Kermit!!!

Miss piggy been playing away?
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images...3/CWEwG9GS.jpg

'A prominent LGBT blogger has hit out at The Daily Mirror for publishing an "insensitive, backward-thinking, blame-ridden" poll asking readers if they sympathised with an unnamed Hollywood star who reportedly has HIV.

The Sun controversially splashed on Wednesday on claims a "superstar" had contracted the virus, which was condemned as "irresponsible" by campaigners.

Susie Boniface, better known as 'Fleet Street Fox', revealed her distaste for the celebrity and attacked the man in a piece in The Mirror, The Sun's left-wing rival. "I don't feel sorry for him," Boniface wrote.

The column, published on Thursday, said: "I’m sorry I can’t strangle him with a cheap condom he couldn’t be bothered to use, and I can only hope his former lovers sue him so hard that he does at least die in the same misery, poverty and pain as so many others do."

Some readers took contention with Boniface's piece, but they reserved particular scorn for a poll within the article that asked: "Do you feel sorry for the famous actor with HIV?"

A total of 77% of respondents said they did not, while 23% said they did, according to the screengrab.'

Wow :/

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015...n_8544426.html

But it's still not a public matter. It's between the celeb and whoever they choose to have sex with.

"Ya gotta laugh son"

WHY Is the naming of Cliff Richard being interviewed by police as part of a 400 year old sexual assault allegation, the media circus being tipped off by police as to their search of his house, and the further interview by police a year or so later - all with no charges being brought - more acceptable to some than the possible naming of a 'superstar' who has allegedly contracted HIV through indiscreet promiscuity?

Allegedly, Cliff may be a pervert ('allegedly' and 'may' being the key words) but is he really such a danger to others that naming him BEFORE he has actually been arrested, charged, and convicted, can be justified as a public duty? Whereas, if this 'superstar has HIV and is still promiscuous, naming him CAN be justified as being in the public interest - forwarning possible sexual partners being paramount.

Just asking.

Personally, I've never been a supporter of people being exposed in the media before actually being found guilty of their crimes.

Nor me Marsh, nor me.

At first glance I thought you were outing Cliff Richard as the guy with HIV... then I remembered "womanizer" lol.

Well I can only speak for myself but personally I was against all the publicity surrounding the Cliff Richard issue as well, or any situation where someone has their name dragged through the mud without there being any real evidence. Generally I'm not the kind of person who is interested in anything to do with celebrities anyway so the circus that erupts every time a celebrity MAY have done something just annoys me, especially when there's real news going on elsewhere.
I disagree though that the naming of this celebrity would be in the public's interest as a way of forewarning potential sex partners, because that's not the way we deal with people who have HIV. The only possible reason for doing it in this case, is because he's a celebrity. But I think when it comes to medical issues they should have the same right to privacy as the rest of us. I know it doesn't exactly work out that way and he will probably end up being named regardless, but that's my stance on it anyway.

There is no comparison, being investigated by the police for historic abuse may make you subject to a media witch hunt the rights and wrongs of that can be debated.
But to be hounded, pilloried, mocked, judged and vilified for having a disease?.... That's a different kettle of fish.

I am heartened by the responses thus far, because I agree with all of you.

"naming of Cliff Richard being interviewed by police as "

Cliff has Nothing at all to do with this,

Its a Hollywood Superstar
not a Great British Singer

Celebs are entitled to a private life, and this particular area is very private indeed.

Would we expect the person to have to make a public announcement if they had a heart condition, or diabetes ? No, we wouldn't. The only reason there is press speculation is to sell papers

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...actresses.html

A porn star has said she is scared Hollywood would be hit by a HIV epidemic after the Hollywood actor bragged about sleeping with 50 acctresses.

She revealed she attending a party with 5 other porn star in 2011 where she had sex with the star left her pregnant after a condom slip but she was given a all clear after going for tests and had a abortion.

She also revealed that 4 successful porn stars have left the industry in the last few years after encounter's with him have left her feeling they picked up the disease.

It also reveals he is Bisexual.

So,A bisexual middle aged Hollywood superstar.Wonder who it could be?

i really need to know who this is. i hope this story doesn't just fade away. i'm sooooo freaking curious now!

Not that anyone should think it's any of their business, but...

No shock at all if it is him. He's probably riddled with hepatitis and every other disease under the sun.

Yes could be

(ok well this article is a little less subtle about it)

But he isn't bi-sexual?

couriser and couriser ??????

Had to Edit the thread
as another Thread was made
http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...d.php?t=291885

Screaming

He Does not Have to Be


Some Women Have it

No most of the articles said the person was bi-sexual