£1.85 m was diverted from International Development budget to protect Chief Witch Doctor

[removeduser_487563287433]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12351583

You may recall the Catholics couldn't be bothered to fund the visit of the Chief Witch Doctor Xartex. £10 m instead was squeezed from the British tax payer. It's now coming apparent funds from other departments were diverted to lavish on the man who lives in decadent palaces. It is not yet known what other departments were raided to waste on the man who is directly involved in the protection of child rapists.

[Big War Bird]

So the UK doesn't customarily provide security for foreign heads of state? And is not customarily when British Big Men travel that their hosts provides much?

And it would behoove you to actually read the article so that you do not make a factually misleading statement in your very first sentence.

You said:

You may recall the Catholics couldn't be bothered to fund the visit of the Chief Witch Doctor Xartex

From the article:

Roman Catholic churchgoers also contributed to the costs of the visit.

Making such a blatant error, while not fatal to your arugment, none the less is must be deeply embarrassing to you, and to me as well, as I have tried so hard to tutor you in argumentative writing.

[removeduser_487563287433]

So the UK doesn't customarily provide security for foreign heads of state?

The Vatican has nothing to offer the UK, the visit should have never occurred.

BWB, I made no error. The UK Catholics came massively short of the funds they said they could contribute, as not enough bothered to turn out to the Catholic-only (but British funded) events or purchase their crappy merchandise.

[Big War Bird]

The Vatican has nothing to offer the UK, the visit should have never occurred.

Surely refusing to allow the Pope would have cost a great deal more than $10 million pounds. The good will of a billion catholics is worth something.

The UK Catholics came massively short

Already you contradict yourself. Whether one pound or a million your opening statement was incorrect, and as I pointed out. unnecessary. Remove that sentence and the meaning and logic of your argument is intact.

[Captain Arrrgh!]

So the UK doesn't customarily provide security for foreign heads of state? And is not customarily when British Big Men travel that their hosts provides much?

And it would behoove you to actually read the article so that you do not make a factually misleading statement in your very first sentence.

You said:



From the article:


Making such a blatant error, while not fatal to your arugment, none the less is must be deeply embarrassing to you, and to me as well, as I have tried so hard to tutor you in argumentative writing.

Oh my goodness. You just became THEE sexiest human/bot/TWC'er in the universe. Wish I hadn't run out of rep point give button thingies.
Ferrets, old cock, be a good sport and remind me to rep warbird later, m'kay?

[Viking Prince]

I agree that the sources used for the funding of the visit (for security mainly) is suspect, but I do think it is not the problem of the Pope. If the government did not wish to spend the money, they were quite free to tell the Pope that he was on his own if he chose to visit.

[k995]

I agree that the sources used for the funding of the visit (for security mainly) is suspect, but I do think it is not the problem of the Pope. If the government did not wish to spend the money, they were quite free to tell the Pope that he was on his own if he chose to visit.

Actually you are quit free to not vote for the politicians who waisted the money.

I see no difference between spending to keep the pope safe or spending to keep Bush or obama safe.

[removeduser_487563287433]

The invitation should not have been extended. I don't see how telling the Pope not to bother coming would have cost a penny. Maybe an international phone call charge?

My OP is perfectly accurate. UK Catholics couldn't be bothered to fund the visit.

[CiviC]

Calling the Pope "Chief Witch Doctor" shows from the start the spitefull intent of the OP.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Calling the Pope "Chief Witch Doctor" shows from the start the spitefull intent of the OP.

I think stealing money from international aid to fund the luxury of the Chief of an organisation with huge revenues is spiteful.

[Incontinenta Buttox]

I think stealing money from international aid to fund the luxury of the Chief of an organisation with huge revenues is spiteful.

I'm no fan of the catholic church myself, but I supect you wouldn't have been posting this if it had been "chief" of any other organisation.

You are also aware that the Pope is revered by other christians, not just catholics.

[Tiwaz]

You are also aware that the Pope is revered by other christians, not just catholics.

Eh? Which ones?

Sorry, pope is purely catholic target of "reverence".

[Tiberios]

Calling the Pope "Chief Witch Doctor" shows from the start the spitefull intent of the OP.

This. Not a good way to call for a proper discussion I think.

[Jom]

BWB, "fund a visit" means "pay for the entire visit". That is to say to not require non-Catholic taxpayers to fund the visit of a religious figure who actively protects paedophiles.

[Big War Bird]

Are british catholics exempt from taxation? That seems to me to be at least one way they were "bothered." The collection plates for the the visit were a "bother" too. The money they raised funded the trip in part.

You could have been precise.

The UK Catholics came massively short of the funds they said they could contribute

You could have said that at the start. Instead you choose to be misleading. It does not do you or I credit. And you didn't have to bring it up at all.

BWB, "fund a visit" means "pay for the entire visit".

That's idiotic.

I suggest you look up some definitions of "fund" Nowhere will you find that only whole contributions count as funding.

Even ferrets now admits that catholics did fund the visit, albeit inadequately in his eyes.

And if we tried to use your definition, the British taxpayers didn't fund the trip either, since they didn't pay for all of it. So mysteriosly the Pope managed to fly into the UKs, stay for a few days, have all kinds of body guards and events all without funding.

Good job. That's astondingly solid logic.

I think stealing money from international aid to fund the luxury of the Chief of an organisation with huge revenues is spiteful.

Would it make you feel better if the money came from the education budget? Methinks you would be indignant no matter what accounting column the money was transfered from.

[removeduser_487563287433]

BWB did you just say we should pass a law that taxes Catholics only? That's repulsive.

[Big War Bird]

BWB did you just say we should pass a law that taxes Catholics only? That's repulsive.

No I didn't. Do you need remedial reading comprehension lessons again?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Nah it's just your point was really retarded. Why should British tax payers pay to fund an event Catholics banned them from?

[Big War Bird]

Nah it's just your point was really retarded.

Jeez, I'm beginning to think ESL classes would be good for you too. I being asburd to point out how adsurd you have been in defend your opening, misleading sentence. It is a common convention in the english language. I assign you to rent some Monty Python videos for starters.

Why should British tax payers pay to fund an event Catholics banned them from?

I will tentatively put my foot out on a limb and take this as factual.

And then ask this.

Why has it taken you so long to get to something worth discussing? Perhaps it has something to do with Britian's long history of persecution of Catholics? Perhaps it has something to do with Catholics being descriminatory?

And if you could source that there may be a gold star in it for you.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Departments having their budgets raided to pay for a hugely wealthy organisation isn't worth discussing? I disagree.