jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (52 posts)

It will cost the British taxpayer £12m to host the Pope...

  1. 0
    ryankettposted 6 years ago

    Whilst our government lays off public sector workers, and increases various taxes, it appears willing to make us all pay £12m ($18m) to host a visit from the Pope for 4 days.

    The last census concluded that 9% of the inhabitants of Britain consider themselves to be Catholic. The Vatican is estimated to be worth $10bn - $15bn.

    The Catholic Church is selling officially licensed MEMOROBILIA to commemorate the visit. Souveniers will include £30 Swarovski bracelets, key rings, and £15 baseball caps.

    Now, as an irreligious individual, and considering that 13% of the population consider themselves to have no religion whatsoever, why the F am I expected to contribute towards this?

    This is precisely what is wrong with the world, the 'elitists' looking after themselves, turning every well publicised occassion into an opportunity to make more money. The Catholic Church and their merchandisers make a profit out of gullible suckers, the taxpayer pays the expenses, and the government doesn't give two monkeys because it doesn't effect them.

    He can stay at home as far as I am concerned, I don't want to fund his network of peadophiles.

    1. Paradise7 profile image85
      Paradise7posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Spelling, Ryan....pedophiles....But really, friend, I just don't understand why it should cost the UK SO MUCH to have the pope visit???  Isn't 12 million pounds a whole lot of money for FOUR DAYS???  How could he spend, or have spent on him,  3 million pounds per day????

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Security!
        Imagine how many people want to rip him a new bottom? smile

        1. Paradise7 profile image85
          Paradise7posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          3 million pounds buys a WHOLE LOT of security people.

      2. alternate poet profile image79
        alternate poetposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        typo - should be   paedophiles

        1. Paradise7 profile image85
          Paradise7posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I wonder if this is yet another instance where the English spelling is different from the American????

          (So sorry, Ryan.)

    2. 0
      sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      So figgin' corrupt all over the world.  I am so sick of it!

      1. Paradise7 profile image85
        Paradise7posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You are SO RIGHT!  No value exchanged for money received, especially tax money, in a corrupt society!

  2. LaMamaLoli profile image70
    LaMamaLoliposted 6 years ago

    I thought you had a point - until the last sentence. Too harsh. I don't think we should fund his visit, and I am catholic...

    1. 0
      ryankettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Please explain how the last sentence changes the point?

      1. LaMamaLoli profile image70
        LaMamaLoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I probably didn't express myself clearly. I agree with your point that we shouldn't have to fund his visit - the church should pay for it. But I felt the last sentence about network of pedophiles was a bit harsh. I don't think every priest is a pedophile.

    2. 0
      ryankettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I don't detract what I said in my final sentence though.

      1. LaMamaLoli profile image70
        LaMamaLoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        didn't expect you too...lol

  3. worldgrandeur profile image65
    worldgrandeurposted 6 years ago

    Why doesn't he fund his visit considering the fact that the Vatican is worth $15bn? Those merchandisers that you mentioned are just profiteers who don't give a rat's butt to the importance of any political or religious incidents! Well, hang in there.

    1. 0
      ryankettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No, the merchandise is officially licensed and financially
      Benefits the vatican city and the catholic churches of britain.
      I don't have an issue with the opportunists, I'm not paying
      For them. Just so long as they pay their taxes themselves.

  4. Richard Craig profile image76
    Richard Craigposted 6 years ago

    I completely agree.  There is a lot of other things that need funding that can make a difference to society.  I hope the £12m party is a blast, otherwise I want my money back.

    Why don't they use a system like music artists do.  Use a venue, if they have the fans, they get the profits.  I know I wouldn't buy a ticket though.

  5. pylos26 profile image76
    pylos26posted 6 years ago

    sad sad sad.

  6. Uzdawi profile image36
    Uzdawiposted 6 years ago

    £12m ...just for the visit, seems awful lot.They should give the £12m to Top Gear, at least that´s something worth watching.http://www.cslacker.com/images/file/mediums/the_pope.jpg

  7. IzzyM profile image86
    IzzyMposted 6 years ago

    £12m is a drop in the ocean to the government. Seems like a lot to us but it's tea money to them.
    I don't see anything wrong with a visit from the pope. I remember the last time he came to Glasgow  20/30 years ago (different pope obviously) he was greeted with something approaching hysteria, and the thousands of  people that got to see him were eternally grateful as they had no chance of travelling to the Vatican to see him.
    There are a huge amount of practising catholics in Scotland as well as high numbers of infirm people to whom the pope gave his blessings and spread a little happiness around.
    Oh and I'm not Catholic, but he is an important figurehead to those that are.

    1. puebloman profile image60
      pueblomanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Izzy. I loved your Hub on the Scolopendra centipede. Definitive and very important where we live. I thought it was the most poisonous bastard in Spain til I heard of his holiness's visit. He will come to the UK (and Spain), eat and drink at the expense of the poor, defend paedophilia and attack contraception. The least he can do is pay his own way

      1. Daniel Carter profile image91
        Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        lol

        I think you nailed.

  8. thisisoli profile image63
    thisisoliposted 6 years ago

    I am definitely atheisst, however I think the amount that the British government spends on churches (And mosques) overshadows this £12 million by quite a large amount.

    While I think that Britian does have more important things to spend it's money on right now, is it possible that this 12 million will bring in stimulous from tourism and internal spending? The pope usually draws quite a crowd.

    Fortunately as an expat I couldnt's give a flying proverbial!

  9. Flightkeeper profile image78
    Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago

    The pope is a head of state.  How is this expense any different from our president visiting and giving you guys a headache?

    1. thisisoli profile image63
      thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The pope needs special protection, so did the US president.  I doubt many visiting officials require the same amount of expenditure.

      1. Flightkeeper profile image78
        Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        True, our president spends a lot of our tax dollars as well on his protection and I'm sure the pope spends money from Catholics.  Not every head of state is on the same level so I don't understand the thread.  Does Ryan want the pope and our president to not visit?

        1. kephrira profile image59
          kephriraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The pope isn't the same as any other head of state. Any other head of state would be coming to Britain on important business which would be relevant to the entire country.

          The pope isn't coming here to meet representatives of the government and discuss the relationship between Britain and the Vatican, he is coming here to promote his religion and to speak to a small part of what is a small community within Britain (ie catholics).

          1. Flightkeeper profile image78
            Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            The pope is a head of state - the Vatican is considered a state with its own I guess you can call them ambassadors.  His business in visiting Britain is to see to the welfare of Catholics who also happen to be citizens of Britain.  Regardless of the small numbers, it is still a group that the pope thinks is worth visiting and the Catholics there probably find it very considerate that he does.

            1. kephrira profile image59
              kephriraposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I think it's worth visiting my friends in Canada, that doesn't mean the Canadian government should pay for my trip.

              My point was that the Pope may be a head of state, but he isn't here on government business in the way that any other head of state would be, so the comparison isn't valid.

              1. Flightkeeper profile image78
                Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                As you said, you're not a head of state so there would be no point in getting security for you.

                The pope is similar as a head of state the same way the dalai lama is similar as a head of state, but on a much higher level.  The dalai lama is received as a head of state by our president as well as your PM.

        2. 0
          ryankettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          No to be honest, I don't have much time for either the current Pope OR Obama, to answer your question. Neither has done anything particularly special, I would much rather see Nelson Mandela or Tenzin Gyatso. The current Pope has only been around for 5 years, I would understand the hysteria if we were hosting Pope John Paul II at some stage towards the end of his 26 year reign.

          Pope Benedict XVI and Barrack Obama are, as far as I am aware, yet to do anything significant for the greater good of the world. In the unlikely event that either of those two people achieve hero status, I will change my stance.

          1. Flightkeeper profile image78
            Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I'm glad you're honest.  I don't want him or Michelle running around Europe either.  At one point it seemed he was spending way too much time over there, even during his election campaign he ended up in Europe which was bizarre.  And he even went to Europe to collect a Nobel Peace Prize?!?

            I think what you have to do Ryan is to tell your PM to hold off on all official visits until you guys have enough money.

            1. 0
              ryankettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Unlikely to happen, government officials just see that as a perk of the job!

              As for these 'official visits', I can't see whats wrong with a $30 logitech webcam lol

              1. Flightkeeper profile image78
                Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Why not? People tell me that cameras are all over the place watching people over there.

                1. 0
                  ryankettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes indeed, but many of us think that CCTV is a good thing, with the exception of unfair speed cameras on motorways.

                  Without CCTV a lot of major crimes would not be solved, only two weeks ago I saw somebody get hit over the head in the garden of a bar with a glass bottle. I suspect that he is rather grateful for the town centre CCTV cameras?

                  Personally I fully support them. As for 'all over the place', I would consider that an exaggeration.

                  For example....http://sify.com/news/briton-jailed-for-hitting-pet-dog-news-international-kifgagffjcf.html

                  It helps to secure accurate convictions. The biggest invasion of an individuals privacy in modern society involves personal computers and internet connections of course wink

                  1. Flightkeeper profile image78
                    Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    If you saw somebody get hit why didn't the bouncer just beat the crap out of him and throw him out?  We'd probably shoot him here but that's not something most countries do unfortunately.

                    And I agree with you that a web cam visit is a lot cheaper than an official one.

    2. Daniel Carter profile image91
      Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I think the point is that with the untold wealth of the Vatican, it only stresses Britain's economy further, thus delaying any recovery, and when there is such excess available to the Vatican, why make other people poorer in the name of Jesus?

      Seems very unChristian to me. And pathetically egotistical and stupid.

      1. Flightkeeper profile image78
        Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        And how do you know that the Vatican has a surplus budget?  Everyone is downsizing.  The untold wealth that the Vatican has is similar to the untold wealth that museums have, it's not liquid.

        A lot of what you are all saying seem to come from some bias.  It's very strange. But then again I've seen what happens on religious threads so I shouldn't be surprised.  Anyway it's not worth it for me to carry on further.

        I also think that not giving the catholics the consideration of protecting their religious leader given the small example of bias against him, uncharitable.  I hope we still continue to receive the pope with the consideration due him.

        1. skyfire profile image72
          skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Give us one good reason for why non-catholic should waste his money on pope's visit ?

        2. Daniel Carter profile image91
          Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Contrary to your assumptions, I have nothing against the Pope or Catholics. I feel that with such wealth, whether liquid or not, should be reevaluated so that it doesn't have to make other economies and less fortunate people worse off, when financial issues of these times are creating such stress for the average person.

          I think being responsible is the issue here. So much about the Papacy is about protocol and pomp and circumstance. Couldn't that be reevaluated so as to not burden others in these hard times? The point about the Pope's travels and spreading goodwill I entirely and wholly support. It's putting that financial cost on the average person in the face of downsizing and cutbacks is the problem I have. Additionally, I'm sure that sales from paraphernalia being sold during his visit will be quite enough to cover most of his visit. Why not apply it to the visit, security, etc., instead of burden already burdened governments and people?

          I think you like to argue for the sake of arguing. I'm neither a libtard or an atheist. But you can think what you will.

    3. puebloman profile image60
      pueblomanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Presidents are elected by populations. Popes are elected by a scabby bunch of cardinals - all appointees. Who gives a f+++k for the opinion of a pope?

  10. skyfire profile image72
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    President is important to almost every Tax-paying person in the country(Whether you like elected president or not is different matter altogether). Pope is important to only Catholics. Why any non-catholic person should get his life disturbed (in terms of money, road blocks) because of his visit ?. Besides he did a lot damage to Africa already with his knowledge about condoms. I wonder what new deluded concept he's going to pitch in Britain.

    1. Flightkeeper profile image78
      Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I could say the same about our president.  Why should he be so important to a bunch of people who aren't Americans and have them be disrupted?  And there are not many Americans living in Britain.

      And why, just because the pope is important only to catholics, should they not be given consideration.  Would you say the same about muslims and any of their higher level imams?

      1. skyfire profile image72
        skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, i'll say the same for islamics and their leader.

        Their is huge difference between elected president & religious leader.  (Even if you don't like elected president, he's in no way comparable with any religious leader.) Let's face it, pope is useless for non-Catholics.

        1. Flightkeeper profile image78
          Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          They are still both leaders and can affect your government's interests. Your PM has also received unelected leaders, from China and considered him the head of state so it's not necessary for a leader to be elected to be treated as a head of state.

          Whether the pope is useless to Catholics is your opinion not theirs lol

          1. skyfire profile image72
            skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Pope is useless is opinion of those who are not Catholics not just mine. Pope's deluded lectures affect those who are deluded in his religion and not to those who are outside his religion. President represents country and not religion. Presidents decision affect country's growth, pope's lecture only affects population which is controlled by Vatican and other churches around the world. Religious politicians in parliament put burden that tempts the issue of security and which in turn gives VIP treatment for such knowledgeable person of condoms. That is the reason government is caring for religious guy like this. If all politicians passed the security issue of pope to bin then his visit will be no different than brother Micah visiting colleges or university. May i add smiley? it makes reply funny i guess.

            1. Flightkeeper profile image78
              Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              See my note to Daniel above.

              See no smiley.

          2. puebloman profile image60
            pueblomanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            How ridiculous that you think rational educated people should pay for the prejudices of a bunch of scabby superstitious catholics. How American!          I thought you lot pretended to be free from religious interference in state affairs. Or haven't you personally got that far yet?

  11. Peter Hoggan profile image85
    Peter Hogganposted 6 years ago

    If the funding of this visit was made the responsibility of the  Catholic community, I wonder if it would still go ahead.

  12. seanorjohn profile image79
    seanorjohnposted 6 years ago

    Cheap at the price. When you think of it most of the protestant churches in England were stolen from the Catholics.

  13. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 6 years ago

    Old and retold.

    "Sh*t" cried the Pope!

    and 50 million arseholes flashed in the moonlight.

    .... of course that was in the days when the Pope's word was law! smile

    1. Paradise7 profile image85
      Paradise7posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That's funny!  LMAO!  I can just picture...

      1. earnestshub profile image88
        earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        When my dad told it to me I was about 7 years old, and it was a King not a Pope, but I thought... what the hell! smile It could work! smile
        Glad ya liked it. smile

 
working