The use of the title Dr. for someone with a PhD is in fact the correct usage; medical professionals should refer to themselves as ‘Doctor of Medicine’. The guy may well be an overqualified dick, but he is entitled to use the qualification as his title.
He won’t be sacked.
If Cameron was to sack all the homophobic Tories there would be nobody left apart from Edwina Currie (and she’s retired).
the Tories remain the party for homophobic scum.
Iain Duncan Smith
What other neo-fascist monsters are lurking in the Tory Law and Justice Party?
Oh dear ! We will be back to tombstones, icebergs and wreaths of lilles (for those of you who are much younger than me, that was a Tory AIDs tv campaign in the 1980s!)
Oh and in case anyone even dreams of pretending that neo-fascist, homophobic scumbag Julian Lewis is correct in his lies that an equal age of consent leads to increases in HIV infections among gay men – well in the Netherlands the age of consent for both gay and straight is 14.
The Netherlands has FAR lower rates of both teenaged pregnancy and HIV infections than the UK.
Interestingly they’ve never had a viciously stupid law like Section 28 to prevent children from learning about sexual responsibility.
In my view the Tory sponsored Section 28 is a leading reason HIV infections among gay men are higher in the UK than in the Netherlands, Germany, France or Belgium.
Vile homophobic Tory scum.
Such vituperation! Please! Please!
Of course, you don’t have to be a medical doctor to know that very sound medically based evidence is being spouted.
#3 – Mike,
The ‘tombstone‘ ad was very effective for its time. However the bleeding hearts would say it would scare the chilren these days. Or possibly not.
“I’m not homophobic, I voted for civil partnerships!1!!!!!11!1!” Is this the tory exelection slogan?
Hi Dionysian. I was referring to the return of the ads re this guys ancient attitude to HIV AIDS; we have better ways to get the message across these days. (although you are probably right; it might scare the kiddies!)
Sound medical advice…. so now homophobia is sound medical advice Voodoo… Who do you think you are talking to… Blue haired xtian middle England matrons? I think not. Are you perhaps confused and think you are on the Daily Wail or Smelegraph boards?.
Nobody on this site thinks you are remotely funny; just very sad, racist and homophobic in equal measure. You would probably qualify for a “doctorate” in those qualities.
Cameron is just a bottom, gay-for-pay politician, whose pay is staring in the mirror telling himself how great he is. He would sit on any leg of upturned bar stool to get the “big” leader seat in the government; all the while fluffing you with what a hot, sexy, big boy you are. This guy needs to be leather bound and gagged.
What a seamy b*t*h.
Comment #11 by Ray
I was just eating lunch when I read that. “Was” now being the operative word :-)
“Oh dear ! We will be back to tombstones, icebergs and wreaths of lilles (for those of you who are much younger than me, that was a Tory AIDs tv campaign in the 1980s!)”
Yes Mike, hopefully, as they were very effective in alerting the gay community in particular to the risks of HIV.
The current ‘its nothing worse than a bad cough’ approach, is will continue to cost untold lives.
UNLIKE THE CONSERVATIVES – HIV DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE!
Hmmm, so it was wrong to equalise the age of consent for gays? Well now, how about raising the age of consent for straights who engage in risky behaviour such as teen pregnancy, human papilloma virus, high among straight females via sexual activity, HIV notwithstanding. If Cameron doesn’t fire this idiot, then he’s complicit with that idiot’s views.
SimonM…yes, you’re right about Holland but then its a far more progressive country than we’ll ever be, a trail blazer if you will. We’ll never be that under Labour or Tory. The UK has arguably one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy and STD rates in the EU yet a Tory govenment won’t mandate compulsory sex education in schools once elected.
These tombstone ads , especially those in the media, ie papers and broadcast go right over the heads of young people.
A huge majority of them never pick up a newspaper and most certainly never watch telly once they reach puberty and Barney is no longer a feature of their lives.
Blanket ads sent to their mobile phones would be a much better way of alerting todays teens.
An even better way would be with a program of sex education in schools from the age of 10. However with the screaming xtians going all out to stop this , it will probably never happen, at least under the homophobis Law and Justice Tories.
Another reason to tactically vote come May 6. Keep the Law and Justice homophobic Tory party where they belong…..firmly on the opposition benches.
“Of course, you don’t have to be a medical doctor to know that very sound medically based evidence is being spouted.”
Really? Says who, exactly? Well, Voodoo, clearly you’re not one of these “medical doctors”, or you wouldn’t be saying such stupid things in public.
The reality is, age of consent does little to affect the prevalence of HIV.
Lets take two EU countries:
Age of Consent: 14
Adult prevalence % 2007: 0.1
AIDS deaths 2007: <500
England and Wales
Age of Consent: 16
Adult prevalence % 2007: 0.2
AIDS deaths 2007: <500
[Statistics: 2008 HIV/AIDS surveillance report by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and World Health Organisation Regional Office for Europe]
As you can see Voodoo, there is NO “very sound medically based evidence”, and there is NO correlation between age of consent and HIV infection rates, in fact the evidence points to the very opposite.
This Tory MP is just doing what Tories, and all conservatives in general, do best:- grasp as straws to validate homophobia. He must have found his medical diploma in a dumpster, as he clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
So, how’s about you drop the homophobic nonsense, and go get your facts right. Quite frankly, your statement makes you look like a complete fool.
He won’t be sacked.
No, he won’t be sacked.
In the article we see that Dr Julian Lewis is the shadow defence minister. He will have a very important job indeed if the Conservative party wins the general election. He will be one of the small group of people that are the most powerful in the UK.
David Cameron has shown us that homophobic people are absolutely fine as candidates for the Cabinet in the election.
The solution, as far as David Cameron is concerned, is a PR exercise of some sort. Over Chris Grayling it was promises that didn’t even make it to the manifesto. However they worked for the few days to diffuse the campaign against Grayling which was what they were for.
For Julian Lewis I wonder what the PR response will be, if any?
Oh dear ! We will be back to tombstones, icebergs and wreaths of lilles (for those of you who are much younger than me, that was a Tory AIDs tv campaign in the 1980s!)
I remember that awful campaign very well.
It really made you feel glad to be gay! :)
I wonder if they are going to resurrect those ads to tells us what will happen to us if we don’t vote for them?
Sister Mary Clarence wishes for the return of the “AIDS Don’t Die of Ignorance” ads:
they were very effective in alerting the gay community in particular to the risks of HIV.
The ads were effective in that they brought the existence of HIV to many people.
However the ads in themselves were truly appalling and stupid.
In fact a simple film of a medical doctor explaining what HIV was and how it was spread would have been hugely more effective.
However a simple information film would not have had the massive subliminal message in those tombstone ads which was “to be gay = death”.
Thank you Patrick James; that was my point…
Sinister Mary managing to be even more sinister than usual now, I see. After a decade of conservative MPs denying that HIV/AIDS even existed, along came a pathetic clip of a tombstone and a bunch of lillies telling us that ignorance was a disease. It was not even informative, and about as effective as Herod’s daycare.
I’ve never voted tory…but no one else knows the rules to polo.
Simon M is right about Auntie Edwina Currie; I met her to promote a homophobic reporting campaign on her radio show some years back; she IS SO on our side boys and girls!
But Edwina Currie is retired from politics.
The best the Tories can come up with these days is smug, rich, lying toffs like David Cameron. They believe that his background in professional lying (PR) will disguise the naked bigotry of the Conservative Party (as exemplified by revolting bigots such as Chris Grayling, Julian Lewis and Iain Duncan Smith, not to mention crazed evangelicals like Philippa Stroud).
I agree. Raise the age of consent.
SimonM: “The best the Tories can come up with these days is smug, rich, lying toffs like David Cameron.”
Again, a typical reaction. What has a “rich toff” got to do with anything? Values and standards are universal. Jealous, perchance?
You are the type that kick off about foxhunting, but don’t give a sh!t about foxes, you just begrudge some blokes that can afford to ride horseback around the countryside with a pack of hounds, where you struggle to afford a bag of chips to stick on your shoulder. You are just yet another classist little turd.
THE NASTY PARTY TURN TO BNP THUGGERY!
I believe Cameron has moved on to attacking old ladies of 61 for now! well his henchmen have anyway.
“A man in his 30s has been arrested on suspicion of assaulting two female Labour Party volunteers in east London.”
“Former deputy Labour leader John Prescott said the incident happened when two men – one in a John Prescott mask – tried to attack him.”
Local Labour candidate Jim Fitzpatrick said it was “disgraceful”.
Tory chairman Eric Pickles said “he had asked for an investigation following allegations that the men were Conservative Party members. ”
The two men are Tory party council candidates in East London, one named by the NewStatesman as Martin Coxall.
Hang on, homophobic though this Doctor may appear to be, doesn’t he have a point regarding young men and their naivety where HIV is concerned? A survey last summer found that a frightening number of 16-21 year-olds consider HIV to be no more dangerous than catching a cold, and that many consider today’s namby pamby HIV campaigns to be subliminally encouraging gay men to DISPENSE with condoms! Like them or loathe them, the tombstone/iceberg campaigns of the late ’80s were pitched perfect at a time when AIDS was incurable; it literally was a death sentence. Today, hard-hitting ads are again needed to spell out to our gay youth that HIV remains a terminal illness, and it or the long term effects of ingesting life-eroding medications on a daily basis will eventually cost you your life. So yes, to an extent this Doctor speaks the truth, so no wonder he has been crucified on this forum. In today’s PC-gone-mad gay world the truth is clearly too painful for many to bear.
The fact that this “doctor” relates “male homosexual activity” to “practices that involve serious risk” is not too painful to bear, is just totally ignorant, and homophobic.
^^ Really? It’s definitely respected in the student/youth societies I’m a member of. We didn’t live through the crisis, but we’re not completely clueless.
“Hang on, homophobic though this Doctor may appear to be, doesn’t he have a point regarding young men and their naivety where HIV is concerned?”
Then education is the answer, not increasing the age of consent. If raising the age of consent actually had any effect, we’d have zero teenage pregnancies.
Incidentally, what I did find was the age of consent in the Vatican City, is 12…. why does that not surprise me.
Bobbet wrote: “The fact that this “doctor” relates “male homosexual activity” to “practices that involve serious risk” is not too painful to bear, is just totally ignorant, and homophobic.”
I disagree with much that the doctor said but how is it ignorant to link male homosexuality with high risk activity?
Anal sex without a condom is high risk and we all know that barebacking is now rampant among gay men and that some don’t look on HIV as much to worry about. So, obviously there IS a connection between male homosexuality and high risk practices? The proof is that 10% of gay men in some UK cities are positive!
It worries me that some people seem to be more concerned about presenting an acceptable ‘front’ to our community rather than facing up to the real issues in the way we did 20 years ago. This is why all the activists and politicians are wittering about gay marriage and adoption rather than facing up to barebacking and HIV.
“I disagree with much that the doctor said but how is it ignorant to link male homosexuality with high risk activity?”
To link HIV transmission with homosexuality is ignoring the pandemic growth in HIV infections among heterosexuals, that’s why its ignorant.
This is the reality: Globally, around 11% of HIV infections are among babies who acquire the virus from their mothers; 10% result from injecting drug use; 5-10% are due to sex between men; and 5-10% occur in healthcare settings. Sex between men and women accounts for the remaining proportion – around two thirds of new infections.
By equating HIV with gay men, is not only a throwback to the days of GRIDS, its misrepresenting the truth abut HIV, and promotes the myth that HIV is a gay disease – and people need to challenge the myths and misconceptions about human sexuality that translate into dangerous sexual practices.
@ Will – I guess it depends whether someone is talking about globally or here in the UK? To quote the Terrence Higgins Trust: “Around 80% of all diagnoses of HIV [in the UK] are among gay men and people from black African communities” and as I already said the NHS websites states that “of the 7,734 new cases of HIV in 2007, more than half (55%) got infected through heterosexual sex, and 41% through sex between men”.
From a UK perspective, playing down the risk to gay men for politically correct reasons isn’t doing those men any favours? If you imply that they are at equal risk to their straight friends and they then see those friends having casual sex without a condom and do the same in male-male encounters they are much more likely to become HIV+?
“From a UK perspective, playing down the risk to gay men for politically correct reasons isn’t doing those men any favours?”
Noting politically correct here, its the reality I’m stating. This man is incorrectly associating HIV with gay people. Not only is it wrong, its a reckless and stupid thing to do.
“If you imply that they are at equal risk to their straight friends and they then see those friends having casual sex without a condom and do the same in male-male encounters they are much more likely to become HIV+?”
I’m implying nothing. I’m mealy stating the facts and figures. Gay men are not numerically or proportionally the largest global transmitter of HIV, heterosexuals people are. That’s just fact. Infer what you will from those figures.
Thats the same reason they give for banning gays for life from giving blood. That higher risk of HIV.
Its not a political issue its a hatred issue.
@ Will – I understand you are putting it into perspective globally from a point of view of challenging homophobia but the doctor is talking about the age of consent in the UK and by implication what the risks are here.
Every year hundreds of people in sub-Saharan Africa die due to being attacked by crocodiles. That doesn’t mean that crocodiles present a similar risk in Britain and that health warnings to UK citizens should be based on that. Risks have to be put into a UK context so that people know the reality they face. Otherwise they are being misled and there will be bad consequences to that.
Will: Are you saying that in UK, straight people are proportionately more at risk from HIV than Gay men?
I recognise that the straight figures of str8 vs gays is now overtaking, but we only make up 10-20% of the population, so surely that must make us a more vulnerable minority?
It’s about time they had an editor on this thing:
Will: Are you saying that in UK, straight people are proportionately more at risk from HIV than Gay men? I recognise that the straight figures of str8 vs gays is now overtaking, but we only make up 10-20% of the population, so surely that must make us a more vulnerable minority?
@ Yuroo – when gay men were banned from giving blood it was a practical measure because in the UK gay men were (and still are) far more likely to become HIV+ than heterosexual men. Initially there were no reliable tests for HIV+ and blood was used to make products for hemophiliacs as well as in transfusions.
If you’re going to suggest that more people should have died just to avoid hurting the feelings of gay men then I disagree with you.
The trouble with PC loons is that they are provably in denial of everything and anything that is not illuminated by the light of truth. That is why our community wallows in negativity and lacks the will to fight HIV, instead actively allowing it to fester unhindered. This board is proof of our suicidal mindset – we would sooner rage at homophobic MPs than reach out to our naive, vulnerable gay youth and equip them with the knowledge and tools they need to protect their health and, ultimately, their lives. I think we have to accept that our entire community is a seething mass of internalized homophobia. What’s the saying? All it takes for evil to prevail in this world is for good men to stand by and do nothing. Look no further…
gay marriage and adoption is very important to people so that’s why they are concerned with it, I don’t get why a homophobes should be listened to anyway!
“Will: Are you saying that in UK, straight people are proportionately more at risk from HIV than Gay men? I recognise that the straight figures of str8 vs gays is now overtaking, but we only make up 10-20% of the population, so surely that must make us a more vulnerable minority?”
No, I’m not. But in orders of magnitude (i.e. numerically), HIV infections are now largely due to heterosexual transmission, and the largest increase in infections is in that same category. Proportionality is all well and good, but its not an indicator as to prevalence among the wider population, and hence statistically, eventually given the current trend continues, a straight person will have a higher risk of HIV infections from an unsafe encounter than gay man will.
“All it takes for evil to prevail in this world is for good men to stand by and do nothing. Look no further…”
Slightly histrionic reaction there. Try look at the fact, rather than using terms that means nothing like “politically correct” and stupid expressions like “our suicidal mindset” that actually have no basis in reality. There is nothing “politically correct” about the figures, they are as they are. Maybe you think we’re all a “seething mass of internalized homophobia”, quite frankly, I don’t see it, and nether do most people. Keep to the facts, and educate people, far more effective strategy than histrionic, and misleading, statements like you’re making.
“Every year hundreds of people in sub-Saharan Africa die due to being attacked by crocodiles. That doesn’t mean that crocodiles present a similar risk in Britain and that health warnings to UK citizens should be based on that.”
Sorry, that argument makes absolutely no sense at all, and is a fallacy of false analogy and inconsistent comparison. Crocodiles are not a basis for comparison.
Patchy is right. Whatever happened to the compassion in our community that once saw us looking out for each other and rallying around those n need? As these forums show, gay men are degenerating into catty and even downright vicious PC-at-all-costs disciples, and their hysteria and distorting of the true is fast testing the patience of the mainstream. Get off your PC pulpits and dscard that collective chip on your shoulder and GET REAL!!!!!! The truth always outs in the end…..
Hmmm. Kevin, you post is surprisingly similar in style and histrionic language to Patchy’s.
As its so similar, the last post I made is still relevant to you. Focus on scientific facts and data. “PC” is noting to do with it. If you can’t understand the figures, ask.
You are using the same stupid logic that many ignorant people use. For example. People relating homosexuality to sexual abuse simply because they percieve the majority of the sexual abuse to be male to male. Or people relating dark skin to criminal activity, simply because they perceive the majority of people in prisons have dark skin. Totally ignorant, and a bigoted way of thinking.
Fact: The Tories have NOT changed. As I’ve mentioned trillions of times before. The Tories have NOT changed, Simply because their core values still attract the homophobic, the bigoted and the ignorant alike. They mean votes for them.
@ Will – from this page:
“Of the 7,734 new cases of HIV [in the UK] in 2007, more than half (55%) got infected through heterosexual sex, and 41% through sex between men.”
“”Around 80% of all diagnoses of HIV [in the UK] are among gay men and people from black African communities,” says Paul Ward, deputy chief executive at the Terrence Higgins Trust.”"
Are you seriously suggesting that something that seems to be mainly restricted to heterosexuals in the UK who are black Africans will eventually “given the current trend continues” create a situation where “a straight person will have a higher risk of HIV infections from an unsafe encounter than gay man will”.
So, just to be clear, for that to be the case, what percentage of the heterosexual population of the UK would have to be HIV+? Presumably it would be 10% of straights in major cities? Because that is the percentage of visible gay men who are positive in places like Manchester and Brighton.
The crocodile reference is relevant because you were taking a risk situation that exists in parts of Africa and applying it to the UK. So I just did the same. You are doing that so you can say that HIV is mainly a heterosexual issue and play down the risks that gay men face here in the UK.
You should consider how many gay men may read the odd sentence here and there and because of what you write come to the conclusion that the risk to them is small. Some may end up positive because of your eagerness to ensure that gay men are not stigmatised as you seem to see it.
@ Bobbet – the fact that in 2007 41% of HIV diagnoses were due to sex between men, when we make up just 3.25% of the population, speaks for itself. I’m sorry that you seek to minimise that fact for politically-correct purposes and seem to see bigotry where there is none. You should think about the consequences of giving a false impression of the risk gay men in the UK face.
“The crocodile reference is relevant because you were taking a risk situation that exists in parts of Africa and applying it to the UK.”
Crocodiles do not get on planes and travel. Your references is ridiculous and irrelevant. The rest, I have already answered, but you seem not able to understand the figures. You seem also to have your own agenda here, and I am wasting my time arguing with someone who actually wants the figures to be against the gay population.
I suggest you look up trends, prevalence, and statistical analysis. It may help you, as I can’t obviously.
To paraphrase Patchy: “The trouble with Gay loons is that they are provably in denial of everything and anything that does not show homosexuality in a more than perfect light.”
Gay men are considerably more susceptible to HIV infection than straights. FACT. I don’t deny that the combination of the increase of straight’s promiscuity, and the increase in the practice of heterosexual anal sex have increased numbers has pushed up the statistic, but I am sick to fvcking DEATH of people saying “They do it, so why why can’t we?” using this utterly CRAP straw man argument. I don’t give a toss about the straights, but just because the str8 proportion has increased DOES NOT MEAN THE RISK TO GAY MEN HAS DECREASED!
I just wish these sad little PC twats would get it into their thick little brainwashed skulls that this fvcker WILL KILL YOU!
It doesn’t care who you are, what sex, age, gender, cross-gender or political persuasion you happen to be.
To paraphrase again: “Wake up, or it will be time to die”.
Let’s NOT FORGET the fact that we’re talking about another Tory politician speaking out of his arse, who associates “male homosexual activity” (whatever he means by that??) to high risk. Following the same reasoning, he could as well have mentioned a “seriously increased risk of HIV infection arising from afro-caribbean sexual activity”, so people who listen to him will try to avoid them like the plague. It’s just totally ignorant and stupid, and bigoted to say the least. Anal intercourse without a condom, barebacking, whatever name you want to give, IS one of the activities in the high risk list. Put on a condom and the risk falls sharply. I’m not even a “doctor”, and I know that.
@ Will – I’ve given various stats and a link to the NHS and you keep saying I’m wrong but you never produce any evidence to show why. It is just you ‘telling me’ over and over that I’m wrong.
Everyone can see that you haven’t addressed the issue of so many heterosexual cases being among the black African community in the UK and I think that lays bare your agenda, which is to avoid ‘demonising’ certain minorities. That’s admirable. But when you do that, the danger is you fail to get the message out to those who are most at risk or the message is watered down. In the end the very people you are trying to protect end up becoming HIV+ due to your political correctness.
Sometimes it feels as if people sit down and their starting point is: ‘we don’t like the fact that gay men are associated with HIV, so what stats can we take and airbrush to show it isn’t true?’.
Like Dorothy clicking her ruby slippers they think that if they say it isn’t true often enough it will be so. This is very New Labour which, over the past 13 years has worked on the basis that if you repeat a lie often enough (weapons of mass destruction for instance) the population will accept and believe it.
Adolf Hitler said: ‘make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it’ and Lenin said ‘a lie told often enough becomes truth.’ So you can see the kind of people who have used this technique going back in history.
The Hitler comments just shows your mentality. You have the data. You’re just not scientifically trained enough (or at all) to understand the vectors. I’ve tried to show your the facts truthfully, and scientifically, but you seem clouded by your own anti-gay agenda. You’re own demons are none of my concern, as a scientist, I deal in truth & figures only.
Get an education, drop the stupid analogous crocodiles and “Hitler” insults, and they we can get to some common ground. Until then, sorry.
Most people acknowledge that the Nazis were masters at using propaganda for their evil purposes. So quoting them is perfectly relevant. Anyone who thinks that today’s politicians, PR people, marketeers and activists learned nothing from that period is naive!
What we are talking about here is propaganda: leaving out certain facts to create an impression that fits an agenda. Your agenda is that whatever it takes certain minorities should not be ‘demonised’ when it comes to HIV. Your way of achieving that seems to be not to acknowledge some of them at all – in case of heterosexual black Africans. And in the case of gay men the aim is to downplay the very real risks they face so that we can do away with the perception that HIV is something to do with gay men. But as I said before, this is hurting real people.
And people on Pink News need to stop labelling anyone who disagrees with them a homophobe. It’s becoming stupid when even openly gay men are labelled ‘anti-gay’ because they challenge someone. You have tried to smear me as a religious nut, ‘anti-gay’ and finally you say I am too stupid to understand ‘the vectors’. However I don’t think you have posted a single link to support anything you have written.
The whole LGBT community faces ‘demons’ – they are the devious people who manipulate facts and figures to fit their agenda. I’m hoping some of this will come to an end along with the New Labour era.
“So quoting them is perfectly relevant.”
No, you’re just histrionic. Godwin’s law at work again. Well done, you’re triumph of discussion and rational.
@ Will – surely the person who is getting all ratty, hurling insults and who imagines that anyone who disagrees is ‘anti-gay’ is the ‘histrionic’ person? And that is you.
You claim to have a better scientific knowledge than the rest of us but you expect everyone to take what you say at face value without any links to hard evidence. While you completely fail to respond to the facts from the NHS and Terence Higgins Trust that I have quoted. Are they also ‘old fools’ who don’t have your great scientific brain?
You claim to be so much better educated than the rest of us but you don’t seem to know the difference between ‘your’ and the contraction ‘you’re’?
Keep posting while you’re still young enough to know everything!
“Keep posting while you’re still young enough to know everything!”
Yawn. Tiresome response there, it really is.
Look. I gave you the statistics, I gave you the source of them too. Either conclude something logical, or I’m not interested. Your puerile insults are somehow at serious odds with your claim to be “wise and old”, and worse again, they’re not even clever or funny. Bitch old queens are ten a penny, after all. I’m not interested in what you think is a “debate” when you do not have the intelligence or manners to check the sources given, and if you want to trade play school insults, go find someone else to do so, I find you an in insipid bore.
@Will – You claim to have a better scientific knowledge than the rest of us but you expect everyone to take what you say at face value without any links to hard evidence.
Hey g7uk, don’t get into a sweat about this rather sad non-entity. Will is notorious for this kinda thing, shouting and screaming everyone down who disagrees with his narrow world view while he perches on a mantle of so-called scientific respectability. I automatically tune out whenever I see a comment posted by him. He is a loud, odious shrill of the worst kind. He and others like him are characteized by their inherent weakness and powerlessness – individuals who get their kicks lurking anonymously on keyboards specifically to try to bring others down to their level. Pathetic.
Oh yeah, smears, insults and bullying are classic symptoms of the pathological, insecure shrill. It is a proven fact in psychiatry.
“Oh yeah, smears, insults and bullying are classic symptoms of the pathological, insecure shrill. It is a proven fact in psychiatry.”
LOL! Brilliant. Well, then “patchy”, if comment #59 is anything to go by, you must be the most pathological and insecure here. Either that, or you’re not fully au fait with the word ‘hypocrite’.
@ Will – I don’t recall you giving any sources. I never claimed to be wise or old (in fact how does one ‘claim’ to be old?). I’m not a bitch or a queen. I won’t resort to personal abuse, as you do. Nor am I anonymous unlike you. I’m happy to be visible and stand by what I write.
Despite your numerous postings we’re still waiting for any response on those NHS and Terrence Higgins Trust stats, Will. The ones that seem to blow your arguments out of the water…
Will actually proves his intolerance of others’ beliefs by admitting he is a scientist – the most close-minded sector of humanity on this planet today. And easily the most corruptable if the result climate-gate scandal is anything to go by. So long as there is an incentive or agenda to push or an their gridlocked minds cannot be swayed, however compelling and forceful the evidence is. It is denialism of truth at its most dangerous and frightening. Now, I have a life far more exciting than being subjected to hysterical, ranting shrills like Will, so I’m outta here to enjoy the weather!
Well GS, my anonymity is irrelevant. Hardly an argument of substance that. Lets start again, shall we?
All I am saying, form the data available, the majority of people diagnosed with HIV in the UK and globally had been infected through heterosexual sex, and this is on the increase year on year. This does not mean gay men are not at risk. I never said that. What I said is that gay men are not the biggest TREND risk.
Infection rates of men who have sex with man are actually falling, globally and in the UK, while the opposite is now true for who acquire HIV through heterosexual sex.
Why this information, which is simply fact, is so offensive to you, is truly beyond me. You are inferring from this something else, and defending your position through puerile insults.
I have nothing to gain personally or otherwise from lying about HIV, I am simply analysing the data. I am a scientist, and I see facts as a scientist. If people find that offensive, then that’s not really my problem.
I have had enough of this. If insults are all you can trade, and gaining the support of a mentally disturbed bigot and racist like Rob-N is well known to be, then I’m not really interested in any continuation. By all means do so yourself.
“Will actually proves his intolerance of others’ beliefs by admitting he is a scientist – the most close-minded sector of humanity on this planet today.”
Well, this just proves there’s something deeply wrong with you, Patchy, if you believe this, doesn’t it? The rest of your posting was bumbling lunacy, so I ignored it, hope that’s okay. Best run along and pray, that’ll help cure HIV.
“@ Will – I don’t recall you giving any sources”
Let me jog your memory, with this cut from one of my own comments:-
The reality is, in the UK: “The number of heterosexually acquired HIV infections diagnosed in the UK has risen hugely over the last 15 years. In 1999, for the first time, the rate of heterosexually acquired HIV diagnoses overtook the rate of diagnoses in men who have sex with men. The peak was 4,921 in 2004, since when there has been a moderate decline. A total of 45,947 cases had been reported by the end of June 2009.” [Health Protection Agency: HIV in the United Kingdom: 2009 Report, November 2009]
This might surprise some but Will’s statistics are indeed correct with one thing missing. Whilst in most other countries HIV diagnoses were shown to be in deline the UK sadly was the only country over the last few years that showed an increase. Most of those diagnosed were indeed heterosexual.
@ Will – and to quote the info from the Terrence Higgins Trust report that Jonny mentions in another comment:
“The majority of people actually diagnosed with HIV in the UK in 2008 (58 %) had been infected through heterosexual sex, Two thirds of those infected heterosexually were black African and the vast majority (87%) of these people had probably acquired HIV overseas. However, the numbers of heterosexual HIV infections that were probably acquired here in the UK have been rising steadily in recent years. Over a quarter of heterosexual HIV infections that were diagnosed in 2008 were probably acquired in the UK.”
Got that Will? In 2008 two-thirds of heterosexuals diagnosed in the UK were black Africans and 87% of those had probably contracted HIV abroad.
So please stop trying to give the impression that ALL heterosexuals in the UK are at more risk than gay men.
When it comes to being at risk, HIV is an enormous threat to gay and bi men, to heterosexual black Africans and to those who have sex with heterosexual black Africans. To all other heterosexuals in the UK currently it is a much smaller threat.
Please stop cherry-picking the stats to suit your politically correct agenda. By playing down the very great risk that straight black Africans, people who have sex with straight black Africans and gay/bi men face you are increasing the likelihood that people in those groups will be unaware of the true risks and will become HIV+ through ignorance.
What you are doing is wicked and all because you have decided that gay men shouldn’t be ‘demonised’. And it’s obvious you think black Africans shouldn’t be demonised as you see it either.
Personally I would rather be slightly demonised that end up with a serious lifelong illness because I was misled about and ignorant of the actual risks.
@ Squidgy – the THT stats that I have quoted above show some reasons why there may have been an increase in diagnoses of HIV in the UK in recent years among heterosexuals. Although it doesn’t spell this out, doesn’t it seem that that a large number of black Africans who had become positive abroad came to the UK and were diagnosed HIV+ here?
No one is denying that most cases were among heterosexuals. But you are another one who leaves out half the information and thus ends up giving a totally misleading impression of both what is going on and of the risks.
I think the biggest problem isn’t so much about dividing up sections of the community who are or are not at most risk, therefore we shouldn’t demonise others. This disease has wrongly being dubbed the ‘gay disease’ clearly in the hidden face that it is spreading through the heterosexual community (black, white or otherwise..). I think there maybe in truth that most gay people are doing their best to protect ourselves whilst the heterosexual community choose to ignore the information and choose to accept that it just effects gay people. That is of course til its too late. Of course the bigotry doesn’t end there. It’s one thing for a gay man (for example) to handle their diagnoses. It’s quite another for a straight man to without the fear of being branded a ‘gay’ on top of what I know what I went through.
Truth is statistics doesn’t cure and certainly doesn’t tell people to looking after themselves. Sadly they don’t seem to scare either.
Your point is indeed a valid one g7uk. I think there maybe a proportion of that happening but I think we have to be careful of making excuses for the rises that take away from the fact we have a sex-made straight scene that not only won’t listen but clearly has no interest in knowing the facts. That’s is why the statistics are rising.
that should have read sex-mad not sex-made.. although…mmm
@ Squidgy – I disagree. This kind of tunnel vision has become endemic during the New Labour era. People only see the positive side of not mentioning this or that. But there is nearly always a negative to it as well. I think it is absolutely right to say loudly and clearly which sections of the community are most at risk. Otherwise the safer sex message gets watered down for those groups and that puts people at risk. Protecting those people over-rides any concerns of demonising them.
Gay men are at a phenomenally higher risk of becoming HIV+ than the average heterosexual. Gay men are just 3.25% of the population but sex between men was responsible for 41% of the new diagnoses in 2008. Heterosexual men and women are 93.5% of the population and yet were only 58% of diagnoses (I don’t know where bisexuals fit in).
And that’s leaving aside the fact that in 2008 two-thirds of heterosexuals diagnosed in the UK were black Africans and 87% of those had probably contracted HIV abroad. Once we factor in that it seems that the risk to the average heterosexual from heterosexual sex must be very low indeed?
As I said previously, the risk is that some gay men will read these misleading headlines and posts about heterosexuals and will take away the idea that straight people are more at risk. They will go out with straight friends, see that they aren’t using condoms for sex, that none of them are HIV+ and will then meet other gay men and do the same thing. When, in some UK cities, 10% of the men they meet on the scene will actually be HIV+.
@ Squidgy – obviously everyone should be encouraged to use a condom because it doesn’t just protect against HIV.
People only see the positive… what planet you on. I live with it.
g7uk isn’t it shouting about what sections of society what is part to blame for attitudes about HIV today? It’s due to that that HIV/AIDS has been called a ‘gay disease’. It’s down to that that the heterosexual community ignore the risks because it has been targeted down to a certain section of society. It seems to lessen the impact that this is a disease that affect Everyone.
We have to stop this, ‘oh it only really affects some society’ because that message is a dangerous one. If one straight person or one gay person is diagnosed it is one too many. All should be educated equally not with barriers. The safer sex message should be for all.
I see what your saying but I have to agree with Sam and do feel it is risky to section society to blame. I have to question what’s positive about this. there’s nothing I can see. I think we have to give the same message to all not divide society. Isn’t it that to blame for the problems and for the rise in numbers.
If we keep saying one part of society is more prone than another then the message becomes weaker. That then encourages the wrong message and attitudes.
I think we all need to think about the effects. It is in everyones interest to protect themselves.
“So please stop trying to give the impression that ALL heterosexuals in the UK are at more risk than gay men.”
You assume that black heterosexuals will not have sexual encounters with white heterosexuals? I’m sure we can keep them segregated in pens if you think that’ll help keep white heterosexuals less a risk.
@ Sam – you’ve missed the point of what I was saying. My point was that people think that manipulating facts so that gay men aren’t ‘demonised’ is a positive thing. They ignore the fact that there is also a negative side to doing that: the more they downplay the risk to gay men the less effective the safer sex message becomes for that group.
The uncomfortable truth is that the heterosexual community ignores the risks because, apart from within the black African community, HIV is nowhere near as much of a risk to heterosexuals as it is to gay men.
In 2007 there were 7,734 new cases of HIV. 55% (4,254) contracted it through heterosexual sex and 41% (3,171) through sex between men. If you take the government figure for gay men in the UK of 3.25m that means about one out of every 1,000 gay men was diagnosed HIV+ in 2007.
There are 53.5m people in the UK who are not gay and lesbian. If we assume they are heterosexuals (a bit of a liberty I know) then one out of every 12,576 of them was diagnosed HIV+ in 2007.
So there alone you can see than gay men are 12.5x more at risk of being diagnosed HIV+ than the average straight man or woman. But on top of that there is the fact that in 2008 two-thirds of heterosexuals diagnosed in the UK were black Africans.
So let’s take that figure and put it together with the number for heterosexual diagnoses in 2007. That would mean that out of the 4,254 who were diagnosed HIV+ due to heterosexual sex, 2,836 were black Africans and 1,418 weren’t.
In 2007 the black African population of the UK was estimated at 730,600 people. That means out of the other 52.77m heterosexuals in the country 1,418 were diagnosed HIV+ in 2007. That is one out of every 37,215 heterosexuals in the UK who is not a black African.
So in the UK a gay man is 37x more likely to be diagnosed as HIV+ as a heterosexual man or woman who is not a black African.
Of course these are rough figures. There is the issue of bi-men. But it gives an impression of the situation. If my maths is wrong let me know.
Sam I agree that every person diagnosed is one too many. But to make out that it effects everyone equally at the moment and that everyone is at equal risk just isn’t true. And trying to dress this up as some kind of homophobia issue is totally misleading. HIV is something that affects a huge percentage of gay men and black Africans in the UK and by admitting that fact we can make sure that money for safer sex education goes where it will be most effective.
@ Will – don’t be pathetic. I mentioned people who have sex with a black African partner. Isn’t it better that health education is targeted as black Africans and that people who have a partner who is one are informed and for that reason are extra careful to use a condom? Rather than have it all kept quiet by sinister people like you for your own politically correct reasons, with the result that more people end up HIV+ due to ignorance?
“Rather than have it all kept quiet by sinister people like you for your own politically correct reasons, with the result that more people end up HIV+ due to ignorance?”
And we’re back again to the stupid insults and things I am not saying. Look, you’re beyond rational and civilised conversation. It no wonder the message about HIV is lost ion a new generations with histrionic and tunnel-visioned “I’m right only” muppets who react like a drunk drag queen everytime they are challenged. A trait I do not hold at high esteem.
Think what you will, it’s of little relevance to me. My first instinct was right, this is pointless:- when someone use the term “political correct” as a counter argument, invariable they don’t have one of their own.