General News Thread

[CornwallFox]

4 hours ago, kenny said:

It's a Tory policy they want rid of. As far as I'm aware the Tories aren't proposing to change it, though it probably does need some reform as it stifles smaller developments.

 

Lib dems support the current bng policies and want to make them more onerous.

 

Whoever is in charge, we should be building in our cities not the countryside.

We need to build in both. Only 5% of the country is built on. We need to build and people want to live in different sort of locations. There's no reason we can't build in all types of location and still do plenty of good around biodiversity as well. 

[Alf Bentley]

5 hours ago, Claudio Fannieri said:

Cannot believe what I am hearing, the reasons and justifications for not implementing a national screening programme for #prostatecancer is absolutely scandalous, yet again men’s health & well being is secondary. 

 

1,300 lives are saved every year as a result of the national breast screening programme surely this evidences the benefits of such screening programmes. 

Gutted for everybody involved at @ProstateUK and @prostateunited who work tirelessly to try and support men and find funding for research, testing and treatment.

 

@ftfagos's excellent flow chart clarifies the screening dilemma. But there is also no real equivalence with mammograms: prostate cancer screening is more complicated and uncertain than breast cancer screening.

 

Prostate cancer screening/testing generally has 3 stages:

1. PSA blood test: Raised PSA may indicate prostate cancer. But it may indicate various other conditions, such as benign prostate enlargement or a urine infection. PSA tests are also vulnerable to false positives and false negatives. A PSA test alone is nowhere near enough to diagnose prostate cancer. So that leads to....

2. MRI scan: This offers a better indication of whether it is cancer or not, but is still inconclusive. In some cases, the scan will strongly suggest an aggressive cancer or no cancer (but can still be wrong). But in a lot of other cases, they come back saying it is unclear whether or not it is cancer - various shades of grey, as regards diagnosis.

3. Biopsy: Only at this stage, is the diagnosis close to 100% reliable. The biopsy is low-risk but not risk-free. Nor is it pain-free, as it involves local anaesthetic jabs to the perineum (skin between scrotum and anus), then perhaps a dozen samples taken via a contraption involving a spring-loaded needle directed at speed into the prostate either via the anus or the perineum. Not pleasant, but quick-ish...

 

(I'm neither a medic nor someone with an axe to grind, just someone who went through these screening/testing stages a few months back).

 

Please remember 2 key points that are often overlooked:

 

- Prostate cancer often has no symptoms until it has spread and usually can no longer be cured, only held at bay. You often see publicity mentioning possible symptoms like disrupted urination. These can be valid - but can also be misleading, as a lot of men with prostate cancer have NO noticeable symptoms.....a reason to get tested if at all possible, in my view.

 

- As well as a higher risk to black men and to men with close relatives who had aggressive PC, there is also a higher risk to men with close female relatives who had breast cancer or ovarian cancer. My understanding is that this is linked to the BRCA gene issue. It would be a damn sight more useful for authorities to publicise this connection, rather than to keep mentioning BRCA genes, given that very few people are likely to get their genes tested - but people usually WILL know if close relations have had a serious and relevant cancer diagnosis.

 

To finish on a more positive note, it should be remembered that most prostate cancers grow slowly. Unless you're unlucky and get an aggressive variant (like me), provided the cancer is identified in good time, many men will have years before they need treatment - and many more will never need treatment, just "active surveillance" (regular monitoring) of a cancer that will never kill them. This ties in with ftfagos' flow chart...

[Lionator]

11 hours ago, ftfagos said:

This is point 13 from the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) criteria for appraising the viability, effectiveness and appropriateness of a population screening programme:

 

 

13. The benefit gained by individuals from the screening programme should outweigh any harms, for example from overdiagnosis, overtreatment, false positives, false reassurance, uncertain findings and complications.

 

Harms of treatment can include impotence, incontinence etc

 

Prostate biopsy also comes with it’s own hazards.

 

Then there’s the not inconsiderable anxiety of false positives.

 

 

This debate reminds me of stuff like arguments over ‘zero suicide’ where morally it sounds like absolutely the right thing to do, then you realise how utterly miserable and restrictive society would be to ensure that nobody ever died by suicide. 

[kenny]

8 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

We need to build in both. Only 5% of the country is built on. We need to build and people want to live in different sort of locations. There's no reason we can't build in all types of location and still do plenty of good around biodiversity as well. 

It's more like 9% in England, once the Highlands, N.Ireland and Snowdonia are removed.

 

All out of town developments are constructed for a car based lifestyle. So they are not the developments of the future, but an outdated model.

 

The current government policy is to force development into the countryside and have reduced housing targets on cities by 50%, which is an appalling policy. It's a politically motivated and a short sighted, destructive policy that belongs in the 1990s.

[Raj]

15 hours ago, JonnyBoy said:

Didn’t you get that @Raj banned or demanded his picture to be changed and starting calling him names.. “numpty” if I remember rightly 

 

kin’ell mate you’ve had a mare here 

Oh yes he sure did.

Didnt like that I posted the Jewish star of david after the Manchester attack.

Got me banned and called me all sorts!!!

 

I've forgiven and forgotten though!!🤣🤣

[CornwallFox]

7 minutes ago, kenny said:

It's more like 9% in England, once the Highlands, N.Ireland and Snowdonia are removed.

 

All out of town developments are constructed for a car based lifestyle. So they are not the developments of the future, but an outdated model.

 

The current government policy is to force development into the countryside and have reduced housing targets on cities by 50%, which is an appalling policy. It's a politically motivated and a short sighted, destructive policy that belongs in the 1990s.

Do people want to buy in cities though? 

 

I know some do but usually as you get a family or get older you don't want to, so housing is needed elsewhere too. 

Some new MK type towns could be built to create new hubs perhaps with both town and country living. 

 

The car based developments is a good point and I do hate the new estates with literally nothing but houses on them. That should be looked at to ensure proper hubs are developed. 

 

The 15 minute city idea is a fantastic one, but obviously there is a group of people, let's call them the reforbrexiters, that have convinced themselves it's all a conspiracy.

Edited 29 November 2025 by CornwallFox

[kenny]

2 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Do people want to buy in cities though? 

 

I know some do but usually as you get a family or get older you don't want to, so housing is needed elsewhere too. 

Some new MK type towns could be built to create new hubs perhaps with both town and country living. 

 

The car based developments is a good point and I do hate the new estates with literally nothing but houses on them. That should be looked at to ensure proper hubs are developed. 

 

The 15 minute city idea is a fantastic one, but obviously there is a group of people, let's call them the reforbrexiters, that have convinced themselves it's all a conspiracy.

We need to accept we have rental society moving forward, a more European model. We currently view apartments as being for the young and poor. We need more PRS rental schemes with 3 bed family units in cities, where the public transport, schools, hospitals etc are already in place.

 

Each time we build 3000 houses somewhere, they need a school. So we build one. The houses have some HA units, but are mostly £350k minimum in price. So people with money move there for a car centric lifestyle probably from a city. At this point, the schools in the city have to shrink as the birth rate is going down. So we are building new schools at great cost, not because we need them but because we encouraged the middle classes to move away from the existing ones.

 

The current master planning mentality is ludicrous and wasteful.

 

What would be better, a standard housing Estate with tiny gardens and cars littered everywhere. A place with little communal space outside those designated for bng. Or a properly designed sets of apartments with properly managed gardens and play areas for children. (I've never designed apartments with play space in 25 years in this industry). Most social housing folk have little interest or regard for their outdoor space anyway and it's usually too small for children to play, so why not ditch it.

[CornwallFox]

6 minutes ago, kenny said:

We need to accept we have rental society moving forward, a more European model. We currently view apartments as being for the young and poor. We need more PRS rental schemes with 3 bed family units in cities, where the public transport, schools, hospitals etc are already in place.

 

Each time we build 3000 houses somewhere, they need a school. So we build one. The houses have some HA units, but are mostly £350k minimum in price. So people with money move there for a car centric lifestyle probably from a city. At this point, the schools in the city have to shrink as the birth rate is going down. So we are building new schools at great cost, not because we need them but because we encouraged the middle classes to move away from the existing ones.

 

The current master planning mentality is ludicrous and wasteful.

 

What would be better, a standard housing Estate with tiny gardens and cars littered everywhere. A place with little communal space outside those designated for bng. Or a properly designed sets of apartments with properly managed gardens and play areas for children. (I've never designed apartments with play space in 25 years in this industry). Most social housing folk have little interest or regard for their outdoor space anyway and it's usually too small for children to play, so why not ditch it.

I'd like to see properly designed developments. I think we probably both agree on the terrible designs we see. I'm just not convinced people need to accept being a renting class and living in apartments. 

 

We need to remove landlords from the house buying equation is what we need to beyond anything else. 

 

It's always been the case that young people congregate near cities, grow up and have families and move away. What you describe is simply that. Moving well off families out to be replaced by the young is what's always happened. 

[CornwallFox]

BBC News - No 10 denies Reeves misled public in run-up to Budget

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gex225p5jo

 

Desperate stuff by the Tories. Complaining that the economy is better than they thought which apparently means the chancellor should be sacked 😵‍💫

[Zear0]

13 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

BBC News - No 10 denies Reeves misled public in run-up to Budget

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gex225p5jo

 

Desperate stuff by the Tories. Complaining that the economy is better than they thought which apparently means the chancellor should be sacked 😵‍💫

Nothing to do with the economy, OBR were expected to correct an error they'd made during the previous government that overestimated the productivity forecasting.  She knew this wasn't as bad as predicted but claimed it was the rationale for making some decisions in the budget with an untrue basis.  Don't for a second think she should be sacked, but you're misrepresenting that story.

[foxes1988]

53 minutes ago, kenny said:

It's more like 9% in England, once the Highlands, N.Ireland and Snowdonia are removed.

 

All out of town developments are constructed for a car based lifestyle. So they are not the developments of the future, but an outdated model.

 

The current government policy is to force development into the countryside and have reduced housing targets on cities by 50%, which is an appalling policy. It's a politically motivated and a short sighted, destructive policy that belongs in the 1990s.

In England 8.7% is 'developed' land if you go with 'built on' it is about 2%.  Obviously depends how you define things like built on doesn't count residential gardens or outdoor recreation. And developed land doesn't include agriculture. These rural industrial estates make up 62-72% of England's land use. Only about 15% is natural. 

 

We should utilise cities as much as possible but I think any notion that no land outside of cities should be developed on is farcical.  Converting some agricultural land into 'developed' or mainly 'natural' land I think is a good thing

[kenny]

15 minutes ago, foxes1988 said:

In England 8.7% is 'developed' land if you go with 'built on' it is about 2%.  Obviously depends how you define things like built on doesn't count residential gardens or outdoor recreation. And developed land doesn't include agriculture. These rural industrial estates make up 62-72% of England's land use. Only about 15% is natural. 

 

We should utilise cities as much as possible but I think any notion that no land outside of cities should be developed on is farcical.  Converting some agricultural land into 'developed' or mainly 'natural' land I think is a good thing

What did agriculture ever do for anyone?

[foxes1988]

4 minutes ago, kenny said:

What did agriculture ever do for anyone?

What did nature or houses ever do for anyone?

[kenny]

1 minute ago, foxes1988 said:

What did nature or houses ever do for anyone?

Tru dat.

Let's not bother with any of it.

[leicsmac]

Come on people...

 

Without biodiversity, agriculture becomes difficult to the point of impossibility. 

 

Without agriculture, preserving biodiversity isn't going to mean much. 

 

It's clear a balance is needed. 

[foxes1988]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Come on people...

 

Without biodiversity, agriculture becomes difficult to the point of impossibility. 

 

Without agriculture, preserving biodiversity isn't going to mean much. 

 

It's clear a balance is needed. 

Of course.

 

I think moving say .5% from 'undeveloped' agricultural land to 'developed' land isn't going to make a big difference. If we're moving anything away from agriculture though ideally it should be towards nature.

[CornwallFox]

1 hour ago, Zear0 said:

Nothing to do with the economy, OBR were expected to correct an error they'd made during the previous government that overestimated the productivity forecasting.  She knew this wasn't as bad as predicted but claimed it was the rationale for making some decisions in the budget with an untrue basis.  Don't for a second think she should be sacked, but you're misrepresenting that story.

It's a total nonsense. 

Particularly from a party that spent a decade and a half pretending things were better than they really were

[CornwallFox]

44 minutes ago, kenny said:

What did agriculture ever do for anyone?

Only 70% of land is used for agriculture. There's plenty left 

[kenny]

Just now, CornwallFox said:

Only 70% of land is used for agriculture. There's plenty left 

Particularly if the growing population eats less food than before. It could help with the obesity crisis in a 2 for the price of 1 problem solver?

[Trav Le Bleu]

A very valid question for the introduction of tax on EVs.

 

Cross border electric car drivers call for more detail on new tax - BBC News

 

https://share.google/HELkNp5u6I1F4EjBw

 

Obviously (so obvious that it's mindboggling that there's no answer yet) going to be a big problem in Northern Ireland.

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, kenny said:

What did agriculture ever do for anyone?

Ok... so apart from feeding people, employing people, managing the countryside, providing construction materials, providing clothing, providing fuel, feeding animals, provided festive decorations and flood management... what has agriculture ever done for us?

[CornwallFox]

46 minutes ago, kenny said:

Particularly if the growing population eats less food than before. It could help with the obesity crisis in a 2 for the price of 1 problem solver?

The amount of land used for agriculture isn't going to go up

[Zear0]

1 hour ago, CornwallFox said:

It's a total nonsense. 

Particularly from a party that spent a decade and a half pretending things were better than they really were

I don't care what they did. They were inept, corrupt and lazy. It's a new government and frankly using the "Tories did it" excuse is just embarrassing. 

[CornwallFox]

Just now, Zear0 said:

I don't care what they did. They were inept, corrupt and lazy. It's a new government and frankly using the "Tories did it" excuse is just embarrassing. 

They weren't inept, corrupt or lazy. 

The budget was fine and we're doing better economically that all the naysayers were moaning about. 

 

[Tommy G]

46 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

They weren't inept, corrupt or lazy. 

The budget was fine and we're doing better economically that all the naysayers were moaning about. 

 

He was on about the tories mate.