The Pope is visiting England to discuss this new discrimination law, which is fine. The only issue is that it's going to cost the tax payer £20 million. Is that really a bill we should be paying? Anyhow, here's a petition against having to pay the costs of his visit: http://www.secularism.org.uk/petition-the-pm.html
Where does this final figure come from? Is there any details on how it's broken down? alitalia.com do an economy return flight for £311.70. I'm just saying.
He's a visiting dignitary who will require, amongst other things, security, which will cost a fortune. I promise that the investigation that will follow a papal assassination will cost far, far more than £20m. What happens if the government turns round and says that the Vatican have to foot the bill and the Vatican cancel the trip as a result. It could potentially do damage to the UK's international profile as well as it being viewed as a serious insult to the RC community in the UK, which numbers around 4 million. Papal visits to the UK are rare, the last one (which was also the first one) took place in 1982. It would mean a lot to a lot of people. £20m is pocket change compared to the potential good it will do. The petition shows that securalism doesn't stop religion from making people act like jerks.
Papal visit I have no objection in principle to the Pope or any other guy visiting the U.K.However since the Catholic Church /the Vatican is not exactly poverty stricken why cant they pay the bill?After all its for a good cause.As a tax payer I think bill is excessive and are we not as a nation in financial meltdown ? I also think that while the average man in the street is suffering economically [wage freezes, redundancies etc] the Royal family[especially Helicopter Andy , could maybe consider cutting back a bit on the freebies. I wont even bother to express my views on our greedy M.Ps. I am all for trying to cut the U.K.budget deficit but how do we as a nation do this when there is such a waste of public cash?
As much as I dislike the Pope, his views and his church, I gotta agree. Whilst I would prefer no visit at all, he has a right to express his views, and on the plus side, it would invoke a debate and offer people the opportunity to discover why his views are absurd, false, or both.
It is convention for the hosting state to cover costs arising from the visits of Heads of States or Religions (the Pope being both). If we say no to the Pope but yes to the President of the US, then are we not engaging in religious discrimination? Again, £20m for an event that happens incredibly rarely is cheap and bitching about it is embarrassing. We'll probably come close to recouping that sum in tourism revenue.
Pope expressing his views If the Pope or anyone else for that matter wishes to address the nations on any subject matter would it not be more cost effective and from the security point of view easier for the Pope to do a link up on Network Tv?After all I watched Obama being made President .I didnt need to be personally in the U.S.A to follow his campaign. The Pope is not exactly in his youth.Maybe a TV broadcast from his living room [Just like Her Majesty] might fit the bill?If the 4 million Catholics of Gt Britain wanted to see the Pope live in the U.K. maybe a charge of £5.00 a head could be made?This would pay the bill and would show the Pontiff that they supported his mission.
They could in turn ask us to fund a visit to the Vatican by our PM, which would probably cost more than £20 million.
I don't mean it in a "The rich should pay" manner, I'm simply interested in whether the actual figures are available and if so what they are. mitch
And yet huge numbers of people did make the journey to witness it. The last time the pope visited the UK, a significant number of my relatives (including a group from Ireland, I think) stood in a field all night to celebrate mass with the Pope. It meant a lot to them. Just because you dont 'get it', doesn't mean you shouldn't be expected to pay towards it. Millions of people go to sporting events every year, even when those same sporting events are broadcast live on TV. Does your wallet creak on the rare occasion you open it? We wouldn't act a politician to pay his own way, so it is absurd and just a little reprehensible to expect a clergyman to do so.
from google searches: UK GDP: $2.13T Vatican: revenues: $245.2 million expenditures: $260.4 million, including capital expenditures of NA (2002) from http://www.countryfacts.com/holyseevaticancity/economy/ Based on that, we'd be asking the Vatican to put up almost 10% of their yearly revenue.
Fair points. The break in custom, the fact that the Pope is leader of a sovereign country and the fact that the Vatican would have the same duty towards a dignitary of ours kind shows the religious issues to be irrelevent. This isn't special treatment at all.
My creaking wallet If in the odd occasion I open as you call it 'My creaking wallet ' at least I am opening my OWN wallet to buy goods etc.I dont expect anybody to pay for my standard of life or trips away.If like the aforementioned people [MPs etc ] had to spend their own money instead of the public's money they would be more prudent.As far as your relatives standing in the field to celebrate Mass, great if thats what they wanted.I dont think your relatives got subsidised by the taxpayer, neither does any guy who visits a football ground. While some people might consider a visit by the Pope as a huge event, others couldnt care less.
In Germany and Switzerland, folks pay a 'faith' tax (Catholic, Protestant, probably Muslim now etc) - or select 'Konfessionlos' - without confession on the tax declaration - which was my choice. Paying for such matters will force folk to test their 'faith'. I would also like to see political parties funded in the same way. Essentially, all religions, football teams, music concerts and political parties etc, serve the same purpose for the sense of mass (no pun intended) human solidarity and collective belonging - which a lot of us understandably crave and desire.
Faith tax If the faith tax was implemented in the U.K. I would hazard a guess that the cost of administering this might be higher than the tax collected.As far as political parties are concerned I would not willingly give these guys a brass farthing.
Yes, but in doing so, folk are forced into questing the value of religions and political parties, which re-inforces their representatives to be effective to society and to do something usefull and of value for those who demonstrably pay for it. On our tax returns, there would be options along the lines of 'no alegiance' - where no tax is paid, selecting Tolley, laborious Old Toadz etc, would draw tax but at a reduced rate. Thus the parties would be forced to live within their means as this would be their only source of income, and would therefore have to deliver value for money, rather than waffling verbiage for no purpose whatsoever. At the present time, there is not one political party that I see offers anything other than a complete waste of time, energy and money. There are individuals (not many) within the political class who do do a decent job e.g. Frank Field.
From the available figures I reckon that the UK taxpayer contributed ~£5m towards the policing of premiership football matches during the 07/08 season.
