As Straight as a Roundabout

Yes

2011-01-16T15:02:00.000Z

There's never been much of a decision with me about whether to vote for or against AV. I think the first time I voted was in an election that used AV (at my local student union). A friend ran in the last student union election. There were three candidates, two were in slates and one was independent. At the first count, she came second, with the independent coming third. The highest ranked person failed to obtain 50% of the votes, so the person in third was removed and their votes redistributed. At the second count, my friend edged ahead and won by just a few votes.

Student Union elections, at least my ones, weren't really decided on policies, they were decided on popularity - who could give out the most sweets, who could chat up the prospective voters best, who could rip down the most opposition posters and replace them with their own. Policies took second base, however with AV, second base translated into second preference, so after voting for their 'friends', people would vote for someone who had engaged them in a different way.

I think the same applies to national elections. Admittedly, political parties don't hand out sweets, but promises that they'll do the best thing for you, such as tax cuts, no hikes to tuition fees or allowing access to more cancer drugs are effectively the political candy that they bribe the electorate with. Combined with blind loyalism to a party by a large number of the electorate, it sometimes seems like elections in some wards can be pre determined. But with AV, another element is taken into account. Ranking candidates, rather than picking just one, allows people to make comprehensive decisions and express a complex desire for something more than just a particular party. Instead of people saying that they'll never vote Lib Dem again, they can simply drop the Lib Dems a place or two in their political rankings. It also allows people to express, in no uncertain terms, that there are political parties that they would never vote for. For example, I can reassure people that there will never be a number next to any Conservative candidate on my ballot paper.

The final question then, harking back to my student union days, is will we be allowed to vote for RON?

Labour or Green?

2011-01-03T00:10:00.001Z

My New Year's resolution is to join a political party. Maybe not the most interesting resolution, but one I think would be useful for me to make anyway. To make it easy, I've already reduced it to two parties, either the Labour Party or the Green Party.

I know a number of my local Labour councillors, and I think they do a good job. Being active in a trade union (UNISON) that's affiliated to the Labour Party, I also have a number of friends that are Labour Party activists. A little bit of research leads me to believe that people who are active in one tend to be active in the other as well. (I recognise just under half of the Labour LGBT Committee). I'm not convinced whether this is a good idea or not. I understand the obvious efficiency gains of being in both, as the objectives of both do tend to overlap a bit, but I guess the real fear is that one overtakes the other. Is UNISON made up of Labour Party members, or is the Labour Party made up of UNISON members? Are they Trade Unionists first, or a Labour party members first? Is Labour the party of the Trade Unions, or are Trade Unions too unwilling to accept that they've lost control of the Labour Party? To me, the Labour Party is too big.

My morals, however, tend to be be a bit more compatible with the Green Party, though the environment isn't really my biggest concern. Saying that, I don't think I actually know what Labour Party morals are. Are the Green Party too small to be an alternative choice for government though? They seem a lot more open than the Labour Party; I can actually find their policies on their website.

I don't feel like I'm any closer to a decision. I'd like to try and work a compromise, such as joining both parties, or somehow participating in a way that would encompass both, but I'm not really sure how that would work in practice.

Well, this is Christmas

2009-12-26T01:26:00.000Z

A week ago I couldn’t wait to get home to my family. Now I can’t wait to get away. I guess it’s that typical situation, where you remember things being rosier than they were. The Christmas period is two things to me – a break from work and the rest of life, and a chance to see my family. Typically, they’re both rolled into one. I’m not quite sure I’ve worked out why I do that yet, but I do. The two never seem to be synonymous.

I worked out today why I always start to hate being home when I’m there. It’s because everything takes a step backwards to how it used to be when I was younger, and I wasn’t particularly happy when I was younger. I’ve spent a lot of time and effort forging myself a new life, but because it’s been on the other side of the country, my family hasn’t been part of it. Coming home means leaving all of that behind. It’s always the same jokes and the same stories. Being home means the same routine as my youth – always being the last into the bathroom, always having the dodgy seat at the table, always sitting in the corner of the room, where it’s lucky if I have a seat, never being told where we’re going or what we’re doing until the last minute. My family don’t treat me like an adult.

It’s funny though, because the routine is probably what I miss the most as well. My Mum cooking dinner, my parents picking me up from town, my parents paying for the Christmas meal.

The problem is that it never changes. There seems to be no way for me to be able to balance things out. Tradition is used as an excuse to not change things, but if you never liked the tradition, you’re always going to be held back.

Complacency is not just a youth issue

2009-11-18T22:12:00.000Z

"We are finding that too many young people are not listening to what we are saying. I'm afraid people do get a little complacent about the disease by going out and having unsafe sex. It's a cyclical thing. Every ten years a new generation comes along and you have to re-educate them."- Elton John, talking to Radio 1’s Newsbeat

While Sir Elton John’s words have a ring of truth about them, he makes no comment on either the cause or the solution to the problem.

Young people remain out of touch without other sections of the LGBT community because ... they’re young people! They want time to enjoy themselves, enjoy their youth and enjoy their freedom. The generation before us spent their lives fighting for what we now have – equal ages of consent, equal opportunities, acceptance, recognition, support – but now that the next generation has that, the voices turn overly critical because our new generation takes advantage of these gains.

National conglomerate ‘charities’ dominate the LGBT market, speaking for all issues concerning the community regardless of their personal relationship to specific caucuses and with no level of accountability or representability. Young people are not asked or consulted upon what they want and many structures remain at the least unfriendly, at the most impossible to negotiate. Trustees for these organisations are required to be able to bring appropriate skills to the positions, jobs have requirements of years of experience and ability, volunteers are constantly asked to give much and to receive little.

Young LGBT voices are few and far between, and this is not limited to the LGBT community, yet there is no movement to change this. Young people who do take on positions of authority or representation are consistently left to their own devices, being offered no support in what is required of them and how to go about it – perhaps due to assumptions by those around them that as they can cope due to their years of experience, everyone else should be able to as well. In addition, considerations are rarely given to the financial implications of taking those positions, as well as the social implication of being the only young person in a room full of forty year olds.

Peer led LGBT youth organisations are needles in the national haystack, and those that do exist are severely underfunded and under resourced. LGBT Youth groups are run and organised by youth workers governed by too many laws to progress any kind of meaningful relationship with the young people they are in contact with, yet these youth workers are expected to facilitate safe spaces with the opportunity for young people to develop friendships and social skills while also introducing more serious issues for discussion and education with an added extra of self publicity through events, exhibitions and creative media in addition to attempting to progress a thread of ownership of the group to the young people, and they are expected to do this in about two hours a week.

To Elton, and to those with a similar viewpoint, I have a reply for you. Young people do not listen to what you say because you make no effort to listen to what they say. If you want that to change, support these young people, don’t demonise them. Support their representation in what you do, and support them being able to represent themselves. Look around you and find the young people I’m talking about, and ask them what they want, what they need to achieve their goals. Support them, and you support the whole LGBT community’s future.

IDAHO 2009: One Voice, One Message, Heard Around the World.

2009-05-18T20:50:00.000+01:00

Condoms are bad?

2009-04-10T14:50:00.000+01:00

Fidelity: Don't Divorce ...

2009-02-10T19:24:00.000Z

"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

Angels in America

2009-01-21T12:43:00.000Z

"While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."

-- Barack Obama, June 1, 2007

We all know that we judge people based on first impressions, and it is this reason that last night I was rather mad. For those of you who don’t know, Bishop Gene Robinson was the first openly gay Bishop to be ordained in the Anglican Church. He was a major tremor in the schism of the worldwide Anglican community. Another thing you might not know is that he led an invocation during Sunday’s welcoming concert for the new president. He was offered the position after severe criticism of Barack Obama’s choice of Pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at Obama’s inauguration. Rick Warren is an evangelical conservative, which in this situation translates as being strongly against gay marriage and strongly against the homosexual agenda.

The problem was that while offering the position to Bishop Gene Robinson was a sensible olive branch to the gay community, the invocation was not televised on American broadcaster HBO, even though the rest of the concert was. It was later reported that this was due to an execution error on behalf of Obama’s inaugural committee and that amends are being made, including the invocation being screened at later dates. For a man being hailed as the true representation of diversity in America, this slip up will undoubtedly have some major repercussions with sceptics.

We all also know that people can be very different when you get to know them, and that looks can be deceiving. During his inauguration, President Barack Obama announced the launch of a new website, Whitehouse.gov. On there, under the topic of Civil Rights, are eight promises made by Obama to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender community. These are, in no particular order, to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’, the policy banning gay people from the military; to support full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples; to promote AIDS prevention; to expand hate crime legislation to include LGBT people; to tackle workplace discrimination; to expand adoption rights to be inclusive of LGBT couples; to oppose a constitutional ban on same sex marriage; to empower women to prevent HIV and AIDS.

These are not bold promises. All but one of these are laws or policies already in place in the UK, the exception being empowering women (arguably the least LGBT related point as well). That, however, is not the point. The statement itself sends a direct positive message to the LGBT community, whose faith might have been starting to waiver.

As one of my favourite gay opinion sites boldly states, ‘Obama is not the Gay messiah’, he is just a man, one with the responsibility of the world on his shoulders. As a community, we need to offer the new President our trust. Gay rights in America will not change overnight, but we need to offer the benefit of the doubt that eventually it will happen.

“Bless us with patience and the knowledge that none of what ails us will be fixed anytime soon and the understanding that our next president is a human being, not a messiah.”

-- Gene Robinson, January 18, 2009

Wow 2009

2009-01-02T00:58:00.002Z

Wow, 2008, a very different year. 2008 was the year I started my first proper full time job, one which, even though I started as agency staff, I have managed to obtain permanently. 2008 was the year where I expanded my volunteer positions to much more senior ones. 2008 was the year where family became more important than friends again.

To me, 2008 was very different to 2007. 2007 was my first proper gay year and in comparison, 2008 was less fun. It was also much more of an eye opener. I feel that i’ve matured to more than the slightly naive, overly trusting boy that I was. I’ve made mistakes but i’ve learnt from them. I’ve made successes and i’ve learnt from them as well.

As i’ve said somewhere else, 2009 will be a different year. It’s the year I finish uni, and all that came with it, including various societies and Union positions. Obviously i’ve had a full time job last year, so that’s not a new experience to get my head around, but it will be the year I start to look for my future career for the next 40 to 50 years. I predict I won’t keep contact with a lot of friends, but will make more of an effort with other ones. I possibly take out a mortgage on my house. I imagine i’ll quit one of my volunteering positions in a flaming explosion of an exit, but I don’t know which one. It might be the year for my first proper long term boyfriend, but i’m unsure about that still.

My New Year’s resolution is to get up earlier. I’ve stuck to it so far (one morning down, 364 to go). Don’t think I stuck to many of my previous year’s resolutions. 08. Two of three apparently, not bad. Actually, some of my predictions came true as well. Guess I should make some for 2009.

1. A large Gay charity will dissolve itself. I would put money on the GMFA (Gay Men Fighting AIDS). They lost a lot of their London contracts this year to THT (Terrence Higgins Trust), and as they’ve failed to nationalise themselves very well, I think they will lose more this year.

2. The single equality bill will make steps forward this year, but this will be to the detriment of LGBT rights, which will step backwards this year, due to political instability, religious influence, far right extremism and the current financial situation.

3. One or more religious groups will slip up and be criticised by groups other than LGBT groups, namely groups tackling racism, sexism and disability discrimination.

4. Pride events will be less commercially successful than in 2008, however IDAHO (the International Day Against Homophobia) will have its most successful year yet, acting as a political alternative to Pride.

5. A premiership footballer will come out, around about the same time as the FA launch their anti homophobia campaign. Negative press reaction will result in the footballer quitting his profession.

6. America, even under Barak Obama, will become more homophobic, particularly due to the aftermath of Proposition 8, whereby all previously legal gay marriages will be annulled.

7. There will be riots in Australia by LGBT right activists, due to the abandoned government promise on equality for LGBT people, as well as religious influence.

8. There will be a high profile killing of a young gay male. Probably not in London.

9. A number of local authorities will be criticised by LGBT campaigners due to them abandoning funding for LGBT youth groups due to the financial crisis.

10. Queer Youth Network will finally be nationally recognised (ok, maybe hopeful :P).

Enjoy 2009. I hope it brings you what you want.

Why Do I Do This?

2008-11-09T21:13:00.001Z

A couple of days ago, someone accused me of being a CV hunter. For those of you that don't know me too well, here's a list of things I do in my spare time. I write the intranet pages for Merseyside Police's Gay and Lesbian Support Network. I volunteer for the committee of my Student Union LGBT group. I'm chair of my Student Union Council. I'm a course rep. I volunteer for St John Ambulance and i'm on the Union Society Committee. I write for my Student Newspaper. Obviously i'm a Category Moderator on here. I'm the young person rep for the Liverpool LGBT Network. And most recently, i've become a volunteer for Stonewall's youth participation programme, where i've also volunteered to be on the steering committee.

I guess a while ago I did some of these things for my CV, though mainly I did them because I enjoyed doing them and they meant a lot to me. But to have it flung back in my face like that, as if I wasn't appreciated, really hurt. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who does as much as I do, though perhaps QYN would be one of the few places where actually you would, but otherwise, a lot of the positions i've stood for i've managed to get uncontested, because assumedly no one else was interested in doing them.

I realised, when I took a gap year last year, that all the volunteering in the world will still end up being only one page on your CV, while the rest is qualifications and past work experience. To put it bluntly, i'm not going to get a Stats job just for being a gay activist.

So why do I do it all? I do it because I enjoy doing it, because it feels really good to be doing something that other people appreciate, because it's been my primary way of meeting new people since uni, and because i'm not one of those students who spends all their student loan on alcohol and take aways. I want to make something of my life, and not just for my CV, but for me, so I can look back on my life and say that I really have made a difference.

I'm still considering whether to post this on Facebook (most of my blogs are posted both here on QYN and then on blogger, which in turn goes on Facebook), because if I do that then I suspect the person that offended me so will read this, and i've not told him yet that actually he really offended me when he said that, and perhaps he doesn't know, or perhaps he does.

So for a change, i'm actually going to ask for responses to my problem.

Thanks.

And as this is now on Facebook, it's because people have managed to convince me to post this.

I’m Coming Out

2008-10-11T21:41:00.000+01:00

Coming out (verb) - The scariest seconds of a gay person’s life

October 11th is National Coming Out Day, that is to say, a day where support, information and guidance on coming out is provided. Not like Halloween, we don’t all come out of the woodwork and prowl town looking for innocent victims. That’s Pride. Approximately 7% of the population is estimated as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans (LGBT), or every 1 in 15 people. Meaning a third of student flats should have a gay person in them.

For some people, they would have already come out before, so coming out at uni would have been a breeze. They probably did it when they first met their flat mates, over a drink in the kitchen before a big night out. For others, they might not have come out back home, but wanted to at uni, so they got paralytic and blurted it out to their flat mates along with the vomit. For a few, it’s probably still a secret. They’re still measuring up their flat mates, calculating what their reactions could be, when they should come out, how they should do it, in fact, agonising over every little detail to act almost as an excuse for not doing it.

I’m going to promise you now, that coming out is really easy. Scary perhaps, but easy. You can do it in just two words. Repeat after me. I’m gay. There, done. Now the scary part is coming, peoples reactions. When I came out in first year, I didn’t do it with all my flat mates around. In fact, I was in a taxi going into town with a few of the guys from my flat and some of girls from the flat opposite. It was, I guess, a little scary, but the topic of conversation just turned to people being gay, and seeing this once in a conversation opportunity, I blurted it out, ‘I’m gay you know’, as if they should have known. ‘Cool’ I think was the response, as adequate a response as I could have hoped for, and the conversation moved on.

If you want some good tips on how to come out, then I’ve got a few. If you’re a guy, play that Diana Ross song, very loud, on repeat. Your flat mates will get the message. If you’re a girl, join the rugby team. If you’re bi, do both. If you want some less stereotypical and borderline offensive ways of coming out, try wearing rainbow colours, or ask your flat mates if they’ll come to the LGBT society meeting with you, go buy a gay magazine (or get a free one on the second floor of the Students Union), watch Rick and Steve on E4, Wednesday at 10:30, invite your friends for a pint at The Lisbon. The list is endless.

So I may have painted a pretty picture of how it’ll all be ok when you come out, but in reality, I know that sometimes people just aren’t accepting. If that’s the case, talk to someone, be it the university student support service, the advice centre at the Union, someone from the LGBT society, your personal tutor, anyone that can point you in the right direction. There is a lot of support out there, you just need to access it.

I just wanted to take a minute as well to give my support to anyone coming out as trans at uni. In the 21st Century, society is definitely becoming more accepting towards gay people, but trans acceptance is a good twenty years behind. To those reading this, even if you don’t understand trans as anything more than a girl wanting to be a guy, or vice versa, I really hope that if a new flat mate of yours does come out as trans, you can accept them for who they are.

Final words, don’t come out on a post it note. No one will believe you.

Clowns to the Left of Me, Jokers to the Right

2008-10-11T21:37:00.001+01:00

‘Never kissed a Tory. Never will.’

Claimed the LGBT Labour placard at Manchester Pride. Powerful words from a party with Ruth Kelly as a senior member, but comprehendible. The Conservative party do, after all, have a poor history, both distant and recent, in voting for LGBT rights. According to publicwhip.co.uk, Ruth Kelly has a better voting record for LGBT issues than ‘gay friendly’ David Cameron, though both were noticeably absent from voting regarding the appeal of Section 28. Indeed, the Labour party does come out smelling of roses in comparison to the Conservative Party when it comes to voting for gay issues. You can see a comparison here. The lighter the colours, the better the voting.

Of course, claiming that the Labour Party is ‘gay friendly’ would also be a misleading statement. While the Labour Party have, under their government, had a number of LGBT positive laws passed, some of these have actually been through direct orders from the EU, after the laws were initially rejected by the UK. Some inequalities have yet to be legally balanced. Gay marriage is still illegal, with Civil Partnerships being the alternative. Gay asylum seekers are still being deported to countries where they face death or torture.

The Tories do seem to be trying though. LGBTory, a Conservative collection of LGBT and friendly party members, toured the UK this year via gay pride parades. According to themselves, the reaction to them was friendly and positive. But is this enough? During the 2007 vote for the Sexual Orientation Regulations, 23 members of the Conservative front bench voted against the bill, outnumbering the 21 front benchers that did. 25 of the Liberal Democrat front bench MPs voted for the Regulations, with only 3 voting against. Every Labour MP voted for the Regulations (of course, they weren’t given a free vote).

So how does one decide where to vote on the political spectrum? Peter Tatchell recommends the Green Party, the only party committed to full equality for LGBT people. Of course, the Green Party perhaps have more pressing issues, like getting MPs in the first place. The Liberal Democrats might be a fair place to fall, but personally I am disappointed by my home town MP, Bob Russell, voting against the Sexual Orientation Regulations. If the Liberal Democrats actually bothered to turn up to vote for LGBT friendly legislation, they might find the gay community more welcoming to them.

The answer, it seems, is to vote for your party not on your sexual orientation, but your political beliefs. So, to answer Margot James, I won’t be voting for the Conservatives because the Labour Party ‘waste’ my taxes on issues ‘not important to me’, like education (though I point out that I’m all for a decent education system for my sister’s new born baby, Ethan) or the NHS. Nor will I be voting for the Labour Party because they whip their party members into voting for equality. The gimmicks are wasted on me. I will vote for the party that appeals to me most in a political way.

What A Horny Straight Guy Will Never Do ...

2008-07-30T15:07:00.000+01:00

Many thanks to Elizabeth Pisani over at The Wisdom of Whores for this amazing (or perhaps just amusing) piece of research.

In The Heat of the Moment: The Effect of Sexual Arousal on Sexual Decision Making, researchers asked 35 male American undergraduates a set of questions relating sexual attraction, how far they'd go to procure sex and sexual risk taking and then told them to get aroused and asked them the questions again.

The results are fascinating. When aroused, the men were more likely to have sex with a 60 year old, an extremely obese woman and someone they hated, and they were more likely to be turned on by animals, urination and spanking. They were also more likely to tell a woman they loved her (but i'm sure we knew that one already) or to drug her in order to have sex. They were also less likely to use a condom and more likely to delegate responsibility for birth control to the woman.

Unfortunately, for us gay guys, there's some bad news. The men were not more likely to have sex with a man when aroused. It's scientifically proven, just because a straight guy is horny, doesn't mean he'll have sex with you. So stop touching up your best friend. It'll never happen. There is some good news however. The men were more likely to have a threesome with another man involved when horny. I think it's time to start re-associating with your fag hags.

Peer Led Youth

2008-07-11T02:19:00.000+01:00

I’m going to use this blog, as much for my benefit as anyone else’s, to discuss peer led activities and groups. The idea behind peer led activities and groups are simple, the people who are the target group of said activities and groups should also be the people running and arranging them. So a group for Christians should be run by Christians, an activity day for disabled people should be coordinated by disabled people, a women’s committee should be run by women. It seems simple and obvious, but when you come to young people, it is very rare that young people will run a youth group, or coordinate an event for young people, or be consulted on for a policy that affects young people. If an atheist ran a church, people would find it offensive, if a straight man ran Stonewall, people would also be offended, if the chair of the Black Police Association was white, people would question it, so why is it that youth groups are coordinated and run by people outside the 0-25 age range? Why are anti bullying strategies for schools written by staff and consultants?

Obviously there are answers to these questions. Young people are not sufficiently trained, experienced and qualified to do the above. These are qualities that require time, and that’s perhaps the most defining particular of young people; they have not experienced much time. So does this mean young people should automatically be excluded from running groups and arranging activities? Of course not, and indeed on some, rather rare, occasions, they’re not. Queer Youth Network is obviously peer led, as are the British Youth Council, to some degree the National Union of Students. The problem is, only those that they engage with see the success of these groups. Why is this? Perhaps because there isn’t a need to visualise this success to those they don’t engage with, or perhaps because these groups aren’t very good at promoting their success, or maybe because people just don’t give a damn.

I’m going to change the topic slightly. Why is it that some groups and companies feel the best way to engage young people is to have a young persons coordinator, an adult whose job it is to work with young people? The logic is just so flawed. Why should an adult know the best way to engage with young people, or what they want, or what’s best for them; because they were young? Maybe. But life changes, as do young people. You only have to listen to someone saying ‘When I was a kid, we respected our elders’ to realise how out of touch people are with youth culture. Adults are not appropriate to be making decisions for and about young people.

So, I hear you murmur in your sleep like state at this point in the article, how do we tackle this situation? Easy, we put young people in charge. It’s not a mind-blowing idea, in some places it’s done, but not enough. Young people have ideas and can take on responsibility the same as anyone else. Where they lack the necessary skills and abilities, an effort should be made to support, not to replace. The NUS seems a decent example of this. Students are elected by students at conference to tackle issues that are proposed and voted for by students, yet the elected officers have the support of a large number of staff that are not students. There is no reason why this idea cannot be replicated with young people. The decisions must start and finish with young people, but the space in between can be filled with as many adults as seen fit.

Pride is a Protest

2008-06-23T22:45:00.004+01:00

Today I thought I’d blog about the controversial topic known as Pride, or rather Pride marches and celebrations. Typically, Pride is a gay party, where people revel in a gay atmosphere, watch a parade of floats and groups walk down a set route and then proceed to get as physically drunk / pilled up as they can cope with at the vast variety of Pride club nights.

Knowing where to start this blog is quite difficult, I guess I should clarify that my position towards Pride is reasonably negative, though I realise that it brings (or perhaps brought) particular benefits to the community. I’ve only been to one Pride, London Pride, least year, though I do plan on attending Manchester Pride this year.

Ok, let’s start with a bold opinion which I hope I can at least attempt to justify over the rest of the blog. Pride is not needed in the UK any more and is only a commercial venture.

I’ll pick on Birmingham Pride, as the title of this blog is aptly taken from a group of people who arranged a political Pride march after the ‘organisers’ of Birmingham Pride cancelled the official Pride march due to (from what I hear) financial difficulties, being unable to negotiate a parade route with the local council, in fighting and a general lack of desire to organise the parade. The day events, including stalls, and the club nights still went ahead, and it appeared to have been typically successful. Of course, success is a measure that varies from person to person. Certainly for the clubs I assume they made lots of money. For the people that went to the clubs, I assume they had a good time. For the groups that had stalls, I assume they got some decent free publicity. Overall though, I’m not entirely sure what Birmingham Pride achieved, apart from funding the local gay economy. I can’t comment further, as I don’t know how much money was raised or donated to charity, though if anyone knows, I’d appreciate it if you’d let me know.

Many years ago, when Pride was merely a new born baby and people marched for acceptance, tolerance, to combat homophobia, for visibility, for solidarity, I can accept that there was a point and a need for Pride. Today though, typically all of these reasons are no longer relevant. There is a general acceptance and tolerance of the Queer community. More and more people can come out, less and less people preach hatred, the National Front demonstrators continue to dwindle in numbers. Homophobia is legally not an issue in this country any more. We have laws providing civil partnerships, equality in goods and services, we no longer have Section 28. Visibility is definitely not an issue. We have gay people on TV, on the radio, in parliament, running for mayor of London, in schools, in the church. Solidarity is the only one in the list above that I will concede is dissipating in our current society.

Now I can hear the sceptics in the background pointing out all the flaws in my above statements. Indeed, visibility is restricted mainly to Gay men, with Lesbian, Bisexual, Trans and Queer people still struggling to find adequate role models on the television, radio or Big Screen. I realise that legally we still do not have Gay marriage, nor do we have full equality in protection for Trans people, and it is obvious from some of the Jurassic arguments presented in the debates in the House of Commons over laws regarding IVF and equal parenting rights for Lesbians that full acceptance and equality and a deterioration of homophobia will take an exceedingly long time to appear. I can understand that young people are still bullied in schools, that older Gay couples are being sent to separate care homes, that as a community we are still adversely affected by suicide and mental health issues, that as a sector we receive a disproportionately low amount of funding, donations and sponsorship and that certain parts of the community are still blighted by the HIV virus. However, with a couple of exceptions, these are not issues tackled by, at, during, around, before or after Pride, and so that fact that our community suffers these issues is not enough to justify a Pride that does not tackle these issues.

The exceptions that I mentioned that I can recall are Amnesty International and their ‘Nil Points’ placards listing the names of countries that still have homophobic laws and practices and (I believe it was) George House Trust’s ‘No Blame, No Shame, No Crime’ placards against the criminalisation of HIV. I look forward to seeing what these two will provide us with this year.

When Barclays sponsors a float depicting gay couples being married in a church, Or Tesco has their logo on banners calling for a Universal Decriminalisation of Homosexuality or the Home Office have a float where all their Gay staff are locked in a cage for imminent deportation (thanks and sorry to the persons I stole this idea off), then I will admit that Pride has had its political edge sharpened again and maybe I’ll support it again.

Now that I’ve dealt with the Parade, I’ll jump onto the club nights. Manchester Pride last year donated £110 000 to charity, which is a very impressive figure until you compare it with the estimated £22 million that the local (mainly gay) economy earned over the Pride season. It was pointed out in a blog that goes into far more detail than mine will, G7UK, that tickets into the gay scene at Manchester Pride were £10 last year, though £15 late booking / on the day, yet only 12% of that ticket price went to charity. At another club event, participants paid £22, of which £1 went to the fundraising effort, however after expenses and VAT, only 16p actually went to charity. At the moment, the ticket price is £12.50 (only a modest 25% increase then!). Manchester Pride was also deemed not to be a charity, and so had to repay a large amount of tax benefits it had claimed entitlement to. In comparison, London Pride cost considerably less to organise and was free.

It is worth pointing out at this point that it is the large (and small) commercial and business orientated companies that abuse Pride, causing the somewhat lessening of success than it could achieve. Typically, Pride organisers give their time voluntarily, receive very little contribution and organise large events with only a few interested people and they deserve a lot more praise than they currently get.

I have up until now very pointedly only referred to Prides that occur in the UK. Across parts of the globe, Pride is very much a new idea, blossoming much like Pride in the UK did many years ago. In some countries, Pride is illegal and the Police beat up protestors. In some countries, Pride demonstrators are seriously outnumbered by anti gay activists. In some countries, governments refuse to sponsor or provide Kind (free services, etc) to Pride. In some countries, Pride doesn’t happen for fear of death. In these countries, there is a need for Pride. There is still a need to demand acceptance, tolerance, an end to homophobia, legal recognition and all the other factors that Pride in the UK stood for such a long time ago.

So what exactly can we do about this then? Well, we could boycott Pride and arrange our own events with real charity donations, much like Get Bent! did last year in Manchester. We could engage with the Pride march and have our own political float or group that actually does highlight an issue. We could engage with the Pride Committee and provide additional support and ideas, as well as an extra pair of hands or lips to get the job done.

Pride doesn’t need to go back to its roots, it actually hasn’t changed that much since it first started, and that’s the real problem. Pride needs to evolve to allow itself to adequately tackle the issues that we currently face, rather than the issues that we used to face. Pride doesn’t need to be a party or a celebration. That’s what we do every weekend on the scene. Pride doesn’t need to be a protest for acceptance, on the surface (which is all Pride is) that’s achieved. Instead of promoting unity, Pride should be promoting our diversity. It should be highlighting to the Gay community (as after all, they’re the people that come to Pride) what issues we still face and how we ourselves seem to perpetuate our own internal homophobia. We should use it as a time to tackle or at least promote awareness of how to tackle our community problems such as our excessive drinking, our overuse of drugs, our addiction to cigarettes, our promotion of casual sex and our body fascism. We should use it to highlight the support available for those being bullied, thinking about suicide, in isolation, struggling to come out and those who are self harming. These messages should be everywhere, especially all over the club scene.

I’ll finish with a little promotion of an alternative idea that I like. In the North West, there’s a group called Celebr8 (Don’t Discrimin8), which is basically a non commercial diversity Pride, which includes everyone regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, skin colour, race, religion, sex, age or disability. Check it out.

Pre-EP

2008-06-01T23:14:00.001+01:00

Some of you may have heard of PEP before. It stands for Post Exposure Prophylaxis; basically it’s an HIV morning after pill, with a few differences. The idea behind PEP is that if you have sex in which you think that there is a risk you may have been infected with HIV, say for example having unprotected receptive sex with an HIV positive man, or a condom splits while having sex with someone that’s HIV positive, then you go to an A&E department or GUM clinic that offers PEP, though these are few and far between. The doctor there should do a risk analysis and if deemed appropriate you may be prescribed PEP, which is a month course of anti retroviral drugs, designed to stop the HIV infection taking hold in your body. These drugs are the same drugs given to people with HIV to keep their viral load low and as such they may invoke the same side effects, such as headaches or vomiting. PEP is not 100% effective and becomes less effective the longer you leave between the initial risk of infection and starting PEP treatment. Doctors will not prescribe PEP after 48 hours as it is deemed not be effective after this stage.

There are many significant negatives attached to taking PEP, including the fact that, if you end up being infected after the initial PEP treatment, you automatically rule out a number of the drugs that would be used to keep your viral load low. It is also extremely expensive, which means that people may be refused PEP if they have had it before. As previously mentioned, it is offered in only a few hospitals and GUM clinics, with some people reporting that local hospitals have never heard of the treatment.

There is also a risk that, as I previously described it, PEP would end up being treated as an HIV morning after treatment, a failsafe for having unprotected sex with someone too drunk or high to disclose their status. There is a need to market it correctly and ensure that people realise that taking PEP is more than popping a pill a day for a month (actually it’s a combination of pills at set times during the day). It is advised that people to not drink alcohol while taking PEP, though it appears to me that people taking PEP barely have the energy to go out and drink anyway.

The reason I’m talking about this today is because of an article I read recently, entitled 'The Plague is Over, Let’s Party!' By Elizabeth Pisani. To briefly summarise, she talks about how, in the UK, AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) no longer kills people and as a result HIV positive people are living longer and healthier lives resulting in a boom in the spread of HIV, with these people starting again to take on sexual partners. I admit that she talks about a Gay scene that I have never myself witnessed, only read about, and hopefully is one that is restrained in its aspects to only London and Manchester, where clubs exist only for cruising, everyone goes home with someone if they want to and promiscuity is the norm. I realise that some people would argue that this is the norm for the Gay scene on a whole, but my view is that, certainly in Liverpool, this isn’t the case.

Anyway, one of the things she briefly mentions at the end of the article that intrigued me is the development of Pre Exposure Prophylaxis, basically a pill you could take every day which would stop you getting HIV, meaning you could have as much risky sex as you wanted. The very idea of this put me in two minds. On one hand, a person not getting HIV is a very good thing. It’s not virus I would wish upon anyone and while you may be able to live with it, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the life you would be living would be as easy as the life you could have been living without it. If there is a way we could stop the spread of HIV, then theoretically we should embrace it with open arms.

Then my morals started to kick in. What kind of a lifestyle are we promoting with this? Will Pre-EP become the norm for a night out? Wallet. Check. Phone. Check. Condoms. Check. Pre-EP. Check.
How much will this drug cost? Will it become a drug only for the rich, meaning that the people who probably need it the most (escorts, prostitutes) will be unable to access it?
Will there be side effects? PEP has the side effects of headaches, nausea, tiredness, shakes and all other manners of unfortunates. Would that mean that you would take it only just before having sex? Would it become the equivalent of the world’s worst hangover?
Where will it be accessible? Will it be an over the counter drug, or on prescription only from your GP, or will you be able to pick it up with a pack of paracetamol from Asda?
Will taking Pre-EP become compulsory for high-risk groups (gay men included)? Would not taking your Pre-EP lead to you being arrested?
Would Pre-EP lead to the evolution of a super strain of HIV which would be drug resistant? We already know that HIV is a smart virus, which mutates and evolves and develops new strains, surely Pre-EP, if HIV is not totally eradicated, would only act as another penetrable barrier to the onset of AIDS?

Pre-EP scares me, that the society we seem to be emanating requires this drug. I think there are plenty of alternatives that could and should be promoted first. Condoms are the most effective prevention method for not getting infected with HIV. (I hear abstinence is only 33% effective for preventing sex in America). They should be available in more places and they should be cheaper in stores. Sex education should be compulsory and start at a very early age. HIV testing should be encouraged for more gay men and should become a constant fixture in the life of any sexually active person.

In an ideal situation, Pre-EP should only be available in certain circumstances, for example to people with an HIV positive partner or to those who have sex for a living. There are benefits to it, but I feel that its commercialisation could have significant consequences. Saying that, I wonder if people used the same argument when condoms were first commercialised. Who knows? If Pre-EP could become an HIV condom, then maybe we would finally have a way to tackle the rise of HIV.

May 17th - the Internation Day Against Homophobia

2008-05-14T01:45:00.000+01:00

Afganistan

Algeria

Angola

Antigua and Barbuda

Bahrain

Bangladesh

Barbados

Beliza

Benin

Bhutan

Botswana

Brunei

Cameroon

Cook Islands

Dijibouti

Dominica

Eritria

Ethiopia

Gambia

Gaza

Ghana

Grenada

Guinea

Guinea Bissau

Guyana

India

Iran

Jamaica

Kenya

Kiribati

Kuwait

Lebanon

Lesotho

Liberia

Libya

Malawi

Malaysia

Maldives

Mauritania

Mauritius

Morocco

Mozambique

Myanmar

Nauru

Nigeria

Niue

Oman

Pakistan

Palau

Papa New Guinea

Qatar

Saint Kitts and Nevis

Saint Lucia

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Sao Tome Principe

Saudi Arabia

Senegal

Seychelles

Sierra Leone

Singapore

Solomon Islands

Somalia

Sri Lanka

Sudan

Swaziland

Syria

Tanzania

Togo

Tokelau

Tonga

Trinidad and Tobago

Tunisia

Turkmenistan

Tuvalu

Uganda

United Arab Emirates

Uzbekistan

Western Samoa

Yemen

Zambia

Zimbabwe

I just thought i’d write you a short list of the places where homosexuality is illegal around the world. The ones in red, if you’re curious, are where you can get the death penalty for being gay. Some of these places may surprise you as being rather gay unfriendly is regards to the law. Some of these are popular tourist destinations, and a slight twist, some of these are popular gay tourist destinations. My parents honeymoon location is on this list.

May 17^th, for those of you that don’t know, is the International Day Against Homophobia. The reason for this date is because, in 1990, the World Health Organisation removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. Yes, 1990! I imagine most people reading this were alive then. 2008 is the 4^th year that IDAHO is being marked in the UK. It actually started in France, the pioneering idea of a man called George Louis Tin, of whom i’ve had the pleasure of meeting.

The IDAHO Campaign is probably one of the most decentralized campaigns run in the UK. It relies on organisations and individuals to arrange their own events which will then get published on the website (http://www.idaho.org.uk). This means that raising the profile of IDAHO is probably one of the most important challenges facing the few people that stake a claim in representing IDAHO over the UK. So here I am, writing to you all about IDAHO.

But isn’t this just what Pride is about, I hear you (not) asking? Well, no, basically. You only have to take one look at any of the Pride events in the UK to see that commercialism and having a fun time are the most important aspects to them. IDAHO is more about highlighting the fact that, while we in the UK may have relatively equal rights regarding LGB (and even possibly T), people in other parts of the world do not have such privileges. I realise that we still have problems in the UK; gay couples still feel uncomfortable holding hands in public; we still fight battles with a few people who claim that they have the right to discriminate based on sexuality due to their religion; we still don’t have marriage equality; we are still disproportionately affected by HIV, suicide, self harm, mental illnesses and depression; kids are still bullied in school; adults are still afraid to come out at work, but in comparison, these are all pretty small battles compared to the battle for life, which is what some people strive for. This is about taking one day and saying ‘Right, this day is to demand a basic global minimum, a day to call for human rights for all LGBT people, all over the world’. It’s actually a massive task, or call, to make, and somehow I fear I won’t see it happen in my lifetime, but if we can change the opinions of the next generation, then maybe we have a chance.

I urge you all to get involved with IDAHO if you have the chance. Most IDAHO events are listed on the website (http://www.idaho.org.uk), so have a look and see if there’s anything you can attend. If not, consider doing something like writing a blog (or posting this blog if you want), change your Facebook picture to a rainbow flag or perhaps just talk to your friends about IDAHO and spread the word.

May 17^th is the International Day Against Homophobia. What are you going to do?

A Contract of Inequality

2008-05-11T00:53:00.000+01:00

Where I work, I’m a contractor. What that means is that I technically don’t work for the company I work for, I work for the agency that supplies me. The agency is the ones who pay me and they’re the ones that have found me the job.

Any of you who have done agency work before will realise what a total scam it is.

Let me outline my situation to you. I do the same job as full time staff in the company I’m at, yet I get paid less, I don’t get holidays, I don’t get bank holidays off, I have no entitlements to sick pay, paternity pay or bereavement pay. I don’t get pension contributions, I’m not entitled to attend any training courses or conferences run by the company on paid time, I have no job security, no promotion prospects and I get no personal development. I also have to pay an external payroll company to process my wages, and I have to pay my own employers national insurance. Just to reiterate, I do exactly the same job, to exactly the same standard.

Now, to those of you reading this, it probably seems quite unfair and indeed it is. What it also happens to be is legal. Contractors get a very raw deal under the current law, however this is so the UK can provide a flexible working market (i.e. people can be hired and fired as necessary). This is, according to the government, an essential part of the British economy.

Of course, to me, as a contractor, this just seems totally wrong. That you can discriminate against people based on the way they find a job or the jobs that are currently available. Being someone that’s spent the last few years opposing discrimination, that I’m now in a situation where I feel I’m being discriminated against and there’s nothing I can do about it, except of course to quit, leaves me feeling extremely frustrated. It’s not that I don’t understand the situation, I mean I’m only a short term staff member who required training at the beginning of the job and one who theoretically wouldn’t have company loyalty (actually, I do, but theoretically, most people wouldn’t) and actually the wage I receive is only part of what the company has to pay to employ me, as the agency takes a large chunk of the cash and sometimes the requirements for someone to work pop up after budgets have been set and approved.

You have to understand that actually I knew, or at least realised, about some of the unfairness that I face as being a contractor, and for the sake of being employed I took the job anyway and that’s fine. Unfortunately, I’m now in a position where all the jobs have been advertised as full time, which excludes me, as I go back to university in September. That’s fine, but these jobs will be starting probably by June, and I hope to be employed until the end of August. This would mean that I would be doing the same job (in fact, if new people start, even more of a job) for less money and prospects. Of course, again, I would actually appreciate it if my contract was extended until August, but it doesn’t make it any fairer.

And after all that, what actually annoyed me the most was that I was engaging myself in the organisation through their Gay and Lesbian Support Network, and all I wanted was to attend meetings and conferences with them on paid time (much like everyone else gets) but I was unable to. Just to further explain, this is me providing my expertise (if you’ll allow me to call my gay rights knowledge that) for the organisation, but actually being restricted in doing so. As far as pushing for equality goes, this seems like a bit of a cock up. The company that I’m working for actually has a reasonably poor reputation for LGB&T equality anyhow.

By the way, you may have noticed that I actually haven’t named the company I work for yet. I might have mentioned it elsewhere, but for the sake of this article, and the fact that, as mentioned above, I have company loyalty, so I’d rather not name and shame.

Fortunately today, a manager higher up than my manager has decided that I should be allowed to attend the conference I want to go to on paid work time. The reasons behind it I don’t quite know yet, but the person who was organising the conference has managed to arrange this, and I’m very grateful for it. It’s not as if the offices I work in haven’t benefited from my activism. I got posters up for the Gay and Lesbian Support Network, I’m getting a rainbow flag flown for the International Day Against Homophobia and I’m about to put some posters up for it as well. While obviously I can’t be sure, I reckon that I’m the only person attending this conference from my offices (it’s arranged by the support network for Black and Racial Minorities) and in a way my manager should be grateful that someone will actually be attending from these offices … that sounds wrong … he should … well, we live in a target and checklist driven world (and company), so the fact that we are attempting representation should be seen as a good thing.

If I’d have written this a couple of weeks ago, there would have been a lot more anger, but I’m quite placid now (well, I did get my own way), but it still remains that this inequality in employment exists.

Some of you may know that there is a temporary workers directive going through Parliament at the moment. A significant number of MPs turned out to support the first two readings of this, and for those of you that do so, I urge you to contact your local MP to support this bill.

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2007-08/temporaryandagencyworkersequaltreatment.html

I Use Mouthwash

2008-04-23T00:28:00.000+01:00

If you follow my posts, you’ll know some of my political and personal views, but probably not much about me, so I thought I’d share a few things with you.

I hate doors. They always open the wrong way, they’re too heavy or too light, sometimes you have to press buttons to open them, some revolve without stopping, they go to the wrong places, they’re badly signed, sometimes they’re locked, sometimes they’re broken. Doors are horrible things.

I don’t drive. No particular reason except that I couldn’t be bothered to learn. In a way I justify it by saying it makes me greener, but sometimes public transport irritates me so much I wish I had learnt. I will learn at some point, but I don’t know when.

I enjoy most films the first time. Some films suck (Atonement) but generally if you take me to see a film, I’ll like it. However, make me watch a film a second time and I’ll get bored. Why bother when you know what’s gonna happen?

I’m mildly lactose intolerant.

I call myself a vegetarian, but I eat meat – chicken, pork, bacon and beef, but only when prepared in certain ways. I don’t eat meat off a bone, I only eat beef when in a Chinese meal, and I don’t eat ham or sausages though I do eat pork and bacon. I don’t cook meat, I only eat it when out or if someone else has prepared it. I’m also a painfully slow eater. And left handed, except when eating.

I don’t believe in there being one true love. The idea that there’s only one person in the world you’ll properly love and be loved by is ridiculous (and scary). I believe the key to all relationships (friends, family and lovers) is compromise.

I’m not a very confident person, but I would like to be. My confidence is affected by who I’m with (or not with). I like ‘me’ time, but I get easily lonely.

My CD’s are alphabeticalised (well not at the moment because I took loads of CDs out of their cases to go home, but when I put them back, they will be).

I find accents very attractive. Friends tell me off (and hit me) for trying to mimic their accents. I’d love to be able to go back down South and speak with a Scouse accent, but I doubt I ever will.

I wear contact lenses and I would like laser eye surgery. I don’t like the look of myself in glasses. I think sunglasses look stupid, plus I like to be able to see people’s eyes.

I am not a morning person.

I’m happiest when I’m busy, thought occasionally I do too much and get stressed. I get ulcers when I’m stressed.

I don’t eat enough, or exercise enough, with the exception of a lot of walking. I’d love to have pecs, but I don’t want to go to the gym to get them (plus I don’t have the time).

I like to sing, but I’m not amazing. I had vocal coaching for a year, which significantly improved my singing, but I don’t see myself getting any better.

I don’t drink coffee.

I always leave the house with £5 of change in my wallet. 4 £1 coins (occasionally £2 coins), 1 50p, 1 20p, 2 10p’s, 1 5p, 2 2p’s and a penny.

The last film I watched was Bridge to Terrabithia; it made me cry.

What Makes A Gay Night?

2008-03-03T17:24:00.000Z

I had the pleasure of going to a new 'Gay' night in Liverpool on Thursday. It was in a city centre bar, Revolution, and the night itself was called Solo.

I walked there with a few friends after having been to the Outsiders Film Festival (Liverpool Gay Film Night) because we were all curious about what it would be like.

We were greeted by a couple of promoters outside who asked us (hopefully in a rhetorical way) 'Are you gay?'. Aside from the fact that we were walking into the bar as she accosted us, and that if I looked any more gay you could call me Christmas, it was moderately brave of her to do so, though probably she only asked the people that actually looked gay. Anyway, she and her friend were friendly enough, and the reassurance that the night was indeed going on was nice.

We got inside and a guy in bunny ears and a bow tie (If i recall correctly) gave us a free shot (I chose the parma violet flavour, and it appeared I was the only person to try it so far) and we made our way to the bar.

Here ends the gay parts of the night. With the exception of a couple of odd pictures in the seating area and the significant change in the gay straight ratio (about 40% gay at a guess), the bar was itself, probably as it was on the previous Thursday night.

That led me to asking the question 'What actually makes a gay night?'.

The obvious start is to look at the scene (or at least, Liverpool's scene). To summarise, we have drag queens, camp pop, neon lights and odd people outside the clubs trying to get us to go in. The crowd is mainly young (with a most probably significant underage contingent) and reasonably superficial.

To compare this with the gay night in Revolution, the music was their normal style - dance/electronica, no one was in fancy dress or drag, and no one looked underage (except probably me). In fact, the average age seemed to be around the mid twenties, the age that gay people on the scene die out.

The gay straight ratio should probably be mentioned again as significant. It was 40% gay in Revolution, compared with an approximate 95% on the gay scene. Whether this is a good thing would depend on the person, but I feel this kind of environment would attract people who don't identify as exclusively gay (they have more straight friends, only occasionally visit the scene) for a typical night out.

Whether this night becomes a constant occurrence (weekly or monthly) I don't know. Whether it was a success for the bar or not, I don't know, though I do know that I enjoyed the night. It was a nice change from the usual scene.

The location of the bar as well is quite significant. It's only a minute walk from the main city centre bar / club area, Concert Square and is situated on a road with plenty of other bars. Compare this with the Queer Quarter, which is on the other side of the city and it seems a considerably brave move to have a gay night there.

I do seem to be veering from the topic ever so slightly, so to return to the original question, 'What makes a Gay Night?', I suppose the answer is the people. By that, I refer to the gay straight ratio. A Gay Night has to have gay people at it. That seems like an obvious answer and it probably is, but the ramifications of it are impressive.

The Gay Night in question was, from what I know, marketed mainly over the internet. I first heard about it on Facebook, and it was mentioned at the Outsiders Film Festival but that seems to be it. I haven't seen any posters for it, there weren't any I noticed in the bar and it wasn't mentioned in any gay mags. The night itself was also advertised as just that, A Gay Night, nothing more, nothing less (with the exception of a comment of free shots from buff boys (and he wasn't buff)). What this means is that people don't need drag queens, camp pop and all the other malarky that surrounds the typical Scene, all they need to know is that the location is Gay friendly and that other gay people will be there.

How successful the event was (or is) will most probably be judged on the next time they host the event.

To jump back to my conclusion, that a gay night has to have gay people, it also means that the flipside can be examined as well. While maybe not a problem in Liverpool, I do hear of gay bars / clubs that are now full of hen parties and straight guys looking to bag a lesbian. Can these places actually call themselves gay bars any more?

In Liverpool, we have a club called Popworld, and as you can imagine from the name, it plays camp and retro pop. I like it, generally, but it isn't a gay club. In fact, it's next door to Revolution (the one that held the gay night). Popworld has never been marketed as a gay club, and as a result, it isn't. Yet, with the exception of underage popper sniffing crowd, it's the same as a typical Gay bar.

I hope people reading this can understand what i'm saying, which is that gay people, generally, only go to places that they know other gay people will be at. The result of this is that any one of the places on the scene could change itself dramatically; by playing indie or rock music, giving itself a normal name, having a normal DJ, but as long as they ensured that the location was still known to be gay, people would go. In essence any place, anywhere, could increase it's gay clientele by making a gay night, without actually having to change anything.

Obviously without seeing the long term impact of Revolution having a gay night, I can't say whether this idea will last, but I can say that it's improved my view of itself and i'll probably go back there.

LGBTV

2008-02-07T22:04:00.000Z

I've read quite a bit recently about how people still think that there isn't Queer representation on the TV and to an extent, that's true. Bisexuals, Lesbians and Trans people may as well not exist as far as the telly world depicts, but the increasing number of gay men in TV dramas, soaps, documentaries; is not something to be scoffed at.

It's said that all the characters that do exist are stereotypical - camp, feminine, obsessed with sex, and again, to an extent, that's true. Corrie's gay character isn't exactly a figure of machismo, Queer as Folk hardly promoted monogamy and relationships, Will and Grace have literally managed every gay stereotype possible. But i'm not talking about those programs. I've watched three programs this week, each with gay characters, each different.

The first was on Shameless. Mickey is a thug, lives on a council estate, deals drugs in his dad's business .. and drives a pink limo in his spare time. Ok, so maybe there is some stereotyping there. Ian is the second oldest brother, works in the pub, and is out to his siblings, but the scene i'm gonna talk about doesn't involve him. To briefly summarise, Mickey lost some drugs, and eventually has to tell his parents and says he'll move away from the area. His dad, in a roundabout way, tells him he loves him and he forgives him. He ends with an off the cuff remark about if there's anything else he wants to get off his chest, and it cuts to an imaginary scene of him telling his parents that he's gay and them both laughing. Of course he doesn't tell them, but in a way it still highlights the fact that, even though parents can tell their children they love them, the children still believe that telling their parents about their sexuality would actually change that.

The second program is Torchwood. I don't need to say anything about that, though they did get in an (awful) gag about eating alien meat.

The third program is Waterloo Road. The episode involved their gay character Matt, getting a phone call from his mother saying she was coming to visit. He shares his flat with his boyfriend, Colin, and in a panic, he removes all evidence of his boyfriend from the flat, hiding it in a closet (how ironic). When Matt tells Colin about this, Colin reacts badly, telling him basically that if he can't even tell his own mother that he's in a relationship with another man, then the relationship is over. It ends up that he goes to tell his mother, only to find out that she knew but never talked about it. After asking his mother to accept him for who he is, she leaves, but Matt is back with Colin.

The episode also has a school kid who thought he was gay simply because he didn't have sexual feelings for girls. It ended up that he didn't have sexual feelings for guys either, and Matt tells him that's just one of the pains of being a teenager.

I stopped watching Holby City and Casualty years ago, but when I used to watch it, I can recall them both having a gay character, and they ended up going out. This was during the time that I was accepting myself as being gay and it was the only link I had to the gay world. I remember, I always used to cringe when gay characters kissed on the TV and my mum was watching the program with me.

Hollyoaks has it's gay character as well, John Paul (much better than the one when I started watching, Nick); plus it has the polysexual transvestite Kris. Call them badly scripted and poorly acted if you want, but some of the storylines have been quite decent; and remember, it's not aimed at an intellectual 20 year old, it's aimed at the dimmer than average teenager.

Look, anyway, the point of this post is to say that for a gay male, there's a hell of a lot more gay characters on TV than people would have hoped for five years ago, and they do actually span a bit more of a spectrum than some articles might make them appear.

The storylines they tackle as well are much closer to home than expected. I'm not ashamed to say that I was crying during Waterloo Road about 45 minutes ago, because the scene they were acting out reminds me of how I feel. My mum might not have left my house saying she didn't want to know about my life, but she definitely isn't understanding and accepting. She threw a comment at me recently about how maybe I shouldn't put down my sexuality on flatmate ads because it might be offputting. I responded to her (an achievement for me), asking if she wanted me living with homophobes then? Of course, she couldn't answer that, but it highlights just how much of my life she doesn't understand and how little I think she wants to understand. I left the FFLAG booklet for her when I went home for Christmas (admittedly I left it under my bed and didn't give it to her, but still). She read it, and the best she could come out with was 'Can you print off that opening quote so I can give it to your Nana'. We need to talk about it properly at some point, but if i'm honest, I just don't want to. It's scary, and I can't ever imagine it ending the way i'd want it to.

I believe that having any gay character in a TV show is a step forward, no matter what they're like, and what storyline they play. Sure, we can always ask for more, and there probably should be more, but we shouldn't turn our noses up at what there already is.

Don't forget, Skins starts on Monday, and the first episode is dedicated to Maxxie (another stereotype, oh well).

Remember, Reflect, React

2008-01-27T17:32:00.000Z

Remember, Reflect, React is the theme of this year's Holocaust Memorial Day. The main events this year were (are) being held in Liverpool. On Friday I attended the laying of a pink triangle in memory of all the homosexuals who were persecuted during the Holocaust. There was a decent turnout, around thirty or so people, though I'm pretty sure I was the only one under 30 (and I was late, so technically, no under 30's were there at the laying).

I guess lots of young people just don't see the need to remember; the Holocaust was a long time ago and it's unlikely they know someone who was affected by it.

Possibly that's one of the reasons why people who organise HMD events have now expanded the idea to cover more recent similar events, such as the genocides in Darfur, Rwanda and Cambodia. Certainly, from a gay perspective, we can highlight the sexual cleansing that is happening in Iraq and Iran.

I urge anyone reading this to find out if there are any more local HMD events occurring near you, and if so, to go along and get educated.

As a final note, I feel I should add that, before the Nazi's came to power, Germany, particularly Berlin, was the apparent Gay capital of Europe. All of that changed so suddenly and so quickly, that we should never take what we have for granted.

I leave you with a short note on just one of the people that died during the Holocaust.

Henny Schermann was both a lesbian and a Jew. She was born in Frankfurt in 1912 and worked in a shop. She was arrested in 1940 and deported to the Ravensbruck concentration camp for women where she was categorised as both a "licentious lesbian" and a "stateless Jew". Henny was gassed at the Bernburg killing facility in 1943.

Another Suicide, Another Tragedy

2008-01-23T23:50:00.000Z

Should you have been listening to the radio or the news today, you would have read about yet another suicide; the suicide of Natasha Randall in Bridgend, the now branded suicide capital of the UK. I realise that this story isn't specifically LGBT, but I think suicide is a problem which we as a community face on a much larger scale than the general public. According to figures, one in five LGBT people have attempted suicide, so I think we as a group understand some of the aspects that lead people to suicide, and in turn we also realise the lack of support out there for young people.

I would like to point out a couple of things relating to this story. The first is my disgust at the appalling blame culture that the UK media and public have appeared to have decided on for this story, blaming cults and the internet and social networking sites, instead of looking a bit deeper and realising the lack of support provided to young people; the extent of bullying in schools; the levels of age inequality in the country.

The second point to make has been the lack of identity of bullying and homophobia in relation to these and other suicides. Sure, these people might not have been bullied and they might not have been gay, but I can tell you of one suicide, which was in Bridgend, which was because of homophobic bullying, and this is the suicide of Jonathan Reynolds, who committed suicide two years ago on Friday; and just because he falls outside the one year boundary, his story hasn't been picked up on. I have his story bookmarked, every time I read the story it makes me sad and I read it as a reminder of what i'm fighting for every time I waver.

I'll finish this post with a quote of the last few words of Jonathan, but not before I give you the number for The Samaritans who are there to talk about anything, 24/7 if you need to. 08457 90 90 90.

“Tell everyone that this is for anybody who eva said anything bad about me, see I do have feelings too. Blame the people who were horrible and injust 2 me. This is because of them, I am human just like them.

I hope they rot in hell 4 what they made me do. They know who they are.

None of you blame urself mum, dad, Sam and the rest of my family. This is not because of you."

Evil

2008-01-23T23:49:00.000Z

I've promised a couple of blogs, so here they come. The first one is on the tragic story that a 14 year old school girl from West Sussex committed suicide due to bullying, some of it homophobic.

To start, this story appears to have no follow ups since the initial day of posting, which is very sad. I guess we could hope for a coroners report soon, to possibly clear up the matter.

Bullying is obviously still a massive problem in schools, homophobic bullying included, and the schools down right denial that they don't have a bullying problem is laughable in the very least, and downright ignorant if viewed a bit more seriously. Bullying happens for many reasons; ignorance, for a laugh, insecurity, to name just a few. Of course, it isn't limited to schools, it happens in the workplace, volunteer positions, on a night out, pretty much anywhere actually. It is tackled by challenging the ignorance and prejudice behind it; we need to be teaching children that being different is ok and doing it in an effective way. Telling them bullying is wrong doesn't exactly tackle the cause of the problem; teaching and showcasing diversity does.

Now, to talk about my controversial use of the word evil. I've had it put to me that evil is the wrong word, that people aren't evil. I guess there are plenty of other words I could substitute for evil; selfish, vindictive, malicious, ignorant, cruel, intolerant, close minded, unforgiving; and yes I realise that some of your definitions of the word might not spread to that, but to me evil is all of the above. It's about doing things that would be viewed as being wrong to an equal society. I guess bullying must make you feel good, why else would people do it? I just don't think that bullying is such a part of human nature that children do it automatically. There has to be a decision behind doing it, however it's conceived, surely even on a most basic level there has to be a thought process that involves knowing that the target is likely to be offended, embarrassed, annoyed or upset by what you say.

Take a second just to imagine how much bullying a person would have to endure before they thought about suicide. The real shame is that so many other people must have witnessed this bullying and not done or said anything about it. Suicide is not something you decide on lightly. I gave it a lot of thought when I was a bit younger, though I hastily add that I never once considered doing it, I always came to the same solution that it wasn't worth the pain and suffering that it would cause, and that life does get better. I find it worrying that this young girl has not found any source of advice or help to deal with the bullying or to combat suicidal thoughts.

I will conclude, as this post is getting a bit long, that the fact that this young girl possibly took her own life due to bullying is incredibly sad, however pointing the finger of blame is not an effective way of dealing with the situation. Events like this should empower other people to make a stand, combat bullying and to educate others on what is, at least in my mind, a very evil act.

08

2007-12-31T23:55:00.000Z

The New Year is very close and annoyingly i'm home alone. Came back to Liverpool early cause of my new job and it appears everyone else had other parties to go to. The guy I was supposed to be joining has yet to text me that he's in town and the last train has already departed.

So yeah, maybe not the best start to the New Year, but it is made up by the fact that I have a new job which I start on Wednesday. It's working with Merseyside Police as a Custody Information Officer (read data input). I cross my fingers and hope it'll be enjoyable, but if nothing else I get some decent training and experience.

I thought i'd write down my New Year goals. I should say, while technically I didn't quite manage last years goal, I did get extremely close, so i'm quite happy about that. This year has been quite decent; there have been plenty of highs and lows, but I think i've achieved more this year than ever before, but I do hope to top that during the coming year.

So, my goals for this year.

1. Start swimming. I don't think I could cope with a gym, but swimming is doable, plus there's a pool reasonably near me. My goal is to join the pool and actually go along to it.

2. Get some flatmates. I live alone and i've two spare rooms. I want to find two flatmates, preferably very soon so they can start paying rent, but also for the company and the chance to make some new friends.

3. Enhance my volunteer roles. I currently hold three volunteering positions; here as regional coordinator, with my Union LGBT Committee as Campaigns Coordinator and as North West Regional Coordinator for the International Day Against Homophobia. I'd really like to push myself in these roles, make some worthwhile and notable achievements and be proud of myself.

No blog by me would be complete without some political statement, so i'll also list what i'd like to see happen this year regarding LGBTQ rights.

1. Parenting rights for LGBTQ couples.

2. Better and compulsory PSHE lessons in schools.

3. UK condemnation of international homophobia.

4. Legal and social Trans acceptance.

5. Full religious acceptance of LGBTQ people (I can be hopeful).

There's probably a few more, but none off the top of my head.

Not much remains but to wish everyone a Happy New Year. I hope 2008 brings you love, luck and happiness.

Adam x x

Christmas: A Family Affair

2007-12-25T01:53:00.000Z

Christmas is one of those times when most of us flock back to the family. To lots of people, that means a home cooked Christmas meal, some new Christmas blag and the same old annoying stories.

However, to some people, returning home is not an option. Parents that have kicked their children out, have estranged them or simply provide such an atmosphere that some people cannot bring themselves to go home are all the realities that some people face, and unfortunately this happens to a disproportionate amount of LGBTQ youths.

While a lot of these people will be spending time with alternative families; be they friends or families of partners, some suffer Christmas alone, just because of their sexuality.

This is a message for those that think that the fight for LGBT equality is over. Legal equality may be a stones throw away and the short line pulled by organisations like Stonewall that all we want is tolerance is pretty, but I don't think that tolerance is quite enough. Understanding and acceptance is a bit more in tune with my thinking. I'm talking about children being taught about homosexuality in schools from a much earlier age (instead of deciding homosexuality is a far too controversial subject for RS), parents being offered a much higher level of support if their children come out (instead of funding for FFLAG, the only parents support group running out), a much more regular and realistic casting of gay characters on TV and in films (6 minutes in 168 hours on the BBC, Clapham Junction on channel 4) and more financial support for those who are estranged from their families (google it).

I fear i've gone a little off topic, but the main talking point, if you've missed it, is estrangement, where someone's family refuses to talk to or see them, in this case because of their sexuality. The whole of the British legal system and support services revolve around the fact of family, and indeed you'll find it's one of the main talking points for most religious organisations. However family in this sense is referred to only in a biological way, not to those who may actually look after or care for someone. Friends are just not viewed as being important enough in the eyes of this country.

There needs to be a massive change in the thinking of this country that family is a blood tie.

I'd like to wish a Merry Christmas to those of you that plan on having one, Happy Holidays to those that don't and Warm Consolations to those that have an unfortunately unhappy day.

Hugs and Kisses.

Adam x x

Fagtale of New York

2007-12-19T01:51:00.000Z

“You scum bag, you maggot, you cheap, lousy faggot, Happy Christmas your arse, I pray God it’s our last.”

I've stolen the next part from the only comment i've read so far on the BBC News website that actually seems to not be insulting the BBC and claiming 'It's PC gone too far' or 'I'm gay and i'm not offended' or 'Damn lefties'.

However the question should be asked, what would you think if the line was (and apologies, these are meant as illustrative examples and are NOT meant to insult)

Your ego is bigger, you lousy ol' n*gger.
or
You're really spacky, you lardy arsed pak*
or
You're a pain in the bum, you skanky single mum

So, in my opinion, is it offensive, yes (using gay as a derogatory term), however songs on Radio 1 commonly use the words Bitch and Nigger.

Should they have censored it, yes, but only if they censored every other song at the same time.

Is this the BBC going PC mad, no, it's just someone being a bit stupid.

Unfortunately, something like this just shows the intolerance that British society still has for anything that would seem to resemble equal rights for LGBT people. Almost no one has gone 'Well, it was well intentioned, but probably inappropriate'. Instead, everyone calls for blood, with some people even blaming the gay employees of the BBC and drawing double standards with Jonathan Ross allowed to have his 'Four Poofs and a Piano' (But there are gay, it's not even offensive!).

View this as a step backwards for gay rights.

Love Thy Mother and Father

2007-12-10T13:54:00.000Z

Initially this was going to be my first post, but obviously I never got round to writing it.

This post is about a not so well support group for those in the LGBT community that are often forgotten about. These people are the parents of LGBT children, and this group is FFLAG (Families and friends of lesbians and gays). They've been around for a few years, though they're not very well known. The American and Australian equivalent, PFLAG (Parents and families of lesbians and gays), are much more known, though maybe because they need to be.

I recently read a book of letters from Australian parents of LGBT children (My Child is Gay by Bryce McDougall), and quite a lot of the letters brought me to tears. There was quite a recurring theme of 'We were religious, our child came out, we loved our child so we rethought our religion, we found a group called PFLAG, now we love them unconditionally', though I should add that there were a few alternative stories, a couple where the child died before the parents could accept their homosexuality and how they regretted it, even a couple from parents who still couldn't accept it.

I'll be honest, when I came out, I hadn't given thoughts to how my parents would feel about having a gay son (if you're curious, we love each other, but we don't talk about the gay thing) and now I feel it's a bit too late. Unfortunately, there isn't a support group in my parents area of the UK, otherwise I might have hinted towards them going to it. I always said I'd talk to my parents about being gay when I had a boyfriend; thing is, i've not managed that yet, or at least, not a long term one, so I just keep putting it off.

FFLAG are unfortunately facing funding difficulties. As the only organisation in the UK doing what they do, it's kind of sad.

I've kind of come up to a wall while writing this. I don't much like talking about my relationship with my parents, it makes me cry normally (and while writing this post is no exception), so i'll end here.

Don't talk to me, i'm HIV positive

2007-12-03T01:04:00.000Z

This one might be a bit controversial, so I apologise if I upset anyone.

On Thursday in Liverpool, i went to a Terrence Higgins Trust awareness pub crawl for GI Jonny (funded by the BBC). The idea was simple, we wore t shirts, went round pubs and bars and asked people to fill in a questionnaire about how much they knew about HIV. Everyone who filled out a questionnaire is put into a prize draw for a Wii and they were given awareness paraphernalia, such as sweets, a leaflet, dog tags and condoms.

We were doing quite well, we'd gone to 3 pubs already, when a woman came up to us and asked for a brief chat. She said she and her friends had been approached in one of the previous pubs, asked to do the questionnaire and were given the free stuff. Thing was, one of her friends was HIV positive, and she opened the condom packet and showed us the front message, which read 'There is no cure for HIV'. She said this had upset her friend so much that he shunned the campaign and went home. Her argument was that her friend didn't want to be reminded about the fact that s/he had HIV on a night out.

I'm not exactly sure what she wanted, probably just to vent, but all of us at the time, and everyone i've spoken to afterwards, including Body Positive (A Manchester HIV group) said that there was nothing we could do about it. This kind of advocacy work is one of the few things actually being done to tackle the stigma of HIV.

While I appreciate and am sorry that we upset this lady's friend, i'd do it again, because that's the small risk we take in doing an event like this. What would she we rather have done? Not done the campaign at all? Ask people when we went in to let us know if they were HIV positive so we shouldn't talk to them?

It is kind of sad that some HIV positive people feel the need to closet themselves from the world, but as we all know, being in the closet is one of the worst things in the world.

Is it too much to ask for equality?

2007-11-27T00:47:00.000Z

Today we hear that laws to criminalise incitement to homophobic hatred are on the rocks, because apparently we don't need them.

Laws outlawing inciting racial and religious hatred already exist, yet the arguments being used against this law were never used against them.

For those of you unsure, i'll sum up what the law is actually proposing. Inciting of hatred is about telling or encouraging people to hate, hurt, abuse or i any way treat unequally based on a singular aspect of them; i.e. being Black, Asian, Christian, Muslim, Gay or Lesbian. Situations highlighted in other articles have been homophobic lyrics in some reggae musicians songs or a Muslim espousing one of its fundamental tenets – that homosexuality is wicked and a sin.

Again the argument pops up 'If a Christian reading from the bible says homosexuality is a sin, will they be jailed'? My answer to that is, if they're spreading that belief to anyone but themselves, then yes, they bloody well should be. No one has the right to hate, belittle or think less of me simply because of my sexuality. These (and thank god it's only a small percentage of them) so called Christians who seem to think that it's their right to be able to discriminate against gay people need this kind of a jolt to tell them how fucking wrong they are.

I agree with laws to criminalise incitement to homophobic hatred because they send out a message, that no kind of homophobia will be, or indeed should be tolerated.

Does Every Child Need a Father?

2007-11-24T13:58:00.000Z

The House of Lords is today obsessed (or maybe i'm the obsessed one) with the fact that every child should, no, must, have a father.

My understanding of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is that it will allow gay or lesbian couples to both register parenthood of a child, that is to say a child could have two birth parents of the same gender.

For those of you that find that a bit strange, let's just outline some of the existing circumstances. A child can have one parent, either male or female, they can have multiple parents, with divorces and remarriages, they can have lesbian parents or gay parents, but not officially, they can have no parents. However, to have legally two parents on a birth certificate of the same gender is some sort of an abomination apparently.

There is some kind of Conservative and Religious (not all of them though) thought process that having legal lesbian parents would totally destroy family values. Every child obviously needs a male role model; children from broken or single parent households are obvious all under achievers, they're all the ones hanging about on the street corner, they're the ones on benefits, they're also the gay ones, the rebellious ones, the quiet ones and generally all the ones that aren't the stereotype child.

How stupid does that sound?

The argument against the legal recognition is that it's the rights of the child that are more important than the rights of parents. But you know what, i'm sure most children would happily accept having two mummies or daddies than no mummy or daddy.

This is just another case of people saying that heterosexuality is the norm and everything else is wrong.

Pink News - "Former Tory leader attacks lesbian parents"

The Times - "Archbishop condemns move to grant lesbians easier parenting rights"

BBC News - "Peers attack 'fatherless' IVF bid"

Homophobia isn't a straight issue

2007-11-20T01:25:00.000Z

I wasn't planning on writing this at all, my first blog was going to originally be something different, but something happened to a group of friends which just irritates me so much. Anyway, here's the story.

As we do almost every Thursday, the LGBT university groups in Liverpool go out on the scene for a night out. We visit various places, get pissed and end up in G Bar, which is where everyone always ends up. We got split up into groups, some of us going to different places, so i wasn't with my friends when this happened, but when they tried to get into G Bar, they were refused entry for looking too heterosexual. I mean what the *u*k?! We've been going there every Thursday for the last, what, two years now, and there's been a couple of incidents like this in the past, but we've got the Sexual Orientation Regulations now, these things aren't meant to happen. Who the hell are the bouncers to decide in a split second who is gay and who isn't?

I'm actually fuming. It pisses me off so much. We all know that the bouncers there are bastards, they are easily the worst bouncers on the scene, but this kind of discrimination is just so, so unjustified.

I want to make a complaint, and i will, we're arranging to meet the manager, though previous attempts to converse with managers have lead to excuses such as 'We don't allow large groups of people in, gay or straight' and 'We don't allow rowdy people in'. However, these other times haven't had me there. I know there's plenty more i can do than have a chat with the manager.

I'm thinking ahead of myself at the moment, totally blowing it out of proportion, but as i said, the sheer anger i'm feeling at the moment is driving my determination to make this right.

The most annoying thing is having read through the Sexual Orientation Regulations and realising how tokenistic they are. Sure, they make this kind of homophobia illegal, but the suggested resolution is to 'Talk about it'. You can take any complaints to the County Court, but the best you seem to be able to get is compensation for hurt feelings.