Just joking. I know you are on the side of the angels when it comes to this sort of stuff.

However I am not so sure about the DWP

Err..

‘Spare wife’ benefit rate?

What sort of alternate reality are we living in?

Folk should be treated individually, I’d have thought, but, as you know, I am a bear with very little brain.

There is no such thing, in common sense, as a ‘spare wife’. Which is not to say that the DWP couldn’t see it that way. For they are, probably, insane.

And these bastards have the right to designate us as mad?

I don’t think so.

Could you get to the top of the DWP tree by saying that retirement should be subject to being dead already? I think one could. Not you, obviously, for you are differently sane, rather than them, who are differently insane.

What a joy bureaucracy actually is, when it is described.

As things stand a couple get £100 p/w benefit so the man and the 1st wife of a polygamous family get the standard couple rate. If benefit law were to then say we do not recognise your other marriages for benefit purposes then each additional wife would be entitled to claim as a single woman, getting the standard rate of £64:50 p/w rather than the spare wife rate of £33.65.

Until a few years ago benefit law did not recognise gay relationships. This meant that a co-habiting gay couple had to claim as single people and ended up with more benefit than a married or co-habiting straight couple.

I think it might be the DWP trying to save a bit of cash rather than a sinister attempt to establish Islamic law in the UK by cunning use of the benefits system.

Name your other groups.

And describe this monoculture you want to put in place.

And advise us on the commercial and economic consequences of your policy.

I think Jai and others did a good job of working out the consequences of BNP policies – lets hear about yours and Geert Wilders.

“Now I take it you want to build a monocultural society which by definition excludes muslims.”

Not excluding Muslims, just excluding any appeasment of Islam.

And I want to cut all immigration, not only immigration from Muslim countries.

That said, I do have some time for Geert Wilders.

So I take it you do not want to discuss the fact that out of 60million people there are at most 100~200 families who could be claiming benefit on the basis of polygamous arrangements. Its important, because it defines you: Facts are not of consequence when rhetoric is more effective.

Now I take it you want to build a monocultural society which by definition excludes muslims.

Would you care to name other groups who would not make the grade?

Then I would like you to address the issue of what other countries should do. Should they too go into their shells and remove all outside influences including British, like say Burma and North Korea.

Would you avoid trading with other cultures; and would you be happy for them to stop trading with you?

And of course there is the prickly question of what you would do to those who don’t agree with you. And finally would you fit in into this Brave New World?

It matters not if it is a single polygamous ‘family’. This is not about benefit claimants.

What matters is that centuries of British law, British custom and British values have been changed to appease an abhorrent and alien way of life.

This is simply one of so many examples of how multiculturalism insidiously and stealthily cuts away at the fabric of British identity and mores. A thousand little cuts, one at a time, until the identity is gone.

Multiculturalism is like the HIV virus. It doesn’t actually kill the nation. It simply removes the immune system, leaving the nation like an AIDS patient, susceptible to any little disease, that attacks it, bit by bit, until the patient is no more.

Again – What’s your idea of a small percentage?

However, he would go down in my estimation if he did.

*This does not constitute legal advice.

Some advertisement for the joys of polygamy!

Then the older children joined in the yelling.

Then the baby started screaming.

A video of this would have made any would-be polygamist think twice.

While poygamous marriages are rare there are ways of legitimising them as Reza detailed earlier. Benefits can be paid to a second wife at around £35 a week.

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/…/snha-05051.pdf

This idea that Muslims somehow ‘have it easy’ cause they can marry several women is therefore ridiculous.

‘I answered you in 118.’

No you didn’t, you skirted the question.

This from your own link:

“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.”

What’s your idea of a small percentage?

I don’t believe I am splitting hairs. The distiction between the two is crucial.

Adnan: “I guess this is one of the practical issues in imposing democracy from the outside…”

Imposing anything on a people, without their consent, is wrong. Whether that is democracy, or a foreign cultural or religious practice.

I guess this is one of the practical issues in imposing democracy from the outside e.g. in places such as Iraq.