Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Untitled

29 replies

juuule · 04/02/2008 09:41

"Polygamy benefits

People in polygamous marriages are to be allowed to continue to claim income support, after a review found that the current system does not unfairly favour them, the Department for Work and Pensions said. Although marriage to multiple spouses is a crime in Britain, the welfare system recognises as valid polygamous marriages that take place in countries where such arrangements are legal. "
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3300749.ece

How can this be okay? Or am I missing something?

OP posts:
noddyholder · 04/02/2008 09:43

Unbelievable

Original poster
juuule · 04/02/2008 09:49

Isn't it? Couldn't believe it myself when I saw it.

OP posts:
PestoMonster · 04/02/2008 09:53

Un-flipping-believable!!

sanae · 04/02/2008 11:01

completely barmy - anyone fancy defending this, I'd like to hear how

Original poster
juuule · 04/02/2008 12:16

Wish I'd not forgotten to do a title for this. Might have got more replies.

OP posts:
fryalot · 04/02/2008 12:19

Not sure I understand.

Don't want to sound completely fick but what are you all getting het up about?

The fact that polygamous marriages happen, that they are recognised over here or that we give benefits to people who are in one?

Am not trying to be contentious, I just don't really understand what the polygamous marriage thing has to do with income support? Do you get more benefit if you have more wives/husbands?

Please enlighten me

wannaBe · 04/02/2008 12:23

agree with squank - surely those people would be entitled to benefits regardless of whether they were/were not in a polygamous marriage?

as for the marriages themselves - personally I don't understand why some women are happy to be part of such a marriage, but some are and that is their perogative surely?

noddyholder · 04/02/2008 12:25

they are entitled to benefits for up to 4 wives!This is one story where I won't budge it is wrong

Upwind · 04/02/2008 12:26

It is explained better here:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/03/nbenefit103.xml

"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. The ruling could cost taxpayers millions of pounds."

I think this is an idiotic ruling, which gives preferential treatment to particular groups. Bigamy and polygamy are illegal in the UK.

RubberDuck · 04/02/2008 12:28

Um... but income support is based on income not how many spouses you have, surely?

RubberDuck · 04/02/2008 12:29

But if that person isn't earning - how is that costing the state more than if she was living alone in a state provided flat and claiming housing benefit/income support on her own?

Tortington · 04/02/2008 12:30

surely it would have to take into account the living expense of 4 people - rather than a lline in the sand?

RubberDuck · 04/02/2008 12:32

Or another way: declare one woman as your wife (get income support for her)... other woman is "lodger" and claims income support separately. They'd get more then too, wouldn't they? Or at the very least equal...

fryalot · 04/02/2008 12:32

Again, not wanting to appear argumentative (I'm not, honestly) but surely if a chap claims for himself and, say, four wives then this is actually costing the taxpayer less than if he claims for himself and one wife and the other three wives all make their own, individual claims?

Or am I missing something?

Incidentally, I want to understand, I don't want you all to assume because I'm asking questions that I approve of polygamy

Champagneforlunch · 04/02/2008 12:32

Surely the alternative is to pay them all singly which would cost more.

Tortington · 04/02/2008 12:35

who is to say that that person would be claiming benefits if not married - in fact i thnk you will find that as a generalisation in the certain cltures where this happens that the irl are encouraged to work until marriage.

what is a conversation point is thelegal recognition of multiple partners from another country moving to britiain an getting a british passport becuase of their polygamous marriage.

IMO, if you apply to live in britian and youhave hree wives - that is one thing

if you live in britiain - marry - return to country of cultural origin - marry again and bring another wife back toengland - a country where this is not legal - then that is quite different

why the fuck cant i go to another country as a british citizen and marry usher ( lock his wife in a box) and bring him back tengland so that both he and my dh can service me regualrly

i'll tell you why

becuase i am already married.

RubberDuck · 04/02/2008 12:39

So it's another "bloody immigrant" rant, thinly disguised as morality?

fryalot · 04/02/2008 12:42

so the income support bit of the story is irrelevant?

ok, thanks custy (niiiice name btw )

noddyholder · 04/02/2008 12:43

agree with custy about usher although I would probable fund him to stay with us!

Upwind · 04/02/2008 12:44

"why the fuck cant i go to another country as a british citizen and marry usher ( lock his wife in a box) and bring him back tengland so that both he and my dh can service me regualrly
i'll tell you why
becuase i am already married."

With the recent unrest in Kenya, I wondered if I had not already been married would I have been tempted to propose to a dear friend who lives in one of the worst affected towns. Apparantly, all I need do is divorce my DH under UK law (but stay effectively married, and married in the eyes of our religion, friends and family), legally marry my friend, and claim benefits for us all...

Upwind · 04/02/2008 12:45

I think the house thing is probably more important than the income support if it means people have very large, expensive, houses provided to support polygamy... leaving less money for others on the social housing waiting list.

AuntyThesis · 04/02/2008 12:47

tis me custy

i hope the bloody immigrant thing wasnt aimed at me?

Original poster
juuule · 04/02/2008 12:47

I think I can't get over the fact that income support is being paid to people in a polygamous marriage therefore recognising the polygamous marriage, which is a criminal offence according to the laws in this country. Either it's an offence and not recognised for the purpose of benefits or it's not an offence and the same applies to everyone. Surely there is some sort of discrimination against someone here. Or is it pick and choose your law?

OP posts:
fryalot · 04/02/2008 12:50

but Upwind - surely it is cheaper to fund one LARGE house rather than four smaller houses/flats?

Especially if you take into account council tax, gas & electric bills, phone bills etc. as well as rent/mortgage payments.

Again, I am not trying to say that it is in any way right or socially acceptable, but if the Telegraph (and others) want to get het up about polygamous marriages, then they should have the courage of their convictions and complain about that issue.

Bringing benefits into it just muddies the waters imo. Especially when you think about it and it is actually costing less than it would be if the polygamous marriage did not exist.

I think.

Mercy · 04/02/2008 12:55

A British citizen living in the UK cannot cannot have more than one spouse so yes that is illegal.

But British marriage laws are not applicable other countries where polygamy may be legal. The person who got married abroad has not committed an offence because it didn't happen in the UK.

I imagine it's an incredibly small group of people this ruling would apply to.