On 27 May 2014 at 6:30pm Unbeliever wrote:
I am shocked that one of the world's richest organizations has just been granted £11.9 million from camelot. Why should our money go to them, rather than a thousand other great causes? I will await the vitriol from the obvious.
On 27 May 2014 at 9:03pm Peter Pan wrote:
My thoughts exactly
On 27 May 2014 at 10:06pm Peasant wrote:
Where on earth did you get the idea that the diocese of Canterbury is one of the world's richest organisations? I'm sure it isn't. You don't have to look outside Lewes to discover that maintaining grade 1 listed buildings costs a fortune, and if we as a society want to keep them, somehow we have to pay for them. Doing so via the lottery tax on stupidity looks as good a way as any.
On 27 May 2014 at 10:29pm unbeliever wrote:
Peasant. I was talking about the church itself. They should fund its upkeep. There are poor, starving homeless people, children's charities, hospices to name a few that could do much with that fortune. It's obscene imho.
On 27 May 2014 at 10:29pm Tipex wrote:
Peasant - good point, well made. It's not just a Christian building, it's a nation icon.
On 27 May 2014 at 10:35pm FFS wrote:
@ Tipex. Are you a complete idiot? You really believe a building is more important than human lives obviously. Tw@t
On 27 May 2014 at 11:25pm unbelievable wrote:
@unbeliever, can you please clarify who the ''our'' is in ''our money''?
On 28 May 2014 at 9:33am Border Control wrote:
Lottery funding is really just tax spending. As buying a lottery ticket and scratch cards is really a form of tax. On stupidity !
On 28 May 2014 at 9:48am someone else wrote:
Border Control - from the perspective of being fairly left wing and a high earner, I think I should probably be paying more tax than I am. However, the tax I do pay is used to fund illegal wars in Iraq, Nigel Farage's corrupt theft of expenses in the EU and Michael Gove's ideological destruction of the education system. When I buy a lottery ticket, the uses to which the money is put are almost all benign and socially useful. Which is the more stupid form of taxation, I wonder?
On 28 May 2014 at 10:42am Border Control wrote:
You are absolutly right Someone Else everyone wins, one way or the other.
On 28 May 2014 at 10:57am tom wrote:
The lottery is simply a tax on the poor - preying on their desperation for material wealth - give with one hand and take with another.
On 28 May 2014 at 1:38pm Old Cynic wrote:
Its not a tax on the poor - no one is making the poor buy a lottery ticket - they choose to do so and the lottery can make grants to whomsoever it pleases. Getting lottery money is not easy and generally has to be match funded in some way. A tax on stupidity - well given the odds on winning - yes!
On 28 May 2014 at 3:23pm To gamble or not ... wrote:
And why is Canterbury Cathedral any less worthy of funding than an Art Gallery, or a community centre, or a youth group, or even the 2012 Olympics?
Whatever lottery money is used for some people will feel it is a worthy cause while others will vehemently object - that is why it allocation of lottery funds is decided by a team/board/group of people, so as to ensure a wide cross section of projects receive the funds.
I know of at least one CofE Church in Sussex that needed cash but the congregation refused to ask for/seek lottery funding as they felt they should not use the proceeds of "gambling", even though the project in-hand may well have been seen as a worthy recipient of lottery funds had they been sought.
Maybe lottery funds should have a tighter restriction on their allocation, but I am sure that whatever would be considered "acceptable" or "unacceptable" by some, would be viewed very differently by others.
If lottery punters are unhappy on where the proceeds are being spent then all they need do is boycott the lottery, and donate their cash directly to the deserving cause(s) of their choice. I am sure any registered charity would gladly welcome £100 er annum (plus possible extra that might be added via tax reclaimed via gift aid) as a direct donation, rather than have to jump through all the Lottery Fund's hoops to get a grant.
Is Canterbury Cathedral a worthy recipient? As a building of historical and even political significance, and as a tourist attraction that draws people into the city, probably, as a building ostensibly "owned" by what is perceived to be a "rich" Church, possibly not.
Don't forget, for every pound promised, the Cathedral has to raise a pound from it's own funds, so the "Rich Church" may well have to dip quite deeply into it's coffers too (quite rightly IMHO).
On 28 May 2014 at 5:06pm Border Control wrote:
Canterbury Cathedral this month, a Mosque next month ?
On 28 May 2014 at 5:40pm unbelievable wrote:
or a football ground?
On 28 May 2014 at 8:43pm Sussex Jim wrote:
The National Lottery: A voluntary tax, generally paid by the poor.
I have saved hundreds of pounds over the years by not participating.
On 28 May 2014 at 8:47pm Bongo wrote:
I think all religious organisations ought to be excluded from any money from Camelot - especially when most of them would regard gambling as immoral!
On 4 Jun 2014 at 8:59pm Bingo wrote:
I don`t buy lottery tickets ,daily papers , tobacco , I`ve saved £thousands , like Sussex Jim