Hello, you need to enable JavaScript to use this network.

Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.

Strood Conservatives

Conservatives in Strood (Medway)

Mugged by Multiple Missus

As a Strood councillor I am having to take very tough decisions on the support that we are able to give our frail, elderly and disabled because of the substantial lack of grant resources coming from this government, therefore I cannot believe what I’ve just read in the Telegraph about what this government has gone and landed us with now.

They have apparently agreed to formally recognise polygamous marriages, so long as the weddings took place in countries where the arrangement is legal, such as for Muslim Men with more than one wife even though here in Britain polygamy is illegal and punishable by up to seven years in prison.

Ministers apparently estimate that there are up to a thousand polygamous partnerships existing in Britain, although surprise, surprise, there is no apparent exact record.

It would seem that there are new guidelines on income support from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) which 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."

Whatever is this mob playing at, offering preferential treatment, indeed positive discrimination to a particular group. Setting a precedent such as this will be the thin edge of the wedge and lead to demands for further changes in British law. Racism, they are causing it!

Not only that but all of the wives Income support may be paid directly into the husband's bank account! And there’s more… 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. Islamic law permits men to have a harem (up to four wives at any one time) provided the husband spends equal amounts of time and money on each of them.

Barring the fact that this ruling could cost taxpayers millions of pounds, you tell me what sort of message this sends out to hard working people struggling to keep their heads above water in a country that is taxing the life blood out of us all and telling hard pressed councils that they can’t afford to give them the amounts needed to provide vital services, Or the OAPs, struggling to pay their council tax.

On top of that what sort of racial tensions will this cause others in Britain whose skins and cultures do not automatically suggest that they are of UK origin. I have friends and acquaintances of all different faiths and cultures, they will be horrified.

A review launched by Ministers into benefit rules for polygamous marriages was apparently carried out in November 2006 after it emerged that some families had benefited financially. The review ended in December last year with agreement that the extra benefits should continue to be paid, the Government admitted yet the decision was not publicly announced; I wonder why!!

It would seem that four government departments - the Treasury, the DWP, HM Revenue and Customs, and the Home Office - were involved in the review, which in conclusion reported that recognising multiple marriages conducted overseas was "the best possible" option. Best possible, for who?

Apparently a Department for Work & Pensions 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".

It would appear that 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.

Additionally, 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 has been identified by officials.

An immigration rulebook advises that "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," it’s advice continues "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."

Conservative Chris Grayling, the shadow work and pensions secretary, has said that the decision was "completely unjustifiable" and I absolutely agree with his sentiments that "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!!

Replies to This Discussion

Dr Teck Khong

Permalink Reply by Dr Teck Khong 4 Feb
 

Labour has progressively become demented over the past decade, and we are now suffering their dereliction of duty to the ordinary mainstream citizen, abdication of responsibility in protecting our country from attack by the insidious and a sustained destruction of British values and traditions.

Down-to-earth folks I know have harsher words than those above. An acceptable paraphrase runs like this - they have no balls, no brains, and they are selling out our country.

Time, then, for a new government that understands the people of this country, the majority of whom are honest and decent. Before worse things happen to the country.
Reply to This
Gary Etheridge

Permalink Reply by Gary Etheridge 5 Feb
 

Just what were Gordon Brown and his Labour Governments intentions with this ruling?

If it was to drive the ordinary working man & woman, straight into the arms of right wing politics, I think he has succeeded.

With our servicemen dying due to lack of equipment.

The police marching on our streets, demanding the right to strike.

The problems in our hospitals (not only with disease) and our children leaving school without a basic grasp of our language and numeracy, surely we can find enough on which to spend our hard earned taxes on.

How can I be anything but cynical, when I see our traditional 'British' family values being destroyed, in order to favour a small section of our community. This is not vote catching, but vote purchasing.

The ‘old’ Labour Party stood for the working man and his basic rights, but I’m cannot believe that anyone can see any semblance between those original supporters and today’s Labour Party.

This is a deceitful and hurtful Government, which actually attacks the poor and weak.

The long term sick are being hounded and will get less or no money. We are unable to provide either the proper or the best medicines when required, and our pensioners don't receive a decent living pension as they should.

Unfortunately, it will take a decade or longer to put all this right.

WHY?

Because this Government has squandered our future, by borrowing and spending £billions on it’s pet projects, showing little or no benefit.

We, the Taxpayers, have yet to see the final bill.
Reply to This
John M Ward

Permalink Reply by John M Ward 10 Feb
 

I've written my own take on the whole shar'ia etc. situation on my 'blog, and will possibly be in some trouble over it -- but it needed to be said, and in the terms I employed. I touch on the topic of this thread right at the end. It can be read HERE.
Reply to This
Dr Teck Khong

Permalink Reply by Dr Teck Khong 11 Feb
 

John, no laboured justifications or excuses are necessary when we are exercising our fundamental right in a mature democracy to freedom of speech that transcends any attempt at its subversion by counter-libertarianism.

I for one admire, concur and support whole-heartedly the views of Rev Dr Michael Nazir Ali, Bishop of Rochester. I too share his anxieties.
Reply to This
John M Ward

Permalink Reply by John M Ward 11 Feb
 

Teck

Thank you for your thoughts, as well-expressed as ever. I do hope that the maturity of our society that had been built up over such a long period isn't now being successfully forced out of existence by those with their own agenda.

I too have been following what our our very own Bishop has been saying (and am aware of the consequent threats against him by those who are part of the problem), and agree with those numerous commenters on various 'blogs that he would make a very good Archbishop of Canterbury. Mind you, I'd hate to lose him from here!

Have you read my meagre efforts, by the way? I'm not pulling many punches on that, and fully expect to become a target myself; but if so, then my point is thus proven.
Reply to This
Dr Teck Khong

Permalink Reply by Dr Teck Khong 12 Feb
 

Hello John,

I have read your Blog and it is indeed well written from a Christian's standpoint. To be 'even-sided' I thought along the lines of an ecumenical, even secular, analysis.

Although I have not read in full his statements on Sharia, His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury has certainly been thinking about the tensions not only between Christianity and Islam but also that of Muslim and Judeo-Christian tenets of approach to civic and private lives. The information I gleaned suggests to me he is a man of reconciliation rather than a man of confrontation.

It would be simplistic to castigate His Grace for any misconstruction caused by perceived clumsiness or ineptitude, but even if his statements were genuinely meant, they reflect in a timely fashion the developing difficulties we encounter, as exemplified in the extreme by Islamic terrorist activities in our country.

Our relaxed approach to democracy and freedoms, our social stability and the benefits of established infrastructure have attracted migrants of every reason and complexion. However, we have become introspective and worry about upsetting new entrants and alien cultures. As a result we have introduced piecemeal measures, largely restrictive on the host, to please the ‘guests’. That, I contend, is a good thing done badly.

I for one came to these shores as a teenager, hungry for knowledge, conscientious to please by impeccable behaviour, and thankful for the hospitality. (Well, being born in a British colony helped!) Now I want to strengthen those elements that attracted me. So why shouldn’t everyone who is not indigenous or whose underlying religious belief is different from the established but magnanimous society feel so similarly and naturally disposed?

An Indian colleague of mine piped up when the PCT CEO said at a recent meeting how expensive interpreter services have become due to influx of immigrants, and how the cost of maintaining the interpreter services is weighing down and proving detrimental to actual healthcare delivery. The Indian GP said,” Get them to speak English, for goodness’ sake!”

Therein lies the key to immigration and integration.

Uniquely, while Muslims in Britain are still numerically and relatively small in numbers, the promotion and maintenance of Islamic cultural identity has a tendency to encourage segregationist drift and a rift in our country. The best way therefore for our nation to remain whole and cohesive is through common participation, with every measure cognisant of the efforts of those Muslims who emphasise the expansionist doctrine of Islam and who hold religions and socials mores apart from their own with utter annihilative contempt.
Reply to This
Dr Teck Khong

Permalink Reply by Dr Teck Khong 12 Feb
 

This issue of polygamy is only a recently noted facet of what is commonly referred to as secondary immigration in which every conceivable relative, however tenuous a link, claims affiliation with the index case in order to gain entry into the country.
Reply to This
John M Ward

Permalink Reply by John M Ward 20 Feb
 

Ah, yes. I dealt with many such cases during my years in the Immigration Dept, some thirty years ago. I'm not sure I dare quote any examples (e.g. from which country in particular regularly used such-and-such a method), but I have plenty of material for my memoirs -- on the assumption I ever get the time to sit down and write them!

Meanwhile, I'm practicing writing book-style (rather than blog-style) by writing a sparsely-illustrated novel, which is going well after a couple of weeks of writing at odd moments.
Reply to This
Dr Teck Khong

Permalink Reply by Dr Teck Khong 20 Feb
 

Well done John, and congratulations on launching into a new area of interest!

As for abuses by claimants of immigration rights, unless your writings are more seditious than Salman Rushdie's, I cannot see how factual revelations could incur a fatwa....

Besides, we are a sovereign nation with one law for all!
Reply to This
John M Ward

Permalink Reply by John M Ward 21 Feb
 

Hi, Teck, and thanks for your reassuring words.

You wrote: "Besides, we are a sovereign nation with one law for all!"

It would seem that this might not be the case for much longer...

Okay: one standard technique was for youngish ladies from the Caribbean to claim to have a number of young offspring "by different fathers" (I believe that is the correct terminology: I am no expert in these biological matters!) These were all back home, of course, and being cared for by grandma or auntie someone-or-other. Now that their mother was established in this country, it was time to bring them here to join her -- that was the standard spiel. Sometimes they'd do this for one such child at a time, sometimes for three or four at once.

They had to demonstrate that they really were each child's mother, but if the mother was here unconditionally (which in those days meant simply having been here for five years as a Commonwealth citizen, even if illegally) there was little that could be done to oppose the application once that had been established. Often there was no proper documentation, so we had to go on such evidence as we could gather -- those were the rules.

Thus one person could became (say) five, with all the benefits handouts that these minors attracted falling an additional cost on public funds, i.e. the taxpayer. Frankly, it was unlikely that more than a fraction of these cases were genuine, but the rules (and the appeals system) made refusal almost impossible.

It was a time of a Labour Government when I worked in Immigration (April 1974 to December 1978) so I have seen before how the typically lenient and accommodating rules of Socialist Administrations not only permit this, but -- via the very effective immigrant grapevines -- encourage proliferation. We certainly noticed that, whenever a technique was found to work, all of a suddent they were all at it.

Oh, and then there was the case of the Immigration Minister, paying a visit to one of our High Commissions on the Indian sub-continent, intervening in an Entry Clearance case by overturning a decision to refuse an EC (a form of Visa for Commonwealth nationals).

Imagine the scene, if you will: an obviously forged passport (where the local staff even recognised whose handiwork it was), claiming to be the twelve-year-old son of someone permanently resident in Britain (i.e. with Indefinite Leave to Remain, to use the jargon), about 6 feet tall and with a long beard. Twelve years old? Never!

Yet the then Minister (whose name I do know!) said "I'm the boss! You will issue the EC." or words to that effect: my contact who was present at this scene has long since retired, so I can't get an exact quote. In the end, that was what happened; and all becaue the (Labour) Minister was -- as they do now -- trying to garner votes from the ethnic minority communities. All rather obvious to us, of course, as we here have been round the block a few times. I think that the Minister still lost his seat in the Commons in May 1979, though...
Reply to This

RSS Feed - Subscribe to this discussion

Existing Members: Sign In

Forgot Password?

Members

John M Ward
Gary Etheridge
Jane Etheridge
Dr Teck Khong
Victoria Ayling
Tony Lit

Melanie Hampton
Martin Macdonald
Vikas
Laura Etheridge
wayne king
Janice Small

Joe Smithy
Paul ORourke
John Avey
Robert King
Antonia Cox
John Moss

Col_M
Smokey d'Bear
Harish Betchoo
Julia Manning
Paul Oakley
JuliaManning

This is a MOGsite!

Created by MOGmedia
Want UK SEO Hosting?

Get a Strood Conservatives Badge!

Show your allegiance! Get a Strood Conservatives badge to put on your website or MySpace page. (Get Code)

SEO and SEM Search Engine Marketing Kent provide online marketing.

Domain from Create a Dot Com MOG media.