Popes visit costing UK taxpayer £12 million

[Beaaware]

I read in the papers that the popes forthcoming visit will cost the UK taxpayer £12 million! Seems rather a lot of money at a time when the government are telling us to expect huge cuts. How important is this visit and is it value for money for the taxpayer?

Not at all, and no, imo.

That probably is less than 50p for every tax payer in the country though. I wouldn't sweat it.

Not another one about the Pope...

I heard it's not even that important to most Catholics

That's a bit OTT curryfreak - the OP has a valid point. Although, the Queen (as head of the Church of England) no doubt costs the taxpayer considerably more than that...

The pope was invited here by the queen, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. take you concerns up with them.

I would send him an abusive email but he may get me banned from Heaven

Not a catholic, but there are plenty of catholic taxpayers, so why shouldn't some tax go to paying for the pontiff?

My mum is a strict catholic and can't stand him.

It's a disgrace but then again, I hate all religion

Some of this cost is being offset by ticketed events (big rockstar, him) - they haven't sold all the tickets as it looks like his own flock are drifting off.

Yep - he's not popular - but the state funds costs of heads of state - and I guess he's the head of state of the vatican (an independent state?) and the head of a religion which is quite big here. So no big controversy re his visit and the cost.

I'd love to see Richard Dawkins getting a £12million parade courtesy of us, the taxpayers

"Some of this cost is being offset by ticketed events"

I doubt that the Government is getting any money back from the ticket sales, the money is probably going straight to the Vatican.

"I guess he's the head of state of the vatican"

Well only since 1929, thanks to Mussolini.

"the head of a religion which is quite big here"

Catholics make up less the 10% of the population.

And out of those it seems that 2/3rds disagree with the Pope that the ordination of women is a crime on a par with Child Abuse. And then there's issues like contraception and celibacy for the priesthood, all of this means that the Pope doesn't really represent the opinions of British Catholics.

Yup badgers - I agree in some respects but then again we do live in a multicultural country.

Does the catholic church really really think that the ordination of women is a 'crime' equal to child abuse.

There are many UK Catholics happy to see him.

For me it's a non event.

As I understand it the ticket sales are contributing to the cost.

Well, I think it's great that a controversial, divisive, yet still oddly charismatic Catholic with an extraordinary wardrobe and a huge entourage is making a rare flying visit to the UK and meeting thousands of adoring fans.

No, not that old git the Pope, I'm talking about Nadine Coyle.

"Does the catholic church really really think that the ordination of women is a 'crime' equal to child abuse."

Well they recently defined the ordination of women as a "grave crime" and that implies a certain disciplinary procedure for those involved in it.

Sex Abuse is also classified as a "grave crime".

Still I suppose you could argue that that means that Catholic Priests will be able to go around ordaining women left, right and centre and that the Catholic Church won't punish them. In fact if it finds a Priest ordaining women they'll threaten the women into staying silent and then move the Priest to another areas where they can ordain even more women.

In reality though I suspect they'll be just a bit harsher with the ordination of women. So it does make you wonder which they see as worse.

"As I understand it the ticket sales are contributing to the cost."

They're contributing to the Church's costs not to the British Tax Payers costs.

www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2010/07/29/debate-is-it-right-to-charge-for-papal-masses/

In fact by saying that the tickets are covering costs that means that the Church can also probably do a tax fiddle as they're claiming they're not making any profit on this.

More humour

Judypink, I would love a Dawkins parade too

Seriously though, I am baffled as to how this shindig can cost so much, when police costs are not included in teh £12m and there is revenue from tickets sales. I would love to see a breakdown of the cost.

Well he's here - started off well, didn't it, with one of his esteemed colleagues likening heathrow to the third world.

Nice. I reckon he probably meant spiritually but then I again I find catholicism not very spiritual so it's rather ironic.

MY dh is a RC and even he's sick of the entire Church thing - visit or no visit.

Still, I don't see it's such a big issue to pay as we foot the bill for all sorts to visit.

10% is quite a large amount of people. My dh doesn't toe the line on many things but he still regards himself a catholic.

what a waste of fucking money

"Yet so few protestations during the state visits of Mugabe, the Saudi Arabian Abdullah, Hirohito etc"

I don't know about the Saudi but Mugabe and Hirohito both attracted a lot of protest when they visited here. In particular Peter Tatchell tried to do a citizens arrest on Mugabe 10 years ago (and I don't think he's been back since) and there was the dignified protest where the veterans turned their backs on Hirohito.

So yes there was protest.

However both of those were quite clearly Heads of State on diplomatic visits. The Pope's status is inarguably more ambiguous.

"Well he's here - started off well, didn't it, with one of his esteemed colleagues likening heathrow to the third world"

And now the man himself has gone and compared secularists to Nazis. Oh dear...

"As the supreme head of state for Vatican City, I would surmise that his status is no different to Mugabe etc."

This gets a bit complicated....

The Pope is the head of the Holy See and ambassadors from the Church are ambassadors for the Holy See.

Vatican City is the current home of the Holy See and has been since Mussolini and 1929 but it is not the Holy See. The Holy See has nearly moved it's physical home several times throughout history.

A state is defined under international law as having a defined territory. The Holy See doesn't, but it does have recognised ambassadors, which it what gives it it's status despite the lack of territory.

So its confusing and very different from Mugabe.

I'm not saying the Pope isn't a "Head of State", but what I am saying is that's it's complicated and far from clear cut.

The previous visit of a Pope back in the 1980s wasn't seen as a visit by a Head of State, so this is something different.