Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    That's ridiculous. What the bill fails to take into account is performance. I said nothing about my mother's ability and her attainment at work. Just one of the many flaws in that bill
    I wasn't talking about the Labour bill. It's a forty-two year old piece of legislation known as the Equal Pay Act which enables said female employee to sue her employer if she is doing the same work and getting paid less. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_1970
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    I couldn't give a flying **** whether they passed or not. The bills you have passed are FARCES. Making somebody abstain from sex for a year to give blood is a farce.
    It's only a farce if you fail to think about it sensibly. Males who have had anal sex with another man represents 50%+ of the population with HIV, whilst representing only a couple of percent of the population. This means that allowing these people to give blood would severely increase the amount of discarded blood; it's a simple cost/benefit analysis - you'd end up discarding a large amount of the blood. This is made worse by the fact that the tests are not 100% accurate; by allowing this population to donate you're putting people at a massive risk.

    Moreover, HIV can lay dormant for quite a while too.

    Do you really think you know better than the medical professionals who make these recommendations?

    I know these figures are American, but the UK has extremely similar figures: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    I know these figures are American, but the UK has extremely similar figures: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm
    Based on what? Guesses?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    Based on what? Guesses?
    Nope. Based on the informed opinion of someone that has done the research. However, you don't need me to tell you that, because in the bill there is a reference that discusses the increased risk of HIV, amongst particular groups. It illustrates that the chances of the men who have had sex with men (MSM) to have HIV is 42% (table 1, page 20), whilst representing only 5.4% of the population (page 29). So, by excluding this group, you're stopping a great deal of infectious blood entering the supply. In comparison to the MSM group, 1.3 per 1000 people in the UK are at risk of HIV.

    "In 2008, 50% of the 61,213 cases reported as receiving care were believed to have been infected through heterosexual intercourse and 42% through sexual intercourse between men...The majority of the 2,760 newly diagnosed MSM acquired their infection in the UK (83%)." So 5.4% of the population, represents 42% of HIV sufferers, whereas the remaining 94.6% represents 50% of HIV sufferers. The report also discusses other blood born contagions.

    Now i'm just puzzled as to why i, as a non-MP had to lookup and report the findings to you? Is this Libertarian MP too lazy to actually read the science that informs policy before voting and arguing against legislation, then using it to flame the Labour party?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It just seemed odd to me that you quote an American source and then make the logical jump to applying to the UK situation; which was wholly irrelevant. I think I was perfectly justified in asking where the logical step had come from.

    Why not use the UK reports when they are available? That is where my scepticism came from, the motive for using the US figures where a UK report was also available. Not the actual report per se.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    It just seemed odd to me that you quote an American source and then make the logical jump to applying to the UK situation; which was wholly irrelevant. I think I was perfectly justified in asking where the logical step had come from.

    Why not use the UK reports when they are available? That is where my scepticism came from, the motive for using the US figures where a UK report was also available. Not the actual report per se.
    Well, you could have taken the logical step to work out that there won't be very different between the risk groups of the US and the UK; i just provided a source that was easier to read, because you clearly couldn't be bothered to read the 74 page report the Lib Dems and Labour provided you to show you they were right.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    Well, you could have taken the logical step to work out that there won't be very different between the risk groups of the US and the UK; i just provided a source that was easier to read, because you clearly couldn't be bothered to read the 74 page report the Lib Dems and Labour provided you to show you they were right.
    I trusted they didn't misquote it, a 74 page report on HIV isn't something particularly high on my reading list.

    I don't see why you're making such a huge deal of this, I merely asked why a US report would be relevant to a UK issue. Don't the Labour Party have bigger things to worry about than whether a Libertarian MP has enough free time to read a 74 page report?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    I don't see why you're making such a huge deal of this, I merely asked why a US report would be relevant to a UK issue. Don't the Labour Party have bigger things to worry about than whether a Libertarian MP has enough free time to read a 74 page report?
    Well, what was more frustrating, was that you were arguing that the labour party had been relatively pointless, without seeming to know anything about the legislation in question. If you try to make an uninformed argument in order to make a party political point, then be prepared to be shown that you are wrong.

    Also, i'm not a Labour party member, nor an MP. It says a lot that i can remain up to date about these matters whilst the people actually voting can't. Then again, i guess i use this forum for interesting political debate, rather than ordering pretend drinks in a thread (this point doesn't relate to you in particular).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    Well, what was more frustrating, was that you were arguing that the labour party had been relatively pointless, without seeming to know anything about the legislation in question. If you try to make an uninformed argument in order to make a party political point, then be prepared to be shown that you are wrong.
    I think you have completely misread the intentions of my post, but whatever.

    edit: and at least Im not appearing in the Division Lobby posting absolute garbage like:
    (Original post by Maddog Jones)
    >Tax
    >Libertarians

    No
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    I think you have completely misread the intentions of my post, but whatever.

    edit: and at least Im not appearing in the Division Lobby posting absolute garbage like:
    Hm. I apologise actually. I should have directed my comments to MacCuishy; i think i got confused when you quoted me contesting my evidence. He's the one that said:

    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    I couldn't give a flying **** whether they passed or not. The bills you have passed are FARCES. Making somebody abstain from sex for a year to give blood is a farce.
    With clearly no understanding of the bill or it's underlying premises.

    Clearly also lacking some insight into the definition of the word farce. Unless, of course, HIV (and other blood born contagion) prevention is a farce.

    Whilst Jones' comment is rather frustrating, it is quite a good criticism, albeit phrased extremely poorly. It questions your motives, which, if becoming the norm, then raises a very interesting question on where the interests of your party lie. I've posted a solid example on how this bill will disproportionately benefit the rich in the commons bar. However, i suspect that he's not the only person who doesn't trust your party with our tax system. Part of a party is about brand and image, what he is trying to say is this: we don't trust you to look after the publics interest above businesses'.

    You will, undoubtedly reply with the classical Libertarian argument that the publics interest and business interests are one and the same. This is fine, just the difference between the two wings in this case. Although if you want more trust in the future, you will have to make more compromises. It's the same reason why the socialist party isn't trusted in some areas. Namely, with things like minimum wage (or the living wage now) we're accused that it would cause massive unemployment (although when it was introduced this wasn't the case). Swings in roundabouts.

    Also, i suspect that none of us have a subscription to the times so can't actually read the article you've posted.
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by paperclip)
    Hm. I apologise actually. I should have directed my comments to MacCuishy; i think i got confused when you quoted me contesting my evidence. He's the one that said:



    With clearly no understanding of the bill or it's underlying premises.

    Clearly also lacking some insight into the definition of the word farce. Unless, of course, HIV (and other blood born contagion) prevention is a farce.

    Whilst Jones' comment is rather frustrating, it is quite a good criticism, albeit phrased extremely poorly. It questions your motives, which, if becoming the norm, then raises a very interesting question on where the interests of your party lie. I've posted a solid example on how this bill will disproportionately benefit the rich in the commons bar. However, i suspect that he's not the only person who doesn't trust your party with our tax system. Part of a party is about brand and image, what he is trying to say is this: we don't trust you to look after the publics interest above businesses'.

    You will, undoubtedly reply with the classical Libertarian argument that the publics interest and business interests are one and the same. This is fine, just the difference between the two wings in this case. Although if you want more trust in the future, you will have to make more compromises. It's the same reason why the socialist party isn't trusted in some areas. Namely, with things like minimum wage (or the living wage now) we're accused that it would cause massive unemployment (although when it was introduced this wasn't the case). Swings in roundabouts.

    Also, i suspect that none of us have a subscription to the times so can't actually read the article you've posted.
    I just lost internet connection replying to your post so I lost it

    So, I will keep it short and sweet

    1. Tax cuts benefit everybody, not just the rich.
    2. It IS in the public's interest for business to do well. A thriving, competitive workplace pushes prices down and makes business for efficient and provides them with the incentive to attract better employers and train them well, not the state monopolisation that we see in healthcare and postal services, which makes horribly inefficient. Only recently have we seen competition from other organisations.
    3. With the tax system, we are making land A PUBLIC COMMODITY. Nobody owns it and money goes directly to the heart of local communities.
    4. When the minimum wage was introduced in 1997 (I think) we were not in hard times. We are now. Raising the minimum wage will force many employers to shed numbers and you know that high unemployed is not a good thing, but low wagers are also not, as they reduce the demand for products. A balance needs to be struck, whether that be a minimum wage, it depends.

    If you don't trust us I personally or any of the party could not care less and we will continue to churn out good bills that don't end up in the government wrapping us in cotton wool.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    at least Im not appearing in the Division Lobby posting absolute garbage
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Exactly.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    I just lost internet connection replying to your post so I lost it

    So, I will keep it short and sweet

    1. Tax cuts benefit everybody, not just the rich.
    2. It IS in the public's interest for business to do well. A thriving, competitive workplace pushes prices down and makes business for efficient and provides them with the incentive to attract better employers and train them well, not the state monopolisation that we see in healthcare and postal services, which makes horribly inefficient. Only recently have we seen competition from other organisations.
    3. With the tax system, we are making land A PUBLIC COMMODITY. Nobody owns it and money goes directly to the heart of local communities.
    4. When the minimum wage was introduced in 1997 (I think) we were not in hard times. We are now. Raising the minimum wage will force many employers to shed numbers and you know that high unemployed is not a good thing, but low wagers are also not, as they reduce the demand for products. A balance needs to be struck, whether that be a minimum wage, it depends.

    If you don't trust us I personally or any of the party could not care less and we will continue to churn out good bills that don't end up in the government wrapping us in cotton wool.
    I fail to see how this reply relates to paperclip's response to you at all. He wasn't talking about tax, he was talking about you trying to slander the Labour party by making gay men stay abstinent for a year before giving blood. We actually lowered it from 5 years, and however much you may be for equality, medical professionals actually recommend for gay men to stay abstinent for a year before giving blood - I think it would be very unwise to go against professionals in their field would it not?

    You make some admirable points, but none of them actually relating to a thing paperclip said.
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by davidmarsh01)
    I fail to see how this reply relates to paperclip's response to you at all. He wasn't talking about tax, he was talking about you trying to slander the Labour party by making gay men stay abstinent for a year before giving blood. We actually lowered it from 5 years, and however much you may be for equality, medical professionals actually recommend for gay men to stay abstinent for a year before giving blood - I think it would be very unwise to go against professionals in their field would it not?

    You make some admirable points, but none of them actually relating to a thing paperclip said.
    There was one sentence about that... I just feel that there should be better ways of allowing gay people to donate blood. You have instant HIV tests now, these could be used, obviously not at the tax-payer's cost, but if the person of homosexual orientation wants to donate blood, then it is his responsibility to make sure its not HIV positive.

    The rest of his answer was about tax.

    Slandering the Labour party? What a ridiculous, not well thought through petty attempt at debate.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    "Person of homosexual origin".

    I lol'd.
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by JPKC)
    "Person of homosexual origin".

    I lol'd.
    Haha it was meant to be orientation. I'll change it now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    "Person of homosexual origin".

    I lol'd.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacCuishy;37304394[B)
    ]There was one sentence about that[/B]... I just feel that there should be better ways of allowing gay people to donate blood. You have instant HIV tests now, these could be used, obviously not at the tax-payer's cost, but if the person of homosexual orientation wants to donate blood, then it is his responsibility to make sure its not HIV positive.

    The rest of his answer was about tax.

    Slandering the Labour party? What a ridiculous, not well thought through petty attempt at debate.
    And a whole load of previous debate which you cunningly avoided.

    It seems your solution to the problem is ever-changing, considering in the voting thread your response was, "just make people have a blood test every 3 or so years if they want to donate blood." So, seriously, how much consideration did you actually give the bill before voting against it? Did you consider any alternatives, and why were these not presented during the debate on the bill?

    Did you have any criticism of the scientific basis of the bill? Did you even read the 70+ page report that argued for the bill? Can you substantiate any alternatives you provide through any medical journals? Or are your solutions based on speculation?

    Though what gets me, is that despite these obvious questions, you have the nerve to post that another parties bills were a farce. As someone who has given little consideration, or input into the actual bill, it takes a massive ego to do that. Hell, the bill in question passed with an overwhelming majority, could you not accept that perhaps you were wrong, and there was a factor that you overlooked? It certainly would have seemed wiser than coming here and arguing about legislation you clearly know nothing about (or that you know so little, that your opinion on the solution changes every couple of days)?

    When faced with the figures and rationale directly, obviously, you could find no fault with them. That much is clear from your lack of response to my post 4 days ago.

    Finally, how the hell are you still masquerading around pretending this is about homosexual rights? Let me break it down for you:
    Vote no - keep MSM abstinence for 5 years
    Vote yes - lower MSM abstinence by 4 years (to 1 year)

    So either you're completely retarded, or you don't understand how parliament works.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    You have instant HIV tests now.
    Sure they do, but that doesn't make them completely reliable, especially not to the same standard that blood screenings use to prevent infection. Despite HIV being a rather weak virus, it can also be a tricky little ******* to test for due to the window-period.

    The way you are tested is largely dependant on the situation that requires the testing in the first place. For example, if it's just a routine check then most clinics tend to recommend having at least one HIV test every 6-12 months, whereas those being tested because they have been considered 'at risk' usually have a few throughout a 6 month window-period. I know this because one of my friends is currently undergoing this as we speak due to being in a relationship with another guy who lied about being HIV negative. At the 3 month testing the nurse told him that it is highly unlikely that he has HIV, but a test at the 6 month mark is still necessary in order for them to make a final conclusion. The detection of HIV can also be affected by other factors, such as patients taking antiretroviral meds which can cause inaccurate results during testing. As a result, SaBTO concluded that a 12 month window-period would be the most safe way to proceed. That period is also perfectly in line with other deferall periods that aim to prevent HIV infection, so it's not something they pulled out of thin air to discriminate against gay men. Heterosexuals with a similar HIV risk also receive the same deferall period.

    It would be great to simply remove the window-period and put them on an equal footing with heterosexual donors, but this is more of a health and safety issue than it is a gay rights (or even political) issue. Unfortunately gay men are a high-risk group when it comes to HIV, and it wouldn't be in the best interests of anybody to overrule the experts on this just to try and gain a political win for gay rights. The very reason I sought to simply implement the recommendations from the SaBTO report is because it offers the best medical guidance that this House has available to it. The fact that you weren't willing to read the report before making up your mind that 12 months is a farce highlights why this decision should never be guided by political opinion. I'm not singling you out there either as I suspect that most (if not all) said 'Aye' or 'Nay' without reading it themselves, and the same can be said for all those who campaign for changes in RL. I don't believe that the NUS LGBT campaign are scrutinising SaBTO reports when they're campaigning for restrictions to be removed, which just shows how irresponsible it would be for this House to give those people an equal voice to the experts who have analysed blood screening, researched evidence in other countries with a similar model (Australia was used in this case), and provided statistics for the risk associated with a 12 month window period. That risk is still considerably higher than most non-MSM donors, so there is still much to be done before the window-period can be reduced or even removed.

    It won't be all that difficult to change the policy when the evidence to do so is there. After all, technology is constantly progressing and HIV awareness is only going to improve. The latest advancements in blood screening have prevented blood donor recipients from being infected since the introduction of HIV NAT testing in 2002, so further advancements will play a vital role in re-assessing the window-period and legislating accordingly. There's a blood shortage as we speak, so the National Blood Service aren't going to prevent donors from giving blood if there's strong evidence that they can screen it safely without virtually any risk whatsoever. We just need to be patient until that evidence is available, rather than using our political ideologue as the driving force behind any changes we make.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 18, 2018
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.