Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Endinburgh Council
 
 
Saturday, 7th November 2009 Change Date

Government's sexual health campaign takes budget cut

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 11 November 2006
The Government launched a hard-hitting safe sex campaign today - but at a fraction of the original budget.
Its £4 million advertising campaign is in response to rising sexually-transmitted infection (STI) rates.

The campaign features teenagers wearing pants with slogans such as "I've got gonorrhoea".

The message is that people cannot tell by looking at someone whether they have an STI.

Campaigners welcomed the effort despite the revelation that the Government will spend less than it originally intended.

In 2004, it pledged to spend £50m on advertising over three years.

But Public Health Minister Caroline Flint refused to confirm that the Government would meet this pledge.

Rates of STIs have risen since the 1990s, with one in nine sexually-active young people being diagnosed with chlamydia.

In July, the Health Protection Agency revealed sex infections rose by three per cent to 790,387 between 2004 and 2005.

Ms Flint said sexual health was a key priority.

She said: "

This is not about encouraging promiscuity but saying to those who are already sexually active: sex without a condom is seriously risky so always use one."



The full article contains 213 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 11 November 2006 10:39 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Sex education
 
1

Topcat,

Glasgow 11/11/2006 17:54:01

"Rates of STIs have risen since the 1990s, with one in nine sexually-active young people being diagnosed with chlamydia."

During this period we have been promoting condomistic sex...so what do we do?? Where is the new strategy??

According to Caroline Flint:
"This is not about encouraging promiscuity but saying to those who are already sexually active: sex without a condom is seriously risky so always use one."

2

it has always been allan,

11/11/2006 19:11:13

well done what do you suggest

3

Doreen,

Glasgow 11/11/2006 23:21:41

Condoms need to be cool for kids, start getting the trendy singers promoting them, male and female. There is still a degree of stigma attached to a female carrying a condom, as being seen as easy or a 'slag'....this needs to be tackled.

4

Jana,

Utah 12/11/2006 06:58:05

I think the sad part to the whole article is that their is one... We should be touting abstainance, not protection. Condoms and birth control only delay the inevitable consequences we face as a society when we refuse to address the only true and lasting answer to this question...

5

Harriet P,

Edinburgh 12/11/2006 17:41:58

#4 Touting abstinence is merely promoting an ideological belief to which not everybody corresponds. It is, however unwelcome it may be, a fact that people and particularly teenagers will have sex. This is not a bad thing. What is a bad thing is teenagers having sex without complete knowledge of the potential dangers, and appropriate information on how to avoid them. It is, inarguably, not practical to believe that advertising alone will lead to the appropriate cultural shift necessary to instigate abstinence as the cultural norm; therefore, it is only practical to prevent the spread if STD's through the promotion of contraceptives such as condoms.

In this light, I think it is shameful that budget cuts have been made; it portrays a disappointing pictue of our society if economics are more important than the health and wellbeing of our poplation.

6

Mark Rogers,

London 13/11/2006 09:47:12

It is very ill-advised for anyone - let alone a taxpayer-funded government department - to pledge to spend a certain amount on advertising over a certain period of time. Spending money on advertising does not magically equate to changing attitudes or raising awareness. The government should instead commit to such a measurement (e.g. raising the awareness of the issue, or the incidence of young people seeking advice) and then the outcome can be measured. Announcing that you have a big budget for advertising simply advises the advertising professionals that you have more money than sense.

7

Simon M,

13/11/2006 10:24:29

I assume that a sub-editor on the News mistakenly lifted this story from the PA newswires and was unaware that health (and health education) is a devolved issue.

This story applies to the Department of Health in England and entirely separate strategies and campaigns are in place in Scotland.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.