Should the pope fund his visits himself?

[jomifl]

The British government funded the pope's visit to the UK. to the tune of £1.85 million with money taken from the foreign aid budget. Would this money have been better spent providing clean drinking water, treating malaria or curing blindness?

[ll_billym]

A good test would have been to send a picture of the old boy somewhere like Rwanda along with picture of a mountain of clean water and ask the locals what they would rather have turn up on the doorstep.

They have a much greater percentage of Catholics that the UK and much less clean water so are better placed to make the decision. This would have the added benefit that I wouldn't have had to hear so much about the pope recently.

[jomifl]

Please refer to the thread running in news which predates this one but which I didn't spot.

[Ankou]

of course, if the money could have been allocated to those things then yes, most certainly. its unlikley though, it was more likely part of the expense account for foreign dignitaries and state visits to other nations.

i don't think anyone would have rather not see it go to the poor people who need it.

[Uberloitenment]

I would rather all money go to those things you mention. But if we are going to start taking the money for charitable reasons, can we start with the money that is being spent on the Olympics? Then move on to footballers salaries? Then bankers bonuses? How about Simon Cowell, Rupert Murdoch, Donald Trump and Roman Abramovich start donating more sizeable chunks of their ludicrous fortunes instead of living like Kings? There are a million other areas I would target before hitting the Pope.