In my last blog I wrote about the complex matter of blood donation rules and gay men. I looked at the question of whether the rules are discriminatory – men cannot currently give blood if they have had sex with another man in the previous 12 months. The conclusion was that they are not discriminatory if they are a reasonable and evidence-based attempt to protect the safety of the blood supply. Is the 12 month deferral for gay men reasonable and evidence-based? We suspect it may no longer be so and the rules need to be reviewed to ensure no discrimination is taking place.

It’s National Blood Week and this year the call for blood donors is more urgent than ever with the announcement that the number of donors has fallen by 40% over the last 10 years. With such a crisis in donation why is it that there remains a restriction on any man giving blood who has had sex with another man in the previous 12 months? This week sees many calling for an end to such restrictions as unnecessary and discriminatory – as well as counter-productive given the shortage of donors.

Tomorrow is London Pride. NAT will be there marching in the sun (we’re still hopeful). It is an amazing event and, even if it does rain, draws a huge crowd of supporters, there to celebrate successes and campaign for LGBT rights.

On 11 November the Mirror published an article online called 'The Hollywood actor with HIV deserves everything he gets – and worse'. We have written a letter to the Mirror to complain about the stigmatising nature of the article. The letter is below.

For many in HIV advocacy addressing stigma is the Holy Grail.

“It is time for us to step up and acknowledge that stigma and discrimination still act as the greatest barrier to us defeating this disease once and for all.”