The price of oil has changed a lot in the last few weeks. There have been dips as well as peaks, but generally, since the the start of the US-Israeli attacks on Iran at the end of February, the black stuff has been getting more expensive.

As a direct result, petrol and diesel prices in the UK have also rocketed.

Motorists have felt the steep rise on petrol station forecourts, while some fuel sellers have been accused of profiteering and ripping off customers. There have also been calls for the government to intervene to prevent costs from spiralling out of control.

But what can it actually do to bring petrol prices down?

One option might be to impose price caps, setting a legal limit on what motorists can be charged for a litre of fuel. But a major problem with this idea comes down to a lack of supply.

Taking the Strait of Hormuz as a perfect example, if fewer tankers from Kuwait and Qatar are getting through, that means there is less oil available. As stocks runs low, it is impossible for everyone to get the same amount of fuel at the same price as before.

If price caps were introduced (with the supplier taking on the full impact of the discount), the countries and firms with oil to sell would naturally shift their sales to countries willing to pay higher prices. So a price cap would probably lead to empty petrol pumps in the UK.

There have already been shortages in France, where one major fuel provider implemented its own price cap and was subsequently inundated with customers.

In contrast, high fuel prices may persuade households to cut down on consumption, which is helpful when there is less oil available. After all, people don’t switch from travelling by car to public transport (which is often less convenient) unless there is a good reason to do so. High fuel prices are a good reason.

Research suggests that in the UK, a 10% increase in petrol prices can lead to a reduction in demand of up to 5%. So, high prices are a way of adjusting consumption to cope with the lower supply.

Duty calls

In the longer term, households might invest in a way which reduces their dependence on future fossil fuel consumption. Maybe, instead of a big SUV, the next family car will be be smaller or electric.

In the short term, though, demand for petrol and diesel will remain. Not all commuting and travelling can be cancelled or postponed. People need to get to work, children need to go to school.

A more promising policy intervention could be temporary fuel duty discounts – reducing the proportion of fuel costs which ends up in the Treasury. Unlike with price caps, oil exporters’ incentives to sell in the UK are not diminished by reducing fuel duty. So fuel duty cuts wouldn’t cause supply issues.

The issue here is that fuel duty cuts reduce government revenue at a time when it is already seriously stretched. Fuel duty receipts account for almost 2% of UK government income.

Also, the measure is not very targeted. Wealthy households with multiple vehicles would benefit more than a single mother struggling to pay for petrol to get to work.

Making allowances

Another option, favoured by some economists, is based on one-off transfers of money from the state directly to some motorists.

Instead of fuel duty cuts, the government could pay out a fixed sum to those in particular need (much like the winter fuel allowance for heating bills). This could be paid to households under a certain income threshold that own a car.

When a similar transfer scheme for gas was implemented in Germany in 2022 after Russia shut off gas pipelines, firms and households received compensation based on past consumption. Germany was able to reduce its gas consumption by about 20% during that time.

Unlike a fuel duty cut, compensation does not change depending on the amount of fuel bought. So the incentive to cut down on fuel consumption wherever possible remains.

Indeed, households that leave the car at home will profit, as they keep the transfer. This is as it should be: households that use less fuel get rewarded, while those that need it still have some support.

Many economists like this proposal because it keeps prices as an accurate reflection of supply shortages, while providing targeted relief. Neither price caps nor fuel duty cuts achieve this.

The Invermen are wounded going into the 1pm kick-off at Windsor Park on Saturday after suffering a 4-1 defeat at home to Coleraine on Tuesday

Larne boss Gary Haveron has reminded his players they are where everyone else wants to be as the league leaders travel to the reigning Champions for huge game in the title race.

The Invermen are wounded going into the 1pm kick-off at Windsor Park on Saturday after suffering a 4-1 defeat at home to Coleraine on Tuesday, having played an hour with 10 men.

That defeat saw their lead over Glentoran cut to three points with three Premiership games remaining.

This could be another pivotal day in the title race, but Haveron was keen to point out that any other team behind them would swap places with his side as he looks to steer his hometown club to their third title in four seasons.

“We need to be in the best shape possible come Saturday,” he said.

“We also need to show character, we need to show grit, determination. We need to have people who are ready for the fight on Saturday.

“We know it’s going to be difficult on a big pitch at Windsor, but we have to dust ourselves and be ready to go again.

“At the end of the day we’re top of the league and three points clear – we’re still where we want to be.

“Anyone would rather in our position than anywhere else so it’s up to us to take advantage of that and to give ourselves the best chance in these last few games.”

Tuesday’s defeat to Coleraine was their second in four days, having also suffered Irish Cup semi-final disappointment after extra-time against the Bannsiders last weekend.

“It’s incredibly small margins against all the top teams at this stage of the season,” he said.

“Last Saturday there was nothing in the game really and on Tuesday the big decisions went against us.

Advertisement

“We can’t dwell on that though, we have to be looking ahead to give ourselves the chance of being in the best shape.

“We dusted ourselves down this week and it was all about what we need to do going forward.”

Larne boss Haveron went with the same XI in both the Cup and league defeats to Coleraine, but may look to freshen things up ahead of the early kick-off on Saturday against David Healy’s side.

He added: “After Saturday I knew the players were hurting and I wanted to give them a chance to put it right.

“Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. As a manager sometimes you have to hold your hand up and reflect on things and ask what we could have done differently.

“Hindsight is a wonderful thing and now we have to react in a positive way.”

Having won all four league games and overseen Irish Cup progress away to Glentoran in March, Haveron was named as the league’s manager of the month yesterday.

He is now hoping to kickstart another impressive run of form in the last month of the season.

“It’s always an honour to win this award, it would not be possible without the help of our backroom staff and the players, who have worked so hard this season,” he said.

“Unfortunately, we’ve not carried our March form into April with the two defeats against Coleraine.

“But that’s football. There’s still plenty to play for with three massive league games between now and the end of the season, starting with Linfield on Saturday.”

Click here to sign up to our sport newsletter, bringing you the latest sports news, headlines and top stories

Marriage, it turns out, may come with a side‑effect no one puts in the vows: people who have been married seem less likely to develop cancer than those who have never married at all.

That is the provocative finding from a large new study that has raised interesting questions about what really keeps us healthy over a lifetime. If marriage shows up in the data as “protective”, is it love that matters, the piece of paper, or something much bigger hiding in the background?

In this analysis, researchers looked at cancer diagnoses in more than 4 million adults across 12 US states, representing a population of over 100 million people. They focused on cancers diagnosed after the age of 30 between 2015 and 2022 – a modern snapshot taken in an era when same‑sex marriage is legal nationwide, so marriage includes more people than ever.

Everyone was divided into two camps: those who were or had ever been married, including divorced and widowed people, and those who had never married at all. Around one in five adults landed in this never‑married group, a sizeable minority whose health has often been overlooked in traditional family‑centred research.

When the researchers compared the numbers, the gap was impossible to ignore. Men who had never married were about 70% more likely to develop cancer than men who had married at some point, while women who had never married were about 85% more likely to develop cancer than women who were or had been married.

More advantage to women

That last figure is especially notable, because many earlier studies suggested that men gained more from marriage than women. Here, women appear to gain at least as much, if not more. And the differences grew wider with age, especially after 50, when the consequences of decades of habits – smoking, diet, exercise, medical check‑ups, or the lack of them – finally rise to the surface.

The gap was not the same for every cancer, which is where the story becomes more revealing.

For anal cancer in men and cervical cancer in women – two diseases closely linked to infection with the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV) – the differences were enormous. Never‑married men had around five times the rate of anal cancer compared with men who had married.

Never‑married women had nearly three times the rate of cervical cancer. These are precisely the cancers where preventive tools already exist: HPV vaccination and regular screening to catch pre‑cancerous changes early.

The study’s authors suggest that being married may increase the chances that someone is nudged into attending those appointments, or into having more stable healthcare and insurance.

Elsewhere, the pattern echoed long‑known biological themes. Cancers such as endometrial and ovarian cancer were more common in never‑married women, which may reflect lower rates of childbearing, since pregnancy and childbirth alter hormone exposure in ways that can reduce risk, as research my team has undertaken shows.

By contrast, for cancers strongly influenced by organised screening – breast, prostate, thyroid – the differences by marital status were smaller. Screening levels the playing field, regardless of whether someone has a spouse reminding them about their appointments.

Even race played an unexpected part. Black men who had never married had the highest overall cancer rates in the study, yet married black men actually had lower cancer rates than married white men, hinting that marriage might be especially protective in some groups.

Nothing magical about marriage, per se

So does this mean marriage itself somehow protects people from cancer? The researchers are careful to say no. Their study shows a pattern, not proof that marriage is the cause.

The real question is whether marriage makes people healthier, or whether healthier, wealthier and better-supported people are simply more likely to get married in the first place. People facing serious mental illness, addiction, chronic illness or deep poverty may be less likely to marry, and those same struggles are also linked to a higher risk of cancer. In that sense, marriage may be less a cause than a sign of other advantages that begin long before anyone walks down the aisle.

There are other reasons to be cautious, too. The “ever married” group bundles together happily married people with those who are divorced or widowed, despite the fact that those experiences can look very different in practice. Meanwhile, the “never married” group includes people in long-term relationships who may receive much of the same support as married couples. The researchers also cannot fully account for differences in income, education or access to healthcare – all of which strongly shape cancer risk in their own right.

Even so, the study points to something important. People who are or have been married are more likely to have someone encouraging them to see a doctor, to share financial resources and health insurance, and to be less likely to smoke heavily or avoid medical care. Over many years, those small differences can add up, shaping the risks people carry and influencing which cancers eventually develop – and which never do.

If you have never married, none of this is a personal health verdict. What the study really underlines is the need to ensure that the quiet advantages so often bundled with marriage – social support, gentle “nagging” to seek help, easier access to healthcare – are not reserved only for those with wedding photos on the mantelpiece.

Single people, widowed people, those who live alone or outside traditional coupledom, may need more targeted support to get to screening, to be offered vaccinations like HPV, and to have their concerns taken seriously. As more people choose to stay single, or to build lives outside marriage, those questions will only become more urgent.

In the end, this study is less a love letter to marriage than a reminder that our bodies are shaped not just by genes and chance, but by the social structures we move through. The people who notice when we’re unwell, encourage us to book that test, and help determine whether we can afford to act on that advice may leave traces visible years later under a microscope. The deeper challenge for public health and policy is to deliver the benefits of connection, stability and access to care to everyone – including those who never say “I do.”

As the price of making, and paying for, video games continues to increase, a reader argues that publishers need to roll the clock back a decade.

A couple of weeks ago it was revealed that $300 million is now a normal sized budget for triple-A video games, which is an absolutely crazy amount. To put that in context, that is more than all but 18 of all movies ever made. That’s right, there are just 18 movies that have ever cost more and even the most expensive, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, is only $536 million, which is bound to be way less than GTA 6 and maybe others.

If $300 million is becoming the standard that means some games will already be more than that. Marvel’s Spider-Man 2 was already over it back in 2023. So just imagine what Marvel’s Wolverine, or the new Fable, or Naughty Dog’s Intergalactic: The Heretic Prophet must be costing.

I don’t think you need me to say that these price are outrageous and unsustainable, especially because they’re constantly going up, and will have a major bump when the (completely unnecessary) next generation starts. Budgets are rising all the time and yet the total number of people playing console games hasn’t increased since the PlayStation 2 days.

These numbers do not make any sense. The fact that they can only get worse makes even less sense. And the fact that not one single publisher is doing anything about it (even Nintendo’s games are getting bigger budget, more expensive, and taking longer to make) is absolutely crazy. Especially as this problem has been obvious all generation.

I don’t know why publishers won’t do anything about it, but I assume it’s the all or nothing logic that has had so many of them wasting all their time and money trying to make the next Fortnite. I think I can guarantee that they will learn nothing from the success of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 and other indie games.

Just to remind you, Expedition 33 was made by a core team of just 30 people on a budget of less than $10 million and yet has sold well over 5 million copies (I could only find numbers that go back to last October). And that’s for a game that was almost universally named the best game of last year, had great graphics, and lasts over 40 hours.

Whether you like the game or not is not the point, the point is if some random team of ex-Ubisoft developers can do that then so could any reasonably talented, and motivated, team.

The graphics in Intergalactic and Wolverine, and whatever else, are going to be great, I’m sure, but there is absolutely no way any video game should be costing over $300 million. Is Wolverine going to look 30 times better than Expedition 33? That’s literally impossible.

We need to tell publishers that we are fine with good graphics. We do not need them to be amazing graphics, if that means the budget increases by 3,000% and the game becomes more expensive to buy.

I’m not against big budgets just because it’s gross and a waste of money but because it limits what games can be. If you’re spending $300+ million on a game you’re not going to want it to be some wildly experiment thing that you don’t know is going to be a hit. You’re going to want it to be as safe and predictable as purpose, to try and attract as many people as possible.

Expedition 33 isn’t just a good game it’s a pretty weird one, while also paying homage to old school turn-based role-players that even Square Enix doesn’t give a big budget to nowadays.

I didn’t really mean to make this about Expedition 33 so much but it’s such a good example of what should be happening with games right now and yet big publishers aren’t paying it any attention.

I’ll break it down, as to what needs to happen:

• Lower budgets – if you’re not GTA than anything even close to $100 million is madness
• PlayStation 4 level graphics – we didn’t need this generation let along the next one, the improvement is tiny and the cost (in every sense of the word) is ridiculous
• Shorter run times – simply making shorter games would instantly cut your budget, especially as people are sick of every other game being a 60 hour epic; how much free time do you think we get?!
• Cheaper prices – the other benefit of Expedition 33 is that it’s below average price, but if you make your game shorter and with lower-tech graphics that’s not a problem.

Look at the most successful games – everything from Fortnite to Among Us to Minecraft – and you won’t see high-tech graphics anywhere. Ordinary people don’t care about graphics, they care about having fun and we should all take that attitude.

Publishers think that hardcore fans demand better graphics and I say we tell them otherwise. There needs to be a campaign to make graphics worse. I know how that sounds but what it really means is to make games cheaper, because the actual decrease in graphics will be so minimal no sensible person will care anyway.

By reader Togi

The reader’s features do not necessarily represent the views of GameCentral or Metro.

You can submit your own 500 to 600-word reader feature at any time, which if used will be published in the next appropriate weekend slot.

Just contact us at gamecentral@metro.co.uk or use our Submit Stuff page and you won’t need to send an email.

MORE: The one ZX Spectrum game from 43 years ago that needs a remake – Reader’s Feature

MORE: Sony has not choice but to release the PS6 in 2027 but it’s huge risk – Reader’s Feature

MORE: Why did TV companies never try to cover video games properly? – Reader’s Feature

“Sentebale’s problems played out in the public eye, enabling a damaging dispute to harm the charity’s reputation, risk overshadowing its many achievements, and jeopardising the charity’s ability to deliver for the very beneficiaries it was created to serve,” said Charity Commission chief executive David Holdsworth.

Liverpool’s woeful season is close to ending but Arne Slot’s side will be welcoming a Fulham side looking to frustrate the Reds further at Anfield

Under mounting pressure and looking to stop a four-match losing streak, Liverpool boss Arne Slot takes his side into a key Premier League meeting with Fulham at Anfield on Saturday evening. The teams meet again a little over three months after a dramatic 2-2 draw at Craven Cottage, where Harrison Reed thundered in a superb long-range equaliser in the 97th minute.

Liverpool are, quite simply, in serious trouble. Since the start of March they have managed just two wins in eight matches in all competitions, and they go into this one on the back of three straight defeats, having been outscored 8-1 across those losses.

Following last weekend’s heavy 4-0 FA Cup quarter-final defeat to Manchester City, the slide continued on Wednesday with a 2-0 first-leg loss to Paris Saint-Germain in the Champions League — another damaging blow in a competition that has again ended in disappointment. Their last Premier League outing, before the international break, was also a setback, going down 2-1 at Brighton.

The league numbers since gameweek six (27 September) are alarming for the reigning champions: Slot’s side have lost 10 Premier League matches in that spell, winning only nine, and their 34 points in that period has been bettered by 11 other teams.

There is at least a safety net, with fifth place set to be enough for Champions League qualification. Liverpool currently sit fifth with seven games remaining, five points behind fourth-placed Aston Villa and only three clear of Everton in eighth.

A return to Anfield may offer some comfort, given Liverpool have been beaten just once in their last 13 home games in all competitions. Even so, they have not won any of their last three Premier League meetings with Fulham, and only once have they endured a longer winless league run against the Cottagers — four matches between 1966 and 1967.

Fulham, meanwhile, have found form after a slow start to 2026. Having won just twice in their first eight league games of the year, Marco Silva’s side have since taken three wins from their last five, including a 3-1 home victory over relegation-threatened Burnley three weeks ago.

Over the last six gameweeks, only four teams have collected more Premier League points than Fulham’s 10, and only Bournemouth and Manchester United (both nine) have won more points from losing positions in 2026 than the Cottagers (eight).

Ninth in the table, Fulham remain firmly in the European conversation, sitting just two points off the top seven and five behind Liverpool in fifth, with seven matches to play.

To climb higher, though, they will need to improve away from home. Fulham have the Premier League’s fifth-best home record this season, but rank 17th for away form, with 15 points from 15 games and eight defeats.

History is also against them at Anfield — Fulham have won just two of their 32 league visits — and they may need to lean on their late-game strength again. No side has scored more Premier League goals in the final 20 minutes this season than Fulham (18, level with Liverpool), while Liverpool have conceded 18 in that same period, more than any other club.

Liverpool vs Fulham Prediction

18+ | Gamble responsibly | gambleaware.org | Odds subject to change

Liverpool vs Fulham Team News

Liverpool remain without Alisson Becker (muscle), Wataru Endo (ankle), Conor Bradley (knee) and Giovanni Leoni (ACL). Alexander Isak is back after a broken leg and is available, but he is not expected to start, so Hugo Ekitike should lead the line again. Mohamed Salah is pushing for a recall after being unused against PSG, while Cody Gakpo and Florian Wirtz are also options in attack. Curtis Jones could come into midfield, and Jeremie Frimpong and Andrew Robertson may return at full-back.

For Fulham, Kevin (foot), Kenny Tete (ankle) and Harrison Reed (knee) remain out, but Calvin Bassey (back) should be fit to start. Timothy Castagne is set to continue at right-back, Antonee Robinson at left-back, and Raul Jimenez will compete with Rodrigo Muniz up front. Harry Wilson is expected to keep his place, having contributed 16 goal involvements this season (10 goals, six assists).

Football Betting Offers

If you are on the lookout for the latest free bet offers, then look no further. Here, not only do we bring you numerous free bet offers, but all from the very best betting sites in the industry. Each bookie we recommend is fully licensed and regulated by the UK Gambling Commission, so you know you are always betting on a safe and trustworthy site.

Check out the Mirror Betting Hubs Free Bets offers here.

Full terms and conditions apply | gambleaware.org | Gamble responsibly | 18+ | UK only

READ MORE: Free Bets & Bookmaker Sign Up Offers

Gamble responsibly

Reach plc is committed to promoting safer gambling. All of our content and recommended bets are advised to those aged 18 or over. Odds are subject to change too.

We strongly encourage our readers to only ever bet what they can afford to lose. For more information, please call the National Gambling Helpline on 0808 8020 133 or visit gambleaware.org.

It seems bizarre to say now given his dominant position, but there was a spell on Friday where you felt McIlroy was still not playing close to his best – the stats show he ranks 90th in the 91-man field for accuracy off the tee.

Some drives off the tee were being sprayed, some approaches with his irons were not as precise as they should have been.

Ultimately, it didn’t matter. Because since he won the Masters last year, there is not a melodrama every time he makes a bad shot at a major.

His short game was exceptional throughout the second round and when everything else clicked just after the turn, he motored through the back half in fabulous fashion.

McIlroy has learned how to be patient around Augusta. That seems to spell bad news for the rest of a leaderboard stacked with Green Jacket wearers, major title holders and Ryder Cup stars.

Staying even-tempered at the most famously punishing golf course in the world is a trait which two of the big names chasing McIlroy also recognise is necessary to succeed there.

Three-time runner-up Justin Rose, who is tied fourth, is targeting his own redemptive win after losing to McIlroy in last year’s sudden-death play-off and credits his own patience for his back-nine climb up the leaderboard on Friday.

“Early on things were tough out there. But I settled down and built the round back up,” said Rose, who is seven behind McIlroy after a three-under 69 on Friday.

“It’s a continuation of being on the leaderboard from last year and keeping the dream alive. I need to keep it as free as I can.”

Ireland’s Shane Lowry, who had a run of 14 successive pars, joined English pair – and victorious Ryder Cup team-mates – Rose and Tommy Fleetwood on five under par after two birdies in the final three holes.

“I was hitting good shots and just wasn’t converting but I was patient out there,” said Lowry, whose sole major win came at the 2023 Open.

But there is another contender, also from that European band of brothers, who has not yet learned how to stay calm at Augusta.

Tyrrell Hatton might have to learn quickly if he is going to push McIlroy.

The 30-year-old Englishman knocked in seven birdies on the way to a six-under par 66, seemingly carding the round of the day only to be matched by McIlroy.

“I definitely don’t stay calmer or more patient this week. If anything, I am probably more on edge,” said Hatton.

“I will just take each shot as it comes and see what we end up with.”