Once again the 'Letters' page of The Boston Standard is its most interesting and revealing section. The points of view of the 'great unwashed' are often unenlightened and disagreeable though these nuggets of common prose are often the only articles with any hint of passion and desperation. This week, V.Ashton of Gypsey Bridge penned a venomous little note entitled "Obey our laws... or pack your bags", a snipe at perceived foreign criminality. V.Ashton writes:


"Why do we resent so many foreigners in our country? Simple - it's crime. We have imported it by the boat-load"

V.Ashton goes on to say:

"Do you ever watch Crimewatch? Twelve out of 14 rapists were foreigners on a recent programme"

So what is it we are to draw from this? That anyone born in a country other than ours is statistically more likely to rape your daughter? I am sure it is safe to trust the work of an overtly sensationalist television programme. Any programme that features 14 rapes can't in any way be manipulative can it?

The statistics of rape make the situation much more understandable. The majority of rapes are committed by husbands, partners or other persons known to the victim. Only 12% of rapes are committed by 'strangers', as Rape Crisis state:

"In the small minority of 'stranger rape' cases (only 12% of the full sample), where a suspect was identified the case was more likely to proceed to court than in those cases where the complainant and suspect were previously acquainted"

We can assume from this, that the rapes supposedly featured on the programme are ones that the police have considered to be crimes and are interested in pursuing. We must also assume that along with these 'stranger' rapes, thousands of British women have been raped their husbands, friends and partners. V.Ashton tries to paint a picture that the majority of rapes are committed by 'foreigners' but this clearly is not the case. Incidentally, I had a look at the BBC Crimewatch website and the only rapists featured are white British men. Maybe I am wrong, but V.Ashton appears to be spreading the kind of lies often used to inflame tense situations.

V.Ashton ends his/her letter with a relatively agreeable sentiment:

"If immigrants come here, work, pay their taxes and obey the law then fair enough. Anyone who doesn't, get rid"

Most people would say this is indeed 'fair enough', and that 'anyone' who refuses to pay their taxes and disobeys the law should be got 'rid' of. In this sense, we do not need to talk about 'foreigners' but of common criminals and social parasites. V.Ashton obviously reads the local papers, and therefore surely notices that the majority of crimes are committed not by 'foreigners' but by people born a little closer to home. Maybe it is time, that we put our energies into condemning the local people of the Fenside estate that fill the courts and police cells every week. These are the people that make our everyday lives a misery. So with venom similar to that of V.Ashton I suggest:

• We erect iron gates at all entrances and exists.
• Only let the Fensiders out into our community with a correct pass and ID card.
• Surround the entire estate in thick concrete walls and then...
• Bomb the bastards into the stone age.

Alas, I have just been out into Kyme road and see somebody else has already beaten us to it!

Hidden away in an article documenting the myths surrounding migrant workers, the Boston Standard made mention of a simple statistic that draws attention to the decline of Boston. Paying reference to the 2001 census The Boston Standard inform us:

"More than 30 per cent of the people leaving the county each year are aged between 16 and 24, and another 33 per cent are aged between 25 and 44"

Mirroring this statistic, the Boston Community Safety Partnership published in its Crime and Disorder Strategy 2005-2008:

"There is a higher proportion than the national average of older people (55-74 years) and a lower proportion of younger people (20-34 years)."

The implication is that youth and vivacity are steadily leaking from the local area, and this is only symptomatic of a much larger problem. It can be seen as a signal of the social and economic decay of 'rural' areas such as Boston. Boston itself offers very few prospects for the young, with little in the line of 'career choice' unless an individual wishes to cut and chop vegetables for life.

We will often hear of 'urban decay'; the degeneration of previously successful large towns and cities, but the social and physical decline of rural areas lacks any comparative terminology. Even more important than the lack of a snappy phrase is the deficiency of interest and analysis in the regeneration of rural areas.

On June the 12th 1987 Margaret Thatcher spoke of the "big job to do in some of those inner cities". I remember hearing those words while young and unemployed in Boston, and thinking "what about us?". Surely an MP originating from Lincolnshire could not ignore problems in the area? Unfortunately Bostonians still have to look in the history books for times of prosperity.

Even today we can see this lack of interest in Boston's degradation. Taking a walk down West Street; Boston's administrative centre, within a few strides of the Municipal Buildings we see sights unseen by 'inner city' dwellers since World War II. You can view buildings reduced to rubble piles and barriers of chipboard surrounding long demolished businesses. The former Regal Cinema site has been ignored to dust and the location opposite is nothing but a forgotten wasteland. Boston has become a depressed entity, lacking pride in its appearance with little care for its future life.

Boston exhibits another symptom of depression; that of "Fatigue and a loss of energy". In a survey by Sport England Boston is ranked lowest in the country in relation to physical sporting activity. This has caused Boston to be labelled Britain's laziest town by some elements of the media.

Laziness could be seen as contributing to Boston's traffic congestion problems. Surrounded by calls for a bypass, traffic surveys have proved that the majority of Boston traffic does not pass THROUGH Boston but instead originates and terminates in Boston. In simple explanation, the congestion is caused by Bostonians using their cars for short journeys that could easily be accomplished on foot. Traffic congestion is believed by some to reduce regional economic health due to the 'non productive' activity of driving. The laziness and lack of vitality in Boston is filling the streets with cars and fumes, and also having negative effects on the local economy.

The lack of care and activity on a local and national level causes places like Boston to sink into despair. Sometimes it seems like it is only the young that have enough awareness of the problem to do anything about it. Unfortunately their only choice is to leave for a better place - with no power to change the things they detest. The rest of the population is too apathetic to fix the cracks, to paint the walls, to clean the dirt. Physical and social decay have become acceptable through apathy, with a public and administration that just can't be bothered.

This last week in the local newspapers a plot has been hatched to overtake the council through election of 'pro bypass' independents. The purpose of course is to push forward the planning of a bypass for Boston's roads in order to ease traffic congestion. However, in order to provide an alternative view I would like to draw attention to some of the positive benefits of traffic problems.


1. Take a Walk

If traffic congestion is increased to the point of total jam, then travelling by the oldest method known to man can become somewhat easier. With stationary traffic a walk to work would become much quicker; cutting out the wait for gaps in traffic and pedestrian crossings. Get to work earlier and cough out some phlegm in your own time.

2. Avoid a Heart Attack

Cut out that rush-rush attitude of the western world by sitting and relaxing for hours in a long line of cars. Meditate on the notion that you are just one small entity heading in the same direction as your travelling brethren. Cut out the stress and reduce your risk of a heart attack. Think positive, and take your mind off your children's lung cancer.

3. Improve women's rights

More cars on the road can further the cause of feminism. In the road deaths of children, more than twice as many boys are killed than girls. More traffic = more women, allowing women to become the statistically dominant sex. Politicians will be forced to aim policy at female voters in order to gain power. Traffic in built up areas can tip the power balance in the favour of women.

4. Reduce Antisocial Behaviour

Cut down on those annoying foul-mouthed teenagers by cutting them down with your four wheeled scythe. Traffic is the single most common cause of accidental death for 12 to 16 year olds so more traffic could substantially cut instances of abuse, graffiti and vandalism. Also consider encouraging the idea that walking in the road is 'cool' and that the Green Cross Code Man is a paedophile.

5. Save the World

It is believed by some that traffic reaches a saturation point; where traffic fills the capacity of the roads and does not increase after that point. Increasing the capacity of the roads (e.g. by building a bypass) raises that saturation point, and traffic will increase to fill the capacity once again. Keeping the roads congested keeps a cap on the number of cars in use. Less cars means less 'greenhouse gas' emissions, and therefore a reduction in the acceleration of Global Warming. Poor road infrastructure in Lincolnshire can save lives throughout the world.

6. Defend Capitalism

Cars in traffic jams are inefficient and therefore burn fuel needlessly. Similarly, the cycle of acceleration, braking and idling adds wear and tear to multiple components. This is fantastic news to oil companies and motor manufacturers. Demand for fuel pushes up oil prices and increases revenues. The lifespan of a car is reduced, therefore will need to be replaced more often. The extra wealth gained by the motor industry will also 'trickle down' into more profits for the steel industry. Try not to think of a car as a form of travel, but as conduit for consumerism. The benefits of congestion to industry are enormous.

7. Encourage Communism

The Russian Federation are a large producer and exporter of crude oil. Since 1999 the Russian economy has expanded due to high petroleum prices. Extra fuel demand will provide extra income for the state, and therefore the people of Russia. If you would like to encourage Communism, you can do it from the comfort of your own car; sitting stationary like your comrades with your engine running. Try to think of your car as a symbol of socialism. You could put a little red flag on your aerial if you like, but this would accomplish nothing.

August the 19th must have been hell for Boston's local government. Respected national newspapers such as The Telegraph, The Times and The Guardian published articles about a 'controversial' film "I Hate Boston and Boston Hates Me" made as part of the publicly funded Beacon Art Project. This film created by Jordan Baseman supposedly exposes widespread racism in the town of Boston through interviews with a female Portuguese migrant. I say 'supposedly' due to the extreme lack of people that have been allowed to view the film.

Many local authorities would appreciate this opportunity to have their eyes opened to local issues and troubles. However, Boston have typically taken to sanctuary in ignorance. Boston Borough Council has apparently written to the newspapers concerned to protest about the publishing of the story. In a letter to the Boston Target newspaper, Councillors Paul Kenny and Andrew Bakewell wrote "The only time the national papers are interested in the town is to talk about migrant workers and racism".

The councillors have shown serious naivety in thinking the town has anything more special for the national newspapers to take interest in. Immigration is a burning issue within the town, throughout the country and in Europe as a whole. It is a national and international issue. Somehow the introduction of 'wheelie bins' and the theft of a cabbage just do not compare.

It was promising to read the councillors concern over the welfare of the Portuguese female. The unnamed woman and her seven year old daughter have suffered episodes of racial abuse from locals. Councillors Kenny and Bakewell showed a united front by saying that it was "...important that her views are heard and responded to". Mr Steven Wyatt of the English Democrats indeed responded, in a letter to the Boston Target the following week saying; "I don't want to live in a town built on diversity", "Let me give the lady in question a solution to her problems... go back. I don't expect you will be missed."

Unlike Mr Wyatt, more civilised people would agree that the woman's views should be heard, and problems of racism and abuse should be exposed and dealt with. It is surely pointless to ignore a situation and hope problems will disappear. In June 2006 The Lincolnshire Echo published an article relating to the results of a survey by South Holland District Council. In the survey one third of people in Lincolnshire said they do not like migrant workers, and a percentage openly admit physically attacking them. In the article, Lincolnshire Police's race and diversity officer; Chief Inspector Paul Elliott states:

"The number of recorded attacks against migrant workers is very low, but we strongly suspect that most migrants don't report any abuse or harassment they experience, in fact 60 per cent of them don't know how to report a crime and 40 per cent don't know that the emergency number is 999."

With this disturbing lack of unreported attacks, it is understandable that Councillors Kenny and Bakewell would see it 'important' that the woman's "...views are heard and responded to." and it is probably for this reason that Boston Borough Council are one of the main funders of the film project.

So it comes as some surprise that this woman's views will now NOT be heard due to the scrapping of the film. Strangely, Nicola Streeton; manager of the Beacon Project previously told the Boston Target there was no question of the video being withdrawn. It would be wrong of me to suggest that the council had put pressure on the project to pull the film by withdrawing funding. After all, Rev David de Verny suggests in relation to the Boston Borough Council "Nobody does anything here".

The Times article states that the local authority "...was censured by the Audit Commission in 2003 for failing to show leadership on migrant issues", and it appears nothing has changed since then. In 2004 a serious riot left much of the town centre burned and broken, a riot attributed to racial tensions amplified by BNP involvement. Almost every weekend since has seen small scale fighting between local wayward youths and migrant workers. It is now common in Boston Lincolnshire to hear the word 'foreigner' spat out with hatred and xenophobia. Failure to act once again curses this town with a problem that will only escalate. The scrapping of this film stinks of the censorship and book burning of Nazi Germany; it is an attempt to control and pacify those that believe in freedom and respect for our fellow human beings.