MUSLIM POLYGAMY WELFARE: Debunking the bollocks

No doubt a good many of you have seen the latest tactic from those who stand to benefit from inter-cultural strife in the UK. I’m referring to the cleverly crafted drivel about the Coalition being on the verge of giving welfare payments to every polygamous Muslim’s wife.

As so often with these myths, the diametric opposite is true. I quote (my emphasis) below from the House of Commons library official website:

‘Constituents sometimes raise concerns about the status of polygamous marriages in this country and the rights of wives of polygamous marriages….At present, some benefits can be paid, in certain cases, in respect of more than one spouse but the allowances that may be paid in respect of additional spouses are lower than those which generally apply to single claimants….[however]….The Government has decided that the Universal Credit rules will not recognise additional partners in polygamous relationships.’

In short, far from becoming more lenient in the future, the Coalition is rejecting even the few claims made already.

 

37 thoughts on “MUSLIM POLYGAMY WELFARE: Debunking the bollocks

  1. Maybe, but I bet child and housing benefit will still apply, especially if the mistress lives separately to the master.

      • “Cos they got married in a country where it is legal.”

        Got it, so you have slaves in another country where it is legal, then you come to the UK where it isn’t and , what….?

    • Because the second and more marriages are not recognised in law as marriages. There’s nothing to stop anyone from having as many partners as they like.

    • Although commiting Polygamy is illegal in the UK, it’s not illegal to be a polygamist provided it was before you came here. And I think we have a limit of 4. We also have to comply with UN and European (not EU) protocol.

      And to further confuse you, Scotland has a seperate legal system to England/Wales/NI, with it’s own law making executive and it’s own court system.system. We don’t have UK law.

  2. oldasiahand and soap mc tavish are right: the offspring will be put front and centre on the benefit forms.

    You could even have Muslim marriages, recognised in local shariah courts, without needing official marriage, to get round polygamy rules.

    These ‘communities’ operate according entirely to their own rules and know how to play fast and loose with the system.

    There is political theatre afoot today. It is the ‘argument’ between Tories and Lib Dems.

    This, I think, is where the Lib Dems begin to decontaminate. If they leave the Coalition, which I think they will, they will let the Tories carry on in a minority.

    The Lib Dems were always going to need to time before the next election to get as much distance between themselves and the Coalition as possible.

  3. And how long will we go on paying benefits for children who don’t even live in this country (and often never have) ? Not only a problem with sub-continentals, but a much-abused facility by EU migrants from Eastern Europe.
    Solving the first group would be quite simple if we wanted to but the second group come under EU rules, so we’ll keep on paying, as usual.

  4. John A well deserved pat on back for the ‘research’ . However, many people are under the impression a Westminster papers defines a law or legal requrement for observance from DWP Staff. This is not so. A man who comes to this country with three wives and 12 children to ‘claim asylum’ are ALL admitted as a single family unit. It makes no difference if the family are criminals fleeing justice AND ‘unbritish’, style punishment. The Govenrment are being coy about this and the DWP are enslaved into thinking it has an obligation to ‘provide’ clothes, food and shelter to this family. Now unless the husband and father is a wealthy, hard working (not involving drugs) man who can provide a fabulously furnished Chelsea home with 5 rooms and 4 bathrooms and a seperate prayer room and another room to seperate the social make up i.e. males and females should not be in the same room together, then we are looking at hundreds of tens of thousands of pounds in housing/Education/ NHS/ provision from such a fleeing ‘family’. The country cannot afford this luxury and so the already poor here are being crushed to accommodate the” new rich by benefit’ people. In scotland since the 80′s there was a cap on benefit paid for housing. The limit here on private rents is £ 350.00 per month. THERE IS NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT for a council to accomodate such a family. The responsibility of provision is on the parents. Having said that, we now have an influx of single parents from Africa being given special attention- diversity and all that. Let’s see how that pans out. That last remarks was regarding the state provision and burden on the already over streched tax payer nothing to do with race or colour: they could be white Romanians or swedes. The affect is the same! I still find time to challenge this whole what constitutes an asylum seeker rhetoric!

    • The limit in England and Wales for Housing Benefit (or LHA as it is now known) is a lot more than £350 a month.

      And remember one thing – it’s the landlords that set the rent and the landlords that get it. Private landlords are getting somewhere in the region of £8BN a year out of the welfare system. Perhaps we should have enforced rent levels in the private sector?

      ( http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/On_a_low_income/DG_10018928 )

      Limits for Local Housing Allowance
      A limit will be introduced so that Local Housing Allowance will not exceed:
      £250 a week for a one bedroom property (including shared accommodation)
      £290 a week for a two bedroom property
      £340 a week for a three bedroom property
      £400 a week for a four bedroom property
      The maximum rate of Housing Benefit will be limited to the rate for a four bedroom property.

      • That is still outragous! they should be moved to cheaper parts of the country or caravan sites opend up to accomodate the over spill. That will deal with the billions guaranteed to greedy land lords!

      • I’m reading all the comments to the article and must say it’s much the same as what is going on here in America. Obama granting amnesty to illegals even though he legally can’t do that, he’s funding the radical elements of islam, he’s using taxpayer money to “buy” votes via the welfare system and has made it easier for people to get on it, including illegal aliens that fit his voting demographic and “refugees” from countries that don’t like us, he’s suing states for laws they’ve enacted even though the US supreme court has said they’re Constitutional laws … he’s bankrupting the working people of this country and giving our money to buy his next election and to his corporate cronies which he has paid off through the so-called Recovery Act (and then they fund his campaign with OUR money he gave them!) and every bit of it is on purpose to collapse this country. I’m thinking about this … they’re trying to install a One World Government (a bigger image of your European Union).

      • Landlords are the perfect whipping boys of the system. It is just utter rubbish that they are greedy. Rents are rents and depend on house purchases values and demand.

        Why is it that someone who rents out a house is greedy ? Is someone who works saturdays greedy as well ? What about the person investing in a pension plan. They must be greedy as well. The work involved with renting out a house is a lot (financing, renovate, find tenant). Long term it is a good business, but the people doing it are not greedy.

      • @Col

        You might be right (mostly) that poperty owners who rent out their properties are not greedy.
        However, the rents that are charged are way above what mortgage holders generally pay on their monthly mortgage payments, and is also way above what local councils set their LHA. So, why are rents so high?
        The main reasons for this I think are that buy-to-let landlords paid inflated house prices to buy properties and need to pay the mortgage on those properties. They set the rent to cover the mortgage plus any repairs (if you’re lucky) and then want to make a profit from the rental too. This can add a couple of hundred quid, or more, to the monthly mortgage payments, hence high rents.
        Not greedy? Perhaps just wilfully blind to social responsibility?
        And who pays the rent (or part of)? Local Council Housing Benefit. And where does that come from?

  5. @ Mudplugger
    Is Britain alone in paying benefits to the non-resident children of other Europeans who live/work in the UK, or is it common practice in all EU countries? If Britain is unique in this respect, what law demands we do so? One might also wonder how the Agencies concerned verify the continuing physical existence of such children outside the UK …… the system seems to be asking for abuse.

    • Everyone in the EU is entitled to the benefits that are bestowed on the citizens of the resident country.

      Hence why soldiers wives – who give up their jobs in the UK when their husbands are posted to Germany, get paid German unemployment benefits. But believe me, they don’t make it easy to claim but luckily the Army Welfare Servise provides all the legal support they might need.

    • @ alexei

      “Is Britain alone in paying benefits to the non-resident children of other Europeans who live/work in the UK, or is it common practice in all EU countries? ”

      Nope, it’s also done here in Germany and – what is slowly developing into a real bone of contention – the ‘wives and kids’ resident in say, Turkey, are also covered by the German state health insurance schemes when hubby is drawing his unemployment benefits here in Germany. Crazy, huh?

      From reading a couple of articles on ‘Politcally Incorrect’ recently, it would appear the Cloggies also have much the same problem. Suffice to say, a “Joint Task Force” is allegedly being set up now to try to tackle resp. solve the problem. It would appear the Cloggies have been having a modicum of success and the Gerries want to latch onto it!

      Meanwhile, I think we ought to send ‘Popeye’ Doyle in to solve a wee problem in Marseille:

      http://www.european-freedom-initiative.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=410%3Amuslim-mob-attack-french-police-during-veil-check&catid=41%3Aeu-news-france&Itemid=62

      “Muslim mob attack French Police during veil check

      In the restive port city of Marseille, police fear that the release of four people arrested for allegedly attacking officers during an ID check on a woman wearing an Islamic veil will undermine their fight against violent crime in the city.”

      • ..And millions of Muslims did NOT attack Police officers who check for the veil wearing….Thugs are thugs in any race, religion, country.

      • @ Miss B Having

        “And millions of Muslims did NOT attack Police officers who check for the veil wearing”

        Perhaps that was only because those millions of Mooslums were not in Marseille on that particular day! Meanwhile, about a thousand kms away, in Brussels, on 01 June 2012:

        “BELGIUM: Muslim riots break out after Muslim baghead refused to show face in security check, then attacked police officers

        Two policemen were injured and eight people arrested in the riots recorded last night following the arrest of a woman who refused to remove the niqab during a control of identification in a suburb of Brussels, the French-speaking RTBF television reported. Burqas and niqabs (full face veils) have been banned in Belgium since 2011. But, as usual, Muslims think they are above the law.”

        Read more about it here –

        http://barenakedislam.com/2012/06/01/belgium-muslim-riots-break-out-after-muslim-baghead-refused-to-show-face-in-security-check-then-attacked-police-officers/

        Ye Gods, one could be forgiven for thinking that the numpties are networking!

        If you would like to experience some pukka-gen Taqquiya, then click on the video about halfway down the page. There you can learn what these Mooslums think of us, and you, and me. Or would you prefer to categorise it as a ‘one-off’?

  6. If you don’t give them some sort of status then they will be kicked out of their home and instead of having one family unit, you will have as many family units as there are wives, all having to be dealt with seperately.

    • If we don’t allow them into the country because they are illegal and we can’t afford it- we don’t have to do anything! problem solved!

  7. I had a (white) English friend who committed suicide abroad a few years ago in Asia leaving a legal local wife and two legitimate children. Our club suggested a whip round for the widow expecting to raise a £1,000 or so. I suggested getting the kids UK passports so they would have options later in life beyond being third world waiters. They got the passports immediately but to my surprise the wife also got some widow’s allowance and child benefit.

  8. alexei,

    On this particular point, I don’t know the answer, but I suspect it is along the lines of: every EU country should do it, but Britain is the only one that does do it.

    Do you know anyone in Britain living on handouts from elsewhere?

    I suggest that answer because you find this scenario with an awful lot of EU law: All EU countries, apart from the UK, cherry pick which bits of EU law they will enforce.

    This is why the UK is the number one destination for so many migrants.

    I remember reading about Steve Hilton (I’m not a fan) saying to Downing Street staff: why don’t we just ignore this EU law that’s got us hamstrung. The civil service mandarins were who scotched that suggestion. That’s the whole point here.

    It’s the top civil servants – what used to be called the Sir Humphreys – but which are often these days Common Purpose placemen, who decide when to apply the letter of the law.

    That’s why Britain, despite apparently sharing a huge body of EU law with its neighbours, operates so dramatically different from them.

    It’s such an easy trick: “Why are we doing this?”

    “Europe, minister.”

    That’s not the conversation other European politicians have with their civil servants.

    I suspect that’s why Dave wants the rules changed, so governments can in future hire their own civil service teams for the duration of government.

    That, by the way, is very much how the Common Purpose mindset works.

    What need to get elected to effect ‘change’?

    Just use the levers of the civil service in central and local government. Sir Humphrey gave them the template and they’ve made it their own. And how.

  9. Perhaps it should be a condition of non-dom status that they adopt one or two benefit dependent immigrants, their wives and offspring, in perpetuity.

  10. I mislike the ‘rabid’ opposition style so common now on both sides of an argument.
    You can’t be a warmist unless you peg yourself out at the high water line to prove the water is rising and you can’t be ‘denier’ unless you reject all possibility that the warmists are correct, and to prove this you have to tattoo ‘no agw’ on your forehead or ‘wagon’ if you are dyslexic.

    Moderation has ‘gone for a burton’ [was that a beer brand?] Entrenchment is the rule of the day [god was it like this in 1914?] and consideration of an opposite perspective is punishable at the stake or possibly a firing squad if syrian.

    …and I think I’m mad?

  11. Well everyone
    I’m absolutely delighted that all one of you actually admitted the original story was pernicious, invented bullshit.
    Well done.

    • *takes a bow* then *looks over her shoulder*. Oh John if only I was not restricted by “confidentiality clause”!! boy oh, boy oh, boy Hmm

    • Thanks for pointing out the perniciousness of a story that had passed me by anyway, John. Quite right.
      But Ho! Ho! look what you stirred up at the bottom of the pond!!

  12. You happen to be completely wrong and the quote you use is useless. The Department of Work and Pensions has already stated that they will only consider one wife but that anyone else in the household will be free to apply for benefit as a single person. If successful, such a claim would push the welfare bill per polygamous household up, not down. You are just as selective and dishonest in your reporting as any mainstream journalist.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s