Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

London HIV charity Naz Project faces closure

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. The ConDem government always taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich. Gay peeps who voted for them have blood on their hands.

  2. Jock S. Trap 7 Oct 2010, 8:21am

    What a short memory. The recession was caused by the Labour Party not the current coalition. If you want to blame anyone blame the reckless Labour Party who let the banks behaviour so irresponsibly.

  3. de Villiers 7 Oct 2010, 9:00am

    > Gay peeps who voted for them have blood on their hands.

    Omission is not the same as action. Presumably, on this logic, all of us who fail to donate organs when we die have blood on our hands. Everyone who fails to give money to international aid in Rwanda has blood on their hands. Everyone who fails to give money to the NSPCC has blood on their hands.

    The complaint is the government taking from the poor to give to the rich – although I am not sure how taking money from this charity equates to giving it to “the rich” – whatever that term means. If spending can be financed only by borrowing, then the government will be taking money from the next generation to give to the current generation.

    There is nothing moral about spending more than you have – or mortgaging the future of the next generation to pay for the present. There is nothing moral about spending more than you have to create, as we now see, many organisations dependent upon public funding that never had any sound base other than borrowing.

    The UK now owes more than £900 billion in debt. By April 2011, that will have increased to £1.2 trillion or £1,216,000,000,000. That amounts to yearly interest of £43 billion or £43,000,000,000.

  4. Old codger 7 Oct 2010, 9:55am

    Deregulation of the banks was a Conservative policy from the 1990s. The Labour party foolishly went along with it. If the recession was the fault of the Labour party, then I suppose they must be responsible for the recession in the USA, Spain, Greece, Hungary, Germany ……

  5. Wrong Jock.S.trap. Under thatcher our deficit was even larger than it is now. The murdoch owned media empire keeps parroting the lie that “labour got us into this mess” keep parroting enough crap and eventually people will believe that it’s true. Did labour get greece into it’s mess? Ireland? the USA? It’s thanks to tory de-regulation on banks and corporations that caused them to gamble with our future and society so recklessly. I’m not saying nu – labour were good – they led us into a war which was completely unnecessary furthering the debt. But the majority of the trouble we are in is because of billionaire bankers. Who in my opinion are far more parasitic than the welfare state could ever be. The funny thing is all these cuts would be far less if we scrapped trident our nuclear weapons programme and pulled out of the war.. but the military industrial complex is what get’s the billionaires even richer. I am disgusted in what the ConDems are doing and where it is taking us. It will be like living under thatcher all over again.

  6. LOL @ oldcodger for us posting exactly the same things within seconds of each other

  7. Jock S. Trap 7 Oct 2010, 10:33am

    Wrong comment 1.
    Actually this is the biggest deficit left by Labour in living memory.

    Wrong comment 2.
    For all those who lived through the Labour government in the 70’s and the winter of discontent we didn’t need to be told by anyone that yet again Labour had left the country in a right mess.

    Wrong comment 3.
    Actually the Tories left regulations in place so that banks could not take the risks and act irresponsibly. This was one of the first things to be removed by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in 1997 in the believe it would help end boom and bust.

    I wouldn’t say I belong to any party but vote for the best offered at the time but please Labour lovies, don’t have such short and narrow vision as to know what/who put us in this mess and why it is such sad news when groups like this story thread is about, are suffering.

    Labour allowed the greed. Now someone has to clean it up!

  8. de Villiers 7 Oct 2010, 11:47am

    Part of the difficulty was the tri-partite system of regulation in introduced after 1997 which removed oversight from the Bank of England and left no single person in overall supervisory control.

  9. Think it would be useful to know what activities the Naz project has undertaken thus far to tackle its funding shortfall, but alas I cannot find information anywhere. It seems to me that financial prudence will have seen this “hole” comming and it could have downsized its cost base to contribute to resolving there financial issues. £75,000 is alot of money to find at short notice and I hope they manage to find it. However for me, given the scale of the funding they need, the fundamental problem exists of how and what is being done to ensure financial security moving forward. I am not seeing it and I wonder if money given will deliver any real frontline value.
    I wish them well with there fund raising.

  10. The ConDem is set to engineer the biggest transfer of capital from the hands of the poor into the hands of the rich.

  11. Maybe Naz can explain why/how HIV prevention and treatment is different for ethnic minorities so that we can judge if it deserves donation?

  12. de Villiers 7 Oct 2010, 1:31pm

    > The ConDem is set to engineer the biggest transfer of capital from the hands of the poor into the hands of the rich.

    What capital in particular is to be taken from the poor?

  13. @Mark

    The Naz project as far as I’m aware isn’t just a hiv charity – it’s advice for young gay men and women from ethnic minorities. who face alot of different and tougher struggles than white folk do.. I.e being ostracised from their nutcase religious fundamentalist communities and families or even worse. Offering councelling resources and people who can relate to or understand what they are going through. It’s a very necessery and needed charity imho.

    @ de Villiers
    Um all the public services i.e schools, hospitals, childcare, housing benefit and everything else the super rich don’t avoid.

    It seems gay people are very polarised on our new government and it’s idealogical downright nasty schemes. There are gay people who believe in fairness and equality for all.. and those queens who firmly believe “it’s all about me” where kylie and shopping at waitrose are about as strong as their convictions will take them. self self self. they will always vote tory.

  14. Sorry that should read “anything else the super-rich don’t use”

  15. Given that the vast majourity of funding receved by NAZ was statuotary and non statory, I ask what has happened to this resouce. What is the £75,000 to be used for? Could internatl costs be cut to help address the issues raised. More details published by the charities commission shows http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/SHOWCHARITY/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1014056&SubsidiaryNumber=0

  16. de Villiers 7 Oct 2010, 2:00pm

    > It seems gay people are very polarised on our new government and it’s idealogical downright nasty schemes. There are gay people who believe in fairness and equality for all.. and those queens who firmly believe “it’s all about me” where kylie and shopping at waitrose are about as strong as their convictions will take them. self self self. they will always vote tory.

    You are just another person with a vision of the (self) anointed. Those who disagree with you are EVIL EVIL EVIL.

  17. @nuriboy
    Thanks for the info. While its services may be useful and necessary, Naz does sound like a variant of other sexual health charities. Is there a smarter way of providing the same things e.g. merging with other charities to create the economy of scale, and also to improve its fund raising ability?

  18. No. Good and evil are vague – rarely see things in black and white. But those who think the suffering of the poorest in society these severe thatcherite cuts will cause are fair when they could be avoided are GREEDY GREEDY GREEDY.

  19. @Mark
    I agree it should probably see if it can somehow merge into one of the larger charities and become of chapter of it. Not sure how easy it is for them to do that though.

  20. @nuriboy
    I tried to avoid the emotional side of this discussion, but “fairness” is not everyone having the same thing – that’s communism which has failed in every single country that tried it. Fairness is rewarding hard work and ingenuity, while protecting those who cannot protect themselves. Times are tough. The BoE’s inflation targeting regime since its independence means that we have been flooding the market with money we didn’t have. It caused the stock market bubbles, bond bubbles, housing bubbles and so on. Of course the problem was not unique to the UK but the government did it fair share to exacerbate the problem. Ultimately all bubbles burst. We can go back in history and discuss the wisdom of BoE independence or inflation targeting as an interest rate setting mechanism, but the reality now is there is no money left. Ask the IMF, ask even Liam Byrne. So the question now is – what services are not necessary (e.g non-jobs like diveristy coordinators/climate change advisors or meditation rooms in the home office, multiple overlapping development agencies), what services are essential, what can be done to do them cheaper.

  21. de Villiers 7 Oct 2010, 2:32pm

    > These are not Thatcherite cuts. Thatcher never cut public spending. Public spending under Thatcher increased every year.

    There is now a decrease in public spending because the borrowed money has run out. As already said, the UK now owes more than £900 billion in debt. By April 2011, that will have increased to £1.2 trillion or £1,216,000,000,000. That amounts to yearly interest of £43 billion or £43,000,000,000.

  22. de Villiers 7 Oct 2010, 3:39pm

    > But those who think the suffering of the poorest in society these severe thatcherite cuts will cause are fair when they could be avoided are GREEDY GREEDY GREEDY.

    These are not Thatcherite cuts. Thatcher never cut public spending. Public spending under Thatcher increased every year.

    There is now a decrease in public spending because the borrowed money has run out. As already said, the UK now owes more than £900 billion in debt. By April 2011, that will have increased to £1.2 trillion or £1,216,000,000,000. That amounts to yearly interest of £43 billion or £43,000,000,000.

  23. Sorry why is there a need for NAZ? Is this just not a duplication of HIV service ext provided by the likes of THT. THT is made up of all kinds of people thin fat black white men women.

  24. A question for all you LGBTTsss questioning NAZ existence:
    Why is it necessary then to have any LGBTTsss services at all?
    The ConDem discourse only wants to create confusion, division amongst the poor. Yes, the LGBTT currency is also poor. I’m not talking about the pound sterling. The LGBTT currency is poor and will become poorer. You Tory voters are responsible for it.
    You have blood on your hands.

  25. de Villiers 8 Oct 2010, 8:41am

    Up the revolution, Bebert.

  26. The agency also estimates there about 56,000 new cases of HIV each year. the free community site=== positivechats.com strictly for poz singles and friends. We founded the site after an immediate family member, who is HIV positive, explained to us how difficult it was to find love and friendship because of the stigmas attached to her condition.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all