Labour calls on Director General to update BBC guidelines after Graham Norton disciplined for wearing AIDS ribbon

The Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on HIV and AIDS has written to BBC Director General Lord Hall over the decision to discipline Graham Norton for wearing an HIV/AIDS awareness ribbon on his Friday night chat show.
In a letter sent to Lord Hall on 11 December, Labour MP Pamela Nash said: “I am writing to express my concern about the story circulating in the media yesterday regarding Graham Norton having been reprimanded by the BBC for supporting World AIDS Day by wearing a ribbon for the Graham Norton Show prior to World AIDS Day on 29th November. If this is true, it sends an unhelpful message to the public.”
The MP continued: “Raising awareness of HIV is crucial to ending the epidemic. Globally 35 million people have died from AIDS to date – the ribbon is a way of remembering all of those people while simultaneously encouraging people to get tested. In the UK roughly 100,000 people are living with HIV with a fifth of that number unaware of their infection.
“I hope these statistics help demonstrate why it is so important people like Graham Norton show their support for World AIDS Day. It is a symbol of solidarity, compassion and an important awareness raising tool which the BBC could greatly help by promoting. You will know that other television stations have long allowed their stars wear the red ribbon, most notably on the X Factor. During Prime Minister’s Questions on the Wednesday before World AIDS Day the whole of the Labour front bench wore the red ribbon to show their support, as did backbench MPs across the House. I hope the BBC will recognise that the AIDS ribbon should be allowed to be worn and amend their guidelines accordingly.”
Margot James, the Conservative Party’s first openly gay female MP, tweeted her support for Norton, saying it was time to “change the guidelines.”


http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/12/12/labour-demands-action-from-director-general-after-graham-norton-disciplined-for-wearing-aids-ribbon/


Can't get my head around this BBC decision TBF!  

Norton ignored instructions not to wear the ribbon on his programme on 29 November to highlight this year’s World AIDS Day on 1 December.
Despite the fact that all of his guests on the Graham Norton Show – Jeremy Clarkson, Jo Brand, Colin Farrell and Sharon Osbourne – were allowed to wear the red ribbons – the presenter was told not to.
On Tuesday, BBC entertainment controller Mark Linsey said: “World AIDS Day is an issue which Graham cares passionately about and he did wear a World AIDS Day insignia on his programme.
“However, this is in breach of BBC guidelines. The production company has been contacted and reminded that he cannot do this and Graham has accepted he was wrong to do so. The BBC has been assured it will not occur again.”
The National AIDS Trust (NAT) has criticised the BBC’s decision and believes the corporation should review its rules.
It’s urging people to sign an online petition addressed to BBC Director General Lord Hall. More than 500 signatures have already been collected.
PinkNews has contacted the BBC regarding the petition and awaits a response.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/12/12/labour-demands-action-from-director-general-after-graham-norton-disciplined-for-wearing-aids-ribbon/
 

A ridiculous decision by the BBC. Whoever made the decision to reprimand Norton should be reprimanded instead and an apology demanded from them.

Same as all those nasty chav parents who go to the Daily Mail when their child is sent home for having pink hair when the school rules clearly state "no pink hair".

Tow the line, it's simple.

BigAndy9 wrote:Same as all those nasty chav parents who go to the Daily Mail when their child is sent home for having pink hair when the school rules clearly state "no pink hair".

Tow the line, it's simple.

Were there rules in place to say the ribbon should not be worn?

Irn Bru wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:Same as all those nasty chav parents who go to the Daily Mail when their child is sent home for having pink hair when the school rules clearly state "no pink hair".

Tow the line, it's simple.

Were there rules in place to say the ribbon should not be worn?

He was told not to wear it by somebody above him. End of story.

"how dare you say that to my kids - they're perfect" lol

A child having pink hair is a parochial decision and something to be worked out between the school, child and parent and has no bearing on a world situation. The work being done on HIV/AIDS is of huge importance and effects millions of men, women and children world-wide. What the hell do the BBC think they are doing?

BigAndy9 wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:Same as all those nasty chav parents who go to the Daily Mail when their child is sent home for having pink hair when the school rules clearly state "no pink hair".

Tow the line, it's simple.

Were there rules in place to say the ribbon should not be worn?

He was told not to wear it by somebody above him.  End of story.

"how dare you say that to my kids - they're perfect"  lol

Got a link to who said it?

The BBC has formally rejected calls to allow its presenters to wear red ribbons on World AIDS Day.
The corporation is facing pressure to change its rules following criticism of its decision to discipline Graham Norton for wearing an HIV/AIDS awareness ribbon on his Friday night chat show.
Norton ignored instructions not to wear the ribbon on his programme on 29 November to highlight this year’s World AIDS Day on 1 December.
All four guests on his show, Jeremy Clarkson, Jo Brand, Colin Farrell and Sharon Osbourne – were allowed to wear the ribbons.
The controversy was raised by Hamish Marshall, a BBC South West reporter and presenter based in Plymouth – who was sent on a BBC training course which said Norton was “in the wrong” for wearing the ribbon.
He said: “During the Safeguarding Values training, an example of practice, ruled as wrong, on the Graham Norton Show was highlighted.
“We were told his guests could wear a red ribbon for World AIDS Day but he couldn’t.
“Despite the cynics in our group saying this would be flouted, we were told that, like the rest of us, Graham Norton has to obey the rules – however much he disagrees with them.”
“Well, guess what happened last week? Graham Norton wore the red ribbon on his show – a couple of days before World AIDS Day.
Mr Marshall added: “Can you ask the powers-that-be what action has, or is, being taken as a result of this (and) is it only ‘talent’ on big contracts who can flout rules if they disagree with them?”
The National AIDS Trust (NAT) has criticised the BBC’s decision and believes the corporation should review its rules.
It’s urging people to sign an online petition addressed to BBC Director General Lord Hall.
In response, a BBC spokesman told PinkNews.co.uk: “The BBC recognises that viewers feel strongly about a wide range of campaigns but, to ensure impartiality, cannot favour one charity or cause over another by allowing the wearing of charitable or campaigning insignia by on screen talent.
“The poppy is recognised as a symbol of national remembrance for those who have died in conflict, and especially in two world wars, and the BBC has a long standing convention of allowing its presenters, reporters and pundits to wear poppies on screen if they wish to in the run up to Remembrance Day.”
Meanwhile, Labour MP Pamela Nash who chairs the All Party Parliamentary Group on HIV and AIDS has written to Lord Hall.
In a letter sent to Lord Hall on 11 December, she said: “Raising awareness of HIV is crucial to ending the epidemic. Globally 35 million people have died from AIDS to date – the ribbon is a way of remembering all of those people while simultaneously encouraging people to get tested. In the UK roughly 100,000 people are living with HIV with a fifth of that number unaware of their infection.
“I hope these statistics help demonstrate why it is so important people like Graham Norton show their support for World AIDS Day. It is a symbol of solidarity, compassion and an important awareness raising tool which the BBC could greatly help by promoting.”

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/12/13/bbc-we-wont-change-our-rules-presenters-cannot-wear-red-ribbons-on-world-aids-day/

   Off to sign the petition.

Got a link to it? This is something of enormous importance, what do the BBC think they are playing at?

Sassy wrote:Got a link to it?   This is something of enormous importance, what do the BBC think they are playing at?

http://act.lifewithhiv.org.uk/lobby/BBCRRban

That's the link that Pink News have given, it doesn't work though!

Sassy wrote:Got a link to it?   This is something of enormous importance, what do the BBC think they are playing at?

Producing TV and radio shows.

Their presenters should just ignore the BBC again next year, i'm sure that Graham will again!

  

I damn well would. Hamish Marshall sounds a real a..e licker!

The BBC is refusing to explain the difference in allowing presenters to promote Comic Relief by wearing red noses – and not allowing presenters to promote World AIDS Day by wearing red ribbons.
The corporation is facing pressure to change its rules following criticism of its decision to discipline Graham Norton for wearing an HIV/AIDS awareness ribbon on his Friday night chat show.
When asked by PinkNews why Comic Relief Red Noses could be worn by presenters to promote the Comic Relief charity’s main annual fundraising event, the corporation pointed to the guidelines published on its website.
The BBC refused to answer the following questions by PinkNews.
Why is the BBC labelling the red ribbon as a charitable symbol?
The BBC has sent emails to PinkNews readers claiming that the red ribbon is a “charitable symbol”. This is not the case as it is an internationally recognised symbol relating to HIV/AIDS. World AIDS Day was launched by the World Health Organisation and is now administered by the joint UN programme for HIV and AIDS.
PinkNews asked the BBC if it was labelling Norton’s red ribbon as a “charitable symbol” because it was sold by the National AIDS Trust. We asked this question because there are red ribbons sold for World AIDS Day by hundreds of charities around the world.
Could a BBC presenter decide to simply wear a piece of red ribbon as part of their outfit?
PinkNews asked the BBC if Norton would have been allowed to wear a piece of red ribbon that he purchased from a Haberdashery retailer instead of from a charity. This would not be linked to a charitable or political cause and simply be a piece of red ribbon. Or is there instead a blanket ban on presenters wearing red ribbons on their outfits during the awareness period for World AIDS Day.
Why are BBC presenters allowed to promote Red Nose Day and Children in Need?
Symbols for both charities are promoted on air, one of these charities is administered by the BBC itself.
Why are BBC presenters allowed to wear poppies, which are only sold in the UK by the Royal British Legion and the Haig Foundation?
Poppies are the traditional recognised symbols for Armistice Day but are exclusively sold in the UK by two charities, the Royal British Legion and the Scottish Haig Foundation. They are intrinsically linked to specific charitable causes, unlike the red ribbon.
In a statement earlier on Friday a BBC spokesman told PinkNews.co.uk: “The poppy is recognised as a symbol of national remembrance for those who have died in conflict, and especially in two world wars, and the BBC has a long standing convention of allowing its presenters, reporters and pundits to wear poppies on screen if they wish to in the run up to Remembrance Day.”

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/12/13/why-can-bbc-presenters-promote-comic-relief-but-not-world-aids-day/

BigAndy9 wrote:Same as all those nasty chav parents who go to the Daily Mail when their child is sent home for having pink hair when the school rules clearly state "no pink hair".

Tow the line, it's simple.

that's dumb too
kids should be allowed pink hair if they want
it doesn't hurt anyone else.

I can see why the BBC has to have some rule regarding presenter promoting charities (so are dodgy and you don't know hoe much research the presenter has done) but World AIDS Day is internationally recognised and I cant see the problem with this particular charity

Very hard to understand this BBC decision. Aids awareness day is not apolitical event.
When you think back to how brilliant the beeb used to be, its a shame its become such a disgrace.

PinkNews Exclusive
The BBC faces fresh criticism this weekend as, despite saying that its presenters could not wear red ribbons to promote HIV/AIDS awareness, some of the BBC’s biggest name presenters on Friday, with the consent of the corporation, promoted ‘National Christmas Jumper Day’. On World AIDS Day 2011, a BBC presenter was filmed shaving off his ‘Movember’ moustache to raise awareness for prostate cancer. According to documents sent to PinkNews, these actions appear in direct contravention of the BBC’s own guidelines.
Controversy erupted last week as Graham Norton was disciplined for wearing a red ribbon in promotion of World AIDS Day, and the BBC refused to change its policy on the matter, despite heavy criticism.
The BBC said that to “ensure impartiality”, its presenters were not permitted to wear “charitable or campaigning insignia”, and incorrectly labelled the red ribbon as such, even though the ribbon is not linked to a particular charity.
‘National Christmas Jumper Day’, which was promoted by presenters on the One Show on BBC One on Friday evening, is the exclusive trademark of charity Save the Children. According to the guidelines for charitable and cause based promotions sent by the BBC to PinkNews on Friday, the programme’s presenters should not have been promoting a specific cause.
PinkNews asked the BBC why it allowed its presenters Chris Evans and Alex Wood to promote ‘National Christmas Jumper Day’ through wearing Christmas jumpers and through vocally discussing the campaign, despite claiming to have guidelines prohibiting such activities, and given that ‘National Christmas Jumper Day’ is not a nationally recognised day of people wearing Christmas Jumpers and it is not recognised by statute within the United Kingdom or indeed overseas.
In response, and specifically choosing not to directly answer any of the questions sent by PinkNews, a BBC spokesperson said: “Last night’s edition of The One Show had a knitted theme and included guests based on this topic. In keeping with this theme and the festive season the presenters wore Christmas jumpers. The One Show also reported on the Save the Children Guinness World Record attempt, as did several other news and media outlets, as this was a topical timely news event.”
evans

The reality was that Chris Evans introduced the programme saying “It is National Christmas Jumper Day” before proceeding to trigger his co-presenter’s flashing red nose on her jumper. Wood later added” “This morning hundreds of people turned out to participate in the world record for the most number of people dancing in a Christmas jumpers, all in aid of Save the Children.” It was clear from both the reference to ‘National Christmas Jumper Day’, a trademark of Save the Children, and the later reference to the charity’s world record attempt, that both presenters were either wearing Christmas themed jumpers to support the charity or some bizarre coincidence had occurred that also meant that the presenters and around thirty people in the studio appeared wearing Christmas themed jumpers.
oneaud
In addition, over recent years, male BBC presenters have been allowed to grow moustaches during ‘Movember’ to raise awareness and funds for prostate cancer. In 2011, the BBC’s influential political review programme This Week broadcast the corporation’s Deputy Political Editor James Landale having his ‘Movember’ moustache shaved off. Ironically, this was broadcast on the 1st December, World AIDS Day.
movember
The BBC earlier this week sent emails to PinkNews readers claiming that the red ribbon is a “charitable symbol”. However, such claims are completely inaccurate as the symbol, unlike poppies, the red ribbon is an internationally recognised symbol relating to HIV/AIDS. World AIDS Day was launched by the World Health Organisation and is now administered by the joint UN programme for HIV and AIDS.
On Friday, the BBC also formally declined to review its policy on the issue of presenters wearing red ribbons.
The BBC refused to answer various questions put forward by PinkNews on why it makes exceptions to allow Red Nose Day, Children in Need, Sports Relief, Movember and Save the Children’s ‘National Christmas Jumper Day’ to be promoted, despite assertions that only poppies are allowed, but not World AIDS Day.
In its questions, PinkNews noted that poppies are the traditional recognised symbols for Armistice Day but are exclusively sold in the UK by two charities, the Royal British Legion and the Scottish Haig Foundation. They are therefore intrinsically linked to specific charitable causes, unlike the red ribbon.
In a statement earlier on Friday a BBC spokesman told PinkNews.co.uk: “The poppy is recognised as a symbol of national remembrance for those who have died in conflict, and especially in two world wars, and the BBC has a long standing convention of allowing its presenters, reporters and pundits to wear poppies on screen if they wish to in the run up to Remembrance Day.”
PinkNews also asked whether a presenter could wear just a piece of red ribbon from a haberdashery or whether that would also be prohibited. Along with the other questions, this was not answered.
Earlier this week, Benjamin Cohen, the publisher of PinkNews, questioned the BBC’s stance on Norton given that his programme is primarily used to promote Hollywood films, albums and books. Today he added: “If there is a rule banning the promotion of charities and causes by BBC on-screen talent then this has to be applied across the board. If it is wrong to promote HIV and AIDS awareness then it should also be wrong to promote awareness of prostate cancer. Having uneven standards when it comes to HIV and AIDS, a global killer, only adds to the stigmatisation of those living with the condition. Either ban all promotions across the board or give presenters the choice to promote causes close to their heart.”
The National AIDS Trust (NAT) has criticised the BBC’s decision and believes the corporation should review its rules.
NAT is urging people to sign an online petition addressed to BBC Director General Lord Hall.

http://act.lifewithhiv.org.uk/lobby/BBCRRban

Petition.

veya_victaous wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:Same as all those nasty chav parents who go to the Daily Mail when their child is sent home for having pink hair when the school rules clearly state "no pink hair".

Tow the line, it's simple.

that's dumb too
kids should be allowed pink hair if they want
it doesn't hurt anyone else.

I can see why the BBC has to have some rule regarding presenter promoting charities (so are dodgy and you don't know hoe much research the presenter has done) but World AIDS Day is internationally recognised and I cant see the problem with this particular charity

Crazy decision

feelthelove wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:Same as all those nasty chav parents who go to the Daily Mail when their child is sent home for having pink hair when the school rules clearly state "no pink hair".

Tow the line, it's simple.

that's dumb too
kids should be allowed pink hair if they want
it doesn't hurt anyone else.

I can see why the BBC has to have some rule regarding presenter promoting charities (so are dodgy and you don't know hoe much research the presenter has done) but World AIDS Day is internationally recognised and I cant see the problem with this particular charity

Crazy decision

.....They won't get away with it, the gay lobby is a very powerful one.

NemsAgain wrote:Very hard to understand this BBC decision. Aids awareness day is not apolitical event.
When you think back to how brilliant the beeb used to be, its a shame its become such a disgrace.

Of course it's a political event - it's a day for lefty liberal do-gooders to promote gay sex.

BigAndy9 wrote:

NemsAgain wrote:Very hard to understand this BBC decision. Aids awareness day is not apolitical event.
When you think back to how brilliant the beeb used to be, its a shame its become such a disgrace.

Of course it's a political event - it's a day for lefty liberal do-gooders to promote gay sex.

Oh Andy, fancy parading your ignorance like that. Do you really think that gay people are the only ones to get HIV? Aren't you ashamed of your lack of knowledge?

In 2012, an estimated 98,400 people were living with HIV in the UK. Of these, 22% were unaware of their HIV infection.


The overall prevalence in the UK was estimated at 1.5 per 1000 across all ages. There is a gender variant, with male prevalence across all ages being 2.1 per 1000 for men and 1.0 per 1000 for women; both figures being an increase on the prevalence in 2011.

How many people have been diagnosed and are receiving HIV specialist care?

In 2012, a total of 77,610 people, including 770 children, received HIV specialist care.

How has this been changing over time?

Over the last decade, the number of people accessing specialist care for HIV has steadily grown. In 2012, 77,610 people in the UK was accessing the specialist care, this is more than double the number in 2003 (35,970) and a 5% increase from 2011.



What about people of different genders?

About two thirds of people receiving HIV specialist care were male.

Gender


% of total receiving HIV specialist care in the UK

Men


67%

Women


33%




100%

*Please note that all percentages are rounded so some may not add up to 100%

These percentages are based on the figures given in the PHE 2013 report, where 52,060 men and 25,550 women accessed care. While the ratio of men to women accessing HIV care has remained the same, the numbers of men and women have increased on the previous year, in 2011 49,083 men and 24,576 women had accessed care.

What about people in different probable exposure categories?

The statistics reveal more people living with HIV were infected through heterosexual sex than any other exposure route, though sex between men is a close second.
- See more at: http://www.nat.org.uk/HIV-Facts/Statistics/Latest-UK-statistics/People-with-HIV-in-UK.aspx#sthash.W1Fb7LIR.dpuf

Sassy wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

NemsAgain wrote:Very hard to understand this BBC decision. Aids awareness day is not apolitical event.
When you think back to how brilliant the beeb used to be, its a shame its become such a disgrace.

Of course it's a political event - it's a day for lefty liberal do-gooders to promote gay sex.

Oh Andy, fancy parading your ignorance like that.   Do you really think that gay people are the only ones to get HIV?    Aren't you ashamed of your lack of knowledge?

In 2012, an estimated 98,400 people were living with HIV in the UK. Of these, 22% were unaware of their HIV infection.


The overall prevalence in the UK was estimated at 1.5 per 1000 across all ages. There is a gender variant, with male prevalence across all ages being 2.1 per 1000 for men and 1.0 per 1000 for women; both figures being an increase on the prevalence in 2011.

How many people have been diagnosed and are receiving HIV specialist care?

In 2012, a total of 77,610 people, including 770 children, received HIV specialist care.

How has this been changing over time?

Over the last decade, the number of people accessing specialist care for HIV has steadily grown. In 2012, 77,610 people in the UK was accessing the specialist care, this is more than double the number in 2003 (35,970) and a 5% increase from 2011.



What about people of different genders?

About two thirds of people receiving HIV specialist care were male.

Gender


% of total receiving HIV specialist care in the UK

Men


67%

Women


33%




100%

*Please note that all percentages are rounded so some may not add up to 100%

These percentages are based on the figures given in the PHE 2013 report, where 52,060 men and 25,550 women accessed care. While the ratio of men to women accessing HIV care has remained the same, the numbers of men and women have increased on the previous year, in 2011 49,083 men and 24,576 women had accessed care.

What about people in different probable exposure categories?

The statistics reveal more people living with HIV were infected through heterosexual sex than any other exposure route, though sex between men is a close second.
- See more at: http://www.nat.org.uk/HIV-Facts/Statistics/Latest-UK-statistics/People-with-HIV-in-UK.aspx#sthash.W1Fb7LIR.dpuf

The majority of straight people never even bother to get tested either because they think that they are immune to the disease.

And hence they pass it on to sexual partners without even realising, because those they don't get tested would probably be those that think they are too macho to use a condom.

So are you saying there are a lot of bisexual men who are infecting innocent female partners?

BigAndy9 wrote:So are you saying there are a lot of bisexual men who are infecting innocent female partners?

I'm not going to educate you Andy, because you don't want to be educated. If you want to know the truth, find out for yourself, the knowledge tends to register then.

Sassy wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:So are you saying there are a lot of bisexual men who are infecting innocent female partners?

I'm not going to educate you Andy, because you don't want to be educated.   If you want to know the truth, find out for yourself, the knowledge tends to register then.

I'll have a look, probably tomorrow.

It has always tended to be gay men. I understand that gay men can also have sex with women and the women probably wouldn't know the mans background and therefore the woman could catch it, thus spreading it around. This is the way I see things??

BigAndy9 wrote:

NemsAgain wrote:Very hard to understand this BBC decision. Aids awareness day is not apolitical event.
When you think back to how brilliant the beeb used to be, its a shame its become such a disgrace.

Of course it's a political event - it's a day for lefty liberal do-gooders to promote gay sex.

Anyone can be affected by AIDS Andy,not just gay people

BigAndy9 wrote:

Sassy wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:So are you saying there are a lot of bisexual men who are infecting innocent female partners?

I'm not going to educate you Andy, because you don't want to be educated.   If you want to know the truth, find out for yourself, the knowledge tends to register then.

I'll have a look, probably tomorrow.

It has always tended to be gay men.  I understand that gay men can also have sex with women and the women probably wouldn't know the mans background and therefore the woman could catch it, thus spreading it around.  This is the way I see things??

And of course, completely missing drug users, who even if they have stopped might still be carriers.

Hi sassy, maybe i'm not as stupid as we both thought.

From the Terrence Higgins Trust:


statistically in the UK men who have sex with men (MSM) remain at significantly more risk of contracting HIV than their heterosexual counterparts, and they are at more risk of contracting the virus today than at any time since the onset of the epidemic 30 years ago.

Certain behaviours make it more likely that someone will contract HIV in the UK, including anal and (to some extent) oral sex between men. More than one in 10 gay or bisexual men in London (one in seven on the ‘gay scene’ itself) are now living with HIV, as are one in 20 gay or bisexual men in the rest of the country. These figures make it statistically far more likely that sex between two men will be where one partner has HIV and the other does not, than sex between a man and a woman. Additionally, about one in four gay men who have HIV don’t yet know it, because they remain untested.

It is unhelpful to play down the devastating impact that HIV has had on gay communities in the UK and the very great and disproportionate HIV vulnerability that gay men still face. We consistently call for investment in initiatives that improve the sexual health of gay men in the UK. While HIV is not a ‘gay disease’ it is a huge issue for gay men.

And? We know gay men are at risk, but they are not the only ones, and only the stupid would think they are.

BigAndy9 wrote:Hi sassy, maybe i'm not as stupid as we both thought.

From the Terrence Higgins Trust:


statistically in the UK men who have sex with men (MSM) remain at significantly more risk of contracting HIV than their heterosexual counterparts, and they are at more risk of contracting the virus today than at any time since the onset of the epidemic 30 years ago.

Certain behaviours make it more likely that someone will contract HIV in the UK, including anal and (to some extent) oral sex between men. More than one in 10 gay or bisexual men in London (one in seven on the ‘gay scene’ itself) are now living with HIV, as are one in 20 gay or bisexual men in the rest of the country. These figures make it statistically far more likely that sex between two men will be where one partner has HIV and the other does not, than sex between a man and a woman. Additionally, about one in four gay men who have HIV don’t yet know it, because they remain untested.

It is unhelpful to play down the devastating impact that HIV has had on gay communities in the UK and the very great and disproportionate HIV vulnerability that gay men still face. We consistently call for investment in initiatives that improve the sexual health of gay men in the UK. While HIV is not a ‘gay disease’ it is a huge issue for gay men.

Statistically they are more likely to be affected, but the number of AIDs cases is growing faster among older white European women

Irn Bru wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:Same as all those nasty chav parents who go to the Daily Mail when their child is sent home for having pink hair when the school rules clearly state "no pink hair".

Tow the line, it's simple.

Were there rules in place to say the ribbon should not be worn?

isn't that what all this stupid nonsense is about?
what next not allowing people to wear a poppy or a crucifix

Sassy wrote:A child having pink hair is a parochial decision and something to be worked out between the school, child and parent and has no bearing on a world situation.   The work being done on HIV/AIDS is of huge importance and effects millions of men, women and children world-wide.   What the hell do the BBC think they are doing?

should people only follow the school rules they choose?
Or should everyone have to follow the same rules?

Sassy wrote:Got a link to it?   This is something of enormous importance, what do the BBC think they are playing at?

enormous importance? it certainly is stupid, but hardly enormous importance in the great scheme of things

BigAndy9 wrote:

Sassy wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:So are you saying there are a lot of bisexual men who are infecting innocent female partners?

I'm not going to educate you Andy, because you don't want to be educated.   If you want to know the truth, find out for yourself, the knowledge tends to register then.

I'll have a look, probably tomorrow.

It has always tended to be gay men.  I understand that gay men can also have sex with women and the women probably wouldn't know the mans background and therefore the woman could catch it, thus spreading it around.  This is the way I see things??

It hasn't always tended to be gay men at all....Try telling that to the continent of Africa where the monkey form of HIV which is SIV was transferred to humans from the eating of green monkey meat.

It was first detected in the gay community in New York (i believe) because the families of those infected gay men funded the research into the disease as they had the money to do so...In such a small community it was easier to detect that something wasn't quite right.

veya_victaous wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:Same as all those nasty chav parents who go to the Daily Mail when their child is sent home for having pink hair when the school rules clearly state "no pink hair".

Tow the line, it's simple.

that's dumb too
kids should be allowed pink hair if they want
it doesn't hurt anyone else.

I can see why the BBC has to have some rule regarding presenter promoting charities (so are dodgy and you don't know hoe much research the presenter has done) but World AIDS Day is internationally recognised and I cant see the problem with this particular charity

it doesn't but it is up to schools to decide their rules, and once decided EVERYONE needs to abide by them.

Catman wrote:

feelthelove wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:Same as all those nasty chav parents who go to the Daily Mail when their child is sent home for having pink hair when the school rules clearly state "no pink hair".

Tow the line, it's simple.

that's dumb too
kids should be allowed pink hair if they want
it doesn't hurt anyone else.

I can see why the BBC has to have some rule regarding presenter promoting charities (so are dodgy and you don't know hoe much research the presenter has done) but World AIDS Day is internationally recognised and I cant see the problem with this particular charity

Crazy decision

.....They won't get away with it, the gay lobby is a very powerful one.

do the gay lobby now have a time machine?
They got away with it.

Sassy wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

Sassy wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:So are you saying there are a lot of bisexual men who are infecting innocent female partners?

I'm not going to educate you Andy, because you don't want to be educated.   If you want to know the truth, find out for yourself, the knowledge tends to register then.

I'll have a look, probably tomorrow.

It has always tended to be gay men.  I understand that gay men can also have sex with women and the women probably wouldn't know the mans background and therefore the woman could catch it, thus spreading it around.  This is the way I see things??

And of course, completely missing drug users, who even if they have stopped might still be carriers.

Their deaths from AIDS weren't really looked into, it was always put down to a drug overdose, and who ever cared about junkies.

BigAndy9 wrote:

NemsAgain wrote:Very hard to understand this BBC decision. Aids awareness day is not apolitical event.
When you think back to how brilliant the beeb used to be, its a shame its become such a disgrace.

Of course it's a political event - it's a day for lefty liberal do-gooders to promote gay sex.

do gooders perhaps, but hardly promoting gay sex.

Cantankerous wrote:

Sassy wrote:Got a link to it?   This is something of enormous importance, what do the BBC think they are playing at?

enormous importance? it certainly is stupid, but hardly enormous importance in the great scheme of things

In the great scheme of things?   Which great scheme is that?   There are now approximately 34 MILLION people in the world living with HIV/AIDS.    I think that qualifies as 'of enormous importance'.

Sassy wrote:And hence they pass it on to sexual partners without even realising, because those they don't get tested would probably be those that think they are too macho to use a condom.

I thought I would see what's what in the world of aids and HIV

this from 2012

http://www.nat.org.uk/HIV-Facts/Statistics/Latest-UK-Statistics.aspx

How many people are living with HIV in the UK?
By the end of 2012, an estimated 98,400 people were living with HIV in the UK, including about 77,610 people diagnosed with HIV and 21,900 who were infected but undiagnosed.

How many men who have sex with men are living with HIV in the UK?
In 2012, an estimated 41,100 men who have sex with men (MSM) were living with HIV in the UK, including about 33,964 diagnosed MSM receiving HIV care and a further estimated 7,300 undiagnosed

How many black Africans are living with HIV in the UK?
In 2012, an estimated 31,800 African born heterosexuals were living with HIV in the UK of whom about 23% remained undiagnosed

How many black Caribbeans are living with HIV in the UK?

In 2012 there were 2,306 black Caribbean people in the UK living with a diagnosed HIV infection and receiving HIV care.  We do not have an estimate for the total number of black Caribbean people living with HIV in the UK


so 57000 of those infected are heterosexual


42% of those infected were gay.

58% by extension must be straight.
so more straight people do have HIV

It does look though that it is likely to affect the gay community rather more than hetero world in the UK as the gay community is far smaller than the hetero one.
the good thing, if there can be a good thing about this, is that less people are actually dying from aids these days.

Catman wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

Sassy wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:So are you saying there are a lot of bisexual men who are infecting innocent female partners?

I'm not going to educate you Andy, because you don't want to be educated.   If you want to know the truth, find out for yourself, the knowledge tends to register then.

I'll have a look, probably tomorrow.

It has always tended to be gay men.  I understand that gay men can also have sex with women and the women probably wouldn't know the mans background and therefore the woman could catch it, thus spreading it around.  This is the way I see things??

It hasn't always tended to be gay men at all....Try telling that to the continent of Africa where the monkey form of HIV which is SIV was transferred to humans from the eating of green monkey meat.

It was first detected in the gay community in New York (i believe) because the families of those infected gay men funded the research into the disease as they had the money to do so...In such a small community it was easier to detect that something wasn't quite right.

can you tell us why it was so rife in that community?

Sassy wrote:

Cantankerous wrote:

Sassy wrote:Got a link to it?   This is something of enormous importance, what do the BBC think they are playing at?

enormous importance? it certainly is stupid, but hardly enormous importance in the great scheme of things

In the great scheme of things?   Which great scheme is that?   There are now approximately 34 MILLION people in the world living with HIV/AIDS.    I think that qualifies as 'of enormous importance'.

are you naturally obtuse. the BBC decision to ban a ribbon is not of great importance.
something you seem to think is world shattering

The same reason it is rife in any situation, unprotected sex with a partner who is a carrier. As Nems said earlier, the people who are getting it the most in this country now, are older women, because they don't think they need protection as they can't get pregnant, and after divorce etc are looking for new partners.

Cantankerous wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Cantankerous wrote:

Sassy wrote:Got a link to it?   This is something of enormous importance, what do the BBC think they are playing at?

enormous importance? it certainly is stupid, but hardly enormous importance in the great scheme of things

In the great scheme of things?   Which great scheme is that?   There are now approximately 34 MILLION people in the world living with HIV/AIDS.    I think that qualifies as 'of enormous importance'.

are you naturally obtuse. the BBC decision to ban a ribbon is not of great importance.
something you seem to think is world shattering

Oh dear, who is obtuse? I was referring to World Aids Day and the supporting of AIDS research by wearing the ribbon as being of enormous importance. Dear, dear, dear. LOL

Sassy wrote:

Cantankerous wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Cantankerous wrote:

Sassy wrote:Got a link to it?   This is something of enormous importance, what do the BBC think they are playing at?

enormous importance? it certainly is stupid, but hardly enormous importance in the great scheme of things

In the great scheme of things?   Which great scheme is that?   There are now approximately 34 MILLION people in the world living with HIV/AIDS.    I think that qualifies as 'of enormous importance'.

are you naturally obtuse. the BBC decision to ban a ribbon is not of great importance.
something you seem to think is world shattering

Oh dear, who is obtuse?   I was referring to World Aids Day and the supporting of AIDS research by wearing the ribbon as being of enormous importance.   Dear, dear, dear.   LOL

thanks for clearing that up. you would make a cracking moderator

And you do make a cracking shit stirrer, nothing to be proud of though.

I can tell you why is it is more prevelant in gay men and women than straight men.
(some of you are a bit older so guess they didn't teach you this stuff in school)

but it is the fluids that trasfer the virus and the reciever be it gay man or straight woman is getting and 'input' of fluids. then when you take in to account that anal sex often causes bleeding and you have the perfect senerio for transfer and infection of a blood born virus.