Muslim Men Can Have More Than One Wife - And Claim A Ton Of Benefits For All (And A Huge House, Of Course)

First topic message reminder :

19th July 2014

Thought this was worth discussing in a thread of its own.

I'm absolutely amazed.

The system of paying extra benefits for multiple wives was reviewed under Labour in an exercise involving four separate Whitehall branches – The Treasury, the Department for Work & Pensions, HM Revenue & Customs and the Home Office.

The review concluded that recognising multiple marriages which had taken place overseas in the benefits system was the "best possible option".

At the time they stated: "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."

This has subsequently been increased to £38.45 a week for second and subsequent spouses, while the husband and his first wife are paid the ordinary couple rate of £105.95.

As well as income support, a husband with more than one wife is also eligible for possible housing benefit and council tax relief because of the larger property needed to accommodate his family.


What a generous lot the English taxpayers are!

FluffyBunny wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Doesn't surprise me Andy, and is a fucking disgrace where people are disadvantaged for not being disadvantaged.....

What a fucked up system we have.


Labour legacy.

I don't think this is the case.

I thought universities could be quite elitist in their approach to selecting new students i.e Oxbridge choosing wealthy students over poorer students with the exact same qualifications.

I don't know if that's true, but in any case it's all changing now. There was something about it in the news, and I think there was a thread about it on here.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Doesn't surprise me Andy, and is a fucking disgrace where people are disadvantaged for not being disadvantaged.....
What a fucked up system we have.
Labour legacy.

I don't think this is the case.
I thought universities could be quite elitist in their approach to selecting new students i.e Oxbridge choosing wealthy students over poorer students with the exact same qualifications.

So you are saying Andy is lying...?

BigAndy9 wrote:19th July 2014

Thought this was worth discussing in a thread of its own.

I'm absolutely amazed.

The system of paying extra benefits for multiple wives was reviewed under Labour in an exercise involving four separate Whitehall branches – The Treasury, the Department for Work & Pensions, HM Revenue & Customs and the Home Office.

The review concluded that recognising multiple marriages which had taken place overseas in the benefits system was the "best possible option".

At the time they stated: "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."

This has subsequently been increased to £38.45 a week for second and subsequent spouses, while the husband and his first wife are paid the ordinary couple rate of £105.95.

As well as income support, a husband with more than one wife is also eligible for possible housing benefit and council tax relief because of the larger property needed to accommodate his family.


What a generous lot the English taxpayers are!

Been watching this thread... So, how does an extra spouse pose a burden on the system? If she were single, wouldn't she just apply on behalf of herself directly?

Mormons in Utah and Arizona have had multiple wives for decades, and it hasn't been a burden on the system. Even with each wife having children, these women would have had children with another husband anyway. The institution of polygamy has nothing to do with burdening the benefits system.

So, this thread has nothing to do with welfare. It's a broadside on the institution of polygamy, and as such, on the Mormons and Muslims. But without the burdensomeness factor, it kinda loses its punch.

our laws don't allow more than one wife .

LITTLE MISS PERFECT wrote:our laws don't allow more than one wife .

Well, I know that. I'm just pointing out that this is not an economic/benefits matter.

The question is why these highly skilled, hard working and well needed immigrants would need to claim unemployment benefits in the first place???
If they come here to work and don't then they should return to where they came from, wives and all!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:The question is why these highly skilled, hard working and well needed immigrants would need to claim unemployment benefits in the first place???
If they come here to work and don't then they should return to where they came from, wives and all!!!

Well then, argue that point. It has nothing to do with how many wives they have.  ::dunno:: 

Original Quill wrote:

LITTLE MISS PERFECT wrote:our laws don't allow more than one wife .

Well, I know that.  I'm just pointing out that this is not an economic/benefits matter.

If any sane man wants more than one wife he should be man enough to provide for them .

LITTLE MISS PERFECT wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, I know that.  I'm just pointing out that this is not an economic/benefits matter.

If any sane man wants more than one wife he should be man enough to provide for them .

Of course.  If a man wants more than one child, he should be man enough to provide for them.  Likewise, automobiles.  Likewise, houses...vacations...pets...and swimming pools.  That principle is so basic that it needs no saying.

But the mere fact of multiple marriages is not an economic question...least of all, for the benefits system.  Every person is entitled, regardless of marital status.

Original Quill wrote:

LITTLE MISS PERFECT wrote:

If any sane man wants more than one wife he should be man enough to provide for them .

Of course.  If a man wants more than one child, he should be man enough to provide for them.  Likewise, automobiles.  Likewise, houses...vacations...pets...and swimming pools.  That principle is so basic that it needs no saying.

But the mere fact of multiple marriages is not an economic question...least of all, for the benefits system.  Every person is entitled, regardless of marital status.

If anyone but a Muslim tried to claim benefits for more than one wife would they be allowed to ?

Tommy Monk wrote:The question is why these highly skilled, hard working and well needed immigrants would need to claim unemployment benefits in the first place???
If they come here to work and don't then they should return to where they came from, wives and all!!!

For the third time, in 2007 there were only 1,000 Muslims in all of the UK who had more than one wife, and nobody knows how many of them were even getting any benefits.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:No, no, no, veya; you've got this situation all backwards. It can't possibly be the fault of the people who have the most influence and power of any of us. It has to be a diabolical conspiracy of the Romanian dirt-farmer immigrants

Little Miss Perfect will no doubt accuse me of 'arse licking' but I found that statement most amusing   

You sound quite exasperated  

I am; I get so tired of the stupidity. I actually feel like the people who make these stupid arguments think the rest of us are stupid enough to believe them, and ... and ... uh-oh ...  ::::hulk:::: ::::hulk:::: ::::hulk:::: ::::hulk:::: 

LITTLE MISS PERFECT wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Of course.  If a man wants more than one child, he should be man enough to provide for them.  Likewise, automobiles.  Likewise, houses...vacations...pets...and swimming pools.  That principle is so basic that it needs no saying.

But the mere fact of multiple marriages is not an economic question...least of all, for the benefits system.  Every person is entitled, regardless of marital status.

If anyone but a Muslim tried to claim benefits for more than one wife would they be allowed to ?

Why do you care?  It's a social custom, not an economic issue.  As proven, it poses no burden on the system.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

Little Miss Perfect will no doubt accuse me of 'arse licking' but I found that statement most amusing   

You sound quite exasperated  

I am; I get so tired of the stupidity. I actually feel like the people who make these stupid arguments think the rest of us are stupid enough to believe them, and ... and ... uh-oh ...  ::::hulk:::: ::::hulk:::: ::::hulk:::: ::::hulk:::: 

Is there something about racists that makes them get stuck in a single groove and they don't have the intelligence to climb out?

LITTLE MISS PERFECT wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Of course.  If a man wants more than one child, he should be man enough to provide for them.  Likewise, automobiles.  Likewise, houses...vacations...pets...and swimming pools.  That principle is so basic that it needs no saying.

But the mere fact of multiple marriages is not an economic question...least of all, for the benefits system.  Every person is entitled, regardless of marital status.

If anyone but a Muslim tried to claim benefits for more than one wife would they be allowed to ?

not only would anyone but a Muslim not be allowed to claim benefits for extra wives, which is of course tax payers money, they would be arrested for breaking the law, since when did the govt. assist law breakers by giving extra cash out and why would they??

Sassy wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

Little Miss Perfect will no doubt accuse me of 'arse licking' but I found that statement most amusing   

You sound quite exasperated  

I am; I get so tired of the stupidity. I actually feel like the people who make these stupid arguments think the rest of us are stupid enough to believe them, and ... and ... uh-oh ...  ::::hulk:::: ::::hulk:::: ::::hulk:::: ::::hulk:::: 

Is there something about racists that makes them get stuck in a single groove and they don't have the intelligence to climb out?

There is indeed a connection, recent scientific research has provided a lot of objective evidence that racists are stupid and poorly educated. Of course, dull people don't usually have a wide variety of interests:

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

hmmm i thought it was decided that Muslim is not a race... I guess we forgot that bit...lol

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

LITTLE MISS PERFECT wrote:

If anyone but a Muslim tried to claim benefits for more than one wife would they be allowed to ?

not only would anyone but a Muslim  not be allowed to claim benefits for extra wives, which is of course tax payers money, they would be arrested for breaking the law, since when did the govt. assist law breakers by giving extra cash out and why would they??

Don't be stupid, HF. What difference does it make if the women receives benefits as a single woman, or as a married woman? Money is money. Think!

Muslims or Mormons...whether they have multiple marriages or not, it doesn't cost the taxpayer any more.

You just don't like Muslims. Say it.

Original Quill wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

not only would anyone but a Muslim  not be allowed to claim benefits for extra wives, which is of course tax payers money, they would be arrested for breaking the law, since when did the govt. assist law breakers by giving extra cash out and why would they??

Don't be stupid, HF.  What difference does it make if the women receives benefits as a single woman, or as a married woman?  Money is money.  Think!

Muslims or Mormons...whether they have multiple marriages or not, it doesn't cost the taxpayer any more.  

You just don't like Muslims.  Say it.

so why is the govt. legitimising the breaking of our laws, do they intend to release knows bigamists and give them extra benefits for each wife??

if they are single women they are entitled to the benefits and should receive them accordingly, if they are multiple wives they should not, they as married women are in receipt of benefits to which they have entitlement and the man should be arrested by british law...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Don't be stupid, HF.  What difference does it make if the women receives benefits as a single woman, or as a married woman?  Money is money.  Think!

Muslims or Mormons...whether they have multiple marriages or not, it doesn't cost the taxpayer any more.  

You just don't like Muslims.  Say it.

so why is the govt. legitimising the breaking of our laws, do they intend to release knows bigamists and give them extra benefits for each wife??

Because the only thing they care about is, Does it cost any more money? It doesn't, so the benefits people don't care. Leave it to the polygamy police, they seys.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:if they are single women they are entitled to the benefits and should receive them accordingly, if they are multiple wives they should not, they as married women are in receipt of benefits to which they have entitlement and the man should be arrested by british law...

So, you see the point after all. It's not an economic question. Or, are married women not entitled to receive monies? Of course, you and I both know that is ridiculous.

Truth is, you are confusing two different laws. As I say, leave it to the polygamy police.

Original Quill wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

so why is the govt. legitimising the breaking of our laws, do they intend to release knows bigamists and give them extra benefits for each wife??

Because the only thing they care about is, Does it cost any more money?  It doesn't, so the benefits people don't care.  Leave it to the polygamy police, they seys.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:if they are single women they are entitled to the benefits and should receive them accordingly, if they are multiple wives they should not, they as married women are in receipt of benefits to which they have entitlement and the man should be arrested by british law...

So, you see the point after all.  It's not an economic question.  Or, are married women not entitled to receive monies?  Of course, you and I both know that is ridiculous.

Truth is, you are confusing two different laws.  As I say, leave it to the polygamy police.

you are reading this aren't you...

these are cases of women married to the same man, illegal in this country, they are being given benefits for being married to these men, benefits to which they are not legally entitled too... of course it is an economic problem...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Because the only thing they care about is, Does it cost any more money?  It doesn't, so the benefits people don't care.  Leave it to the polygamy police, they seys.



So, you see the point after all.  It's not an economic question.  Or, are married women not entitled to receive monies?  Of course, you and I both know that is ridiculous.

Truth is, you are confusing two different laws.  As I say, leave it to the polygamy police.

you are reading this aren't you...

these are cases of women married to the same man, illegal in this country, they are being given benefits for being married to these men, benefits to which they are not legally entitled too... of course it is an economic problem...

It's not a benefits problem. Very simple. The benefits are going to go out in any case.

It's a problem for the polygamy police.

Original Quill wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

you are reading this aren't you...

these are cases of women married to the same man, illegal in this country, they are being given benefits for being married to these men, benefits to which they are not legally entitled too... of course it is an economic problem...

It's not a benefits problem.  Very simple.  The benefits are going to go out in any case.

It's a problem for the polygamy police.

it is fraudulently claimed benefits, anyone else would be sued for a false claim, the fact it is completely illegal should also be taken in to consideration..

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's not a benefits problem.  Very simple.  The benefits are going to go out in any case.

It's a problem for the polygamy police.

it is fraudulently claimed benefits, anyone else would be sued for a false claim, the fact it is completely illegal should also be taken in to consideration..

If it were one person...  But the benefits people made a policy decision not to bother.  It's not a benefits problem.

Probably because it would cost them billions in litigation, and they still would have to pay.

Original Quill wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

it is fraudulently claimed benefits, anyone else would be sued for a false claim, the fact it is completely illegal should also be taken in to consideration..

If it were one person...  But the benefits people made a policy decision not to bother.  It's not a benefits problem.

Probably because it would cost them billions in litigation, and they still would have to pay.

lol and where did the decision came from to not bother, they would waste money advertising about people defrauding the benefits, while paying people they know have no entitlement, that really beggars belief...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:hmmm i thought it was decided that Muslim is not a race... I guess we forgot that bit...lol

Racism is a type of bigotry, like the bigotry you have against Muslims. "Racism" just describes the bigotry against people like yourself (black people, I mean). It's really no different, though, from homophobia or any other kind of bigotry.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If it were one person...  But the benefits people made a policy decision not to bother.  It's not a benefits problem.

Probably because it would cost them billions in litigation, and they still would have to pay.

lol and where did the decision came from to not bother, they would waste money advertising about people defrauding the benefits,  while paying people they know have no entitlement, that really beggars belief...

Probably a cost/benefit decision, HF. Benefits cost very little, while litigation and advertising cost a lot. Common sense, really.

Original Quill wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

lol and where did the decision came from to not bother, they would waste money advertising about people defrauding the benefits,  while paying people they know have no entitlement, that really beggars belief...

Probably a cost/benefit decision, HF.  Benefits cost very little, while litigation and advertising cost a lot.  Common sense, really.

its a case you cannot lose, it is by law illegal to have more than one wife, it is the most open and shut legal battle in history... surely weighed against the potential wave of claimants it is a cheap battle to win..

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

lol and where did the decision came from to not bother, they would waste money advertising about people defrauding the benefits,  while paying people they know have no entitlement, that really beggars belief...

Probably a cost/benefit decision, HF.  Benefits cost very little, while litigation and advertising cost a lot.  Common sense, really.

its a case you cannot lose, it is by law illegal to have more than one wife, it is the most open and shut legal battle in history... surely weighed against the potential wave of claimants it is a cheap battle to win..

From what I understand, HF, the UK, Australia and New Zealand all recognize and don't prosecute polygamist marriages of people moving into the country, but it's illegal to have a second (concurrent) marriage once you're there.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

its a case you cannot lose, it is by law illegal to have more than one wife, it is the most open and shut legal battle in history... surely weighed against the potential wave of claimants it is a cheap battle to win..

From what I understand, HF, the UK, Australia and New Zealand all recognize and don't prosecute polygamist marriages of people moving into the country, but it's illegal to have a second (concurrent) marriage once you're there.

why should we change our laws to suit scum, mind you we allow murderers and rapists in to the country, then pay to keep them in our jails and can't throw them out, so I guess it makes sense.....

The numbers since 1988 have been in decline due to regulations that restrict the number of wives that can enter this country as a wife.
Sooner or later it will die out and there won't be any. According to the DWP the number of marriages‎ in this category is unknown but since 2006 there have only been 371 enquiries on the subject.
The law also covers wives with more than one husband.

Irn Bru wrote:The numbers since 1988 have been in decline due to regulations that restrict the number of wives that can enter this country as a wife.
Sooner or later it will die out and there won't be any. According to the DWP the number of marriages‎ in this category is unknown but since 2006 there have only been 371 enquiries on the subject.
The law also covers wives with more than one husband.

it still doesn't quite work does it, are they hoping murder will die out or do they arrest you for breaking the law... why does it seem some must be appeased...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:The numbers since 1988 have been in decline due to regulations that restrict the number of wives that can enter this country as a wife.
Sooner or later it will die out and there won't be any. According to the DWP the number of marriages‎ in this category is unknown but since 2006 there have only been 371 enquiries on the subject.
The law also covers wives with more than one husband.

it still doesn't quite work does it, are they hoping murder will die out or do they arrest you for breaking the law... why does it seem some must be appeased...

They aren't anymore. Go and read up on the law.

Irn Bru wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

it still doesn't quite work does it, are they hoping murder will die out or do they arrest you for breaking the law... why does it seem some must be appeased...

They aren't anymore. Go and read up on the law.

so are there people with more than one wife in the country now or not you seem to be contradicting yourself...  
is it still against the law in this country to have more than one wife at the same time..

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

it still doesn't quite work does it, are they hoping murder will die out or do they arrest you for breaking the law... why does it seem some must be appeased...

They aren't anymore. Go and read up on the law.

so are there people with more than one wife in the country now or not you seem to be contradicting yourself...  
is it still against the law in this country to have more than one wife at the same time..

The only one's that are here are the one's that were already here before 1988.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

LITTLE MISS PERFECT wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Of course.  If a man wants more than one child, he should be man enough to provide for them.  Likewise, automobiles.  Likewise, houses...vacations...pets...and swimming pools.  That principle is so basic that it needs no saying.

But the mere fact of multiple marriages is not an economic question...least of all, for the benefits system.  Every person is entitled, regardless of marital status.

If anyone but a Muslim tried to claim benefits for more than one wife would they be allowed to ?

not only would anyone but a Muslim  not be allowed to claim benefits for extra wives, which is of course tax payers money, they would be arrested for breaking the law, since when did the govt. assist law breakers by giving extra cash out and why would they??

Sure you can
your just not smart enough...

you see you could go get your self another woman get married before 'your God' but not the law then bingo she gets to claim benefits as a single mum once you knock her up.....

I'm sure VOD wont mind         

The sum of money involved is so small it really is nothing for anyone to get worked up about.

That's me for tonight. CYA all tomorrow for another thrilling installment of NewsFix

I have been arguing the same point throughout thread, and it is wrong for our benefits system to recognise and accommodate something that is fundamentally illegal under UK law.

@TM
you sure?

Pretty sure white guy can get away with it too if we can find compliant women   

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigamy



http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/bigamy/



it is wrong for our benefits system to recognise and accommodate something that is fundamentally illegal under UK law.

It's wrong for rich guys to cheat on taxes too, TM.

Meh...it happens.

Tommy Monk wrote:I have been arguing the same point throughout thread, and it is wrong for our benefits system to recognise and accommodate something that is fundamentally illegal under UK law.

Do you realize how little money it is?

Do you realize that powerful people are using your prejudice to steer you away from things that actually matter?

 ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: 

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I have been arguing the same point throughout thread, and it is wrong for our benefits system to recognise and accommodate something that is fundamentally illegal under UK law.

Do you realize how little money it is?

Do you realize that powerful people are using your prejudice to steer you away from things that actually matter?

 ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: 

BUT BUT MOOZ-LEMS               

I think TM didn't hear past that   

veya_victaous wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I have been arguing the same point throughout thread, and it is wrong for our benefits system to recognise and accommodate something that is fundamentally illegal under UK law.

Do you realize how little money it is?

Do you realize that powerful people are using your prejudice to steer you away from things that actually matter?

 ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: ::hdintowll:: 

BUT BUT MOOZ-LEMS               

I think TM didn't hear past that    

Meanwhile, at the HQ of the Powers That Be ... they're rubbing their hands together and cackling maniacally

Original Quill wrote:It's wrong for rich guys to cheat on taxes too, TM.

Meh...it happens.

And that's the point. If the system is open to manipulation, it will be manipulated.

Irn Bru wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

so are there people with more than one wife in the country now or not you seem to be contradicting yourself...  
is it still against the law in this country to have more than one wife at the same time..

The only one's that are here are the one's that were already here before 1988.

so you claim that every person claiming for multiple wives now has been in the country before 1988?? are you sure about that..  

It's quite simple, it is wrong for our benefits system to recognise and accommodate something that is fundamentally illegal under UK law.

Plus foreign nationals who gain entry to our country under the pretence of working, should be working or removed

Tommy Monk wrote:It's quite simple, it is wrong for our benefits system to recognise and accommodate something that is fundamentally illegal under UK law.

Plus foreign nationals who gain entry to our country under the pretence of working, should be working or removed

very well said ...

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Original Quill wrote:It's wrong for rich guys to cheat on taxes too, TM.

Meh...it happens.

And that's the point. If the system is open to manipulation, it will be manipulated.

get away with your bad self - you're spoiling the conspiracy theory.....

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Original Quill wrote:It's wrong for rich guys to cheat on taxes too, TM.

Meh...it happens.

And that's the point. If the system is open to manipulation, it will be manipulated.

Xactly... You've gotta learn to pick your battles. No system is perfect and there are bigger fish to fry.

Let sleeping dogs lie.