Another way the country works is in allowing people to express their views, including not liking the idea of pissing 12m of taxpayers' money up a wall for the security of someone whom many people don't want here anyway.
MPs waste money on new homes and duckponds and cruises and then lie about it. Don't like it? Tough.
Abu Hamza takes the piss out of the entire country by claiming every benefit he can get his hook on while simultaneously telling anyone within earshot that Islam is the only religion and Britain is a nation of evildoers. Annoyed? Meh.
20billion (not a typo) flushed down an IT system for the NHS which then fails, leading to another 2billion lost in tax credit fraud or errors. Not happy? Too bad.
This just doesn't do it for me. For every person who is happy that the pope is in Britain for this tour, there's someone who's unhappy about it, like me. My sister and I were sitting watching him sniffle and mumble his way through speech after uninspiring platitude over the weekend and we found it hard to understand what fulfilment this could have given anyone. By all means, let him come here. But don't make us pay for it. Or at least take a referendum or something. Who decides that yes, the country still reeling in recession can afford to drop 20m on this? I didn't get that petition through the post.
That's what annoys me. The government should be in charge of public amenities, national defence, etc. I'm used to watching them waste time and money on fucking those things up. But the pope's visit is a religious thing, not a governmental thing, and therefore the last people who should have to fund such a visit are the taxpayers, whether we appreciate his importance or not. Let all the Christians put £20 each in a bucket to pay for his visit. Let it be bankrolled by a private company with a religious agenda. Opus Dei could probably have afforded it. Fuck sake, the pope himself could afford it. But no, here's a better idea, make the grockles pay and then accuse them of being anti-religion if they raise a word of protest.
And I haven't even gotten into what this man represents to someone like me, who isn't religious. A man who decided that the best thing to do with the details of a thousand and one child abuse cases perpetrated by priests would be to not release them to the police
He has the power to withhold that information and the government has to be happy with that? GG.As usual with religion, I could waffle on about it all day but I won't. All I'm trying to say is that if no-one speaks out then nothing will get done. And Martz is right about Dawkins, even though he comes across as a tosser on TV (Dawkins, not Martz). If the country truly is all for freedom of speech and if Christians are really so open-minded and peace loving as they pretend, let's put 20m together for a Dawkins weekend and watch what happens. I'd put £20 towards that.
For the record, I didn't vote for it. No harm done though. Anyway, I'll stop hijacking Martz's post and stfu.
mughi 