Papal visit to Britain

[seeker57]

A recent survey about Benedict’s planned visit to the British Isles is quite interesting.

Seventy-seven per cent of participants on an online survey of 2,005 adults did not agree that the taxpayer should contribute to the bill for the four-day state visit this month.
The survey, conducted by theology think tank Theos, found that only 24 per cent of respondents were actively opposed to the visit, but the majority disliked the idea of state funding for it.
Although the majority disagreed with the taxpayer funding part of the bill, 79 per cent admitted to having no “personal interest” in the Pope’s visit.
Forty-one per cent said that the Pope should not speak out on social and political issues, while 36 per cent said he should.
The findings follow reports earlier this year that the government cost of the trip – previously estimated at £8 million – could rise to between £10 million and £12 million.
However, these figures do not include a bill for policing the visit.
The Catholic Church is expected to contribute between £9 million and £10 million to this year’s trip and was almost bankrupted after the last papal visit from Pope Jean Paul in 1982.

This seems like quite a bit to pay for a few days frolicking on the banks of the Thames.

Even more interesting, more people want him to keep his comments on politics and society to himself.

Considering that nearly 80 percent of those who were asked didn’t give a care whether Benedict visits or not. what is the purpose of this visit?

 

[FCEGM]

A recent survey about Benedict’s planned visit to the British Isles is quite interesting.

This seems like quite a bit to pay for a few days frolicking on the banks of the Thames.

Even more interesting, more people want him to keep his comments on politics and society to himself.

Considering that nearly 80 percent of those who were asked didn’t give a care whether Benedict visits or not. what is the purpose of this visit?

The same purpose as the travels of Sts. Peter and Paul, of course: to comfort and strengthen the Faithful and to preach the Gospel to those who do not know Christ or have turned their backs on Him.

 

[wardrandolph]

A recent survey about Benedict’s planned visit to the British Isles is quite interesting.

This seems like quite a bit to pay for a few days frolicking on the banks of the Thames.

Even more interesting, more people want him to keep his comments on politics and society to himself.

Considering that nearly 80 percent of those who were asked didn’t give a care whether Benedict visits or not. what is the purpose of this visit?

Frolicking?Keep his comments on politics and society to himself?What is the web add.you get your info from?

 

[Jingerly44]

You can’t be serious? Theos? Like, they are impartial? I think not.
The last Archbishop of Westminster was one of the religious leaders who gave his name to this overtly protestant organisation (we must remember that the Archbishop in question gave us the infamous statement “Unity is more important than truth”, at a ecumenical gathering) however he is now safely in retirement.

The findings are worthless. They give us the results with only the suggestion of how the questions were actually worded. Mind you, I’m not suggesting for a moment that the likes of the Revd Canon Lucy Winkett and the rest of her team were being deliberately deceptive.

It is however outrages that the Church is paying anything. All the costs should be met by the state. After all, it’s a “State Visit” i.e., The Holy Father was invited by Her Majesty the Queen. I wonder if President Bush was asked to contribute for his visit. Or for that matter if a poll of random people (?) were asked if they agreed with his visit or asked what he should and should not speak about.

It makes you think

 

[JHow]

“online survey of 2,005 adults”

If the sample was purely an opportunity sample of people visiting a web site, it is hardly representative. You should always exercise caution when you see ‘online survey’.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

2005 people questioned out of a population of about 60 million has absolutely no statistical value.

I assume that the taxpayer foots the bill for all state visits, so why not the Pope’s state visit?

I would much prefer, as a UK taxpayer, to have my taxes used to pay for a state visit by the Pope than some of the heads of state we’ve had making state visit’s such as the President of China.

 

[UniversalistGuy]

A recent survey about Benedict’s planned visit to the British Isles is quite interesting.

Seventy-seven per cent of participants on an online survey of 2,005 adults did not agree that the taxpayer should contribute to the bill for the four-day state visit this month.
The survey, conducted by theology think tank Theos, found that only 24 per cent of respondents were actively opposed to the visit, but the majority disliked the idea of state funding for it.
Although the majority disagreed with the taxpayer funding part of the bill, 79 per cent admitted to having no “personal interest” in the Pope’s visit.
Forty-one per cent said that the Pope should not speak out on social and political issues, while 36 per cent said he should.
The findings follow reports earlier this year that the government cost of the trip – previously estimated at £8 million – could rise to between £10 million and £12 million.
However, these figures do not include a bill for policing the visit.
The Catholic Church is expected to contribute between £9 million and £10 million to this year’s trip and was almost bankrupted after the last papal visit from Pope Jean Paul in 1982.

I read some time back that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens were planning on trying to get the pope arrested if that papal visit went ahead. Do you happen to know if that’s still their agenda?

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I read some time back that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens were planning on trying to get the pope arrested if that papal visit went ahead. Do you happen to know if that’s still their agenda?

That was their intention. I do not know if they still have this intent. No one at all has taken them seriously. I have a feeling that they’ve let it drop and quietly faded in to the background. Nevertheless I think Richard Dawkins it stupid enough to still attempt it.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

2005 people questioned out of a population of about 60 million has absolutely no statistical value.

Actually, it is statistically significant. A good sample size, statistically speaking doesn’t depend on the size of the target population. It just needs to be large enough to render random flux, and selection bias negligible in the grander scheme. N=2000 is a more than adequate sample size. As a researcher I’ve worked with samples smaller by orders of magnitude (even recently I worked with my advisor on an experiment involving only 300 individuals for which the target population was… all homo sapiens!).

Sorry for singling you out, but this is just one of my many neurotic pet peeves. It seems many people think that unless millions are polled (or the answer they’re really hoping for is the result) that the polling is some how systematically flawed.

Now, as another poster mentioned this poll is flawed, not because of sample size, but because of actual sampling. Online polls are horrible ways to sample a population outside of the actual readers of the site since participation in the polling is self-induced, not randomized. Good sampling involves the statistician going out herself to seek the respondents not having the respondents come to her, otherwise she risks contaminating her target population with a majority of individuals who have a particular motivation to participate. In this case, it’s likely that someone who already has some very strong opinions about the Pope (whether friendly or antagonistic) are more likely to involve themselves than someone who is apathetic.

The only way for an online poll to circumvent this obstacle of sampling would be for the researchers to randomly target people’s IP addresses and send pop-up windows inviting them to participate in a poll irrespective of which websites they visit, similar to how randomized telephone polling doesn’t involve placing an ad on TV instructing viewers to call in to participate, rather a random number generator is used to randomly dial phone numbers and ask individuals to participate.

Sorry for the derail folks.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Actually, it is statistically significant. A good sample size, statistically speaking doesn’t depend on the size of the target population. It just needs to be large enough to render random flux, and selection bias negligible in the grander scheme. N=2000 is a more than adequate sample size. As a researcher I’ve worked with samples smaller by orders of magnitude (even recently I worked with my advisor on an experiment involving only 300 individuals for which the target population was… all homo sapiens!).

Sorry for singling you out, but this is just one of my many neurotic pet peeves. It seems many people think that unless millions are polled (or the answer they’re really hoping for is the result) that the polling is some how systematically flawed.

Now, as another poster mentioned this poll is flawed, not because of sample size, but because of actual sampling. Online polls are horrible ways to sample a population outside of the actual readers of the site since participation in the polling is self-induced, not randomized. Good sampling involves the statistician going out herself to seek the respondents not having the respondents come to her, otherwise she risks contaminating her target population with a majority of individuals who have a particular motivation to participate. In this case, it’s likely that someone who already has some very strong opinions about the Pope (whether friendly or antagonistic) are more likely to involve themselves than someone who is apathetic.

Sorry for the derail folks.

OK, I accept what you are saying. Let’s assume 2005 people were chosen at random using proper statistical means. They are all asked the question: “do you agree with the Pope’s visit to Britain?” They can only give the answer “yes” or “no”. If the majority of these 2005 people said “no” couldn’t it be pure chance that the majority of those questioned were against the visit. Can they be truly representative of even the adult population. Plus, in reality I think there are so many confounding factors that would make such surveys unreliable.

 

[Kaninchen]

My goodness, he’s going to shake hands with a clergywoman!

 

[rick43235]

My goodness, he’s going to shake hands with a clergywoman!

Oh, the horror!!!

 

[chris_molter]

Oh, the horror!!!

SHAKING hands, not LAYING hands…

 

[Matthew_Holford]

My goodness, he’s going to shake hands with a clergywoman!

May be I am being naïve but I don’t see much of an issue. In effect he will just be shaking hands with another layperson as he will be when he shakes the Archbishop of Canterbury’s hand.

 

[JHow]

Actually, it is statistically significant. A good sample size, statistically speaking doesn’t depend on the size of the target population.

Good post. Saved me the trouble.

 

[Kaninchen]

May be I am being naïve but I don’t see much of an issue. In effect he will just be shaking hands with another layperson as he will be when he shakes the Archbishop of Canterbury’s hand.

Just don’t tell the people on Traditional Catholicism - there’ll be slippery slopes all over the place.

 

[seeker57]

Just don’t tell the people on Traditional Catholicism - there’ll be slippery slopes all over the place.

I believe this is the first time a pope has had a state visit in Britain. When John Paul ll was there, I don’t think it was a state visit.

It should be interesting. There will be two heads of state - who also happen to be leaders of Christian denominations - meeting for an official state visit: Pope Benedict XVI and Queen Elizabeth II.

The reason I brought up the expense was what friends told me after Benedict visited Australia. They were livid at the cost they, as taxpayers of that nation, had to pay for his visit during that youth gathering the Catholic Church did there.

I know this is somewhat different, and the Catholic Church does intend to pay some of the expenses, but the costs still stagger me. That is a lot of cabbage.

 

[Kaninchen]

I believe this is the first time a pope has had a state visit in Britain. When John Paul ll was there, I don’t think it was a state visit.

It should be interesting. There will be two heads of state - who also happen to be leaders of Christian denominations - meeting for an official state visit: Pope Benedict XVI and Queen Elizabeth II.

The reason I brought up the expense was what friends told me after Benedict visited Australia. They were livid at the cost they, as taxpayers of that nation, had to pay for his visit during that youth gathering the Catholic Church did there.

I know this is somewhat different, and the Catholic Church does intend to pay some of the expenses, but the costs still stagger me. That is a lot of cabbage.

Well, it’s about 15p per head and that’s a bit ‘drop in the ocean-ish’ really - the Government would only find other ways to waste 15p.

It’ll be nice for the Catholics and the ‘usual suspects’ of getting cross about things - most Brits will hardly notice and hardly care.

 

[SilenJack]

Interesting article on the HuffPo from Johann Hari…“appealing” to all decent Catholics to shun the Pope and join the protesters when he arrived. Heres the link

Honestly though…why is the Holy Father even bothering with Britain? They turned their back on God long ago…the Anglican Church is withering away, most of the populace don’t believe in anything, the cultural and political elites are stripping away every last vestige of Christianity, along with anything else that might interfere with their hedonism. The number of people who actually believe and bother to attend a Church is microscopic.

Face it, Britain is lost, along with Europe in general. Might as well move the Holy See to Africa or South America and leave that benighted place to the fate it has chosen for itself…

 

[Thyme]

Face it, Britain is lost, along with Europe in general. Might as well move the Holy See to Africa or South America and leave that benighted place to the fate it has chosen for itself…

Not quite The miracle of John Henry Newman is gaining publicity and it may be convincing people that God exists. Maybe some atheists are researching into more miracles which have baffled Doctors and this could plant seeds.

I have also been told of a couple of apparitions where Mary said that England and China and in the second, a Northern European country will be converted from their protestant/pentecostal ways and the rest of the world will be influenced by them.

I’m also hoping that the Pope’s ethics will influence people’s political views. He is gaining more publicity now and I have noticed that the media is publicising his comments on a few issues.