Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Multi-million pound investment in HIV testing outreach announced

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. This is very good news to see that THT have secured funding to enable them to build upon prevention work.

    Well done THT for putting together the successful bid for this important contract.

  2. Make the self-test kits available widely,cheaply and above all-discreetly. No GP involvement-No Insurance Company involvement. No family involvement- just personal to the individual testing. Signpost results to agencies that can help.

    1. Self-test kits are a disaster waiting to happen in my opinion.

      An hiv+ result is a life changing event.

    2. More UK research needs to be completed before we make a decision on home testing – as a concept I believe it will help improve testing rates & help to make taking an HIV test as “normal” as going to a dentist check up.

      1. Receiving a positive HIV result can be life changing for the better – I have found that many newly diagnosed people up and down the country feel they have benefitted from knowing thier status & have made changes for the better.

        It is a sad fact that stigma, fear & discrimination still have an overly negative impact on many individuals when they test positive – at the end of the day HIV is just another virus that at the moment cannot be cured.

  3. So there is now money in the pot to undertake a big sexual health campaign.

    Lets take some lessons from the campaigns of the 90’s,at one point we were winning.

  4. This is very good news, it means THT & thier partners can continue to build on prevention strategies, that are up to date & harness social media.

    Testing is a key area for any prevention campaign, as is to engage effectively with those individuals who participate in high risk sexual behaviours.

    We should note that £7 million over 3 years is a drop in the ocean compared with the cost associated with care & treatment – the Gov need to better understand the health economics at play here & deliver even more resources to keep health costs at a manageable level.

  5. A co-ordinated effort – testing, research, treatment, outreach to vulnerable communities – can lead to results: “B.C. has had a decrease of 60 per cent in new HIV infection rates since 1996, while every other province has had nothing better than unchanged rates.” http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/09/23/bc-vancouver-hospitals-hiv-aids-testing.html
    Headlines like this from last week – reminiscent of the elimination of smallpox – become realistic: “B.C. aims to end HIV/AIDS with widespread testing”
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/07/18/bc-hiv-aids-testing-campaign.html

  6. This announcement is entirely predictable as THT has manoeuvred to monopolise all things HIV:- services and prevention.

    There are several clear cut reasons why THT will fail again, as they always do, to cut HIV rates despite the usual waffle by its Chief Exec on receipt of £6 million more in funding to squander and fritter away into a black hole, and with no accountability at the end of it:- just asTHT hasn’t been made to account for wasting the last tranche of cash on three years of HIV initiatives that have left our community more diseased and degraded than ever.

    A problem cannot be solved by the same level of consciousness that created it, so perhaps THT could explain the epiphany that leads it to be so confident that this time it really CAN drastically reduce HIV rates?

    Notwithstanding the obvious dichotomy of a charity that makes most of its income providing services for those infected with HIV also being tasked with preventing the spread of said virus…

    1. While it’s made some laudable strides in the former, the need to reduce stigma in this area brings THT into direct conflict with the need for a harder-edged approach to its HIV prevention campaigning, which THT now appears to be abandoning totally in its zeal to implore us all to get tested.

      Sorry, but how does the call to testing prevent onward HIV transmission?

      Is there something I am missing here?

      And lest we also forget that the last award THT received for the purpose of preventing HIV was diverted to other “causes”, such as mag adverts for its services aimed at those ALREADY INFECTED by HIV, a how-to-use-drugs-properly web site and a site that glorifies the seedier side of gay sex.

      Can we now look forward to seeing Hard Cell 2 – Closer to the Edge before long among other incentives that seem designed more to appeal to those entrapped by disinhibiting underground drugs like crystal meth, which are now afflicting the gay scene?

      It was always clear that THT would…

      1. be beneficiaries of the HIV prevention millions, as “Sir” Nick has long since politicised the charity originally set up by committed and motivated gay men to support those with HIV and to prevent its spread.

        THT now openly admits to losing its independence decades ago and works slavishly to government guidelines, with revolving doors into various government departments.

        And let’s not even mention the “backhanders” that THT has taken from pharmaceutical companies to push and sign up their drugs.

        THT long ago stopped working for the gay man on the street, so let none of us fool ourselves into thinking this time, finally, THT really intends to get a grip on the catastrophic rates of HIV infection now gripping our community.

        A world without HIV is a world without services, without drugs, and without THT.

        And there’s no way this bureaucratic consumer of public funding with its portfolio of lavish multi-million pound properties across central prime London will ever allow that to happen.

      2. “Sorry, but how does the call to testing prevent onward HIV transmission?”

        Very simply, testing reduces undiagnosed HIV; over 50% of new cases of HIV come from undiagnosed people – in the primary phase of infection an individual can be 28 times more infectious & are therefore much more likely to infect other people either by incorrectly used condoms which fail or slip or via oral sex or BB sex.

        Testing & treatment is about reducing the population viral load, less virus = less transmissions, it’s very simple science.

        Condoms will never be universally used – this is important to understand, everyone has a different risk threshold, some will take a chance & BB for a variety of emotional & social issues, others may not be aware of the risks associated with oral sex, & luck or lack of it plays a vital role in transmission of HIV.

        Behavioural change is intensive & expensive, but is effective, much more so than small media ad campaigns detailing out of date science to scare people.

        1. So what you are saying is get tested, and if you test pos then pop some pills costing he NHS £18,000 per annum and continue f*ucking like rabbits without condoms anyway because the reduced collective viral load will mean less transmissions?

          Is this really what HIV prevention has come to?

          What planet are you and your HIV sector chums living on, W6?

          1. Last time I checked I was on planet Earth – unlike you who seem to be in some little bubble where all is perfect & blue sky thinking is your reality. You are showing your true colours it comes to cost Samuel, you have repeatedly given the impression that HIV is not an area that should receive any tax payer funding whatsoever, & this translates to your annoyance that ARV’s are readily available.

            You obviously do not understand the importance of acheving an undetectable VL & forward transmission – I guess you think an individual who has tested positive is just infectious no matter if the VL is <40 copies or 140,000 copies.

            There is very clear high quality surveillance evidence to confirm that the majority of infections come from the untested / undiagnosed fraction of the +ve population, only around 10% of infections come from +ve individuals on treatment – this clearly is a no brainer, but because of your personal war on the Pharma Co's in your mind everything is a conspiracy.

          2. “continue f*ucking like rabbits without condoms anyway”…………….and who are you to sit in judgement & make these statements. If individuals want to have bb sex then that is thier decision, not yours, mine, Governments or the man in the moon. We do not yet live in a dictatorship where everyone will fall in line with your very narrow view of the world.

            Again we see more evidence of your slurrs against +ve individuals in the quote above – I know many many +ve individuals who act in a very different way to your perception. I guess it must be all the seedy clubs you go to as you seem to have a very good knowledge of such venues. It must be very frustrating for you to not be able to have the sex you want because +ve individuals are diseased & degraded.

            Prevention is not just one strand Condom use remains the most important strand, but to dismiss all the other prevention techniques is just plain foolish & will cost lives & more money in the long run.

    2. “This announcement is entirely predictable as THT has manoeuvred to monopolise all things HIV:- services and prevention.”

      Are you really suggesting that had another contractor produced a better bid then they would not have been awarded said contract? If this is your view Samuel you should of course obtain a freedom of information request to identify all the bids & why the contract was awarded to THT.

      You need to start holding the DoH to account rather than shoot the messenger. Of course you will claim it is all a cover up & down to corruption, in which case you should take steps to prove such allegations!

      1. It is time for you to put your fine words into action Samuel and create the change you wish to see instead of constantly having a pop at all HIV charities, but partticularly THT.

        Put some of your obvious energy to good use instead of wasting it going over the same ground on here time after time on PN.

        1. OK W6, give me £6m+ pounds and I’ll show you how to use that money to at least half the rate of HIV transmission in that time.

      2. The point is that the THT has monopolised all things HIV in the UK because it has used its muscle and bargaining power to buy out HIV service providers across the UK and in doing so effectively eliminated all opposition.

        THT wins all services and prevention contracts by default, but it has been allowed to do so because it does the Government’s bidding and, by association, the pharmaceuticals’ who lobby Whitehall long and hard.

        That is why HIV prevention in this country is ineffective when the “charity” awarded the budget has every reason to want to keep infection rates high, which they do year after year.

        For you to imply that THT was somehow awarded this £6m-plus budget because their’s was the best bid is, frankly, as preposterous as it is a downright lie.

        THT was always going to be awarded this funding because they continue to follow Government-directed guidelines like near enough all organisations and charities/quangos today.

        These days there are always conditions attached.

        1. This analysis would be correct if THT were a Company making a profit & had share holders to appease. Admittedly THT is probably more like an “arms length quango” but it is Governments that introduced Statutary funding. If you think the DoH could do HIV prevention better then that is your view, but Government Departments are not good at this kind of work.

          What has happened to the rhetoric that you were spouting last year about THT et al loosing all thier funding? What has happened to the great Peter Scott who you had such high hopes for? You cannot tell me that this individual is not capable of putting together a competant rival bid for this sort of contract? Why don’t you get a freedom of information request relating to the letting of this particular contract & let us all know your findings?

          It is all very well comlpaining about the system & Government but you need to try and create the change you want to see by getting involved & be realistic about your circle of influence.

    3. Here we have the proof of what Samuel is all about by the way he refers to gay men as being “diseased and degraded”. This is his trademark, using degrogatory terms to describe gay men & particularly gay men who are HIV +ve or perhaps have addictions to drugs / alcohol or sex – we are all diseased & degraded in the view of the self-righteous Samuel B.

      This shows him to be a total closet homophobe, who so obviously harbours an irrational fear of HIV – what a vile person you are to refer to anyone as being diseased & degraded! Shame on you!

  7. Mister Fister 24 Jul 2012, 11:21pm

    About time too.

  8. Cue the “Christian” extremists saying this ‘promotes homosexuality in youngsters’ in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1….

  9. Well done at last.

  10. I can only assume “HIV” is a trigger word that sparks a psychotic episode in that fool SamuelB. Its the same dribble every time. You can make your own version of a SamuelB rant by mixing these words up with more dribble: “PC Brigade”, “THT”, “conspiracy”

    He’d have a better life if he just took the bloody meds, as we could all be spared the lunacy.

    1. Amen to that!

    2. Londterm PWA 26 Jul 2012, 11:31am

      it’s easy/convenient to vilify individuals, but the sad truth is that THT will sit on this money and use it to further their own ends, some of the younger lot will not recall the ‘advice’ given by THT in the late 1980/early 1990’s when hundreds(if not thousands) of gay men infected with HIV were ‘advised’ to take the only ‘treatment’ available at the time (poisonous doses of AZT), whilst Mr Partridge and his minions were raking in huge amounts of money from GLAXO/welcome and lining their own pockets with it, ignoring the fact it was killing more people than it was saving. this attitude persists to this day. if there’s anything more clear than the fact SIr Pratridge should go and take the majority of his staff with him.

      1. Thanks LongtermPWA.

        It really does sometimes feel that where gay men are concerned stating truth is like peeing in the wind.

        Why are gay men so scared and in denial of what goes on in their name under their noses?

        Where is the fight?

        Where is the demand for justice in the face of THT’s many failings and indiscretions?

        The THT could be peeing on their graves and still the rest of us would look the other way while they carry on looting and cushioning their own nests.

        More voices of outrage need to be heard until we are all shouting our rage until the din of condemnation – of 30 years of woeful mismanagement, corruption and neglect in our name – is too loud to ignore.

        At one point in the 1990s, as Batmanz said, we appeared to be winning.

        We need to get back to basics and reintroduce common sense and humanity in the way we fight the spread of HIV.

  11. W6:- “Condoms will never be unIversally used”…

    No W6, and by the same token universal testing is a smokescreen because the notion that everyone will come forward to be tested will never happen.

    And even If they did do you really expect that will change behaviours?

    Get real!

    THT needs to identify more pos people to which to provide its services in order to receive larger funding from central government.

    Oh and to appease the pharmas who have treatments to sell and shareholders to keep happy.

    It has ZILCH to do with reducing HIV rates and all to do with greed and profit.

    When the PEP ads were at their peak HIV sector staff were openly lamenting their disappointment that uptake was not higher.

    Why do you think that was?

    And typical of you to twist my words as usual when I clearly state that THT is responsible for the increase in HIV rates (it was still a disease the last time I checked) and the degradation of our scene via its incestuous relationship with the sleaze scene…

    1. and open endorsement of sex venues where Pos men go specifically to engage in unprotected sex.

      I am not against such venues at all as people should have freedom of choice to do what they want in consenting environments.

      But agencies like the THT should not be seen to be encouraging them and fuelling the increase in extreme behaviours most ikely than not to increase HIV transmission.

      As usual you avoid answering the points I make in order to take words out of context and make cheap shots.

      So how about explaining the charges I make, such as justifying THT frittering away tens of thousands of pounds from the prevention budget on adverts promoting its services to pos people and on web sites targeted at those already likely to have made their choices around risky behaviours (ie. extreme sexual behaviours and drug abuse) whilst totally ignorIng the under 25 age group who have been conditioned by such a cack-handed approach into thinking HIV really is no big deal?

      I am all ears W6…

      1. If you can prove that Statutary funding aimed at prevention campaigns has been misused then be my guest and provide the evidence, I do not deal in speculation & your over active imagination.

        You have demonstrated time & again that you have no knowledge of the commissioning & funding arrangements that are in place, a great deal of Statutary funding is “restricted funding” that is clearly shown in THT accounts, but again these are also corrupt in your mind, even though they have been independently audited – in your view everything is corrupt, what a sad unhappy person you must be – paranoid much me thinks! And a fool as well.

        Come to the table with solid evidence, put up or shut up

        1. I will post the evidence later today, W6.

          Not being obtuse but I would rather be out in the glorious sunshine than indulging you as you clearly have nothing to do with yourself other than to police HIV-related discussion boards around the clock…

        2. My evidence of THT’s abuse of state statutory HIV prevention funding is posted at the end of this thread in full view.

          I await W6’s analysis and response with baited breath…

    2. There is plenty of good quality evidence to suggest that many individuals make behavioural changes when they have received a +ve HIV result. As always you are missing the simple scientifically proven fact that high levels if virus drives forward infections, consistently using condoms whilst significantly reducing transmission are not 100% effective. Condom use in heterosexual couples have been shown to be less effective than a fully suppressed viral load at preventing HIV transmission.

      Reducing viral load either on an individual basis or at population level is key to containing HIV & therefore reducing new infection levels. This is not something THT have dreamt up this is scientifically proven across the world, but you refuse this evidence because in your mind everything is corrupt, from Dr’s to researchers it is all a conspiracy in your odd world view.

      1. The obvious difference between you and I, W6, is that where HIV is concerned you administrate whereas I empathise.

        That is to say, your interest lies in data and stats whereas my interest is in people.

        And so quick are you to embrace all scientific evidence and peer reviewed academical studies that you fail – or simply do not know how – to discern or discriminate between data which is truly independent and authentic and that which is dependent on sources of funding – be it from central government or corporate interests – to be maintained.

        I am sure you would have been quick in recent years to have seized upon “data” compiled by Sigma Research – a THT partner within the CHAPS consortium of motley self-interested HIV Sector outfits – who were commissioned year after year by THT to compile its Gay Men’s Sex Survey.

        Well, that is until said funding was cancelled and Sigma and THT severely rebuked for colluding in order to “sex up” and embellish the survey findings so as to give the…

        1. false impression that THT’s HIV prevention were actually working when they jolly well were not!

          You recite such data like a robot as if it is gospel, notwithstanding that such data is often compiled by academical know-alls who can only grasp the seriousness of a problem theoretically as opposed to experientially and therefore advocate solutions that only serve to intensify and worsen said problem!

          You know, W6, I strongly believe that the average gay man on the street knows all too well what the self-serving modus operandi is within such organisations and it sure as hell ain’t geared towards fighting the spread of HIV.

          Survey after survey shows that gay men KNOW HIV charities always pick the wrong approach and are part of the problem, not the solution.

          The saddest aspect of all is that gay are too indifferent and complacent to empower themselves to do anything about it, and so the unrelentingly appalling standard of HIV prevention they receive is no more than they really deserve.

          1. How you can claim to be interested in people is beyond comprehension, the real difference between you & I is that I take a very wide view of HIV studies & I am privileged to have access to a UK based HIV forum that has 1500 regular contributors up & down the country, encompassing the newly diagnosed 20 yr old to HIV veterans who have survived the virus for 25+ years.

            You may wish to beleive that these individuals are all also corrupt & have an agenda of their own, but I know at first hand the human stories of HIV more than you will ever imagine.

            You are again suggesting that gay men deserve to be infected by HIV, another attack from the self-righteous Samuel – all this bluster is about you Samuel & your phobia of HIV, & your penchant for young gay men who you seem to assume are stupid & cannot think for themselves – you act like the gay equivalent of Mary Whitehouse with your narrow minded views.

            Instead of praying at the Alter of Life or Meth go peddle your outdated crap elsewhere

          2. Yes, mine and five million other knees that have worshipped at the altar of Life or meth, it seems, at least last time I checked.

            I think I will continue to reference this site as the oracle of truth it is, and genuinely do worry for those who flock to your HIV forum to be indoctrinated with your already-decided-and-never-gonna
            -budge scientific and data-based prognosis on all things HIV…

          3. You accuse me of being blinkered in my reading & research Samuel, yet you beleive foolishly beleive Life or Meth to be the oracle of truth???? I think you will find that the owners of said site got rebuffed in the US when they went after the HIV prevention funding & the same happened in the UK – so it is not suprising that they are unlikely to be the supporters of charities such as THT, GMFA etc.

            My money will always be on the science Samuel, as having a workable understanding HIV is very science based. It is true to say that I am always quoating various studies & papers on here – I have to because you continue to consistently rubbish all the advances that have been made in HIV treatment & care, I back up my arguments very well, whereas you very rarely do so with hard factual evidence. I am an evidence / outcomes based indivudal, but I always put people at the centre of those outcomes, you on the otherhand just sit in judgement & make derogatory remarks about gay men / +ve gay men.

      2. I am not against the concept of encouraging mass testing at all, W6.

        It does make a lot of sense.

        But in he haste and zeal to reduce the nation’s viral load they have somehow entirely forgotten the “use condoms” message.

        Why is that?

        Surly the best plan of attack would be a co-ordinated to simultaneously reinforce that message while also calling for gay men to be tested?

        Instead the onus is switching to being entirely on the latter, which in invites cynicism and suspicion that this is more of a marketing exercise for THT support services and pharma drugs than a serious effort to reduce HIV rates.

        As always he HIV sector ignores a balanced set of complementary initiatives in favour of a one-size-fits-all approach that ignores the needs of those ignorant and/or complacent about the seriousness of HIV infection.

        1. “which in invites cynicism and suspicion that this is more of a marketing exercise for THT support services and pharma drugs” – this is your interpretation Samuel, because as we know everything in life is a conspiracy to you. Where is the evidence to suggest that THT receives funding as a direct result of increased HIV infections? You claim that new infection rates form the “business plan” for the next year – this assumes that THT get paid per personl they come into contact with, this is a ridiculous notion. Statutrary funding is based on commissioned projects & contracts, if you have proof to the contrary then please do share it with the other readers.

          There has always been a great deal of emphasis on condom use. If you ask guys on dating sites the majority of them say they always play safe & use condoms. I do not accept your argument that condom use is no longer well promoted – what irks you is that condom promotion is not to your narrow point of view, Samuel’s way only works!

  12. Better education is paramount. There are a lot of people out there who think they can just take a pill and carry on as though they are fit and well… An HIV diagnosis is devastating and life changing, the sooner we educate people the better especially in sex ed in schools. There is such a relaxed attitude out there towards HIV a rise in infections was inevitable.

  13. W6 has publicly challenged me for evidence of how the Terrence Higgins Trust has embezzled / looted / misappropriated / call it what you will from the statutory fund awarded to it for the sole and specific purpose of HIV prevention.

    I present my evidence herewith, m’lud:-

    Item 1 – Advertisements to promote THT’s client services appearing in Positive Nation magazine targeted entirely at already positive people have been paid for by funds awarded to THT for the specific and sole purpose of HIV Prevention…

    Item 2 – Ads for various vanity projects – including a hard drug-enabling web site aimed at users of said drugs appearing in QX and Boyz magazines, again paid for by statutory HIV prevention funding.

    How can I be so sure?

    All such ads contain this byline, hidden in plain sight:

    FUNDED BY THE PAN-LONDON HIV PREVENTION FUND.

    That’s how!

    I rest my case, W6…

    1. I would particularly be interested to hear how THT can possibly justify looting from the HIV prevention pot to flag up its HIV client services when said money should’ve been used on HIV awareness initiatives targeted at young gays.

      Remember them?

      The generation we’re all in outrage over for the fact that they were deprived of a decent standard of sex education at school!

      How does that outrage compare to knowing that the leading HIV charity in Europe mandated to provide HIV prevention services to the UK gay community and awarded millions in the process instead ignored the most HIV-ignorant and therefore most vulnerable generation of gay men ever in favour of promoting the very services that said men will, by THT’s own neglect, one day will be knocking on there door to access?

      If you can’t see the insanity and betrayal in how THT operates with regard to securing future users for its portfolio of HIV services then you’re surely suffering an extreme bout of cognitive dissonance, W6…

      1. PS: Tip for you, W6:-

        Don’t be inclined to fire off at will immediately what comes into your head.

        Instead of instinctively being on the defensive here, really consider what I have said and the evidence I have presented, and then appeal to your heart, not your head, for a response.

        What does common sense – without resort to stats and scientific data – tell you about what is going on?

        Do you not agree that there is a generation of vulnerable, HIV-ignorant men emerging who, by THT’s own neglect and inaction, are being lined up as future service clients?

        I appeal to your human side, not your administrative side, for your analysis and assessment of the situation I have outlined here.

        Thank you.

        1. I will not take lectures from you about compassion or being defensive, you are hardly a role model to follow given your track record on PN. As demonstrated again in this story thread you are perceived as a ranting fool………………..this trend is there for all to see. In the past I think it is fair to say that most give up & let you get away with your constant smearing of all things HIV – not me I intend to counter your arguments where you post misleading or innacurate information.

          PS Tip for you Samuel – learn some of the basics relating to up to date HIV prevention, testing, treatment & care as it stands in the UK today, not as it was even 5 yrs ago. HIV is a very fast moving science & has many exciting developments in the pipeline. By all means carry on your crusade against THT et al – I will always be here putting the credible evidence based arguments forward to counter your bluster, allegations & out of date information.

      2. In the same year 2008 – the Young Leaders Project was successful to attract 5,000 young people who benefitted from the projects which were commissioned by THT Young Leaders. This shows that there is indeed & continures to be a committment to younger people by THT. Sex & relationship education in schools is inadequate & more needs to be done, but this cannot be something the THT should be made responsible for.

        In terms of expenditure on Health Promotion in ’08 THT spent £7,696 of which £4776 came from statutary funding. The balance of £2,920 was from charitable funding. All this information is readily available on the audited accounts, so I am unclear why you think funding has been misappropriated Samuel. It is pure specualtion on your part with no dealied analysis. I is very likely that the websites I refer to were funded by the Pan London HIV Program, as this was likely to have been included in thier commissioning intentions for the use of said statutary funding.

        1. This is no proof whatsoever.

          Again he recitation of meaningless statistics when compared against the number of under 25s in our community THT is not reaching (ie. ignoring).

          Survey after survey shows this, and what messages THT DOES put out there are being interpreted mainly by young gay men as INCENTIVES to indulge in risky sexual behaviours.

          THT along with GMFA are exacerbating the very problems they are mandated to find solutions to, and I wager that is by design unless every member of these organisations are registered insane and genuinely can’t see how and why their policies are counter-productive and, at worst, destructive.

          1. Samuel writes – “meaningless statistics when compared against the number of under 25s in our community THT is not reaching (ie. ignoring). Survey after survey shows this, and what messages”

            Where are these surveys that show the under 25’s are being ignored in HIV prevention strategies. Provide a link to a survey conducted in the UK in the last 12 to 18 months that shows that the under 25’s feel they are being ignored. If you are going to make bold statements Samuel, please have the good grace to back up such claims.

            The “Clever Dick” campaign run earlier this year together the “Man-Up Game” on Facebook are exactly the types of inteventions the under 25 age group are most likely to engage with. In the Clever Dick campaign nearly 8,000 gay men completed an on-line sexual health risk assessment, which then provided information tailored to thier specific risk areas. THT have also partnered with Gaydar in various projects so I beleive you are incorrect to make the claims you do.

      3. What you always fail to realise Samuel is that THT is not an organisation just for gay men – I for one do not accept your premise that HIV is a gay problem – it is a problem for everyone regardless of sexuality, colour, or creed, HIV does not discriminate, unlike your goodself. THT has evolved jus as the epidemic has.

        You may wish to portray HIV as a gay men’s disease to use your word – I am all too aware that many gay men reject this preception – many feel gay men are now so over targetted with prvention messages & they see it as discrimination. You may wish to perpetuate HIV as a gay men’s illness but do not expect everyone to agree with you, I have contact with many straight individuals born in the UK who have HIV, & sadly it is straight women that have a high risk of contracting HIV & being diagnosed very latebecause they are not perceived to be “at risk”.

        THT is a National Sexual Health Charity – if you want an HIV charity just for gay men then set one up with Peter Scott!

  14. It would seem I am unable to reply in the correct part of the thread but here is one of my responses to Samuel in relation to his so called Evidence!

    1. The drugf***d & hardcell websites were funded in part by statutory funding as part of the commissioning intentions of the Pan London HIV Prevention Program – you have made it perfectly clear that you do not accept the notion of harm reduction strategies, & those most at risk through S&M / drug fuelled sex should be ignored – you do not see the importance of this approach – this is your view & that of the owners of Life or Meth. It is A view, but one that I agree with & neither do most of the HIV experts in the UK & in other developed countries.

      It is your perception & that of Life or Meth that these sites were designed for HIV positive gay men only – I think you will find that this certainly was not the intention of the commissioners & anyone visiting the site can decide this for themselves. You accuse me of being very blinkered in my research, Life or Meth is your bible. I suggest readers cut out the middle man (Samuel B) & visit the site as it is all copy & paste on here.

      1. Samuel seems to suggest that THT misappropriated Statutary funding yet the sites I refer to above are clearly listed in thier prevention strategy for 2008 in the audited accounts – hardly the grubby secret that Samuel is suggesting me thinks.

        The truth is that Samuel has a very narrow view on HIV prevention which is based on perpetuating stigma, fear & telling lies about advances in treatment & care – he dismisses all efforts in relation to harm reduction strategies & seems to beleive that +ve gay men should be marginalised in his warped view that HIV negative gay men have a right to remain negative – he clearly confuses rights with responsibility. He gives little credit to the younger generation, portraying them as stupid, indifferent & in need of hand holding – they are much more savvy in my experience than you think Samuel!

  15. A day away from the boards and I note W6 has been in overdrive.

    I will post my response to his many missives tomorrow:- which still give you time to account for the abuse of HIV funds used to pay for ads for THT’s own client services in mags like Positive Nation, which W6 has oh so conveniently yet predictably managed to sidestep.

    Yawn…

    1. I’m sure these ads for client services cost million upon millions, which is obviously why THT could not afford to do any prevention work during 2008 (despite spending over £7K on health promotion -presumably all these funds were misappropriated & embezzled – the independent auditors should be scaked me thinks)!

      I do often wonder about your intelligence Samuel, but then again you work in retail – not much education needed to hawk some overpriced old tat to all those American tourists. I am sure you are very good at getting people to part with their cash to ensure you get your bonus paid at the end of the month! But hey it is money that makes the world go around – follow the money you often say – I wonder where your money would lead us to – certainly not any charitable donations coming from you, but plenty spent on clothes, holidays, the latest gadgets – all part of the capitalist society that you so claim to not be part of – who are you trying to fool?

      1. “I do often wonder about your intelligence Samuel, but then again you work in retail” – referring to hard working, often minimum waged retail staff in the same sentance as Samuel was most remiss of me! To be fair Samuel works in a “high end” (overly inflated prices – mark up’s probably in the 3 to 5 hundred%) “fashion emporium” (1000 cubic feet concession outlet) “in a well known department store” (Selfridges must be desperate) where the ratio of staff to customers is probably 3:1 where he thinks he probably thinks he is rushed off his feet.

        The above has nothing to do with the story attached to this comment thread – seriously Samuel you do come up with some very odd statements for someone who is supposed to be running a commercial business & the only responce that is fitting is to riddicule you (no offence intended to the hard working retail staff up & down the country – as I know Samuel will make capital out of the previous posting)!

        1. That’s right, W6.

          Up against the wall so just try – and fail – to bluster your way-out of a tight spot.

          THT guilty as accused:- misappropriating HIV funds on web sites that glamorise and incentivise hard drug use and extreme sexual behaviours – both known to drastically facilitate onward HIV transmission among members of these groups.

          And even more damningly, were that possible, stealing HIV prevention funds to boost the profit-making arm of its commercial activities.

          Criminal and heinous, and W6 proves once and for all that he sides with the morally corrupt and unaccountable.

          But then, in the space of two weeks he has also been told to back off by Elaine, reprimanded by Stu, and been dubbed a “condescending and patronising prick” by JD, not to mention a “bitter queen” who surely reveals herself when she brings my well-salaried retail position into her bitch-fest.

          Enough evidence to hang you in future debates, methinks.

        2. “And even more damningly, were that possible, stealing HIV prevention funds to boost the profit-making arm of its commercial activities.” Do THT have a commercial profit making arm????? This is news to me – maybe you are referring to thier charity shop, which was previously operated by Crusaid. Do enlighten us all about these commerical activities, & the revenues that they generate, I am facinated to learn something about THT from you Samuel – a point of reference would also be good, as I do not see a big profit making commerical arm highlighted in the audited accounts – thats right tho the auditors & the accounts are corrupt as is the charity commission.

          It is true I get frustrated by you as you are nothing more than an irritating tw@t. At least I have not bullied anyone & not been given the various “titles” you have on PN. I do not expect to agree with everyone & I am not bothered about being popular, my arguments are always well researched & accurate, not out of date like yours!

          1. …………………I think in the stakes of the most annoying person on Pink News you win hands down. What you also failed to note is that JD also remarked “by all means inform and educate in your replies” this suggests to me that he acknowledges that I try to inform & educate in my postings does it no?t – you conveniantly forgot that bit Samuel. I accept my style is not to everyones liking, & why should it be?

            I did ask JD to elaborate on his comments but so far he has not felt the need to do so – perhaps he was just pissed off by the Samuel & W6 side show, as I am sure many many other readers are. If a reader has a beef with me then thats fine, feedback is always appreciated. You will never gain my respect until you stop attacking all things HIV, be that treatment & care advances, the charities & your distastful views on gay men. Your out of date views are concerning to say the least.

          2. I have to wonder what drives you to be so disrespectful to all the people involved in the prevention, & care of HIV up & down the country. The Nurses, Dr’s, Scientists, Volunteers, paid charity sector workers, you never have a good word to say about any of these people & you constantly undermine the great advances in HIV treatment & care. Perhaps if you were to actually explain your obvious personal bitterness towards the “HIV sector” as you call it both myself & other readers would undertand.

            My view, having been involved with peopel who have health related anxiety is that you obviously harbour an irrational fear of contracting HIV & I have to ask is HIV the worst thing that could ever happen to you? The way you write about it seems to me that if you becamee +ve your world would end? Is this the case -very sad if it is I have to say.

            Fear may work for you Samuel, but it does not for many other people – there is no real deterrant these days – HIV is a treatable condition in 2012!

          3. You continue to dodge and swerve the issue:-

            WHY DID THT LOOT FROM THE HIV PREVENTION FUND TO PROMOTE THE MONEY-MAKING PART OF ITS SET-UP (CLIENT SERVICES) IN MAGAZINES SUCH AS POSITIVE NATION READ MAINLY BY HIV-POSITIVE MEN?

            Until you can answer that, W6, and without resort to bluster and ad hominem attacks, then you reveal yourself to be the HIV sector stooge troll you give every impression of being on those boards.

            And yes, THT does receive annual grants in line with the number of projected new infection rates, otherwise how could it provide its services to all?

            The more people become infected, the more funding applies for to provide said services:- that is simple logic.

            And henceforth why the THT were only too happy to expand its remit to cater for incoming African asylum seekers, notwithstanding that this came at a price to indigenous gay men who, many feel, were shunted to the back of the queue or experienced a dilution in the standard of services they received.

          4. I refer you to my comments further down this thread – I have clearly stated the position regarding funding streams, do you not understand that part of HIV prevention is to ensure HIV positive individuals receive support & help to prevent the forward transmission of HIV & therefore are empowered to keep thier sexual partners safe? Are you really that stupid that you think prevention is all about HIV negative individuals?

            I would also refer you to the full title “Positive Nation – The UK’s HIV & Sexual Health Magazine” It is your perception that this magazine has a readership mainly made up of +ve individuals, I would challenge this perception, because unless you have a breakdown of the readership how can you know. You are HIV negative – yet you have obviously read said magazine. Your perception is way off beam it really is – clutching at straws!

            In my experience it is the HIV postive guys who are savvy about safer sex – I wonder why this could be?????? Go back to school fool!

          5. Here is the detail provided in the 2011 Accounts which clearly states where the incokme comes from with regard to Refugee & Asylum seekers – this function is a Local Authority function, which has been contracted out to THT – with £41k being funded for this service why would THT need to raid funds from elsewhere??? You really are stupid Samuel, you do no research & make bold cliams that are just plain wrong.

            From the 2011 THT Accounts – information rerlates to restricted funding – funding that cannot be used for any other project.

            “Grant income of £41,000 was received from London Councils for the HIV+ Refugee Mentoring and Counselling Project in the financial year ending 31 March 2011. The funding was used in line with the funding agreement”.

            If you look in the accounts under restircted funding you will also find other funds set aside to halp the African Community – again are you so stupid not to understand the importance of reducing HIV amongst these communities (obviously you are).

  16. Yes, I can just picture you in sterile lab coat, W6, bubbling test tube in one hand and clipboard in the other, taking breaks to kneel at the altar of big pharma.

    I very much doubt you read anything as highbrow as The Guardian, but do yourself a favour and buy today’s edition and read the article HIV SURVIVORS and THT’s Lisa Power’s APOLOGY for condemning, yes, CONDEMNING people to live on an old-age state pension due to past blinkered policies.

    And as you continue to deceive people into believing HIV is no longer serious condition, how do you bluff your way out of the reality of living with HIV as espoused in he same article:

    “Many of those who were saved by the discovery of antiretroviral drugs in the early 1990s felt it was a miracle to be alive. But life for the survivors of HIV, as they age, is bittersweet. Many are poor and have long since been edged out of the workforce. Half a lifetime spent on powerful drugs has taken its toll. Aside from the physical health issues as a…

    1. result of the virus, there are high rates of mental health problems too.”

      An HIV veteran the journalist spoke to says:-

      “I’m fed up with people at the top of HIV organisations saying because there is combination therapy everyone is fine…

      Oh no! This can’t be right?!

      W6 has been arguing all along that the drugs DO work and HIV is no longer a big deal.

      Like his HIV sector brethren he is only interested in co-opting gay men into a life of toxic meds while reciting reams of meaningless stats and data from dodgy and manipulated science and know-it-all academics.

      You know, just reading W6 postings you hear an emotionally vacuous, monotone Dalek voice ranting away, devoid of an ounce of compassion and empathy.

      The truth ALWAYS outs in the end, and as today’s Guardian testifies you are running out of excuses and places to hide as the whole sorry pack of cards upon which the foundation of the greed/corruption/careerist-led HIV industry is built teeters on the edge of collapse.

    2. The last time I wore a lab coat was when KI was at Uni over 20 years ago – I for one am very thankful for all the people who work in labs to better understand HIV as a virus, the effect on the immune system, its treatment & all the lab tests that ensure that the drugs I take are not having an adverse effect on my body – so much has changed in relation to HIV & will continue to do so – I for one beleive in the science, I trust the science & I know enough about HIV to ask the right questions & to ensure I get the best care I can.

      You mock me for wanting the same for other +ve individuals – anyone who has a long term health condition should be empowered & be at the centre of all decision making about thier treatment & care. Sadly there are some individuals who, for whatever reason are unable to manage the condition as well as I can. Surely it is my responsibility to help those less able than myself, to help them get the care they deserve.

    3. And so to the Guardian Article, which I do not need you Samuel to signpost me to! I think Lisa Power is correct in her analysis about the ageing UK HIV positive cohort yet when I have read the same article I do not see the use of the word “apology” I think you will find that Lisa Power “achnowledged” the unfortunate consequences of advice from support groups to those thought to be dying of HIV. The quoate from Lisa Power is “In the 1980s & 90’s we encouraged people to give up work & to go onto state benefits & not to be actively productive” Now we have condemned people to live on an old-age state pension.”

      I think the full quote provides the context to the comments made. It is great to see you taking an interest in the older HIV +ve cohort, usually you are only interested in the under 25’s, but I guess you felt this article & the cherry picked quotes adds weight to your view on all things related to HIV.

      1. I am very aware of the challenges that face the 50 plus HIV +ve cohort – in fact I was with a small group of them today -we had a training day for a peer support project to be launched later in the Autumn; you know Samuel the stuff I get involved with that you like to mock & accuse me of b eing the martyr.

        What you fail to realise is that individuals who have had HIV for 15+ years will have very damaged immune systems, will have suffered with opportunistic infections (KS, cancers, PCP), and were put on high doses of drugs that were toxic to the cell mitochondria (cell energy plants). Drugs like AZT, Stavudine, Didanosine, Indinivir, full dose Ritonavir caused a great deal of damage to an individual who had already been ravaged by HIV. It is estimated that there are only 5% of the early infected people around, they did not expect to be here, some don’t want to be here, & some are very happy to still be here.

        1. I notice that you failed to include the quote from 77 yr old Bill Rydwels – “it’s just so much better these days, yet it is a lonlier time”. Why did you miss this particular quote I wonder Samuel – to me this speaks volumes about your approach to HIV because this 77 yr old is confirming my view that things have got so much better, & also underlines the importance of reducing stigma & fear around HIV – this leads to isolation, which bill acknowledges very clearly & he is correct in his analysis. HIV is not the only illness that causes such huge social problems & poverty, but it is right to highlight that for the ageing cohort they do feel forgotten – mainly because all the services they rely on are being cut to the bone.

          I have always said that HIV is a serious illness, but with prompt diagnosis & good treatment & care an individual aged 20 today can expect to live a very full & active life with a life expectancy similar (not yet the same) to the HIV negative population.

          1. I refuse to be all doom & gloom about having an HIV diagnosis – there are enough people like you to try & make the lives of those with HIV more difficult that they need to be. I am very lucky to have been diagnosed in what I call the 3rd generation of +ve people – I owe a great deal to the original cohort & I have great respect for those long term survivors, they provide hope to all the newly diagnosed individuals & they were the guinea pigs for the fledgling HIV treatments.

            Thankfully problems such as lipodysrophy, peripherol neuropathy are now a thing of the past for the 3rd generation cohort & yes I beleive it is correct to say that those that were badly disfigured by body fat changes / neuropathy are forgotten; they have been failed by clinicians & support services alike, as more grow to a ripe old age with HIV we will learn a great deal more, but I am confident that I will have a much easier time of things than the likes of Bill Rydwels, & the many older people I know personally.

          2. You should be congratulated Samuel for your spin & cherry picking of the various quotes from this article, very much the politician me thinks – all spin & definately no substance, which I have said all along. This is why you & I will never agree & for me I can honestly say I find you the most offensive person I have come across who uses forum pages & social media.

            It seems to me that some people take on an “internet persona” & do not care how they interact with others, they think they can say what they like, & most of all they think they can bully others – and we have seen all these traits from you Samuel. I would be horrified if another contributor told me that they had felt bullied so badly that they decided to remove themselves to get away from the aggression you subjected them to – this is exactly how you have been described in the past. From day one as a commentator I have also been the subject of your nasty tactics to discredit me – WHY IS THIS????

      2. Oops, sorry, my mistake W6 for assuming the THT would ever have the guts or common decency to apologise for any of their many, many mistakes that have cost people their health, their well-being, their livelihoods and lives over three decades, all the while hoovering up all available funding to enable it to be a part of the buy-to-let boom.

        Tell me, W6, where all this moony the THT has ploughed into property investment came from and why it was donated in the first place, and then explain if you will why THT instead decided to use this cash to become property speculators while pleading poverty in order to accumulate even MORE funding, and so on and so on!

        Another major abuse of funding which W6 will not, nay cannot, answer…

        1. “Capital funds and investments
          A capital fund was established to accommodate a legacy received in 1994/95 as a permanent endowment. This is invested in Common Investment Funds managed by Cazenove Fund Management Ltd. The trustees believe this is the most appropriate investment given the size of the portfolio and the level of risk they wish to take.”

          Perhaps this fully answers your questions on Investment funds. In terms of Statutary funds these come form the awarding of contract from the DoH, Local Councils & the old PCT’s. Much of this income is restricted to particular projects. Govenment started awarding these contracts & I see no reason why an organisation such as THT with all its expertise should not bid for them. I am very sure that THT can manage the various contracts much better than any Gov agency.

          Your perception is totally incorrect about funding – if you want more money spent on prevention then you need to lobby your MP, not hound THT (or me).

          1. So you agree, then, that THT bids for funding on the basis that it will use these funds properly and visibly, then pours much of said funding into a property portfolio instead of spending it for the purpose it was applied for or raised from our pockets in the first place, some of whom being pos men themselves, many living in poverty because they were told to jack in their jobs years ago and apply for all welfare benefits going – an error of judgment Lisa Power admitted to this weekend – and are now unemployable having been out of the job market for so long?

            Doesn’t that make these men entitled to compensation from this cash cow THT has amassed:- i.e. from funds that people expect to be spent on the programmes and services these funds were provided for in the first place?

            How dare THT plead poverty as an excuse for not doing more to reduce HIV rates and to improve the lives of pos individuals who today receive a heavily diluted version of the services they once received, if at all?

          2. You really are clutching at straws Samuel, the desperation is palpable in your most recent postings. You accuse me of selective research now, where is your research to back up your wild allegations? Provide your evidence for your arguments.

            I wi respond later in more detail but to be honest the onus rests with you. I will indulge you because it will show you up for the idiot you are.

            You must be tortured by living in fear of getting HIV you need psychological interventions to help you deal with your HIV related anxieties

    4. As an avid reader of the Guardian Samuel I note that you failed to mention this article from Friday http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jul/26/french-study-scientists-hiv

      I wonder why this particular story did not catch your eye – after all it involves the use of ARV’s in very early infection, shock horror! Like all things with you Samuel you cherry pick to find the stories that you think back-up your dark ages views on HIV. You constantly tell me to get real – I think it really is time for you to heed your own advice!

  17. I am not against the concept of encouraging universal testing at all, W6.

    It makes a lot of sense.

    But in the haste and zeal to supposedly reduce the nation’s viral load THT has somehow – ahem, rather conveniently – entirely forgotten the “use condoms” message.

    Why is that?

    Surly the best plan of attack would be a co-ordinated to simultaneously reinforce the condom message while also calling for gay men to be tested?

    Instead the onus is switching to being entirely on the latter, which invites cynicism and suspicion that this is more of a marketing exercise for THT support services and pharma drugs than a serious effort to reduce HIV rates.

    As always the HIV sector ignores a balanced approach in favour of a one-size-fits-all initiative that completely ignores and sidesteps the needs of those ignorant and/or complacent about the seriousness of HIV infection.

    It should be public domain how they set their HIV service user targets and bonus pots for hitting said targets each year.

    1. I note W6 is unable to answer the charges above, because no amount of selective researching or skewing of the facts can justify THT’s current testing-is-all-that-matters approach to HIV “prevention”.

      Lost for words for once, sweetie?

      1. I have explained many many times to you why testing is so important – I have also clearly given my opinion on the promotion of condom use. The problem you have with all of this Samuel is that you want THT & others to use a very outdated mode of health promotion for MSM. You want to create fear & shock, perpetuate stigma & provide a view that HIV is the end of the world for anyone unlucky enough to become infected. This simply is not a valid argument certainly not in my view, the views of behavioural change experts, clinicians, & other HIV experts.

        I have plenty of anecdotal evidence to say that gay men feel “discriminated” against because they are constantly bombarded by messages that are associated with HIV that the general population are not subjected to – I tend to agree that MSM are not more promiscuous than straight guys. Sadly HIV has a high prevalence amongst MSM ergo the risk of infection is much higher than the straight population.

        Same old Samuel every time – yawn!!!!

  18. You continue to dodge and swerve the issue:-

    WHY DID THT LOOT FROM THE HIV PREVENTION FUND TO PROMOTE THE MONEY-MAKING PART OF ITS SET-UP (CLIENT SERVICES) IN MAGAZINES SUCH AS POSITIVE NATION READ MAINLY BY HIV-POSITIVE MEN?

    Until you can answer that, W6, and without resort to bluster and ad hominem attacks, then you reveal yourself to be the HIV sector stooge troll you give every impression of being on those boards.

    And yes, THT does receive annual grants in line with the number of projected new infection rates, otherwise how could it provide its services to all?

    The more people become infected, the more funding applies for to provide said services:- that is simple logic.

    And henceforth why the THT were only too happy to expand its remit to cater for incoming African asylum seekers, notwithstanding that this came at a price to indigenous gay men who, many feel, were shunted to the back of the queue or experienced a dilution in the standard of services they received.

    1. This is pure speculation on your part Samuel – you are the one making these statements so the onus is on you to PROVE that this is how funding is allocated. My understanding is very different to yours as in my experience services are commissioned by PCT’s, DoH etc. Come back to me when you have the freedom of information request details that I beleive you now should persue as you make such bold speculative statements – I know how THT is funded, it’s the same old same old with you Samuel what you don’t know you make up!

      Come back to me when you have proof beyond doubt about how THT is funded! PUT UP OR SHUT UP FOOL!

  19. Oops, sorry, my mistake W6 for assuming the THT would ever have the guts or common decency to apologise for any of their many, many mistakes that have cost people their health, their well-being, their livelihoods and lives over three decades, all the while hoovering up all available funding to enable it to be a part of the buy-to-let boom.

    Tell me, W6, where all this moony the THT has ploughed into property investment came from and why it was donated in the first place, and then explain if you will why THT instead decided to use this cash to become property speculators while pleading poverty in order to accumulate even MORE funding, and so on and so on!

    Another major abuse of funding which W6 will not, nay cannot, answer…

    1. Permanent endowment & Legacy Funds – many individuals have left investments & major donations that are required to be invested, this ensures that the charity has some secure funding for the future -hence why THT own property.

      “Restricted funds
      A legacy was received in 1994/95 which the donor specified should be held as a permanent endowment. This is
      invested in Common Investment Funds. Any income from this endowment is included in the unrestricted funds but
      losses or gains on the investment, arising from changes in market value, are included in the endowment fund.”

      I suggest you read the 2011 Trustee report / Accounts it will save you face Samuel. If I can take the time to research why can’t you??? It really is not difficult! You may find it hard to beleive that some people leave a great deal to THT, sometimes in the form of property – does this answer your question?

      1. The point is, W6, such legacies and endowments were set up to be invested until such time as the THT needed income IN ADDITION to that which it receives in the form of funding and donations.

        Now, how many times you have heard Sir Nick or any of the other spokespeople from the THT plead poverty and claim they need additional funding for this, that or whatever, or needed to apply for funding for each new HIV-related health scare that emerges?

        Explain also why it buys up local HIV service providers and then strips bare the services they provided in order to cut costs, and why it has shut down many of the services its clients have depended on over the years, each time pleading poverty while salting away valuable legacies and endowments that were intended for such rainy days?

        Those who provided such legacies would be rotating in their graves if they knew how their cash was NOT being used for the reasons their cash was bequeathed.

        You have done selective research, W6, that’s all.

        1. In short, W6, how furious does the fire need to get?

          How many gay men are to be infected with HIV?

          How much longer must pos men receive streamlined services that are a pale shadow of what they once received?

          …before THT releases the cash from its endowments and legacies that were bequeathed for these very purposes?

          For what other reason could these funds possibly be being used to accumulate a portfolio of properties across prime central London?

  20. Samuel has made some ridiculous accusations about THT funding streams – sadly he never does any research to back his arguments -in the interest of the sanity of any other contributors reading this drivel I would refer you to the audited accounts for THT year ended March 2011.

    You will find all the infomration you need to know about funding streams – I am also sure a FOI request to the various Gov agencies will provide all the proof needed to show Samuel to be a complete & utter fool!

    Give up now Samuel – you really have made a complete ar$ehole of yourself with your latest rants!

  21. Samuel B writes “The point is, W6, such legacies and endowments were set up to be invested until such time as the THT needed income IN ADDITION to that which it receives in the form of funding and donations”.

    The Trustee reports clearly highlight Legacies & Common Investments as “restricted funds” – this meams that the donor of these funds has stipulated the use of such monies – this cannot be changed to suit prevailing economic conditions.

    The very large portfolio that was left in the early 90’s was invested as part of the legacy / permanent endowment conditions. This capital has to remain invested – the income (or loss) from these investments can be used as “unrestricted funds” – for which THT can use as it sees fit.

    The point is Samuel many of these larger donations have been protected in this way by the donors to ensure THT is secure for the future.

    1. I think the thing that irks you is that large protected donations have been provided to THT during the period when HIV was a death sentence, when the true Gay Community looked after it’s own, regardless of HIV status. The name of the game was paliative care & trying to make best of dreadful situation. In fact the whole LGBT Community came together to help during those times. Sadly times have changed, there is less sense of community amongst MSM, it is very much now everyone looking after number one.

      This is the crux of the matter with you Samuel, it really sticks in your throat that no such legacies have been left with the sole intention for targetting the negative MSM population, there is no “community” & you harbour massive fears of becoming HIV+. You lash out at fellow MSM using derogatory terms & putting them down – because you want others to create the change you want just to reduce your fears around HIV. You shamefully attack all HIV charities but do nothing to get involved!!

      1. Again as I thought I had clearly explained Statutary funding is often ringfenced (restricted funding) for specific projects – the £6million announced in this story is specifically for HIV prevention by the DoH & will be used for just that – this money cannot be used for anything else. Now I know you beleive that fraud, corruption & mis management is rife in the HIV charity sector, but there are several layers of safeguarding to ensure the funds are used for their intended purpose. Firstly the Board of Trustees are required in Law to prevent fraud & provide accurate financial statements, THT engage independent auditors as part of its Governance, then there are the Statutary funding auditors, the DoH who monitor the contracts and finally the Charities Commission.

        If you wish to beleive that all these groups / organisations are corrupt then that is your view – but please do not expect the rest of us to take your rather paranoid view on such matters.

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all