Saturday, February 15, 2014

No Internet connection in John Harvard Library or Pret A Manger coffee shop (The Cloud)

Yesterday I couldn't get internet access for love nor money, and today I have to wait for anything up to five minutes for a page to load.

Southwark Council's John Harvard Library (click to enlarge)
These two graphics are from yesterday:
Southwark Council's John Harvard Library (click to enlarge)
Borough High Street Pret A Manger (click to enlarge)
Paragraph 31 from Declan's complaint to the United Nations last Monday:
31. In addition to (albeit null and void) employment contracts, because the applicant’s wife is a psychologist by profession and N4CM’s Church and State website has a burgeoning section on the right to die, the applicant and his wife have sought and obtained two excellent references in both their names to help them assist persons with moderate disabilities as residents of the persons’ residence (see Annex 26, Live-in care: Personal references, pp. 66-67). The applicant has asked for help in this matter from local authorities and organisations such as Age UK and Shelter, but he and his wife think perhaps a breakthrough will occur by making contact with someone who may move in circles that might be able to offer them an appointment of the kind they are seeking. Alternatively, given a modicum of assistance by a homeless organisation to help them find accommodation in the private rented sector, these two references could equally serve to help the applicant’s wife find positions as a caregiver to elderly persons in need once they have found a flat to live in. However, both the applicant and his wife are deeply concerned that the accommodation blockade through surveillance that they have experienced in London and in Brighton for now over a year a half will be extended to beyond the close of the WLCHC winter night shelter programme on 10 April 2014. They fail to understand why, for example, the SHP must see them both at least one month suitably employed on the streets before the homeless charity will provide them with support to access the private rented sector (see paragraph 30 above). And this despite the fact that the applicant and his wife are facing incarceration in April for rough sleeping in the Barbican estate, which is owned by the City of London (public property), for want of a place to safely sleep following the fencing off of their previous sleeping pitch in December 2013. The applicant and his wife’s predicament is further exacerbated by continuing to have their bandwidths repeatedly ‘squeezed’ in public libraries, Internet cafes and coffee shops (see, for example, the N4CM blog of 3 February 2014, “No internet connection in Southwark Council’s John Harvard Library while all around me surf without difficulty”). There is at least clear indication that the said accommodation blockade has no signs of being lifted, and that new lodging initiatives by the applicant have been and continue to be compromised beyond his or his wife’s control.