Reader comments · Sir Nick Partridge to step down as chief executive of Terrence Higgins Trust · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Sir Nick Partridge to step down as chief executive of Terrence Higgins Trust

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Good.

    The amounf of money Partridge was being paid was completely undeserved considering the massive failure of the AIDS charity industry in reducing HIV infection rates.

    Paul Ward (along with the other AIDS charity heads) needs to be set a specific target in terms of HIV reduction over a 3 year period, and if they fail to meet those targets then all government funding must cease.

    HIV is a chronic, lifelong, manageable illness these days. It is not a death sentence. And mnost importantly it is avoidable.

    Reduction in transmission rates needs to be Paul Wards primary focus.

  2. This is a long overdue and highly positive step.

    I hope that Paul Ward’s role as ‘acting chief exec’ means that they will be looking for a replacement from outside the organisation. It desperately needs new blood.

    One gone, two more to go.

  3. This signals an exciting new chapter for THT & I look forward to the announcement of who the new CEO will be. I hope the Board of Trustees appoints an individual who has a great ability to connect with people & at the same time rise to new challenges & embraces wider HIV prevention strategies that are now required to finally reduce new annual infections to the 100’s rather than 1000’s.

    1. It is absolutely essential that specific reduction targets are set for the new CEO and a timeframe by which they are to be achieved,.

      If they fail then the government funding must stop.

      You said on a previous thread that there are currently 6 HIV/AIDS charities getting state money.

      Considering that HIV is a lifelong, manageable chronic illness like diabetes and considering that it is avoidable, it is incomprehensible that so much money is being wasted on these ineffective charities,

      4 out of the current 6 charities could close today.

      All that is needed is 2 charities – 1 solely focused on HIV prevention and another for those currently living with HIV/AIDS

      The HIV charity industry as it currently stands is an utter disgrace and a failure and the THT is a large part of that disgraceful failure.

      1. To be clear I stated there were 6 service providers involved in the failed Pan London HIV Prevention Project.

        I agree that commissioners should be robustly monitoring prevention contracts, as I have previously stated many many times if the DOH is not satisfied with progress then by all means remove co tract funding or put a performance related clause in the contract.

        We need to look at how prevention is funded here in the UK & not just focus on the service providers.

        The Gov have no strategy on HIV & Sexual Health we must hold them to account!

        1. We know who the lead provider is, and the influence they have.

          1. I’m not sure who the “lead provider” is in terms of HIV prevention – certainly THT was not the lead provider in the Pan London HIV Prevention Programme to my knowledge, as they were contracted to only provide mass media & some elements of group-work aimed at MSM & the African Community. I think I may be correct in saying that in terms of “spend” the GMI Partnership was the lead provider & continue to be so when looking at HIV prevention in London, which is what Steve C was referring to.

            It is easy to identify the biggest HIV / Sexual Health service provider in the UK, but does this equate to biggest spend on HIV prevention I am not entirely sure? As for influence, again I am not sure which way that works – some PN readers suggest THT are unduly influenced by Government in order to secure contracts.

            I do not understand why some PN readers do not lobby Government to shine a spotlight on HIV prevention spending, it is a pittance compared to spend on treatment & care…………..

  4. I think it’s worth adding the third note to editors from the press release:

    3. Following Sir Nick’s departure at the end of October, Terrence Higgins Trust’s Board will be merging the posts of Chief Executive and Deputy Chief Executive which will reduce the operating costs of the charity and it is this new post that will be advertised in due course.

    1. How much money will Paul Ward be paid?

      What HIV reductiion targets are being set?

      1. Diva Mary Muva of Gawd 16 Jul 2013, 1:33pm

        Write to the trustees and find out? Seems like there are changes afoot but that there is a danger that assumptions will be made that miss a golden chance for change.

        1. The trustees have hitherto been impervious to such approaches.

      2. The Trustee report for 2012 shows 3 individuals received between £80k & £89K, which I guess covers Nick Partridge, Paul Ward & Lisa Power as the 3 most senior employees. Presumably Paul Ward received the median of this salary range.

        Given the my Local Council pays its housing executives up to £140k to scrap the housing register & introduce a draconian housing policy, I do not think these salary payments are out of line for a National organisation with 30 odd sites. I guess it is all about public perception & engagement, which clearly THT could certainly improve upon.

        1. You are only partly correct in your assessment of the “reasonable” salaries awarded to THT’s top three bigwigs.

          Factor in their gold-plated pensions, executive perks and so forth and a truer picture of the wealth they extract from this “charity” that claims it is unable to fund basic education campaigns is in fact well into six figures.

          Oh and not to mention the assets THT holds comprising prime London properties valued in the millions:- bequeathed to THT by donors who believed they would be cashed in and properly used in the event that the THT ever ran into financial difficulties.

          Well THT has long claimed to be unable to fund basic services such as legal advice to HIV positive people – despite lawyers offering their time free to this service – and any number of other basic and much needed services they have shut down over the years while pleading poverty

          And all the while the value of their assets keeps climbing to astronomical figures.

          You couldn’t make it up!!

          1. Wow – are you actually saying something I have actually posted here has some truth in reality? Why should employees not have a good pension scheme?

            What does the property portfolio have anything to do with salaries? Why is it wrong for an organisation to own assets & make them work to sustain the charity? Many assets were bequeathed to THT to provide a long lasting legacy to people living with HIV, not to be frittered away to plug the gap in Government funding when it comes to HIV prevention. We have seen many many charities go to the wall, THT Trustees are taking the correct approach to ensure THT survives for another 30yrs – that said I am sure you would prefer all HIV charities to close today – what would you replace them with, the DoH who are unable to run our NHS?

          2. Samuel, the original question asked was specifically about Salaries, not remuneration package, but since you are so desperate to try & suggest THT senior staff are over paid, there were 3 senior staff members who received a total of £14k in defined pension scheme (average of £4.6K). There are no expenses paid to either senior staff or Trustees so it simply is not the case to suggest that the top executives are paid well over a 6 figure sum.

            At most top pay including pension contributions could be £95k which is perfectly reasonable. The median pay multiplier of highest paid to lowest paid staff member is 3.5, which clearly confirms that senior employees are not being overpaid .

            Myths & more myths, this is what I dislike, the distortion of factual information to suit your particular quarrel with THT. It is spiteful & very juvenile & ever so tiresome! Sadly some PN readers are taken in by your deceitful comments.

            You are a fine one to talk about perks (iPhone5 & iPad Mini) in 2012!

          3. You will not even pause to consider that something is wrong with how THT operates, will you?

            Your fundamental failing is your persistent referencing to THT as a “charity”:- it most certainly is NOT.

            Well, certainly not in the sense that its founders intended, nor in the sense how such similar “charities” have been subverted, corrupted and bureaucratised to form extensions of governments, there to do the government’s – and by association corporate lobbyists’ – bidding.

            You are beyond naive, W6, you are truly blind to how the THT operates and the bureaucratic corporate monolith it has become.

            Want to know what a REAL charity is, my friend?

            Tune into C4’s excellent The Secret Millionaire which depicts genuinely compassionate people largely volunteering their time for peanuts for the public good, surviving on a thread while fat cat quangoes such as THT parasitically Hoover up all available public funds.

            And have a box of Kleenex at the ready to boot!

          4. Third sector or Charity sector organisations operate in the same way, yet we often see you defend cancer charities to the hilt, perhaps because you see these charities as somehow being more worthy than HIV charities.

            Successive Government policies have resulted in the way the charitable sector now operate – as I have often suggested, why are you not questioning this rather than have a pop at the likes of THT. There are fundamental questions to be asked about health inequalities that have a huge impact on gay men, but all you seen concerned about is how much THT senior staff are paid & what assets the charity has.

            The Gov should be investing much more in the health of the LGBT Community, but instead you are constantly calling for further cuts – where do you expect the money to come from to improve LGBT health? – what is your solution to the problem, cut funding completely?

            You have wheeled out the C4 program analogy previously – put your hand in your own pocket & contribute!

          5. Likewise you will not even pause to review the plethora of total bull$hit that you constantly post here. You deliberately set out to make sensational claims that simply are not true, & when I counter your argument with factual evidence that is available for all to see, you deflect any criticism away from your argument & make it all about me & my shortcomings.

            Is it too much to ask for a level playing field where you actually present your argument in a reasonable manner, that has at least some origin in fact? Is it any wonder most PN readers hardly comment on HIV related threads – look at the difference between Equal Marriage & HIV story comments. WE are both at fault for deterring other commentators engaging in good debate about HIV – you make every thread about THT & we constantly miss the point of the story.

            I would have thought you would have welcomed the changes at the top of THT, it is a start of a new era, why can you not see it this way – talk about being a one trick pony!

        2. Yep – Alzheimer’s Society for example pays its CEO in the region of £135K. So 80-89k doesn’t seem that unreasonable given that HIV doesn’t receive anything like the government funding and private donations that dementia and cancer get.

  5. Diva Mary Muva of God 16 Jul 2013, 1:15pm

    Why do we always have to wait until the child says the Emperor is wearing no clothes? This Emperor has been naked a long time.

    THT needs to radically re-engage with the real world.

    1. Absolutely

      The HIV charities still seem to be operating under the mindset that it is 1990.

      HIV is a serious, lifelong, chronic condition like Type 1 diabetes. It is not a death sentence and (unlike Type 1 diabetes) it is avoidable.

      THT and the other HIV/AIDS charities don’t seem to have woken up to this reality yet.

      1. Diva Mary Muva of Dawg 16 Jul 2013, 1:35pm

        Totally agree.

      2. Roland Chesters 16 Jul 2013, 3:02pm

        But unlike Diabetes, it is infectious. And therefore continues to be stigmatised in a way that diabetes is not.

        1. You could argue that it is stigmatised because it is infectious and therefore it is a manner diabetes is not.

          So you have 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other.

          There is no reason why anyone should be infected with HIV.

          The HIV / AIDS charity industry need to get into the year 2013. HIV is no longer a death sentence – its focus should be on specific and targeted reductions in infections – otherwise a cessation of funding.

          1. Whilst I admire your wish to ensure there is more focus on HIV prevention as we see in the NHS a target driven culture does not always have the desired consequences, so I am not entirely convinced that setting a target on new infections would work – the input / output model does not often lend itself well to human behaviors & as such we often see unintended consequences.

            I also think that we have come to the limits of what the humble condom can achieve in terms of finally getting to grips with HIV. Don’t get me wrong condoms offer a great barrier to HIV but they are not always as effective as some people would like to believe – on a population level, condoms are only around 78% reliable for preventing HIV / STI’s.

            I agree that times have changed & perhaps organisations like THT have been slow to embrace new prevention technologies & to go with a more science based, epidemiology focused model of HIV prevention. We have had 30 yrs of behaviour change campaigns, it’s time for a change!

  6. Colin (London) 16 Jul 2013, 4:43pm

    I am surprised to see some of the comments.

    More so surely Sir Nick Partridge deserves our thanks for thirty years of service to the community. We may see things differently at times but I for one send him my hearty THANKS for serving the HIV/Aids community

    1. The gay community deserve the thanks of Nick Partridge who has made a career (and a knighthood) out of its generosity.

      1. Exactly, and knighthoods are only bequeathed to those who do the etablishments’s bidding.

        “Sir” Nick Partridge has not been working selflessly these last 30 years for the betterment of our sexual health:- he has been working obediently to government guidelines themselves influenced by shadowy pharma corporate lobbyists to create a multi-billion pound industry around HIV and all of the many drugs and client services that entails.

        HIV prevention?

        Are you kidding me?

        Had Sir Nick been working for US then there would have been no Tesco Higgins Trust on the scale we have today.

        They demonstrably got fat on the advancement of a chronic disease whose spread was preventable, and indeed was in decline in the early to mid-1990s until the THT and every other corrupted HIV org in the developed world did a sharp U-turn to ensure their survival.


  7. Thank you Sir Nick for 30 years of service to THT and to this challenging sector. Your input, charism and personality have provided THT with a unique brand name and face. Wishing you well in your next chapter.

    1. ‘Boy’. Yep, that captures it

  8. Twenty years too late!

    This man has the degraded health of two generations of gay men on his hands, and HIV rates are virtually out of control.

    Now watch him walk through a revolving door into another establishment post while having all accountability for his wanton failures in the HIV sector swept under the carpet.


    1. Who says HIV rates are virtually out of control Mr Bass? Even if we take the measure of HIV amongst MSM, the last few years has seen a flattening out of year on year increases of observed new HIV infections, this against a backdrop of increased testing uptake. Great headlines were made of 3000 new infections in 2011, yet the observed data 1 year on shows around 2600 new infections so your claim is not correct.

      The total number of MSM living with HIV (diagnosed & undiagnosed) stood at around 41,000 which was marginally down on the previous year & the UK overall prevalence of HIV was 0.2% which is considerably less than 0.6% in the US. If new infections were out of control we would not be seeing such figures.

      Once again you show yourself up by having no factual evidence upon which to make your claims, it’s all total bull$hit. We all know you have a dislike for factual argument, but it is ridiculous to claim HIV rates are virtually out of control, it simply is not the case!

      1. Like Sir Nick, Mr. Williams, you are clearly a product of the system programmed to repeat the system’s mantras ad nauseum ad infinitum, never flinching to exercise individualised thought or swerving when it is abundantly clear that the cognitive dissonance from which you suffer has you trapped like a fly in a jar of ointment (ie:- going nowhere).

        And we can surely rest assured that whoever replaces Sir Nick will likewise be a product of said system signifying business as usual as surely as had Sir Nick decided to aim for a fourth or even fifth decade.

        Sir Nick’s departure from Tesco Higgins Trust, therefore – and whilst being long, long overdue – does not raise my hopes nor expectations in the slightest.

        1. No answer to my question regarding your claim that “HIV rates being virtually out of control”?? Is it really too much to ask for the occasional answer to a perfectly reasonable question? Would it be too much to ask you to look up the stats yourself & provide your own interpretation of the figures, rather than make sound bytes that have no basis in fact?

          As ever are all over the place when it comes to HIV. We see here that you state that new infections are “virtually out of control”, but in previous threads you have questioned the level of undiagnosed cases of HIV & that somehow the stats are being over blown. You cannot have it both ways, denial one minute then overblown alarmist rhetoric the next. Good debate has to have some factual content, all we get from you is the daily serving of your English language prowess, shame you were not so good at science & maths when you were at school!

          I take it you will not be applying for the position – this could be your golden opportunity!

          1. W6, how do you define “out of control” exactly?

            To me “out of control” signifies being unable to keep the lid on something, and for nigh on 20 years THT et al have failed to keep HIV rates contained and thus have failed to control the spread of the disease.

            Your desperation to use sleight of hand tactics to railroad and sidetrack all of my arguments is a shameless travesty of all the good you purport to be doing in the realm of dispensing drugs advice to fresh victims betrayed by Sir Nick’s allegiance to serving the system and stuffing the rest of us.

            You come to these boards not to commetate on the cornucopia of subjects PN serves up daily but to troll and shill for the beloved HIV sector you are cup in hand with and who you give oxygen on your Twitter feed to post the same-old same-old rhetoric and PC-led doctrines that got us into this mess free from the prospect of ever being held to task by you for their failures.

            You are as much a part of the problem as they are.

          2. Hmmmm I would have expected a better definition of “out of control” from you Samuel, but lets run with your definition “unable to keep a lid on something” which is a round about way of saying “containment”, the epidemic has long been contained here in the UK, we know from epidemiology modelling studies that the majority of MSM consistently practice safer sex, if this was not the case we would now be seeing HIV rates at nearer 200,000 cases rather than 100,000. Like it or not the epidemic has been contained.

            In the context of an infection “out of control” suggests an exponential increases in infection rates (an epidemic) – over the past few years the yr on yr increase has been around 2% & over the past 10 yrs the average yr/yr increase is 4%.

            Have you or have you not stated that you do not believe the level of undiagnosed HIV amongst MSM stands at 20%? Yes or No? no sleight of hand here, just basic questioning. Stick to the factual debate, rather than try to discredit me as person

          3. Rather than provide an answer to a reasonable question you have decided to open up another attack on my point to view half way up this thread – devious to the core & a master of deceit!

            Why can you never answer one single straight forward question without resorting to deflection tactics? You are a true Politician rotten to the core!

  9. Jim Edwards 31 Jul 2013, 11:28am

    This is SOOOO BORING to wade-thru.. Personal attacks and bickering do not shine any light on how to end this scourge to society. I do not like THT. I volunteered with them in the 1980’s before they turned into a version of The Borg. Like the Borg, thier chief motivation seems to be self-agrandisement and aquiring an ever-increasing slice of the HIV funding cake. For years they have set the agenda and then out-bid local NHS sexual health services – thereby reducing the pool of expertise within the NHS. This was NOT their original intention. They have set the new NHS England ‘It starts with me’ program which seems to be biased to be only properly deliverable by local THT services to the disadvantage of every other sexual health service. They have no concept of delivery in rural areas. Other epidemics have been controlled and defeated so it CAN be done if the will is there and the science is applied but this seems sadly lacking in the HIV world. Is (sir) Nick responsible for all this?

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.