To be pleased this man has been jailed for passing on herpes

[Mitmoo]

He told his girlfriend he deliberately infected her so no on else would ever want her.

The 29-year-old admitted causing grievous bodily harm by giving the sexually transmitted infection to his then partner, Cara Lee, 23.

But sexual health experts and charities have called the decision to imprison him ?outrageous?.

It is the first time anyone has been convicted for passing on herpes.

Golding, who works for the Highways Agency, kept his infection a secret when the couple were together in 2009, and later denied it when confronted by his partner, Northampton crown court heard.

After finding out she had been infected, Ms Lee moved out and reported him to police in March 2010.

?The injury you caused by this infection is at least or more serious than an injury leaving a scar because it carries continued recurrence, extreme discomfort and consequences for relationships she will have in the future.?

David Everett, defending, said his client was ?extremely stupid but he did not do this in a premeditated way.?

Read more: www.metro.co.uk/news/872576-man-jailed-for-14-months-for-giving-girlfriend-genital-herpes#ixzz1WbSBVFXd

I have no sympathy for him. Sexual Health experts are outraged. Debate has just been on R5L. I think if you have an STD then the other person deserves to know the risks they are taking if you know them.

MillyR

Golding was advised to enter a gulity plea by his Lawyer. The 'deliberate infection' statement was denied by him,and is an unsubstantiated claim from his ex-girlfriend. She accused him when Golding ended the relationship several months after the original infection.

The Judge handed down such a severe sentence due to confusion between HSV and HIV.

Like it or not, the odds are that you have the virus, and even when asymptomatic, you can still infect someone. Unless you want us all in Hazmat suits from birth you have to accept that risk.

CD, there are times when people are more at risk of spreading the virus. You can reduce the risk, not remove the risk. Who is arguing otherwise?

It is rather like we take precautions to avoid spreading flu. It doesn't mean that we can guarantee that we will never give someone else flu.

It is about being sensible and not taking things to an extreme. Just because most people have it doesn't give any of us the right to not take precautions where possible.

I was infected with genital herpes by my husband at the start of our relationship due to oral sex when he was starting to develope a clod sore. it is nothing to do with a change in behaviour for many cases. My subsequent outbreaks have been few and far between and much milder to the point I don't even know if it is an outbreak and considering you are most infectious at the start when before you might be aware of an outbreak. This really can happen to anyone. The image that herpes has really isn't helping.

MillyR since 50% of carriers never have a symptom but can have viral shedding at any (unknown) time, and the other 50% can also have viral shedding at any (unknown) time, it's very difficult to avoid spreading. The only way to avoid passing it on is to take aciclovir all the time which is impractical and not great for your health.

Of course you can avoid sexual contact while you have a sore and in the 10 days afterwards but at some point it's more than likely that it will get passed on. I picked it up 2 years into my relationship and my H hadn't had a sore for several years at this point.

Yes, I don't see a contradiction between what we are saying.

People can avoid passing it on at time they know there is a definite risk; at other times they can't avoid it.

The issue of children catching it is down to people kissing children. That is part of a much wider issue about boundaries for people who are not the immediate family of the child. That is something most children are now taught about at school.

Onagar- you have to declare communicable diseases which includes HIV, if you had AIDS, you wouldn't be well enough to work, anyway. It is a new ruling across social care. You cannot do many roles if you have a communicable disease. They think that 1 in 10 people have one over the age of 25 but don't know about it, anyway, so the risk is there without a diagnosis.

I don't see what the debate is tbh, it is an offence against a person, so if he was guilty, he should be sentenced to whatever the law deems fit.

BGF, I think it is an issue for people because they think it might cause further stigma to people who have the virus on their genitals.

MillyR- but it is written in law. Why should the law be confined to HIV?

Onagar has already mentioned AIDS. I am sick of correcting people about HIV and AIDS.

I would like the stigma of all STD's removing, sex is a part of life and if you ever do it, you can catch a disease. I don't mean that you shouldn't try to keep yourself safe, but i would just like the shame element gone.

BGF, yes I agree with you. I was just explaining what I think other people have an issue with.

I don't think herpes is like HIV so am not happy with it being treated the same. If you know you have HIV you know you have it. As others have said so many of us have the herpes virus already from cold sores as children. It is too easily passed on with the carrier not always knowing they have an outbreak or at the start of one before the symptoms are apparent. I was told at the time you can pass it to yourself from cold sores to the genital area. I think i was also told that even having the virus lying dormant from cold sores can still cause outbreaks in other areas but it was many years ago so not sure of the facts. I think this is demonising many people who have it and in an uneducated way. I'd imagine the majority of people would not knowingly spread this but many people seem to believe it's quite a simple black and white situation.

I think this guy's lawyer must have been not the full shilling!

I mean, how does the woman know for certain that she didn't have the HSV for 20 years before she met this guy?! I can't believe that didn't come up in the case. To me, as a juror, it would be hard to say that he gave it to her "beyond all reasonabledoubt" because, as Eric rightly points out, she already had the virus herself, more likely than not

I think it does not help herpes sufferers at all, in terms of stigmatisation

I'm also surprised that he pled guilty or was perhaps advised to as defence strategy. I also think it would be hard to find a jury sure enough to reach a conviction on a case like this.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1282481-AIBU-to-think-a-14-month-sentence-for-passing-on-herpes-is-thin-end-of-wedge

the thread

Well the man for the Herpes Society (sorry - can't remember what the real name is but he was the expert on the radio this morning) said the lawyer was clearly incompetant and the man was wrongly advised. So because he pled (pleaded?!) guilty, a jury didn't have a chance to listen to the case

TBH the whole "debate" on the radio this morning was a farce. It was a really bised, emotive interview with the "victim" who obviously put her side while Victoria Derbyshire made empathetic noises. About 2 hours later this expert came on - but of course, he was shouting against the tide by that point because she had already got the listeners sympathy. It was extremely shabby "journalism" imho

Yes thanks Auntie - I read that thread too but thisone's on the front page today so shoot us.

Birdsgottafly thanks for the info. I'm glad to hear it's now illegal to keep HIV and serious illnesses hidden (and you are right I meant HIV not AIDS really). The last time it came up on the news was ages ago and back then they said it was a human right to keep it secret.