Should WE be funding the Pope's visit to the UK?

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 06 Jul 2010, 17:48

More importantly today is the Dalai Lama's 75th birthday.

Happy Birthday Dal.

(I hope the government have used taxpayers' money to get him a birthday card.)

contadino · Post by **contadino** » 06 Jul 2010, 17:50

Since living in a Catholic country, I've seen just how the church extorts money from people who are least able to afford it. People paying for blessings whilst seriously ill in hospital. Prayers for sale. It's disgusting behaviour.

I'm also entirely confident that all religions are the same, not just catholicism.

Anyhow, seeing as noone in the UK was asked whether they wanted this particularly odious pope to be allowed in the country, I really don't see why anyone should be asked about who's to pay for it. It's marginally better for it to come from the public coffers than from the poor.

The least you can do for the rest of the world is to keep him. Maybe put him on trail for hate crimes, pedophilia, whatever.

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 06 Jul 2010, 18:00

contadino wrote:It's marginally better for it to come from the public coffers than from the poor.

I thought that was where the public coffers did come from!

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 06 Jul 2010, 19:26

Well the Queen invited him, so she should pay. I mean, you can't just go around inviting any old queen to tour the country and expect the plebs to pay for it, can you?

Or we could make the money back by charging him and his entourage for rent, boys.

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 06 Jul 2010, 19:56

foodimista wrote:Well the Queen invited him, so she should pay. I mean, you can't just go around inviting any old queen to tour the country and expect the plebs to pay for it, can you?

Or we could make the money back by charging him and his entourage for rent, boys.

I suppose it would be ok if all the cost came out of the 61p I pay the royal family every year. It's worth that for the entertainment!

They've never needed rent boys have they? I thought they had a free supply

.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 06 Jul 2010, 22:59

I bet the Pope won't get a party like the Dalai Lama's 75th birthday today:

DominicJ · Post by **DominicJ** » 07 Jul 2010, 14:58

I'm an anti monarchist, but the Royal List is considerably cheaper than giving back or purchasing the Royal Estates.

The queens also the head of state, so always "invites" foreign heads of states, even if she just greets at the airport when their on the way to see the PM

OrraLoon · Post by **OrraLoon** » 07 Jul 2010, 17:35

DominicJ wrote:I'm an anti monarchist, but the Royal List is considerably cheaper than giving back or purchasing the Royal Estates.

The queens also the head of state, so always "invites" foreign heads of states, even if she just greets at the airport when their on the way to see the PM

This is PowerSwitch's first "Fu** the Pope[?]" thread. So, if the Green Party lose Brighton Pavilion and gain Glasgow Central as a result I'm pinning the blame on Renewable Candy and her deplorable tendency to go native.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 07 Jul 2010, 22:44

Delighted. Ya-bas'

!!

Here's the sort of orangemen-catholic clash I'm interested in at the moment, though:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/vide ... and-brazil

gug · Post by **gug** » 08 Jul 2010, 13:43

DominicJ wrote:I'm an anti monarchist, but the Royal List is considerably cheaper than giving back or purchasing the Royal Estates.

Why the hell would we have to "purchase" the royal estates?

They were stolen from us in the first place.
You might think that they somehow "belong" to the queen, but i dont.

Kick the scroungers out along with the pope. Maybe we could ship them all back to their sun-worship pit at the vatican and wall them in.

DominicJ · Post by **DominicJ** » 08 Jul 2010, 13:53

Why the hell would we have to "purchase" the royal estates?

Because we live in a country where you cant just take things from other people, seriously, go to your local police station, take the counch in the lobby, see what happens.

They were stolen from us in the first place.

Us? Not sure how old you are mate.

You might think that they somehow "belong" to the queen, but i dont.

What you think is irrelevent.
The Royal Estates were the Property of the Monarch, they were given to the government in exchange for the Royal List.
A bit like renting.

Kick the scroungers out along with the pope.

Tolerance in action eh?

Maybe we could ship them all back to their sun-worship pit at the vatican and wall them in.

Quickly moving onto calling for the mass murder of those you dont like.

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 08 Jul 2010, 13:55

gug wrote:Why the hell would we have to "purchase" the royal estates?

They were stolen from us in the first place.
You might think that they somehow "belong" to the queen, but i dont.

But WE wouldn't get them back would we? Someone else would grab them, and probably exclude us more than we are at the moment.

gug · Post by **gug** » 08 Jul 2010, 16:43

DominicJ wrote:
Why the hell would we have to "purchase" the royal estates?
Because we live in a country where you cant just take things from other people, seriously, go to your local police station, take the counch in the lobby, see what happens.

Theres a man that never heard of the enclosures act.

They hang the man, and flog the woman,
That steals the goose from off the common;
But let the greater villain loose,
That steals the common from the goose.

They were stolen from us in the first place.
Us? Not sure how old you are mate.

See above.

You might think that they somehow "belong" to the queen, but i dont.
What you think is irrelevent.
The Royal Estates were the Property of the Monarch, they were given to the government in exchange for the Royal List.
A bit like renting.

and again. (and is suspect you dont know the difference between the monarchy, the government and the "crown" - but never mind. keep going.

Kick the scroungers out along with the pope.
Tolerance in action eh?

The irony of me being intolerant to the pope is entirely lost on you i suppose.

Maybe we could ship them all back to their sun-worship pit at the vatican and wall them in.
Quickly moving onto calling for the mass murder of those you dont like.

Yes. thats the obvious conclusion to what i said.

Idiot.

[edited for quote formatting]

gug · Post by **gug** » 08 Jul 2010, 16:45

JohnB wrote:
gug wrote:Why the hell would we have to "purchase" the royal estates?

They were stolen from us in the first place.
You might think that they somehow "belong" to the queen, but i dont.
But WE wouldn't get them back would we? Someone else would grab them, and probably exclude us more than we are at the moment.

I'm sure you're right. But it doesn't mean they have any more "right" to it no matter who ended up with it.

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 08 Jul 2010, 17:23

DominicJ wrote:when their on the way

I don't know... Schools nowadays.

DominicJ wrote:go to your local police station, take the counch in the lobby, see what happens

Mild relief that the mystery of whose it is had been solved - and wondering what it is could stop?

Unless you meant "take" as in "having it away with", in which case I should imagine something more than surprise would ensue. However, without knowing quite what a counch is, I couldn't say whether the surprise would develop into embarrassment, shock and indignation, or just helpless laughter.