Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Peter Tatchell: Ten-year gay blood ban is unjustified

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Jock S. Trap 13 Apr 2011, 3:47pm

    I would hope that 10 years is a starter for coming down because it is wrong and it is discriminating. There is also a slight suggestion that maybe people stop being Gay which while only a glimmer is still there and offensive.

    I think what gets me most is this notion that if we have all who can donate without harm that somehow adds more work. Yet that makes no sense. It suggests that they don’t check risk accessment already which would be wrong.

    There is no more work to allowing all who can give blood equally no matter sexual orientation and also just as many excluded equally no matter sexual orientation.

    This ban is pointless. It may help some bi sexual men and few gay men but in all it still stand insulting.

    More needs to be done.

    1. Do you even have a job? It seems like you sit at home on the computer all day waiting to comment on pink news

      1. Paddyswurds 13 Apr 2011, 5:29pm

        @ George…..
        ……Have you not considered that he may be one of “England under the Tories” one million unemployed. He may be retired. He may be ill. He may be one of the many who spend most of their working on the net while at work but not doing any work. Or he may be what you assume him to be, just a feckless loser scrounging of the state. Whatever he is, how is it your business pray?

        1. Paddyswurds 13 Apr 2011, 5:31pm

          even more errata……sigh
          …..of their working day*….scrounging off*…obv.

          1. Jock S. Trap 14 Apr 2011, 8:59am

            Thank you Paddys…

          2. It’s no ones business why someone is here. But when their presence is so victimising, needs to be recognised and becomes so clearly intense as to be more than habit, one should reflect on the reasons for the self destruction/addiction.

          3. Jock S. Trap 14 Apr 2011, 11:36am

            Kris

            What are you on about. It’s none of your business why I come here and I certainly don’t feel I have to explain to you either. At least I don’t feel I have to change nickname to make those boring points you have. Try commenting on the subject instead of being obsessively personal.

          4. “What are you on about. It’s none of your business why I come here and I certainly don’t feel I have to explain to you either.” Ah i think you missed the first sentance of my post. And i dont understand what you mean by changing nickname?

          5. Jock S. Trap 15 Apr 2011, 4:05pm

            “i dont understand what you mean by changing nickname?”

            No of course you don’t dear!

          6. Jock S. Trap 16 Apr 2011, 10:35am

            So long as you carry on believing that Kris I’m sure the rest of us will believe you.

      2. Troll Killer 13 Apr 2011, 7:12pm

        George/Paddy. What exactly has it got to do with you if anyone on this site has a job? Maybe Jock’s retired. Maybe he’s so rich he doesn’t need to work. Maybe he works in computing. Question is, why do you care?

        1. Troll Killer 13 Apr 2011, 7:13pm

          And before you accuse me of being Jock – I am not. I JUST HATE TROLLS LIKE YOU TWO.

          1. Then don’t feed them. ;)

          2. Paddyswurds 13 Apr 2011, 9:08pm

            @deemoe….
            …you are just as bad…did you read the post either idiot!

        2. Paddyswurds 13 Apr 2011, 9:04pm

          @rapture….lol
          …..Are you drunk?? Did you read my post? You just repeated my post almost verbatum. What you said to me i had already said to George. You just made yourself look a fool as the time proves i said it first. Eejit.

        3. Jock S. Trap 14 Apr 2011, 8:58am

          Thank you Troll Killer, your nearer the mark that Paddys… but nevertheless I do think Paddys… in he own little way was supportive rather than anything else.

      3. Jock S. Trap 14 Apr 2011, 8:54am

        Is it just me or do I seem to attract obsessive stalkers on here? Questions totally irrelevent and like said none of your business. Who cares.

        :)

  2. Peter Tatchell is absolutely right. Why not perform two tests at the same time, one for antibodies and one for the virus? Its absurd to impose a ten year ban for no reason. What about straight males who practice anal sex without a condom? Are they included in this ban? Believe me, straight men do it too, both single and married including adulterers.

    1. Jock S. Trap 13 Apr 2011, 4:29pm

      Exactly. It makes no sense when they are crying out for more donations, yet restrict who gives from one group yet those in another group that take equal risks are fine.

      Time to include and exclude equally.

      1. Absolutely when NZ withdrew the ban on homosexuals donating blood they initially brought in a ten year period … this has (currently) been reduced to five years and the background report by eminent NZ and international clinicians and scientists states there is not evidence to say that a 5 year period is less safe than a 10 year period

        Other countries also manage public safety with a lot shorter periods

        1. Jock S. Trap 14 Apr 2011, 9:04am

          Agreed.

          I’m actually wondering if this is more to do with showing the public, easing fear that may be out there. Those fears ease as the time period falls. It kinda makes sense if it is that way I guess but it is still very disciminating. I think if this is the intention they should explain it.

  3. independent observer 13 Apr 2011, 4:47pm

    Well, gay blood? You guys have the highest level of AIDS and your perverted lifestyle brings all sorts of troubles to your community. Why should blood taken from such high-risk group be treated like normal for political reasons?! Is there common sense in this society?

    1. If you think we have a “Perverted lifestyle”, why are you even here?

      Beware, you may catch the gay!!!

      1. @ James
        lol. I love it.

        1. Jock S. Trap 15 Apr 2011, 9:23am

          lol indeed James!

    2. Jock S. Trap 15 Apr 2011, 9:23am

      So ignorant! So uneducated.

  4. I dont get tatchell. When gay people are murdered he says nothing

    1. Justify this remark. Peter Tatchell is a free person entitled to comment on whatever major issue he chooses. You do not pay him to be an automatic response-machine commenting on issues of your choosing, such as gay people being murdered, so why should he?

  5. independent observer, what would you be saying if it was mostly straights contracting HIV in the UK? In fact in developing countries, it’s a fact. We might as well call cancer a straight disease since the majority of sufferers are straight, you moron.

  6. Paddyswurds 13 Apr 2011, 5:35pm

    ….as i said on the earlie story on this matter, this is just so much an exercise in attempteng to placate the GLB community This useless exercise makes no difference whatever except maybe to underscore the discrimination….Same old Homophobic Tories.

  7. independent observer, in an articl in the Guardian published on May 1, 2010, it stated that since 1999, HIV infection has emerged at a higher rate of infection among straights than iamong gays and bisexuals. So what do you say to the straights? They’re perverted too?

    1. Jock S. Trap 14 Apr 2011, 9:06am

      Sadly those kinds of people don’t want to see it. To see it would take away their ‘right’ to abuse us.

      Misguided and totally uneducated some people wish to remain. To them ignorance really is bliss.

  8. Independent Observer is a troll but I feel like I have to feed it.

    Perverted lifestyle? I am 21 and I have been in a gay relationship for a year now and we are happily in love. Perverted? I dont think so! Dont get me wrong I have had a few one-night stands when I was single but I know PLENTY of straight people that have also. I also know plenty of straight people who have tried anal sex, *shock horror* how could they do this the the imaginary man in the sky??

    1. to the*

    2. de Villiers 13 Apr 2011, 9:44pm

      The happiness of others is always good news to hear.

      1. Im just fed up of some people referencing this “gay lifestyle” or as the troll put it, “perverted lifestyle” like it actually exists. Gay people get up, go to work/an educational establishment, have relationships, slag around, get their heart broken blah blah! The only difference is the person someone has as their bf/gf. Consensual, adult love should be celebrated not hated.

  9. I really wish that interfering twat Tachell would put a fcuking sock in it and stop trying to represent everyone else.

    How come he can manage to be a mouthpiece and an asshole simultaneously?

  10. Wim in Holland 13 Apr 2011, 11:43pm

    The discrimination ends, when British heterosexuals are allowed to give blood if they also didn’t have sex for 10 years.

  11. Said before so say again. To hell with them. I see blood donation Severus every day saying stocks are dangerously low… But ours isn’t good enough.

    So screw them is what I say. This is effectively still a life ban. It reads as not only if you have had sex in 10 years or not but ever ‘ risky’ sex aka have you EVER done any sexual activity without protection. And even with protection we are still diseased freaks right? >.> unlike straight people who are clean and never have sex without condoms and have not ever caught anything. But it’s fine for them to donate. They sleep about and do all we do but they are straight so their blood is better.

    But like I say stuff them.

  12. The issue is how best to intercept infected donations. The problem is that people (a) do not know their HIV status, and (b) lie. Sometimes people attend donor sessions because of peer pressure – an office announcement of a donor session and a call “come on, who’s coming!”, and off they troll. Bisexuals may be particularly reluctant to reveal that they cottage or make pick-ups on the heath. But there can be NO justification of a 10-year ban for gay donors when the ban for those having had sex in sub-Saharan Africa is much much shorter.

    Incidentally, Peter Tatchell speaks more sense than 75% of those posting on the pinknews comments pages, is often ahead of public opinion, but proved right in due course.

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.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all