Reader comments · Gay blood donation ban to be lifted for men who haven’t had sex for 10 years · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Gay blood donation ban to be lifted for men who haven’t had sex for 10 years

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. So actually it doesn’t end the discrimination at all unless they make all everyone who donates blood abstain for 10 years.

    1. In fact, it’s even worse as they now want to intrude into the details of your sex life. This is a ridiculous ban.

      1. ” they now want to intrude into the details of your sex life”

        Well, if the ban was lifted entirely, they would still need to ask you for the details of your sex life to establish whether or not your sexual practices placed you at risk of HIV.

        1. Fair enough point Andrew.

          This whole thing does annoy me though. The ten year thing seems so arbitrary and I find the results of the research illogical. There is only a 3 month gap between infection and being able to detect infection. Why not just say have you had sex with a man in the last 6 months?

          1. No idea where the arbitary figure of ten years came from – would be interested to know …

            I think 6 months is understandable in one respect … although – surely it should be more to do with risk ie no recent HIV negative test and unprotected sex since?

      2. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 3:01pm

        They already have to ask those types of questions, it’s a matter of checking for health and risk factor so actually nothing changes. As Andrew says it’s about sex life placing you at risk of HIV.

        1. Nothing changes. That’s just another Tory bluff Jock. Some of us have been reminding you of that all along.

          1. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 7:43am

            Where in that line have I spoke anout politics?

            You’ve become obsessive about your hatred for the Tories I think Beberts.

            I just said that asking those kinds of question has always been part of precedure so nothing would change. They have to ask those question. At no time have I mention anything about politics or the Tories in that comment.

          2. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 7:44am

            correction meant spoke about politics.

          3. de Villiers 11 Apr 2011, 1:58pm

            Beberts. You are so unreasonable that it amounts almost to dishonesty.

            The Labour government in the entire time it what in office made no attempt to relax this restriction. The Conservative government is to reduce it purely on scientific advice. It is unlikely it would have done so without such advice.

            This decision is purely driven by government advisors regardless of whether the government is on the Left or the Right.

          4. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 2:24pm

            Exactly de Villiers

            If anything I’m hoping this countries follows other that this 10 years is a starting point and it will be reduced.

          5. @De Villiers

            Largely I agree this this is a fairly apolitical issue and being brought about by health advisors to the government

            I do think that bringing this option forward before the consultation on this issue is due to conclude is political however

        2. And this is not a Tory change of heart. This is being forced via the courts. The outright ban has been lifted only because of anti discrimination laws, but to circumvent that, the Tories include a “10 years” clause, just so in practice the ban stays in place.

        3. In addition, the Tories are vigorously campaigning and articulating to scrap most, if not all of the equality laws.

        4. @Beberts

          To be totally honest … this has nothing to do with politics – so your attempts at point scoring sound entirely that, point scoring …

          As you rightly say, this has been forced by the courts and the policy has been developed by health advisors (who are being aggressively cautious it appears)

          I do think the politicians could have reviewed the law better … thats where we come in as people who can campaign for better policy

          1. tail chasing, circles…

          2. Toby, catch your tail:

          3. Youtube: /watch?v=–jQ3re_pVE

          4. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 7:46am

            Beberts… erm seriously?

          5. de Villiers 11 Apr 2011, 2:01pm

            Beberts, I have just said above, your arguments are so unreasonable as to verge on being dishonest and disreputable.

            I may be on the Right but I have criticised both the English and the French Right. I also arrive at my views by consideration rather than knee-jerk opposition and definition to what I am against.

          6. Villiers. the problem is what you seem to be supporting, the Tories are creating more social problems than solving. Remember this when those problems reach your hood.

          7. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 4:05pm

            I’m sure if they were “creating more social problems than solving” we would all feel it in our ‘hood’ the same as you ‘seem’ to be.

          8. de Villiers 11 Apr 2011, 9:23pm

            Beberts, there is never any reflection with you. It is always attack. Even when you are wrong, you choose to maintain the offensive.

          9. Jock S. Trap 12 Apr 2011, 8:46am

            Be fair de Villiers, I think thats all he knows.

      3. Then simply do not donate.

        End of story.

        Being denied to donate blood because you had gay sex is not discriminatory.

        1. It is discriminatory when you consider the restrictions of when a heterosexual person last had sex (protected or not, with a one night stand or not etc) is similar. If they made it longer than the 3month window for testing then I would see it as reasonable (particularly if it was regarding anyone engaging in risky practices – unprotected sex, IV drug use, transfusions in certain countries etc). When the restriction relates (sexually) purely to those men who have sex with men or those who have sex with sex workers then I begin to recognise discrimination …

          1. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 11:21am

            It is already know that most straight young men refused to be tested for anything STD wise unless they show symptons. Yet they themselves can go along quite happily and give blood.

            So in effect we have:-

            Gay men, completely safer, no risks – Blood Not wanted

            Gay men, free from disease and checked regularly – Blood Not wanted

            Straight men after 3 weekends having as many partners as possible, no condom (they tend to think thats the womans job) – Blood Wanted.

            This is pure discrimination.

          2. You actually think that gay men behave and think the same way as straight men?

            What planet are you in?

            Gay men are more promiscuous than straight men, that is a known fact. We gay men have sex for the superficial pleasure of it, while for the most part, straight men do it for procreation (even after partying for a while most straight men will settle down with a wife and kids, we gay man DO NOT have that expectation).

          3. The increase in promiscuity in heterosexual circles is vast

          4. “The increase in promiscuity in heterosexual circles is vast”

            Okay. Stu says that the there is “vast heterosexual circles” that are promiscuous. Which circles he is talking about I’m not sure.

            But Stu says so, so it MUST be true.

          5. “You actually think that gay men behave and think the same way as straight men?”
            If you asked me that question I would say yes. Other than the obvious of who we are attracted to, yes I feel I would think the same if I was straight. I also have the same attitude towards sex as my straight friend as well as hope to have kids some day (via adoption or whatever).

            Its thinking like this I hope will change and the reason why quite a few have a problem with the ban. Though it is true that statistically gay men are more promiscuous

          6. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 2:30pm


            You are clearly shielded from the real world here because Stu is right. If you actually went out to do research you’d see most town centres and city centres have club of which a Large majority at straight venues are “on the pull”.

            I would also recommend a visit to any GU clinic. You might be very surprised at not only who but the amount of people that are queueing all the way out of the clinic waiting rooms.

            You also need to look at the amount of unwanted teenage pregnancies and abortions that happen.

            Seriously it doesn’t take too long to work out the problem may be there but it’s hardly restricted to one community. It’s basically naive to think it is.

        2. @Pepa

          Debating with you is like debating with a child “If Stu says then it must be true …”. If you want evidence – ask me what I am basing my contention on, rather than resort to immature ridicule – it doesnt become you.

          In terms of evidence of increased promiscuity in heterosexuals – here is a range of evidence supporting this view:


    2. I am a strong supporter of gay rights and gay marriage. I am also a hemophiliac. I do not believe anyone has the right to donate blood. Only recipients have rights, like the right to receive a transfusion with as little risk of infection as possible. Towards that end, I believe policies excluding high-risk groups should be based on (1) medical facts instead of personal feelings and political ideologies, and (2) an understanding that millions of transfusions occur each year, and it only takes one freak accident to ruins someone’s life.

      For example, most women who have had sex with a hemophiliac do not have HIV. Yet people like my wife cannot donate, because if they do, statistically, it will increase the risk of blood transfusions without increasing the blood supply significantly. A few such women who “know” they don’t have HIV do, in fact, have HIV. These are sobering facts. I am glad exclusion policies are in place because it protects ALL blood recipients — gay and straight.

  2. TheSuburban Bi 10 Apr 2011, 10:43am

    And how do they intend to verify that someone has not had sex for 10 years?

    What a joke.

    1. Ha! Good point!!!

    2. More likely they will use this “ban lift” as an excuse to intrude more in your personal life.

      I thought gay people were totally opposed to that. But I guess the gay sheep will do whatever it takes, sell their souls to the devil if need be, just to feel this false sense of “equality.”

      The ban on blood from gay men had a purpose. And now thousands of patients will be at risk of contracting HIV thanks to gay sex liberals and their selfish destructive agenda.

      1. @Pepa

        The ban on blood from gay men had a rigid one size fits all purpose that lacked sophistication and restricted based on prejudiced assumptions. When heterosexuals do not face the same restrictions – effectively being able to donate after sex within hours (whether a regular partner or not) – that is discriminatory. Many gay men do not pose the perceived risk that has been suggested.

        There can be no more intrusion into personal life other than to ask questions … such as have you used IV drugs, slept with a prostitute, had unprotected sex, had a blood transfusion, had certain illnesses recently etc … All questions asked for self declaration in advance of a current blood donation – so no increase in intrusion …

        The current 10 year period is unjustifiable and arbitrary. It is an marginal improvement but there is still a long way to go before gay/bi men are treated with the same respect as heterosexual people.

        1. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 11:33am

          This is a bit like a few friends experience with dentists.

          They are either refused or told to come at the end of the day. The excuse given is usually because of the thorough sterilizing required.

          Erm hello, if your not doin that after ever patience then what the help?! If they’re not doing that I don’t want to go there in the first place!

          We simply have people making scaremonger excuses to prove a pointless point.

          Like dentists, if these medical people aren’t do there jobs properly should they be doing them at all?

          Then I think you’ll find you’ve been blaming the wrong people in the first place.

        2. “The ban on blood from gay men had a rigid one size fits all purpose that lacked sophistication and restricted based on prejudiced assumptions.”

          No, it was based on behavior of gay men that has been observed in many studies.

          “When heterosexuals do not face the same restrictions – ”

          They do. If a “straight” men ever had sex with another man he cannot donate. Ever. Which is a good policy as it limits the risk of infection.

          “that is discriminatory.”

          Again, we are dealing with a HEALTH issue and people’s LIVES are at stake. We must put OUR (and YOUR) prejudices aside and think of the well-being of the patients. How would you feel if a loved one in your family was infected with HIV because of an infected blood transfusion. The ban also helps gay people prevent infection if we every become patients ourselves in need of blood.

          I ask that you life before your politics.

          1. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 12:08pm

            Just found this which is very interesting and may help with your theory pepa


            Note that in both Italy and Spain when the blood donating ban was repealed over the years since the amount of HIV cases from Blood donation Decreased, not increased.

          2. Something interesting I read in that campaign web site you stated:

            Now, people who have had “sexual intercourse with a high risk of transmission of STIs” are permanently excluded,

            In that case the MAJORITY of gay men do not qualify. There is still a ban in effect in Italy.

            And BTW Am I allowed to refuse some of the citations on the site since according to Stu anything in the nineties is “too old” therefor invalid? Or does that rule only apply to me as usual?

          3. @Pepa

            The quote you choose from Jock S Traps reference would relate to some (not all) gay men and some (not all) heterosexuals

            As for age of reports – it is widely accepted that in most areas of academic research that once you get beyond 5 or 6 years there is probably newer research which is more current and accurate. Anything beyond ten years is likely to have been reviewed and have a more contemporaneous viewpoint in the new research.. I accept some older research is valid and provides interesting information but the data may be no longer valid or true

          4. Again,

            Gay men have anal sex (the majority bareback).

            Straight men do not for the most part as they mostly engage in vaginal intercourse.

            Anal intercourse is the most riskiest behavior that leads to infection.

            Gay men can only have anal sex (unless we only chose oral but that WILL NEVER HAPPEN). Therefore gay men are more at risk for STIs than straight men.

          5. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 2:33pm

            So you generalise, yet it still shows that with better screening and a lift on the ban for those giving blood and a non discriminating exclusion on those who are too risky, that figures are more likely to decrease than increase. That has to be better all round.

          6. Given the rate of growth of new infections in heterosexual people is significantly higher than the rate of growth in new infections in homosexuals – I dont see that your argument stands up that people are being treated equally.

            It is a health issue – you are entirely correct. It is also true that many gay men pose no risk for blood donation purposes. I potentially do (I like a regular sex life) and so will not donate at this point in my life. I do recognise that the system lacks sophistication and lacks equality and does it on a knee jerk reaction that does not consider the risk of the person donating. (It assumes because they are gay they are a higher risk – possibly true, possibly not – its that particular person that is relevant – not the stats for the entire gay communities)

          7. @pepa

            “the vast majority bareback” – citation required

            In my work in primary health care – the VAST majority of infections I have come across are heterosexual young people who engage in promiscuous sex.

            Yes, I have dealt with some gay men with STIs but far more heterosexuals professionally

          8. @Pepa

            For me this is apolitical. This is about ensuring both access to safe blood and equality. That means equally stopping blood donations from heterosexual people who pose a risk and accepting blood donations from homosexuals who do not pose a risk

      2. Oh the gay agenda arguement. FAIL!

  3. One thing the article overlooks is that this will benefit bisexual men or straight men who have previously had sex with men in long-term relationships with women. It’s much fairer than the previous blanket ban, though there should continue to be pressure for more evidence-based restrictions (perhaps a 3-month ban for those who are able to show that they have had a recent negative STD screening)

    1. Yes, I am sure that infecting more innocent people with HIV will be much more “fairer.” LOL

      1. In the same way the heterosexual people currently could …

        Why should gay people who are no risk in terms of HIV be stopped from donating???

        1. The fact is that WE GAY PEOPLE should not be held responsible for infecting anybody through blood transfusion. That is a huge burden on our shoulders to carry.

          I am afraid that once MORE people start to get infected that there will be backlash and that will be a huge setback for the community.

          The community is heading towards a very dangerous path of self destructive behavior. Until we address those issues, we should not risk the rest of the public’s health.

          1. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 11:37am

            but you already said that

            ““While donated blood is screened for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, a small number of infected donations are missed due to the time between infection with HIV and it being detected in blood tests.“

            So you’ve already proved that screening works or we’d be hearing about this anyway enough though there was a blood ban.

            Your argument makes no sense.

          2. Please tell me how the screening process is working when we still have people getting infected anyway?

            The whole point is to have NO infections.

            So obviously there is still a flaw.

            I fail to see how I prove any dubious point you want to make. Please explain with a better example. And saying that I “don’t make sense” is a mere projection not a fact.

          3. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 12:14pm


            But in countries that have repealed the ban on Gay people donating blood figures have shown infections decrease, not increase.

          4. @ Jock,

            Yes I saw the bloody site.

            I have commented on it already.

      2. As opposed to all the guilty people who deserved to be infected with HIV I presume? Vile comment. In any case, I’m not sure why you think that a 10-year ban, rather than a lifetime ban, are going to increase the rate of HIV transmission (note that in any case all blood is screened for HIV) unless you think there are huge numbers of people who have had undiagnosed HIV for over 10 years?

        1. Again, only a naive person would ever think that a self-righteous gay sex liberal would actually be honest on a form and say when he had sex.

          There are many comments on this thread that have correctly pointed out there is no way, for now, to make certain that gay men have abstained from sex for 10 years. Hell will freeze over before I would ever meet a gay man who has not had sex in over 10 years. You are really stretching it here.

          And once again, the article clearly says that there is no way to check for HIV infection during the early stages in the blood. So a gay man would have sex last night with a trick who is + then lies to donate blood on friday, blood gets checked on sunday test results show – but he is actually +, blood then is given on tuesday and that patient has been given a death warrant thanks to the gay campaigners and their selfish need to put ideology before other people’s life and health.

          I find this VERY disgusting to the core.

          1. @Pepa

            You may choose not to be honest or others may choose not to be honest – I choose to be honest – and I recognise that other gay men can safely donate blood

          2. surely a straight person could do that aswell so that is unconnected to someones sexuality

      3. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 11:35am

        Your blaming Gay people for that when you should be questioning the medical people and there practises. There is no reason infected blood would get through unless someone in the medical profession wasn’t doing their job right.

        1. Medical people are not infecting gay men with HIV in the first place. WE are infecting EACH OTHER and now we want to place innocent patients at risk as well.

          Where is your shame?

          1. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 12:17pm

            No shame I’m not the one discriminating, denying others the life saving blood donation.

          2. “Medical people are not infecting gay men with HIV in the first place”

            well infections of all kinds in medical industry happen on regular occasions, some of them are bound to be hiv and recipients could happen to be gay

          3. “well infections of all kinds in medical industry happen on regular occasions, some of them are bound to be hiv and recipients could happen to be gay”

            Yes, therefore we should not enhance the risks of these types of infections as they are preventable, but most of you are championing the opposite in the name of so called equality.

          4. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 12:52pm

            If allowing Gay blood donation meant tighter safer restriction against both Straight and Gay donors alike leading to a drop in infection then I would accept that.

            As Stu already stated it would lead to some Gay and some Straight people not being allow to give blood.

            A fairer no discriminating way with the view of saving more lifes with much needed blood stocks.

          5. “but most of you are championing the opposite in the name of so called equality.”

            no such thing i was just responding to your silly point

        2. Jock:
          “There is no reason infected blood would get through unless someone in the medical profession wasn’t doing their job right.”

          With the greatest of respect, you are talking utter bollocks.
          It is quite possible for HIV to slip through the net as it can only be detected once it enters the blood cells. HIV can have a long gestation period, so often it cannot be seen for 2-3 weeks after infection.

          1. Jock S. Trap 12 Apr 2011, 4:22pm

            And yet it has been proved in countries that repeal the outright ban on Gay men and instead introduce a system where equally who can give blood, Gay or Straight and equally those who should be denied, Gay or Straight.

            Since the Repeal in Italy numbers of people infected by HIV by blood donation fell from 24 to 4 and in Spain it fell from 13 to 2.

            That kind of destroys the myth of your scaremongering. Truth is if the blood screening it excellent there is no need to discriminate.1

  4. The assumption that gay men would donate blood knowing they had a transmittable disease whereas heterosexuals would not is discriminatory and insulting and will still fall foul of the Equality Act 2010. Most gay men do not have a sexually-transmitted infection, just as most heterosexual men do not. The government will be hard-pressed to provide evidence to the contrary.

    1. Yes,and it’s all a bit ” love the sinner hate the sin” in that they will only discriminate against practising homosexuals, never mind whether in monogamous relationships.

      1. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 3:02pm

        Yes, Exactly Pavlos.

    2. The assumption that gay men would donate blood knowing they had a transmittable disease whereas heterosexuals would not is discriminatory and insulting

      If that were true and every gay man out there is actually honest and responsible then why are there too many of us getting infected everyday? Most gay men are not honest about their HIV status, I know by experience. And you will be amazed to know that the majority of gay men DO NOT practice safe sex and that only 18% of gay men are exclusively monogamous.

      1. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 10:52am

        18% of those questioned in a poll you found somewhere, from some year, done by? you mean!

        1. Actually that is a very generous average I place, the real numbers are low.

          Some studies show that only 4.5% of gay men are in steady monogamous relationships (The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, “Extramarital Sex,” 170.)

          Also, another survey showed that only 2.7 had only one partner throughout their lifetime (Van de Ven et al., “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile,” 354.)

          The other sad part is that gay activists are encouraging promiscuity as the norm in a relationship including marriage ( Bradley P. Hayton, “To Marry or Not: The Legalization of Marriage and Adoption of Homosexual Couples,” [Newport Beach: The Pacific Policy Institute, 1993]: 9.)

          1. @ Pepa

            You use really up to date reports and statistics, 1984 and 1993! …

            Even if those stats are accurate and still current then why should 4.5% of gay men not be allowed to donate?

            In their 2008 paper Modi, Sarna, Sharma and Martatia suggest whether a relationship is monogamous or not is less to do with orientation and more to do with the commitment of the relationship …

          2. @ Stu

            So following that logic we must REJECT Darwin because his theories were made in the nineteenth century.

            In that case reject Kinsey since his reports were published in the 40’s and 50’s.

            Such naiveness. Before you attack my sources validity because of the year of publication maybe you should actually read it before making assumptions (even though you have accused me of doing the same on other threads).

          3. your logic is just rubbish, how can you put scientific studies on par with statistics, yea great logic

          4. @Pepa

            There is a world of difference between discoveries and statistical comparisons

          5. “your logic is just rubbish, how can you put scientific studies on par with statistics, yea great logic”

            This must be the most whiniest poster on here. Now I know who avoid. At least the others do try and make better points, but to whine is just annoying.

            First the gay sex liberals do not want my citations because they are “too old” now we are told that the date is not issue but the whole evidence is rejected on its face because of twisting of words.

            You gay sex pro-hiv liberals are getting very desperate. Too desperate if you ask me.

          6. “There is a world of difference between discoveries and statistical comparisons”

            Even if we are to assume that Darwin and Kinsey both never used statistics to QUANTIFY their discoveries does that mean that my evidence should be flat out rejected.

            BTW you have not refuted any of the facts I have stated above, you are more concerned with the dates, how it compares to par with other sciences etc.

          7. time affects all sorts of attitudes

          8. @Pepa

            Citations are important – when they are sociological and attitude based then they need to be current (any academic will tell you that).

            Where they discover absolute scientific truth or technological truth (Not opinion, not changes in behaviour, not changes in acceptance or decision making) but verifiable truth – such as theory of evolution then they stand the test of time.

            Opinions do not – we just need to look at the progress of acceptance of abolition of slavery, or political attitudes to realise that is true

            So, if you are going to bring some evidence about for example – medical science – the age of the paper is unlikely to be an issue. If you bring a paper about opinion, attitudes, decision making – then it needs to be current to have validity

          9. @Pepa

            I shall go and find some facts for you, since you continue to have childish strops about this.

            The reason for stating your papers were unlikely to be of value, I have explained ad infinitum on an accepted academic basis – whether you choose to accept that or not is for you, the reality is that these are globally accepted principles for consideration of data regarding attitudes and other things that change.

            Evolution, how the wheel works, what makes it rain etc do not change – so Darwins theory of evolution is almost universally accepted. Attitudes on eg environmental issues in the 1980s are different to todays – in the same way attitudes on sexual behaviour are also different – and I can not accept a 1984 report on attitudes as being evidence of how people behave 27 years later.

          10. @Pepa

            Gretchen Stiers study From This Day Forward looked at gay male couples in Massachusets and found of those in commited relationships 80% of them practiced monogamy. Published 2000.

            The Amsterdam Cohort studies that are often used to suggest that gay men are not monogamous actually excluded monogamous relationships from their study. These are the studies that Van de Ven refer to.

            Some homosexual activists may be encouraging promiscuity. That is not my view – I regard that as a choice

      2. @ Pepa I note from your other comments that you are often simply contrary and perhaps a bit of a troll. I think that you should be aware that HIV is mostly a heterosexual disease and if discrimination against homosexuals in the 1970s and 1980s had not been so rabid funds might have been diverted to finding a cure or vaccine for HIV much sooner. HIV was allowed to kill thousands of gay men and drug addicts sbecause it was our ‘just desserts’. In the 2000s So-called ‘Swine Flu’ kills tens of people, not thousands, and government spends huge amounts combating it.

        I don’t mind if you are a self-hating homosexual. I am a pluralist and am happy for people to be who they are, no matter how sad it may seem to me. But I stand by my statement that it is insulting to treat all homosexuals as sociopaths.

        1. Jock S. Trap 12 Apr 2011, 8:47am

          Excellent comment Pete.

        2. Ahyes, classic argument, if you don’t fully support the “gay community agenda”, you are automatically branded “homophobic” if you are straight, or “self loathing” if you are gay.

          1. Jock S. Trap 12 Apr 2011, 4:26pm

            Erm ““gay community agenda”?? Seriously??

            What is that, the latest magazine your reading? Get over yourself

            As for the last word, surely a word when you have nothing of relevence to say. You kind of lost all credibilty there.

          2. @Spanner

            What I have said here is my personal considered opinion – nothing to do with any “community agenda”

    3. Who says they know? not everyone is aware they have a STD and especially HIV, if I remember correctly, a virus that only produces symptoms when it causes AIDs which is usually years afters the initial infection

      1. Not everyone knows – correct – but they would be aware if they have engaged in risky behaviour and outside of a period since having a negative test – surely that should be the gold standard – has there been risky behaviour

        1. I agree there needs to be a lift on the ban to some extent but it is hard to simple say whether someone has engaged in risky behavious, what some might class as risky, others might not, and there could also be risk in what would seem to be safe behaviour which is why I would like to see more research in this area and so it is the risks involved are known. Also, as for the test, there are false negatives.

          1. @Blondie

            Absolutely there needs to be a clear definition of what is regarded as risky and what is not. In Spain and Italy they have counselling of anyone regardless of orientation prior to donation if the tick yes on certain questions on the pre donation questionnaire.

        2. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 4:17pm

          Actually in most cases, symptons show within 3-4 months, usually flu like which agree can be misleading. The virus can produce many symptons well before it develops into AIDS. Unfortunately because some people ignore the symptons they are often get diagnosed too late which means treatment may not work. This is why I think that whenever any patient visits a hospital or even doctors for some treatment an HIV test shoild be mandatory. It would be the best way of trying ot control infections. Nevertheless most do know early on.

          However it has been a fact that since 1999 HIV diagnoses between heterosexuals have overtaken those figures of homosexuals. Yet no-one ever talks about a ban or more stricter tests.

          1. “However it has been a fact that since 1999 HIV diagnoses between heterosexuals have overtaken those figures of homosexuals. Yet no-one ever talks about a ban or more stricter tests.”

            More bollocks. It is true that they have increased mainly due to the influx of africans, but gay men are still leagues ahead proportionally.

          2. Jock S. Trap 12 Apr 2011, 4:31pm

            Funny thing is you moan about this being a ‘Gay disease’ then moan about the numbers being high and wonder why they don’t drop.

            As long as people like you label, you remain part of the problem regardless of if you have HIV or not. As long as you make excuses for sections of society you give the green light to the others to take the risks in the believe it doesn’t affect them.

            Fact is Straight people are just as risky yet they don’t have limits put on them. Giving blood should be for all those who can equally regardless of sexual orientation and exclude All those who can’t regarless of sexual orientation.

            Until then it is pure discrimination.

          3. @Spanner

            The rise in heterosexual infections in the UK may be influenced by immigrants but if you look at comparable countries with fewer immigrants such as Australia, Canada and Denmark – the rate of increase in heterosexuals in HIV infection is faster than the corresponding rate in homosexuals – which tends to suggest that your argument about heterosexual infection being linked to immirgants is fairly hollow and more to do with your political view on immigrants than facts of HIV infection rates

          4. Jock S. Trap 13 Apr 2011, 9:39am


            I’m afraid people like Spanner don’t want to see it for some worrying reason. They are more happy to allow discrimination of people than accept they are wrong about that and their attitudes that contribute to the HIV numbers.

  5. Do heterosexuals have to prove that they haven’t done the nasty for 10 years? No? I didn’t think so. Farcical new rule, plus ca change and all that!

    1. Kind of. Women are asked if they have had sex with ‘a man who has had sex with another man’ in the last twelve months, amongst other things. Annoyingly, if you’ve ever worked as a prostitute, you are not supposed to donate, but there’s no question regarding, for example, regular unprotected heterosexual sex with multiple partners. Between a woman who worked as a prostitute for a short time many years ago, and a common little slapper, I know who is more likely to have used condoms.

      1. If women who have had sex with and man who has had sex with a man can donate after a year … why should a man who has had sex with a man wait 10 years!!!

        1. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 4:19pm

          Especially when one of the worrying trends shows an increase in women getting HIV.

        2. Probably because she doesn’t take it up the arse. :)

    2. (Typical) heterosexual sex doesn’t spread viruses as easily as the sex of homosexual men. And while this is not always the case, gay men seem to be, on average, more promiscuous.

      I agree there needs to be some lifting of the ban but to make it even for both straight and gay men would put people’s health at risk which goes against the reason for giving blood in the first place

      1. Nonsense. Who is more likely to be free from STD’s; a gay man in a long-term monogamous relationship or a woman who regularly engages in non-barrier method sex with different male partners? The first is barred from donating, the second is not. The wrong questions are being asked to establish risk.

        1. I disagree with the “nonesense” statement about my comment but to answer your question the women of course. But if it was between a gay man and a straight person who had the same number of unprotected one night stands, the man would be at a higher risk of catching HIV.

          And yes the wrong questions are being asked.

      2. Jock S. Trap 12 Apr 2011, 8:49am

        That is wrong Blondie. There is a pandemic with regardless STDs within the Straight community, it’s just that the media rarely chose to report it.

        1. @Jock S Trap

          I’m not convinced that the media do not report the growth in STIs in heterosexuals. I have seen frequent newspaper, internet and TV articles on it. There has been significant mention of it in health programmes (particularly those targetting women and teens/20s).

          You are right to say there has been growth in STIs – whether its a global pandemic, I am not sure …

          I do think the NHS has tried to tackle the issue in terms of chlamydia screening programmes for under 25s and other methods – I think the programmes could have been more cohesive – but nonetheless there has been significant acknowledgement and resources put into dealing with STI growth amongst heterosexuals

          1. Jock S. Trap 12 Apr 2011, 10:35am

            Trouble is I think people just browse them rather than read them. There tends to be that ‘it’ll never affect me’ attitude. I personally think Gay people are more aware but still in both the straight and gay community we still have some who refuse to be tested yet carry on even though they are infected. In the last 4-5 years the numbers have increased esp in cities in the UK to extreme proportions. I some cases old STD’s such a syphillis.

            The biggest problem now is we now have super strains such as gonorrhea that is increasingly showing that is it resistance to antibiotics, yet these people both gay and straight do not protect themselves or each other. They are just carrying on but til when?

            All this shows, far from who catches what best, is in fact that there are some in both Straight and Gay communities, that seem to be equality irresponisble in taking risks and yet there is separation in that those Straight risk taker can give blood esp with They shouldn’t be.

          2. Jock S. Trap 12 Apr 2011, 10:36am

            So just as there are plenty of Gay people who should be able to give blood, there is plenty of Straight people who shouldn’t.

          3. @Jock S Trap

            I do agree it is clear that methods by both public bodies and the media to raise awareness in STIs have only been (at best) moderately successful.

            There are those, both gay and straight, who are reluctant to be tested. There are infections which are growing which are concerning (I think of chlamydis, LGV and others).

            There are many (of all orientations) who believe it will not happen to them.

            I don’t think we can blame this on the media. I’m not sure whether there is a simple answer.

            I do think it help demonstrate that there are irresponsible people of all orientations and therefore there are those who are gay and straight who should not be blood donors. Equally, there are more aware people of all orientations who should be donors (if they choose to).

          4. Jock S. Trap 12 Apr 2011, 4:43pm

            I agree but I do think the media are to blame in part. It all has to do with labelling. They may report the story but they do only for sections of the community. Even though I know PinkNews is a Gay site there is still some blame here too but will say less so but until we stop labelling STDs, HIV etc as problems of certain groups and not as a whole I think the problem will continue to get worse. When the papers print these stories they should maybe print alongside symptons and effect and well as what can be done and the fact it effect all people male, female, of any sexual orientation. Print the story, print the campaign.

            At the moment there is a lot of information but only to promote the problems within communities not as the whole community. The minute we keep taking about a gay disease or black disease etc we exclude others is does affect and that sends out the wrong message because those excluded then feel wrongly immune, until of cause they are diagnosed. Then who is to blame?

  6. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 10:58am

    This signals massive progress but it does fall short of those in commited relationships for many years who don’t have open relationship therefore pose little threat.

    In a country where we are constantly being told we have low blood stock I think more needs to be done to allow more people who genuinely don’t risk their health sexually to be able to give blood if they wish to do so.

    Lets hope they can look into ways of make this more equal still.

  7. It’s impossible to deny that this is progress. However, the restrictions left in place do not shout out a message of equality and inclusion and the key issue has to be to allow those who want to, who remain in monogamous stable relationships to be able to donate. Failure to allow this is outright discrimination – although I am pleased that there has been progress (which now allows a minority of gay men to donate) it is still not far enough.

    Realistically all blood is screened in any event …

    1. It is not “progress.”

      What the UK is about to do is infect (by at least 3% more) INNOCENT people with HIV.

      How can you sleep at night? Oh thats right you never had such disease.

      This is not about “equality” or discrimination. This is about people lives, and when someone puts ideology before life than I do have to question such a person’s morality and logic.

      1. That’s an estimated 3% increase of blood supplies being contaminated, which if there safety checks are as serious as they seem, I would like to think that is not a large increase. But the blood given could save lives when blood might be low, or even them showing us respect could possibly stop gay people willingly lieing and giving blood anyway.

        1. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 12:56pm


          Valid point though in Italy and Spain infection via blood banks decreased steadily after the ban was appealled.

    2. Realistically all blood is screened in any event …

      Yes but that is not the issue here. You obviously forget how HIV works and how its detectable.

      Your not being realistic (but like most leftist you are being idealistic) even though the article makes an obvious observation:

      While donated blood is screened for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, a small number of infected donations are missed due to the time between infection with HIV and it being detected in blood tests.

      1. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 11:14am

        ““While donated blood is screened for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, a small number of infected donations are missed due to the time between infection with HIV and it being detected in blood tests.“”

        Which would suggest:-

        1) That the blood testing on donations is good. Make it better you don’t have a problem.

        2) To make such a comment, suggests that this IS happening yet Gay people up til now have been banned completely. How does that small number comment stand? It would actually add a seriously flaw to your whole arguement, because if your convincing us at least 3% more innocent will be infected but already you have provided proof the screening system works.

        If this didn’t wouldn’t we be hearing about those being infected?

        With blood banks constantly crying out for more because of shortage it is not right to restrict those many people who are in committed relationships who blood would save more lives.

        1. The fact is that you WILL be infecting more people that need be… and THAT is the problem.

          Seems like you are okay with people getting infected because it is only a small number supposedly.

          To be honest we will not know the how MANY MORE people would be infected, I am estimating that if gay men were allowed to donate that at least 15%-20% of the blood will be infected with HIV that is UNDETECTABLE.

          Plus those persons who do get infected with the virus through transfusion will likely not know there running the risk of infecting their spouses or others, so it is MORE than just that 3% that is mentioned. This change WILL have far reaching consequences, but hey at least Jock at el feel more “equal” as having MORE infected people is more “fair” to him and his ilk.

          1. I am not convinced that a proper procedure would infect more people.

            Ten years is my problem. Of countries that currently permit donations from gay men – there have been no significant increases in infection and the UK is the most rigorously proposed period (ten years). Others are:
            New Zealand (5 years);
            Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Hungary, Japan (1 year);
            South Africa (6 months);
            Italy, Spain (no time period – alternative screening methods)

            The Red Cross support a one year period stating that the policy of significant periods or ban of men who have sex with men from giving blood is based on prejudice and a knee-jerk reaction and misunderstandings about HIV.

          2. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 11:56am

            But you stated in your comment that it was already been found and dealt with in blood before it has been used. So HIV is already showing despite the ban on Gay men donating.

            So we have to assume that this blood and the HIV infection is coming from the heterosexual community. Yet your not calling for a ban nor tighter blood screening.

            However you have proved that the screening works.

            So thats make you already discrimination against Straight people with HIV and Gay people with HIV. Yet the illness itself clearly doesn’t discriminate.

            Surely it isn’t acceptable from any community.

            Don’t get me wrong I live with HIV and wouldn’t wish it on anyone but this almost smacks of people who refuse to be treated by a black doctor. It’s just wrong. There is no reason why anyone would be infected. If you ask me if my family needed blood and it wasn’t available unless one of my gay friends in a risk free commited relationship, could give it, then yes, it would save a life.

          3. “Ten years is my problem.”

            Of course, you want infect people as soon as possible.

            But I don’t think this is a problem since I bet gay men will be lying on the forms anyway.

            Go ahead and gamble with people lives. I do not want to participate in such recklessness.

          4. “So HIV is already showing despite the ban on Gay men donating.”

            That means that HIV will become a bigger problem as gay men would be allowed to donate.

          5. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 12:23pm

            No it doesn’t, pepa.

          6. @Pepa

            Absolutely not. I want to simultaneously ensure that as few people as possible are infected and ensure equality that is fair and transparent.

            If other countries can bring in a process that ensures a level of equality and actually reduce HIV infection linked to blood transfusion then we can …

            Another problem is the proposal is being brought in before the consultation is ended in any case – so is based on a lack of complete evidence, opinion and thought.

          7. “I want to simultaneously ensure that as few people as possible are infected ”

            No you do not. You want to lift the ban to satisfy yourself and other gay sex liberals. THEN hope and pray no one gets hurt.

            The truth is that there will be people that will get infected UNNECESSARILY and against their will. You just want to deny that.

          8. @Pepa

            This is beginning to feel as constructive as feeding the trolls

            “No you do not. You want to lift the ban to satisfy yourself and other gay sex liberals. THEN hope and pray no one gets hurt”

            Do not tell me what I do and do not want. I am not so arrogant as to presume what you believe. If I have doubt – I question it and give you the opportunity to prove you are right or admit you are either wrong or potentially mistaken. I do not believe any of what you try and suppose that I believe in your statement above. You clearly are not reading my contributions.

          9. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 4:20pm

            Don’t feed the trolls, feed the ducks instead.

  8. A Conservative/LibDem Government of bluff. Who is that gay who will abstain for 10 years from sex for the simple reason of giving a pint of blood. Why don’t they do it on heteros as a means of contraception?? This is sheer madness.

    1. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 11:21am

      Because Labour did… oh thats right nothing on this subject.

      1. Labour instigated the process that lead to this change. I should know, I took part in the beta testing of the questions prior to the main research phase well over two years ago. Yes government moves that slowly

    2. There are some gay people out there who (for a variety of reasons) do abstain from sex …

      That is not the issue …

      The issue is that none of the political parties have brought in true equality in this area at all … we need to welcome some gentle creep (but that is all it is) in the direction of equality and actively and ardently seek true equality

    3. I can easily imagine Jock and Stu spending their free Big Society time in cruising spots trying to convince peeps to abstain from sex.

      1. Beberts

        Have to say I am glad I don’t share your world view.

        Be interested to know what political affiliation you seem to think I belong to …

        As for volunteering for things (I refuse to use the phrase Big Society because its meaningless) – I already do volunteer and it has no connection with cruising or abstinence from sex ..

        Grow up

        1. That sounds marvelous. Please let us know what it is connected with. Some people in here may need your help too. Don’t you think the Tories and LibDems should also volunteer since they’ve been pushing the “Big Society” idea?

          1. Beberts

            I look forward to supporting people on here if i come into contact with them in my voluntary work.

            I have already made my comment on the Big Society and as this thread isnt particularly on that – I shall leave that comment there

    4. Well if you include bisexuals theres a fair few more. But imagine if you was one of those who abstain from homosexual sex for 10 years and then want to give blood, I would be quite insulted by still being banned after all that time. Having the rule from a complete ban to this shows more respect to them.

  9. It’s a positive step, albeit truly pointless. The amount of additional people this will permit to give blood is rather insignificant.

    Given the national need for blood, and the constant blood shortages in the medical profession, one would think that they’d do everything possible to enable people to give blood.

    The stupid thing is that if one of my family or loved ones were to need blood, I would be unable to donate because of this stupid rule.

    1. I suspect you would be able to donate for a specific relative (given my experiences previously) albeit not to the national blood supply …

      I wouldn’t say it is pointless – marginal yes – but not pointless, can be seen as a symbolic gain or gesture (depending on where you sit with this) but it should make us determined to seek real and fair equality for all and an improvement to the blood stock position

  10. Jennie Kermode 10 Apr 2011, 11:12am

    Research is ongoing into whether or not people in identified risk groups who ignore the rules and lie so that they can donate represent a statistically lower risk of HIV transmission, but it is believed this may be the case – thus the existence of rules selects for those with stronger social consciences.

  11. Yay! Another year and a half of enforced celibacy and I can give blood!

    Here’s an idea though. Just a thought. Blue-sky thinking and everything. How about a ban on HIV positive people, and those who have other blood-borne infections, giving blood? But what about those people who don’t know their HIV status? Simple – test them. But what about those people who might have contracted it so recently the tests can’t tell? Tell them to come back when the tests can (three months for the usual tests, a week for the pennies more expensive ones).

    The bottom line is that most gay men have a 0% risk of transmitting blood-borne diseases. Assuming the HIV figures in the article are accurate, there are about 36,330 HIV+ gay men in the country. If we take a conservative estimate of 5% of the UK’s 31 million male population as gay men, that’s 2.35% of gay men who pose a risk. The other 97.65% pose no risk whatsoever.

    1. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 11:28am

      Actually I think national screening is a great idea with regards giving blood. It would mean for all not some and it would also contribute to those who may have contracted HIV or others to be treated properly. Testing esp for HIV can be tested very quickly but it would go that step further and then no need for time restrictions on Gay men. With blood reserves in short supply they have to think of something like this to benefit all.

      Those people who know their status wouldn’t give blood unless they were intending on harm and those that don’t know would get the help if they were. Either way with Strict guidelines and checks people the blood banks would benefit greatly.

    2. You have a lot of real fsair points there, VP

      You miss one out though … all blood donated is tested for HIV and a number of other blood borne conditions

    3. I totally agree with this! The guidelines for who should be able to donate blood should not be based on how many years since you’ve had sex last. Instead, all those who want to donate should prove that they do not have any blood transferable diseases. I also believe that they should have to do this every year. It doesn’t cost much to get screened for HIV and similar illnesses and in a lot of cases, it’s free.

    4. “VP: “The bottom line is that most gay men have a 0% risk of transmitting blood-borne diseases.”

      You are talking utter crap, excluding people coming into the country, gay men are still by far the highest risk group.
      I’ve been through all this on other threads. Part of the screening process is restricting high risk groups, as the testing is not infallible.
      This is not homophobia, it is common sense. If there is any risk at all that someone could infect another with a terminal disease, then frankly, fcuk gay rights and show a little respect for your fellow man instead of being so godamn selfish.

      1. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 12:29pm

        Typical usual nasty response Spanner.

        There are plenty of same sex couples who have been together for many years without feeling the need to take risks. Why should they be excluded? There is nothing ‘common sense’ about that one bit it is discrimination, full stop.

        There are plenty of LGBT people who don’t have risky sex, why should they be excluded? That’s discrimination.

        All that attitude of yours is doing is pandering to those Nutties out there who seem to think we don’t have mind of our own and have to be told and denied. That, my dear, is not equality.

        I would much rather blood supplies were good with a strict health screening of ALL donors than what they are no and restrictive.

        That makes absolutely no sense at all.

        1. “All that attitude of yours is doing is pandering to those Nutties out there”

          So when we are trying to be compassionate towards those who are sick and wish that NO FURTHER ILLNESS (like HIV) would burden them we are all of sudden “Nutties.”

          That shows how much these gay sex liberals disregard life and venerate death.

      2. But, as I said, and as the figures demonstrate, 97.65% of gay men pose no risk at all. Someone who does not have HIV has no risk of passing it on. The figures are in the article itself – perhaps if you were to actually read the thing and think about it before resorting to your short-sighted and quite frankly offensive nonsense you might save the rest of us a good deal of time.

        To demonise and limit the rights of a group because some members might pose a problem is the very definition of discrimination. On that logic we would ban all men from giving blood, because a disproportionate number of men have HIV compared to women. That’s a convenient group-label under which to discriminate isn’t it? Never mind that the characteristic you’re choosing to discriminate on has no relevance, and doesn’t sort the risky from the non-risky, like a proper HIV test would, lets go with it anyway, because people are only ciphers for their group identity, not individuals with individual situations…

        1. As Jock asked me for my citations and sources we would also like for you guys to extend us the same courtesy, unless of course, citations are only required from those whom you disagree with and you people can come up with anything you want (as long as it betters your argument).

          This is typical of gay sex liberals everybody else must prove themselves (and even when we do they disregarded our evidence because it is considered “too old” by people like Stu.) while they have nothing to show for.

          1. @Pepa

            Again, you are clearly either not reading my comments or are choosing to ignore them as I am giving you a lot of information – so please do not say “while they have nothing to show for” – it is inaccurate.

      3. Spanner, I’ve only had one partner in my 40 years on this planet. I’ve met 17 year old straight lads who have had more partners in a weekend than that. But you think I’m being selfish for wanting equality? Maybe you should show some self respect. Only a self loathing homophobe would think we should “fcuk gay rights”. Inequality is homophobia. But I guess you think 2+2=5, and that all homosexuals are guilty of sex crimes.

        1. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 3:05pm

          Excellent comment Eddy.

          So Spanner can you please tell us why Eddy, should he wish to give blood, should be discriminated against even though he has never put his or anybody else at risk?

          Surely Eddy should be a perfect example of who this ban discriminates. It’s not right.

          1. Jock: I wish you would get your standpoint sorted. In the last topic you were ranting on about people being allowed to shag various men on Clapham common, but now we’re all supposed fcking angels who don’t sleep around.

            The point is, a line has to be drawn in the sand some place. They said ‘gay men’ as a blanket ban, now they say ’10 years’, maybe they should quantify it some more if the facts can be proven. Personally I would ban a whole lot more categories, like sub-Saharan black men, and many south Asians (Thai in particular)

            ‘”A Government source said: “A complete ban is unfair and discriminatory but we need to protect public health.”

            Of course it is bloody discriminatory. What’s wrong with that? If this course of action saves a single life, then it is worth discriminating against potential killers.

          2. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 7:58am

            People who cruise for sex have safer sex too you know. You seem to be thinking everyone is pigeon wholed into groups. Those in relationships who probably cheat and those who cruise for sex who all have risky bareback sex. This just isn’t the case. You seem to think that all are not trust worthy, I assume you include yourself in that.

            Anyway, your arguement that we should except discrimination is flawed. The can be things that can be done to make checks stricter and at the same time save lifes. You forget that we seem to always have a shortage of blood donations which hardly saves lives does it. With the amount of checks and tests that can be done and introduced into the blood giving program there is no need to get panicky about those Gay men who screen are safe and there blood deperately needed.

            The fact you invite discrimination is beyond contempt.

            I do apologise though. I accused you of being hmmmm, I now know your not as I came to realise exactly who it was. For that I apologise.

          3. “People who cruise for sex have safer sex too you know.”

            LOL LOL LOL

          4. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 12:25pm

            Oh pepa, I think we don’t need to go any further, that comment says it all.

      4. @Spanner

        I can give you an example of a couple I know very well …

        They met each other in their teens – never had a sexual partner before each other and have been monogamous for 17 years together …

        They tell me they are both highly sexed. They have never had a sexually transmitted infection (they have been tested as a consequence of some tests required professionally – although reluictantly – and were found negative of all such infections.

        Should they be required to abstain from sex for 10 years to be able to donate blood? I dont think so

        1. Spanner is right,

          All of the sudden the gay sex liberals are the pretty little angels even though they tell us constantly that sex outside of a relationship is good and normal.

          They want their cake and eat it too.

          In other words they want to be right all the time without any regard to their supposed logic.

          1. @Pepa

            I have never had an ethical stance good or bad on sex outside of relationships – so to add that comment directly to mine makes significant supposition on your part.

            I recognise that some gay men have committed monogamous relationships and some don’t.

            One size does not fit all with regards behaviour, attitudes, beliefs, tastes, etc etc – we may have something in common – we are attracted to the same sex – choices we make beyond that are diverse.

            So to profile gay men as all being promiscuous or all being camp or all being liberals is as wrong as saying all heterosexuals are right wing, Daily Mail reading, sexually frustrated people. Neither is true.

  12. I find this even more insulting than the previous complete ban! *sigh*

    It should be based on a gender and sexuality neutral question regarding unsafe sexual practices and health, not “You’ve had sex in the last ten years with another man… eww…”

    1. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 11:55am

      Well no it’s not because there will be some who now Will be able to give blood so that in itself is progress. It doesn’t go far enough, granted but it is a start.

      1. I agree, Jock S Trap

        I am frustrated that it doesnt go far enough … but it is definite progress

        1. It gives the illusion of progress, moving sideways, but if you really take into account the harshness of the 10 years clause, it’s moving backwards.

          1. No the illusion of going backwards is a spin you would like to put onto it for your own political reaons – no reasonable person could see this as a step backwards…. not far forward enough – sure, but not backwards in the slightest

          2. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 8:01am


            Had this been done under a Labour government your comments would have been completely different. You know that, I know that, we all know that.

          3. On a scale from 0 to 10, Labour’s gay rights achievements are close to 10, while Tories are close to zilt. And you know that.

          4. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 1:02pm

            Sorry Beberts but thats just double standards.

        2. Beberts

          I have some sympathy that the Labour party has achieved more re gay rights and equality

          I also recognise that (despite my surprise) the Conservatives appear to be changing and being in a coalition with the Lib Dems is probably helping this.

          I also recognise that the coalition are in power and they have the ability to make change currently – so protesting that they can’t change things because they haven’t in the past is futile. The have the power to propose change – if we don’t like what they propose fine, lets debate the change and make sure we let them consider improvements that could be made – but to shout party political arguments in issues of equality are fatuous, self defeating and do nothing to progress equality.

          1. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 1:01pm


  13. Is it really a move towards equality? Or is it so that straight men who “experimented” way back when can feel like they’ve shaken off the stigma of having been somehow contaminated?

    1. Yes its a move towards equality

      Its a move to allow gay and bi men to be able to do something that heterosexual men and women have long been able to do – I would rather it went further and that all gay and bi men (provided they met clear medical considerations) were able to donate

    2. Yes this is another move for “equality.”

      Health safety, that is something that is being disregarded here.

      1. No – what is being removed is prejudice, knee jerk reaction on basis of orientation and misunderstanding about the reality of HIV risk (all comments made by both the Red Cross and WHO members)

  14. Paddyswurds 10 Apr 2011, 11:32am

    once again an ill thought out attempt to placate GLB people with whta is just a mirage. No word of bisexuals , breeders who use anal sex as a means of contraception etc etc. Given that the incidence of HIV is a little short of 50/50 this is so much p!sh.

    1. @Paddyswurds

      It doesnt specifically mention gay men …

      It mentions men who have sex with men – that embraces gay and bi …

      Just because it does not reach as far as you or I would like it to, does not mean it is not progress

  15. progress… but not enough.

  16. Christine Beckett 10 Apr 2011, 11:50am

    And how the feck are they going to monitor that daft requirement?

    Do we get a signed chit every day from a permanent supervisor, to certify that we have not had sex within that 24 hour period?

    That’s a lot of chits.

    Brainless morons.


    1. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 11:58am

      I agree, though I wonder if the 10 years is more about protecting themselves rather than those giving blood.

  17. a step forward that is so small it’s hard to notice the movement

    1. From my perspective its the symbolic nature of the progress (ie men who have sex with men CAN actually donate blood) that is progress that should push us and LGBT organisations on to campaigning for full equality … Its not the actual movement but the symbolism of the movement

  18. The fact that 42% of people with HIV are gay men, when they make up only 10% of the male population, shows that harsh restrictions are still needed. Most of the remaining 54% are Africans who have probably had little access to sex education and are hindered by myth, religion and superstition. Thus straight men are obviously being more responsible than gay men.

    No-one has a human right to donate blood, it’s up to the group to prove that they can behave responsibly enough. Gay men have failed yet again to do this and thus this 10 year restriction is perfectly justified. I cannot donate because of it, but then I don’t really mind as I know it’s the fault of the stupid majority within my community who are denying me that possibility.

    It doesn’t matter what incentives or education gay men are offered, they remain the most ignorant, stupid and selfish group in society. Most aren’t religious, which just exacerbates that stupidity as they are not hindered by warped doctrine.

    Man up guys!

    1. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 12:33pm

      That piece is filled will so much bullsh!t it’s hardly worth re-reading.

    2. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 12:34pm

      You actually sound a lot like Spanner… any connection there?!

    3. No, no no no no.

      This should not be about dividing people into groups and assigning collective responsibility. That is and always has been an utterly terrible way to conduct affairs, it is at the very heart of totalitarianism, We are not ciphers for the grand gay overmind. We are individuals with our own lives. We should be treated for who we are, not who people who happen to share certain characteristics with us are.

      1. Yes, we are individuals. But you cannot assess risk based on you as a person; we take what we know about individuals and apply it to groups.

        That’s what they do for insurance and pensions. You may well be a very responsible 18 year old car driver, but its the experience and risk of other 18 year olds which makes your insurance expensive.

    4. Hmmmmmmmmmmm/Spanner. It is you who is hindered by a warped doctrine. You are ignorant, stupid and selfish, just like the heterosexuals that not long ago thought of you as a criminal and that continue to treat homosexuals like second class citizens. Your comment is so misguided that I’ll add sad and pathetic to your descriptive list as well.

      1. We just take responsibility for ourselves and don’t let our community down with our selfishness. Most gay men don’t seem to feel that way though, they prefer to be victims and play the blame game with heteros. If our track record is as bad as these stats make out, then we deserve the inequality we have. Of course, this riles me given that I am not one of these selfish, mentally deficient HIV-spreaders, but it’s hardly surprising we all get lumped together when gay male behaviour is so appalling.

        Those crying inequality would do well to think collectively to try to solve this problem as opposed to thinking from your self-centred, individualist perspectives. ‘gay community’ is a laughable term, since we aren’t very community-spirited. Some of us are trying to be, but what’s the point with all of the selfishness within it?

        Put a jonny on, be safe and all this will go away.

        1. Jock

          To be fair, don’t you have HIV? You of all people should know how collective action may actually help us. You know, telling our friends to be careful and engendering a culture of responsibility. I don’t know how you got HIV, but maybe you could have done with some community-centric taking of responsibility. Every post you write is some victmhood-clutching rant against the heterosexual community, but they aren’t the problem – gays are causing their own problems. Heteros have no part in gay men getting HIV – they’re not denying us condoms are they? No. So why can’t gay men put them on?

          Jock, you have never given any helpful advice on here because you eschew gay men taking responsibility for themselves on every occasion.

          1. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 3:27pm

            First and foremost, I have been open about how I got infected with HIV hmmmmmm, it was through rape many years ago. LU once asked and I told it, so your comment about how I “could have done with some community-centric taking of responsibility” you can shove right up your ass, you nasty, vile creep.

            An apology would be nice but somehow I expect you’ll still more likely to say I probably deserved it, coz I’m Gay right?

            As for the rest I have dedicated my life since helping those newly-diagnosed, plus those having problems living with HIV from day to day life to medication and it’s difficulties. I also try and get people to see that live with HIV is no holiday as some seem to think.

          2. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 3:33pm

            Your attitude absolutely stinks because you seem to imply people deserve to get HIV but the point is Nobody deserves to get it, people take risks we all know that. People smoke knowing the consequences, people drink knowing the consequences, people live in cities knowing the consequences. Point is you can make all the nasty excuses you want but what makes your life so perfect? Nothing thats what.

            “gays are causing their own problems” – er are you for real? Seriously you are so bitter. You seem to be making sh!t to support your argument but who thinks that? You clearly know nothing about what goes on in Gay people’s lives let alone Straight people’s lives.

            You can make all the personal accusations all you want but being you actually know nothing about me, or what do for others I add the question.

          3. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 3:34pm

            With all that bitter, nastiness, what have you done to help get that message across other than telling people they deserve what they get? You judge, you critise, you can change nickname all you want but to come out with all that hateful, spiteful, selfish crap you clearly have a Big problem with the LGBT community.

            Your attack on this community is noted.

        2. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 3:16pm

          Actually most Gay men do take responsibility for themselves. I don’t see any playing victims or blame games. You just making excuses to justify your discriminating stance. Exactly what track record are you talking about? Those surveys done by HIV charities by any cance so your argument is already flawed.

          As for an excuse to why we ‘deserve the inequality’ how hateful and bitter can you really be. We Deserve it? My God man what happened to you to make such a nasty unwarranted comment. you say your not selfish , mentally deficient HIV spreaders? Do you even know what you are saying? You are such a selfish, vile creep, I’m actually wondering if your speaking in another nickname to either Spanner in which case you have no interest in LGBT issues just nasty homophobic views. As for the no ‘gay community’ well you’ve said that many, Many times before.

        3. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 3:18pm

          Just because you spend your life alone and bitter don’t think everyone is. Whilst I question your use of the word ‘we’ being that you clearly have nothing decent to say about LGBT life nor the community within it, I conclude your are nothing but a self centred, life hating selfish homophobe.

          1. I didn’t expect you to conclude otherwise – another ill-informed, speculating ‘statement’ that makes you look very dim. That’s all people like you ever come up with because you have no other arguments. You can’t account for this mystifying responsibility and self-respect that other people have for themselves, so you claim that they are wallowing in self-hatred. It’s cheap, childish and highly speculative. But, as before, I don’t expect anything less from those of you who are holding back our community. Conversely, at least I don’t have HIV, I’m not paranoid about the world and have a fair approach to equality and justice.

            What am I supposed to say that’s decent about the LGBT community on a thread that highlights how stupid LGBT people are? As a community, we are not setting a respectable standard, are we? Individuals, yes, of course, myself included….but collectively, not at all. It’s people like you holding me back, but you are a part of the solution as much as the problem.

          2. As for being alone…..erm, you are on here day and night. Sounds like something a lonely hermit would do. Some of us are too busy having a life with REAL people, not interacting with binary codes. You know, relationships, friendships, getting out and about, working (I assume you are unemployed given how much you’re on here). You need to get out more. That’s probably why you’re so paranoid and hateful of anyone that isn’t you – you seem to hate everyone; straights, immigrants, the religious…..not with any justifiable reasons, but just through pure hatred for ‘others’.

            But then, I’d probably hate the world if I were you. As it is, I rather like it….even its challenges. Sorry, your theory fails again. Must be hard being thick.

          3. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 3:43pm

            “Conversely, at least I don’t have HIV, I’m not paranoid about the world and have a fair approach to equality and justice.”

            So what, you don’t have HIV and I do. Is that supposed to make you a better person than me? Whats that about? Pathetic comment.

            You not paranoid? you got to be friggin jokin.

            As for the “fair approach to equality and justice” boy that gave me a laugh. Seriously have you read your comments. Anything BUT a fair approach to anything. Just a lot of blaming everyone for their’s and probably your, problems.

            Being that I don’t know you, and wouldn’t really want to I fail to see who I can be anything to do with holding you back. As usual it’s people like you who blame everyone else for your own mistake.

            I advise looking in the mirror before being abusive to everyone else.

          4. Christ, I should have read ALL of your rants before I replied. ‘Dedicated my life’ – oh, you’re such a Mother Theresa aren’t you? Rape? I’d be unlikely to believe you in light of how much other crap you spout on here. But even if it were true, you’re using as apathetic victim card. Sad, very sad. Bite me if you want an apology.

            From what you write, it seems you want people to hate you, you get off on it because it allows you to play all those victim cards. And then play the martyr card ‘I dedicate my life….’. Warped.

            You are one sad, sad individual. And so bitter, twisted, angry, paranoid, destructive and apologetic for selfish, irresponsible behaviour. How on Earth you could be allowed to help people with HIV, I have no idea. Though as you spend most of your life on here, could you tell me exactly what hours of ‘work’ you do? 15 minutes a day won’t really help anyone. I highly suspect you have invented most of these so-called ‘truths’ about your life. The rantings of a madman.

          5. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 3:50pm

            Oh hmmmmmmm, you give such a laugh. Actually I’m only on during the day due to helping me through a very nasty medical regime that make me very ill but this take my mind off it while my ‘hubby’ is at work. I’m retired, have been for a while, I have plenty of friends, and no I’m not on benefits thank you, I’m very much capable of supporting myself and always will be.

            Your attacks won’t work, I’m afraid but boy, gettin personal ain’t we, you must really hate people, or me who cares, you not exactly someone I’d want to know.

            Your a sad creep, I get it.

            Never mind….LOL

          6. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 3:52pm


            Tthe fact you feel the need such nasty comment shows everyone else what your all about.

            That is where I end it.

          7. @Hmmmmmm

            Clearly you have never been raped or supported people who have been raped, or talked to someone who has been raped … or if you have, your understanding is about as perceptive as a chocolate fireguard …

            Having been raped (after working for 4 years a a sexual offence liaison officer in the police), I am horrified that we still have ignorant people in this country that appear to blame rape survivors for the events that led them to have psychological trauma, physical injuries and often illnesses such as HIV. There is no one to blame for rape other than a rapist.

            Jock S Trap, will know that I disagree fervently with him on many issues – but I can not stand back and see such outrageous cruel and vindictive comments targetted to someone who has been infected as a result of rape – its wrong and its disgusting

            Jock, you dont need my empathy I suspect – but you have it nonetheless

          8. Jock, pensioners are on the same standing as those “on benefits”, darling. You’ve been constantly ranting about government spending and cursing those on benefits, you should give your retirement up. And still, you’d have your hubby to support you.

          9. As a woman who’s been raped (though thankfully not contracted HIV), I’d like to add to Stu’s comment condeming hmmmmmm for his/her utter lack of compassion.

            Is it just your antipathy towards Jock that makes you so hard-hearted, hmmmmmmm, or are you this coldly self-righteous towards everyone who, in your opinion, fails to meet your exacting standards?

          10. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 8:06am

            Thank you for your support Stu.


          11. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 8:18am


            Please get your facts right. I have never cursed anyone on benefits. There are plenty of people who rely on them and those genuine people should get all the help they deserve. However Labour have created a culture of benefit claimants who should never have been left on them. Then not only left on them but it didn’t pay to get back to work. That is just wrong. I applaud this government bringing in plans to help those off benefits and into work but continuing their benefit to equal it up so they don’t loose. However I am opposed to the fact that doesn’t come in til about 2013 meaning all those now will loose out but we must never forget that is is solely due to Labour dismissing peoples own self respect.

            I am far from a pensioner thank you, quite a bit younger but due to ill health I live of the money I have made, not state, not my hubby’s, I hope that in sometime in the near future I will return to my work but these weeks I am happily trying to take my mind off health issues.

          12. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 8:19am


            Thank you for your support.


          13. Jock, I’ve every sympathy for how you say you caught your HIV. But boy, how you play the perpetual victim of life. For heaven’s sake, get that fat chip off your shoulder and open your eyes. You blame every ill inflicting the gay community on straight society when really the greatest enemy lies within.

            When gay men learn to get their own house in order and treat each other with the respect and common courtesy we all deserve then, and only then, should you turn your spotlight on your perceived – and at times frankly outrageous – failings of the straight community.

            Tuning into Pink News has ceased being a pleasure because you just know Jock will be lurking to give his “woe, poor me” diatribe aimed at everything but the actual cause, or symptom. And gays more than any community are the p architects of the venom we invite from “outsiders”.

            I long for the day I can contribute to a thread and not have Jock Strap waiting to pounce and give his ill-informed, victimised two penn’worth..

          14. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 11:04am


            I think we get it, you and hmmmm like to make things that much more personal.

            Yes, a lot of stuff has happened in my life but far from ever feelin a victim I have always tried to use my experiences to help others as so many people do. If that makes people victims then I personally find that bizarre as you seem to attck most in that kind of profession.

            Simple truth is coming here at the moment helps me, they are only ever my opinions, nothing more which is what this thread is all about. If you ‘cease’ to enjoy when you seem happy enough to make such personal attacks then you have a choice, don’t you.

            This is a debate thread. This is a free country and last time I checked I am perfectly entitled to express my opinions for others to debate alongside. Which most do and I certainly enjoy debating with them. I William/hmmmmm ain’t goin Nowhere.

          15. william dont be a cnut Jock has never come across as a victim with a chip on his shoulder I come here everyday and look forward to his posts. you on the otherhand should fcuk off you won’t be missed

          16. Jock, so you claim to be retired when you aren’t. and probably won’t need or get state support anyway because of your wealth.

          17. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 2:38pm


            Thank you for your support.


            (Choccie Hobnob?)

          18. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 2:39pm


            Ok whatever you say dear.

    5. I didn’t write that, but I admit, it could have been me. I’m glad I am not alone in my opinions

  19. This is still discriminatory and unfair, albeit an improvement. For those following the SABTO process, it is also completely unsurprising.

    While the conclusion drawn is reasonable given the evidence it is based upon, their methodology for generating that evidence is seriously flawed. I don’t have all the details to hand unfortunately, but unfortunately this is going to be a tedious battle of competing methodologies of epidemiology, when organisations like THT support SABTO.

  20. Helen Wilson 10 Apr 2011, 12:53pm

    I find that insulting, what are they going to do to verify it? preform rectal exams looking for damaged tissue!

    Why not just require a blood test every three months for a year to establish the patient is infection free and then require the person to provide fresh blood test results before every donation. Somebody with a chaotic sex life is hardly going to submit to all that testing.

    People are sexual beings who have a right to expect a sex life, nobody (except a few monks) are going to be able to donate this is just window dressing.

  21. Apart from my grandad I don’t think I’ve ever met someone who hasn’t had sex for 10 yrs….How come this doesn’t fall short of the equality act yet a blanket ban does? Do the majority of other countries really have this 10 yrs restriction and as an aside if this change is due to the equality act I hope the cons won’t be including this as one of their great advcancements in LGBT rights..

    1. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 3:56pm

      I think there will be some but I wonder if this 10 year period is more a safe guard for them rather than actually meaning 10 years.

      In truth I wonder how many Gay men actually give blood. I can’t think none have though it would be interesting.

      1. If someone needed blood then I’d give it, I wouldn’t if I knew I was a HIV carrier and since I’ve been with my partner for over 25 yrs and we’re both healthy and we don’t have outside partners etc etc then I should probably be allowed to give blood since I have zero chance of having HIV etc…,however, I had sex last night and I’m gay so that rules me out I guess…I’m sure my straight neighbour wouldn’t have the same problem ….. isn’t that discrimination ? One rule for us and another for them?

        1. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 8:27am

          I think in the end most people giving blood do so for all the right reason and responsilibly. For people like yourself John, and your partner, I don’t see why you shouldn’t be able to give blood. On that it is clearly discriminating. I know plenty of Straight men and women who have more than one partner at a weekend and if nothing stops them from giving then it makes it more insulting that you two can’t.

          With the amount of checks and even added check if needed I don’t see that this 10 year ban needs to take place.

          It’s zero tolerance, yet you and your partner, and many, many more are not criminals.

      2. “The current system is based on trust. There are no checks to ensure donors are telling the truth about their sexuality and around seven per cent of sexually active gay men are thought to give blood despite the ban. ”

    2. John, I have not so much as slept with anyone in over ten years, let alone had sex.
      Many people are celibate, some through choice, others through illness or injury.
      Personally, I have never been very sexually motivated, and found the entire process a chore, not to mention a bore.

      1. How sad Spanner…..I love it and I don’t think I’m unique in’s rather sad that we are still all simply classed as “the gays”. No matter how many prominent gay leaders/mps/gay parents/gay civi partners etc there are ,we are all nevertheless the same, “the gays”. This 10 yr ban just shows that the overall image of gays hasn’t changed, we might as well all dress up in leather chaps with our bum cheeck outs since that is the overall impression of us all. Has nothing changed over the last 10 yrs or so. We are not all the same, what’s the point of getting public acceptance , asking for marriage equality etc when ultimtely we are all classed as the same ie people who can keep a stable relationship and are most likely to catch HIV. We don’t get paid for giving blood, there’s no incentive to lie about our history to get money, people who give blood want to do some good , that’s the point of the serivce , it’s voluntary , out of public spirit to do good …the ban forgets this!!!!.

        1. Why is it sad? Does everyone have to live up to being a slag?, or even just having a sex life. I also don’t think I am alone in that either.
          Sex is given way too high regard. As I once heard: “Nothing is as overrated as a crap shag, and nothing as underrated as a good sh|t.”

      2. Whilst the new policy would permit Spanner (subject to other personal check lists being acceptable) to donate … there are many others that would be safe from blood borne disease perspective who will be unable to …

        I, like John and many others, enjoy sex … I don’t particularly want to personally give blood at this moment in time … I make that choice partly because I know that I would be unlikely to be celibate for 6months – 1year (let alone the 10years mentioned) and thus could not honestly say I was within the definition of unrisky that is proposed … but I do recognise discrimination that is knee jerk and not based on accurate evidence .. If it was based on clear irrefutable evidence that it was safer not to have such blood from ALL gay men – so be it … That is not the case however

        1. I still couldn’t donate, I am type I diabetic.

          1. Jock S. Trap 13 Apr 2011, 9:57am

            No ignorant people should never be allow to give blood.

  22. Once again there terms and conditions attached and another way of getting our personal details, scummy british goverment!

  23. Mumbo Jumbo 10 Apr 2011, 2:01pm

    So that’s the Pope sorted then.

    1. It’s not actually. The Pope wanted to donate blood, but the Vatican prevented him from doing so because he’s ‘special’. Or something.

      1. I thought in the RC church no one could overrule the Pope ……….

        1. Only going on what I read.

  24. Absolutely absurd and insulting to those of us in monogamous relationships. I wonder how the government would respond if HIV/AIDS were overwhelmingly an heterosexually communicable disease of mostly white people? Do they think that every straight married man doesn’t have extra-marital sex and do they think that only men who have sex with men succumb to HIV? What about female prostitutes, are they banned for ten years too? What about bed-hopping single heterosexuals?

    1. Sex workers, or anyone who has ever paid for or been paid for sex, are banned for life. And anyone who has had unprotected heterosexual sex recently is counselled further to establish their likelihood of having contracted a BBV.

      It is ignorance of the current screening practices for the blood donation services that really annoy me – if you’re going to be “outraged” by something, at least educate yourself with the facts first. Otherwise you’re no better than you’re average Daily Mail reader.

      1. Robert

        If the rates of infection among straight people were as bad, there would be more people banned there too. The promiscuity that you imply among them is obviously not causing the same problems as it is among gay man. That’s an important difference. Your discrimination argument holds no weight because as someone in a monogamous gay relationship, you are in a minority. And you know that.

      2. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 4:02pm

        Good point Andrew. Even with full equality on this issue, fact is the job they do doesn’t entitle them to be outraged by anything just to tell if someone is able to give blood or not.

      3. Anyone who ever had a transfusion is banned for life also.

        1. Again on the issue of transfusion – if you have had appropriate BBV tests and a period of incubation (say 6-12 months) post test with no risky exposure in that period – why not be allowed to donate?

          1. I dunno, every single time i tried to donate I had a major NO answer because I had a transfusion in 1989. I have had a complete (and expensive) blood check since then (well I had 4 till now) am lucky enough that I didn’t get any diseases.
            But I m still not allowed.

          2. If the assessment of whether blood should be accepted or not was based on individual risk, then your four clear tests post transfusion would be likely to demonstrate that the transfusion was not a risk factor (you may have others – but that one should be disregarded if the tests could be verified)

    2. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 4:00pm

      That is an excellent point Robert. It does seem to be dismissed as a ‘Gay’ problem without the acknowledgement that it does affect the Straight community. This is what makes it discriminating. All should be health screened to make them suitable regardless of Sexual orientation. Whilst I think this just might a safe guide for them not so much us it definitely needs looking at much, much more.

    3. Robert: The str8/gay straw man argument rises yet again.
      The two are in no way comparable.

      The major factor is the infection rate of gay men. As gay men make up roughly 10% of society, yet are 46% of the total, that makes them 146% gay vs 54% in real terms, and considering most of the str8s are black Africans who contracted it outside the UK, your statement holds about as much water as a colander.

      The average str8 man has 15 sexual relationships in his lifetime. I know gay men that have more than that in a month. All this Casanova bed-hopping business is a myth. It’s what all str8 men aspire to, but few ever reach unless they are rich, famous or hung like an elephant. How many str8 couples do you know that have open relationships? I have never met one simply because women don’t tick like that.

      As Billy Crystal once pointed out:
      “Women need a reason to have sex, men just need a place.”

      1. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 4:49pm


        You need to do better research.

  25. As both a nurse and a gay man, I’ve always felt I sat on the fence with this issue, but I generally come down on the side of the ban.

    This shouldn’t be about the rights of the donors, it should be about the right for all people – gay, straight, bisexual, to receive blood products which carry as low a risk as possible of transmitting blood borne viruses. That includes not only HIV, but also hepatitis (which is which anyone with a history of intravenous drug use is banned) and syphilis (which is also a very prevalent STI among men who have sex with men).

    I do not see myself as losing out by not being able to donate a pint of blood every three months and I don’t see why anyone else would either. Campaigners I have spoken to keep hammering on about the symbolic nature of this “discrimination” but I just do not see it.

    1. You make a very good point, others would do well to listen to your inside knowledge instead of banging on about their rights to give blood. It isn’t a human right, it’s purely at the discretion of health authorities based on stats. If you’ve been out in Africa for a certain period, you’re also banned. Heterosexual MSM prisoners too. There are many groups who are affected by the ban, not just gay men. If we decrease our infection rates, then the ban will be overturned. But of course, gay men don’t think they should have to do that, they just want what they can’t have without making the changes necessary to their lifestyles.

      I’m all for the ban staying – it doesn’t stop me doing anything in life. Bans on gay marriage, adption and suchlike do actually affect people. Blood bans for 10% of the population don’t really cause that much of a problem. Stocks may be low, but if more straight people donated, we’d be fine.

    2. Of course there should be concern about the safety of donated blood products, but concern about safety is no reason to perpetuate needless discrimination and enforce totalitarian group-think collective punishment regimes. It is a simple bait-and-switch to assume it’s either-or.

      Being gay is not the problem. Engaging in risky sexual behaviour is. Not all gay men do that – the vast majority do not, and many heterosexuals do. Were it impossible to tell which individuals were the ones doing the risky stuff then we would perhaps have to enforce bans on groups with ever so slightly higher infection rates like this as the only way to catch it out. But it is laughably easy to tell who the risky ones are. We ban heterosexual men who sleep with prostitutes, not all heterosexual men. We ban intravenous drug users, not all drug users. We ALREADY have more sophisticated and better targeted schemes in place – banning all sexually active gay men makes no sense in this context.

      1. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 4:04pm

        Excellent point VP, totally agree.

      2. Mumbo Jumbo 10 Apr 2011, 5:51pm

        Indeed. As one comedian once put it:

        “So I can receive a transfusion of Russell Brand’s blood but not Stephen Fry’s?”

    3. It should absolutely be about the rights of patients and donors. Surely patients would welcome access to safe blood – and not be concerned about the origin.

      1. Exactly. If I were AB- I’d be grateful for every frigging pint!

        1. If you were AB- you could have anything as long as it was negative. It’s the O-s who have to worry!

          1. There I go mixing up my universal donors with my universal recipients again! Thanks for the correction, Sven.

  26. The issue looks quite clear cut to me. We know that the screening process isn’t perfect, so they have to try to make sure there is a limited chance of the infection being in the donated blood. Therefore, the highest risk groups should have the highest degree of control. The fact that we fall into that group, like it or not, does not alter the fact that the group is statistically higher risk. This is a decision based on percentages, risk evaluations and blanket policies designed to make the process safe as possible for the recipients of donated blood. It is about the recipients, the helpless and possibly dying victims of accidents or injuries who need access to blood they can be as sure as reasonably possible is clean. It is not about the donors and their selfish, indignant victim complexes.

    This is one area in which I would say equality and injured feelings comes second to the goal of preserving the life and safety of others.

    1. and how do you intend stopping African Hetros and women who can’t keep their legs closed from donating blood that is as higher risk if not higher than Gay Men – you Asshole!

      1. Those slip through the net. The point of the net is to prevent as much as possible from getting through; it can’t be perfect. Obviously not everyone behaves the same way, but a lot of them do which is where the statistics come from. I’m not saying we are all justifiedly classed as promiscuous, irresponsible people because not all of us are. And I’m not saying that all straight people are monogomous and responsible; but statistically more people in the gay community take more risks with their health. The actions of a few raise the group to higher risk catagory. You have only to read the comments on some of the other stories to see how unapologetically irresponsible a lot of people in this community are, and believe they have a right to be.

        Until our attitudes to risk, responsibility and health change, we will be rightly regarded as risky. It’s a reputation that tarnishes us all, and I’m sick of it, but until it’s a reputation no longer deserved I support the ban.

      2. Like I said earlier: ALL sub-Saharan black Africans should be banned from donation as they are the second highest risk group after gay men.

        Forget the PC politics, and simply look at the risks.
        Apparently changing the blanket rule to ten years will ‘only’ increase the risk of blood bank stock being infected by 5%.

        Which has to be good news, hasn’t it?
        Unless you happen to be one of those 5%…
        Ah well, you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs, and us gay boys have to stand by our principles.

        1. Commander Thor 11 Apr 2011, 2:14pm

          Spanner, please fcuk off. You are speaking from your asre.

          For everyone else, “increase the risk by 5%” means this: If the risk was x in 100, the new risk is 1.05x in 100. Eg: if the risk was 1 in 1000000, i.e. 0.0001%, the new risk is 0.000105%.

          1. Any risk is too great a risk. We know what raising the risk means; it means raising the risk, funnily enough. Dress it up however you like, but there is never a justification for putting other people at greater risk just so that you can feel “equal”.

          2. @Sven

            I would much rather have a risk free blood supply service.

            I would like the presence (or not) of risk to be assessed on science and clinical knowledge rather than perception.

            There is no justification for raising risk I agree.

            The risk of blood transfusion transmitting HIV infection has decreased since a more sophisticated assessment of risk has occurred that includes allowed some homosexuals to donate and barring other heterosexuals.

            The broad one size fits all of – Have you had sex with a man? – Ok you are too big a risk does not fit either the clinical or scientific evidence. Therefore, judgements to deny donation on this basis is perception based.

          3. Sven is right, any risk is a risk when donation from gay men is not essential. The NHS can cope quite adequately without us, but us being there risks people’s lives, albeit a small risk.
            The point is, it is avoidable, but the usual leftie fags want it just out of principle. I actually think if they were to lift the ban, there would be bugger all difference in donations anyway. Gay men are far too selfish to bother.

            My comment of the 5% increase was a clinical assessment made by the report that instigated this new rule. I didn’t just pluck figures out of the air, although I admit my maths is a bit ropey. ;)

          4. Jock S. Trap 12 Apr 2011, 4:55pm


            Yet in other countries that have repealed the ban the risk has been reduced significantly.

          5. Jock S. Trap 12 Apr 2011, 4:58pm

            “The NHS can cope quite adequately without us”

            Yet when it comes to blood donation we are constantly told they are struggling. They pleaded for people to donate. So let those who can, can! Include fairly and save lives and exclude fairly and equally save lives.

          6. Jock S. Trap 12 Apr 2011, 5:00pm

            “Gay men are far too selfish to bother.”

            I think that basically sums you up and your whole attitude problem that goes with it.

          7. @Spanner

            My maths isnt as good as it once was, either lol. I have looked at the articles and tried to find the origin of the up to 5% increase that is stated – and can only find it mentioned in the media (not on any of the DH, NBS or related websites. Even the media didnt say there would be a 5% increase – they said the increase would be less than 5%. I accept any increase is unacceptable – but it is not the experience of other nations who have changed their processes regarding blood donation from homosexual men.

            This report from the NZ blood service is interesting – particularly their comments on the length of deferral time, where they say there is no evidence to say that 10 years deferral is safer than a 5 years deferral (for example).


  27. The Equality Act is being abused here – ALL Blood donations are tested – SO why are Gay Men STILL being Discriminated against? This completely overlooks blood born viruses other than HIV – Unlike the British Government – HIV doesn’t discriminate – GAY MEN Should sue the government for being in breach of the Equality Act.

    1. Donated blood is screened for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases but a tiny number of infections are missed because there can be a time lag before they show themselves.

      1. Fair enough, but a couple of questions:

        1 – What is the time lag for these slow-moving infections?
        2 – More to the point, are these slow-movers significantly more prevalent among gay men?

        On 2: my understanding (and I’m happy to be corrected) is that the rationale for the ban is the higher HIV risk that gay men represent. I believe that the HIV virus is detectable mere months after infection. So if HIV risk is the basis for the ban (and I am right that it shows up in blood tests months after infection), the requirement for ten years’ abstinence is ridiculously disproportionate.

        If, on the other hand, the ban is intended to exclude the risk of other slow-to-appear infections, then the ban on gay men is irrational unless there is epidemiological evidence that gay men are significantly more likely to carry such infections. Even if they are, I would again ask whether the requirement for ten years’ abstinence is appropriate.

        1. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 8:36am

          I’m sure most people who either give blood or want to give blood would agree to a much more stricter blood screening scheme. If it meant saving lifes and increasing blood banks, it should be looked into but I agree I think 10 years is a bit over the top.

  28. Craig Nelson 10 Apr 2011, 4:32pm

    This is obviously a step forwards. I struggle to see why 10 years as opposed to 5, 2 or 1. I think I’d prefer something like 6 months or possibly 3 alongside detailed questions about risk related practices.

  29. hmmmmmmmmmmmm….so…”86,500 people in the UK have HIV. 42 per cent are gay men, 54 per cent are HETEROSEXUALS, the majority of whom are Africans according to the Terrance Higgins Trust.”

    1. Yes, but gay men are only 10% of the population, and the figure is 46%, so in real terms it is 146% gay vs 54% str8

      1. That’s possibly the most stupid set of calculations I have ever seen

        1. Sorry Spanner, those calculation are rubbish.

          Around 86,500 people were living with HIV in the UK at the end of 2009, of whom a quarter were unaware of their infection.

          Approximately half were heterosexual sex acquired. MSM or gay infections were assumed to be approx 42% of the figure (Terrence Higgins Trust) or 40,000 approx of the HIV numbers.

          The UK population is approx 62m people. Assuming 6% gay population (based on the UK Government’s study), about 3.6 million people – are gay or lesbian.

          So, at a very high level, without demographics,
          When you do the maths, the difference is quite small per population:- The % of gay people with HIV is 1.1% and straight is 0.077%.

          You are correct that the proportionality is different, but you are missing trending, this is key, since 1999 heterosexually acquired HIV in the UK has overtaken as the largest exposure category.

          Not saying that gay men are not a risk, quite the opposite. but there are a lot of factors in play here.

          1. Thanks Will. Maths was never my strong suit, but I think I got the point across I was making. You claim 6% of the population are gay, I said 10% – Nobody really knows.

            So as you are the numbers man, what is the proportion of gay to straight HIV people weighted for the fact gays are only 6% of the population?

            I tried to work it out, but my brain started to melt. I think I was off the day we did percentages at school 40-odd years ago.

          2. Agree on that Spanner, and your 10% figure (which I personally agree with if the amount of married men that wander the gay bars here in Dublin is anything to go by) makes the math even more palatable, although just just nearly.

      2. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 8:49am


        I know this is slightly off course from the giving blood story but I find in frustrating that you only moan about Gay people getting HIV and then continue the arguement that this is a ‘Gay disease’, then complain about those HIV charities not doing enough. Yet you are part of the problem. As long as people like you continue to label HIV as a ‘Gay disease’ we cannot expect other communities to take the threat of HIV seriously. As long as we only say it only really effect the Gay community and the Black community what stops others? Do you not know, HIV does not discriminate. We have heterosexual women who live with HIV, children with HIV both male and female, no doubt Black, White etc. Men who live with HIV.

        1. At what point did I EVER state that?
          That is utter crap. I have mentioned Sub-Saharan Black Africans and Southern Asian people to be major vectors of the disease as well, but then I’m sure you would then accuse me of being racist as well.

          The point is, anybody can contract HIV, but one method is to try to filter out by demographic, and frankly, gay men and Africans are top of the pile, however you care to look at it. Removing the, say, top five identifiable categories would reduce the risk by at least half, probably a lot more.

          1. Jock S. Trap 12 Apr 2011, 5:02pm

            “anybody can contract HIV”

            Exactly yet you make excuses for some and not for others.

      3. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 8:52am


        HIV affect every people who has it weither Gay or Straight. In many cases although Gay men are discriminated because of having this chronic illness by Gay and Straight alike. Take into account those heterosexual people who also face discrimination. Then spare a thought for those truely innocent, Gay or Straight, who will face discrimination from either community, blaming action they never took because they were born with it.

        Your discrimination and labelling affects many different people from all races, cultures, sexual orientations. Unless we treat them and this illness equally we will never get it under control.

        You blame everyone else for not taking responsibilty but by discriminating you are hardly showing any yourself.

      4. But what percentage of the INDIGENOUS population are gay men? That, surely, is the crucial figure those like Robert always seem to conveniently overlook. I am not interested in foreigners who hot leg it here claiming asylum or free AIDS drugs and who disproportionately inflate the stats while helping to boost tht’s bottom line!

        1. As in what percentage of the indigenous population WITH HIV are gay men? Hmmm?

    2. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 8:38am

      Wasn’t thats 42% and 54% figures new ifection last year? not as a community as a whole?

      1. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 3:03pm

        Sorry, those figures account for infections up to June 2010.

        42% homosexual

        54% heterosexual

        as for indigenous, I will have to research.

  30. This my sound rather obvious, but don’t they check the blood for HIV anyway. It’s really irrelevant who the donor is. This is such a backwards ruling. Surely this new ruling just makes a mockery of the process. Anyone can lie about when they had sex last. Ridiculous. Just ridiculous.

    1. Read above: HIV doesn’t show in tests if it is still in the bloodstream from a recent infection . It can only be detected once it enters the blood cells, and this can take time to show.

      If they waited for any risk to show, the white cells would be dead and the blood pretty well useless for donation.

  31. More bigotry from our leaders. How dare they. The bastards!
    Anne Milton – just go back to planet Zog where you obviously came from.

  32. I can’t really believe that homophobia is behind the ban. The NHS is actively trying to encourage more blood donation and they need the blood stocks. If they could judge each individual case on its own merits then more gay people could donate blood but they do have to have a one-size-fits-all rule that takes into account gay men who will have unprotected sex within the three months before donating and the men who think they are in a long-standing monogamous relationship but whose partners are doing the dirty on them.These things happen, and while it’s true that they can happen with straight people it is an inescapable fact that HIV rates are far higher in gay men than straight men.

    As gay men we all might need to receive donated blood if we are injured- just like anyone else, so we should be concerned about making sure that the best measures are in place to reduce risks of blood-bourne disease transmission.

    Blood donation isn’t a human right, like marriage equality.

    1. Actually equality in law is a human right. Marriage itself is not a human right, it’s just a social tradition, but as it is institutionalised into law, it should thus also be done on an equal basis.

      If black people were denied equal marriage because being black doesn’t constitute the traditional understanding of marriage, that WOULD be a violation of their right to equality. The same applies with gay people.

      The fact that homosexual is an emergent behaviour and black skin is a physical attribute is neither here nor there. Left handed people also had the right to a harassment free life back in the days they were persecuted for being so.

  33. Bad times :(

  34. Also, if the NHS were being irrationally homophobic they would ban lesbians too. No one accuses them of being racist for banning Africans from blood donation.

  35. Tony Simpson 10 Apr 2011, 10:22pm

    Actually you are wrong about New Zealand. It used to be ten years but was reduced to five years about six years ago as a result of a comprehensive review, and applies only to those who have had oral or anal sex with or without a condom.

    1. Yeah Tony my comment above refers to the five year period in NZ – which was the longest of all countries that permitted donations of blood from gay men until the proposed UK policy. I do think the policies in Hungary, Spain, Italy etc are more reasonable and justifiable

  36. It’s still a ban on gay men, but guys who sucked off their mate behind the school shed are now ok to donate

  37. It just proves the TORYS haven’t changed wolf in sheeps clothing it proves HOW OUT OF TOUCH THEY ARE


    Liberal my arse!!

    1. de Villiers 11 Apr 2011, 2:03pm


      Your statement is as unreasonable as Beberts. Labour, when in power, made not one move towards reducing the ban.

      The Conservatives are doing so only on advice. If the scientific advice were otherwise, they would leave it alone.

      This is driven purely by government advisors and not by any politics.

  38. I just don’t see how this is about equality.

    There are all sort of groups that are excluded, advised not to give blood or delay giving blood.

    When there are large groups of Gay men having unprotected sex and we continue to be over represented in the statistics for HIV, I don’t think we have an argument.

    Lesbians can continue to donate blood.

    1. Exactly. It’s disturbing that certain people on here value their “right to donate”, irrespective of their behaviour and the risks associated with it, higher than other people’s “right not to be infected with HIV”. This is not an equality issue.

      1. Steve Crossley 11 Apr 2011, 12:26pm

        I’d like the option at least to be able to help others by donating blood. I’m not a very sexually active person, and have gone over a year without sexual activity whilst still being checked.

        10 years is stupid. It’s still discriminatory. It’s not a case of “right to donate” or general gay hate, it’s a case of assuming that because you and I both sleep with men, we are the same. Yeah some gay men do put themselves at risk, so do some straight people. This decision is made on a stereotype basis, which is complete and utter discrimination.

        1. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 3:04pm

          Excellent point Steve.

        2. Absolutely, Steve – the point I have been trying to make …

        3. It’s an assumption made because they simply can’t be 100% sure of the mass testing procedure. As long as you and I both belong to a group which still contains a large number of highly irresponsible people, along with a hefty proportion of people carrying HIV, then we will have to be treated the same way as them. The resources are not there to do anything else. So look at why the group is regarded that way, and address the behavioural problems within it if you want to change people’s perceptions about it and the rate of infection inside it.

          Bleating about equality is counter productive here; it makes us look selfish and unable to take responsibility for ourselves. Again. This kind of indignant whining does nothing but damage to our cause.

      2. @Sven

        If New Zealand, Hungary, Italy, Spain, Australia, South Africa and other nations can produce a system that ensures equality,maintains (and improves) patient safety and (in some published cases) reduceds actual HIV transmission rates from blood transfusion; then I think it is perfectly feasible for the UK to introduce a sophisticated model that cost effectively simultaneously maintains (and possibly improves patient safety) and ensures equality

        1. Not when we barely have the money to keep the NHS going. If the money was there, and a system could be introduced that effectively and accurately screened all donations then yes, any ban would be unjustified. But it isn’t, and it can’t, so it’s not. For now anyway.

          1. Jock S. Trap 12 Apr 2011, 3:39pm

            Thats actually a far point Sven.

            Of course the best way to get round it would be to open this side of things up to the private sector. That way they would have to have the state of the art screening program which allowed all those perfectly capable to give blood and exclude those that can’t but via gender and risk not by sexual orientation.

          2. They don’t do any more testing in NZ or Japan than the NBS service in the UK do – yet they have a more sophisticated acceptance policy and maintain patient safety

          3. Also I dont think private sector involvement is the answer, Jock

            We dont want a profit motive in blood supplies???

          4. Jock S. Trap 13 Apr 2011, 9:44am

            I’m not talking about profits, giving blood cannot and should never be financial, although some countries do pay people to donate. I’m more on about combining NHS and private to give better screening and of course accountability.

  39. Keep the full ban!

    1. ban the ban

  40. This is like a handshake, coupled with a kick in the balls. For a start anyway, should this not read ‘men who have sex with men’? Not ‘gay’ as this doesn’t cover the whole banned demographic. In addition, to but a 10 year-no sex condition on, means that yet again, most msm will not be able to give their blood. One condition could have been, no sexual or new sexual partners in 6 months and a negative HIV test to be provided.

  41. Fact 1: gay men are by far the largest as well as vastly disproportionate indigenous segment of society to carry HIV.

    Fact 2: not all gay men are to be trusted.

    Of course it makes total sense to have a blanket blood ban on men who label themselves “gay” to vastly reduce the risks of blood banks becoming contaminated. But now the “gay” community is demanding equal rights at all costs, no matter that the right of gay men to give blood will like it or loathe it increase the chances for HIV to spread further. I think the gay blood ban exposes the fundamentalism and selfish fanaticism of the gay lobby at its most extreme.

    1. Fact 2: not all gay men are to be trusted.

      This would imply you have something other then your world view to back this up? Are gay men less trustworthy than straights for some reason? How so, pray tell, or is this another ridiculous religious fact?

    2. Rob, you’re talking utter dribble out of your anus. “Gay lobby”? “not all gay men are to be trusted”? LOL! What a load of tosh.
      Paranoid much?

      1. “86,500 people in the UK have HIV..”..42 % gay..what’s the population of the UK and what’s the percentage of people who have had sex with other men in the UK? Do thiese figures warrant a blanket ban of 10 yrs on all gays regardless of their situation, it’s not only insulting and discriminatory but defies reasoning , I thought blood was in short supply?

        1. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 4:52pm

          Yes thats 0.01% of the population.

        2. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 4:53pm

          Not forgetting that..

          “86,500 people in the UK have HIV..”… 54% Straight. Yet they can give blood.

          1. Jock S. Trap 11 Apr 2011, 4:55pm

            Oh PinkNews please can you sort thought bloomin mysterious numbers out. I put .’s and “‘s not numbers

      2. It is estimated that 7% of gay men donate blood.
        That’s not my opinion, that is THT and the NHS.

    3. Fact 1 – the rate of increase of new infections in HIV is significantly higher in heterosexuals than in homosexuals

      Fact 2 – Numerically there are more heterosexual HIV carriers than homosexual

      Fact 3 – Shocking – Some homosexuals, some bisexuals and some homosexuals can not be trusted

      So … remind me again what the science is to ban all homosexuals from donating blood …?

      1. Correction – some homosexuals, some bisexuals and some heterosexuals …

    4. Absolutely correct.

  42. @Pepa

    You can’t have it both ways – either this is such a marginal change (due to the lack of monogamy in gay men that you seem to be very sure of – despite your 1984 figures) and thus there is unlikely to be any change in donating habits and any change in HIV rates will have no connection to this change in policy OR there will be a significant increase in infection rates … which is it …

    Also, my HIV status is irrelevant to this discussion – I wouldnt be able to give blood under the old or new regimes in any case – so personalising it to me when you know nothing about me is immature

    It is about patient safety and equality. Some gay men pose no risk by donating blood and are currently excluded (under whichever regime). Some heterosexuals are a massive risk and are currently permitted to donate blood. Orientation is irrelevant its participation in risky behaviour and whether there is a window for transmission.

  43. im not that keen on giving blood myself but some other gay men are, there are countries let gay people to donate, so i dont understand why uk insists on a 10 year ban, it just sends out wrong message that there is something wrong with gay people. there are so many ways that you can control blood donation that ban on gays is rather homophobic then scientific

  44. The entire issue is a matter of words anyway, the ban does nothing to limit HIV infections. You cannot do a test for someone’s sexuality, and I just lie on the form and give blood. I’m sure others do too. Altering the wording of the ban is pointless and I dread to think the amount of hours spent in meetings to come to this meaningless conclusion. If gay people want to give blood, they can, they just have to lie. I lie because I see the issue of blood shortage a more important point than the principles behind a law that can be easily ignored.

    In short, HIV infections from blood donations will not rise or fall whether this ban is kept, changed or lifted. The only issue is the message the law itself sends out to the general population – that gay blood is dirty blood.

  45. Steve Crossley 11 Apr 2011, 12:21pm

    “While donated blood is screened for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, a small number of infected donations are missed due to the time between infection with HIV and it being detected in blood tests.” – It doesn’t take 10 years!!

    1. I think a reasonable period would be 6-12 months with required BBV testing prior to donation …

      1. 6 months is more than enough time between blood tests to confirm status.

  46. simply ridiculous!
    BUT a valid point is being made, and according to the latest HIV stats gay men have not chnaged their risky behaviour! use a condom!!

  47. Until ALL gay men understand the need to stick a condom on it each and every time, how dare the militant gay fringe demand they also have the right to give blood? I have no objection to such men brandishing their lethal weapons at one another if that is what they consent to do in private, but to suggest they then lie – as some on here are advocating – in order to give blood that could be tainted with all manner of pathogens is frankly outrageous!!!

    1. I lie and am safe. I am secure in the knowledge I have not got HIV. I would never donate blood if I had the slightest belief my blood was a risk to others. Quite frankly if other people are like me then yes, I unashamedly advocate lying for what I see as the greater good. Of course I do not think people who indulge in unsafe sex should give blood.

      The point is this law does nothing, for better or worse, to contribute to the safety of blood banks. If you don’t lift the ban then the people who currently lie will continue to do so. If you do lift the ban the people that currently donate will continue to do so.

      The entire issue here merely centers around stigmatising a group of people in society. It’s called inequality, and it’s shameful, and anyone espousing the “everyone will get aids now” rhetoric is a complete tool.

      1. But how do you know? Have you been tested?
        50% of HIV+ men don’t even know they have it.

        1. 76% of statistics are made up on the spot.

          1. Which is not to say you shouldn’t get tested regularly anyway – better safe than sorry.

  48. Maybe if the “missed” ones were found (due diligence), there wouldn’t be any need for the ban.

    Steve Crossley, you’re absolutely right, it doesn’t take 10 years to detect HIV. I think its anywhere between 3 to 6 months.

    What about straights who get infected or who are infecting other straights? What about straight intravenous drug users? Are they mentioned in this report and are they not a high-risk group too? The same ban should cover everyone who has had unprotected sex or has shared needles no matter their orientation. This report seems to target just one group, gay men. That alone promotes the stigma that this disease is overwhehlmingly a gay disease which it isn’t. Worldwide, there are more straights succombing to this illness, primarily in emerging nations, yet it is still regarded as a gay disease. What would have happened had it first struck the straights? Would they be calling it the straight disease and would they be stigmatising and villifying their lives?

    1. The problem is that blood has to be processed within three weeks, preferably one, or it is useless for donation.

  49. de Villiers 11 Apr 2011, 2:06pm

    Surely the point has to be based on the medical evidence and the balance to be struck.

    If there is discrimination, such discrimination can be justified where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

    The legitimate aim is the safety of blood supplies. There appears, to me, to be no issue with there being a legitimate aim.

    The question is whether the ban is a proportionate means of achieving that aim. This decision would have to be based on medical and scientific advice. To the extent that medical and scientific advice supports a ban (and I have insufficient knowledge on the detail of the advice) then surely a prohibition in such terms would be proportionate.

    1. Having a blanket ban on Gays not giving blood for 10 yrs is wrong. Categorising the whole gay population into high risk is nonsense, devise the right questions and checks and tests that is what is required. The whiole process of giving blood is voluntary, you don’t get paid for it and is seen by the majority who give it as a good deed. What is the gay population in the UK, 1 to 10%, a total blanket ban of 10 yrs on up to 10% of the UK’s population simply becuase they are gay can’t be justified.

    2. @de Villiers

      Absolutely if discrimination can be justified on medical grounds with good evidence and it is proportionate then keep the ban … the reality is that 10 year gap is not proportionate, that a ban does not reflect the risk of each individual and it is not proportionate when you look at global experiences

      1. de Villiers 11 Apr 2011, 9:26pm

        As to that, really, I do not know. I know only that which is the reported medical evidence. I am open to learning what is the position abroad. I should say that I do not even know what are the rules in France.

        I am not qualified to say what is or is not proportionate. But I would be sceptical that government advisors would recommend an unnecessary prohibition that would have the effect of diminishing the blood supply.

        1. @de Villiers

          Given that the window for infection post-potential exposure is accepted as around 3 months (by the most conservative estimates), and that other countries permitting blood donation from gay men have a maximum (New Zealand – a clinically advanced nation) of five years and most are 1 year or less – I would argue that ten years is neither proportionate nor clinicially justifiable.

        2. de villiers – if we stopped taking blood completely then the risk of bad blood is zero. If we had a blanket ban on no sex for 10 yrs for the whole 55 million potential doners of the UK then the risk again would be low. They are statistical true facts , however, to make up a rule based only on a stats figure would be mad. We’re all potential carriers, you can’t trust anyone. Rules should be applied equally across the board not a specific 10 yr ban on all gay people regardless of their sexual history. It doesn’t make any logical sense to do that. Stats are interesting but rules shouldn’t only be based on stats.

  50. “While donated blood is screened for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, a small number of infected donations are missed due to the time between infection with HIV and it being detected in blood tests.”
    Is this not bothering anyone? Still, in the 21st Century, assuming that a gay person is more likely to be infected with HIV is ignorant. What it’s actually doing is focussing on the wrong issue. Surely the focus should be on making sure that the screening results are 100% which would therefore allow anyone to donate regardless of their sexual orientation. At the end of the day people needing a transfusion want healthy blood regardless of where it came from, NOT blood from a straight person that is hopefully not infected. I realise its a preventative measure but its preventing something which is unacceptable. Any comments?

    1. It’s all well and good, but the HIV virus is virtually undetectable before it infects the cells. The test is based on the physiological change in the cell once infected.
      The virus is extremely small, and there may only be a handful floating around in the blood, so it is very difficult to track down even under lab circumstances, let alone in commercial blood processing procedures.

      You must understand that blood is processed in huge vats, not just a few bags.

      1. Jock S. Trap 12 Apr 2011, 5:10pm

        Actually there are usually a number of blood anomalies that can be detected that can indicate HIV and other problems which would result in the person been recalled to retake the tests again. It means bloods for HIV can be taken quicker without having to wait for results.

  51. The South African Ban changed from 5 years to 6 months after a blood scare!! That is so hypocritical. In SA the percentage of gay men with HIV is not as high as the percentage of straight men…

  52. This “pepa” person seems to be a troll, for all his “WE GAY MEN” pronouncements.

    And I don’t think he’s actually gay at all, nor gives a rat’s bum about half the things he chunters on about.

    1. @R Boyer

      I too think he may be a troll

      He doesnt half spout some rubbish

      He also gets hysterical when his “evidence” is criticised – despite it not demonstrating the argument whether the material is valid or not

  53. SteveDenver 11 Apr 2011, 9:59pm

    It’s the same in the U.S., but if workers even suspect you might be gay, your donation is marked with a sticker and discarded later.

    That’s to make sure that gay AIDS — which is the only kind in the United States where nobody but gay men have HIV or AIDS — doesn’t taint the purity of the always sanctified straight population.

    Of course on Jersey Shore and other MTV populations, they just use discarded motor oil for blood transfusions.

  54. …I’m amused that some comments seem to imply that straight men don’t have anal sex. So what if their partner is female – it’s still anal, still carries the same theoretical infection risk.
    Also, most gay men bareback? If you’re stupid enough to bareback with someone you don’t know for sure is clean, and aren’t in a long-term relationship with… what are you doing with your life? Ever heard of self-respect?
    Newsflash: straight couples also wear condoms unless they’re either stupid, in a long-term relationship on alternative birth control, or planning/not planning against pregnancy.

    Promiscuity is equally apparent in both the straight and gay communities – it just seems to be easier to come by for gay men because both parties involved are male and therefore less likely to commit and attach emotions to the act.

    1. To add: Yes, I’m young, naive and still believe in love and commitment. So sue me. I’m lucky and have had good role models as peers.

      1. Jock S. Trap 13 Apr 2011, 9:56am

        Good points Shiin.

  55. PumpkinPie 12 Apr 2011, 7:08pm

    340 comments?! Geez, somebody’s probably already said this, but here’s my take on it…

    Unprotected casual sex is dangerous, not protected gay sex (or sex with a long-term partner). Why not just ban people who have had unprotected casual sex in the last 10 years, then?

    1. Indeed. This particular statement hasn’t been specifically made, but (after reading through all comments) similar ones have been.

      I agree that 10 years is a nonsense ruling. That means that 5 more people in the whole UK can now donate. Big deal. The other 1200 who had had sex ONLY once since 1977 and were already willing to donate blood have already been donating blood because they knew they were low risk to start with.

      In addition, there is at least one person on this thread who has admitted to being gay and lying on the screening questionnaire. This is illegal and you can be sued if you happen to be carrying any blood borne illness. The same thing happened in Canada months ago.

      As I have a scientific mind, I know whether I am a high risk individual in terms of having HIV. I feel that I am fairly low risk due to my sexual behaviours and the fact that I do not share needles or go to unregulated tattoo parlours or acupuncturists. However, I am not strictly monogamous either.

      1. As such, I wouldn’t go to donate blood (even if I were allowed to by the rules) unless I had a test indicating that I was STI-free after 6 months of having my last extra-relational encounter and without having any new encounters since the test. As with heterosexuals, I can never fully know the sexual history of my sexual partners. But there are some guys I would trust a lot more than others to be honest with me. Because I am the same on every level as at least one heterosexual, I should be treated the same way as that heterosexual. Is my blood safe? Last time I checked, it was. Would I lie to be able to donate it? Not at this point. Is the blood service constantly screaming for increased donations? Absolutely, but my lying on the forms only sets me up for disaster.

  56. This might interest you :

    Gay blood donation ban is silly, unfair and no more science based.

  57. burningworm 20 Jun 2011, 3:20pm


    Yay we can all give blood. Because none of us are married under god and therefore none of us have sex, also because we don’t reproduce we don’t need to have sex.

    YAY we can give buckets of blood. I’m wearing my dragular fangs. See you all in a decade when the world loves my blood.

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