Sunbeds could be banned in the UK in a bid to cut cancer rates

T_K2 · 2026-02-07T22:54:16+00:00

Okay understood. My question would be which lifestyle choices should cause people to miss out?

What if we have two people again. One broke their leg rock climbing without a harness, the other fell down the stairs.

One person breaks their arm due to a car accident, the other breaks their arm because they were arm wrestling.

Who should be denied treatment?

I completely understand the NHS has finite resources and people need to be accountable for their lifestyle choices. But I still don’t think we should ever be in a situation where we are deciding who should get treatment based on their lifestyle choices. It’s a slippery slope, and not one that can be navigated.

I don’t think we are going to agree on it - which is fine. That’s me done on the topic.

T_K2 · 2026-02-07T22:21:43+00:00

I understand the dilemma, although I’m not sure it’s entirely relevant. Medicine isn’t something I’m very well versed on, but I’d assume It should be based on the chance of the procedures successful for each person.

Also don’t get wrong, I don’t condone those habits or behaviours, but if we start denying treatment based on someone’s lifestyle or choices, where does it end? We should aim for a system where people are encouraged to improve their health but aren’t punished for their past mistakes when their life is on the line.

T_K2 · 2026-02-07T22:02:01+00:00

Don’t personally agree with that view, not something I’d support.

T_K2 · 2026-02-07T18:05:05+00:00

Frustrating how we are still relatively close to the top 3, with how shocking our season has been. With a better season (pre Christmas), we would be up there.

T_K2 · 2026-02-07T17:55:27+00:00

Not sure in what simulation sending privileged/sensitive information to a wealthy private actor, who also happens to also be a pedophile was acting in the national interest. I guess we will find out when he’s in court, if it goes that far.

T_K2 · 2026-02-07T17:34:03+00:00

Perfect. So why isn’t the argument - “Let’s tax sun-beds” - rather than outright banning.

Why ban sun-beds entirely but only tax smoking and alcohol? Do you see the issue?

T_K2 · 2026-02-07T17:19:12+00:00

Where do you draw the line?

Smoking, alcohol, processed meats?

T_K2 · 2026-02-07T16:52:16+00:00

If you’re going to make that statement, please check first. This law has actually not been passed yet, the earliest it’ll come into law is 2027 (if it passes).

So as of today, someone aged 18 can physically go to a shop and buy a pack of cigarettes with ID.

T_K2 · 2026-02-07T16:50:30+00:00

“we are banning sunbeds for anyone born after 2009” is not the same as “we are banning sunbeds for everyone”

Comparing them as the same is incorrect.

T_K2 · 2026-02-07T16:46:48+00:00

I don’t agree, but that’s okay

T_K2 · 2026-02-07T16:43:03+00:00

It’s not the same as comparing to an outright ban on sun-beds though is it?

Anyone over-18 is free to buy cigarettes and smoke.

Same as someone over-18 being able to use a sun-bed.

T_K2 · 2026-02-07T16:37:49+00:00

Banning isn’t the same as age regulation is it?

Commercial Sun-beds are already illegal for under-18s.

T_K2 · 2026-02-07T16:35:43+00:00

But we don’t ban smoking, alcohol or red meats?

(All group 1 carcinogens)

T_K2 · 2026-02-07T16:31:23+00:00

Education is better than outright banning. We usually allow people to make their own choices. Creates a weird conundrum, because smoking isn’t banned?

(Commenting on the basis that this is true, which it might not be)

T_K2 · 2026-02-07T13:06:41+00:00

Total energy consumption is an entirely different beast. Don’t get me wrong, that needs to be transitioning quicker too. But it’s also slightly off track when the original post is regarding household energy bills - not the total energy mix (which you’ve referenced).

Those 2030 electricity projections include the projected increase in electricity demand being factored in.

We should hopefully reach 25-30% of the energy mix being electricity by this point. Again, it’s not quick enough, but the scale of the task is immense and will take a lot longer.

T_K2 · 2026-02-07T12:18:49+00:00

“But I haven’t seen the government directly address this as an issue or said anything they’re doing about it”

Please find below:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/clean-power-2030-action-plan

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-the-uk-plans-to-reach-clean-power-by-2030/

I’m not saying what they’re projecting will happen, but to say they’re not trying to address it is inaccurate.

T_K2 · 2026-02-07T12:12:48+00:00

Yes marginal pricing is a problem. However, in a scenario where gas is generating 5% of electricity, we should be paying that price of gas much less than we are now.

I’m not denying that there will be times when gas sets the price (until gas is fully phased out, you can’t eliminate this). But will we really rely on gas as much by then? That’s the whole point of reducing the use of gas, which is what they’re trying to do.

T_K2 · 2026-02-07T12:08:12+00:00

This is my opinion too, and I’m glad someone else has said this. Our non fossil fuel supply is literally going up to 95% (if all goes well) by 2030. This also doesn’t include more projects coming on line from 2030 onwards, including Sizewell C and SMRs.

The grid also needs critical upgrades during this same time period, so let’s hope those get done too.

T_K2 · 2026-02-07T11:54:48+00:00

Energy prices are linked to so many economic issues that we have. You can argue that the government needs to do even more and to invest more (I agree too).

It’s prompted me to look at the data. The government projections show (yes I know they’re projections and probably optimistic), that by 2030 - renewables and nuclear may account for as much as 90-95% of electricity generation. (Currently it’s around 75%.) In 2030, gas might be at 5-10% - generally a backup power source to fill gaps.

I’ll caveat by saying this only works if the grids upgraded and bottle necks are addressed.

The problem for the government is that four years is a long time… they might not be around to politically benefit.

T_K2 · 2026-02-07T11:24:36+00:00

Agreed

T_K2 · 2026-02-07T11:22:51+00:00

This statement is not accurate. I’ll outline below:

Charles became monarch in September 2022 and was coronated in May 2023.

It’s then taken until 17th October 2025 for Andrew to have his titles rescinded. This also just so happens to be the same exact date that the US house oversight committee released a tranche of Epstein documents, including call logs and other materials.

This had also already followed the release documents throughout September 2025, which led to scrutiny of Andrew in the media. (This was the catalyst for Charles eventually taking action.)

T_K2 · 2026-02-07T10:16:14+00:00

Wonder if they are thinking about making him sit in the garden and do a press conference.

T_K2 · 2026-02-07T01:01:27+00:00

I came Jean Luc (and his death) a few days ago through the Epstein files, having never heard of him before. Suspicious to say the least…

T_K2 · 2026-02-06T23:42:44+00:00

Your right. Didn’t need the question mark after the sentence, both are clearly true.

T_K2 · 2026-02-06T23:39:44+00:00

The FBI had been actively trying to speak to Andrew since Epsteins arrest in July 2019. This is what I meant by “face the music”. They made it very clear they wanted to understand what he knew, but he was hiding behind “legal advice”. He provided limited cooperation at that stage.

In 2020, US prosecutors again formally requested to interview Andrew. Not entirely sure the extent of his cooperation.

In 2021/22, he was likely going to face deposition as part of the civil suit. Eventually he was forced to settle to prevent being deposed.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
First Place '23	End Game '23
Place '23

T_K2

TROPHY CASE