Ah Bugsy - I think that the alliterative "polywaffle" is the undisputed winner. Especially germaine on this forum!

Damn. I pushed the button prematurely. Meant also to commend the "pratfull", Spikey, - the linkage to "pratfall" was subtle but inescapable. Good stuff.

Errrr... you didn't actually read what they said, did you Banjo?

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

The government did not "quietly recognize multiple marriages, as of Dec 2007."

"The current rules for paying income-related social security benefits to people in a polygamous marriage have been in place since 1988 when Income Support was introduced."

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page17264

Of course, if you would like to take issue with a formal government statement, then please feel free to do so. Only it would be good if you provided some evidence to back it up.

You claim that:

>>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.<<

A reference would be useful here, because as it stands, the only documentation we have seen supports my position, not yours.

Banjo, I'm not sure why you started this thread, but it appears to be designed to encourage precisely the reaction that Boaz demonstrated.

The Daily Mail piece was a classic beat-up, dredging up an arcane gobbet from twenty-year-old legislation and speculating - as you have done - on its possible ramifications.

So you will forgive me if I don't ascribe to your discussion piece the purest of motives.

Despite the self congratulatory and extremely shallow triumphalism of various usual suspects here.. sorry Perilous.. we caught you in the straight.. or at least Banjo did.

<<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.>>

Pericles said: "The law has not changed since 1988" errr really?

Banjo..I think Pericles is calling you a liar mate.. not a good look for him...

The most interesting aspect of his post is the degree of denial it involves. The infantile suggestion I (we)? should goto corner and mope is well.. a bit below Pericles usual form.

He has been caught out with his hands in the till.... "The law hasn't changed since..." yet he confidently declares that I've not done any research? Well.. I'll cautiously agree.. all I did was read some of the article. I've not delved into the law books of the UK.

After all.. why would we need to when Pericles can tell us all we need to know?

Well.. you call them as you see them P,and so will I, I've got a delectable morsel of serious criticism for you on another thread.

ABUSE:

<<Immigration rules say 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.>>

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.

Notice those words Pericles? "EVEN IF" ....so they can get around the law.
Seems like you are much more of a supporter of Sharia law than you are letting on about?

Yes but Polycarp, you hadn't done even the most basic research and thought the race was just one lap when it was 4 laps; and you and yours were done in the first.

"...I've not done any research? Well.. I'll cautiously agree.. all I did was read some of the article. I've not delved into the law books of the UK. After all.. why would we need to when Pericles can tell us all we need to know?

Try reading the whole article next time. One day, you might even graduate to books.

Oh dear, Boaz. Looking at the timing of your post against my last one, I think you are suffering from a nasty case of premature expostulation.

>>sorry Perilous.. we caught you in the straight.. or at least Banjo did... He has been caught out with his hands in the till.... "The law hasn't changed since..."<<

I put up a reference for this, from the Prime Ministerial web site.

Now it could be the case that the Government is lying through its teeth, but to make such a claim it would be more convincing if you were to refer to a reasonably reliable source. Sounds fair?

>>I've got a delectable morsel of serious criticism for you on another thread.<<

Where might that be? I'm always happy to be criticized, Boaz. But I prefer to be criticized for actual deeds (or misdeeds).

The same might be said for this little spittle-flecked outburst:

>>ABUSE:

Immigration rules say 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. 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. Notice those words Pericles? "EVEN IF" ....so they can get around the law.<<

I notice the words, Boaz.

But who said them, when, and in what context?

I know that you habitually treat the concept of fact-checking with self-righteous disdain, Boaz.

But honestly, it might help your cause to to a little bit, here and there, even if just for appearance's sake.