Well said Merlin

Hosting China was Realpolitik .

I to not happy with Olympic spending. Hate to bring subject back to France but wish they had won. Going to be a security nightmare.

But are all atheists utilitarians or is it a 'branch' of the belief like Methody or Catholicism are types of Christianity?

I'd consider myself an atheist but I don't support reproductive cloning. Animal/human hybrids - well, I don't want/expect to see Animal Farm-esque pig-men but I have a colleague who had a new heart valve grown in a pig who may otherwise have been dead - so that goes back to the sanctity of life aspect. Would he have been better off dead and not have the valve? As with most things, there are good uses for things and there is a point where abuse could lead to horrors.

I've rejected the idea of there being a Supreme Being directing the world after looking at the evidence. Why would I do less with any other argument/change in circumstances? I'd make my own mind up rather than blindly following prophets who want to make my mind up for me. Isn't that what all religions have had to do with all inventions that have occurred since their founders' times? The 'leader' picks the policy and the congregation follow - I'd much rather think for myself.

LOL Merlin on the Olympic part. I have another colleague who toured the site on Saturday as part of the Open House weekend and said it looked absolutely amazing and was pretty much converted to thinking more positively about 2012.

AppleSpider:
I don't want to get whisked away to another thread by the administrators (still trying to recover from the last time ) so I'll mention THE POPE ..... I'm glad your friend enjoyed the Olympic development, it certainly seems to be impressive from the outside. Pleased your friend has a story for the grandchildren - doubt they will get a ticket for anything but they could volunteer to direct traffic!

Messing up Greenwich park, paying for the 'pleasure', traffic and security will be a nightmare .... moan, whinge, gripe, moan, whinge, gripe.

Oh, no, don't mention the Pope!

Personally I'm not about the overall value of the Olympic hype but will wait to see how it all pans out. I can however imagine it will cripple London transport and road networks. ( is it really only two years away!) and may not be the gravy train that people envisaged. So far it seems to have just cost lots of money wtih exhorbitant debt interest and has inflated land prices in east London making it hard to produce good quality social housing there. I did do a course a few years ago where there were speakers from previous Olympic cities and academics who researched the Barcelona Olympics and the view seemed to be very mixed. Barcelone probably managed to get the best outcome in the long term as the Olympic Village and stadia are still widely used.

We should remember that the Olympic Legacy is already evident in Forest Hill with the opening of the East London Line Extension.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4016385.stm
[quo=BBC]The link is seen as crucial in assuring the International Olympic Committee London's transport infrastructure could cope with the demands of the Games. [/quote]

Now we probably know better, but that does not change the fact that Ken put regeneration ahead of sport in London's Olympic bid. As a result London has gained more public investment than other regions for the first time in a while.

And whilst land prices may have increased across East London, it is still cheaper than West London and there is plenty of room and low prices in our increasingly empty Northern towns.

But rather than (or perhaps as well as) criticising spending on the Pope's visit or the Olympics we should consider the £4.5billion price tag for the UK of the war in Iraq, or a mere £3.5m spent on the Diana memorial fountain, or £100m on BBC 6 Music and BBC Asian Network.

All this talk of a utopian, secular existence with compulsory euthanasia reminds me of Logan's Run...

Micheal - yes some very good and valid points, yet can someone please explain why if the Olympics are going to benefit the whole of the UK, why is that only London Borough council tax payers are paying some £20 per year for 6 years for this project

i will be very surprised if we do not end of with a big deficit as a result of this jamboree.
The security bill is going to be vast.
I am not sure The East London anything to do with The Olympics, that is down to good old Boris.

Boris had almost nothing to do with ELLX phase 1 (other than officially opening it). He became mayor in 2008, by which time the old ELL was shut and building work was in full swing.

I did appreciate that Michael only I thought Boris deserves our praise. A much better mayor than that other individual that Stanley should have not found.

Brian,
Not for the first time, your logic escapes me.
If you just thought Boris needed praise for something he didn't do why stop at the ELL? Shouldn't you praise him for he defeat of Nazi Germany 20 years before his birth?

No Logic Michael.

God Bless King Boris.

I'm still not convinced that the ELL extension would not have happened anyway, Olympics or not. Something of that ilk was on the cards for a while.

Sorry, of course I'll watch the Olympics but I am not a fan of these big initiatives that promise (and cost) the earth in terms of regeneration outcomes as there are few real tangible long term tales of success on other countries who have hosted the Olympics. and feel very concerned about the situation with the Commonwealth site in India. Indias economy has improved from what it was but its still Third World and what has been the cost of their spending all this money on showboating when they don;t have it in the first place. Look at the photos of child labour mowing the lawns and doing manual work on the Athletes Village. Its awful. And many athletes probably even won't go due to the conditions so its unlikely to make much of a return to the economy.

In answer to the original question about the Popes visit, I doubt if many people realise the true cost of hosting any foreign dignitary so this will be an eye opener. And no,I don't' think we should be spending anywhere near that sort of sum on anyones visits; so, Benedict, save some air miles and reduce your carbon footprint, and next time, just lets broadcast you from the Vatican on TV; its a lot cheaper and more people can see you that way.

Brian, as usual, you are 100% wrong about the ELL.

When we compare the visit of the Pope to, visits of say Bill Clinton, Usain Bolt, or the Australian Cricket team (or any number of other non political figures/organisations) would we be willing/expected to pay for the entourage of any of the latter? ( I realise in the past we've probably paid for Clinton, I mean in his new status of .. well, whatever it is)

In case you missed the recent news - £1.85m for the Pope's visit came from the Department for International Development http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12358890
I'm sure there are better ways DfID could be spending the money helping the poorest people and economies in the world.

DFID's response:

A Dfid spokesman said the department was one of several which part-funded the Pope's visit.

He added: "Our contribution recognised the Catholic Church's role as a major provider of health and education services in developing countries.

"This money does not constitute official development assistance and is therefore additional to the coalition government's historic commitment to meet the 0.7% UN aid target from 2013.

See here.

I haven't come across this wonderful thread before. It is interesting that there don't appear to have been any contributions from Roman Catholics. So here is a belated offering from one.

Of course it does not constitute official development assistance that is aimed to be 0.7% of GDP by 2013. It was spent in 2010 when we have not yet reached the 0.7% UN target. It is hardly 'additional to the coalition government's historic commitment' which does not apply until 2013. It is civil service obfuscation at the very worst.

http://news.scotsman.com/news/Catholic-c...6710714.jp

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with Mr Chitnis. But I'm not clear whether the money which DFID gave up would otherwise have been spent on aid. They presumably have a number of non-front-line budgets from which they may have been able to make savings. No doubt we shall learn more about it when they give their formal response to the select commitee.

I am not a Catholic but he seemed a nice elderly gentleman who is , after all , a Head of State.
As overseas aid budget one of the few not cut then seems as good a place as any to obtain funds.
Many African leaders are saying we should cease all aid but let their products into our market. Surely this makes more sense.