was that Boston’s CCTV cameras did exactly what they were designed for – which was to “capture an image” showing which way an “armed robber” was escaping.

Councillor Woodliffe, told us: “Incidents such as this prove the worth of our investment in our CCTV system.

“Residents can be assured that our cameras watching over them are only ever a force for good – whether it is spotting those who deliberately spoil the environment with litter or helping apprehend dangerous criminals, such as in this case.

“I am pleased that we have played our part in helping put away a dangerous man for a long time. Residents can be assured that we are there to preserve their safety.”

Fine words – but as has been said so many times before, CCTV cameras only play a role after a crime has been committed – and in this case their participation was no more than we have the right to expect of a system costing almost a quarter of a million pounds.

Whilst the robbery in Boston which the “dangerous gunman” was fleeing was undoubtedly an ordeal for those involved, Monday’s story fails to mention that when finally brought before the court the man was convicted on four charges of robbery and four counts of possession of an “imitation firearm” and so was not as dangerous as he may have appeared.

However, as an old editor of ours was fond of saying – “never let the facts get in the way of a good story.”

  

***

A

nd it was helpful to be reminded of the role that the cameras play in naming and shaming people who drop litter willy-nilly around the town.

After the latest annual publication of miscreants’ photos providing easy fillers for the local “newspapers” the silence is ominous.
As usual, there are no reports of fines or court appearances.

Just the usual litter of rhetoric.

***

C

ertainly, the police have embraced some new powers with startling enthusiasm once the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 came into force on October 20^th.  Within days, they were “tackling” anti-social behaviour in the  park named after nursing pioneer Dame Sarah Swift in Kirton – buttressed up with 48 hours’ worth of “dispersal powers” to make scoundrels over the age of ten leave the area during that period.

The police reported that despite “extensive” patrols no one was found to be causing problems or dispersed.

But no doubt a grand weekend’s worth of double time was accumulated.

***

B

oston Borough Council’s ceaseless search for recognition has prompted us to consider the authority for a special Boston Eye award.

Not for the first time, the council’s Daily Drone tested the limits of our patience with its obsession with using playground prurience to capture our attention – and doubtless utter a muffled snigger or two as well.

The headline: “Do you know what is OK to put down your loo? Poo, pee and toilet paper… to be blunt!” was by our reckoning the fourth use of such immature euphemisms in recent times.

Last month we also had the naming and shaming (with no effect as usual) of people photographed after “peeing in the street.” Then before that there was the gating of a public lane as part of a “No pee, no poo, no go!” campaign.  We have also seen the introduction of daily cleaning of Hatters Lane to try to prevent similar problems – but this time they were couched in grown up language, rather than that of the playground. Then last year we had a “polite” campaign headlined “Please... don’t pee here” following a spate of incontinence in Archers Lane.

Whilst this sort of misbehaviour is unpleasant, even worse is the incessant drawing of attention to it in silly ways that surely must sound warnings to anyone  trying to find out what sort of place Boston might be to visit or move to.

Currently a search of the internet depicts Boston not as a halfway decent market town, but a place where … as you try to dodge the meanderings of drunken citizens, you risk measuring your length on the pavement after slipping in a heap of their carelessly discarded dung.

Accordingly, we are awarding Boston Borough Council the highly prized “Golden Turd” award.

It will be accompanied by an inscribed piece of vellum bearing the opening verse of the famous Flanders and Swann ditty: “P** P* B**** B** D******”

***

As Michael Flanders commented in the preamble to the song, which first appeared more than half a century ago: “I take it that all of us are in favour of freedom of speech, provided it's not calculated to change our western way of thought…

“You can say things in public that you would hesitate to say in private. These four letter words and so on. I am very much opposed to this. There are very few of these four letter words left. If they all come into common use, we shall have nothing left for special occasions. Still, we feel that the time has perhaps come for us to take our stand on the somewhat polluted beaches of the nouvelle vague, to say goodbye to mealy-mouthed hypocrisy, which has served us so well for so long, and come right out with something adult, fearless and forthright.

“And filthy.”

So here's the certificate ...

***

F

inally, at this point we would like to thank all those readers who e-mailed to wish us well after last week’s absence.

However, as no-one did, that won’t be possible – but we have to point out that the blog may become less regular in the coming weeks because of the need for  treatments every three weeks  for the next six months.

Our apologies for this, but we will do our best to continue bringing you the only truly independent path through Boston’s political morass.

Having spent a lifetime working with words, we fail to comprehend the logic of pairing the word “chemo” with the word “therapy.”

Any enlightenment would be appreciated.

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