Here's the Telegraph article.

 

The Prime Minister has deployed a team of civil servants to help co-ordinate preparations with the Roman Catholic church, as well as appointing Lord Patten as his “personal representative” for the trip.

 

He is now prepared to see the Government’s costs for the event, previously estimated at £15million, increase by as much as £4million in order to make sure it runs smoothly.

 

Despite cost-cutting across Whitehall, Number 10 feels it cannot scrimp on arrangements for the first-ever papal state visit to this country, including a meeting between the Queen and Benedict XVI, which will be watched intently around the world.

 

“There is a huge reputational issue at stake: we cannot appear to be treating a guest with discourtesy,” said one source working on the plans.

 

The Pope was invited to Britain in February 2009 by Gordon Brown when he was Prime Minister but it is widely believed he only did so to shore up Labour’s vote among the faithful in Scotland and hurt the Scottish National Party.

 

Only vague agreements were made with Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, then the head of the church in England and Wales, as to how the costs would be divided between church and state, and preparations were allowed to drift with relatively junior Foreign Office staff assigned to the task.

 

The visit suffered its most serious setback earlier this year when a leaked Foreign Office memo showed that officials had mocked Catholic teaching by suggesting that the Pontiff launch a range of condoms and visit an abortion clinic. The entire papal visit team had to be replaced in the outcry that followed.

 

After the election it is believed that the Queen herself expressed concern about the state of preparation and the new Prime Minister agreed the visit must be a success, not just for the sake of Britain’s six million Catholics but also for the country’s image worldwide.

Edited July 5, 201015 yr by Common Sense

how DARE he waste MY taxes on that fake.... :angry: catholics want him here, THEY can pay.

how DARE he waste MY taxes on that fake.... :angry: catholics want him here, THEY can pay.

 

Well excuse me! There are some Catholics who pay taxes as well you know. And if we take your argument ... then as a Catholic myself - I freaking well object to paying for the CofE Monarchy of this country!

 

Actually I'm a non-practicing (or lapsed) Catholic ... but someone has to pay for his visit ... and this seems like a drop in the ocean considering what else is being spent. I'm sure a lot more has been spent on other unnecessary visitors to these shores.

 

Norma

...then go to a catholic country! henry 8th established the church of england and that has been our main religion ever since! :P

...then go to a catholic country! henry 8th established the church of england and that has been our main religion ever since! :P

 

Do you want all Muslims to go to an Islamic country then? :P Besides, Henry VIII only established the Church of England because he wanted to shag everything in sight!

 

As I say, I'm not a practicing Catholic but this really isn't a lot of money. Plus ... I bet there are a lot of Republican Australians and New Zealanders who get pissed off at having to pay the costs whenever Mrs Queen visits them.

 

Norma

Do you want all Muslims to go to an Islamic country then? :P Besides, Henry VIII only established the Church of England because he wanted to shag everything in sight!

 

As I say, I'm not a practicing Catholic but this really isn't a lot of money. Plus ... I bet there are a lot of Republican Australians and New Zealanders who get pissed off at having to pay the costs whenever Mrs Queen visits them.

 

Norma

I was going to have a rant about the Pope visit, but you do have a point Norma.

 

However, I will save my rant about the pope himself for another time.

 

As a public servant, I am a tad worried about my job these days. If I say I am going to vote Lib Dem again, someone please restrain me :angry:

I was going to have a rant about the Pope visit, but you do have a point Norma.

 

However, I will save my rant about the pope himself for another time.

 

As a public servant, I am a tad worried about my job these days. If I say I am going to vote Lib Dem again, someone please restrain me :angry:

 

Don't get me wrong - I am no fan of the Pope but there are a lot of Catholics who wait decades and decades for a visit from the head of their church and the amount we're talking about is miniscule when spread over that time period.

 

Besides ... I find it a little hypocritcal of some people (and I don't mean people posting on here) who go on about paying for 'this Catholic visit' ... when I bet half of them are trying to get their kids into Catholic schools! Just a thought.

 

Norma

TBH, both Rob and Norma are correct - why should we pay for the Pope OR the Monarchy....? :rolleyes:

TBH, both Rob and Norma are correct - why should we pay for the Pope OR the Monarchy....? :rolleyes:

 

not a big fan of the monarchy but at least they do something for the country... they dont cover up p**** members. the only positive thing the catholic church has given us is father ted! :lol:

not a big fan of the monarchy but at least they do something for the country... they dont cover up p**** members. the only positive thing the catholic church has given us is father ted! :lol:

 

Well actually - I think that the Monarchy only does good for London and the South East. They do feck all to boost the economy outside of those areas. I say therefore ... that those wage-earners living in other areas should be eligible for a 50% tax cut on what they already pay ... and those who are Catholics living outside those areas should be exempt from paying any tax at all. :)

 

Norma

Edited July 6, 201015 yr by Norma_Snockers

The Monarchy only costs 62p per person I think I read - that's a good deal really. That 's down 7p from 2009 so at least they are making savings.

 

Go Queen Liz !

Well actually - I think that the Monarchy only does good for London and the South East. They do feck all to boost the economy outside of those areas. I say therefore ... that those wage-earners living in other areas should be eligible for a 50% tax cut on what they already pay ... and those who are Catholics living outside those areas should be exempt from paying any tax at all. :)

 

Norma

 

not true...the crown is a major landowner throughout the country, that boosts local economies. plus the princes trust , thats not confined to the southeast.

Speaking of the Pope, this money should be saved when a number of individuals (including Richard Dawkins and my dad :P) place him under citizen's arrest as soon as he enters the country.

As much I dislike this Pope, I don't object to him visiting, and I certainly don't agree that only Catholics should pay for it. But I still can't understand what exactly this £19m is going to be spent on, especially as the news last night said that this figure didn't even include the policing that would surround the Pope at all times.

Speaking of the Pope, this money should be saved when a number of individuals (including Richard Dawkins and my dad :P) place him under citizen's arrest as soon as he enters the country.

 

 

LMFAO. I read online that others intend to do it too but no-one will get anywhere near him. Good luck to your dad and others who will be shot by armed Protection Squad officers if the Pope's threatened in any way and rightly so. He'll have huge armed security. I'm sure I read that once someone tried to arrest Blair but was quickly overpowerecd by his bodyguards. Doesn't matter if a citizens arrest would be legal or not they just wouldn't allow it! :)

Edited July 6, 201015 yr by Common Sense

As much I dislike this Pope, I don't object to him visiting, and I certainly don't agree that only Catholics should pay for it. But I still can't understand what exactly this £19m is going to be spent on, especially as the news last night said that this figure didn't even include the policing that would surround the Pope at all times.

 

Maybe it isn't to pay for protection for the Pope? :kink:

 

Norma

 

Speaking of the Pope, why can't he stay at a bed and breakfast, its far cheaper.

The Monarchy only costs 62p per person I think I read - that's a good deal really.

 

Not exactly the point... They represent everything that's wrong in this country, class privelege, idle-rich wealth, etc, the things that we have to get rid of before this country can truly become a social democracy where advancement is based upon merit, rather than which family you happen to be born into....

Not exactly the point... They represent everything that's wrong in this country, class privelege, idle-rich wealth, etc, the things that we have to get rid of before this country can truly become a social democracy where advancement is based upon merit, rather than which family you happen to be born into....

I'd much rather they paid their own way, but I find it difficult to object to them at the moment seeing as they bring in far much more through tourism than we spend on them...

I'd much rather they paid their own way, but I find it difficult to object to them at the moment seeing as they bring in far much more through tourism than we spend on them...

 

I disagree on the tourism front. Sure ... they give London a boost but I don't see what a royal family based in the capital does for regional tourism. The number of overseas visitors I've spoken to in my time (largely whilst living down south) visited London as part of their 'European' trip ... scarcely did any of them visit anywhere else in the country (although there were the odd one or two exceptions). I think if they represent the UK then they should spread themselves out. The Duke of York should live in York and the Prince of Wales should live in Wales. Although Prince Edward can go and just bugger off and I wouldn't wish the burden of Phil on anyone in Scotland! :lol:

 

If the truth be known ... I just wish we didn't have them.

 

Norma