Banjo, runner and Polycarp out of the blocks in a trice. A sniff of a proselytizing opportunity sets them going like the wind.

Not stayers, however. Spoil-sport Percicles caught them on the bend and left them in his dust.

How about a shorter race next time boys (when no-one's looking)?

By the way, does anyone know the collective noun for a trio of poor proselytizers?

As far as excusing yourself goes, Boaz, that was pretty poor, even by your standards.

>>note my carefully worded "unless specific legislation to the contrary"<<

Not valid. There is no legislation needed, unless you believe that the British government should decide it has the right to "forcibly... sever relationships that have been lawfully contracted in other jurisdictions".

>>The phrase "and domiciled there at the time" need to be fleshed out greatly!<<

I haven't got time to do your research for you, Boaz, but I'm pretty sure the courts are fully armed with a definition that disallows any attempts to rort the system.

You seem to imagine that this provides licence for every Muslim to rush off to Saudi or wherever, find another few wives, and re-import them into the UK as they see fit.

Wouldn't happen. They'd never get them through "customs".

And all for thirty quid a week? Yeah, right.

You're scaremongering Boaz, just as you always do. No amount of squirming will get you out of this one.

So, how about it? Confess to us all that you picked up a juicy whack-a-mozzie topic, didn't do any research on it, as usual, and simply let your imagination run wild on what might be the "consequences".

Hard facts, Boaz.

The law hasn't changed since 1988.

It won't make anyone rich.

It costs the taxpayer diddly-squat.

>>The point remains.. any leeway with the marriage act is dangerous territory! The slightest bit of giving ground will be seen as weakness and glaring opportunity.<<

Rot.

And as for your pathetic attempt to change the subject...

>>and of course in him you can see where atheism and lack of any moral anchor can (and did) lead. His is just one of a number of directions of course..but less valid than...yours?<<

So transparent.

You have been caught red-handed in a flagrant act of severity one whack-a-mozzie.

Take your lumps like a man, Boaz.

(As my delightful partner would say, that involves putting your hands over your eyes and whimpering in a corner)

a "dirge"?

a "Farabeuf"?

a "damnation"?

Romany

Nice.

How about a pushcart of proselytizers or a puffpaste of proselytizers or a pratful of proselytizers?

A 'polywaffle'?

What was exposed is that the UK government quietly recognized multiple marriages, as of Dec 2007, in relation to immigrants.

Previous to this only one husband and one spouse were recognized. The ministerial review was carried out because some were getting around the existing laws by having pseudo divorses and then bringing out spouse number 2 as is their entitlement.

The Ministerial review concluded that recognising overseas multiple marriages was the best possible option.

The ramifacations of this, marriage recognition, are significant, as this means that both spouse 1 and spouse 2 and so on have permanant residence and can become citizens. Of course any children qualify as well. As well as the spouse allowance they qualify for a more generous public housing and council tax benefits, Plus all other health, education benefits that UK citizens enjoy.

Who would ever have thought that British law would make allowances for polygamy. No wonder the government did not publicise it.

Simply Government again giving in to ethnic demands on 'cultural grounds'

Oh, and spikey, I am not religous at all and never comment on religous matters. My views on polygamy itself are on record here at OLO.