Olive oil futures grow by 300%.

The High Court has stated that the NHS is able to fund the ‘prep’ anti-hiv drug. Now I, and probably many more, strongly object to the taxpayer funding a drug which has been termed a ‘get-out-of-HIV-lifestyle’ drug. I object because the drug is taken as a routine prophylactic by homosexuals who have sex with other homosexuals on a promiscuous basis without any condom protection.

I object in the strongest possible fashion to taxpayers’ cash being used to fund a hedonistic lifestyle in the allegedly ‘gay’ scene; and I am also strongly opposed to the massive costs of antiretroviral drugs being handed out ‘on the hoof’ to homosexuals who have been infected by this disease; infected primarily and principally because of their ‘lifestyle’ choices.

If men wish to engage in anal sex, which is against nature itself, that is their choice, but they should engage in these totally risky activities outside of the protections afforded them by the Health Services of this Country. They can indulge in as many ‘friendships’ as they wish, but if they wish to do so without the protection of condoms; they should be told, quite firmly, that the risk is all theirs.

Those who have routinely called for this drug to be available on the NHS dismiss the approach that condoms should always be used for homosexual activities on the basis that such use is not always available on the grounds that it denies ‘spontaneity’ and deadens the thrill, are just, in my view; supporting routine promiscuity which was so evident in the San Francisco bath-houses which stemmed the rise of HIV and AIDs in the first place. Not for nothing were HIV and AIDs first described as the ‘gay plague’.

If that manner of sexual conduct is what you wish and desire; good luck: but don’t ask the British taxpayer to fund your ‘lifestyles’.