Reader comments · Daily Star columnist: ‘If Ricky Gervais was gay, you’d think he had AIDS’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Daily Star columnist: ‘If Ricky Gervais was gay, you’d think he had AIDS’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Just an apology? Shouldn’t we be demanding he gets sacked?!! Then again, I suppose its quite tame compared to the bile the tabloids churn out on a daily basis.

    1. I would suggest that we should all boycott the newspaper, but it’s not as if the Daily Star is particularly aimed at the gay market…

  2. Jock S. Trap 12 Apr 2011, 11:06am

    This is totally unacceptable. It is wrong on so many levels. Now lets see if the IPCC stand by this or do nothing, ie the usual but then isn’t the IPCC government by the likes of the Daily Mail so wonder if anything will be done.

    They’re basically implying he has AIDS and forgetting the fact the percentage of straight people with HIV is higher they go with the typical uneducated stereotype. Something out of the 1980’s scaremongering newspaper campaigns.

    I really hope they get cracked down on in some form, this kind of damaging, discriminating reporting surely has no place and should be rooted out.


    I have to say this bit about when overweight people loose weight, they can’t win. They get it for being overweight then many of them loose it and get it again by being told they look ill.

    Then are people really that obsessed about celebrity? I know I couldn’t be less interested.

    1. As always Jock you stretch the facts to suit your own victimised view of the world. In the indigenous population – that is, excluding NHS tourists and asylum seekers – HIV is prominently a gay man’s disease and is relatively rare among indigenous heterosexuals. Now, if Ricky Jervais covered himself in boot polish and wore a grass skirt you might have a point…

      And this is The Daily Star for heaven’s sake. This is the sort of inane banter they print, so more fool any gays to be reading such trash. It is designed to appeal to a certain sub-human intellect. Like the hoo-hah over the guest house couple, if you don’t agree with what the Star says then read the Guardian instead and stay at one of the majority of guest houses that don’t discriminate!!

      Why do these non-stories always have to become a feeding frenzy among the ultra-radical gays? Is it because having won near enough every right now they are trying to justify their existence and let the rest of us know they are still around?

      1. william

        Take that rod out you ass and relax

      2. Jock S. Trap 12 Apr 2011, 2:35pm


        You seem to have become oddly obsessed with me so I think it’s only fair to tell you I already have a hubby, 18 years and have absolutely no interest in you. It wouldn’t work, your not my type. Painful for you I know but do get over it.

        Thank you.

        1. Well said , so many haters about on the threads today.

          1. Jock S. Trap 12 Apr 2011, 3:53pm

            Trouble is rapture we’ll never know if it is so many haters or so many nicknames until PinkNews changes nickname use.

      3. William, I suppose you think that if the paper printed racist stories, the black community should just ignore it? Or if they printed anti semitic stories the Jewish community should just ignore it? And that it’s okay to print homophobic stories in a paper, because they are homophobic? How exactly do you think that minority groups stop discrimination if they just ignore it?

        1. Jock S. Trap 12 Apr 2011, 3:55pm

          A valuable point as ever Eddy. I think these people think if we just hide it’ll go away as if we have no right in being ourselves let along being ourselves in public.

      4. Helen Wilson 12 Apr 2011, 4:33pm

        William you are just a nasty racist! Don’t you have a book burning to goto instead of posting on PinkNews.

        1. Jock S. Trap 12 Apr 2011, 5:13pm

          Yeah, probably Boyz, QZ and Gay Times.

          1. Oh, not all bad then.

        2. Those who seek out racism where it does not exist and label others racist without any firm evidence to support their accusation are invariably discovered to be inherently racist themselves. FACT. If you cannot separate a wry remark from a seriously observed one then your head is too far up your PC filter to be able to distinguish b***k from white. As half of my own family is Afro Carribean how the hell does that make me racist?! Pot, kettle, b***k (sorry, mustn’t risk being dubbed racist must we?) anyone? LOL!

          1. Jock S. Trap 13 Apr 2011, 12:00pm

            The fact you write b***k I think proves Helens point, don’t you?

            What a disgrace.

          2. And racists are the first to deny it existence

          3. Jock S. Trap 13 Apr 2011, 12:18pm

            Yes James! your right.

            Along the same lines as whoever smelt it…

            It’s always the way with these types.

  3. So the Daily Star churns out something crass, bigoted and homophobic.
    Quelle surprise! As they say in algebra circles, let x=x.

  4. Joe Mott has made a career for himself writing crass remarks like that, he’s a reflection of The Star’s readership.

  5. Sure, an apology is needed …

    Arguably, there needs to be visible sanction on both the journalist and editor who permitted this breach of taste and decency.

    I particularly think the authors comment “Not being bad …” was a crude attempt to appear not to be prejudiced, cruel and distasteful.

  6. Are we really surprised that the Daily Star is more skilled in the art of paranoid fiction, than reliable fact.

    Journalistic standards, and bad taste are still taken seriously in other areas of the press.

    The Daily star, needs to be brought back down to earth so to speak

  7. Sounds like this ‘journalist’ actually stole one of Ricky’s own jokes.. Didn’t he make this joke about himself in a Johnathon Ross interview saying his weight loss was caused by HIV and smack?

  8. Just another sad angry little boy, who feel powerless in his small world, attacking out and stomping his feet for attention. In time, he will be only noted by a grave marker, if that.

    1. Yes Ray, just about sums up 90 per cent or so of the posters on here, day in, day out…

      1. Jock S. Trap 15 Apr 2011, 4:07pm

        Your choice to come here…

    Ricky does not need to be Gay to have HIV – of the 33 million world wide living with the virus a small percent are GAY – 22 million are from Sub-Saharan Africa

    Tell the arse wiping National Press to try printing some facts in their rags for a change

    1. Ah, but it does discriminate.
      Why do you think gay men and Africans seem to have a higher incidence?

        1. Fact: over two thirds of indigenous Brits living with HIV are gay men. Why the denial? Oh yes, from the same names who are screaming for gay men to give blood, I see. Hmmm, quel surprise…

          1. but the reason we want to be able to give blood is because it is non sensical as they give you a HIV test before you can give blood anyway so it’s non sensical

      1. Jock S. Trap 13 Apr 2011, 7:59am

        So White straight men and women don’t het HIV then Spanner?

        1. Jock S. Trap 13 Apr 2011, 7:59am

          Opps get HIV

        2. Of course they do, but it’s a matter of proportion.
          Stop trying to bend my words to fit your lefty straw man agenda.

          1. Jock S. Trap 14 Apr 2011, 10:29am

            I’m not trying to bend your words, I’m trying to see you seen to discriminate against groups as if all others are fine. That is just wrong. You never focus on this group then wonder why some think they are immune.

            Also thank you for peoving you don’t read threads!!

  10. Gay guys do it to! I lost 125lb in 2000 and a rumour started that i had AIDS, started by the local acidic queens.

  11. Paddyswurds 12 Apr 2011, 12:25pm

    I am amazed that this story was discovered outside of the printers. Who reads the Daily Star these days. i actually thought it had shut up shop years ago and this is the sort of story it was coming out with back then. no change then.

    I can identify with this story though. Twenty years ago when i met my partner who is twenty five years younger than me, i was seventeen stone. and as with all new romances the vigor and excitement of our love life was such that i lost five stone in less than six months. The rumours were rife in the local villiage and area of countryside where we live that i had caught HIV off him and was dying of AIDS. We ignored the gossips and time proved them all wrong of course, but at the time we were both very hurt by the whispers and gossip. Because we were gay and out peoples imaginations ran riot. If we had been closeted, people would have just assumed were were getting to grips with my weight and were striving to be healthy.

    1. Yeah it’s annoying… just becuase you’re skinny (like myself ) and you’re gay and sometime you has a pasty complexion, then the assumption is that you have aids. The most annoying experience I had was when U visited a GP as an away patient and he cottoned on that I was gay and the immediate diagnosis to my minor problem was that I should have a HIV test …That was over 10 yrs ago and I haven’t been to a GP since becuase he really, really upset me..

      1. @John

        I have no doubt that was an upsetting event – not all GPs are the same – there are some amazingly competant and supportive GPs out there too. Don’t let your health be potentially damaged by the bad experience you had.


        The Daily Star certainly is no more than a rag. I think the last time I actually saw a paper copy was in a media seminar at university 12-14 years ago.
        It seems far more obsessed with Big Brother etc from commercials and adverts I have seen.

        1. Jock S. Trap 12 Apr 2011, 2:29pm

          I think hearing stories like these its not hard to see that education about HIV has either been absent or just plain failed. I remember several comments made to me when I was a large man that I couldn’t possibly have HIV because of my size.

          This is why papers, no matter how in the gutter need to be forced to provide correct information not damaging speculation that can damage the outlook for those living with HIV. Surely all media has to take responsibility when covering such illnesses.

          I think the biggest problem of all though is unless we stop this targetting of who this disease ‘effects’ we will never get HIV under control. As long as people keep saying it affect one group more than another, no matter if thats right or wrong, we give excuses to others to keep up the risky sex.

  12. Wow that’s terrible. I hope he gets sacked!

    Maybe Ricky just went on a diet?

  13. Because only gay people have AIDS… what a big load of cr*p!

  14. Pick you battles its the star its like the sunday sport without the wit

  15. I’m not usually offended by these sorts of incidents and tend to think they’re blow out of proportion, but this one I genuinely find offensive, and hope this man is sacked straight away.

  16. I wonder if Mott would say the same thing if his own child or other straight family member had a sudden loss of weight? Lets face it, in the mindset of a lot of people in straight society, “gay = AIDS”, “gay = paedophilia”. We’re the last group of people that its ok to denigrate, villify as well as dehumanise our lives and very existence. The bulk of the religious cults and their fanatic followers are just as complict. Institutionalised homophobia is alive and wll in our country, in fact thriving. This is the sort of thing one would expect from a rag of the Daily Mail ilk, among others. I dare say Melanie Phillips et al would concur with Mott’s statement.

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

      I strong suspect that had a child of Motts had HIV this comment would never have been made.

    2. slightly off topic but

      “We’re the last group of people that its ok to denigrate, villify as well as dehumanise our lives and very existence. ”

      Really? so what about people with mental health issues, people on the autistic spectrum, anyone with any learning dissability, trans people, bisexuals, asexuals or women?

      in my time with my university LGBT group (and I held 2 different commitee positions in that group) I heard gay men (infact, the male welfare officer in many cases) villify & dehuminise all of these groups.

      I know you want to fight for your rights as a gay man, but don’t you dare suggest that yours is the only fight. as an aspie, a dyspraxic, an asexual, someone with a history of depression and a woman, I would never tell you or anyone else that I’m the only person who faces discrimination in the 21st century.

      1. Jock S. Trap 13 Apr 2011, 10:00am

        I doubt many people dismiss those tttmpjaj. Just wne a story arises I’m sure you’ll see equal amounts of support.

        1. there are stories all the time (try AFF, wrong planet, bbc ouch…). I was responding to an opinion expressed above (by Robert) and by other gay men (and some lesbians) who I’ve met irl. no, you’re not the last group to face discrimination and no, your sexuality doesn’t give you the right to be a bigot.

          when I’ve brought this to peoples attention in the past I’ve been laughed at for being overly PC, so I don’t think I would get equal support (at least, not from here, staight NTs would probably think both sets of issues were us minorities being overly sensitive, which is a kind of equal support)

          I’m not accusing you of anything, but thats what I’ve experienced (and a lot of my friends have experienced) on the gay scene and in the NUS LGBT movement.

          1. Jock S. Trap 15 Apr 2011, 9:58am

            I hear what your saying. I meant on this News site generally when those other stories arise then support usually follows. You have every right ot bring it to everyones attention, I don’t think it in any PC either.

  17. William, really? Then explain why worldwide, AIDS is predominantly heterosexually transmitted in the majority of emerging nations?

    What would you be saying if this disease had first struck straights?

    1. Well firstly, it’s not the Third World, it’s just sub-Saharan Africa.
      The reason is two-fold. Basically African men only want to marry ‘virgins’, but anal sex is not considered to be losing one’s cherry, so that’s what they do.
      As you probably realise, unprotected anal sex is considerably more risky than vaginal sex for a number of reasons.

      Secondly, the men also consider it ‘unmacho’ to wear a condom.

      It really is as simple as that, but the press refuse to mention that because nobody would ever do that sort of thing up the bum.

      1. And where did you do your research?

        1. Jock:
          You really are an asswipe sometimes.
          The whole point of this excercise is to define high risk groups, so they can be controlled and reduce the risks in one fell swoop.

          This is not about homophobia or racism, its about saving people’s fcuking lives, you blinkered lefty cretin.

      2. Jock S. Trap 13 Apr 2011, 8:04am


        Are you really serious?. I also question your research not only as inaccurate but very bias too.

        It’s people like you thats is the main problem and cause of the HIV numbers.

        1. Actually, I believe that one of the causes of the sub-Saharan epidemic is the culture of female subservience. It is difficult for women to demand of their male sexual partners (in the majority of cases, their husbands) that they wear condoms.

          1. Jock S. Trap 13 Apr 2011, 4:09pm

            I don’t dispute that Roland. Spanner just is selective with the truth, tend to blame certain groups rather than seeing the problem as a whole.

            I cannot see how we can expect a reduction in HIV numbers so long as people continue to label HIV with certain groups which in turn suggests others are immune. It’s irresponsible furthermore it is just plain wrong.

            One minute he blames people with HIV for giving everyone else a bad name, then blames us for making all Gays not trusted then will complaining about the number continues to separate groups. It’s just plain ignorant. Spanner himself is part of the problem.

          2. I have NOT blamed ANYONE, you CNUT!!
            It’s not a matter of “labelling”, it’s a matter of defining who are the largest groups so they can eliminate them from donations.

            I read recently that 17-22yo’s pay the highest car insurance premiums? Why? Because insurance brokers hate kids thats why. It’s because they are statistically the highest group to have a major accident, and so they weight their premiums accordingly.

            If little old ladies were more prone to HIV than anyone else, then I would have mentioned them instead.

            Now get off your fcuking high horse and look at the practical situation instead of waving that fcuking great chip on your shoulder in everyones face.

          3. Jock S. Trap 15 Apr 2011, 9:59am

            LOL, oh dear Spanner. Lost ot much?

          4. Jock S. Trap 15 Apr 2011, 4:07pm

            Oops lost IT much that was meant to be.

  18. I would like to demand that the owners of the Daily Star, or Joe Motts bosses who ever they are, force him to take HIV education of some description. Maybe that would help his ignorance towards HIV. Some discussion about his own sex life maybe, with some look into how mant times he has unprotected sex with anyone (no matter if married or not) would open up his eyes after knowing the cold hard truth about HIV?

    1. Paddyswurds 12 Apr 2011, 11:28pm

      @ Reece…
      ….”.Some discussion about his own sex life maybe, with some look into how mant times he has unprotected sex with anyone (no matter if married or not) would open up his eyes after knowing the cold hard truth about HIV?”
      Have you seen his pic. I would seriously doubt if he has a sex life unless it takes place in the seedier darker corners of Soho, no one is that hard up to have to consider jumping in the sack with that sack of sh!t.

  19. Just made an official complaint to the PCC.

    1. If memory serves me right Daily Star has opted out of the PCC, so I don’t think they can do anything.

      Also what exactly does PCC do when they agree with the complaint? Nothing, they have no powers apart from slapping their wrist.

      PCC needs to go and a proper regulator with powers needs to take it’s place.

      1. Jock S. Trap 13 Apr 2011, 8:06am

        I agree with that Mike. All media needs to be accountable but not to the PCC which is pretty much run by the press, meaning they pretty much get away with anything. On this case The Daily Star needs to be nelh to account.

        1. Jock S. Trap 13 Apr 2011, 8:06am

          Again sorry Needs to be held to account.

    2. Even those newspapers which have opted out can still be reprimanded by the PCC

      1. Jock S. Trap 15 Apr 2011, 10:00am

        Don’t they will be though.

  20. Andrew Woodman 12 Apr 2011, 3:40pm

    Why not let’s boycott all tabloid newpapers…Hang on a minute I do that anyway! This is the Daily Star so what else would you expect from a pig but a grunt?

    1. Jock S. Trap 15 Apr 2011, 10:01am

      Don’t do newspapers they are full of old news.

  21. People have to remember that Joe Mott is named after a cnut.

    1. Someone is using my name

  22. Ricky Gervais comments about THT leaflet on safe sex

  23. All you need to know about the Daily Star and how it selects what it prints:

    When its own staff think it’s so crap they don’t want to work there, then there’s not much more that needs to be said.

  24. Helen Wilson 12 Apr 2011, 4:48pm

    Michel Stipe is still waiting for an apology from just about every newspaper in the western world that decided he had AIDS in 1992.

    I thought his whole gay=AIDS stuff was left way behind in the last century.

    1. Jock S. Trap 12 Apr 2011, 5:15pm

      One would have hoped but sadly alas it looks doubtful.

  25. Commander Thor 12 Apr 2011, 5:56pm

    If it wasn’t from the Daily Mail, you’d think he was religious!

  26. I want an apology for attaching this talentless knob Ricky Gervais to HIV. HIV already has enough stigma attached to it. now its got the added stigma of Gervais!

    As for William who’s post included such choice combinations of words as ‘indigenous population’ ‘boot polish’ and ‘grass skirt’. Go to the BNP’s website they are always looking for bigots to swell their fetid ranks. As for everyone else who responds to William’s posts please don’t give him the oxygen of a response.

    1. Jock S. Trap 13 Apr 2011, 8:09am

      Fair point!!

  27. Why does Pink News report that they used the word “gay” when actually they used the anti-gay favorite “homosexual”?

    1. “anti-gay favourite”? Homosexual is the true technical term for us, whether you like it or not. It is no more offensive than calling a black person a Negro.
      That’s what we are.

      1. I suggest you test that theory go to harlesden or hackney find the biggest black man and say hello negro

        1. Jock S. Trap 13 Apr 2011, 8:12am

          Indeed James! I would like to hear about that too. I would say I’d like to see it but not sure I’d like seeing that amount of blood.

        2. Yes, I’m sure if you went up to him and said ‘Hello black man’ you’d get a much more positive response.

        3. I didn’t say people necessarily like the terms, but they are the English scientific definitions.

          What you going to do about it now Jocko? Get a fcuking petition raised to change the dictionary?

          1. Jock S. Trap 15 Apr 2011, 10:02am

            Grow up for pitys sake.

      2. I don’t like the word gay to be honest. Cause I’m not always happy, and I’m not carefree. I don’t like homosexual either, but at least it doesn’t mean anything other than same sex love. I wish we’d come up with our own word to describe ourselves, instead of using words that ‘straight’ ‘heterosexuals’ have made up for us.

        1. Jock S. Trap 13 Apr 2011, 11:16am

          Samesexual? or Samasexual?

          1. LOL. if you put samasexual into google it says ‘did you mean sadosexual’ – I can’t believe I even tried! I know it’s a bit pedantic what I said. But I hate describing myself as gay. Not because I have a problem with sucking cock or anything ‘gay’. I just hate the word, especially now it’s used as an insult by teenagers. And homosexual sounds like a scientific term, like saying homo sapien instead of human.

          2. Jock S. Trap 13 Apr 2011, 12:11pm

            I get what you mean Eddy, as you say many terms are given to us but I guess different people prefer different terms. I suppose for me personally I prefer Gay but them against what. Plus now in schools that tends to mean something completely different. I find Homosexual too clinically and as for homo, queers etc they’re just inherited as hate words usually. I guess in a perfect world they’d be no use for seperate words if all were just accepted.

            It’s a good subject for debate actually.

            Did laugh about your googling but have to say I think I know a few sadosexuals but the ones I know aren’t so much into pain as just are pains in the…

        2. But there isn’t an ‘us’. The concept of a gay community is often a useful one, but in reality we’re just thousands of individuals with the same (or similar) sexuality. There’s no way that every single gay person is going to agree on a single word that should be used. I think ‘gay’ is as close as you’ll ever get to a universally accepted term.

          1. But every gay person is supposed to agree on a word/does agree on a word – it’s gay, as in LGBT – or do you think the G stands for another word? And the etymology of the word gay doesn’t come from our own mouths, it comes from those who have labelled us as they want to label us. It’s an insult in it’s origin, and is used as an insult today. I think we should start a campaign to create a universally accepted term that we come up with. I can feel a project coming on……..

          2. Well, erm, good luck with that then. I’ll start off by giving you my choice of word: gay. I suspect it’ll be most other people’s choice too.

          3. Jock S. Trap 13 Apr 2011, 12:14pm


            I think your right. Plus some Gay people find words used as homophobic abuse acceptable and prefer things like queers. I personally find them demeaning. I thing Gay be used is probably the most accepted term and less discriminating one.

          4. Ivan:
            I’m glad I’m not the only person that thinks the same.
            Just because a bunch of people happen to be travelling in the same direction does not make them a “community”.
            Let’s face it, gay men are a bunch of selfish, egotistical tossers that are only interested in other gay men so they can exchange bodily fluids and then go their separate ways.

          5. Jock S. Trap 15 Apr 2011, 10:03am

            Actually Spanner I think it’s just you and your ike you talk about there.

            Shame you can’t see it. The rest of us live in the real world.

  28. Negro is the correct term for black people. They are negroid.

    1. “Negro” derives from the original Latin and Greek terms, and has been around a long time. ‘Negroid’ is the racial characterisation terminology and was first used in 1859. (ie: has Negro qualities and characteristics).

  29. One could say that if Gervais was a black, heterosexual African he might have aids.

  30. As news stories go, ‘A Daily Star columnist has been accused of tastelessness and homophobia’ is up there with ‘Pope admits: Yes, I am a catholic’.

  31. Why didn’t Pink News cite and link the blogger it quoted? Considering how often newspapers accuse opinion bloggers of stealing content, one would think they’d at least try to follow the same rules.

  32. “Homosexual” is a word first introduced by Sigmund Freud in the 19th century. I find it interesting that the word “heterosexual” is barely used to describe the way straights live their lives sexually or otherwise, or that their lives are NEVER described as a lifestyle, as if they don’t choose their orientation but we do. “Homosexual” nowadays is the favourite word of right wing religious nutters and other anti-gay bigots as a slur and used totally out of context. I don’t much care for the word personally.

    1. Jock S. Trap 13 Apr 2011, 2:18pm

      Your right we don’t get “Those Heteros” or “Those Straights are at it again”.

      Eddy’s right it would be good if we got to chose our own community and it caught on but Our choice.

    2. The reason “Heterosexual” was rarely used was until relatively recently, homosexuals were dfined as abnormal or psychologically impaired, compared to “normal” people, so there was no reason to call them anything.
      Like, what do you call a person that hasn’t got cancer?

  33. “Not being bad” – Eh? Does he actually speak English?
    And it’s “if he were”, not “if he was”.

  34. AIDS should be capitalized, it is not a word, it is a set of initials, such as HMRC etc.

  35. Paddyswurds 12 Apr 2011, 11:55pm

    @ anything….
    ….. AIDS stands for Auto Immune Deficincy Syndrome and should always be capitalised. How is that offensive? If the tabeloids you mentioned don’t then it is they who are wrong.
    What in your universe does Aids mean exactly. To me it means to help or a helper or a source of help. Eg tax aids in the running of the country or a zimmer frame aids an old person get about.
    Rather do YOU know anything??

  36. AIDS is an acronym. Twat.

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.