1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Pope's visit to UK to cost taxpayer £10-12million!!

Discussion in 'Serious' started by stuartpb, 5 Jul 2010.

  1. eddie_dane

    eddie_dane Used to mod pc's now I mod houses

    Joined:
    31 Jan 2002
    Posts:
    5,547
    Likes Received:
    65
    "What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven."
     
  2. cjmUK

    cjmUK Old git.

    Joined:
    9 Feb 2004
    Posts:
    2,551
    Likes Received:
    84
    £12m for security during the Popes visit??

    I'd say it was money well spent if it keeps the children safe...
     
  3. Teelzebub

    Teelzebub Up yours GOD,Whats best served cold

    Joined:
    27 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    15,796
    Likes Received:
    4,484
    Is that what that the phrase in the bible " suffer the little children to come unto me " means??
     
  4. Da_Rude_Baboon

    Da_Rude_Baboon What the?

    Joined:
    28 Mar 2002
    Posts:
    4,082
    Likes Received:
    135
    lol :D

    double lol. :rock:
     
  5. RichCreedy

    RichCreedy Hey What Who

    Joined:
    24 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    4,699
    Likes Received:
    172
    actually we dont waste any money on the queen, she is good value for money.
    bare in mind that the government manages crown property on behalf of the queen, and then gets substantial funding from it, of which the queen gets a small proportion.

    i agree the church should foot the bill, not the taxpayer.
     
  6. Nexxo

    Nexxo Queue Jumper

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    33,601
    Likes Received:
    1,262
    Let me refresh your memory:
    There's your slight of M7ck's character: the implication that he is one of the brainwashed, or a nefarious character who would approve of brainwashing.

    I think that is what I said:
     
  7. remixme

    remixme Own a Dremel, but not used it yet!

    Joined:
    11 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    Going back on topic; I'd love to see the breakdown of costs for that 12 million.

    Perhaps a simplistic and naive view; but doesn't the tax payer foot the bill every time someone remotely famous steps out of their front door? It is a free country after all.

    If you or me became an overnight sensation like the Beatles, would we have to pay to visit everywhere?

    I wonder how much money has been wasted on security for BB contestants (deliberately silly example); or court time wasted on celebrity libel and divorce cases.
     
  8. stuartpb

    stuartpb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    1,676
    Likes Received:
    81
    In the case of civil court action, those who had the findings against them would have to pick up the legal tab, in the form of court costs. In the case of security for BB contestants, they have private security firms in to handle that stuff, and if the police do have to get involved, they can bill the event organiser for this.

    EDIT: I agree though, I would love to see the breakdown of the final costs, including the extra police costs which are still an unknown quantity at the mo.
     
    Last edited: 7 Jul 2010
  9. Penfold101

    Penfold101 New Member

    Joined:
    1 Jun 2010
    Posts:
    138
    Likes Received:
    6
    Erm... yes. Obviously...:eyebrow:

    Can we have some proof he's been here before first...? Or has ever existed...? Cheers...:D
     
  10. remixme

    remixme Own a Dremel, but not used it yet!

    Joined:
    11 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very true.

    I wonder if the legal and police bills for celebrity represent the true cost. Or whether the figures for the Pope's visit are inflated to whip up a media frenzy and sell papers....

    How much of that 10-12mil is needless health and safety and other assorted forms of bureaucracy?

    As you can tell I am somewhat on the fence on this issue but in a very cynical way....
     
  11. tonschk

    tonschk New Member

    Joined:
    31 Jul 2008
    Posts:
    101
    Likes Received:
    1

    I agree :thumb:


    .
     
  12. stuartpb

    stuartpb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    1,676
    Likes Received:
    81
    It was Lord Patton who announced the estimate, and he is responsible for organising the event, so I highly doubt a government agent would intentionally inflate the figure to whip up a media frenzy, it would be akin to shooting one's own foot.

    Quote from The Financial Times (source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5b3d54cc-8...44feabdc0.html)

     
  13. walle

    walle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,640
    Likes Received:
    44
    why yes, his teachings.

    whether he was called Jesus or not is of no importance, his teachings are what is important. not the man.
     
  14. Penfold101

    Penfold101 New Member

    Joined:
    1 Jun 2010
    Posts:
    138
    Likes Received:
    6
    So why do we need religion if the teachings are what is important? I agree that the ten commandments as written provide a good basis to start a civilisation with - don't kill, steal, screw your neighbours wife etc, but why the rest of the rubbish that goes with it about all-powerful beings and afterlifes...?
     
  15. stuartpb

    stuartpb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    1,676
    Likes Received:
    81
    I could write a book now, where I claimed that I had risen from the dead this morning, and parted the north sea on my way to a jolly boys outing to Amsterdam, and whilst there converted all the sinners there to my way of thinking. If this book was dug up 2000 years later, would this be conclusive proof that these events actually ever happened? Or if the book I wrote was repeatedly renewed and edited over the 2000 years, as the bible has, would this be conclusive proof too?
     
  16. stuartpb

    stuartpb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    1,676
    Likes Received:
    81
    In all honesty, I think there probably was a man who was of some importance, whether he be called Jesus, Mohammed, or whatever. I think he probably had some spiritual significance in his era. What I think though is that the stories contained within the bible are just chinese whispers in action. Over the years, the stories have probably just become more elaborate and fantastical. I think that early religion (old testament stuff) was just a way for mankind to be able to place some "understanding" on the natural world, something which surely must have been scary times, especially with natural disasters and events, like earthquakes and eclipses.
     
  17. remixme

    remixme Own a Dremel, but not used it yet!

    Joined:
    11 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    I dunno.... when was the last public enquiry concerning a public project that came in under budget ;-)

    In all seriousness though thanks for the link. I just want to be convinced that figure is necessary, maybe we'll find out more in time.
     
  18. supermonkey

    supermonkey Deal with it

    Joined:
    14 Apr 2004
    Posts:
    4,955
    Likes Received:
    201
    I really know better than to wade into a Bit-tech religion thread, but I'm a glutton for punishment.

    There is some validity in that argument, as the Bible has seen a fair amount of misinterpretation over the years, as well as the fact that the first written accounts of the Bible were based upon oral traditions that had been handed down over the course of generations.

    However, it's not as simple as saying that it was just dug up 2000 years later, or that the Bible has simply been renewed and re-edited throughout history. Looking at the preface of my Bible, I see explanatory notes recounting the process by which Biblical scholars have used the original texts in their translation, rather than rely on a translation of a translation of a translation... In many cases, a new translation arises from a better linguistic or cultural understanding of the context in which a certain passage is written. It's not a bad example of academia and archeological science providing a better understanding for religion. In any case, included in the preface is an explanation, in plain text, that states categorically that the Bible is not to be taken as 100% history verbatim. While some passages are meant to be historical, some are parable while others are allegory - they are meant to further explain certain Christian beliefs. Even then, they have to be read with an understanding of the context in which they were written (who wrote it, when was it written, and why was it written).

    That said, sometimes people do bad things. It's not because they are religious. Nor is it because they lack religion. It's because they choose to do bad things. Religion may enable it, or it may be used by someone to further a personal agenda. The same can be said for professional sports or nationalism.

    I'm not sure if it has been mentioned here in the thread, but the total cost of the visit is estimated at £15 million. if I understand correctly, the Catholic Church is footing £7 million of that bill, so the entire amount is not being borne by the tax payers. From what I can tell, much of the expense is for 3 open-air masses. Considering the logistical costs involved in organizing an event of that scale, let alone 3 of them, it's not too difficult to see how the costs mount pretty fast. I don't think he's dropping £10 million on a sporty Pope-mobile with flashy spinners and sick grill.

    As soon as government cost estimates go above 1 million, it's generally good to take the amount with a grain of salt. The bill is typically padded with "administrative costs" and "incidentals." As a rule, the government always estimates high for its purpose. I would not be surprised to see a pool of money set aside in the yearly budget specifically for visits by foreign dignitaries, but I'm ready to stand corrected on that if someone can prove otherwise.
     
  19. Edge102030

    Edge102030 Son, i am disappoint.

    Joined:
    21 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    568
    Likes Received:
    28
    The US president is a vital ally to the UK, both militarily and economically. The pope is neither. Furthermore, the US Government pays for our MPs to visit the US so it is monetarily neutral.
     
  20. NuTech

    NuTech New Member

    Joined:
    18 Mar 2002
    Posts:
    2,222
    Likes Received:
    96
    Yup, and even if it was monetarily neutral, spending £12m+security for any single state visit while departments are being threatened with cuts of up to 40% is just disgusting.
     

Share This Page