They’re rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic – aka the bad ship SS Worst Street – in the aftermath of the removal of the former deputy leader Councillor Raymond Singleton-McGuire from his cabinet and committee duties … as the leadership gets busy reinventing – and contradicting – itself.

In one breath, our “leadership” claimed that Councillor Singleton-McGuire’s departure was “pending completion of proceedings relating to his personal business interests” … and that “in the interim the leader and deputy leader, Councillor Michael Brookes, will jointly discharge the portfolio responsibilities.”

There is no ambiguity about such a statement, yet within days came the announcement that Councillor Aaron Spencer had taken over the finance portfolio with the leader’s confidence that “he will carry on the excellent work that Councillor Singleton-McGuire has done.”

What Councillor Singleton-McGuire – who was due to appear before Boston magistrates yesterday in an action being brought by the borough council and Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue – might have to say about this, is anyone’s guess.

Councillor Spencer – at 23 one of the youngest councillors in the country – was elected to  represent Five Villages ward at Boston Borough Council in May 2011 at the age of 19.

But he is not letting the importance of the role  – which as well as finance including revenues and benefits,  takes in procurement, IT, corporate governance, customer services, freedom of information, and complaints – dim his confidence.

“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 (we are told that he is currently a “car sales executive”) 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.”

Councillor Spencer’s elevation to the Worst Street peerage follows a torpid time since his election. In his first year, he attended just over half of the meetings where he was a member – 11 out of 21.

He was reported as saying that having a job in the daytime stopped him attending many meetings.

“When I was running for office they said it would be great to get young blood and fresh ideas. In reality I have found it to be quite different.

“The meetings are at awkward times. I work from 9am to 6pm and when I explained this to the council they don’t seem to listen.

“I love helping people in my ward and do a lot for the community. Sitting in a meeting where everything has already been decided really isn’t what being a councillor seemed about.

“My opinion is that if the council was run logically like a business for the best of the town rather than for an agenda it would be a lot better.”

The most recent attendance figures also show that Councillor Spencer – whose early offer to run as the country’s youngest elected mayor was turned down – is still having problems.

Whilst he has managed 100% attendance at full council meetings, he has only turned up to three out of five meetings of the Environment and Performance Committee – the only other committee on which he sits … although now, he will join the cabinet as well.

We understand that as well as Councillor Spencer, another member of the Tory squad stepped forward to volunteer to take on the finance portfolio – although that report may just be a glorious myth.

***

As far as attendances are concerned, an observer might wonder whether councillors are getting demob happy.

The latest figures for the current political year show some notable absentees.

Only four of the thirteen members of the Planning Committee managed to attend all lessons – with Labour group leader Paul Gleeson managing just three out of eight meetings … a meagre 38%

However, Councillor Gleeson told Boston  Eye: “My poor attendance at planning committee this year was due to my breaking my leg in May.  Whilst being laid up kept me from attending all meeting for a while, it has had a bigger impact on my attendance at planning meetings, as I was not physically able to do some of the inspections that were a prerequisite of being at the meeting and I had to miss one as it clashed with a hospital appointment.

“I think you will find that my attendance at meetings prior to my accident was quite good and whilst I am still not as mobile as I would like I am once again regularly attending meetings.” Fair enough – but it might be worth Boston Borough Council’s while explaining such absences, rather than merely publishing what looks like a bad attendance record.

Councillor David Witts – leader of Independent Group 2 – was next with a 63% attendance, or five meetings out of eight, the same as independent Ossy Snell.

Audit and Governance committee meetings managed without the presence of Independent Stuart Ashton, a recent aspirant to be our next Conservative MP. He shared the record with Conservative councillors Judith Skinner and Gloria Smith.
All told, four of the nine members failed to attend a meeting in June or September.

The committee has responsibility for member standards issues and is formally recognised as that charged with governance and with independence from scrutiny committees, and reports directly to council. 

Sounds important, doesn’t it – although it can’t be if so many don’t bother to attend.

Another committee which is important as far as the people whom  it represents are concerned is the Boston Town Area Committee – B-Tacky – whose 16 members are responsible for the “non-parished” wards, and have money to spend for their benefit.

Three of the members have failed to attend meetings so far this business year according to the borough council.

Two are Conservative – Yvonne Gunter and Dr Gurdip Samra – whilst the third, English Democrat David Owens, continues to thumb his nose at the electorate and avoids as many meetings as he can.

Hopefully, he will not have the brass to seek re-election next year.

Of the eleven members of the Corporate and Community Committee, only five have managed full attendance – with the worst being former Mayor Colin Brotherton’s 33% attendance record.

Full council meetings are better attended – with the exception of Councillor Owens once again – although the meetings are nothing more than an exercise in rubber stamping which crushes debate and democracy both.

Finally, the Environment and Performance Committee – where just two of the eleven members managed full attendance.

Overall the attendance figures are pretty dismal – but we bet that come next year’s elections, all those seeking another four years of money for nothing will be polishing their high flying words and phrases to tell us how devoted they are to serving their communities and why we should return them yet again.

***

On now to the bigger politics – and at last the battle lines for the general election, which will be held on the same 7^th May date next year as the local election, are being drawn.

An early casualty was UKIP contender Paul Wooding, who withdrew his candidacy at the last minute ahead of the appointment of Robin Hunter-Clarke – the local UKIP chairman as well as a Lincolnshire county  and Skegness town councillor.

Mr Wooding told Boston Eye: “After a few days of soul searching, I have concluded that UKIP and myself are diametrically opposed in respect of ethics, honesty, principle and integrity. The utter contempt that UKIP appear to show the electorate regarding the secretive pre-ordained selection process will undoubtedly manifest itself in the results of May 2015.

“With regard to the hustings on 13^th November (postponed from 11^th September giving Clacton by election as a reason which I believe was in fact a ruse,) Hunter-Clarke had not applied in the first instance to stand and was part of a selection committee in August to choose a shortlist.

“He saw all of the candidates’ CVs and also requested by email, accompanying letters detailing candidates’ agendas for the hustings.”

Mr Wooding said that the selection committee chose him, Neil Hamilton, and three others for the play-off, and claims that all the candidates were chosen and perceived as weak to allow Neil Hamilton to win.

“ The night before the hustings, I was sent an email informing me that the NEC had removed one candidate and replaced that person with Hunter-Clarke around a month ago (Hamilton).

“I was also informed that one candidate had now pulled out of the hustings.

“Hunter-Clarke was advised to send an email to all the candidates to share the CV's, and I received the full details at 0630hrs on the 13^th November.

“I decided at that point that I was not prepared to lend credibility to a pre-ordained, corrupt pantomime orchestrated by the all-powerful NEC.

“I do not feel as though I have lost an honest contest, as for one to lose, one must attend the contest in the first place.

“The real losers are the ordinary people of Boston and Skegness ... nothing will change with their everyday lives and it will be business as usual for the ‘cosy UKIP elite.’

“The narrow-minded political agenda of having the youngest candidate to stand in the 2015 general election will backfire in my opinion.

“UKIP have appeared to put strategy over public affinity, secrecy over openness and agenda over ethics.

“Nothing was learned from the Boston and Skegness Conservative open primary whereby the general publics’ feeling was that they did not want, and did not choose a career politician, a councillor, a media magnet or someone with no life skills ... they chose an ordinary worker, Matt Warman.

“UKIP instead shoehorned a 21 year-old ex-Conservative with no life skills to speak of, who defected in December 2012 at the UKIP party Conference just eight weeks before an election.

“A Farage sycophant, (who is equally at ease with a certain Mr Neil Hamilton since their introduction in Chester,) won his Lincolnshire County Council by just 50 votes and was told at a full council meeting to “grow up and be less childish” by the chairman who is the holder of an OBE.” (**see Footnote)

“Farage says in his televised speeches that Cameron, Miliband and Clegg have never had a proper job, leaving university and going straight into politics.

“Well, that mirrors Hunter-Clarke’s résumé, and I believe UKIP has done itself a massive disservice in pre-positioning him to be selected.

“He appears not to live in the same world as the majority of the voters there, and I firmly believe that UKIP could well have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Boston and Skegness in May 2015.

“In the New Year, I shall ask the electorate of Boston and Skegness six simple questions.

“The answers to them will have a massive impact upon their future.”

***

Whilst we cannot speculate on what these questions might be, it is interesting to note that Mr Wooding now styles himself as: “Paul Wooding Ind PC” – which suggests that he plans to go it alone.

***

Interestingly we have had a sight of some of the e-mails going the rounds during all of this, and they certainly raise a few questions.

As far back as September, Robin Hunter-Clark was e-mailing interested parties to express members’ concern “that the selection process will be turned into a public debate between candidates” if local newspapers were allowed to discuss the selection process “which cannot be permitted in the branch’s eyes. A view I share!

“I am going to ask all candidates from this point onwards not to discuss the selection process with the press and especially not to talk about other candidates who may have applied. I hope you will agree to this?”

Then on 12^th November – the day before the selection of a candidate – another email to candidates from Graham Westmore, the, Boston and Skegness UKIP branch secretary, told that “an anomalous situation (definition: deviating from what is standard, normal, or expected)  has arisen which we are doing our best to rectify.”

It went on: “At the time of our original short-listing meeting at the end of August the CVs of all the candidates had been received and were considered by the meeting.  The shortlist was duly drawn up and was submitted to the NEC. 

“Unusually, they made adjustments to the list and one name was withdrawn and was replaced by another. 

“The name that was the replacement is that of Robin Hunter-Clarke who was, and currently remains, the chairman of this branch. 

“This process took a long time and we were only presented with the revised shortlist about a month ago.

“It was recognised that an irregularity had been created in that Mr Hunter-Clarke had had sight of your CVs at the time of the original selection meeting in August as he was one of the four of us who were on the selection committee. 

“At that time there was no suggestion that he would be a candidate. 

“Clearly, this was an undesirable situation and the only remedy seemed to be for all of you to have sight of each other’s’ CVs in order to create a level playing field.  “Consequently, once we had been informed of the identity of the Chairman of the Hustings (Mr David Soutter - UKIP Head of Candidates) I wrote to him setting out the situation and suggesting the above remedy. 

“That was 2½ weeks ago and I have just today received Mr Soutter’s agreement as to this proposed course of action. 

“Accordingly, I have asked Mr Hunter-Clarke to send to each one of you as soon as possible the CVs of himself and of the other two candidates.  (There are now four candidates, one of the original five having withdrawn.)

“I greatly regret that this situation has arisen and I hope that you will appreciate that it has done so solely as a result of the intervention of the NEC. 

“I should add that there is no connection between these events and the concurrent directive (also derived from the NEC) that the identities of the candidates on the shortlist should not be revealed.”

***

Criticism notwithstanding, the bookies seem confident that UKIP can win Boston and Skegness.

The party is ranked as 4/7 favourite to take the seat from the Conservatives, who are second favourites at 11/8.

A Ladbrokes' spokesman said: "UKIP have been targeting this seat for some time and because the current MP Mark Simmonds is stepping down at the general election, we expect them to win that seat."

If the bookies are to be believed, Boston and Skegness will see a straight fight between Matt Warman and Robin Hunter-Clarke.

Meanwhile, the most recent polling shows Labour five points ahead in this week’s Ashcroft National Poll, conducted last weekend.

Labour’s share is up two points since last week at 32%, with the Conservatives down two at 27%, the Liberal Democrats down two at 7%, UKIP up two at 18%, the Greens unchanged on 7%.

***

Having said that, when we watched Mr Hunter-Clarke’s victory speech on local television, we came away completely underwhelmed.

Our reaction was Gee – which includes Gasconism, Glib, and Grating among possible definitions.

Having spent some time during our career coaching people who crave the public’s confidence and support, we think that a few quid spent on image building and presentation would be money well spent.

And no – we are not offering our services!

***

We still have until Sunday to comment on Boston Borough Council’s latest cunning plan – which is to stop people drinking in public by declaring a Public Space Protection Order prohibiting the consumption of alcohol in an oddly shaped area of the town – which at one point includes the width of a single bridge!

Under the new rules, any person failing to stop drinking when requested will be committing an offence and can be arrested and fined – £100 for a first offence and up to £500 for a second offence committed within six months of the first.

As the PSPO is certain to be approved by the council, we can say with equal confidence that it will not work.

The reason for that is the same reason that all earlier ideas have failed – such a scheme can only succeed if the area is policed and the order is enforced.

This has not happened in the past, and we can see no reason to imagine that anything different will change things in the future.

But it will cost £10,000 for all the pre-publicity and signage – compared with just under £7,000 for the same exercise with the failed Designated Public Place Order which preceded it.

***

It’s taken a few years, but one of Boston Eye’s suggestions has at last been given a test run.

Boston Borough Council informed us last week that a “new currency” was being put into circulation for yesterday’s Boston Big Local street food and craft fare (sic.)

The so-called “test trading” event to encourage “more micro-business growth” saw each of the first 100 people attending being given three “Botolph Pounds”  a local currency aimed at “keeping money local.”

Wind the clock back to February 2009 and an item in Boston Eye. 

“If Boston wants to encourage people to use what local shops there are to boost the local economy, why not take a leaf out of the book of Lewes, in East Sussex

“There, they have issued a local currency in the form of the Lewes Pound which is bought and circulated locally.

“As the Lewis Pound website promoting the idea (www.thelewespound.org) says: "Money spent locally circulates within, and benefits the local economy. Money spent in national chains doesn't. The Lewes Pound encourages demand for local goods and services. In turn this builds resilience to the rising costs of energy, transport and food."

You saw it first on Boston Eye.

***

They say that bad news travels fast, and that certainly seems to be the case where Boston’s public toilets are concerned.

Not content with nauseating local readers of the borough’s bulletin and the local papers that slavishly follow its lead, the borough has bogged itself down yet again – this time with a story headlined “Praise for council toilet cleaners.”

The plaudits come from a lady called Gillian Kemp, the leader of something called the Truckers Toilets UK Campaign, which is part of the British Toilet Association.

In a message to Councillor Derek “Knocker” Richmond, Ms Kemp speaks of her dismay at the state the Lincoln Lane lavvies were left in recently, which she describes as “unbelievable” and creating a “dreadfully unpleasant” task for the cleaners.

This in turn has prompted Councillor Richmond to ask us to suspend our disbelief by claiming that “toilet cleaners are an invisible force for good.”

Whilst we acknowledge the sterling work done by our cleaners in difficult circumstances it is sad but inevitable that the borough again took the opportunity to remind us of the disgusting specifics that led to the publication of the original item.

The British Toilet Association is based in Bangor, County Down – and how they stumbled across the story is anyone’s guess.

How many more times, we wonder, will Boston Borough Council seek to promote the news those visitors to its toilets might be in for a nasty shock?

One important date that slipped beneath the borough’s radar this year was that World Toilet Day – which was inaugurated in 2001 – was celebrated on 19^th November this year … which gives the powers that be almost a full year to plan for a fresh assault on our sensitivities.

***

We think it is quite right that criticism has been made of the decision to allow local produce firm Staples permission for 52 more caravans on its site to add to the 63 already there to accommodate as many as 650 “students” in the peak season.

The issue first reared its head in 2009 when Staples took on eastern European "students" under SAWS – the government Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme.

Then as now, it claimed that local workers were hard to find and that those provided by local agencies were less reliable.

SAWS allowed UK farmers and growers to recruit low-skilled overseas workers solely from Bulgaria or Romania at the agricultural minimum wage for up to six months.

Since then, the scheme has been closed because labour market curbs for workers from those countries were lifted at the end of 2013.

Home Office Minister Mark Harper said then: "At a time of unemployment in the UK and the European Union there should be sufficient workers from within those labour markets to meet the needs of the horticultural industry."

But, adieu SAWS, bonjour HOPS – the Harvesting Opportunities Permit Scheme which has taken over.

Staples says it suffers an ‘inability to recruit from the indigenous population’, but adds Lincolnshire ‘still thrives because foreign students visit the area to work’.

Given what we often hear local people say, this takes some swallowing – and we wonder just how hard Staples searched for local workers before deciding that  a transient, temporarily captive workforce is a lot easier to manage – not to mention a whole lot cheaper! 

***

Not wishing to sound a bit of a killjoy, but either our emergency services are strapped for resources, or they are not.

Local papers reported the appearance of “mysterious eggs” at a number of the Phoenix “family” of schools in the borough – including the Park Academy, where a “Mystery Object Investigation Team” was brought in to examine the egg, which had to be fetched down by a crew from Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue while Lincolnshire Police guarded the team.

It was all part of a scheme to get children to create stories and videos about the experience which will be shortlisted in a competition – and no doubt the youngsters involved enjoyed it all immensely.

But next time our emergency services tell us how short of funds they are, we will take it with a pinch of salt!

***

Our apologies, but due to circumstances beyond our control there will be no blog next week.

All things being equal, Boston Eye will be back on Friday December 12^th. 

  

**Footnote:  The episode occurred after Councillor Hunter-Clarke asked why council leader Martin Hill’s dog was allowed into County Offices and whether it posed a risk to allergy sufferers.

Councillor Hill told Hunter-Clarke: "You have been elected on to a large £1 billion organisation that's delivering services to a large population in Lincolnshire.

"If you have an issue the place is not here and perhaps you should grow up and be less childish."

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

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