Threatened with arrest
Last night when Declan and I arrived at our sleeping pitch – since 7 September we have been sleeping tucked away, about twenty paces from the side entrance of a building, down some twelve steps; prior to that we slept for almost two years in a porch – we were told that we couldn’t bed down due to there being a “function” and had to stay out until 1.00am. This was a first, and had it happened on a weekday we would have got less than three hours sleep – we get up at 4.20am; weekends at 6.20am. On Monday the week before last we arrived at the pitch to find it had just been hosed down with water (see blog of 18 November “Our sleeping pitch is soaked”), and the Friday previous dim bulbs in the spotlights above us were replaced with very powerful ones (see blog of 15 November “Our sleeping pitch is targeted”). Anyway, we knew of no other place to bed down so we just knocked about in the cold, mist and rain for four hours – on 10 September, after we bedded down elsewhere, I was arrested for refusing to move on as a result of having nowhere else to sleep (see blog of 11 September “I am arrested for breach of the peace”).
Nonetheless, we are staying put. We have little appetite for spending another nine hours looking for an alternative place to sleep. And I most certainly do not have to be reminded of the eventful two years in the porch, despite it being located in London’s financial district (I slept on the outside, Declan on the inside with our well-tied bags): for example, within two weeks somebody sat on the right hand side of my face (see blog of 18 November 2006); I was dragged out of the two-step porch by the ankles while I was in my sleeping bag, then a few hours later I was kicked in the back (see blog of 5 May 2007); a guy repeatedly kicked me in the chest and shoulders as his mates stood by (see blog of 22 September 2007); and I was urinated on (see blog of 2 August). Declan was also jumped on, feet first, as he slept in the porch, and was especially fortunate not to have bones broken (see blog of 14 June). Since we have no option but to be in the street (see blog of 21 October “European Court of Human Rights declares application inadmissible”), we prefer to be at the back of a building, off the streets; though it seems not everyone shares this preference with us.
The “function” came at the end of a week in which Declan’s email inviting scientists and academics to sign his petition to the UN on therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), has been severely spammed. The issue of spam was recently dealt with in the blog of 18 November, including that on 29 February Declan emailed the Home Secretary, Jacqueline Smith; and that the NAC website was suspended on 8 March, three days after the Home Office denied there was a warrant to intercept his communications. Including the 239 emails I sent yesterday to the University of Glasgow, University of Newcastle and University of California San Diego, and the 109 emails I sent on Thursday, this week from a total of 661 emails the petition has had one signature - a week ago, it was one signature from 419 emails; two weeks ago, two signatures from 640 emails; and four weeks ago, one signature from 1,072 emails. It really has no credibility that only so few would sign Declan’s petition.
Take Newcastle University. Some very renowned scientists have signed it, including Alison Murdoch, Professor of Reproductive Medicine, Consultant Gynaecologist and Head of Department of Newcastle Fertility Centre at Life. Murdoch is past Chair of the British Fertility Society, the national society which represents all those involved in the provision of care for the infertile patient. According to a press release from the University, she has held a licence for embryo based research for 15 years and holds the only active nuclear transfer licence in the UK.
Murdoch co-wrote (with Sir John Gurdon, Emeritus Professor of the Department of Zoology at Cambridge University and Professor of the Wellcome Trust/Cancer Research UK Gurdon Institute; and another signatory of Declan’s petition) a paper in Cell Stem Cell titled “Nuclear Transfer and iPS May Work Best Together”, published 7 February, stating: “The major constraint in the development of NT [nuclear transfer] is the supply of human eggs. Not surprisingly, therefore, opponents of NT have targeted the donation process and used this as an indirect tool to stop research.” As stated in the previous blog, a chief objective of our campaign in support of SCNT is to propagate the call of leading experts for a relaxation of rules restricting the compensation of egg donors to boost the supply of human eggs needed for nuclear transfer.
