Complaints Procedure – Positive Moving On

From time to time you may wish to give feedback on our service, which we are always grateful to receive. You can find out how to do this along with our procedure of complaints by clicking on the link below.


Complaints Procedure – Positive Moving On


Our Commitment – Positive Moving On

The rapidly changing needs of society mean that a thorough renewal process for the aims of Positive Moving On exists to ensure maximum impact for the benefit of our community. Over the last number of months our vision has been assessed and amended to fit the framework of HIV in 2017. Please click on the link below to read our commitment which outlines the priorities of Positive Moving On.


Our commitment – Positive Moving On

“Let’s leave the 80s journalism where it belongs”

(Sent via email to Pink News by Andrew Goyvaerts)

To Whom it may concern,
Society talks about sensationalist journalism all the time, what it doesn’t talk about nearly enough is what happens when the topic at hand is something that will impact on an individual or community. While it might help along the career of a want-to-be Ann Leslie or Jeremy Paxman the industry must ask if it is principled to do so, even if editors view it as ethical.

Sensationalist journalism caught my eye again today when an article by Pink News led with “what is bareback sex and why is it dangerous” 

Let it be pointed out that the general theme has truth, bareback sex carries risk and information of those risks should undoubtedly be passed on to the public, however, let it also be pointed out that abstinence from bareback sex for many of those who are interested in it does not always work out meaning countless people who have read this article could suffer untold effects to their sex life along with their mental health given the concerns it has possibly raised for them, just one reason why directing to organisations that can help anyone effected by media content is beneficial and should be mandatory.
It might be possible to oversee this as something other than blatant sensationalism if the article came across as properly balanced or of educational benefit but that is not the case, instead it came across as a 1980s piece the only purpose of which was to breed fear and perpetuate stigma surrounding sex and STIs due to key bits of information being left out, like if someone living with HIV has an undetectable viral load they cannot pass on the virus to others during unprotected sex.

It also failed to mention vaccines that are available for sexually transmitted infections like hepatitis and HPV (although they were only referred to minutely while the broad context centred around HIV). 
At the same time it appears to have completely ignored the fact that even condoms are not effective 100% of the time. Credit can be given for mentioning PEP and PrEP but is that really enough? Have people living with HIV who were used as an example for an article that essentially seeks to raise site visits for Pink News truly benefited from its publication? 
Inevitably a small number will say “what harm if it prevents someone from being diagnosed with an STI” yet the problem with that reasoning is it throws millions of us who are living with such an infection under the proverbial bus. 

We deal with enough sensationalising from irrational individuals who still think HIV can be transmitted from kissing, we do not need a national publication sensationalising with them. 
Evidently it can surely be said no writer of such an article would intend to cause harm to actual lives which is why the time has come for the journalism community to really evaluate its purpose, does it exist to help or hinder society? Given the social angle of Pink News it would be implorable to do so. 
Let’s leave the 80s journalism and sensationalised stories where they belong and focus on all the up to date information that will educate people not make them afraid. They say fear comes from the unknown but much more of it and harm can come from sensationalised writing along with a lack of all the facts.

An open letter to/about denialists

   By Andrew Goyvaerts 



Lately all one comes by online, in particular social media, are stories from vaccine denialists. This is not a new trend with everything from HIV, to chemotherapy and the holocaust being subject of theories. When non deniers point out the impact of harm such theories can cause the rebuttal is “we have a right to question” well yes this is very true, everyone has the right to, and should, question things in life however, questioning is not what denialists are doing.
In most cases they are categorically stating their version of events are correct, that the other side is totally incorrect while concocting some cover up or another and completely ignoring facts. 

Scores of people who are living with HIV or contracted an illnesses long eradicated from general society through vaccination, listened to these ignorant views, so deviously constructed and cruelly aired, those people paid for it with their lives or that of their children. 
Does this fact not resonate at all? Is their any part within a denialist that imagines their child, niece, nephew, brother, sister or parent to be one those people who have died because of such untruths?

The answer to those questions we will never know, what we do know for sure is that numerous people have stated denialist theories as reason for failing to seek medical treatment, a lack of which has resulted in serious harm or death. Sure their are those who can say they have followed such theories only to live healthily, lucky them that they were not one of the many more who paid a very costly price. 
Realistically, in the era of technology society is experiencing it will never fully rid itself of stories like one shouldn’t vaccinate or take a certain medication due to mostly unfounded, outlandish claims but it can do a lot more to counteract and target them. 

To begin government should take it far more seriously, in the UKs case it is ultimately the government that will pay the price of an unhealthy person, health boards and trusts along with the uber rich pharmaceutical companies should conduct awareness campaigns to dispel myths that stem from denialism. Individually, people should be conscious of denialist theories in the hope that they do not fall prey in future, while these theories might not effect someone today they very well could tomorrow.
Finally if you are a denialist please realise the anguish you cause by targeting vulnerable people with unfounded or untruthful claims in what can only be described as a despicable act of selfishness. 

“Political system in Northern Ireland turns into a mix of Groundhog Day and Fossetts Circus”

Another deadline comes, another deadline goes and still Northern Ireland sits in limbo. In 1994 after years of conflict that led to more than 3,500 deaths with thousands more injured, the troubles of Northern Ireland came to an end. Paramilitary organisations put down their guns to herald in a new era of peace and reconciliation one where democracy instead of bombs ruled politics. In 1998 the Good Friday agreement was signed paving the way to a power sharing executive in Northern Ireland and with it came a new definition of democracy for the region.
Part of the sharing agreement meant that the largest nationalist and unionist parties would have to share power with the added power of being able to bring down the power sharing executive at a moments notice. This happened in January after a botched energy scheme was exposed and current First Minister (Arlene Foster), who launched the scheme, refused to step aside while an enquiry took place, this in turn led Sinn Fein to pull the plug before a budget had been put in place meaning services have been crippled.
On September 4th James Brokenshire, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was quoted in one newspaper as saying the window for negotiation talks was “closing rapidly” but two months later that rapidness has turned into snails pace with the electorate left both frustrated and bemused as the political system in Northern Ireland turns into a mix of Groundhog Day and Fossetts Circus.
When will it end is the question on most minds, what the hell am I going to do is clearly the question on James Brokenshire’ mind. Were this to happen in Westminster or Holyrood a speedy conclusion would be inevitable or be front page news across the country and the world. In Northern Ireland though it barely makes the bottom right column of page twenty, unless Bill Clinton flies in for a few hours yet as much as a spectacle as this is for Stormont it is compared to the embarrassment it places at the doors of Westminster, why is that?
Well Theresa May has broken records saying “strong and stable government” while appointing an indecisive, weak individual to watch over one of the most unstable territories on her books.

If it is not a sign of a weak and unstable government, it is a sign of a government that has too much on its hands to cope with Northern Ireland, is it any wonder if this is the case that Sinn Fein see reason to call a referendum?
Wether or not such referendum would be successful is another question but if Westminster can’t handle the workload people will only naturally wonder if there are other options. For now though let’s just wait for the clown car to pull up with two ladies in it.