“All money raised through the auction and ticket sales will come to Terrence Higgins Trust, where it will fund projects for people living with and at risk of HIV.”
What a noble gesture it would be for the THT to, at least once, donate the proceeds of one of their lavish cash generating fundraisers towards HIV prevention programmes aimed at NEGATIVE men.
Or are we to assume that the default setting for gay men today is a positive status?
After all, THT campaigns of recent times have increasingly appeared to imply the inevitability of contracting HIV, and hey presto they’ve just gone and relaunched their trusty, well worn failsafe PEP campaign.
Why is it that to run any kind of an HIV prevention campaign THT claims it needs funding from the government, yet has the ability to raise substantial funds from its own initiatives yet from which it only donates the proceeds to services aimed at pos men?
Is there something I am missing here, or does THT really not give a toss for neg men?
Oh Samuel please change the record about negative Gay Men – fundraising is important in the current financial climate.
What have your friends Status done so far this year for negative Gay Men( which they have vowed to help with harder hitting campaigns).
I wonder what happened to the fundraising that they did on the back of WAD – they told me to expect a new campaign in early 2012, we are nearly a third of the way through 2012 and there has been nothing from them. Nothing new on the website, not even in the Facebook feed, go hold them to account for a change!
You haven’t answered my question, W6, just buck passed.
As THT’s unofficial spokesman on PN, at least attempt an explanation as to why negative men are being ignored and HIV is being allowed to fester in the gay community unhindered while THT grows ever richer and monopolistic tending to the needs and whims of positive men.
How do they account for the prevention budget they ARE allocated by the tax payer?
Oops, silly me, they can’t…
I’m not here to answer your questions Samuel, I am here to provide balance to your usual views on THT & HIV prevention.
I have explained the Statutary funding of THT many times, you either do not understand or you are so entrenched in your view that nothing can convince you otherwise, that is your choice, but it may not be a realistic view.
For the record all statutary funding is provided on the basis of commissioned services – HIV charities are not just handed money to do what they like with it. If prevention is not to your liking why not question the commissioning process & hold the North Inner West London PCT to account as they currently manage the Pan London HIV Prevention Programme.
Write to your MP & or the PCT Chief Exec if you at so concerned.
I asked a simple question:-
Why is cash from none of THT’s own cash-raising initiatives designated for HIV prevention programmes?
On the one hand we have THT spokesmen bemoaning the fact that the government does not cough up enough funding for HIV prevention, and on the other they do sod all to remedy the shortfall while lavishing service upon service on positive men.
Sorry? Were not charities originally run by volunteers who raised all funding themselves?
Wasn’t it only in recent years that many larger charities, the THT included, sacrificed their independence by accepting funding from central government, and in so doing lost sight of their original objectives?
Can we finally have an admission that the THT is a government funded body in bed with the pharma industry, and that it has no real interest in preventing the onward spread of HIV, only in milking the tax payers’ purse for all it’s worth?
How much longer are you going to continue to sidestep the real agenda at play, W6?
When you have taken the time to familiarise yourself with the Statuary funding of the voluntary sector, then I will engag with you Samuel, but as you seen to want to refuse to engage in reality then I doubt we will ever have a meaningful discussion on this matter.
You seem to live n a bubble & fail to understand how things are in the real world Your ideology is either very far right or is based on an extremely blinkered view which is based in the past.
Hmmm, how things are in the real world….
A bloated charitable organisation moans that they are not sufficiently awarded “statutory funding” by central government to fulfil one vital function enshrined in their mission statement:- the outcome of which is intended to prevent thousands from succumbing to an incurable, chronic disease, and which in itself would save said government millions, even billions, in the long run.
The obvious solution that it fails to recognise:- to get off its fat backside and raise said funds itself, off its own back, just like charitable organisations used to do before allowing themselves to become politicised extensions of government itself and getting bound up in red tape and bureaucracy that they then use as an excuse NOT to fulfil the aforementioned life-preserving and enhancing segment of its remit.
Instead it does nothing and sits back as thousands of gay men become infected and dependent on a life-curtailing regime of toxic meds.
Obviously HIV+ people have to be THT’s priority, but I do see where Sam is coming from. Outfits like GMFA have made numerous HIV prevention campaigns over many years, but it seems THT never seem to want to get involved, and if anything try to avoid the gay = AIDS equation that many bigots use.
Considering Terrence Higgins was himself gay, I would have thought at least a token nod in our direction to keep the new batch of youngsters hitting the gay scene would be both helpful as well as bringing their name to a new generation.
@ Spanner, Samuel also has a problem with GMFA. He has often criticised them for “sexing up” HIV prevention & saying they are responsible for promoting harm reduction strategies which do not conform to his narrow point of view A recent survey which was conducted shows that gay men are interested in harm reduction strategies & see treatment as prevention as a vaild, acceptable option http://www.aidsmap.com/PrEP-acceptable-to-UK-gay-men-studies-find/page/2323923/
THT have run two major campaigns in the last few months aimed at gay men. “Clever Dick” a national campaign under the CHAPS partnership, which prmoted condom use & also provided an online “sexscore” survey where over 7000 gay men took part & were able to assess thier personal risk of HIV / STI’s on the basis of the type of sex they were having. “mind the gap” was a colaboration with Gaydar to promote regular HIV/ STI testing.
It is wrong to say THT are not engaging with gay men, they are but in novel ways.
“Is there something I am missing here, or does THT really not give a toss for neg men?”
Oh, god, not SamB again….. The real questions is does anyone give a toss about your repeated as nauseum asinine comments….
I get what you are saying Danny, and I think many PN readers realise that Samuel has a problem with THT, and claims to speak for many gay men.
I try to provide the counter argument as it is important that there is balance – Samuel is entitled to his views, but I do not believe they are representative and therefore he is not in a position to speak for gay men regardless of HIV status.
HIV is a fast moving science, I read new stuff every day, and make informed choices about what seems reasonable and what is hype.
So, YOU do not believe my views are representative and therefore I am not in a position to speak for gay men regardless of HIV status?
What a nerve!!
Survey after survey shows THT to be out of touch with mainstream gay community consensus…
Forum discussion after forum discussion rips the HIV sector’s policies and agendas to shreds…
Leading luminaries in the gay press and the medical profession openly deplore the failures of THT and its methods…
Time after time THT is shown to spin the facts and misrepresent the findings of its own funded surveys…
No, W6, it is you and the rag bag of PC-indoctrinated foot soldiers who prop up this deplorable outfit by placing the needs and feelings of those infected head and shoulders above the need to properly educate the uninfected that has consigned our community to endemic infection of an incurable, chronic disease.
Posting as “Danny” to prop up your numbers just demonstrates the lengths you will go to in your quest.
Here we go your usual “paranoia” that I am someone else. Where are these surveys you quote, post the details so PN readers can make an informed decision.
You placed great hope on your friend Peter Scott and Status, what as gne wrong I abe to ask?
As usual Samuel when cornered you deflect and call foul – if you are reslly interested in HIV prevention you would do more than whine on PN about THT or other HIV charities.
If you want to champion negative gay men, go put a condom on them all before they have sex. You constantly mistake “rights” for responsibility, but if you really epwant to champion negative ga men’s rights to remain negative DO something about it on a practical level, rather than be an armchair critic!
What are your views on your beloved Status? If they were serious they woud have put together a credible alternative tender to win the recent “mind the gap” campaign which THT ran. Why did they not win the contract to run this I wonder, or did the simply not bother?
Now I’m someone else simply because I think you’re a tit?????? Really????? I’m, the first person who thinks your a tit? Lets be honest, I’d say your own mother can’t stand you, your pseudo-homophobic dribble here is enough for anyone to think you’re a complete tit, you paranoid moron.
After a few restrained discussions in which he put across his points eloquently, W6/Danny finally shows his true colours.
FYI, over 90% of Pink Paper readers voted for the return of hard hitting HIV campaigns in a 2005 survey, and in 2009 Boyz reported on a survey conducted at Soho Pride in which only 4% of gay men were against the return of hard hitting HIV campaigns, and that most under 21′s were not dissuaded by today’s HIV campaigns from partaking in unsafe sex, and 40% were actually incentivised by modern PC HIV campaigns into abandoning condoms!
As for Status I had no idea who they were till you started blabbing on about them and I then researched into them, so I can’t possibly comment on their present activities.
All I’ll say is that THT has the financial clout and influence to monopolise everything and win every tender going, so it’s no surprise to me that they’re still hogging the HIV prevention budget.
And that’s why HIV rates will show another shocking rise this year…
“All I’ll say is that THT has the financial clout and influence to monopolise everything and win every tender going, so it’s no surprise to me that they’re still hogging the HIV prevention budget”. This is a matter for the commissioning process which you clearly have no understanding or genuine interest in the mechanics of deliverin HIV prevention in 2012. I have clearly stated that I beleive the commissioning system is flawed & it will get worst once prevention becomes the remit of Local Authorities.
You always to gloss over the details Samuel & go for the big headlines, why not try a different approach & educate yourself. As you have often said people or organisations who do the same thing day in day out are insane! Time for a change on your part I believe.
I get so fed up with your constant snipping & whinging about HIV charities & someone has to provide balance to your far right views, you could be mistaken for Marine Le Pen (except she probably does not sport feather boas)!
“W6/Danny finally shows his true colours”
Well, I can see your intellect plays second fiddle to your sense of paranoid. Reality check:- you’re an utter ass – and if everyone thinks your an ass, then the chances are stacked in the favour that you are one.
The rest of your ramblings is bollox as usual, the ranting of a paranoid fool with mental health issues.
@W6-bloke: This is a matter for the commissioning process…
Actually no W6-bloke, this is a matter for all gay men who respect their health and the health of those they partner with. Ever heard of compassion, for you seem not to have an empathetic cell in your body…
@Rich I am not sure how you arrive at the comment I do not have any compassion, seems to me to be a huge assumption, perhaps you can explain how you have arrived at your comment.
I totally agree that all gay men should respect themselves and their partners which is why I beleive gay men should get tested for STI’s / HIV on a regular basis and consistently use condoms, and where appropriate engage with harm reduction strategies such as treatment as prevention.
In my view if you don’t test regularly then you have little self respect or respect for others – I clearly state this in my online profile. HIV has no compassion & it is closer than many gay men realise( when did you last use a condom for oral sex)? Why are condoms not beng consistently being used to prevent record levels of STI’s / HIV in MSM?
In your usual way Samuel, you accuse me of being someone else – I do not need to create other user names – this is your “paranoia” coming to the fore again.
It is 2012 Samuel, HIV is a fast moving science, quoting surveys from 2005, 2009 are not really up to date are they. We get the same old arguments from you Samuel, there is never anything new or remotely up to date in your assertions. You have a bee in your bonnet about Nick Partridge & because of this you choose to make erroneous statements about THT because they do not exclusively target gay men. Why are gay men so needy in your opinion that they are unable to make basic decisions about wearing condoms consistently & need a national charity to hold thier hand?
You complain about THT being in receipt of Statutary funding & also complain about fundraising – perhaps your real agenda here is to see all HIV charities go to the wall becuase you do not consider HIV to be a worthy cause, despite your proestations to the contrary.
As Dolly said, Here you come again / Just when I’m about to make it work without you ..