tegwini Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=512043&in_page_id=1770&ct=5Just noticed this on another forum - unbelievable or what ???Tegwini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoddy Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 I was so cross when I read this that I have written to my MP to ask him about the truth of it. I'm moving this into the "Other Topics" area because it has nothing to do with France.Hoddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 It does, on first reading, sound quite incredible. But, unless I am misunderstanding the news article I have read about this, it is not really a "new" ruling, nothing has changed. The findings of the year-long review allow that the extra benefits "continue to be paid". So how long has this actually been going on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 It says "New guidelines" If you stop this benefit will potential claimants find another way to be funded. Should we send out a clear unequivocal message. If you live in the UK you have one wife or risk being prosecuted for bigamy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patf Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Read to the end where it says that there are only about 1000 cases of polygamous marriages in UK and only a tiny % of these receive benefits. Even so incredible - probably another example of the legal bods giving a wide liberal interpretation , this time of "wife". Frightened of being sued again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gluestick Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Since HMRC now accept "Civil Partnerships" equally with marriage, per se (says so on Self Assessment forms!) no need to get married and live in polgyamy.I'm thinking of living in sin with 20 nubile young ladies as "Civil Partners"!I'd have a very short life expectancy: however wouldn't have to work any more!And, what a way to go![:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deimos Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 I thought that being married to more than one person was illegal in the UK (and that people could be prosecuted for it). If this (my understanding) is correct, how then are some UK residents married to more than one person (at the same time) and not being prosecuted ?Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tegwini Posted February 7, 2008 Author Share Posted February 7, 2008 Well, I've wondered if this should be challenged as it is 'sexist' - what about polyandry ?...but, would I really want another 'him indoors', but the dosh (unearned) would be very welcome!Tegwini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 A DWP spokesman said: 'There are fewer than 1,000 polygamous marriages in the UK and only a small percentage of these are claiming social security benefit. "We recently reviewed the rules regarding benefit payments to customers in a polygamous marriage, which conclude that the rules in place since 1987 provide the necessary safeguards to ensure there is no financial advantage for claimants in a valid polygamous marriage." "Where there is a valid polygamous marriage the claimant and one spouse will be paid the couple rate (£92.80). "The amount payable for each additional spouse is presently £33.65." "Income support for all of the wives may be paid directly into the husband's bank account, if the family so choose. "We could always look on the bright side, these bigamous marriages are costing "us" less at £33.65 per extra wife than bona-fide single women/unofficial wives/mistresses... who can claim single person's income support at £59.15. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patf Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 I love that word "spouse". I wonder if the plural is "spice"? [:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Totally off topic, but... if , as you ponder, the plural of spouse is spice, then it works exactly the same way in French too, épouse and épice. Now isn't that odd?Don't worry, I'll report myself... (and make a mental note to get out more). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Sorry but the thought of a polygamous marriage to all five spice girls is just too disgusting to contemplate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybananasbrother Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 'spruce' I think.Anyway to add a French theme, do you think I can claim for me second bit of stuff in France too? How much would I get? Would this put my CPAM payments up? Would they both be entitled to free health care or would one have to go private? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Riff-Raff Element Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 [quote user="Deimos"]I thought that being married to more than one person was illegal in the UK (and that people could be prosecuted for it). If this (my understanding) is correct, how then are some UK residents married to more than one person (at the same time) and not being prosecuted ?Ian[/quote]A-ha! Because in the juridsiction where the marriages took place it is legal.Think of it this way. In the UK I was married in a CofE church - a religious marriage in other words.But if the same ceremony were conducted in France by an Anglican priest the resulting marriage would not be recognised as legally binding by the authorities. Nonetheless, they very sportingly recognise that where the marriage took place it was legally recocognised and is therefore valid.Why anyone would want to marry more than one person at the same time, however, is a mystery to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deimos Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 I suppose what I find disappointing is that special rules are being made to allow specific religions beneficial conditions to everybody else. If having more than wife is illegal under UK law then people who have married more than one (overseas) should not be given additional benefits. Same laws and rules should apply to all. Just because Islamic law says you can have up to 4 wives does not mean that UK laws should allow this but only for Islamic people. Either allow everybody to do it or don't - no special rules for specific religions.In fact I suspect its all a bit sexist as I have not heard of a Muslim woman being allowed 4 husbands - so how would UK/EU laws of sexual discrimination stand.Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5-element Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 [quote user="Deimos"]In fact I suspect its all a bit sexist as I have not heard of a Muslim woman being allowed 4 husbands - so how would UK/EU laws of sexual discrimination stand.Ian[/quote] Do you know of any woman who might want FOUR husbands?[:'(]But I agree that the same laws and rules should apply to all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tresco Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 [quote user="5-element"]...But I agree that the same laws and rules should apply to all. [/quote]The Archbishop of Canterbury disagrees.[8-)] I really do find this odd, or even unbelievable.http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2254075,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 [quote user="5-element"]Do you know of any woman who might want FOUR husbands?[:'(][/quote]OMG 5-element, do you mind!("polygamy is having one husband too many; monogamy is the same": Erica Jong) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frederick Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 The UK at the moment has this simmering anger among the population building up... all due to the way the country is being ripped off as far as benefits are concerned by people coming in. The more the cost of living rises ..the more wages and pensions are kept down .now 3 year wage deals are being imposed on people ...the more the steam in the kettle rises ...It appears the whole country from young couples to the retired are talking about one thing at the moment ....Immigration / Muslims .and the way the governement seems to pander to their every need ....Just this morning a retired guy I had in the car was bemoaning the fact that OAP's are finding it hard to heat their homes due to the cost of fuel when millions seem to be available to give in benefits to immigrants flooding in ....money for them not for pensions he was saying .......Now it appears children are being brought into the UK for the sole purpose of adding to the size of a benefit claim by some former East European immigrants . I think we could end up with dissorder on the streets and very nasty political party one day if this situation is not tackled... and fast ! Even people coming here are amazed we are actually giving them this money..and their newspapers print articles telling them whats available to them and how to claim when they get here ... ... Where the money coming from to keep paying these new claims ....not from more in taxes people have not got the spare money to pay more ...they cant make end meet now many of them . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deimos Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 [quote user="Tresco"][quote user="5-element"]...But I agree that the same laws and rules should apply to all. [/quote]The Archbishop of Canterbury disagrees.[8-)] I really do find this odd, or even unbelievable.http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2254075,00.html[/quote]I think to get the real answer we should ask the Pope. After all, he is infallible so his answer must be right (or is it inflammable)But I agree it strange that he (the Archbishop) should come out with such a comment EXCEPT that I suspect he also wants special treatment in law for at least certain groups of Christians.What gets even more worrying in the article is that Gordon's spokesperson says that "concessions to sharia law could be made on a case-by-case basis"I think the Christian based religions are just as keen at having their own special "exemptions" except then don't have a name for it. Its easy to refer to "sharia law" but it is effectively the same thing when Catholics want to be exempt from equality laws (e.. not having to treat prospective adoption parents who are the same sex equivalently to more traditional couples).Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoddy Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Tresco, describing it as 'odd' goes no where near what I feel about this.This would give more power to an already powerful patriarchal society, just at a time when so many young moslem women are looking to the mainstream of British culture to help them.Hoddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybananasbrother Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 My first and only answer to this is 'No, a step too far' . Perhaps the Archbishop should simply shut up and sort out the problems in his own Church Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoddy Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Or perhaps address the issue of the treatment of Christians in moslem countries ?Hoddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gluestick Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 I'm an Anglican; a communicant, a Lay Reader and also a Lay Assistant.Sadly, I feel the present incumbant in Canterbury is a Bunny Hugging idiot!He ought to be teaching something really useful like Sociology or Media Studies at an ersatz university in somewhere nice like Nottingham. Suit him perfectly. He could then grow his scruffy beard longer, and campaign for a whole series of Bunny Hugger rights, wearing ripped denims and Doc Martin's Boots.Can you imagine how the French would react, if we Brits suggested that la Code Napolean be changed, 'cos it didn't suit our religion![:@]They would, quite rightly, suggest we had a choice of the ferry, Eurostar or air! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoddy Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Gluestick, our harmony from yesterday is gone !Nottingham is nineteenth of one hundred and thirteen in the Sunday Times University League Table.Can't have you insulting my old groves of academe.Hoddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now