Declan has it confirmed: his surveillance email is not getting through to people

(Click to enlarge)

Why people should care about surveillance

"Why should people care about surveillance?": 7:09 - 7.52

Surveillance tighter than ever

On 29 August 2013 Declan lodged a claim in the High Court for a judicial review against Commissioner of Police for the City of London Adrian Leppard and Home Secretary Theresa May, following the refusal of the former to ask Broadway Homelessness and Support to help us find accommodation in the private rented sector. Seven months later we are still waiting to hear back from the Court, and the surveillance against us is tighter than ever despite Declan's complaint two weeks ago to the United Nations under Article 19 (freedom of expression) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This is a PDF of the claim form Declan lodged with the Court last August:

https://issuu.com/lolaheavey/docs/2.1_n461_claim_1_claim

Not only do we continue to experience problems accessing the internet in our local library, Southwark Council's John Harvard Library, but we are still trying to break the accommodation blockade through surveillance that we have been experiencing for now over a year and a half. (Declan comprehensively deals with this blockade in his complaint to the UN, paragraphs 25-31.) To make matters worse, once West London Churches Homeless Concern's winter rolling night shelter programme for rough sleepers closes on 10 April, we are facing incarceration 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 our previous sleeping pitch in December 2013. But of course, before we are arrested we are looking at some form of violent attack (see blog of 1 January, "Declan calls into Bishopsgate Police Station for a crime intel report").

. . .

On 14 March 2013 we were evicted from our previous flat because according to our then live-in landlady's ex-husband, Dr Nigel McKenzie, a consultant psychiatrist in Highgate Mental Health Centre, our flat was needed for somebody with a mental illness. As Declan states in paragraph 7 of his complaint to the UN, MI5 whistleblower David Shayler also lived with human rights activist Belinda McKenzie in the same house for a couple of years until 2007. It is indeed unfortunate Shayler then declared that he was the Messiah, became a squatter, and was subsequently ridiculed in the press for changing his name to Delores Kane. A New Statesman article dated 11 September 2006 featuring Shayler and Belinda gives no indication that Shayler believed he was the Messiah at that time; whilst a Daily Mail interview with Shayler explicitly shows he believed himself to be Jesus by June 2007.

The Esquire article below* is mentioned in a Guardian article dated 27 March 2012. It is an eye-opener, highlighting the monitoring and surveillance that Shayler had to live with back in 2000, and the contradictory briefings and slanders that were coming out of the British establishment and the media. The author, Dr Eamonn O'Neill, is a lecturer in journalism at Strathclyde University.

*On 2 May 2013, Issuu removed this pdf from my Issuu account following a copyright complaint by Hearst Communications. I had uploaded the article to my Issuu account in December 2012. In March 2013, when last I checked, the article had been viewed more than 15,000 times. It can be viewed here.

BBC PANORAMA: The David Shayler Affair (August 1998)

According to BBC Panorama, Shayler "caused the biggest crisis of official secrecy since the spy catcher affair". In 2002, he was jailed for seven weeks for breaking the Official Secrets Act.

Declan asks West London Churches Homeless Concern for help to find live-in care position

(Click to enlarge)

Paragraph 31 from Declan's complaint to the United Nations last week:

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.

My first day as an employee of N4CM: No Internet access

(Click to enlarge)

Last Saturday I blogged the nightmare I was having accessing the internet in Southwark Council's John Harvard Library. Yesterday was my first day as an employee of N4CM and I actually got no work done at all. It's pretty much the same today. It is surely amazing that in the 21st century, and in a modern London library, it is a struggle for days on end to load a page.

At 9.24am (click to enlarge)

At 12.14pm (click to enlarge)

At 1.17pm (click to enlarge)

At 3.27 (click to enlarge)

Last week Declan lodged a complaint with the United Nations under Article 19 (freedom of expression) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Here is paragraph 11:

11. In this regard, it is important to underscore that the discriminatory surveillance suffered by the applicant and his wife is not an isolated event. Rather, it is emblematic of a larger pattern of surveillance by law enforcement officials in the UK that has been well-documented by international and domestic human rights bodies. In May 2012, Liberty expressed concern that “state sanctioned surveillance against specific individuals takes place on a massive scale”. British police and government agencies are requesting personal information about Facebook users more than almost anywhere else in the world (behind the USA and India), according to the company’s first global government requests report, released in August 2013. It reveals British authorities made 1,975 requests for information relating to 2,337 users in the six months to 30 June 2013. Since US whistleblower Edward Snowden leaked secret data about US and British intelligence agencies to The Guardian and The Washington Post in May 2013, there have been a spate of top secret GCHQ documents reported on and published around the world. They include detailed reports on GCHQ’s attempts to compromise basic encryption methods used to safeguard internet security, the GCHQ’s targeting of UN charities and officials, the GCHQ’s use of "dirty tricks" including "honey traps" and fake victim blog posts, GCHQ’s surveillance of YouTube and Blogger activity and related activities to covertly influence internet discourse, and GCHQ’s surveillance through phone apps such as “Angry Bird”. The Guardian has revealed that the covert GCHQ unit - the Joint Intelligence Threat Research Group (JTRIG) - runs what it terms an “Effects” programme under what it calls the four Ds: “Deny/ Disrupt/ Degrade/ Deceive”. The mission of the unit is: “Using online techniques to make something happen in the real or cyber world.” Privacy groups have now commenced lawsuits against the GCHQ.

Glenn Greenwald and David Miranda Speak Out: "Journalism Is Not a Crime and It's Not Terrorism"

Today we start employment as employees of N4CM, but it is still not good enough for the Single Homeless Project

Paragraph 30 from Declan's complaint last Monday to the United Nations under Article 19 (freedom of expression) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

30. On 7 January 2014, the applicant and his wife enrolled in a winter night shelter programme for rough sleepers run by the West London Churches Homeless Concern (WLCHC). Two days later, on 9 January, they turned up at Barnsbury Jobcentre of the Department for Work and Pensions to sign on for Jobseeker’s Allowance only to be told that the applicant’s joint claim had been terminated. Neither the applicant nor his wife has ever been issued with a letter of termination with or without appeal rights, and on 22 January the applicant filed a claim in the High Court for judicial review against Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Iain Duncan Smith on the ground of procedural unfairness (see Annex 24, Department for Work and Pensions: Application for Judicial Review, pp. 59-64); it is noteworthy here that the applicant has provided the Court with substantial evidence that in late 2013 he was twice sanctioned on a new claim for jobseeker’s allowance that he never made. On 28 January, a caseworker from WLCHC informed the applicant and his wife that the Single Homeless Project (SHP) would have a flat for them paid for by housing benefit if they could produce 12-month employment contracts to the tune £6,000. However, on 5 February, the day after they produced two signed £3000 contracts, the SHP rejected both contracts because the applicant and his wife’s employment would commence on the first working day after they have moved into suitable accommodation. The SHP failed to clarify, in the first instance, that the applicant and his wife must come up with two payments each under two £3000 contracts before the charity would have a flat for them paid for by housing benefit. This is a very big ask indeed, since it effectively means that both the applicant and his wife must be at least one month suitably employed on the streets before the SHP will provide them with support to access the private rented sector (see Annex 25, Single Homeless Project: Email to WLCHC re offer of a flat, p. 65). [emphasis added]

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.

High Court: Solicitor for the Department for Work and Pensions fails to serve Declan an Acknowledgement of Service with or without the Secretary of State's defence

Declan Heavey v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Claim no. CO/290/2014
Case filed on 22 January 2014

Click to enlarge

Paragraph 30 from Declan's complaint to the United Nations last Monday:

30. On 7 January 2014, the applicant and his wife enrolled in a winter night shelter programme for rough sleepers run by the West London Churches Homeless Concern (WLCHC). Two days later, on 9 January, they turned up at Barnsbury Jobcentre of the Department for Work and Pensions to sign on for Jobseeker’s Allowance only to be told that the applicant’s joint claim had been terminated. Neither the applicant nor his wife has ever been issued with a letter of termination with or without appeal rights, and on 22 January the applicant filed a claim in the High Court for judicial review against Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Iain Duncan Smith on the ground of procedural unfairness (see Annex 24, Department for Work and Pensions: Application for Judicial Review, pp. 59-64); it is noteworthy here that the applicant has provided the Court with substantial evidence that in late 2013 he was twice sanctioned on a new claim for jobseeker’s allowance that he never made. On 28 January, a caseworker from WLCHC informed the applicant and his wife that the Single Homeless Project (SHP) would have a flat for them paid for by housing benefit if they could produce 12-month employment contracts to the tune £6,000. However, on 5 February, the day after they produced two signed £3000 contracts, the SHP rejected both contracts because the applicant and his wife’s employment would commence on the first working day after they have moved into suitable accommodation. The SHP failed to clarify, in the first instance, that the applicant and his wife must come up with two payments each under two £3000 contracts before the charity would have a flat for them paid for by housing benefit. This is a very big ask indeed, since it effectively means that both the applicant and his wife must be at least one month suitably employed on the streets before the SHP will provide them with support to access the private rented sector (see Annex 25, Single Homeless Project: Email to WLCHC re offer of a flat, p. 65).

Formal complaint to the United Nations

In paragraph 31 of the complaint below to the United Nations under Article 19 (freedom of expression) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Declan explains that we are living in well-founded fear of the police. Paragraph 30 includes the Single Homeless Project’s recent offer of flat that shows no signs of materialising. The whole idea of a flat to live in still comes across as pie in the sky to us; and come 10 April, when the West London Churches Homeless Concern (WLCHC) closes its rolling winter night shelter programme for rough sleepers, we will be facing arrest 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 our previous sleeping pitch on 20 December 2013. And this despite that Declan has had a claim in the High Court for judicial review against Commissioner of Police for the City of London Adrian Leppard and Home Secretary Theresa May since August 2013, following the refusal of the former to ask Broadway Homelessness and Support to help us find accommodation in the private rented sector (paragraph 29). Paragraphs 42-48 outline why the Vatican and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church should be monitored.

https://issuu.com/lolaheavey/docs/united-nations-complaint-2014


On 14 March 2013 we were evicted from our previous flat because according to our then live-in landlady's ex-husband, Dr Nigel McKenzie, a consultant psychiatrist in Highgate Mental Health Centre, our flat was needed for somebody with a mental illness. As Declan states in paragraph 7 of the complaint above, MI5 whistleblower David Shayler also lived with human rights activist Belinda McKenzie in the same house for a couple of years until 2007. It is indeed unfortunate Shayler then declared that he was the Messiah, became a squatter, and was subsequently ridiculed in the press for changing his name to Delores Kane. A New Statesman article dated 11 September 2006 featuring Shayler and Belinda gives no indication that Shayler believed he was the Messiah at that time; whilst a Daily Mail interview with Shayler explicitly shows he believed himself to be Jesus by June 2007.

The Esquire article below* is mentioned in a Guardian article dated 27 March 2012. It is an eye-opener, highlighting the monitoring and surveillance that Shayler had to live with back in 2000, and the contradictory briefings and slanders that were coming out of the British establishment and the media. The author, Dr Eamonn O'Neill, is a lecturer in journalism at Strathclyde University.

*On 2 May 2013, Issuu removed this pdf from my Issuu account following a copyright complaint by Hearst Communications. I had uploaded the article to my Issuu account in December 2012. In March 2013, when last I checked, the article had been viewed more than 15,000 times. It can be viewed here.

BBC PANORAMA: The David Shayler Affair (August 1998)

According to BBC Panorama, Shayler "caused the biggest crisis of official secrecy since the spy catcher affair". In 2002, he was jailed for seven weeks for breaking the Official Secrets Act.

UN complaint: Draft paragraph 31 on accommodation blockade through surveillance

Draft paragraph 31 (revised paragraph 30):

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); to this end, they are contacting people associated with groups campaigning for a change in the law to legalise assisted suicide. 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.

UN complaint: Revised paragraph 30 on accommodation blockade through surveillance

Revised paragraph 30:

On 7 January 2014, the applicant and his wife enrolled in a winter night shelter programme for rough sleepers run by the West London Churches Homeless Concern (WLCHC). Two days later, on 9 January, they turned up at Barnsbury Jobcentre of the Department for Work and Pensions to sign on for Jobseeker’s Allowance only to be told that the applicant’s joint claim had been terminated. Neither the applicant nor his wife has ever been issued with a letter of termination with or without appeal rights, and on 22 January the applicant filed a claim in the High Court for judicial review against Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Iain Duncan Smith on the ground of procedural unfairness (see Annex 24, Department for Work and Pensions: Application for Judicial Review, pp. 59-64); it is noteworthy here that the applicant has provided the Court with substantial evidence that in late 2013 he was twice sanctioned on a new claim for jobseeker’s allowance that he never made. On 28 January, a caseworker from WLCHC informed the applicant and his wife that the Single Homeless Project (SHP) would have a flat for them paid for by housing benefit if they could produce 12-month employment contracts to the tune £6,000. However, on 5 February, the day after they produced two signed £3000 contracts, the SHP rejected the documents because the applicant and his wife’s employment would commence on the first working day after they have moved into suitable accommodation. The SHP failed to clarify, in the first instance, that the applicant and his wife must come up with two payments each under two £3000 contracts before the charity would have a flat for them paid for by housing benefit. This is a very big ask indeed, since it effectively means that both the applicant and his wife must be at least one month suitably employed on the streets before the SHP will provide them with support to access the private rented sector (see Annex 25, Single Homeless Project: Email to WLCHC re offer of a flat, p. 65).

No internet connection in Southwark Council's John Harvard Library while all around me surf without difficulty

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge