Why father’s drug use spiralled – and now he takes them in a ‘cage’

Published

1 year ago

February 10, 2024

admin

As a homeless father, Dave says taking drugs is the only thing that puts him to sleep.

Under their influence, he’s no longer “bothered about sleeping on the streets” or “worrying about the cold”.

“If I had a nice warm flat, I’d give it up like that,” he says.

The number of people dying from drug misuse in England and Wales is at a record level, while Scotland has the highest rate of drug-related deaths in Europe.

So could drug consumption rooms – where illegal substances are allowed to be taken under supervision – be the answer?

In Sandwell, West Midlands, Dave (not his real name) takes drugs in a disused storage unit at the back of a car park – and calls it “the cage”.

“There’s nowhere else,” he says.

He cleans the area behind the high street and locks the metal gate to prevent children getting inside, mindful of the risk of any used needles being left lying around.

“It just makes me think… what if my daughter trod on one?” he says.

He doesn’t reveal which illegal drugs he takes but says his use spiralled when he became homeless after a break-up.

He no longer sees his daughter or ex-partner.

Dave’s “cage” is one of many areas used as public injection sites across the UK – including underground car parks, stairwells and bin alleys.

Syringes and makeshift tourniquets lie among the fallen leaves, rubbish and debris near a bypass in Sandwell.

“It’s not difficult to understand… why people develop infections and become ill,” says Sue McCutcheon, an advanced nurse practitioner.

Drug deaths at record high

A total of 3,127 drug misuse deaths were recorded in England and Wales in 2022 – that’s an average of eight people a day.

To put this into context, it’s about the same number of people who died from stomach cancer (3,230 deaths in 2022). But the difference is drug misuse deaths are preventable.

Some 1,051 people in Scotland died from drug misuse in 2022 – its lowest number since 2017 but it remains the highest rate of any country in Europe.

These figures are also underestimates, the Office for National Statistics says, as the specific drugs involved in a death is not always known.

Drug misuse deaths are recorded as those where the underlying cause is drug abuse or drug dependence, or where any of the substances involved are controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

In a bid to reduce the harm around injecting drugs, some countries have introduced overdose prevention centres (OPCs) – also known as drug consumption rooms.

There are around 200 across the world in 17 countries, and Scotland has been given the go-ahead to introduce one this year.

“Most people think inside the drug consumption room it’s fun, everybody’s coming here and doing drugs and high,” says Elisabeth Avril, a GP and director of Espace Gaia, a government-funded centre in Paris.

Most of the 150 people who visit at least once a day are people like Peter Bancelin, who is suffering from withdrawal.

“We often say we come for treatment,” he says.

Before the centre opened, Peter describes “unbearable conditions” with discarded syringes on the floor of public areas and users taking drugs “between cars (with) people passing by to bring their children to school”.

Inside a drug consumption room

Users enter one by one to register, pick up clean equipment and use drugs with a nurse on hand in a room with stainless steel desks, plastic chairs and needle bins.

Staff do not handle the drugs at any point. Users then have access to a “rest room” before they leave.

The centre – which is open seven days a week between 9.30am to 8.30pm – has allowed Peter to do official paperwork, find company and get off the streets.

“Little by little, it’s allowed me to get back on track,” he says.

A study led by Queen’s University Belfast released last month – believed to be the largest evidence review of OPCs worldwide – found they could prevent thousands of deaths and reduce the spread of serious disease.

But the UK government does not support their use and they won’t be allowed in England and Wales over concerns they risk condoning and encouraging the use of illegal drugs.

And not everyone is on board with drug consumption rooms in Paris. There were protests from some residents after the city’s mayor, Anne Hidalgo, signalled she would open four more drug consumption rooms in the French capital.

“Drug policy is not based on evidence – it’s more based on people’s moral preferences,” says Dr Alex Stevens, a criminal justice professor at Kent University, who used to be on the government’s drug advisory committee.

“There’s nobody claiming that an overdose prevention centre is going to solve all the problems we have with drugs.

“But for the people who are most vulnerable to dying, that’s something that can help them continue to stay alive so they can get their lives together.”

In Sandwell, Dave says he would be worried about the police if a drug consumption room was to open near him.

“Where are you going if you’re looking for a shoplifter?” he asks.

What we know about UK’s first drug consumption room

Scotland is set to be home to the UK’s first drug consumption room.

Plans have been approved for a £2.3m facility at Hunter Street Health Centre in Glasgow – despite opposition from Westminster.

However the UK government has said it will not intervene to stop the pilot scheme.

The drug consumption room in Glasgow is due to open this year – although a date is yet to be set.

It would allow those struggling with addiction to take drugs under supervision from medical professionals, who could intervene in the event of an overdose.

Scotland’s top law officer Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC has said it would “not be in the public interest” to prosecute people in a drug consumption room with possession of illegal substances.

Drones deliver overdose treatment

One innovation that has been trialled in the UK with the aim of reducing drug deaths is the use of drones to deliver naloxone, a life-saving medicine which acts quickly to reverse an overdose of opioid drugs such as heroin.

“If somebody is having an overdose, we need to get it to them within at least seven minutes and quicker if possible,” says Dr Paul Royall, a senior lecturer at Kings College London, whose researchers have teamed up with HeroTech8.

When someone calls 999, the call operator activates an emergency response along with the drone, which is expected to beat the ambulance to the scene, allowing the caller to administer the naloxone nasal spray before paramedics arrive.

“So the idea is this reaches the patient first and gives them a bit of extra time so the ambulance can get there and actually really save them,” says Dr Royall.

The team is currently working with drug users in Gosport, on the south coast of Hampshire, before conducting a real-life trial later this year, with a plan to develop the next phase in areas with the most need in the UK.

It estimates delivery costs would be similar to a small Amazon drone delivery – expected to be between £25 and £75 – but says a large-scale roll-out could further bring prices down.

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

A government spokesperson said: “We are determined to provide those caught in the clutches of addiction with the right support to turn their lives around.

“Our 10-year drug strategy, backed by a record £3bn funding, is tackling both supply and demand for illegal drugs by building a world-class treatment system, alongside relentlessly pursuing and dismantling criminal networks.

“We have already increased the number of people in drug and alcohol treatment by over 17,000, recruited 1,255 drug and alcohol workers and are expanding the availability of life-saving naloxone to prevent more tragic deaths.”

UK

Infected blood victims are ‘waiting to die in limbo’ – with hundreds still waiting for compensation

Published

2 hours ago

July 9, 2025

admin

Infected blood victims are 'waiting to die in limbo' - with hundreds still waiting for compensation

Victims of the infected blood scandal say they are “waiting to die in limbo”, with just hundreds having received compensation to date.

For decades, more than 30,000 NHS patients were knowingly given infected blood products, and more than 3,000 people died as a result. Survivors are left living with long-term health complications, including HIV and hepatitis.

An inquiry into the scandal, which published its final report in May 2024, accused the NHS of a “pervasive cover-up”. Recompense payments for the victims and survivors were ordered, with the government setting aside £11.8bn to do this.

Earlier this year, the inquiry was reopened to examine the “timeliness and adequacy” of the compensation, and its report – published today – has accused the scheme of “perpetuating” harm.

Just 2,043 people have been asked to start a claim, 616 have been made offers, and 430 of those have been paid.

“For decades, people who suffered because of infected blood have not been listened to. Once again, decisions have been made behind closed doors, leading to obvious injustices,” says Sir Brian Langstaff, chair of the Infected Blood Inquiry.

“It is not too late to get this right. We are calling for compensation to be faster, and more than that, fairer.”

In his latest 210-page report, Sir Brian says yet more people have been harmed by the way they have been treated by the scheme.

It highlights how the compensation scheme was drafted without any direct involvement from the people most affected – the expert group that advised the government on how financial support should be delivered was not allowed to take evidence or hear from any victim of the infected blood scandal.

“Obvious injustices” within the scheme include the exclusion of anyone infected with HIV prior to 1982 and the unrealistic requirements for proving psychological harm.

How did the infected blood scandal happen?

Between 1970 and the early 1990s, more than 30,000 NHS patients were given blood transfusions, or treatments made using blood products, which were contaminated with hepatitis C or HIV.

The infected blood was used because the NHS was struggling to meet the domestic demand for blood products, so sourced around 50% of them from abroad, including the US.

But much of the blood had been taken from prisoners, drug addicts and other high-risk groups who were paid to give blood.

Blood donations in the UK were not routinely screened for hepatitis C until 1991, 18 months after the virus was first identified.

As a result, more than 3,000 people have died, and survivors have experienced lifelong health implications.

In 2017, the government announced a statutory inquiry into the scandal to examine the impact on families, how authorities responded, and the care and support provided to those affected.

The Infected Blood Inquiry published its findings last year and a multi-billion-pound compensation scheme was announced in its wake.

This included payments for a group of people with the blood clotting disorder haemophilia, who were subjected to “unethical research” while at school and included in secret trials to test blood products.

HIV infections before 1982

The current scheme means any person infected with HIV before 1 January 1982 will not be compensated – something the latest report calls “illogical and unjust”.

The rule “completely misunderstands (or ignores) the central fact that blood products used [before this date] were already known to carry a risk of a dangerous virus – Hepatitis”, the report says.

The rule appears to have been made based on legal advice to the government.

One mother says her daughter was invited to claim compensation, only to be told she was likely “ineligible” because she had been infected prior to 1982.

“To reach this stage of the proceedings to be faced with the unbearable possibility of her claim being declined is yet another nightmare to be somehow endured… This unbearable and intolerable situation is cruel and unjust,” she says in the report.

One person who is not named in the report said: “It feels as if we are waiting to die in limbo, unable to make any progress in our lives and fearing that as our health declines, we may not ever get the compensation we deserve.”

Analysis by Sky correspondent Laura Bundock: Victims’ painful battle continues – and in some cases time is running out

This is another deeply damning report into the infected blood scandal.

We now know the damage and suffering caused by the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS is far from over.

So many were promised long-overdue compensation. But those infected and affected by the scandal are still being harmed by delays, injustices, and a lack of transparency.

Over a year since his final inquiry report was published the chair, Sir Brian Langstaff, does not hold back in his criticism of the compensation scheme.

He finds the system sluggish, slow and difficult to navigate.

What was set up to help the infected blood community, failed to properly involve victims of the scandal. Opportunities were missed opportunities to consult, and decisions were made behind closed doors.

The end result is an unfair, unfit system leaving people undercompensated. What’s worse, very few have received any money. And in some cases, time is running out.

This additional report makes yet more recommendations. Sir Brian is clear that despite a bad start, it’s not too late to get things right. What he says is an important moment of vindication for the victims, who’d felt their voices were being ignored.

They’ve campaigned and fought for this inquiry for decades. Most assumed the battle was over once Sir Brian’s report was published last year. But despite promises and pledges from politicians, their anger and upset hasn’t gone away.

The government says it’s taking steps to speed up the process. For victims, trust in the authorities remains low.

It will take more than warm words to restore faith, as they continue through the painful struggle for justice.

Unrealistic expectations

The report also highlights the unrealistic evidence requirements for someone proving psychological harm.

The current regulations require a consultant psychiatrist to have diagnosed and treated someone, either as in-patient, or in hospital for six months.

But the report says, at the time the scandal was unfolding, “consultant psychiatric services were not the norm across every part of the country”.

“It would be wrong to set a requirement for compensation that such services be accessed when it was not a practical proposition that they could be.”

Those infected were also unlikely to have told even close friends and family about their diagnosis due to the stigma and ostracism.

Therefore, the expectation of having received medical care “would have involved revealing to an unknown clinician what that person dared not reveal, especially if there was a chance that it might leak out”.

Other exclusions

The report also highlighted other exclusions within the compensation scheme.

It says the “impacts of infection with Hepatitis is not being fully recognised in the scheme as it stands”. The scheme also fails to recognise the devastating impacts of interferon, used to treat Hep C. The vast majority of people who received interferon suffered severely, both psychologically and physically.

The compensation regulations also withdraw support for a bereaved partner if the infected person dies after 31 March this year. The argument being that they are eligible for compensation in their own right as an “affected” person.

But removing these payments immediately after death means infected persons “see themselves as worthless and [ignites] fears of leaving partners destitute”.

One man reports being denied compensation as victims of medical experimentation because – despite having evidence it took place – the hospital where he was infected was not named in the regulations.

UK

Why do so many from around the world try to cross the English Channel?

Published

9 hours ago

July 9, 2025

admin

Why do so many from around the world try to cross the English Channel?

While the politicians talk, so many people come from around the world to try to get across the Channel on small boats. But why?

Why make such a perilous crossing to try to get to a country that seems to be getting increasingly hostile to asylum seekers?

As the British and French leaders meet, with small boats at the forefront of their agenda, we came to northern France to get some answers.

It is not a new question, but it is peppered with fresh relevance.

Over the course of a morning spent around a migrant camp in Dunkirk, we meet migrants from Gaza, Iraq, Eritrea, South Sudan, Sri Lanka and beyond.

Some are fearful, waving us away; some are happy to talk. Very few are comfortable to be filmed.

All but one man – who says he’s come to the wrong place and actually wants to claim asylum in Paris – are intent on reaching Britain.

They see the calm seas, feel the light winds – perfect conditions for small boat crossings.

John has come here from South Sudan. He tells me he’s now 18 years old. He left his war-torn home nation just before his 16th birthday. He feels that reaching Britain is his destiny.

“England is my dream country,” he says. “It has been my dream since I was at school. It’s the country that colonised us and when I get there, I will feel like I am home.

“In England, they can give me an opportunity to succeed or to do whatever I need to do in my life. I feel like I am an English child, who was born in Africa.”

He says he would like to make a career in England, either as a journalist or in human resources, and, like many others we meet, is at pains to insist he will work hard.

The boat crossing is waved away as little more than an inconvenience – a trifle compared with the previous hardships of his journey towards Britain.

We meet a group of men who have all travelled from Gaza, intent on starting new lives in Britain and then bringing their families over to join them.

One man, who left Gaza two years ago, tells me that his son has since been shot in the leg “but there is no hospital for him to go to”.

Next to him, a man called Abdullah says he entered Europe through Greece and stayed there for months on end, but was told the Greek authorities would never allow him to bring over his family.

Britain, he thinks, will be more accommodating. “Gaza is being destroyed – we need help,” he says.

A man from Eritrea tells us he is escaping a failing country and has friends in Britain – he plans to become a bicycle courier in either London or Manchester.

He can’t stay in France, he says, because he doesn’t speak French. The English language is presented as a huge draw for many of the people we talk to, just as it had been during similar conversations over the course of many years.

I ask many of these people why they don’t want to stay in France, or another safe European country.

Some repeat that they cannot speak the language and feel ostracised. Another says that he tried, and failed, to get a residency permit in both France and Belgium.

But this is also, clearly, a flawed survey. Last year, five times as many people sought asylum in France as in Britain.

And French critics have long insisted that Britain, a country without a European-style ID card system, makes itself attractive to migrants who can “disappear”.

A young man from Iraq, with absolutely perfect English, comes for a chat. He oozes confidence and a certain amount of mischief.

It has taken him only seven days to get from Iraq to Dunkirk; when I ask how he has made the trip so quickly, he shrugs. “Money talks”.

He looks around him. “Let me tell you – all of these people you see around you will be getting to Britain and the first job they get will be in the black market, so they won’t be paying any tax.

“Back in the day in Britain, they used to welcome immigrants very well, but these days I don’t think they want to, because there’s too many of them coming by boat. Every day it’s about seven or 800 people. That’s too many people.”

“But,” I ask, “if those people are a problem – then what makes you different? Aren’t you a problem too?”

He shakes his head emphatically. “I know that I’m a very good guy. And I won’t be a problem. I’ll only stay in Britain for a few years and then I’ll leave again.”

A man from Sri Lanka says he “will feel safe” when he gets to Britain; a tall, smiling man from Ethiopia echoes the sentiment: “We are not safe in our home country so we have come all this way,” he says. “We want to work, to be part of Britain.”

Emmanuel is another from South Sudan – thoughtful and eloquent. He left his country five years ago – “at the start of COVID” – and has not seen his children in all that time. His aim is to start a new life in Britain, and then to bring his family to join him.

He is a trained electrical engineer, but says he could also work as a lorry driver. He is adamant that Britain has a responsibility to the people of its former colony.

“The British came to my country – colonising, killing, raping,” he said. “And we didn’t complain. We let it happen.

“I am not the problem. I won’t fight anyone; I want to work. And if I break the laws – if any immigrant breaks the laws – then fine, deport them.

“I know it won’t be easy – some people won’t like me, some people will. But England is my dream.”

UK

UK and France have ‘shared responsibility’ to tackle illegal migration, Emmanuel Macron says

Published

14 hours ago

July 9, 2025

admin

UK and France have 'shared responsibility' to tackle illegal migration, Emmanuel Macron says

Emmanuel Macron has said the UK and France have a “shared responsibility” to tackle the “burden” of illegal migration, as he urged co-operation between London and Paris ahead of a crunch summit later this week.

Addressing parliament in the Palace of Westminster on Tuesday, the French president said the UK-France summit would bring “cooperation and tangible results” regarding the small boats crisis in the Channel.

Politics latest: Lord Norman Tebbit dies, aged 94

Mr Macron – who is the first European leader to make a state visit to the UK since Brexit – told the audience that while migrants’ “hope for a better life elsewhere is legitimate”, “we cannot allow our countries’ rules for taking in people to be flouted and criminal networks to cynically exploit the hopes of so many individuals with so little respect for human life”.

“France and the UK have a shared responsibility to address irregular migration with humanity, solidarity and fairness,” he added.

Looking ahead to the UK-France summit on Thursday, he promised the “best ever cooperation” between France and the UK “to fix today what is a burden for our two countries”.

Sir Keir Starmer will hope to reach a deal with his French counterpart on a “one in, one out” migrant returns deal at the key summit on Thursday.

King Charles also addressed the delegations at a state banquet in Windsor Castle on Tuesday evening, saying the summit would “deepen our alliance and broaden our partnerships still further”.

Sitting next to President Macron, the monarch said: “Our armed forces will cooperate even more closely across the world, including to support Ukraine as we join together in leading a coalition of the willing in defence of liberty and freedom from oppression. In other words, in defence of our shared values.”

In April, British officials confirmed a pilot scheme was being considered to deport migrants who cross the English Channel in exchange for the UK accepting asylum seekers in France with legitimate claims.

The two countries have engaged in talks about a one-for-one swap, enabling undocumented asylum seekers who have reached the UK by small boat to be returned to France.

👉Listen to Politics at Sam and Anne’s on your podcast app👈       

Britain would then receive migrants from France who would have a right to be in the UK, like those who already have family settled here.

The small boats crisis is a pressing issue for the prime minister, given that more than 20,000 migrants crossed the English Channel to the UK in the first six months of this year – a rise of almost 50% on the number crossing in 2024.

Elsewhere in his speech, the French president addressed Brexit, and said the UK could not “stay on the sidelines” despite its departure from the European Union.

He said European countries had to break away from economic dependence on the US and China.

“Our two countries are among the oldest sovereign nations in Europe, and sovereignty means a lot to both of us, and everything I referred to was about sovereignty, deciding for ourselves, choosing our technologies, our economy, deciding our diplomacy, and deciding the content we want to share and the ideas we want to share, and the controversies we want to share.

“Even though it is not part of the European Union, the United Kingdom cannot stay on the sidelines because defence and security, competitiveness, democracy – the very core of our identity – are connected across Europe as a continent.”