STI's & Rumours

[CandiceParis]

Hi ALL

We are NOT going to comment directly or indirectly on ANY of the above postings, HOVEVER, we would say there are a lot of inconsistancies in the Test Certs provided to us from Performers & Indeed to me as a Performer.

Only today we received a email from a London Clinic giving details of the results of a female performer (we will not provide her details).

We requested her results as she we will be working with others who have worked with her. We had been told that she suspected she had something, later she advised that she did not. And according to her Cert she was given the all clear.

BUT upon reading the email, we found that:

There was NO letter head
The email was sent at 2am

BUT more concerning to us, was these "test" showed as clear (negative)but there was fundermental gap in the tests. Neither her Throat or Recum had been tested for a STI.

Many many performers would accept this cert, but WHY??

Tests should be COMPLETE, & not testing the throat & rectum can give a false negative.

Until we ALL insist on STANDARD & COMPLETE TESTS for ALL then we can only accept that outbreaks WILL happen.

I mayself as a performer, can provide a minimum of FOUR months of clear tests to any female I work with. Maybe others should be more vigelant.

As we say we are not pointing the finger at anyone we merely say to ALL insist that you see and have a copy of the test cert of anyone male or female you work with. And makesure the cert is extensive. If you do virginal, oral, anal you can have a STD in any of those areas but not all!! So they should be tested.

Producers should read DUTY of CARE posting

Wishing everyone happy & safe performing

CandiceParis.com

[CandiceParis]

Hi ALL

Producers did you know:

That if you employ a model for a shoot(s) and do not request a copy of the perfomers health cert and another performer contacts a STD from working at your shoot, that performer can sue the Producer.

If the performer concerned can demonstrate that the Producer to not take REASONABLE steps to protect her/him the Producer can be found to be liable for lost of income & other damages.

Food for thought!!

I am sure there will be many that will disagree with us, lets hope a performer doesnt test you.

[Jacques]

The flip side to that is that Models also have a Duty of Care to themselves.

[Cenobitez]

Interesting Idea, that a performer should request to see everyone's certs, i'm sure that would lead to many arguments and show their own.

[bigAl]

CandiceParis is absolutely correct.

The 'Duty of Care' requirement imposed upon employers will always outweigh that borne by individual 'employees'.

Brief extract from H&S info on directgov website reads:

All employers, whatever the size of the business, must:

- make the workplace safe
- prevent risks to health
- provide protective clothing or equipment free of charge (if risks can't be removed or adequately controlled by any other means).

The question producers need to satisy themselves of is whether the current testing regime "removes / adequately controls" the risks involved.

[Tequila_Woods]

Producers arent employers as such though. All models/performers are self-employed so i wouldnt of thought that this would come under the regulations stated by the OP

[bigAl]

I quote from an earlier post on a similar subject:

Every "Employer" is required by law to comply with Health and Safety legislation, which means (1) providing a "safe place of work", and (2) supplying "appropriate protective equipment to guard against any known risk of injury or disease" (might this include using condoms by any chance?)

And before any producer/tog says that models are self-employed so it's not my problem, I'm afraid it's not quite that simple.

Only the courts can decide whether someone is an 'employee', should a dispute arise. Factors to be considered that would point to 'employment' (as opposed to self-employment) - and therefore legal liability to pay compensation - will include:

- the degree of control and direction over the work undertaken
- the provision of materials and equipment
- the contractual right to earn a profit from the work that person performed for you.

[Jacques]

Yes, but read the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 Section 7 - the onus is on the employee as well.

It's all very well quoting a piece of legislation stating that it's solely the producers responsibility when in actual fact it's not.

[porngirlsxrated]

bigAl wrote:

> I quote from an earlier post on a similar subject:
>
> Every "Employer" is required by law to comply with Health and
> Safety legislation, which means (1) providing a "safe place of
> work", and (2) supplying "appropriate protective equipment to
> guard against any known risk of injury or disease" (might this
> include using condoms by any chance?)
>
> And before any producer/tog says that models are self-employed
> so it's not my problem, I'm afraid it's not quite that simple.

BigAl

What you have failed to mention is that the quote is from something you posted that was later proved to be wrong

So congratulations on posting incorrect information for the second time

[bigAl]

Jacques - I didn't say that it's solely the employer's responsibility; I'm simply pointing out that the onus on the employer is far greater.

porngirlsxrated - If you'd have bothered to read on, you would have seen my later response.