Our sleeping pitch is soaked

As I reported in the previous blog, yesterday The Big Issue
Head Office – The Big Issue is a magazine sold by homeless people throughout the UK on registered street pitches – confirmed that our pitches have been terminated, after two years of us surviving on the streets of London by selling the magazine from the same registered pitches and despite Declan’s email letter of complaint to the chair of The Big Issue Foundation (see blog of 11 November “Letter of complaint to the chair of The Big Issue Foundation Charity”). This is an extremely serious situation for me in particular, in that I am facing possible prosecution for begging.

Then last night we arrived at the place we sleep at night – 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 – to find it had been hosed down with water (this is a first for us in over two years of sleeping rough). It has only been a few days since we found out that dim bulbs in the spotlights above us had been replaced with very powerful ones (see blog of 15 November “Our sleeping pitch is targeted”), and two weeks since we were at the other end of a cleaner with a hose as we were about to leave at 5.00am (see blog of 3 November “State Stem Cell Policies Deserve National Attention”). Anyway, equipped with a scrubbing brush and a shower curtain, we stayed put because the night we decided to sleep elsewhere, on 10 September, 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”).

A matter of particular concern to us is how many of the emails I send to scientists and academics inviting them to sign Declan’s petition to the UN on research cloning of embryos and stem cells are actually getting through: we are under no illusion that the vast majority are being dumped to spam boxes (or to cyberspace, see blog of 4 September “Obama: Yes to stem cells, funding”). Yesterday, I only received seven out-of-office autoreplies from 226 emails. Hardly surprising we only got one signature (last week it was two signatories from 640 emails; three weeks ago, one signatory from 1,072 emails). Back in February I expressed concern that my emails were not getting through (see blog of 16 February “Declan’s petition to the UN is being brought to a halt”). In fact, on 29 February Declan emailed the Home Secretary, Jacqueline Smith, regarding interception of communications; the Home Office replied on 5 March denying that any such warrant was issued; and on 8 March the NAC website was suspended due to spam as reported via SpamCop (see blog of 14 March “SpamCop reports Declan as a spammer”).

Although the NAC website will not be uploaded again – as I announced in August, we are trying to raise the £450 we need to buy a laptop to build a website for an international campaign in support of human embryonic stem (hES) cell research and therapeutic cloning – this is a snag of what the “Recent News” page looked like before it was suspended (the NAC website was built long ago, around the beginning of 2005, and what was then termed “liberal reforms strongly rejected by the Vatican and the Christian Right” has become “the scientific perspective on public policy issues”):

Our Big Issue pitches are terminated

This morning, The Big Issue Head Office – The Big Issue is a magazine sold by homeless people throughout the UK on registered street pitches – confirmed that our pitches have been terminated, after two years of us having survived on the streets of London by selling the magazine from the same registered pitches and despite Declan’s email letter of complaint to the chair of The Big Issue Foundation (see blog of 11 November “Letter of complaint to the chair of The Big Issue Foundation Charity”). This is an extremely serious situation for me in particular, in that I am facing possible prosecution for begging.

It also means that it is highly likely that Declan will be unable to keep our account in the local internet café (£3 for seven hours) going, so it seems we will be restricted to the 3-hour maximum computer use per day at Idea Store Whitechapel library that our local council imposed on each of our membership cards on 1 February, despite that for several months previous we were given “additional time” subject to computer availability and in accordance with the council’s then and current “Idea Stores PC Usage Policy”. Notwithstanding that, we frequently experience difficulties with internet access and computer bookings in this library (see, for example, blog of 13 October “Letter to the Leader of Tower Hamlets Council”).

With such restrictions, I now have to adapt my blog. Up to today I have been selecting themes in embryonic stem (ES) cell research and therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), and developing each with reference to news, articles, and/or opinion pieces from leading scientists and academics. From now on it will be about researching everything that is going on in the field in ES cell research – conferences, news, reports, discoveries and applications, major research institutions throughout world, joint international efforts, bloggers, etc – and producing blogs with links that will serve as an interesting source of material.

Declan tells me that the litmus test for a successful blog is one that I will revert to myself for information as soon as I have a laptop – to build within two weeks a website for our campaign in support of ES cell research and SCNT. The blog of 1 November “Can a cell have a soul?” includes a brief description of what this website will contain: for example, the subsection “Embryonic stem cell research” will be broken up into the associated subsections “Science”, “Law and Policy”, “Ethics” and “Applications”.

Criticising the restrictions introduced in August 2001 by President George W Bush that prevent federally funded researchers from working on all but a few sources of embryonic stem cells, Robert Lanza - chief scientist at Advanced Cell Technology, a stem cell company in Worcester, Massachusetts (and a signatory of Declan’s petition) – told New Scientist: “We’ve been operating for the past decade with one hand tied behind our back.” This is exactly the way Declan and I are being forced to operate. We believe though that we can work this situation to our advantage, and are quite excited at the prospect of doing so.

Second letter to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

This morning at 7.00am Declan again narrowly escaped being assaulted – seriously assaulted would be more appropriate – by probably the most dangerous character that visits the Whitechapel Mission (or used to visit, because we hadn’t seen him for some time up to last Friday).

This time the assault was going to take place no more than 100 metres from the Whitechapel Mission – that after Declan wrote on 17 April to the head of the Methodist church in the UK, Rev Graham Carter regarding harassment and intimidation in the mission. It may well be that the only thing we have achieved is that now we have to watch our backs outside it.

And I mean “we” because Declan and I agree that it should be me who takes the next hit. So from now on I am standing between Declan and whatever homeless decides to try it on outside washrooms – there is no shortage, I can assure you.

Anyway, the narrow escape occurred at the nearby bus stop (we had intended going to Covent Garden to sell The Big Issue) and although there were about 10 people waiting for buses, this homeless selected us for special treatment. Twice he tried to talk to Declan, but on both occasions I brushed him off. Then, all of a sudden, he decides to hijack a bus: he enters but instead of paying his fare, he first changes the position of the driver’s rear-view mirror and then starts insulting everybody on the bus, including the driver. He was so time-consuming one woman left the bus while some others at the bus stop were telling the driver to call the police.

As the homeless held up this bus, ours arrived – which we just got onto in time. Also fortunately for us, the homeless left his bus too late and, having lost his target, hit the window Declan was at with his fist, looking venomously straight at him. Given the force with which he hit the window, Declan is under no illusion that he would have been knocked out.

So, if this was a premeditated attempted assault, who sent him? And why? There is no need to go into muddy waters, especially since you don’t have to be the most intelligent person in the world to figure it out. As to the why, well yes, there is no problem with muddy waters there: it is about stopping Declan from lodging his case against the UK with the European Court of Human Rights by introductory letter. Quite evidently we’ve got a pretty strong case that won’t easily be dismissed.

Needless to say, we are still waiting for sight and copy of this letter from the Department for Work and Pensions stating, according to Judge Walker in his judgment of 11 December, that the termination of our unemployment benefit on 27 September because Declan did not sign on was a “mistake”, but there was another good reason for terminating payment (see previous blog).

The next place up for an assault has to be our porch, Declan reckons. Yes, I can see it: Declan is sent to hospital (well, now it will be me); our bags are stolen (with all our documents); and, of course, we lose the porch. Come to think of it, it’s a very tempting initiative! It’s not like the porch is a blind spot though: we have already had homeless to it as we are bedding down and, with one or two exceptions, Declan has recognised every one of them.

To return the compliment, this morning Declan and I paid yet another visit to Bethnal Green Police Station (Declan’s sixth visit) to request a crime report update in relation to the assault on Declan in the Whitechapel Mission on 17 February, when he was punched twice in the face by a homeless in an unprovoked attack. Still no progress, so this is Declan’s second registered letter to Sir Ian Blair, Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis:

Dear Sir Ian

Re:  Crime ref: 4204886/07

I refer to my letter and enclosures to you of 16 April 2007 regarding the above.

I re-enclose copy of my letter and enclosures of 16 April 2007 to the Tower Hamlets Borough Commander, Chief Superintendent Mark Simmons of Bethnal Green Police Station.

As stated in my letter to CS Simmons, I note the letter to me of 29 March 2007 from PC Katherine Jones of Bethnal Green Police Station wherein it states:

I acknowledge your letter regarding Crime ref: 4204886/07, which was received on 29th March 2007. This has been referred to DC Head who will be responding to your letter as soon as possible.

In further reference to chronology in relation to my efforts to 26 March 2007 to have my statement taken in respect of the assault on me in the Whitechapel Mission on 17 February 2007, I wish to confirm that I have yet to hear back from DC Head or anyone on his behalf.

Yours sincerely

Declan Heavey

Harassment and intimidation in the Whitechapel Mission

Yesterday afternoon, Declan wrote a letter to the head of the Methodist church in the UK – on Monday morning he narrowly escaped being assaulted in the Whitechapel Mission canteen area by a friend of the homeless guy that punched him twice in the face on 17 February, an assault the Metropolitan Police are refusing to investigate.

As I said in the previous blog, the Whitechapel Mission – where we arrive every morning at 6.00am (opening time) to wash – is fast becoming a place of safety hazards. Yesterday morning, for example, as soon as I had come out of a toilet cubicle, having changed into my everyday clothes, who comes in but the homeless woman that seriously harassed me on Sunday (also in the washroom). She muttered something and then banged the door of her own toilet cubicle. Perhaps she was taking a break.

All my free time, which is not much these days with all the different problems we are encountering at every corner, is spent reading Declan’s book on taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Yesterday I had a very nice breakthrough: Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights establishes a duty on Convention states not to hinder the effective exercise of the right to apply to the European Court. Under Article 34, applicants must not be subjected to any form of pressure from the authorities to modify or withdraw their complaints, either by direct coercion or flagrant acts of intimidation.

Where a state prevents the effective right of application, the Court may find a violation of Article 34. Accordingly, if there is any evidence at any stage of a Convention application that the applicant’s effective right of application is being restricted, then the matter should immediately be drawn to the Court’s attention by lodging relevant evidence, including statements.

Well, that’s nice. I wonder if the letters I have published in this blog from Declan to the head of the Methodist Church in the UK (see below), Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (last Monday’s blog) and chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Providence Row Charity (last Sunday’s blog) would surface. Perhaps we could even throw in his letter to the chairman of the Board of Trustees of The Big Issue Foundation (last Thursday’s blog). Could it be that the Court would find that the UK has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention?

Anyway, this is the letter that Declan sent yesterday by registered post to the head of the Methodist church in the UK, Rev Graham Carter:

Dear Rev Carter

Re:   Harassment and intimidation in the Whitechapel Mission

As head of the Methodist church in the UK, I enclose for your attention copy of my letter and enclosures of 16 April 2007 to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir Ian Blair concerning the investigation (or lack thereof) into the unprovoked assault on me in the Whitechapel Mission on 17 February 2007.

Yesterday morning in the Whitechapel Mission I narrowly escaped being assaulted for the second time. On this occasion, the kitchen worker who intervened (Tony) took the view that it was my fault for not talking to the homeless that visit the premises. (That this was the view taken, would be evident from CCTV footage.)

Although I was informed by the acting manager of the Whitechapel Mission on 17 February that I enter the premises at my own risk, this ought not to be the case. I understand that if a visitor is invited onto the institution’s premises then a common duty of care will be owed by the institution to the visitor. This is to ensure that the visitor will be reasonably safe in the premises for the purposes for which he has been invited or permitted.

Yours sincerely

Declan Heavey

Sisters of Mercy-run Dellow Centre deny us access to services

On Friday, the Sisters of Mercy-run Dellow Centre prevented Declan and I from accessing its services (no breakfast nor shower) and then, even more outrageously, refused Declan entry when he returned to ask for the name of the chief executive of the Providence Row Charity, of which the Dellow Centre is a part; a worker came out and dealt with Declan through the gates.

The reason we were denied access to the services, despite having queued for them, was simply because Declan refused to let staff fill in registration forms without us first familiarising ourselves with the questions that were being asked, particularly after Declan discovered that a member of staff had ticked, without my knowledge, that I didn’t require food or clothes from the establishment. And why were the staff so adamant to re-register us again anyway? Declan told them that our circumstances hadn’t changed one iota since we first registered with them at the beginning of November.

This banishment from the centre is of course at total variance with the information they provide on the internet. For example, in a report they did in 2003 (I could not find a more recent one), titled Between the street and a home, they state: “It [Dellow Centre] was opened in 1994 and since then it has helped anyone regardless of their housing circumstances.”

Outraged, not only did Declan write a registered letter to the Chief Executive of the Providence Row Charity, Steven Lee-Foster, but he will also be sending a copy of the letter by registered post to the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Simon Bartley tomorrow. This is the letter:

Dear Mr Foster

Re:  Re-registration (and denial of access to services)

Further to the difficulties my wife and I experienced in relation to our re-registration (at your staffs’ request) at Providence Row on 13 April, I wish to confirm a) the imminent lodgement by introductory letter of my case against the UK with the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the termination of my joint claim for Jobseeker’s Allowance on 27 September 2006 (because I did not “sign on” two days before I was due to do so on 29 September 2006), and b) both my wife and I require food, clothing, laundry and showers from the Dellow Centre of the Providence Row Charity (as we have done since we became rough sleepers on 3 November 2006).

In reference to our banishment from the Dellow Centre on 13 April (after a member of staff ticked on my wife’s registration form, and without her knowledge, that she required neither food nor clothes from the Dellow Centre; and my subsequent insistence on our familiarisation with the form), I note the “History” page from the Providence Row Charity website states the following:

Everyone who seeks our help today can still use all our services free of charge, and we help anyone regardless of their religion, ethnicity or age.

Yours sincerely

Declan Heavey

cc  Mr Simon Bartley, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Providence Row Charity (by registered post)

Simon Bartley is also the chairman of the Skills Commission – a steering body for the National Skills Forum and Associate Parliamentary Skills Group, consisting of a select group of key individuals with a stake in skills policy. The next time we are denied access to services at this centre, Declan is going straight with his complaint to its Patron, the Duke of Norfolk and the Charity Commission.

It just never finishes: last Wednesday Declan had to send a registered letter to the chairman of the Board of Trustees of The Big Issue Foundation (see previous blog), and two days later we are shown the door by the Dellow Centre. We even have to watch our back in the library Idea Store Whitechapel: yesterday I had to ask for my membership card back on two different occasions; on the first, the card had been conveniently placed under a metal box. Would I be safe in assuming that if we lost either of our two cards the library wouldn’t accept our care-of address, even though the Whitechapel Mission is just across the road?

As for the Big Issue, matters are far from resolved. Although Declan’s letter to the chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Big Issue Foundation had the desired effect and we got our Covent Garden pitch back (for Tuesdays pm, Thursdays pm, and weekends), we were subsequently told that our two Liverpool Street pitches were “training pitches”. This too has now been resolved in our favour: after Declan wrote to the founder of the Big Issue for the fourth time, we were informed our Liverpool Street pitches are not in fact training pitches (and therefore we are not going to be taken off them in favour of trainee vendors). However, for the first time since we got our Liverpool Street pitches on 5 December, the outreach manager has now said that both pitches are free for other vendors after 6.00pm.

It just so happens 5.30pm to 7.30pm is the most profitable for us on these two pitches, especially as many passers-by have already seen us early in the morning and at lunch time. So, because we are extremely concerned Big Issue staff may turn both of these pitches into sharing pitches, we want to give up our Covent Garden pitch on weekdays – at the additional cost to Declan of the only two half-decent hot meals he has been getting a week (at St Martins for £2.10).

We are particularly wary of a sharing pitch because of our experiences with the Covent Garden pitch – shared not only by Declan and I, but another vendor who Declan has had some unsavory dealings, many reported in this blog. Did I say that we were never informed of the source of the unfounded allegation which resulted in us losing the pitch three weeks ago, despite that we had precedence on it?

Our sales strategy is to stay with our two Liverpool Street pitches Monday to Friday (no sharing, thank you) and just keep the Covent Garden pitch for Saturdays and Sundays (on weekends our Liverpool Street pitches die). How can the Big Issue complain?

Anyway, mindful of the Big Issue Code of Conduct wherein it states: “We will help you to maximise your sales by providing a quality magazine and an effective sales strategy”, Declan sent another email this afternoon to the outreach manager Paul Joseph, which he will also send by registered post to the founder of The Big Issue, Dr John Bird tomorrow. It reads:

Subject: Liverpool Street pitches

Dear Paul

Further to the telephone message I left on your voice-mail yesterday morning, I reconfirm receipt of your email of 13 April and again request a meeting to help my wife and I to maximise our sales.

In light of your letter of 11 April 2007 with pitch slips that restrict our Liverpool Street pitches to daytimes (for the first time since 5 December 2006), it is difficult to adequately answer your question as to how regularly we would like to work Covent Garden without a meeting to discuss an effective sales strategy.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey

cc  Dr John Bird, Editor-In-Chief, The Big Issue (by registered post)

And finally the Whitechapel Mission. This morning while in the washroom a homeless woman comes in and, like other homeless women I am forced to meet in the washroom many mornings, she is adamant that I talk to her. But this time this particular woman is taking none of my usual ignoring tactics: she goes around me and in front of me, and kneels down with me when I kneel down for some toiletry from my bag. And when she realises that she is getting nowhere, she mounts an accelerating litany of abuse: I shouldn’t come to the mission to get free services and not talk to people; I must think I am better than everyone else; she is going to pray to Allah to send me to hell; she is going to tell Allah I am a bitch; and of course the usual f*** off a few times.

And then, after she challenges me to call management, who comes in but the manager. As I am putting on my coat and grabbing my bags – to get out as fast as possible – she is complaining to the manager about how horrible I have been to her!

Back in the canteen area, this same homeless woman threw a bowl of cornflakes and milk over some homeless guy’s head, and you should have heard a volunteer complaining to the manager that he had already cleaned this guy’s hair three times (with a table cloth) and that she had to go. But was she thrown out? Nope, ten minutes later she twice slapped a Pole across the face and almost caused a riot between four tables of Poles and two tables of Muslims. Eventually a volunteer grabbed her by the waist and carried her out the side door kicking and screaming. Not exactly “real time enforcement”.