Even the left-wing Independent reports that 25 years after after the outbreak of Aids, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has accepted that the threat of a global heterosexual pandemic does not exist. In the first official admission that the universal prevention strategy promoted by the major Aids organisations was profoundly flawed Kevin de Cock (His real name, honest!), the head of the WHO’s department of HIV/Aids said there will be no generalised epidemic of Aids in the heterosexual population outside Africa.
Dr De Cock, an epidemiologist who has spent much of his career leading the battle against the disease, said understanding of the threat posed by the virus had changed. Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined to high-risk groups including gay men, drug users, and prostitutes and their clients. The contrast with the propaganda pumped out by the likes of the BBC over the years could not be greater. Remember this? Oddly enough, the BBC does not seem to have picked up on this sensational news. I wonder why? No more red ribbons?
Thanks, PaulS.
You only just beat me to the point about Thatcher (I logged on with the post “I wonder if the hysterical gay-bashers here remember which party was in government in 1986” ready to be typed).
I have to go with the majority opinion here. There isn’t the slightest doubt that the lefty, pro-gay media along with many lefty academics who really should have known better were complicit in directing attention away from the high risk groups, probably out of a misguided idea of “protecting” them – and protecting their own.
I was in South Africa when AIDS was identified and as the disease gained a grip on the population the afore-mentioned media and academics, who have a helluvah lot to answer for, did everything they possibly could to skirt carefully around the causes, one of the main causes being, of course, rampant promiscuity among the black population. And I also recall the triumphant proclamation that AIDS is a heterosexual disease. Well, of course it also is, now, but why should that preclude identifying high-risk behaviours among gays and intravenous drug-users?
It’s difficult to believe this but even as recently as two years ago the BBC in its idio er… wisdom was continuing to obfuscate the dangers of high risk behaviour in Africa:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/09/acceptable_nudity.html
BBC World was agonising over whether or not to show bare Swazi breasts at a ceremony to choose the king’s 14th wife, courtesy of Alan Little, but I noticed something else (having scrutinised the breasts first, of course). I had listened to Little’s clip on the World Service, which included a statement that he had wanted to ask the Swazi king whether he acknowledged the dangers of polygamy in the AIDS-riddled kingdom but had been asked not to by the king’s minders. This bit was edited out of the video clip. Why? Political correctness above health education, I guess.
“Peter and his ilk have never heard of risk analysis and precautions. Oh, dear”£
You are getting impertinent NO,piss off!
Nonsense, Bryan. The Conservative government in 1986 was not in thrall to the ‘pro-gay media’.
There is a very ugly, ignorant, hysterical, vicious, mouth-frothing anti-gay mood on this board. Most of the people involved seem to be rabid Bible-bashers. Most people seem to have the idiotic notion that all gays are camp, multi-partner BBC employees (when they don’t live in Haight-Ashbury and Mission, that is). It’s not a pretty picture, and it’s been manifested on several threads now. It’s evidence of profound ignorance, and in many cases of narrow-minded stupidity. And I am sorry to say that much of it emanates from DV. I am beginning to rethink my position here.
“You are getting impertinent NO,piss off!”
When I want to take orders from you, asshole, I’ll send you a personal message.
“The strategy was originally drawn up by Margaret Thatcher and her team. Can’t see them being particularly PC.”
The strategy came originally from America where AIDS in places like San Francisco decimated the gay population.
Aids spread into the heterosexual population via bi-sexuals.
One of the reasons AIDS is rampant in Sub Saharan Africa is the practice of anal sex as a means of birth control.
I was talking about South Africa, NO, not Maggie’s Britain, and not 1986 specifically , but the gradual evolution of the approach to AIDS by the lefty South African media and academia.
N.O.,
I have looked at the posts here in their entirety.
Your assertion that the “anti gay etc mood” (I’m not defending it) is “Most of the people involved seem to be rabid Bible-bashers.” (I assume this means your atheist perjorative for certain or all Christians)
This is simply untrue.
I suggest you go up and read the posts on this thread.
Don’t bother to use the hillhuntism and quote one or two, they undubtedly exist, you clearly state most of these people are rabid bible bashers, in actuality it seems quite clear most are not.
“What a dumb little wanker you are. Piss off back to planet X54Zog.”
Curious, N Ox’s normal tone of smug superiority seems to be slipping a bit, and the veneer of well-educated all-round intellectual is wearing VERY thin.
“Chuffer, if you can’t understand that I was talking in general terms..”
And this is another of my N Ox favourites, where what he said is not what he meant, and we are all supposed to grasp that. Ah, if only we had his Aristotlian powers of reason and argument.
“When I want to take orders from you, asshole, I’ll send you a personal message.”
Oooh, get her!
Keep ’em coming, N.Ox; we need a larf!
“There is a very ugly, ignorant, hysterical, vicious, mouth-frothing”
That would be you Nearly Oxfordian.It has been tragic watching you break up in public,you almost become another person.
“I am beginning to rethink my position here.
Nearly Oxfordian | 09.06.08 – 1:34 pm | # ”
Your position here? Suggesting that while we lesser mortals are just commenters, you have some sort of frightfully grand official position?
If I could borrow from your own recent hightly cultured strand of argument, it’s a postion where you have your head up your bottom.
David,
The level of obscenities on these boards has become totally unacceptable.
I would not let a minor read it.
It does not enhance the argument or the message.
Is this going to continue to be tolerated?
when you can’t win an argument the ill afforded air of superiority and condescension drops and the abusive name calling starts.
true colours starting to show N ox?
time for the ban stick me thinks
Mark, you are the one who called me a troll when I commented on a grammatical matter. You are the one who is a sad loser.
Peter and Chuffer, what pompous assholes you both are.
Peter and Chuffer, what pompous assholes you both are.
Nearly Oxfordian | 09.06.08 – 2:24 pm | #
QED
Indeed. I have proved that you are.
Of course,O Wise One. Pray, stop frittering your invaluable time with us ‘position-free’ lesser beings, and return to your mightly throne, whence you survey the whole known universe (including everyone’s wives and their sex lives) and continue with your hilari- sorry, bowel-churningly intense and perceptive comments.
Or just keep everyone entertained by calling them ‘assholes’. (I assume this has nothing to do with donkeys, by the way?)
BaggieJonathan,
I have addressed the point you raise on another thread. I do not want to see any swearing on this site just as there is no swearing on A Tangled Web.
ALL,
Let’s have passion, but without the four letter verbiage please. It’s a turn off and reduces the serious intent so many of you exhibit. Please.
Chuffer, do learn some basic English. I appreciate that you are not a native speaker, but really … ‘my position’ is a standard English collocation for ‘being associated with this site’.
By the philosophical power of Bacon and Hume and I declare AIDs to be a,
Sexually Transmissible Disease.
It is prevalent in the gay community owing to high frequency of a certain sexual practice in the gay community. Only in a secondary sense is AIDs a gay plague.
How does this relate to the 80s public health campaign? While certainly some groups are more at risk of infection, we must not allow ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security. For this reason the biased 80s health campaign cannot be completely condemned.
Good AIDs, Bad AIDs, fear and anger. Guilt and suffering.
The above is precisely why God is in his infinite wisdom has decreed the good management of the sexual act through the monogamous heterosexual union.
Straight and Narrow is the path that leads to Heaven.
Broad is the path of perdition.
We might like to look at AIDS transmitted by blood transfusion.It is not really a valid argument since like MRSA Cdif etc come under medical negligence.Transfusions carry the risk of hepatitis and other blood borne infections.
Oddly, despite the AIDS scare I know no one who has died through contracting the disease.A large number have sadly, died from cancers,some from heart disease,traffic accidents, even drink related diseases,one asbestosis and one murder.
A risk assessment on that basis would put the risk of AIDS at zero and there is a high risk of dying from cancer.
Is Nearly Oxfordian a shirtlifter?
NoX;
Do learn to press the ‘Publish’ button just once.
(I just LOVE the way you set yourself up for us!)
‘Collocation’???
Pretentious? Vous?
There’s one disgrace here which is the Beeb’s apparent lack of interest in reporting the new developments. Whether that’s because of some bizarre inclination that this might affront homosexuals who knows but it looks like an error…
But the 80s approach still seems fine to me – at the time there was insufficient evidence that some sections of the population might be relatively safe. If you’re confronted with a potentially hideous risk anyone with responsibility and a CBA model acts on it.
(Same with global warming incidentally – sure we need to manage backward lefties using it as a Trojan horse to annhilate the economy but surely anyone who believes that there’s only a 5% chance that it isn’t a Commie conspiracy can see the wisdom of SOME action given that 5% of armaggeddon is still quite a bad day).
Now there’s better data available we reassess the approach. There’s no need for any dubious moral judgements to be made or claims that any group is magically ‘immune’. Focus the cash on gays and those of African descent – that doesn’t imply any disapproval of their lifestyle merely statistically justifiable concern for their welfare. White heterosexuals can clearly give ourselves a pat on the back for our diligence in durexing up (or poor nightclub pulling technique). Everybody’s happy – especially those with their missuses under 24 hour CCTV surveillance it would appear.
Nearly Oxfordian | 09.06.08 – 1:34 pm |
Most people seem to have the idiotic notion that all gays are camp, multi-partner BBC employees (when they don’t live in Haight-Ashbury and Mission, that is). It’s not a pretty picture, and it’s been manifested on several threads now. It’s evidence of profound ignorance, and in many cases of narrow-minded stupidity. And I am sorry to say that much of it emanates from DV.
Actually, can you blame us? That’s exactly the kind of gay people we are shown day in and day out on the BBC and on Leftoid US tv shows. Save for the rare sighting of a non-camp homosexual character (who is only funny because he is different from the usual kind we see), the standard gay person we get to know courtesy of the BBC and Leftoid US media is exactly the stereotype you describe.
I submit that this is in fact deliberate, and part of the movement by the media to make the masses tolerant of gay people. Unfortunately, rather than having gay characters that were well-rounded gay people – which would demolish stereotypes – the vast majority of gay characters are promiscuous, mincing, and dress the part. That goes for openly gay tv personalities as well.
Other than one-off characters who appear for a single scene, the only gay character I can think of off hand that doesn’t fit the stereotype is Jack Harkness from “Torchwood”. And they only made him gay because – despite RTD saying he always thought about it – the actor absolutely failed at playing a heterosexual in the opening episode. Oh, but he had his little young office shag, didn’t he? And still had a wandering eye later on, so not much help there, either. Although they all sleep with each other on that show anyway.
All this goes on in spades in the US. In fact, gays are only really gay on US tv if they’re even more promiscuous than the straights. There are rare exceptions, but they prove the rule.
Basically, you really ought to blame the BBC (or the Leftoids who make dramas and sitcoms for them) and their kind for what you perceive as our bigotry. We have been told for twenty years now that the bathhouse lifestyle is the gay lifestyle, and we must accept that if we are to accept gays at all.
Most of us adult, independent thinkers know better, of course. But we also know that it’s still a significant portion of the gay community, and denying that doesn’t get us anywhere. But the media is probably more responsible for making that a stereotype than anyone.
Careful David – you’ll get ‘assholed’!
what if all the gay men you know are camp mincing clones of Mr Humphries ?
And all the gay women you know have at one time or another worn dungaries and had their hair cut short ?
I swear to god I have never met a gay anybody/thing that hasn’t been like that !
I sometimes think I really am living in a BBC sit-com !
David, are you seriously telling me that you don’t know any gays in private life? I know two in Detroit, and I live in England!
Nearly Oxfordian | 09.06.08 – 5:21 pm |
I know plenty of gays personally, and I know quite well how many of them do and don’t get up to what. Because those who do generally can’t stop talking about it because: A) their sexuality is important to them, and they define that sexuality by, er, having lots of sex and being open about it; and B) some of them – not people I personally have as friends, but people I know – don’t have much else to talk about.
I don’t need to defend any sort of gay bona fides to you. I know plenty of gay people who just want to have the partner and be domestic and dislike the bathhouse/clubbing lifestyle, and I know some who define themselves by the latter, and think that’s the true way to be gay. A few of those used AIDS as a way to deflect any criticism of that lifestyle. Criticizing that lifestyle became anti-gay by default, which didn’t help the majority of homosexuals who don’t live that way.
The BBC and Leftoid media generally show us only the out-and-about, bubbly promiscuous kind, and the ones who more closely resemble my homosexual friends and relations come across as the exception, rather than the rule.
“what if all the gay men you know are camp mincing clones of Mr Humphries ?
And all the gay women you know have at one time or another worn dungaries and had their hair cut short ?
I swear to god I have never met a gay anybody/thing that hasn’t been like that !
I sometimes think I really am living in a BBC sit-com !
king chillout | 09.06.08 – 5:05 pm |”
Same here your majesty. It’s true.
nox..have you stormed off yet in a hissy fit?…Hillhunt is waiting for you.by the way..am I one of the anti gay bible bashers?…if so I am rather surprised and rather pleased at the massive change in my personality over the last 24 hours.please explain if I am…slowly though…we are not all as smart as you..as you know and indeed like to tell us.Rather clever of you to divert the string from the original premise though…the beeb did promote aids awareness as a method of covering for one of their fav groups.
David, you don’t need to be quite so defensive. I asked a genuine question, because you seemed to be implying that ‘we’, or ‘one’, or whatever, your average hetero, doesn’t know any better and therefore buys the BBC/American MSM image wholesale. Or at least, that’s what I thought your previous post suggested. If one knows 2 or 3 gay people who are not remotely like that, it seems to me that it’s enough to dispel the SF bathhouse / Graham Norton myth.
Thud, you are as ignorant, stupid and raving delusional as ever.
Chuffer, it’s a cyberspace fault.
No go f*** yourself, asshole.
Collocation is a perfectly good English word. But I don’t expect non-natives to understand it.
thanks nox…I always trust your superior intellect even on matters personal.
nox I must add that I find it rather touching that the internet gives the little man the tools to stand up to his betters….you do make use of it…good on you.
Nearly Oxfordian | 09.06.08 – 7:53 pm
If one knows 2 or 3 gay people who are not remotely like that, it seems to me that it’s enough to dispel the SF bathhouse / Graham Norton myth.
Yes, but please tell that to the BBC and the folks who make the shows which promote the extreme stereotype as the norm, inevitable, along with the idea that people who just don’t get it are behind the times. Criticism of that lifestyle gets conflated with criticism of homosexuality itself, which only serves to re-enforce peoples’ concerns that most gays live that dangerous lifestyle.
Nearly Oxfordian:
Chuffer, it’s a cyberspace fault.
No go f*** yourself, asshole.
Nearly Oxfordian | 09.06.08 – 7:55 pm | #
Fantastic! Oscar Wilde would be proud of your wit. Plato would be in awe of your technique. Aristophanes would have wilted at the power of your argument. Kepler wouldn’t have cared, ‘cos he does physics.
‘Cyberspace fault’, eh? I must remember that one – it’s a cracker!
“Yes, but please tell that to the BBC”
You think I haven’t tried? 😉
“the internet gives the little man the tools to stand up to his betters”
So, the pompous nonentity Thud thinks that he is my ‘better’ … ROFL.
You and Chuffer are one pair of dimwits.
Oh Lordy, he’s off again. The pills must have started to work.
“Collocation is a perfectly good English word. But I don’t expect non-natives to understand it.”
So, if you’re a native, why do you use ‘asshole’? My journalistic training told me that ‘ass’ used in the ‘backside’ sense was American.
But of course, you do know EVERYTHING, so you’re no doubt correct.
Ah nox….you yet again brighten my day..its so nice to hear from those less fortunate and gifted.
Chuffer has ‘journalistic training’, but still doesn’t know about webspace glitches? LOL.
I think he means that he once spent a whole summer making coffe for the subeditors.
‘Coffe’????
Set ’em up, NOx, and we’ll knock ’em down! Priceless!
Oh, hold on: I bet ‘coffe’ is standard English collocation for some sort of pleasant beverage.
Just like ‘webspace glitch’ is standard English collocation for ‘keyboard muppetry’.
Of course, the sad little wanker Chuffer has NEVER made a KB typo.
Knock them down? In your dreams, little boy. In your wet dreams.
This agressive argument seems to have little to do with BBC bias.
Perhaps you could all take a deep breath and wait before attempting to continue it here.
N.O. – However provoked you feel you have to curb your language that is not acceptable.