Sherry Jones: "We must speak out for free speech"

I have taken the above title from a piece dated 19 May which can be accessed through the homepage of the Index on Censorship website – subtitled: “Why are UK distributors refusing to handle The Jewel of Medina? It’s time to raise an outcry says its author”. (As I stated in Tuesday’s blog “Free Speech Watch: Gagging in Britain” – the title taken from a recent Center for Inquiry blog entry – we are now emailing writers associated to the Index on Censorship, Reporters Without Borders, and others, on the hacking and on-going vandalisation of the NAC website (see blog of 9 May “SiteGround confirms our website has been hacked”); only last night the “Links” page carried a “Reported Attack Site!” notification, which got removed once I reposted the page.)



The Guardian also carried a story two days ago, titled “Muhammad child bride novel author condemns UK ‘censorship’”, which says that Sherry Jones, the author of The Jewel of Medina, has accused British publishers of being too afraid to publish her book in the wake of a firebomb attack on the office of Gibson Square, the London-based publisher which had been set to release it last year.

Her novel was initially acquired for a six-figure advance by Random House US, but dropped by the publisher last summer after it was warned that the book’s subject matter “might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment”. It was later acquired and published in America by small US publisher Beaufort Books. Gibson Square bought UK rights, but dropped the book following an arson attack on the home and office of its publisher Martin Rynja. Last week three men were found guilty of conspiracy to recklessly damage property and endanger life.

Jones has now revealed on her blog that despite attempts to find a new UK distributor for The Jewel of Medina, “everyone, it seems, is too afraid”. “Although the extremists lost in court, they have apparently won where it really counts – in the UK’s book stores,” she wrote. “The ‘thugs’ have accomplished their task – and freedom of speech, the first freedom to go when fascism gets a foothold, has taken a blow in the western world.”

She called on “the people of Great Britain” to “speak out against those who are limiting their right to read, think, speak, listen, debate, discuss, criticize”. “I hope the people of the UK can find the power, and the courage, to raise an outcry against censorship,” she said. “Now it’s time for the rest of us, including moderate Muslims and the press, who cherish our culture and our freedom, to raise a cry louder than that of radicals, so we don’t lose that most precious, and crucial, of freedoms.”

Across the road from our local council’s Idea Store Whitechapel – the borough’s flagship library, learning and information service where I spend most of my day – is the huge East London Mosque and London Muslim Centre. According to research seen by The Times, books calling for the beheading of lapsed Muslims, ordering women to remain indoors and forbidding interfaith marriage are being sold inside some of Britain’s leading mosques; one book, Fatawa Islamiyah, which urges the execution of apostates, was found in a bookshop at the mosque in Whitechapel.

Which reminds me that we frequently run into difficulties in Idea Store Whitechapel: only last week I was bullied by two security guards into vacating the computer I had booked the previous day, which I refused to do (see blog of 13 May “Letter to the Leader of Tower Hamlets Council”); a supervisor subsequently agreed that I would be able to have my bookings confirmed in writing by a member of staff, as Declan confirmed in an email of 13 May to the manager of Idea Store Whitechapel, Asab Ali, but this week a member of staff has still to agree to do so. For the record, this is Declan’s email yesterday evening to Ali, the fourth such email this week (all four emails have been copied to Heather Bonfield, Head of Cultural Services, Tower Hamlets Council):

Subject: Idea Store Whitechapel

Dear Mr. Ali,

I refer further to my email of 13 May (attached) and wish to confirm my wife's bookings* for tomorrow on computer 1.16 as follows:

D000355837 (Declan Heavey)
11.45 - 12.45
13.45 - 14.45
14.45 - 15.45

D000350314 (Maria Heavey)
12.45 - 13.45
15.45 - 16.45
16.45 - 17.45

*Bookings checked by a member of staff, but a confirmation signature, printed name, initials or mark of any description refused by the same member of staff.

Yours sincerely,
Declan Heavey

cc Ms. Heather Bonfield, Head of Cultural Services

Also last week, the then out-going leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, said in a BBC Radio interview with Roger Bolton that atheists are “not fully human”. Philosopher Stephen Law, editor of the British Royal Institute of Philosophy journal THINK, comments: “[I]t is also worth just drawing attention to the fact that going round saying that those with whom one most profoundly disagrees are ‘not fully human’ is an extraordinarily insulting and dangerous thing to say, whether true or not”. Law also asks: “And does he consider my not-fully-human existence worth less than that of a fully-human religious person?” Well, the fact that Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor considers Declan and I “not-fully-human” might go some way to explaining why we have been kept to the street for over two and a half years, after being put there in November 2006 (see “About us”).

Letter to Archbishop Vincent Nichols

This morning Declan ventures for the first time in months into the men’s washroom of the Dellow Day Centre of the Catholic Sisters of Mercy Providence Row Charity, and I get fondled by a homeless man!

Declan is just gone when this homeless comes along side me and rubs his hand across my shoulder and down my arm. I shout at him to go away and hit him with the newspaper I was reading. A few minutes later he is back: this time, he touches me inappropriately, right underneath a CCTV camera. I am in disbelief: there are other homeless about the living room; a nun at the kitchen counter and another at reception; and there are two or three workers buzzing about. I am back shouting at him again, and this time a member of staff comes. About 10 minutes later, I am informed by a member of staff that this homeless has been asked to leave for the day, and I ask the guy to put my complaint on record.

This afternoon Declan emailed the new head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, Archbishop Vincent Nichols, in his capacity as Archbishop of the Diocese of Westminster, to which the Dellow Centre belongs; our concern that we may be barred from this day centre is not unfounded: on 18 June 2007 we were barred from the Methodist Church Whitechapel Mission by the minister’s wife after I was assaulted in an unprovoked attack by a homeless woman in the canteen - the barring was due to concerns about our safety!

For the record, this is Declan’s email to Archbishop Nichols:

Subject: Providence Row Charity

His Grace Archbishop Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster.

Your Grace,

I refer to my most recent email of 13 April (attached) to the former head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, His Eminence Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, in his capacity as Archbishop of the Diocese of Westminster, to which the Dellow Day Centre of the Sisters of Mercy Providence Row Charity belongs.

This morning my wife was inappropriately touched and fondled by a client of the Dellow Centre, right underneath a CCTV camera, and despite that there were other people around her and staff about. She made a complaint to a member of staff, Mr. Keith Armitage, and requested of Mr. Armitage that he make her complaint a matter of record. She was subsequently informed by another member of staff that the homeless man was asked to leave for the day.

I can confirm that I continue to wash in the street as a result of harassment and intimidation by homeless people in the Dellow Centre and the Catholic Manna Day Centre (whose building is provided rent-free by the Archdiocese of Southwark), which I have been doing since 10 April last year; and my wife has been doing since 27 February. Since my initial letter of complaint to Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor of 21 April 2008 (almost two weeks after I took to washing in the street), the following are just a handful of incidents from these two day centres:

(1) 16 May 2008: I reported a homeless man to the Metropolitan Police for racially aggravated harassment in the men's washroom of the Dellow Centre (crime reference no. 4212667/08);

(2) 18 June 2008: I was robbed in the canteen of the Dellow Centre of all my and my wife's money and documents (crime reference no. 4215697/08); 24 June: I was informed at Bow Street police station that the case had been struck out due to the police being unable to obtain any CCTV footage whatsoever from Providence Row Charity;

(3) 19 June 2008: the day after the robbery of all our money and documents in the Dellow Centre, I reported a homeless man to the Metropolitan Police for assaulting me while I was queuing for food in the Manna Centre (crime reference no. 3021917/08);

(4) 6 November 2008: I submitted a written complaint to the Chief Executive of the Providence Row Charity, Ms. Jo Ansell, against a homeless woman for the verbal abuse of both my wife and me from the reception desk of the Dellow Centre;

(5) 24 February 2009: I reported a homeless man to the Metropolitan Police for assault in the canteen of the Dellow Centre (crime reference no. 4204029/09); 25 March: I was informed by email from Limehouse police station that the case had been struck out due to the police being unable to obtain the identity of the suspect from the Providence Row Charity “even though they do know his details”.

I should again point out that my wife and I were barred from the Methodist Church Whitechapel Mission on 18 June 2007 by the minister's wife due to concerns about our safety following an unprovoked assault on my wife (crime reference no. 4217341/07). Despite that the Whitechapel Mission's website states that homeless people are not barred or excluded and that I wrote by registered post to the minister himself and to the head of the Methodist Church in the UK, Rev. Graham Carter, neither my wife nor I were readmitted.

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely,
Declan Heavey

Declan seriously threatened in the Catholic Manna Centre

This morning at 9.15am, while in the Catholic Manna Day Centre, Declan was seriously threatened by a homeless guy. One moment he is sitting down reading a book as he waits for a shower cubicle to come free, the next a Pole is spitting Polish into his face with a clenched fist within a foot of his left cheek – pretty menacing. Somehow Declan managed to get out from under this guy and left the washroom. He put in a complaint with a member of staff but we still left, Declan without as much as a bite to eat. I didn’t get a chance to shower either, which was unfortunate because the women’s washroom at the Catholic Sisters of Mercy Dellow Day Centre has been closed for a few weeks now.

Of course, there is nothing new about Declan being threatened by homeless, even assaulted, in these two day centres - in the previous blog “Still blocked by Facebook”, I publish a letter from Detective Paul De-Krestser stating that the Dellow Centre won’t divulge the identity of a guy, who assaulted Declan in their canteen, to police even though they know his details. Nevertheless, we remain concerned we may be barred from either or both of these centres through no fault of own (we have already been barred from the Methodist Church Whitechapel Mission due to concerns about our safety). Hence, the following email this afternoon from Declan to the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, in his capacity as Archbishop of the Diocese of Westminster, to which the Dellow Centre of the Providence Row Charity belongs.

Subject: Providence Row Charity

His Eminence Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, Archbishop of Westminster.

Your Eminence,

I refer further to the email of acknowledgement of 25 June 2008 that I received from your Personal Secretary, Sister Damian McGrath, stating: "I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your email concerning Providence Row Charity. The Cardinal is out of the country at the present time but he will see your email on his return next week."

I wish to bring to your attention that I continue to wash in the street as a result of harassment and intimidation by homeless people in the Dellow Day Centre of the Sisters of Mercy Providence Row Charity and the Catholic Manna Day Centre (whose building is provided rent-free by the Archdiocese of Southwark), which I have been doing every weekday morning since 10 April last year. In order to avoid being barred through no fault of my own, I do not venture into the washroom in the Dellow Centre and this morning (Sunday) thought it best to leave the Manna Centre without so much as a bite to eat, having been seriously threatened by a homeless man in the men's washroom – the breakfast provided by the Dellow Centre is the only food available to my wife for the entire day Monday-Friday; I walk a two-hour round trip virtually every weekday to the Manna Centre to avail of the free lunch provided to homeless people.

I reconfirm the following since my initial email letter to you of 21 April 2008:

(1) on 28 April 2008, I submitted a written complaint to the Chief Executive of the Providence Row Charity, Ms Jo Ansell, against a homeless man for verbal abuse in the canteen of the Dellow Centre;
(2) on 16 May 2008, I reported a homeless man to the Metropolitan Police for racially aggravated harassment in the Dellow Centre's men's washroom (crime reference no. 4212667/08);
(3) on 18 June 2008, I was robbed in the canteen of the Dellow Centre of all my and my wife's money and documents (crime reference no. 4215697/08); on 24 June 2008, I was informed at Bow Street Police Station that the case had been struck out due to the police being unable to obtain any CCTV footage whatsoever from the Providence Row Charity;
(4) on 19 June 2008, the day after the robbery of all our money and documents in the Dellow Centre, I reported the same homeless man referred to in (2) above to the Metropolitan Police for assault while queuing for food in the Manna Centre (crime reference no. 3021917/08);
(5) on 30 June 2008, I submitted a written complaint to Ms Ansell against a homeless woman for verbal abuse in the canteen of the Dellow Centre;
(6) on 6 November 2008, I submitted a written complaint to Ms Ansell against the same homeless woman referred to in (5) above for verbal abuse from the reception desk of the Dellow Centre.

On 24 February 2009, I reported the same homeless man referred to in (2) and (4) above to the Metropolitan Police for assault in the Dellow Centre's canteen (crime reference no. 4204029/09); on 25 March 2009, I was informed in an email from Detective Paul De-Krestser of Limehouse Police Station that the case has been struck out due to the police being unable to obtain the identity of the suspect from Providence Row Charity “even though they do know his details” (see attachment). (Detective De-Krestser suggests that I call police immediately when I next make sight of the suspect so that he can be arrested.)

I should again point out that my wife and I were barred from the Methodist Church Whitechapel Mission on 18 June 2007 by the minister's wife due to concerns about our safety following an unprovoked assault on my wife by a homeless woman in the canteen of the premises (crime reference no. 4217341/07). Despite that the Whitechapel Mission's website states that homeless people are not barred or excluded and that I wrote by registered post to the minister himself and to the head of the Methodist Church in the UK, Rev Graham Carter, neither my wife nor I were readmitted.

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely,
Declan Heavey

Letter of complaint to the chair of The Big Issue Foundation

The previous blog contains Declan’s letter to the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, in his capacity as Archbishop of the Diocese of Westminster, to which the Dellow Centre of the Sisters of Mercy Providence Row Charity belongs. This morning when he went to collect our new Big Issue badges - The Big Issue is a magazine sold by homeless people on registered pitches throughout the UK; we have been selling it since December 2006 - he was informed that my name was not on the Big Issue “List of vendors” and that I could not be rebadged. Below is Declan’s email letter of complaint to the Chair of the Big Issue Foundation, Steven Round.

Issue Foundation is the registered charity arm of The Big Issue organisation. According to the Foundation website, The Big Issue Company Ltd publishes the weekly magazine and sells it to Big Issue vendors (wholesale) “for the purpose of giving them the opportunity to earn a legitimate income, rather than having to resort to criminal activity such as begging and theft”. This is an extremely serious situation for me in particular, in that I am facing possible prosecution for begging.



In an unusual gesture L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, carried a front-page article by the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on 19 February. John Hooper, who reports for the Guardian from Rome and has spent more than two decades abroad as a foreign correspondent, writes: “The fact that a son of the manse [a minister’s son] should have been allowed to write where no statesman has written before says much about the unexpectedly close links between Brown and the Holy See. What has brought them together is a common concern for the developing world and what sources close to the prime minister say is his keen appreciation of the Vatican’s global influence.” Also in the Guardian, Michael White, a former political editor, comments in a piece entitled “PM is in the hands of the pope, even in relatively godless country”.

For the record, this is the email that Declan sent this afternoon to Round (it was written very much with my defense in mind should I ever be prosecuted for begging; even on appeal, if necessary):

Subject: The Big Issue

Dear Mr. Round,

I am writing further to the email I received from you on 4 November 2008 in your capacity as chair of The Big Issue Foundation regarding my complaint that if my wife and I have not purchased a minimum of 40 magazines each week for the four weeks commenced 6 October, from 10 November we would no longer be able to have a registered pitch - we would be allowed to carry on selling as long as we move on without complaint when the vendor who has registered the pitch arrives.

In the absence of a reply to the aforementioned complaint from the founder and Editor-in-Chief of The Big Issue, Mr. John Bird MBE, you wrote: "I am currently out of the country but have copied the chief executive of the Foundation". Nonetheless, and despite my reasons as to why my wife and I had been buying small amounts of magazines and our concerns about this matter, our pitches were made available to other vendors to register as from 18 November. On 10 September 2007, Mr. Bird wrote to me as follows:

I have employed many people over the years to do jobs related to the running of The Big Issue. I have never employed them to do my job; likewise I do not do their job. Please bear this in mind when you are composing your letters. You do not need to address your letters to me, as it is not my job. I would only get involved if you were utterly and totally let down by those whose job it is in The Big Issue. I hope this assists in your deliberations in pursuit of your claims.

I wish to bring to your attention that this morning, following my own rebadging to the end of August 2009, I was informed that my wife's name was not on the Big Issue "List of vendors" and that she could not be rebadged. I have brought this matter to the attention of the Big Issue Company by email, and await clarification.

I should again point out that I wrote to the Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights on 21 August further to my second application for priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, as follows:

As explained in previous applications, my wife and I survive on the streets of London by selling The Big Issue, a magazine sold by homeless people on registered street pitches, and I have lodged numerous written complaints with The Big Issue Head Office in respect of my wife and myself being walked off our respective pitch by other street traders, including, inter alia, Big Issue vendors. You will note from my email and attachments to the Court of 16 August that not only may my wife be forced into begging (a criminal offence in England), but faces debadging by The Big Issue for so doing.

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey
Badge no. 1163

New York State – Take action

This morning Declan thought it best if we left the Catholic Manna Centre at 9.00am, without even a bit to eat; only the third time we have done so since we learnt about the place back last Easter, and the second time in a week (see blog of 21 January “Violence and economic strangulation”). Declan continues to wash in the street, which he has been doing since 10 April last year as a result of all the harassment he has received from other homeless: see, for example, blog of 16 May 2008 “More racially aggravated harassment in the Dellow Centre”; or blog of 18 June 2008 “Declan robbed in the Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre”; or blog of 19 June 2008 “Declan assaulted in the Manna Centre”. Oh, and on 18 June 2007 we were barred from the Methodist Church Whitechapel Mission by the minister’s wife due to concerns about our safety, after I was assaulted in an unprovoked attack by a homeless woman in the canteen (see here). Declan has written on several occasions to the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, in his capacity as Archbishop of the Diocese of Westminster, to which the Dellow Centre belongs (see blog of 6 November 2008 “Letter to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor”).

With respect to the new NAC website in support of embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning (see blog of 19 January “NAC website launched”), this afternoon we finalised our Take action, which is part of New York State under Law and Policy in the USA. We are not the only ones aware that on Monday the ethics committee of New York’s Empire State Stem Cell Board will meet and consider whether payments to women who donate their eggs for stem cell research should be permitted: Jesse Reynolds of the Center for Genetics and Society, a nonprofit public policy organisation based in California, is against and has written an opinion in Newsday.

This is our Take action (Richard Daines is the New York State Health Commissioner and chairs the Empire State Stem Cell Board):

Dear Commissioner Daines

I understand that at the state level the issue of compensation of oocyte (egg) donors is arising in the deliberations of New York’s Empire State Stem Cell Board which was created legislatively in 2007 to provide state funding for stem cell research. In this letter, I urge you and the other members of the Empire State Stem Cell Board Ethics Committee to permit compensation to women who donate their eggs for stem cell research that seeks to use somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) - sometimes referred to as “therapeutic cloning” to distinguish it from reproductive cloning research - to produce embryonic stem cells.

There is no sound, persuasive ethical reasons why New York State funds should not be available to compensate egg donors. This view was endorsed at the Ethics Committee meeting of 22 February 2008 by Dr Henry Greely, who is the Deane F and Kate Edelman Johnson Professor of Law at Stanford University and chairs the California Advisory Committee on Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. He suggested New York should allow some compensation for gamete donation because it is not unethical for women to receive some compensation for their pain, suffering and time. However, he also recommended establishing some type of limit on the amount of compensation paid to donors.

On 27 June 2008, Dr Catherine Racowsky, Director of the Assisted Reproductive Technology Lab at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and an Associate Professor of reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, presented information to the Ethics Committee on the risks of ovarian stimulation, surgical risks, psychological risks, cancer risks, and risks to future fertility. Committee members were advised that Dr Racowsky served on the Institute of Medicine’s Committee on Assessing the Medical Risks of Human Oocyte Donation for Stem Cell Research (IOM Committee) that developed the report by the same name that was distributed to Board members in May.

Dr Racowsky concluded that with appropriate selection and careful monitoring of stimulation, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome should be preventable in all or almost all egg donors; that the anesthetic and surgery risks are very low; that there are potential psychological risks that can be addressed in most cases with appropriate counselling; and that most cancer studies are reassuring in not showing a strong association between fertility drug use and cancer rates, although some have shown increased risk with greater drug use or when patients have been followed over a longer period of time. In response to questions from Board members, Dr Racowsky stated that she thought egg donors should be compensated, but noted that how that is done is very tricky in light of the potential for undue inducement.

Moreover, Dr Carl Coleman, who is the Director of the Health, Law and Policy Program at Seton Hall Law School and was previously Counsel, and then Executive Director, to the New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, suggested to the members of the Ethics Committee on 4 September 2008 that thinking of an egg donor as a research subject makes sense and that the compensation for research subjects and IVF donors often includes consideration of the time, inconvenience, and discomfort, and in some cases, the risk.

It is important to include in the ethical analysis the potential for good that can come from SCNT. The Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research (CAMR) is the USA’s leading bipartisan pro-cures coalition. In a report released on 12 January 2009 entitled “A Catalyst for Cures: Embryonic Stem Cell Research”, CAMR states: “Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is another example of a technology with promise that has faced unexpected challenges. Oocyte availability, for example, has been problematic. Yet the challenges are worth overcoming. ‘SCNT is the only known procedure for completely and normally reprogramming a cell,’ says John Gearhart, University of Pennsylvania. Because SCNT is more efficient than iPS cell technology for reprogramming cells, and can be done without inserting new genes, continued studies of SCNT could help scientists find the linchpin to make reprogramming factors more efficient and effective. SCNT will also provide fundamental insights into how an egg reprograms that will teach a great deal about basic biology.”

Yours sincerely

Letter to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor

For the record, this is the email letter that Declan sent this afternoon to the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, in his capacity as Archbishop of the Diocese of Westminster, regarding the Sisters of Mercy Providence Row Charity, of which the Dellow Centre is a part – Declan has in fact written on several occasions to Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor (see blog of 4 July “Second Request for Priority to the European Court”).

Subject: Providence Row Charity

His Eminence Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, Archbishop of Westminster

Your Eminence

On 25 June I received an email from your Personal Secretary, Sister Damian McGrath, stating: "I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your email concerning Providence Row Charity. The Cardinal is out of the country at the present time but he will see your email on his return next week."

I can confirm that I continue to wash in the street as a result of harassment and intimidation by homeless people in the Dellow Centre of the Sisters of Mercy Providence Row Charity, which I have been doing every weekday morning since 10 April. Only this morning I made a complaint against a homeless woman for verbal abuse after she shouted at length at my wife and I from the reception desk of the Dellow Centre; this client is known to Mr Mohammed Choudhury, a member of staff of the Providence Row Charity, to whom I made the complaint. (I understand from Mr Choudhury that such a breach of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, while we were attending to our laundry in silence, was rightly ignored by the both of us and reported to him by me.)

As I stated in my initial email letter to you of 21 April, my wife and I are especially concerned that we could be barred from the Dellow Centre ("the centre") through no fault of our own – the breakfast provided by the centre is the only food available to my wife for the entire day; whilst I walk a two-hour round trip every weekday to the Manna Centre (whose building is provided rent-free by the Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark) to avail of the free lunch provided to homeless people there.

I reconfirm the following: (1) on 28 April, I submitted a written complaint to the Chief Executive of the Providence Row Charity, Ms Jo Ansell, against a homeless man for verbal abuse in the canteen of the centre; (2) on 16 May, I reported a homeless man to the Metropolitan Police for racially aggravated harassment in the centre's men's toilets (crime reference no. 4212667/08); (3) on 18 June, I was robbed in the canteen of the centre of all my and my wife's money and documents (crime reference no. 4215697/08); (4) on 24 June, I was informed in Bow Street police station that the case with respect to the robbery of all our money and documents had been "struck out" due to the police being unable to obtain any CCTV footage whatsoever from the centre; and (5) on 30 June, I submitted a written complaint to Ms Ansell against a homeless woman for verbal abuse in the canteen of the centre.

I should again point out that my wife and I were barred from the Methodist Church Whitechapel Mission on 18 June 2007 by the minister's wife due to concerns about our safety following an unprovoked assault on my wife by a homeless woman in the canteen of the premises (crime reference no. 4217341/07). Despite that the Mission website states that homeless people are not "barred or excluded" and that I wrote by registered post to the minister himself and to the head of the Methodist Church in the UK, Rev Graham Carter, neither my wife nor I were readmitted.

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey

cc Ms Jo Ansell, Chief Executive of Providence Row Charity

Declan agreed to a meeting? I don’t think so

On Thursday afternoon, while we were having a quick cup of tea in the Dellow Centre of the Sisters of Mercy Providence Row Charity, the charity’s operations manager, Stephanie Harrison, approached Declan to tell him that its chief executive, Jo Ansell, and herself wanted to have a meeting with him to discuss issues raised in his recent emails to Ansell – Declan has, among other things, been robbed of all our money and documents (see blog of 18 June “Declan robbed in the Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre”), which the police struck out because they didn’t get any CCTV footage whatsoever from the centre. (Since 21 April, Declan has also been writing to the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, in his capacity as Archbishop of the Diocese of Westminster, of which the Dellow Centre is a part – an account of this correspondence was submitted by Declan to the European Court of Human Rights yesterday as part of his second Request for Priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, see previous blog.)

Mindful that on 18 June 2007 we were barred from the Methodist Church Whitechapel Mission by the minister's wife due to concerns about our safety after I was assaulted in an unprovoked attack by a homeless woman in the canteen – and that we were never readmitted, despite Declan writing by registered post to the minister himself and to the head of the Methodist Church in the UK, Rev Graham Carter – Declan emailed Ansell as soon as he got to a computer. Then, yesterday, as Declan was printing his supporting documents for the Court, he received an email from Ansell; he had no choice but to respond. Ansell’s email and Declan’s reply can be read below.

Actually, Declan’s first email letter to Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor of 21 April (see blog of 22 April “Letter to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor”) was out of concern that we could be barred from the Dellow Centre through no fault of our own – Declan drawing to his attention that since 10 April he has been washing and shaving on the streets as a result of all the harassment and threats he has received from other homeless while attempting to wash in the Dellow Centre’s men's washroom. Declan also points out in this letter to the Cardinal that the breakfast the nuns provide the homeless is my only food M-F; whilst he walks a two-hour round trip every weekday to the Manna Centre (whose building is provided rent-free by the Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark) to avail of the free lunch provided to homeless people.

On 24 June, a City of London Police 'No sleeping' sign went up on the back wall of the porch we have been sleeping in since 3 November 2006, which, according to the May issue of The Pavement, a free magazine for London’s homeless, gives police “permission to move on anyone found sleeping in a doorway” (see blog of 25 June “Police ‘No sleeping’ sign in the porch”) – on 9 May police told us they were "cleaning" the City of London of rough sleepers and that we either move to beyond city boundaries or be arrested, despite that Declan had been diagnosed in the Royal London Hospital with a sprained ankle only hours before (see blog of 9 May "Letter to the Mayor of London”); police also told us the same thing on 17 May (see blog of 17 May "Letter to the British Prime Minister"); then the whole approach changed: on 2 and 9 June, we have to move out of the porch (to beyond city boundaries) so that the City of London's Cleansing service can wash and disinfect the porch floor with immediate effect or be arrested (see blog of 11 June “Letter to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis”).

Although we now go to sleep every night under the threat of arrest (Declan will head off with his bags, but I will be staying put: am I supposed to just walk off for the night carrying all my bags, perhaps even to be robbed?), last night I thought my time in a cell had just arrived: at approximately 9.00pm, as I am cleaning the porch floor (all our bags in a corner), two City of London police officers stopped at the porch to give three very lost people directions – I kept cleaning, and eventually the officers moved a bit up the road, where they stayed for over five minutes. I should perhaps add here that Declan’s second Request for Priority states that “the various attempts by the City of London Police to move the applicant and his wife out of the porch they sleep in at night, culminating in the current ‘No sleeping’ sign on the back wall of the porch, are in fact a violation of his rights under Article 34 of the ECHR” – Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights establishes a duty on Convention states not to subject applicants to any improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage applicants from pursuing a Convention remedy.

Why the police want us out of the porch? Well, a hint may be contained in an email Declan received from Superintendent Lorraine Cussen on 10 June, in which she advises Declan to find accommodation with the help of Broadway, a homeless charity – Broadway, I’m afraid, made an appearance the same night the sign went up in the porch to ask if we would apply for benefits: but as Declan informed the three workers, he would have to withdraw his application to the Court, and who on earth would do that in our situation? (The Department of Work and Pensions terminated our benefits on 27 September 2006 because Declan didn't “sign on” two days before he was due to do so on 29 September, see blog of 8 September 2007 “Application to the European Court of Human Rights”.)

Apart from the matter of spending some time in a cell, I have also been limping for over a week now; the main problem being that I am walking with runners only fit for the dustbin. This week I asked the nun in charge of clothes in the Dellow Centre for a pair of runners but she told me she had none (she gave me the same answer on 11 March). I am being equally unlucky in the Manna Centre: I used to be given a couple of minutes, every two Sundays, to find a maximum of three items from a jumble of second-hand clothes, but now I am told that they no longer do clothes on weekends.

For the record, this is Declan’s email to Ansell yesterday afternoon:

On 7/4/08, Declan Heavey wrote:
Dear Ms Ansell

I refer to your email below in acknowledgement of my email to you yesterday (a copy of which is also presented below).

Please note that my email to you yesterday states that "I wish to confine this matter to writing in order to avoid any misunderstanding that may occur".

I can confirm that I have not spoken with any member of your staff subsequent to my email to you yesterday, and wish to maintain my position in respect of same.

Thank you for your understanding.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey

On 7/4/08, Jo Ansell wrote:
Dear Mr Heavey

Thank you for confirming that a meeting is acceptable to you. I will pass the message on to Stephanie Harrison and she will arrange a convenient date with you.

Regards
Jo Ansell
Chief Executive
Providence Row (charity)

From: Declan Heavey [mailto:dheavey@gmail.com]
Sent: 03 July 2008 16:10
To: Jo Ansell; info
Subject: Providence Row Charity

Dear Ms Ansell

I refer to your request this afternoon for a (non-urgent) meeting with me, with your Operations Manager, Ms Stephne Harrison, in attendance.

I reconfirm, in view of the documents I intend submitting this evening to the European Court of Human Rights in support of my second Request for Priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, that I wish to confine this matter to writing in order to avoid any misunderstanding that may occur.

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey

cc Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, Archbishop of the Diocese of Westminster (by email - with list of supporting documents herein referred to)

Letter to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor

For the record, this is the email letter that Declan sent yesterday to the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor (Abhreception@rcdow.org.uk), in his capacity as Archbishop of the Diocese of Westminster, regarding the Sisters of Mercy Providence Row Charity, of which the Dellow Centre is a part:

Subject: Providence Row Charity

Dear Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor

Previous correspondence refers. I wish to confirm that at 9.30am this morning I made a complaint for verbal abuse against a client of the Dellow Centre (of the Sisters of Mercy Providence Row Charity); this client is known to Mr Mohammed Choudhury, a member of staff of the Providence Row Charity, to whom I made the complaint. (I understand from Mr Choudhury that such a breach of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, while my wife and I were eating our breakfast in silence in the canteen of the Dellow Centre, was rightly ignored by the both of us and reported to him by me.)

I reconfirm: (1) since 10 April, I have been washing and shaving on the streets as a consequence of harassment and intimidation in the Dellow Centre ("the centre"); (2) on 28 April, I submitted a written complaint to the chief executive of the Providence Row Charity against a homeless man for verbal abuse in the canteen of the centre; (3) on 16 May, I reported a homeless man to the Metropolitan Police for racial aggravated harassment in the centre's men's washroom (crime reference no. 4212667/08); (4) on 18 June, I was robbed in the canteen of the centre of all my and my wife's money and documents (crime reference no. 4215697/08); and (5) on 24 June, I was informed in Bow Street police station that the case in respect of the robbery of all my and my wife's money and documents had been "struck out" due to the police being unable to obtain any CCTV footage whatsoever from the centre.

As I stated in my initial email letter to you of 21 April, my wife and I are especially concerned that we could be barred from the Dellow Centre through no fault of our own – the breakfast provided by the centre is the only food available to my wife for the entire day; whilst I walk a two-hour round trip every weekday to the Manna Centre (whose building is provided rent-free by the Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark) to avail of the free lunch provided to homeless people.

I should again point out that my wife and I were barred from the Methodist Church Whitechapel Mission on 18 June 2007, by the minister's wife, due to concerns about our safety following an unprovoked assault on my wife by a homeless woman in the canteen of the premises (crime reference no. 4217341/07). Despite that the Whitechapel Mission 130th Anniversary Review states that homeless people are not barred or excluded, and that I wrote by registered post to the minister himself and to the head of the Methodist Church in the UK, Rev Graham Carter, neither my wife nor I were readmitted.

Kindly note that the case of Heavey v the United Kingdom is currently before the European Court of Human Rights (Application no. 22541/07).

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey
Chain no. 69828

cc Ms Jo Ansell, Chief Executive of Providence Row Charity (by email)
Mr Erik Fribergh, Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights (by registered post*)
________________________
* Supporting Documents, p 17, Second Request for Priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court

Police 'No sleeping' sign in the porch

Last night at 10.00pm Declan and I were woken in the porch we sleep in by three workers from Broadway, the homeless organisation that Superintendent Lorraine Cussen of Snow Hill police station, in her email to Declan of 10 June (see blog of 11 June “Letter to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis”), recommended we engage with. “If we could have a chat with you and Declan,” the most senior of them says, “about what we can do for you.” Somehow she already knows about our case in the European Court of Human Rights, so Declan further informs her that he wrote to the Court on 12 May, citing a violation of Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights and requesting that the Court take this matter up with the Government (see blog “Letter to the European Court under Article 34”) – Article 34 establishes a duty on Convention states not to subject applicants to any improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage applicants from pursuing a Convention remedy.

I add that since 13 June Declan has been assaulted in the porch (see blog of 14 June “Declan is assaulted in the porch”); his main bag, which contained, among other things, all our documentation and money, has been robbed in the Dellow Centre (see blog of 18 June “Declan robbed in the Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre”); and he has been assaulted in the Manna Centre (see blog of 19 June “Declan assaulted in the Manna Centre”) – the robbery took place the same day Declan had intended sending by registered post his second request for priority to the European Court, which I posted to the blog that afternoon, with the robbery included; the request can be read here (two days after the robbery, the Dellow Centre presented Declan with a letter from the European Court, which is published here).

This orchestrated campaign of violence against us seems to have only started, I say, adding that that afternoon, in Bow Street police station, Declan is told that the case on the robbery of all our money and documents has been “struck out” because the investigating officer was unable to get any CCTV footage whatsoever from the Dellow Centre (see email to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor below, to which his Personal Secretary, Sr Damian McGrath, replied this morning: “I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your email concerning Providence Row Charity. The Cardinal is out of the country at the present time but he will see your email on his return next week.”); around the same time in the Idea Store Whitechapel library I am told by a member of staff, in the middle of my computer booking, that I have to give the computer up to another card holder or security will be called (see email to the Leader of Tower Hamlets Council below); and at 9.10pm, when we arrive back at the porch, we are greeted by the City of London Police 'No sleeping' sign overhead. So, no I don’t think Broadway can do much for us, I finally say.

The Broadway worker means if we would apply for benefits. But Declan explains he would have to withdraw his application to the Court, which neither of us could contemplate. (The Department of Work and Pensions terminated our benefits on 27 September 2006 because Declan didn't sign on two days before he was due to do so on 29 September, see blog of 8 September 2007 “Application to the European Court of Human Rights”.)

       ‘No sleeping’ sign

She fixes her eyes on the City of London Police 'No sleeping' sign. “This was put today?” she asks. Just the latest attempt to move us out of the porch, I reply, adding that on 9 May police told us they were "cleaning" the City of London of rough sleepers and that we either move to beyond city boundaries or be arrested, despite that Declan had been diagnosed in the Royal London Hospital with a sprained ankle only hours before (see blog of 9 May "Letter to the Mayor of London”); police also told us the same thing on 17 May (see blog of 17 May "Letter to the British Prime Minister"). Then the whole approach changed, I informed her: on 2 and 9 June, we have to move out of the porch (to beyond city boundaries) so that the City of London's Cleansing service can wash and disinfect the porch floor with immediate effect; and we can be arrested if we don’t move (see blog of 18 June "Second Request for Priority to the European Court").

We are quite aware that the sign is “not worth the paper it is written on”, Declan says. The May issue of The Pavement (a free magazine for London’s homeless) states that shopkeepers in the big tourist area of the Strand (Westminster area) are abandoning the Whitehall Safer Neighbourhood [police] Team’s 'No sleeping' signs on their shop fronts, claiming that they are no longer effective; apparently, the shopkeepers prefer to call the police if they have any problems or incidents. (We, by the way, have been sleeping in this porch – an office building – for over a year and a half (since 3 November 2006), bed down at 9.00pm, get up at 4.30am, don’t drink or smoke, and never have had a complaint against us; hardly material for the sign.)

“We will come back some other time,” she said, and they all left. So what is going to happen when police tell us we have to move out of the porch because the sign gives them permission to move us on (as they can see the proprietor(s) have not consented)? Well, Declan will pick up his bags and head off, but I am going to stay put: I will submit that there hasn’t been a complaint against us in over a year and a half and that this is no more than a flagrant violation of Article 34. Declan’s recent letter from the Court, dated 16 June, not only acknowledges receipt of his email letter of 12 May pursuant to Article 34 but states that Declan should inform the Court “about any major developments” regarding the case; so if I am arrested Declan will do just that, again by email, and within hours of me being placed in custody. (And if it is a worker who wants us out? Well, more or less the same. I will politely, and very apologetically, ask him to phone the police, having explained that our case is before the European Court of Human Rights.)

In his email, Declan will argue that my arrest violates Article 8 (which includes an individual’s physical and moral integrity), as well as Article 34. Declan will submit that the interference with his rights under Article 8 was not prescribed by law, that it did not pursue any of the legitimate aims in Article 8(2), and that the interference was not necessary in a democratic society. “There is simply no relationship of proportionality between the aim pursued and the interference with the applicant’s rights,” Declan will say.

At least I can take comfort we don’t live under Robert Mugabe – an article in The Independent today titled “'A flagrant violation of democracy': ANC tells Mugabe to delay election” reports that the ANC said it was "deeply dismayed by the actions of the government of Zimbabwe, which is riding roughshod over the hard-won democratic rights of the people of that country”. But I find very uplifting a talk given by Noam Chomsky (described by The New York Times as “arguably the most important intellectual alive”, and an early signatory of Declan’s petition to the UN on therapeutic cloning) – in December 2006, see blog of 12 June “The threat of a good example”.

This is the email to Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor yesterday evening:

Subject: Providence Row Charity

Dear Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor

Previous correspondence refers. Please find below a copy of my email of even date to the Chief Executive of Providence Row Charity, Ms Jo Ansell, regarding the above.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey

-----------------------------------------

Subject: Providence Row Charity

Dear Ms Ansell

Thank you for your ("Receipt acknowledged") email of 23 June in respect of my email of 20 June, wherein I drew to your attention as the chief executive of Providence Row Charity (of which the Dellow Centre is a part) the robbery of all my and my wife's money and documents in the canteen of the Dellow Centre on the morning of 18 June (crime reference no. 4215697/08).

In further reference to my email of 20 June, I can confirm that this afternoon I visited Bow Street police station to be updated on the investigation into the robbery. I understand that the investigating officer, PC Van-Gelder (number unknown), has been unable to get any CCTV footage whatsoever from the Dellow Centre, and consequently the case has been "struck out" by him.

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey
Chain no. 69828

cc Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, Archbishop of the Diocese of Westminster (by email)
Mr Erik Fribergh, Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights (by registered post*)
________________________
* Supporting Documents, p 13, Second Request for Priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court

And for the record, this is Declan’s email letter this afternoon to the Leader of Tower Hamlets Council, Councillor Denise Jones:

Subject: Idea Store Whitechapel

Dear Cllr Jones

I refer further to the attached copy of my most recent correspondence with Mr Ian McNicol, Head of Idea Stores, to whom you referred my original complaint of 21 January regarding Idea Store Whitechapel and the repeated loss of computer bookings and internet access on both my wife's card (card no. D000350314) and my card (card no. D000355837) since 14 November 2007.

I also attach copy of my wife's and my computer bookings for 23 and 24 June.

In the continued absence of a response from Mr McNichol in respect of the aforementioned complaint of 21 January, I wish to confirm that (1) on 24 June at approximately 12.30pm, while on computer 24 in Idea Store Whitechapel, my wife was asked by a member of staff to give the computer up to another card holder, despite that thirty minutes earlier a member of staff had confirmed in writing that my wife had booked the computer from 11.30am to 2.30pm (this particular member of staff was aggressive, threatening to call security if she didn't move immediately; only leaving when another member of staff intervened to allow my wife to retain her booking); and (2) on 23 June at approximately 3.30pm, while on computer 23, my wife was asked by a member of staff to give the computer up to another card holder, despite that a member of staff had confirmed in writing that she had booked the computer for my wife from 2.30pm to 5.30pm (this particular member of staff only left when another member of staff intervened to allow my wife to retain her booking).

I also reconfirm that (1) on 28 March, my wife experienced difficulties accessing the internet from 12.30pm to 1.50pm (she was informed by a member of staff that no other person had reported any difficulties whatsoever accessing the internet); (2) on 11 February, a member of staff had to move me from one computer to another because it was not possible for me to access the internet (no other computer user reported any such difficulty); (3) on 10 February, my wife lost her booking to another card holder and had to spend 10 minutes dealing with a member of staff before the computer was re-booked in her name, and (4) on 1 February, I received an email from Mr Sergio Dogliani, Principal Idea Store Manager, advising that the restriction by Idea Store Whitechapel of my wife and I to a 3-hour maximum free computer use per day as from 29 January was irretractable, despite that for several months previous both my wife and I had been given extra hours of free computer use, subject to computer availability.

As I explained in my original letter of complaint of 21 January, since 22 October 2007 my wife and I have been using as much of our computer time in Idea Store Whitechapel as possible to contact distinguished scientists and academics to invite them to sign my petition to the United Nations on therapeutic cloning and the use of stem cells for research and for the treatment of disease. To date, this petition has been signed by 519 scientists and academics, including 22 Nobel laureates.

Kindly note that the case of Heavey v. the United Kingdom is currently before the European Court of Human Rights (Application no. 22541/07).

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey

cc Mr Erik Fribergh, Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights (by registered post*)
________________________
* Supporting Documents, p 14-16, Second Request for Priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court

Declan robbed in the Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre

This morning at 8.45am Declan’s number one bag was robbed in the Catholic Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre – while he was at the counter being served breakfast by kitchen staff. All our personal documentation (passports, birth and marriage certificates, degrees, diploma, educational certificates, references, driving licence, etc.), original documentation relating to Declan’s case in the European Court of Human Rights, stationary, non-prescription medication, our money (about £20), four £5 phonecards (see blog of 26 March “We are seeking to raise £4,000”), personal photographs, Declan’s only shirt for the summer … all robbed. (Fortunately, we retain copies of all European Court-related documentation, passports, and other documentation on memory sticks and DVDs.)

The Dellow opens its gates at 8.30am, and until 9.30am is only available to those who are verified rough sleepers, so most are regulars, really. The place is pretty quiet for the first 20 minutes or so and there are always nuns, staff and volunteers around about the place – in fact, in over a year and a half we are not aware of any robbery having taken place in the canteen of the premises. Declan reported the robbery at reception, where he was told to write it up. So we went straight to Brick Lane police station.



Does Declan know who did it? Most certainly. In fact, in the police station he gave a description of not only what was robbed but the only way it could have been robbed and by whom. The matter will be investigated, a police officer informed us, and gave us a crime reference number (4215697/08), but not a copy of the statement.

With certainty, Declan was robbed in the few seconds a day when our bags are out of the line of sight - when he has to deal with the kitchen staff of the Dellow. I was in the washroom. All the rest of the rough sleepers, about six or seven, had also left their bags at their usual tables and most were queuing with Declan (no-one queues for food with bags); yet, Declan’s main bag was the only bag taken - and from a place in plain view and covered by CCTV. Unfortunately, when Declan got back to the table it took him a couple of minutes to realise that one of our six bags was gone and, indeed, had been spirited out of the canteen.

So from tomorrow I am back begging in Liverpool Street station. We don’t even have the money to buy a couple of Big Issues (a magazine sold by homeless people throughout the UK on registered street pitches), and Declan will have to wait now to send his second Request for Priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court to the European Court of Human Rights by registered post (£5), which he had intended doing this morning - Declan has yet to receive notification from the Court as to whether his application of 8 September 2007 has been declared inadmissible or the case communicated to the Government: his most recent letter from the Court, dated 22 November 2007, states that it was unnecessary to consider his original request for priority because the Court would be examining his application “shortly, possibly by the end of January 2008”.

Undoubtedly Declan is having a bad run of luck: last Saturday he was assaulted in the porch we have been sleeping in since 3 November 2006, the first time he has been assaulted there. His second request for priority, which I will upload later this afternoon, will be further updated with the robbery this morning and the fact that I have been forced into begging. It already includes, among other things, the attempts over the last few weeks by the City of London Police to move us out of the porch to beyond City boundaries, as well as several incidences of harassment and intimidation in the Dellow Centre of late.

This second request for priority includes as suppoting documents letters of complaint about the Dellow Centre that Declan has written to the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, who is also Archbishop of the Diocese of Westminster, to which the Dellow Centre belongs, arising from our concern that we may be barred from the premises through no fault of our own. We were, after all, barred from the Methodist Church Whitechapel Mission on 18 June 2007 due to concerns about their safety following an unprovoked assault on me by a homeless woman in the canteen of that premises (crime reference no. 4217341/07).

More harassment by the police

Last night at 2.10am we were woken in the porch we sleep in by a police officer, this last visit makes four times in four days (see previous blog). It transpires that this is no longer about "cleaning" the City of London of rough sleepers as previously, but about the "cleaning" of the City of London. So could we please pack up and leave so that the cleaners (two cleaners in a van) can get on with the job of disinfecting the porch, says PC 365B of Snow Hill Police Station. What an insult! I may wear shabby clothes – I have great difficulty in getting them replaced: in the Manna Centre (whose building is provided rent-free by the Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark) I only get a couple of minutes, every two Sundays, to find a maximum of three items from a jumble of second-hand clothes stored in a dark women's room; and in the Catholic Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre whatever we need, the last time it was a pair of jeans for Declan and runners for me, the nun in charge seldom has it, and it’s never a question of wait for a few days – but we are both clean, our bags are tied, covered in black bags and well stacked, and I myself clean the porch floor almost every night. I don't know you, he replies, despite we have been sleeping there for over a year and a half.

Can we have two tickets, and could you write that you want us to leave the porch so cleaners can disinfect it, Declan asks (this is one of two questions we prepared a few days ago for more compelling evidence of a violation of Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights (see blog of 13 May "Letter to the European Court under Article 34") - Article 34 establishes a duty on Convention states not to subject applicants to any improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage applicants from pursuing a Convention remedy). No problem, he says, and writes "Welfare. OP Poncho II."

"Are you in a hostel?" he asks. So Declan explains for the second time in three days that the Department for Work and Pensions unlawfully terminated our benefits over a year and a half ago because he didn't sign on two days before he was due to do so, and that he submitted his application to the European Court on 8 September 2007 with a request for priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court (paragraph 3 of Declan's application has a brief account of the reason for benefits). He also informs PC 365B that the Dellow Centre recorded on my registration form of 22 November 2006 that St Mungo's, London's largest homelessness organisation, had informed the centre that we could not be referred to a hostel "due to not being on any benefits" – the Court didn't consider us sleeping in the street enough to expedite the case, and Declan has yet to be notified by the Court as to whether his application has been dismissed or the Government invited to set out its observations on the merits and admissibility of the case.

Even if we could get into a hostel, we wouldn't entertain the thought of it, Declan adds. The Methodist Church Whitechapel Mission barred us last June due to concerns about our safety, and the risk must have been so great that, even after writing to the minister himself and to the head of the Methodist Church in the UK, Rev Graham Carter, we were never readmitted. Declan is now unstoppable. "I have been assaulted several times by homeless, and my wife once. We have a bunch of crime reference numbers," he says, adding that we have problems with homeless both in the Manna and Dellow. (Declan forgot to mention that such are the problems with homeless that for several weeks now he has been washing and shaving in the street, see blog of 22 April “Letter to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor”.) PC 365B has nothing to say.

Does he intend to arrest us if we don’t leave, I ask him (since on 9 May PC 698B told us he would and on 17 May PC 601B told us she wouldn’t). He replies that he can arrest us. “If we are harassing people, or drunk,” Declan adds. “Or obstructing police,” PC 365B warns. We have nowhere to go at 2.35am with all our stuff and barely the money to buy four Big Issues (a magazine sold buy homeless people on registered street pitches), but if he could write on the tickets he is going to issue us that he is going to arrest us if we don’t move, we will obviously pack up and leave, I amenably say – this is our second question. He doesn’t have to write anything, he informs us, but what about if we step down to the pavement with our bags, let the cleaners do their job, and then bed back down when they are done. I reject this proposal straight away because our sleeping bags would be soaked with water and disinfectant, and I already have a bad cold as result of all the rain and wet socks; Declan has been hospitalised with a viral infection, also because of the rain, and we have no access to healthcare … So if he is not going to arrest us, we are staying put, I insist.

In the end, he tells the cleaners to disinfect the step, no need to do the free space by the porch door – which Declan always leaves clear so we don’t block the door; the last thing we want is to cause any trouble so we also bed down at 9.00pm and get up at 4.30am (the office building also has a front door around the corner). The cleaners haven’t the slightest interest in cleaning at all: the small porch beside ours, which is so dirty not even a drunk homeless would lay in it, is left untouched; and so are the big, dirty stains along the pavement where Pret A Manger normally leave rubbish bags. In fact, with the exception of the porch step, they clean nothing. The outcome of the encounter, which we read when everything is back quiet again, is “Satisfactory”.

Operation Poncho II

So what does Operation Poncho II have to do with cleaners “cleaning” the City of London, including privately owned property? Well, according to Google, nothing. There are only three references in Google UK, one of which is official: the Autumn/Winter 2007 issue of Talkback, a community news magazine from the City of London Police. It appears that Operation Poncho II happened back in May 2007 “aimed to engage with people who are sleeping on the street, checking their welfare and offering access to support services such as accommodation and drugs and alcohol rehabilitation … a positive step towards ensuring that rough sleepers have access to housing and services before the colder winter months arrive”.

So OP Poncho II is about the "welfare" of rough sleepers. Well, that may explain why PC 365B didn’t write that cleaners were going to disinfect the porch, or that he wanted us to pack up and leave, or that an arrest was in the air. Anyway, I may be completely wrong here, but if a police officer was to issue us with a ticket in respect of OP Poncho II citing either “cleaning” or “arrest” – and it sure looks like tonight we may be adding more tickets to our growing collection – we could well be looking at prima facie improper pressure in violation of Article 34.

More racially aggravated harassment in the Dellow Centre

Life as a rough sleeper is never boring. This afternoon Declan had to send another email letter to the head of the Catholic Church in Britain, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor (Abhreception@rcdow.org.uk), in his capacity as the Archbishop of the Diocese of Westminster, regarding the Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre:

Subject: Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre

Dear Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor

I refer to my email letters to you of 21 and 28 April regarding the above, to which I did not receive acknowledgement.

I wish to confirm that, pursuant to sections 2 (causing harassment) and 4 (fear of violence) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, this morning at 11.00am at Brick Lane police station I submitted the following memo for the attention of the crime investigation officer to be allocated to the case (crime reference number 4212667/08):

[In the Dellow Centre’s men's washroom] I'm well out of the shower. "Are you finished with the showers?" the suspect asks. I ignore him (history of threatening and abusive behaviour - reckon he is just looking for trouble). "What are you doing in my country, you bastard?" "What are you doing here?" he repeats, demanding an answer. I ignore him again, and quickly get my things together to leave under a barrage of racial and threatening abuse. Washed in the park this morning in event I might have to vacate the washroom at a moment's notice. When I passed the suspect in the canteen, he fakes a head-butt at me to within an inch of my face.

Postscript: With regard to the Dellow Centre's [warning] letter to the suspect, I stated that would be up to the centre, but that I would be reporting the matter to the police.

I further confirm that the police officer who opened the file in this case for "racially aggravated harassment" informed my wife and I that an investigation officer would visit the Dellow Centre this afternoon, and that if the suspect harasses or puts either one of us in fear of violence in the Manna Centre (whose building is provided rent-free by the Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark) this weekend 8.30am - 12.00noon, we should report him to the local police station. (On 11 April in the Manna Centre the suspect indirectly informed my wife that she would be found one morning with a knife in her back, and last Saturday in the same centre he provocatively (and without any provocation) blocked her passage on her way back to her chair.)

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey
Chain no. 69828

cc Ms Jo Ansell, CEO of Providence Row Charity (of which the Dellow Centre is a part)

Today’s Times has published a letter from sixteen scientists under the title “Stem-cell therapy is no miracle cure: Scientists from around the world express a note of caution on stem-cell therapy”. The letter states that “given the current state of more conventional embryonic stem-cell research, of adult stem-cell research, and of induced pluripotent stem-cell research, there is no demonstrable scientific or medical case for insisting on creating, without any clear scientific precedent, a wide spectrum of human-non-human hybrid entities or ‘human admixed embryos’.” (Last Monday British MPs voted to allow controversial plans to update human embryology laws to continue to their next Parliamentary stage, despite deep splits among MPs. The main battle will come this coming Monday at Committee Stage, when MPs will have a free vote on the part of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill - a flagship bill of government - relating to research using “admixed” cytoplasmic hybrid embryos.)

Prime Minister Gordon Brown – whose youngest son has cystic fibrosis, a condition that could one day benefit from embryo research – has called on MPs to back the use of hybrid embryos for research.

The Medical Research Council, the Royal Society, the Wellcome Trust and the Academy of Medical Sciences also support the research. In a briefing document (reported by the BBC on 15 January), the four research institutions spell out why they see hybrid embryos as so important: "This research has massive potential to provide treatments for serious debilitating disorders ranging from developmental abnormalities in young children, to stroke, cancer, HIV/Aids, diabetes and Parkinson's disease, as well as better and safer treatment for infertile couples." The Association of Medical Research Charities and the Genetic Interest Group, which between them represent more than 200 patient charities, said the research "could greatly increase our understanding of serious medical conditions affecting millions", and have written to all MPs urging them to support the bill. The UK National Stem Cell Network Steering Committee, which organised a three-day conference in Edinburgh last month attended by the world's leading researchers in stem cells, has called for MPs “to enshrine tight regulations in the HFE Bill but to ensure that all types of derivation remain open to researchers.”

Critics, including pro-life groups and Catholic leaders, have branded hybrid embryos "Frankenstein science". The Catholic church has been accused by the government’s fertility watchdog of using “fatal” dogma to oppose all forms of research on embryos and most IVF treatment. Lisa Jardine, chairwoman of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, points out that the church, unlike other religions, had an “insoluble problem” in its fundamental opposition to the destruction of any human embryos, regardless of their stage of development. In an article in the Sunday Times of 11 May, Jardine is quoted as saying:

There is a fatal impediment in Catholicism to all discussion of research on embryos that involves the destruction of embryos at whatever stage. This is not clear to the public in my view. The Catholic church is opposed to hybrid embryos, but then it is opposed to all embryonic research. The public hasn’t taken this on board. For the most part, people don’t realise how fundamental this [stance] is.

Jardine says that once the public understands why scientists wish to create hybrid embryos they approve of the research. She is right: a poll for the Times revealed on 10 April that the creation of human-animal embryos enjoys broad public approval, with 50 per cent backing new laws that would permit it and only 30 per cent opposed.

Letter to the European Court under Article 34

Yesterday evening Declan sent an email letter under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights to the Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights, Erik Fribergh. Article 34 establishes a duty on Convention states not to hinder the effective exercise of the right to apply to the European Court – complaints of intimidation have frequently been made in cases against Turkey and a number have been upheld. We believe that being ordered by a police officer in the middle of the night to leave the porch we were sleeping in (and in which we had been sleeping – and still are, by the way – since being forced to become rough sleepers on 3 November 2006) or be arrested due to police "cleaning" the City of London of rough sleepers, and within hours of Declan being diagnosed with a sprained ankle, speaks ominously of things to come.

For the record, this is the email letter to the Registrar (the letter to the Mayor of London to which Declan refers can be read in the previous blog, and its attachment, a letter of 21 April to the head of the Catholic Church in Britain, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, regarding the Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre, can be read here):

Subject: Heavey v. the United Kingdom (Application no. 22541/07)

Dear Mr Fribergh

I refer to your letter of 22 November 2007, reference ECHR-LEO.1R CO/PHA/gz, signed for the Registrar by Legal Secretary C Ovey, stating: "I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 22 September 2007 and enclosures. With reference to your request for priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, I can inform you that the Court will examine your application shortly, possibly by the end of January 2008. It would therefore appear unnecessary to consider your request."

Please find attached: (i) copy of my email letter of 9 May 2008 (and attachment) to the Mayor of London, Mr Boris Johnson, in respect of an order from PC 698B of Bishopsgate Police Station on the night of 8 May instructing my wife and I to either leave the porch we were sleeping in or be arrested due to police "cleaning" the City of London of rough sleepers, and (ii) copy of my Certificate of Attendance of 8 May from the Royal London Hospital stating that I had a sprained ankle and was "advised to rest, elevate and ice ankle".

With particular reference to the police officer's order on the night of 8 May instructing my wife and I to either leave the City of London or be arrested, within hours of me spraining my ankle, I wish to draw to the Court's attention a violation of Article 34 (formally Article 25) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and request that the Court take this matter up with the respondent Government.

Article 34 establishes a duty on Convention states not to hinder the effective exercise of the right to apply to the European Court of Human Rights. 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. Article 34 states that:

The Court may receive applications from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the protocols thereto. The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right.

Under Article 34, applicants must not be subjected to any form of pressure from the authorities to modify or withdraw their complaints. "Pressure" includes direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation (of applicants, potential applicants, their families and legal representatives), but also any improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage applicants from pursuing a Convention remedy.

In the case of Kurt v Turkey (No. 24276/94, 25.5.98, (1999) 26 EHRR 373), the Court found there had been improper pressure in violation of former Article 25, after the applicant alleged that she had been pressurised by the authorities to withdraw her application to the Commission.

In assessing the degree of interference, the Court will take account of the vulnerability of the complainant and his or her susceptibility to influence exerted by the authorities, including any legitimate fear of reprisals. In this regard, I beg to point out that my request for priority of 8 September 2007 states:

Since 3 November 2006 the applicant and his wife have been sleeping rough in the porch of an office building in the heart of London's business district. On 22 November, the Dellow Centre recorded on the applicant's wife's registration form that St Mungo's, London's largest homelessness organisation, had informed the Centre that neither the applicant nor his wife could be referred to a hostel "due to not being on any benefits" [having had to go on state benefits in July 2005, the Department for Work and Pensions ceased the applicant's and his wife's allowance entitlement on 27 September 2006 because the applicant did not "sign on" two days before he was due to do so on 29 September].

I can confirm that my care of address, the Dellow Centre, has received no correspondence from the Court subsequent to your letter of 22 November.

Please would you acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely
Declan Heavey

Video: MPs debate embryology laws
British MPs voted yesterday to allow controversial plans to update human embryology laws to continue to their next Parliamentary stage, despite deep splits among MPs. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill was given its second reading by 340 votes to 78, a majority of 262. The government, faced with the prospect of a rebellion by Roman Roman Catholic ministers, has promised Labour MPs a free vote on the most contentious issues. These include the creation of cytoplasmic hybrid embryos.

On 12 May the Guardian reported under the title “What's in the bill”:

The bill allows the creation of so-called "admixed" cytoplasmic hybrid embryos. Scientists want to inject DNA from the nucleus of adult human cells into a hollowed out cow or rabbit egg. The resulting tiny ball of cells would have 99% human DNA and would not be allowed to develop beyond 14 days in the lab. It could not be implanted into the womb of a human or animal but would be used to create stem cells for research without having to use human eggs. The minority of religious groups who believe human life begins when sperm and egg meet say the research violates the sanctity of human life.

The main battle will come next Monday at Committee Stage, when MPs will have a free vote on the part of the Bill relating to research using cytoplasmic hybrid embryos.

More of the same

Last Monday Declan wrote to the head of the Catholic Church in Britain, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, in his capacity as the Archbishop of the Diocese of Westminster, regarding the Sisters of Mercy Dellow Centre (the email letter is presented in the previous blog). The Archbishop's House hasn't acknowledged receipt of the letter yet, but meanwhile we are dealing with more of the same – only yesterday afternoon, while Declan was at his pitch selling the Big Issue (a magazine sold by homeless people on registered street pitches), another Big Issue vendor was doing the same no more than five metres from the pitch; Declan had to lodge a complaint with head office. A guy that frequently sits beside Declan while he is in the internet café and plays chess online, on Thursday afternoon did the same with me in the Idea Store Whitechapel while I was working away. I don't have to be reminded of what this seeks to communicate: that we should forget about civil liberties and give up the fight; that whatever move we make will be counteracted one way or another. It would appear this is the case.

Take washing: we were barred from the Methodist Church Whitechapel Mission due to concerns about our safety – no, no kidding; recently we were more or less barred from the public toilets in Liverpool Street Station; and when Declan was reduced to washing in the Dellow men's washroom, he was so hassled by the homeless while in there he now washes and shaves in parks. Take Declan's petition to the UN in support of research cloning of embryos and stem cells: on 29 January the Tower Hamlets Council's Idea Store Whitechapel imposed a 3-hour limit on computer use on both our membership cards; when we were still able to do our work in comes SpamCop's report accusing Declan of spamming; currently it is impossible, from the Idea Store Whitechapel, to access Declan's draft mail box, where Google Mail keeps any saved document (no such problem in an internet café or with my Google Mail account) – on 26 January Declan's Google Mail was raided and 300 draft documents, which included the names and email addresses of over 2,500 scientists, were deleted for good. As for the porch we sleep in: it is hardly used by anybody (see blog of 26 March "We are seeking to raise £4,000") and yet on 22 February two police officers came to tell us they had an order to evict us; and since mid-April the cleaner that from January had been going in and out through the porch door every weekday morning between 5.00am and 5.30am, is now going in at 4.00am - yesterday morning at 5.15am (we get up at 4.30am), while Declan was off putting away our cardboard, this cleaner came out with a mop; I hardly had the time to step down to the pavement, our packed bags still in the porch. (It is a pity he wasn't there later in the evening to mop the beer somebody had spilled on the porch floor.)

Apart from being well motivated, the homeless that target Declan don’t seem to have much else in common – we are just a couple in their mid-forties who keep themselves to themselves; I spend most of my time in the library, while Declan spends most of his walking everywhere, in particular for food. The guy that is so fond of shouting at us, be it in the Dellow or in the Manna Centre (whose building is provided rent-free by the Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark), for example that I am going to be sorted out or found one morning with a knife in my back, is a resident of the local Salvation Army hostel. The guy that regularly appears out of nowhere and shouts at us that we are “f***ing rats” and “c**ts” helps out in one of the local markets. The big Pole that booted Declan hard in the calf while in the Manna three weeks ago has little or no English. The guy that almost assaulted Declan in the Dellow men's washroom on 1 April probably doesn’t count: he could have interpreted the staff member’s words "What are you going to do about it?" as a carte blanche to continue (see blog “Declan narrowly escapes being assaulted”). The two homeless who on Tuesday afternoon – the day after Declan emailed Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor – began shouting in the courtyard of the Manna about this 46-year-old guy (yeah, Declan’s age) who is going to be put on a drip, Declan had never seen before.

Colony of embryonic stem cells

The April issue of the journal Cell Stem Cell has published the finding of researchers at Johns Hopkins Institute for Cell Engineering that has uncovered the molecular underpinnings of one of the earliest steps in human development using human embryonic stem cells. One reason for the excitement, they say, is that the system can provide a research model to study very early human development, including the formation of placenta which develops from the same early embryo. It is virtually impossible, the investigators say, to use anything other than human embryonic stem cells to gather information of this kind. "The finding was serendipitous and at the same time a very important addition to our understanding of early human development," says Dr Linzhao Cheng, an associate professor of gynecology and obstetrics and co-director of the stem cell program at Johns Hopkins. "This is one area of stem cell biology where human and mouse differ significantly and we never would have discovered this if we had limited our studies to using only mouse embryonic stem cells. Adult human stem cells just didn't work for this."

Another important breakthrough is published in the 23 April advanced online issue of the journal Nature. An international research team, led by a Canadian stem-cell scientist, has successfully turned human embryonic stem cells into three types of heart cells. The breakthrough, said Dr Gordon Keller, director of the McEwen Centre for Regenerative Medicine at University Health Network in Toronto, marks a significant step towards the test-tube creation of functioning heart tissue and in the future could lead to new strategies for repairing damaged hearts following a heart attack. Though it is not the first time heart cells have been made from embryonic stem cells, it is the first time scientists have been able to find the right "recipe" to direct stem cells to produce only the progenitor heart cells which are able to make three major types of cell essential for a healthy heart.

These two important discoveries, I am afraid, didn’t make it into the website of the religious organisation “DoNoHarm: The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics” (a website which comes recommended by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops). In fact, spend twenty minutes browsing through its pages and you would be forgiven for thinking that adult stem cells and human induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells have delivered the knock-out blow to human embryonic stem cells – Alan Trounson, head of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine in San Francisco, who recently told Nature Reports Stem Cells that "excessive" media attention on iPS cell research could "separate science from reality", won’t appear in the DoNoHarm website either. (Created from adults cells by a simple genetic trick, iPS cells seem to have regained an embryonic ‘stemness’ that might allow them to become any type of cell in the body. Members of the International Stem Cell Forum (ISCF) meeting on 28 February in San Francisco issued the following statement: “The ISCF supports stem cell research using both human embryonic and adult stem cells. The Forum also recognises that the demonstration of human induced Pluripotent Stem (iPS) cells opens up an exciting area of stem cell research. The technology is at a very early stage however and many questions remain unanswered such as the functional relationship of iPS cells to human embryonic stem cells, both of which are important to moving the entire field of stem cell research toward application and clinical therapies.”)

Stanton Gerson, director of the Center for Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine in Cleveland, commenting on Ohio's Ban on Human Cloning SB 174 (which has yet to clear a Senate committee after introduction last year) said: ''I find it unwise to suggest that the Legislature should dictate appropriate scientific discovery''. Perhaps the same should apply to religious groups.