No, Keith, I do not say those things.

Look.

I say that a generalised African-style epidemic is unlikely in Western Europe. Is that clear enough for you, Keith.

The UN says the same thing.

You say the same thing.

Is that clear now?

I say that there has been a 500% increase in heterosexual UK-acquired infections year on year. That is true, you do not dispute it.

You said "there is no risk to our heterosexual population. That is wrong and dangerous.

I say that there has only been a 74% increase in homosexual infections over the same period. That is true, you do not dispute it.

I say that behaviour alone is not what differentiates straight from gay or black from white. HIV is spread by unprotected intercourse. The prevalence of other diseases, acquired by unprotected intercourse, in straight people proves that the behaviour alone, of straight people, is just as risky as is the behaviour of gay people.

So what differentiates the groups is some other factor. It is wrong to say that homosexual practice and behaviour alone is the 'cause' of gay HIV prevalence. It is no more the sole-cause than is the behaviour of straight people.

Do you agree to those things? They are the things I am saying. They are simple, they are right in front of your nose. Everyone can see them as well as you can. So answer me. Do you agree these things? Yes, or No?

As a secondary issue, de Cock says that what differentiates is sexual networks. Those worst affected happen to be in sexual networks where there are tighly overlapping sexual, or other-vector, relationships.

That is prostitutes and their punters, sexual minorities with a greatly reduced pool of available partners (like gay men) and needle-sharing drug users. I had to introduce "other-vector" networks because, of course, junkies don't necessarily contract HIV sexually, the vectors in their network are the needles they share.

The generalised epidemic in Africa started in tightly overlapping sexual networks but spread because of political or labour-driven mass migration of male workers that provided the high-volume sexual networks necessary to propagate the disease - prostitution and prion-style homosexuality and, to some extent, rape as weapon of war.

They then took the disease back home and infected their families and children because of ignorance about the disease and lack of access to healthcare and treatment. Bingo, generalised epidemic.

That is unlikely here for all the obvious reasons. We are very lucky not to live in such political, economic and social conditions. We have healthcare and treatment on-tap.

But anyone practicing risky behaviour is at risk of contracting HIV. Go to any town-centre nightclub on a friday or saturday and you'll witness a real meat-market of overlapping sexual relationships. Things probably won't get 'Africa' on us, but they could get pretty fucking back for a lot of people. The risk gets worse with every carrier out there - diagnosed or not.

Unless we get stronger intervention, support, socially tolerant and inclusive attitudes, pervasive general - as well as targeted - education programs.

The last paragraph is, of course, my opinion but it is also advocated by UNAIDS and every UN government.