Police 'No sleeping' sign in the porch
Last night at 10.00pm Declan and I were woken in the porch we sleep in by three workers from Broadway, the homeless organisation that Superintendent Lorraine Cussen of Snow Hill police station, in her email to Declan of 10 June (see blog of 11 June “Letter to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis”), recommended we engage with. “If we could have a chat with you and Declan,” the most senior of them says, “about what we can do for you.” Somehow she already knows about our case in the European Court of Human Rights, so Declan further informs her that he wrote to the Court on 12 May, citing a violation of Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights and requesting that the Court take this matter up with the Government (see blog “Letter to the European Court under Article 34”) – Article 34 establishes a duty on Convention states not to subject applicants to any improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage applicants from pursuing a Convention remedy.
I add that since 13 June Declan has been assaulted in the porch (see blog of 14 June “Declan is assaulted in the porch”); his main bag, which contained, among other things, all our documentation and money, has been robbed in the Dellow Centre (see blog of 18 June “Declan robbed in the Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre”); and he has been assaulted in the Manna Centre (see blog of 19 June “Declan assaulted in the Manna Centre”) – the robbery took place the same day Declan had intended sending by registered post his second request for priority to the European Court, which I posted to the blog that afternoon, with the robbery included; the request can be read here (two days after the robbery, the Dellow Centre presented Declan with a letter from the European Court, which is published here).
This orchestrated campaign of violence against us seems to have only started, I say, adding that that afternoon, in Bow Street police station, Declan is told that the case on the robbery of all our money and documents has been “struck out” because the investigating officer was unable to get any CCTV footage whatsoever from the Dellow Centre (see email to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor below, to which his Personal Secretary, Sr Damian McGrath, replied this morning: “I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your email concerning Providence Row Charity. The Cardinal is out of the country at the present time but he will see your email on his return next week.”); around the same time in the Idea Store Whitechapel library I am told by a member of staff, in the middle of my computer booking, that I have to give the computer up to another card holder or security will be called (see email to the Leader of Tower Hamlets Council below); and at 9.10pm, when we arrive back at the porch, we are greeted by the City of London Police 'No sleeping' sign overhead. So, no I don’t think Broadway can do much for us, I finally say.
The Broadway worker means if we would apply for benefits. But Declan explains he would have to withdraw his application to the Court, which neither of us could contemplate. (The Department of Work and Pensions terminated our benefits on 27 September 2006 because Declan didn't sign on two days before he was due to do so on 29 September, see blog of 8 September 2007 “Application to the European Court of Human Rights”.)
‘No sleeping’ sign
She fixes her eyes on the City of London Police 'No sleeping' sign. “This was put today?” she asks. Just the latest attempt to move us out of the porch, I reply, adding that on 9 May police told us they were "cleaning" the City of London of rough sleepers and that we either move to beyond city boundaries or be arrested, despite that Declan had been diagnosed in the Royal London Hospital with a sprained ankle only hours before (see blog of 9 May "Letter to the Mayor of London”); police also told us the same thing on 17 May (see blog of 17 May "Letter to the British Prime Minister"). Then the whole approach changed, I informed her: on 2 and 9 June, we have to move out of the porch (to beyond city boundaries) so that the City of London's Cleansing service can wash and disinfect the porch floor with immediate effect; and we can be arrested if we don’t move (see blog of 18 June "Second Request for Priority to the European Court").
We are quite aware that the sign is “not worth the paper it is written on”, Declan says. The May issue of The Pavement (a free magazine for London’s homeless) states that shopkeepers in the big tourist area of the Strand (Westminster area) are abandoning the Whitehall Safer Neighbourhood [police] Team’s 'No sleeping' signs on their shop fronts, claiming that they are no longer effective; apparently, the shopkeepers prefer to call the police if they have any problems or incidents. (We, by the way, have been sleeping in this porch – an office building – for over a year and a half (since 3 November 2006), bed down at 9.00pm, get up at 4.30am, don’t drink or smoke, and never have had a complaint against us; hardly material for the sign.)
“We will come back some other time,” she said, and they all left. So what is going to happen when police tell us we have to move out of the porch because the sign gives them permission to move us on (as they can see the proprietor(s) have not consented)? Well, Declan will pick up his bags and head off, but I am going to stay put: I will submit that there hasn’t been a complaint against us in over a year and a half and that this is no more than a flagrant violation of Article 34. Declan’s recent letter from the Court, dated 16 June, not only acknowledges receipt of his email letter of 12 May pursuant to Article 34 but states that Declan should inform the Court “about any major developments” regarding the case; so if I am arrested Declan will do just that, again by email, and within hours of me being placed in custody. (And if it is a worker who wants us out? Well, more or less the same. I will politely, and very apologetically, ask him to phone the police, having explained that our case is before the European Court of Human Rights.)
In his email, Declan will argue that my arrest violates Article 8 (which includes an individual’s physical and moral integrity), as well as Article 34. Declan will submit that the interference with his rights under Article 8 was not prescribed by law, that it did not pursue any of the legitimate aims in Article 8(2), and that the interference was not necessary in a democratic society. “There is simply no relationship of proportionality between the aim pursued and the interference with the applicant’s rights,” Declan will say.
At least I can take comfort we don’t live under Robert Mugabe – an article in The Independent today titled “'A flagrant violation of democracy': ANC tells Mugabe to delay election” reports that the ANC said it was "deeply dismayed by the actions of the government of Zimbabwe, which is riding roughshod over the hard-won democratic rights of the people of that country”. But I find very uplifting a talk given by Noam Chomsky (described by The New York Times as “arguably the most important intellectual alive”, and an early signatory of Declan’s petition to the UN on therapeutic cloning) – in December 2006, see blog of 12 June “The threat of a good example”.
This is the email to Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor yesterday evening:
Subject: Providence Row Charity
Dear Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor
Previous correspondence refers. Please find below a copy of my email of even date to the Chief Executive of Providence Row Charity, Ms Jo Ansell, regarding the above.
Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey
-----------------------------------------
Subject: Providence Row Charity
Dear Ms Ansell
Thank you for your ("Receipt acknowledged") email of 23 June in respect of my email of 20 June, wherein I drew to your attention as the chief executive of Providence Row Charity (of which the Dellow Centre is a part) the robbery of all my and my wife's money and documents in the canteen of the Dellow Centre on the morning of 18 June (crime reference no. 4215697/08).
In further reference to my email of 20 June, I can confirm that this afternoon I visited Bow Street police station to be updated on the investigation into the robbery. I understand that the investigating officer, PC Van-Gelder (number unknown), has been unable to get any CCTV footage whatsoever from the Dellow Centre, and consequently the case has been "struck out" by him.
Please would you acknowledge receipt.
Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey
Chain no. 69828
cc Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, Archbishop of the Diocese of Westminster (by email)
Mr Erik Fribergh, Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights (by registered post*)
________________________
* Supporting Documents, p 13, Second Request for Priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court
And for the record, this is Declan’s email letter this afternoon to the Leader of Tower Hamlets Council, Councillor Denise Jones:
Subject: Idea Store Whitechapel
Dear Cllr Jones
I refer further to the attached copy of my most recent correspondence with Mr Ian McNicol, Head of Idea Stores, to whom you referred my original complaint of 21 January regarding Idea Store Whitechapel and the repeated loss of computer bookings and internet access on both my wife's card (card no. D000350314) and my card (card no. D000355837) since 14 November 2007.
I also attach copy of my wife's and my computer bookings for 23 and 24 June.
In the continued absence of a response from Mr McNichol in respect of the aforementioned complaint of 21 January, I wish to confirm that (1) on 24 June at approximately 12.30pm, while on computer 24 in Idea Store Whitechapel, my wife was asked by a member of staff to give the computer up to another card holder, despite that thirty minutes earlier a member of staff had confirmed in writing that my wife had booked the computer from 11.30am to 2.30pm (this particular member of staff was aggressive, threatening to call security if she didn't move immediately; only leaving when another member of staff intervened to allow my wife to retain her booking); and (2) on 23 June at approximately 3.30pm, while on computer 23, my wife was asked by a member of staff to give the computer up to another card holder, despite that a member of staff had confirmed in writing that she had booked the computer for my wife from 2.30pm to 5.30pm (this particular member of staff only left when another member of staff intervened to allow my wife to retain her booking).
I also reconfirm that (1) on 28 March, my wife experienced difficulties accessing the internet from 12.30pm to 1.50pm (she was informed by a member of staff that no other person had reported any difficulties whatsoever accessing the internet); (2) on 11 February, a member of staff had to move me from one computer to another because it was not possible for me to access the internet (no other computer user reported any such difficulty); (3) on 10 February, my wife lost her booking to another card holder and had to spend 10 minutes dealing with a member of staff before the computer was re-booked in her name, and (4) on 1 February, I received an email from Mr Sergio Dogliani, Principal Idea Store Manager, advising that the restriction by Idea Store Whitechapel of my wife and I to a 3-hour maximum free computer use per day as from 29 January was irretractable, despite that for several months previous both my wife and I had been given extra hours of free computer use, subject to computer availability.
As I explained in my original letter of complaint of 21 January, since 22 October 2007 my wife and I have been using as much of our computer time in Idea Store Whitechapel as possible to contact distinguished scientists and academics to invite them to sign my petition to the United Nations on therapeutic cloning and the use of stem cells for research and for the treatment of disease. To date, this petition has been signed by 519 scientists and academics, including 22 Nobel laureates.
Kindly note that the case of Heavey v. the United Kingdom is currently before the European Court of Human Rights (Application no. 22541/07).
Please would you acknowledge receipt.
Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey
cc Mr Erik Fribergh, Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights (by registered post*)
________________________
* Supporting Documents, p 14-16, Second Request for Priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court
