NationStates Jolt Archive

Is this true? How does this work? Polygamy is illegal in the UK (correct me if I am wrong). But apparently a man can collect benefits for the other wives. What gives?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=SNYDAB5OLQAQDQFIQMFCFF4AVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2008/02/03/nbenefit103.xml
Husbands with multiple wives have been given the go-ahead to claim extra welfare benefits following a year-long Government review, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

Even though bigamy is a crime in Britain, the decision by ministers means that polygamous marriages can now be recognised formally by the state, so long as the weddings took place in countries where the arrangement is legal.

The outcome will chiefly benefit Muslim men with more than one wife, as is permitted under Islamic law. Ministers estimate that up to a thousand polygamous partnerships exist in Britain, although they admit there is no exact record.

The decision has been condemned by the Tories, who accused the Government of offering preferential treatment to a particular group, and of setting a precedent that would lead to demands for further changes in British law.

New guidelines on income support from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) state: "Where there is a valid polygamous marriage the claimant and one spouse will be paid the couple rate ... 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. Under the deal agreed by ministers, a husband with multiple wives may also be eligible for additional housing benefit and council tax benefit to reflect the larger property needed for his family.:D

The ruling could cost taxpayers millions of pounds. Ministers launched a review of the benefit rules for polygamous marriages in November 2006, after it emerged that some families had benefited financially.

The review concluded in December last year with agreement that the extra benefits should continue to be paid, the Government admitted. The decision was not publicly announced.

Four departments - the Treasury, the DWP, HM Revenue and Customs, and the Home Office - were involved in the review, which concluded that recognising multiple marriages conducted overseas was "the best possible" option. In Britain, bigamy is punishable by up to seven years in prison.

Islamic law permits men to have up to four wives at any one time - known as a harem - provided the husband spends equal amounts of time and money on each of them.

A DWP spokesman claimed that the number of people in polygamous marriages entering Britain had fallen since the 1988 Immigration Act, which "generally prevents a man from bringing a second or subsequent wife with him to this country if another woman is already living as his wife in the UK".

While a married man cannot obtain a spouse visa to bring a second wife into Britain, some multiple partners may be able to enter the country via other legal routes such as tourist visas, student visas or work permits.

In addition, officials have identified a potential loophole by which a man can divorce his wife under British law while continuing to live with her as his spouse under Islamic law, and obtain a spouse visa for a foreign woman who he can legally marry.

"Entry clearance may not be withheld from a second wife where the husband has divorced his previous wife and the divorce is thought to be one of convenience," an immigration rulebook advises. "This is so, even if the husband is still living with the previous wife and to issue the entry clearance would lead to the formation of a polygamous household."

Chris Grayling, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said that the decision was "completely unjustifiable".

"You are not allowed to have multiple marriages in the UK, so to have a situation where the benefits system is treating people in different ways is totally unacceptable and will serve to undermine confidence in the system.

"This sets a precedent that will lead to more demands for the culture of other countries to be reflected in UK law and the benefits system."

Mr Grayling also accused the Government of trying to keep the ruling quiet because the topic is so controversial.

I have to admit I'm curious about the justification for this ruling...
I also have to admit that I don't think it very just.

I agree exactly with this point. The UK law should be based primarily on -gasp- UK laws and customs. Sure, there should be room to accommodate in some ways for other cultures. I have no qualm with that. However, it bothers me that they are pretty much bending over backwards for foreigners, and saying :upyours: to the people of their own nation.




Boy, does that British government have no spine these days.

Well, the spouse in question would probably receive welfare benefits one way or another. She wouldn't get them just cause she's married. But why the husband can claim them puzzles me.

Also, if polygamy and resulting larger family would push you forward for council housing, I'd like to see a law that will give communes a greater advantage, too.

"This sets a precedent that will lead to more demands for the culture of other countries to be reflected in UK law and the benefits system."

I agree exactly with this point. The UK law should be based primarily on -gasp- UK laws and customs. Sure, there should be room to accommodate in some ways for other cultures. I have no qualm with that. However, it bothers me that they are pretty much bending over backwards for foreigners, and saying :upyours: to the people of their own nation.


r Grayling also accused the Government of trying to keep the ruling quiet because the topic is so controversial.

Boy, does that British government have no spine these days.

I have to admit I'm curious about the justification for this ruling...
I also have to admit that I don't think it very just.

Two thimgs spring to mind here. The first being, that its the PC brigaid doing another mad thing. The second being it's a ploy to get these people into jail for their alloted seven year stretch.

The UK government fails at retaining cultural identity.

I have to admit I'm curious about the justification for this ruling...

I assume it had something to do with the marriage being legal in the country where the ceremony was performed...
I also do not see why polygamy is not legal in pretty christian Britain. The old testament is filled with respected polygamists, like Solomon and Abraham.

I assume it had something to do with the marriage being legal in the country where the ceremony was performed...
I also do not see why polygamy is not legal in pretty christian Britain. The old testament is filled with respected polygamists, like Solomon and Abraham.

Oh, I wouldn't have a problem with making it legal. As long as that would mean I can have 3 or 4 husbands... :D
But in that case, it should be legal for all. As long as it's illegal but suffered, the state should ignore it for legislations such as the one above.

But in that case, it should be legal for all. As long as it's illegal but suffered, the state should ignore it for legislations such as the one above.

True. Then again, other countries do have similar laws. The Netherlands for instance recognises foreign marriages of people between 12 and 16 - while for the locals that would require "royal" permission.

I wonder.. what happens if a legally married gay couple moves to the USA ? Is their marriage ignored by most states ?

True. Then again, other countries do have similar laws. The Netherlands for instance recognises foreign marriages of people between 12 and 16 - while for the locals that would require "royal" permission.
But that's not similar now is it? "Royal permission" may be required, but it is still legal.

I wonder.. what happens if a legally married gay couple moves to the USA ? Is their marriage ignored by most states ?
Are you kidding? The US is refusing to recognize it's own Constitution to allow gay marriage recognition between states with gay marriage and those without. Their marriage would be null and void in the US.

But that's not similar now is it? "Royal permission" may be required, but it is still legal.

In theory. In practice it is never given if the partners differ significantly in years - which is of course the case with most of the foreign childbride marriages.
But true - it is at least allowed on paper.

This country's becoming more and more of a joke by the day, how spineless can this government get? If these people want to live like they're in the seventh century they should have to do it somewhere else, I don't see why this country should put up with their primitive crap. It's even more ridiculous that the British taxpayer will be subsidising it. This will probably also result in more men importing their second wives from places like Pakistan and Bangladesh into Britain, aren't we so lucky? Typical of this country....

you get help supporting all your wives (which lets face it you will need:p) so its the same benefits everyone gets and is more or less the government trying to ignore the legalizing of polygamy

I doubt you can make money off it though :(

i dont know how it works in the UK but i know how it works inthe US.

the polygamous husband has only one legal wife so all the rest of this wives are single mothers without support. so they get to collect welfare as if they lived in households of their own. it can add up to a tidy sum each month, all of which goes to the husband to spend as he sees fit for the whole family.

in the UK you seem to be getting a bargain at £33.65 for a woman to live on for a month. thats really not enough to live on now is it?

i dont know how it works in the UK but i know how it works inthe US.

the polygamous husband has only one legal wife so all the rest of this wives are single mothers without support. so they get to collect welfare as if they lived in households of their own. it can add up to a tidy sum each month, all of which goes to the husband to spend as he sees fit for the whole family.

in the UK you seem to be getting a bargain at £33.65 for a woman to live on for a month. thats really not enough to live on now is it?

I think they're collecting their cheques weekly ;)
Anyway, why would it be assumed that the other wives live in separate households? Pretending to live on your own when you don't is regarded as benefit fraud in the UK, if you share your house you're entitled to less actually.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13421696']This country's becoming more and more of a joke by the day, how spineless can this government get? If these people want to live like they're in the seventh century they should have to do it somewhere else, I don't see why this country should put up with their primitive crap. It's even more ridiculous that the British taxpayer will be subsidising it. This will probably also result in more men importing their second wives from places like Pakistan and Bangladesh into Britain, aren't we so lucky? Typical of this country....

yes how dare they live their own lives without hurting nobody! what we should do is cut their benefits so they suffer for their crimes!

in the UK you seem to be getting a bargain at £33.65 for a woman to live on for a month. thats really not enough to live on now is it?

presumably its just to go towards property tax I suppose and now that I think about it have a polygamous marriage would save a fortune especially in heating

I think they're collecting their cheques weekly ;)
Anyway, why would it be assumed that the other wives live in separate households? Pretending to live on your own when you don't is regarded as benefit fraud in the UK, if you share your house you're entitled to less actually.

mostly because in those areas where they do such things all the social workers who check into the legitimacy of the claims are members of the sect.

you cant really live on £150/month either can you?

I agree exactly with this point. The UK law should be based primarily on -gasp- UK laws and customs. Sure, there should be room to accommodate in some ways for other cultures. I have no qualm with that. However, it bothers me that they are pretty much bending over backwards for foreigners, and saying :upyours: to the people of their own nation.
Not true. It runs both ways. We agree to recognise marriages performed abroad, just as foreign nations agree to recognise marriages performed in our countries...just one example.

This is an aspect of public international law, or the law of conflicts relating to matrimony and matrimonial property. Imagine if you will, a British woman married to a man in a nation that allows polygamy. Britain could do one of two things. Say that a polygamous marriage is illegal, and not recognise her as being married, or say (as it does) that solemnization is ruled by the place of celebration...and say that the marriage is valid. It has been sometimes argued that polygamous marriages are an issue of capacity, not solemnization, in which case the choice of law rule would be to apply British laws in her case, and the laws of the husband's land in his case. Even then, it has been stated that for her, the marriage is to be seen as being monogamous and she would of course have capacity to enter into a monogamous marriage.

If the UK did NOT recognise this kind of marriage, it could put the people in question in a very bad situation. She would have no matrimonial property rights if the marriage were to disolve, for example.

The UK will not apply foreign law when it is contary to public policy. The courts here seem to have decided that this is not the case in this particular situation, and that allowing the collection of benefits is in the best interests of the people involved.

So to sum up...this IS UK law, based on UK laws and customs...it is UK public international law.

True. Then again, other countries do have similar laws. The Netherlands for instance recognises foreign marriages of people between 12 and 16 - while for the locals that would require "royal" permission.

I wonder.. what happens if a legally married gay couple moves to the USA ? Is their marriage ignored by most states ?

Depends on the state. Gay marriage is an issue of capacity, not solemnization. It is therefore goverened by the place of domicile, not the place the marriage is performed. If a state says that gays do not have the capacity to marry, then they can certainly come up to Canada, and get hitched, and have their marriage recognised here...but when they go home, their marriage will be considered void.

The courts in this case have characterized the issue of polygamous marriage as being one of solemnization, not capacity. The case law has gone both ways over the years.

The UK government fails at retaining cultural identity.

Culture is fluid and dynamic. Once it becomes static, it dies.

The UK government fails at retaining cultural identity.

That's a little kind. It just fails completely in truth.

Culture is fluid and dynamic. Once it becomes static, it dies.

To which I would ask, what the hell is UK culture?

To which I would ask, what the hell is UK culture?

Apparently it's all about feudal land systems, quaint crinoline, horse-drawn carriages, infrequent bathing and sending children to work in the factories?

I mean...which part of UK culture must we strive to preserve I wonder?

Is this true? How does this work? Polygamy is illegal in the UK (correct me if I am wrong). But apparently a man can collect benefits for the other wives. What gives?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=SNYDAB5OLQAQDQFIQMFCFF4AVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2008/02/03/nbenefit103.xml

Would anyone like to see my information about the welfare state?
Is it relevant to this topic? I think it could be.
I only ask because it's about 700 words long, i could have made it longer but i thought i should ask other folks rather than waste their time if i'm off topic?

Apparently it's all about feudal land systems, quaint crinoline, horse-drawn carriages, infrequent bathing and sending children to work in the factories?

I mean...which part of UK culture must we strive to preserve I wonder?

Well roast beef is quite nice, I wouldn't want to see the end of that. It is said that we do love our pets(although I have not seen much evidance for that) Morris danceing I really don't care if that disapears.

No I think true British culture is stealing from other cultures and calling it our own, curry anybody?

No I think true British culture is stealing from other cultures and calling it our own, curry anybody?True true... and we do the same as Canukistanis.

Hmm, let's see...preserving "Canadian culture" has meant extremely racist immigration policies for the bulk of the existence of Canada, including sending Jews back to Europe to be murdered in the holocaust...racist non-immigration policies such as creating Japanese internment camps and Residential schools...so forth and so on. I think that part of Canadian culture, racism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia et al. can quite happily be discarded thanks.

Well roast beef is quite nice, I wouldn't want to see the end of that. It is said that we do love our pets(although I have not seen much evidance for that) Morris danceing I really don't care if that disapears.

No I think true British culture is stealing from other cultures and calling it our own, curry anybody?

Curry=The best thing to come out of immigration/multiculturalism EVAR!!! That and mango chutney (although I suspect that's a bastardisation of the original cuisine).

I miss DK. He would have been ranting against teh ebil Muslims, and providing me with some entertainment.

Apparently it's all about feudal land systems, quaint crinoline, horse-drawn carriages, infrequent bathing and sending children to work in the factories?

I mean...which part of UK culture must we strive to preserve I wonder?

See I would have said it's about things like;

http://www.watson.org/~leigh/shakespeare.jpg

and

http://www.usc.edu/dept/architecture/slide/ghirardo/CD3/StPancrasStation.jpg

and

http://cnma.anu.edu.au/blogs/media/turner_fighting_temeraire.jpg

and

http://www.businessinnovationinsider.com/images/2006/06/Beatles.jpg

But maybe I'm just a glass half full kind of guy.

See I would have said it's about things like;

http://www.watson.org/~leigh/shakespeare.jpg

and

http://www.usc.edu/dept/architecture/slide/ghirardo/CD3/StPancrasStation.jpg

and

http://cnma.anu.edu.au/blogs/media/turner_fighting_temeraire.jpg

and

http://www.businessinnovationinsider.com/images/2006/06/Beatles.jpg

But maybe I'm just a glass half full kind of guy.

oooohhhh, pretty pictures (well except for that last one).
I prefer the quiet parts of culture, where there's no chance of dieing (unless you're into extreme sport).
Row Row row your merrily,
Merrily merrily merrily merrily,
boat boat boat,
merrily down the stream,
happily boating merrily merrily,
boat boat boat.

I think when they are mentioning culture, I believe they are using it in the context of the modern western traditions (mostly non polygamous) held by most western countries and which is also represented in law, rather than any specific British cultural identity.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13421696']This country's becoming more and more of a joke by the day, how spineless can this government get? If these people want to live like they're in the seventh century they should have to do it somewhere else, I don't see why this country should put up with their primitive crap. It's even more ridiculous that the British taxpayer will be subsidising it. This will probably also result in more men importing their second wives from places like Pakistan and Bangladesh into Britain, aren't we so lucky? Typical of this country....
Yeah, it really is a joke that people should be able to choose how they want to live. Next we'll be suggesting that we let the darkies vote!

The UK government fails at retaining cultural identity.
You don't see ending the ban on same sex marriages as failing to retain cultural identity, so why not extend the same courtesy to polygamous marriages?

It's not as though they are saying that in the UK, people will be able to enter into polygamous marriages. There is just a recognition (and not to a full extent) of such marriages performed overseas, according to those nation's marriage laws. Since the UK wants its marriages accepted overseas, it's a bit of quid pro quo, wot?

LOL... Anyone that's ever been married knows it's hard enough to keep up with the financial demands of one wife. It's pure foolhardiness to try and get rich with more than one.

I think the whole 'get rich' premise is ridiculous to the point of being worth only complete dismissal.

I also think polygamy could work fine with people who are more communal minded. For most westerners, I think it would be a terrible idea doomed to failure. Sheesh, most of us can hardly bear to live with one person!

LOL... Anyone that's ever been married knows it's hard enough to keep up with the financial demands of one wife. It's pure foolhardiness to try and get rich with more than one.

I think the whole 'get rich' premise is ridiculous to the point of being worth only complete dismissal.

I also think polygamy could work fine with people who are more communal minded. For most westerners, I think it would be a terrible idea doomed to failure. Sheesh, most of us can hardly bear to live with one person!

I can't live with myself.. :D

That was a headline from some other link that I saw...I was too lazy to calculate and convert pounds and find out how that relates to cost of living etc..:p

But tell me something...currently wives brought over from countries like Pak, BD etc are very illiterate and are very much shackled in virtual prisons in their houses...if husbands can collect money on their behalf as this thing allows them, would that not further deprive them of any chance of breaking out. Yes, this sort of "bride import" happens in hindu/sikh communities too...but the 'shackling' is less (IMHO) in their cases.

I think the whole 'get rich' premise is ridiculous to the point of being worth only complete dismissal.

I also think polygamy could work fine with people who are more communal minded. For most westerners, I think it would be a terrible idea doomed to failure. Sheesh, most of us can hardly bear to live with one person!
How many British polygamists are we talking about? Probably not many.

I've always joked that the best six years of our marriage were the years that I spent at sea...

My wife agrees a little too quickly, I think.

But tell me something...currently wives brought over from countries like Pak, BD etc are very illiterate and are very much shackled in virtual prisons in their houses...if husbands can collect money on their behalf as this thing allows them, would that not further deprive them of any chance of breaking out. Yes, this sort of "bride import" happens in hindu/sikh communities too...but the 'shackling' is less (IMHO) in their cases.

I don't see why the husband collecting money on behalf of his wife would further imprison her, if that were in fact the situation. It isn't money she would have received anyway, so the husband can't be said to be depriving her. Nor do I think the added funds would somehow create another barrier to leaving an abusive relationship. One would assume in an abusive relationship, the husband would not be letting her control the funds anyway.

Yeah, it really is a joke that people should be able to choose how they want to live. Next we'll be suggesting that we let the darkies vote!


You don't see ending the ban on same sex marriages as failing to retain cultural identity, so why not extend the same courtesy to polygamous marriages?

Because marriage is between two people, not nine. Nine is what we call a corporation where the executives are fucking each other.

Because marriage is between two people, not nine.

Says who?

Because marriage is between two people, not nine. Nine is what we call a corporation where the executives are fucking each other.

Marriage used to be only the union between one man, and one woman, to the exclusion of all others for life.

Boooooooooring.

I honestly don't see why having more than one spouse is something that is so anathema to people. I mean...you don't have to go and marry someone of your own gender just cuz they let teh gayz marry...ditto with this.

Because marriage is between two people, not nine.

That is what the state says. Almost every religion disagrees.
So.. who is right ? And why does the state say that ;)

Actually, if anything, a "corporation with the executives fucking each other", as you so nicely put it, would be a Line Marriage, basically.

Which always struck me as an excellent idea, when the society is correct. It's not needed now, but I can think of situations where it would be superior.

Yeah, it really is a joke that people should be able to choose how they want to live.
Hey you're on to something there. While we're at it, let's get rid of every other standard. Let people marry toddlers, their pets, inanimate objects, ect. Throw in a little incest while we're at it! It's all part of our rich cultural mosaic!

I'm only a teenager, I'm not exactly prudish but even I don't want society to give up all it's standards!

It's not as though they are saying that in the UK, people will be able to enter into polygamous marriages. There is just a recognition (and not to a full extent) of such marriages performed overseas, according to those nation's marriage laws. Since the UK wants its marriages accepted overseas, it's a bit of quid pro quo, wot?
We already legally recognise the bulk of Pakistan's marriages. They recognise our marriages between two of our people, we recognise their marriages by two of their people. Asking us to endorse their fucked up social system is asking a little too much of us. In the same way that asking Pakistan to grant legal recognition to same sex civil partnerships from visiting UK gay couples would presumabley be too much for that country. If a country legally allowed marriages between adults and toddlers, humans and animals I wouldn't want my country to recognise those relationships either! Also if you're asking us to recognise their weirdo marriages, it makes a mockery of Britain's marriage laws. Don't like Britain's marriage laws? Fine, subvert them by popping over to Pakistan to purchase yourself a wife.

If this lack of quid pro quo meant Pakistan refusing to legally recognise our marriages then so be it (Though that hasn't been the situation anyway). If people want to live like they're still in the seventh century let them do it elsewhere.

But tell me something...currently wives brought over from countries like Pak, BD etc are very illiterate and are very much shackled in virtual prisons in their houses...if husbands can collect money on their behalf as this thing allows them, would that not further deprive them of any chance of breaking out. Yes, this sort of "bride import" happens in hindu/sikh communities too...but the 'shackling' is less (IMHO) in their cases.
I've never understood why we give rights for arranged marriage spouses to right to reside in Britain. Having families arrange a marriage between a couple who often haven't even met each other is more akin to the livestock trade than marriage as we know it here. So I see no reason why if they want to arrange a marriage, they should be expected to do it here.

Says who?
Thousands of years of western civilisation?

You don't see ending the ban on same sex marriages as failing to retain cultural identity, so why not extend the same courtesy to polygamous marriages?
Ending a ban on polygamy != recognizing marriages from countries where polygamy is legal, which is only going to be the radical Muslims.
They arn't making polygamy, or bigamy, legal in Britain. They are just giving marriage benefits to radical Muslims who move to the UK with harems.

Agreed and agreed.

The UK government fails at retaining cultural identity.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13421696']This country's becoming more and more of a joke by the day, how spineless can this government get? If these people want to live like they're in the seventh century they should have to do it somewhere else, I don't see why this country should put up with their primitive crap. It's even more ridiculous that the British taxpayer will be subsidising it. This will probably also result in more men importing their second wives from places like Pakistan and Bangladesh into Britain, aren't we so lucky? Typical of this country....

when did this news become about foreign culture :confused:

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13422637']Hey you're on to something there. While we're at it, let's get rid of every other standard. Let people marry toddlers, their pets, inanimate objects, ect. Throw in a little incest while we're at it! It's all part of our rich cultural mosaic!

I'm sorry but you do know we have a royal family and a dying aristocracy don't you?

Agreed and agreed.

your against me getting support for my multiple wives why?