We are (illegal) beggars

In the last blog I reported that Declan and I were being forced into (illegal) begging. Alas, we have been illegal beggars for four days now and I can tell you we are not having a whale of a time. Not to be outdone, two days ago the Bishopsgate City of London police threatened us with immediate arrest and custody pending a court appearance the next time either one of us is caught begging. That seems to me a bit prejudicial: the beggar we call “the Crutch” – for obvious reasons – and at least 3 or 4 other homeless are always begging, not just in Liverpool Street Station (outside of which we have our respective pitches where we sell The Big Issue magazine) but in the streets about the station.

Anyway, it’s not like we have a choice. On Thursday evening we sold no Big Issues at all and so I had to again run the gauntlet in the station until I could put together a few pounds. Yesterday morning Declan had to walk off his pitch (for a litany of the sort of difficulties we encounter selling the Big Issue see here) because the homeless with the supermarket trolley was back sleeping on the ground to one side of him: another example of the Bishopsgate police’s willingness to turn a blind eye despite the trendy hotel overhead. I hadn’t sold anything either, so we again had to go into the station and while Declan was keeping an eye on me I went downstairs and approached people – my line: “I’m terrible sorry to bother you, can you help me with some change, please?” It’s imperative we somehow manage to scrape the money together to buy two coats expediently, or at least one for Declan (he was hospitalised last December with pneumonia and on 2 August had to attend the local Accident & Emergency department where he was treated for an upper respiratory tract infection).

After being threatened with a criminal record on 13 September, that afternoon Declan sent the following letter by registered post to the Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights:

Application no. 22541/07
Heavey v. the United Kingdom

                                RULE 41-URGENT

Dear Sir/Madam

In reference to my urgent request for expedition under Rule 41 of the European Convention on Human Rights made on 8 September 2007 (with particular regard to the reasons cited for the necessity of expedition), I enclose for the attention of the Court copy of my letter and enclosure of today’s date to Chief Superintendent Ken Stewart of Bishopsgate Police Station regarding my (illegal) begging this morning.

Please note that under the heading “Necessity of expedition”, the aforementioned urgent request for expedition states the following:

An urgent expedition is necessary in this instance because of the violations of the applicant's human rights already existing and are likely to be even greater. The right that will be violated is the right to private and family life by the threat to the applicant of being severely assaulted, becoming seriously ill and/or being reduced to begging. This would constitute a threat of irreparable and serious harm. Being reduced to begging is a threat that is imminent given that the applicant’s savings have already been exhausted.

Yours faithfully

Declan Heavey

Enc

And this is the enclosed letter to Chief Superintendent Ken Stewart (without its enclosure):

Dear CS Stewart

My (illegal) begging

I refer to my conversation this afternoon with PC 809C at Bishopsgate Police Station regarding my (illegal) begging in Liverpool Street Station this morning.

I understand that the next time either my wife or I are caught begging that we may be subject to immediate arrest and custody pending a court appearance.

In reference to my letter and enclosure to you of 5 September 2007 regarding Crime Reference No. 7221/07, I enclose copy of chronology in respect of my efforts to have the suspect prosecuted/convicted.

Yours sincerely

Declan Heavey

Enc

cc  The Registrar, European Court of Human Rights (by registered
      post – together with enclosure herein referred to)

We are also being squeezed in other ways. Take for example the porch we sleep in at night. For the last two nights we have slept under the flashing blue light of the porch alarm – the last time we were treated to a full weekend of this flashing light was at the end of July. Last night, at 8.30pm, two employees came out of the office building through the porch door as we were unpacking our things and although they stayed in the porch while one of them was digging for something in his pocket, they didn’t seem to notice the flashing light. The cleaner arrived at 8.35pm – and out at 8.45pm – and she didn’t notice it either. It was also missed by the two police officers on horses that questioned us in the porch on 1 July (Bishopsgate police’s ninth visit) and on 10 August (eleventh) when they passed by the porch at 9.00pm. Oh well, it sure looks like tonight we will be treated to more of the same.

The British government, as a High Contracting Party of the European Convention on Human Rights, is proving disinclined, in our case, to comply with its obligations under Article 34, which establishes a duty on Convention states not to hinder the effective exercise of the right to apply to the European Court. The Court has frequently emphasised that it is of the utmost importance for the effective operation of the system of individual petition that applicants or potential applicants should be able to communicate freely with the Court.

It wouldn’t take Sherlock Holmes to solve the mystery of the interest group behind this extraordinary hunting – perhaps it’s not a coincidence that we have been barred from the Methodist Church-run Whitechapel Mission by the minister’s wife due to concerns about our safety? That I haven’t been able to grab a shower for well over a month in the, er, Sisters of Mercy-run Dellow Centre? Granted, NAC is running a campaign against Magdalene Laundries in Asia and Africa that is not very flattering to the Sisters of Mercy. Whoops.

Perhaps an explanation for the Vatican’s pursuance of as much political clout as it can get – the Holy See maintains diplomatic relations with 174 states and in 2004 its rights as a Permanent Observer in the United Nations were strengthened by the General Assembly – is Christopher Hitchens’s four irreducible objections to religious faith: “that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking”.

The Catholic Church, in particular, has a very accurate perception of what is good for itself and the hierarchy never tires of letting the world know what an important role it plays in humanitarian interventions and how often its agencies are one of the few to be able to quickly reach people in need. A few months ago the satirical Private Eye wrote a small article on former advertising executive Steven Hilton, which stated: “Hilton told Coca Cola and Nike that the way to avoid bad publicity was to embrace social responsibility whole heartily. A few token good works would just be ‘icing on shit’ as he charmingly put it.” I wonder where Hilton looked for his inspiration.