Reader comments · National AIDS Trust: Tweet us your ‘birds and bees’ cupcakes · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


National AIDS Trust: Tweet us your ‘birds and bees’ cupcakes

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. factsandfigures 26 Apr 2013, 5:21pm

    PN could we be a bit more further reaching and list options such as “Find Sexual health information and support services” from the NHS or other sites, I dont think a cup cake is going to response to someone with and sti?

    1. Seriously, wasn’t April Fools Day on the 1st?!

  2. What a nasty piece of work you can be, Spanner.
    You’ve improved considerably in recent months,
    but every so often you go and blow it.

    1. I think Spanner was being ironic, Eddy!

      Another daft, hair-brained scheme by an out of touch and out of time HIV charity desperately trying to justify its funding.

      I mean, is this not even half-baked (excuse pun) effort the the best safe sex initiative it can come up with in 2013?

      That it comes so hot on the heels of THT’s own appallingly misguided and misdirected non-HIV-prevention campaign only adds untold insult to injury.


      1. No, Samuel, Spanner was NOT being ironic. Please see his comments on the Staffordshire UKIP thread at the moment. Spanner still holds the same nasty, twisted, fascist views he always did, which he expressed on these threads years ago.

        What I objected to above was his deliberate choice of hate-filled, and self-hating, language. It was totally inappropriate. But that’s not a surprise. On the other thread Spanner has revealed that he remains of the view that all gay men are vile and selfish, and that he therefore detests all gay men.

        We don’t need to take that, Samuel, do we.

        1. If that is Spanner’s personal experience of gay men then who are any of us to tell him what to think?

          Shouldn’t we be all for diversity of expression in a free and open society?

          It is the David Skinners of this world who come on these boards and attack us without the experience of living life as an out gay man we should be venting our rate at.

          Spanner is out and gay and therefore his experience of other gay men is subjective but nonetheless equally as valid as any one else’s.

          Gay culture isn’t perfect and aspects of it are wantonly hedonistic and self-destructive:- let’s not pretend otherwise.

          Indeed let’s get a debate started to address these serious issues like grown ups, get to the root of the problems, confront them and maybe even save a few of the many naive and vulnerable lives lost each year as a direct consequence of living the urban gay lifestyle, instead of continually looking the other way and fooling ourselves that everything in our garden’s fine and rosy.

  3. I would prefer to read that the National AIDS Trust is doing more profound things to stop the spread of HIV than running cupcake competitions.

    1. I suppose cup cakes make a change from spotted dick.

      1. Spanner1960 26 Apr 2013, 9:57pm

        You git. I just sprayed coffee all over my monitor.

        1. At least it was only coffee.

    2. I agree with Eddy…the whole idea of a cupcake competition is embarrassing. We cant expect society to move into the 21st century with regard to GLBT rights when organisations such as the NAT appears to be stuck in the 1970s.

      I also agree with Spanner in regard to the fact that the message should be “safer sex” unless of course the competition is trying to promote masturbation (and I don’t think this activity needs any promotiion…I believe we already have a grip on that one)

  4. a) I’d pay good money to taste Paul Hollywood’s safer sex cup cake.
    b) Lighten up people. This is just a bit of fun to help raise funds for a good charity – unlike THT which is given £2.4m of your taxes a year to come up with campaigns which might as well be written on a cup cake for all the good they do. That isn’t such a bit of harmless fun.

    1. factsandfigures 27 Apr 2013, 12:49pm

      Cup Cake fun or not, NAT still costs around £870,000 to operate (2012 accounts) and higher costs previously, I refer

      THT running costs are around £20m (2012) , NAM publications £1m, Food Chain £672,000 , HERO (formlyGMFA) £640,000, Postive East £1.6m, Metro Centre £2.5m, Body and Soul £1.3m,

      1. It may also be importent to identify that THT has 33 centres across the UK, with the average income per centre being just over £600,000, whereas the other centres mentioned above are single centre organisations only, although to be fair NAM provide nationwide support information.

        Perspective is important, lets compare like with like where possible!

      2. factsandfigures 27 Apr 2013, 6:15pm

        Also the AHPN (2012) costs £1.3m and the NAZ project £540,000 equalls a spend/costs of £30.4million (2011-2012) on 10 organisations.

        £484million on the cost of ARV treatment/infructure/other meds & tests/QUIPP/Inpatient Care

        £25million for the AIDS Support Grant, £3m Capitial ASG allowance……..

        1. I think your figures clearly demonstrate the lack of joined up thinking when it comes to the commission of HIV / Sexual Health Services.

          The “silo mentality” when it comes to commissioning has resulted in dilution (salami slicing) of resources over too many organisations has resulted in duplication & as we see in London this is not sustainable – charities must network & pool resources going forward.

          I’m sure the UK spend on 3rd Sector HIV organisations is closer to £50million, out of that, prevention spending is probably only in the region of £15million (a guesstimate).

          1. factsandfigures 27 Apr 2013, 7:08pm

            Cheaper to go to Greggs or Fortum & Masons for one’s cup cakes instead?

          2. factsandfigures 27 Apr 2013, 7:31pm

            W6 How can you say “commissioning has resulted in dilution (salami slicing) of resources over too many organisations has resulted in duplication” based upon the actual accounts submitted to the Charities Commission, of the 10 listed equals £30.4million (2012), all are representing the cause or challace under HIV/AIDS from Prevention to Support……..

            Fir now, I refer “However, the Department of Health spends £2.9m each year on national HIV prevention in England, part of the £10.6m spent on sexual health promotion in general. ”

            Related info:

          3. Cupcakes are all icing & no substance………..not usually worth buying! NAM is my charity of choice when it comes to financial support, happy to give my time free if charge to others.

          4. As an example how many organisations provide detailed information relating to HIV in terms of the basics etc? The information provided by THT, GMFA to name 2 are the same as is available on NAM, surely some networking here would create savings / better use of resource?

            My view is we need an overarching properly funded HIV awareness campaign which will not come cheap, with TV, radio & other large format media use, this would have a great deal more impact than the medium sized campaigns that we see today.

            Resources & expertise should be pooled, more direct networking rather than several charities all bidding for a slice of an ever smaller cake.

            Better Regional / local support networks that pool resources, as an example possibly Pace, Antidote & GMFA would be a good tie up, centralise admin cost, each organisation can keep its identify, this would result in joined up thinking to cover many of the problems we see in relation to HIV, mental health, drug & alcohol use.

          5. “W6 How can you say “commissioning has resulted in dilution (salami slicing) of resources over too many organisations…”

            In case you hadn’t noticed factsnfigs, W6 prefers “salami slicing” to cup cake decorating:- so much so that it is one of several clever ‘n’ catchy phrases he has come across and has been sure to make good mileage of over the years, along with “joined-up thinking” (whatever THAT means!), “silo mentality”, “methinks not”, “You have a brain, I suggest you use it” to take just several.

            A Poet Laureate he’s not, poor lamb, but 2 out of 5 for trying.

      3. Give me £800k and you’ll get more than a cup cake competition.

        With that amount of wonga I’d give you a Mr. Potato Head play group and an egg and spoon race to boot!

    2. “Lighten up people”, is what you say when the NAT responds to the fact that recent figures published here in PinkNews and elsewhere have shown that infections from HIV are continuing to rise at a significant pace?

      Think again about what infection from HIV MEANS, John Ten.

      It means that person infected with HIV has contracted a FATAL disease and MUST quickly start taking highly toxic medication which he, or she, must adhere to for the rest of their lives.

      That ain’t no cupcake matter, John.

      It’s far more serious.

      But a lot of individuals working in HIV/AIDS charities are making a very nice living out of people becoming HIV infected. If infection stopped, and if people were cured, their gravy train would come to an abrupt halt.

      Think about it.

      1. Spanner1960 27 Apr 2013, 5:48pm

        For once I totally concur with Eddy.
        This is just a moneymaking scam that preys on the afflicted.

        That said, infections are on the rise partially due to poor health education, and partially because people just think HIV isn’t dangerous any more – and the charities have a lot to do with that mindset. If people thought they would genuinely *die* from infection, they would soon change their sexual proclivities. It wouldn’t take much advertising either: bad news like that travels fast.

        1. So you would prefer that we create false information to frighten people, sadly gay men are not as stupid as you & others often portray them as…….meds work, they are perfectly tolerable to the majority of individuals.

          Long term figures for new infections are relatively stable between 2000 & 2010. It also depends which figures are used, observed or adjusted, the headline grabbers use adjusted figures, which are often much higher than observed. I wonder why that might be

          1. Spanner1960 27 Apr 2013, 10:17pm

            I would do anything, including scaring the living crap out of people if it saved lives.
            Sometimes the ends have to justify the means.

          2. Each to their own, but deliberately putting a negative spin on expected outcomes is not particularly ethical & may not save lives, particularly those who are reluctant to test in the first place.

            Why not go the whole hog, stop treating people & wait for the virus to burn itself out via natural selection, those with the Delta32 deletion gene would survive everyone else would die……..

          3. Spanner1960 28 Apr 2013, 2:50pm

            Well it worked in the past. If you view the graph of infections vs deaths there was a point where it levelled out because people were terrified. Then the infection rates went ballistic even though deaths remained low when combination therapies became widely available, and people thought it was safe to screw around again. The stats prove for themselves that fear is the greatest motivator.


          4. I agree that the true fear that was caused by the I urial epidemic was a huge motivation for people to modify their sexual behaviours – this can never be replicated again particularly in the age of social media / Internet generation.

            We know the condom message has worked & continues to do so, but if we really want to get serious about zero new infections we must look to a test & treat model to reduce the level of virus within the population group.

            Behaviour change is an expensive business, therefore test & treat has become an important method of reducing onward infection.

            I am on record as saying this is the direction of travel, but the condom only brigade are not open to new approaches & prefer to live in the past.

      2. Very familiar rhetoric we read here on PN – a knee jerk reaction to a very innocent comment. I used to think you had a balanced, rational view Eddy, but it seems you have been brainwashed by the clap trap that is peddled on these comments pages.

        I think you need to revisit basic HIV science & not be so easily swayed by conspiracy theory! You have a brain, I suggest you engage it!

        1. W6, you have proven repeatedly that you are living in denial, and that you wish to believe that despite being HIV+ you are entirely healthy. So you ought not to dare to suggest that I am not rational.

          Here are some links to help you acknowledge and accept reality.

          HIV injures the brain:

          Brain inflammation ubiquitous among HIV-infected individuals:

          Scans show how HIV attacks brain:

        2. I’m not entirely sure what point you are trying to make in relation to the links you have provided – they bear no realtion whatsoever to the claims you have made on this page:

          1. Where is the link that backs-up this statement “It means that person infected with HIV has contracted a FATAL disease” – HIV is a virus not a disease. AIDS or advanced HIV infection can be a fatal disease if left untreated, is this fact or fiction in your view?

          2. Where is your ref link that baks up this statement? “MUST quickly start taking highly toxic medication” – about 25% of people diagnosed with HIV can go for 10 yrs or more before being clinically indicated from treatment – is this fact or fiction in your view?

          3. Where is your ref point to back up your claim “highly toxic medication” where are the RTC’s to show HIV treatment in anymore toxic than treatment for high blood pressure, anti-depressants, or any other long-term medication?

          As I say use your head!

        3. Please point to your evidence that backs up your claim I am living in denial! Please confirm where I have posted inaccurate information regarding HIV?

          I would suggest you make your own mind up rather than be reliant on what rhetoric you read on these pages about me.

        4. If you wish I am more than happy to go through each of your links & explain to you why they may not be high quality evidence in relation to the effect HIV has on the brain. One has to make a balanced judgement about the claims many studies produce in relation to the long-term effects of HIV.

          To give you a flavour, your first link provides information on several small scale observational studies, these were not randomised controlled studies – yes they provide valuable insight for further investigation, but they should not be quoted as high quality evidence in my view (or I am sue in the view of the British HIV Association).

          I would also caution many studies coming from the States, they have much poorer outcomes generally because only about 30% of people who should be on treatment actually are…lets compare like with like?

          1. The byzantine circumlocutions of your denialism are extraordinary and sad.

            I don’t mind people entertaining delusions provided they keep them entirely to themselves. Please do so with yours.

          2. @Eddy
            I suggest you challenge the point not the individual – are the following claims you have made about HIV supported by Clinicians & HIV experts here in the UK (leaving the 3rd sector aside)? Where is your evidence to support these claims?

            “It means that person infected with HIV has contracted a FATAL disease and MUST quickly start taking highly toxic medication which he, or she, must adhere to for the rest of their lives”.

            It appears that you have made the above statement to fit your own personal views on HIV rather than make a measured & educated response. It is very easy to jump on the bandwagon & challenge me as an individual, so I ask again challenge the point or explain your statement more fully!

          3. Perhaps better not to indulge the troll, Eddy?

            He is behind reasoning, let alone arguing, with.

            The rest of us understand clearly the points you are making and appreciate you make them without any agendas attached:- that is the key to contributing to open forums such as these.

            PN should appoint a moderator to stamp out the likes of David Skinner and W6 who troll these boards to shout abuse and push their personal agendas.

            As I said elsewhere, W6, this is not your Twitter feed or HIV forum which you hold sway over:- so get a rate card!!

          4. @ Samuel

            I certainly agree that PN should have these comments pages moderated, if only to uphold decent debate that is in part framed in fact & not deliberately deceitful & wildly inaccurate. You are entitled to have an ideology that is based firmly in the past, but at least when confronted with solid information to counter the argument do have the decency to put forward an equally sound logical argument, rather than resort to playground tactics, mud slinging & juvenile behavior we see time & again.

            These sorts of tactics prevent the development of good debate, & whilst I will be the first to admit I have stupidly engaged in such tactics, it is very sad when one selfish individual wishes to bully & prevent others having a rational debate about an extremely important subject area.

            Apart from your usual broadside at me Samuel did you actually have a point to make, or are you commenting to score points – I know how you rely on the rating arrow system to validate your point of view!

          5. Two additional questions for you Samuel.

            1. Can you please confirm which “forum I hold sway over” as you are making claims that are suggesting something underhand is occurring? I would be very grateful if you can confirm which forum you believe I am involved with & perhaps clarify what you mean by “I hold sway over”.

            2. Can you clarify what you believe my “personal agenda” to be & in doing so perhaps you would like to be clear about your own personal agenda. I think it is only fair for you to be as transparent as I always have been.

            It seems you are the individual who prefers to be anonymous, as opposed to being open to scrutiny in the modern age of social media!

      3. Having lived with HIVfor 28 years, all I can say is that if it’s fatal, it’s taking an awfully long time to kill me. And the drugs (which, true, I do have to take every day) have proved pretty non-toxic…

  5. NAT doing pretty little cupcakes is like the women down at the local Women’s Institute selling jams at the village fete in the hope that it will hinder the forces that encourage unsafe sex.

    1. Spanner1960 27 Apr 2013, 5:50pm

      Eating cupcakes prevents AIDS.
      If you eat enough, you end up so godamn fat nobody wants to shag you.

    2. Consider diabetes, to which HIV disease is often very wrongly compared. So they have a cupcake competition. Furthermore, it’s birds and bees focussed. When I was a kid, the “birds and bees” talk (ie heterosexual reproduction) was such a cliche. Gay men sidelined yet again…

      1. Spanner1960 28 Apr 2013, 2:52pm

        To be honest, these days, I think I would prefer to be HIV+ than Type I diabetic.

      2. Samuel B. 1 May 2013, 3:59pm

        The irony being, of course, is eating just one cupcake a day will send you on the road to advance level diabetes.

        Oh the irony!!

  6. Why is it that every time there is an HIV story on PinkNews, the same people pop up and argue and fight and bicker and bitch at each other? The issue in hand, the article under question becomes lost in a mire of claim and counter claim. The only effect is to turn people off what remains a very pressing issue for gay men (and others), and renders any attempt at constructive conversation related to the ongoing HIV epidemic in MSM completely futile.
    Please, for the sake of our community, for the sake of those of risk and for the sake of common debating decency, stop with the bitching and return to the issues.
    (You could start by taking some of the arguments here to the big charities – THT, NAT, GMFA – and putting these allegations directly to them in a public forum. I’d definitely attend that event!!)

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.