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?

Which is absolutely fine by me - I'm glad they are enjoying themesleves and it means so much to them - but they should be paying for it. He's not representing a country, he's representing a minority religion.

"he's representing a minority religion"

he's representing the biggest paedophile ring in the history of humanity. fact.

at least if you are going to worship some mumbo jumbo do it on your own, read the Bible/Torah/Koran (all the same book anyway) without the sick hierarchy and sex crimes.

To echo an earlier post, he's here on a tax-payer funded visit because the Govt requested HMQ to invite him on those terms (HMQ makes invitations for all State visits only on advice of her Government).

As the invitation was issued over 6 mths ago, this is down to the Labour Administration, so this is really further proof of their budgetary incompetence.

Especially as when Pope John Paul II was here in 1982 it was a pastoral, not a State, visit so not a burden on the taxpayer.

I wish some of the people on the Pope-knob-sucking thread would tell me what is so wonderful about him. If I go and ask over there I will be accused of vomiting on their altar, probably.

Did any of you protest today then Unquiet dad?, you could have had a banner with pope-sucking knob on it. It would be really original an all.

oni, apparently there's been a standing invite for a state visit ever since Thatch. Successive Popes have just not be interested in turning up before. No idea why the last visitor came as himself not as a (sort of) head of state, though.

curryfreak - no, because he is not coming to my city and I have to work, and I didn't fancy getting a train ticket to Scotland just to stand in the rain and jeer at a bloke in a dress.

Edam: but the last Pope did come during the Thatcher years!

But that was a pastoral visit, not a State one, so not a burden on the taxpayer.

unquietdad , you are always going on about the 'bloke in a dress 'thing..."methinx they protesteth too loudly " ???perhaps? not to mention vv sexist and insulting way of talking:GROW UP!!!! if a kid at school used such an insuting tone they'd prob get suspended

What would happen to the same kid if he looked around and complained that there were too many black faces, demisemiquaver?

The pope and his entourage started making trouble as soon as they got off the plane

I know it wasn't the pope that made the remark, but wasn't it ironic and revealing that he leapt to deny it/cover it up.

Personally though I am glad he came after all. I was against it until I realised what he had achieved already by coming here. I think of it not so much as a tour, but more how things were done in the old days when a serious criminal was paraded through the streets for all to see.

I think more people need to see the pope and see what he is if we are going to put an end to this once and for all.

"always going on" demisemi? I've hardly mentioned it! I think you are protesting too much yourself! Grow up yourself. Love.

Don't think there's any need for quite such a turn of phrase UQD
If you do genuinely want to ask those who went to see the Pope (NOT for protest reasons) why they did/love him, I am sure that they would happy to talk about it without resorting to JimmyCarr style cock jokes.

I appear to have found myself on four separate religion/pope threads today and I've only made cheap jokes on one of them. Bit of proportion please. Anyway, if this chap's god can't take a joke, he's a poor show.

Doesn't the pope and his entourage also make lots of money from the souvenirs they sell at their events? Those should all be taxed to pay for counselling those who were raped by priests.

Good show Hyde Park! 80,000 people - not raping kids actually but praying to their god, whomever he may be, and trying to be better people. Fair play to them.

Apparently even the church didn't expect so many people.
Looked like a lovely day out to me!

Rather pleased it went to well.

Oh well, they're giving 70 million to the floods in Pakistan, so cheer up. A lot of catholics in this country pay tax too. You moaning about that is like me moaning about all the taxes going to help smokers recover from their heart attacks, strokes and lung cancer (which I would never dream of doing). Tax works like this. We all pay in and some of us take out more than others at different times in our lives. It's not "fair". It's TAX! Get over it!

"It's not "fair". It's TAX! Get over it!"

And that completely misses the point of the objections to the tax payer funding this.

The Tax Payer does fund state visits by Heads of State, both the "nice" and the "nasty" ones.

The issue is should this visit have been classified as a "State Visit" and therefore dropped into the laps of tax payers to fund?

As said above the Pope's status as a Head of State is complex and not easy to answer and the previous Papal visit wasn't treated as a State Visit, in part because of that ambiguity.

I'm sorry if you thought I missed the point. In answer to your question, should this visit have been classified as a "State Visit" etc, I think yes it should. Like it or not the Vatican City is regarded as a state. Therefore, it should be treated as a state visit UNTIL the time when it is no longer recognised as such internationally.
My point about tax is that we, as individuals cannot pick and chose as to where our own contributions go.

"Like it or not the Vatican City is regarded as a state. Therefore, it should be treated as a state visit UNTIL the time when it is no longer recognised as such internationally."

But the Pope and his ambassadors do not represent Vatican City State, they represent the Holy See and carry Diplomatic Passports from the same entity.

Likewise in return it is the Holy See with which states have diplomatic relations and not Vatican City.

Vatican City State and the Holy See are not the same thing.

The Holy See does not meet the Criteria under International Law for being a State.

However as said it has diplomatic relations with nations, which you can only have with a recognised state.

So one part of International Law makes perfectly clear that the Holy See is not a State and that therefore the Pope cannot be a Head of State. However another part of International Law says that as the Pope has diplomatic relations and diplomats he must be a head of state.

Mussolini saw the problems with this and that is why he created Vatican City. However the Catholic Church has always kept that separate from the Holy See, perhaps because it has lost all it's land before and doesn't wish to be tied to a physical place on earth.

So, as said, it's complicated and far from obvious or clear cut.

And I'm not actually stating my opinion on this question, just flagging up what the question is and why people are uncomfortable with the whole thing.