How about:

A POLYGAMY of PROSELYTISERS?

BTW, Banjo, polygamy is alive and well in many religions. Just because it has been permitted in Britian doesn't mean it will be permitted here as well. It has been happening for a long in the USA (where we pick up much ideology) besides what is the problem as long as women can have as many husbands as they want and vice versa? Though why anyone would want more than one spouse is beyond my understanding.

All you have achieved is another thread for the wacka-a-mozzie brigade to indulge in their favourite sport.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/03/2263057.htm

>>> A Texas judge has allowed over 400 children removed from a polygamist ranch in West Texas to return to their parents.

State District Judge Barbara Walther ordered parents to be ready for unannounced home visits by authorities and barred them from taking the children out of Texas without court approval.

Parents could begin picking up their children at 10:00am local time and agreed to take parenting classes, according to the order.

The standoff between the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and Texas authorities has fascinated some Americans with lurid allegations of adolescent brides, teenage pregnancies and a secretive sect on a remote West Texas ranch.<<<

Fractelle

Well done. It could be POP for short. Some, however, would instantly conjure up images of corn.

How about a POPPYCOCK of PROSELYTISERS? Same acronym, but.

Pericles,
The bottom line here is that the UK government recognise and make provission for polygamous marriages. This relates to and specificly benefits incoming migrants.

My contacts in UK confirm to me that the ministerial committee review that finished in December 2007 concluded that recognition of multiple marriages conducted overseas was the best possible option, but no public announcement was made. This decission has allowed new provisions to be made for welfare payments for the additional spouses, and of course permanent residence and eligibility for citizenship.

So dispite the spin from the government in trying to play it down and confuse the issue, that is the current situation.

Time and time again we see governments try to lie and spin their way out of contraversial situations. Try Christine Keeler, Watergate, Clinton, children overboard, WMD in Iraq, NSW polys giving themselves a pay rise after midnight and hundreds of lessor known matters. So a confusing statement issued by the government is no more valid than a newspaper article that shows quotes from various people in inverted commas.

My reason for providing the link on OLO was for giving of information as I was unaware of the situation in UK until reading the article and am sure many others were not also. The government there kept it very quiet.

Polygamy was a subject that generated a lot of discussion here not that long ago.

Banjo, with the greatest respect, I would be more convinced if you were able to provide a little evidence. Your anonymous contacts may well have grabbed the wrong end of the stick, as did the Daily Mail.

The recognition of polygamy when conducted under the laws of another country is not confined to the UK - the Netherlands have similar arrangements.

http://www.nisnews.nl/public/120808_1.htm

Problems arise when details like these are sensationalized - it is at base no more than common courtesy, a recognition that different customs exist in different societies.

>>My contacts in UK confirm to me that the ministerial committee review that finished in December 2007 concluded that recognition of multiple marriages conducted overseas was the best possible option, but no public announcement was made. <<

I haven't been able to track down this ministerial committee - its title would be a good start - but as I pointed out before, this represents no change from the position that has existed since 1988.

>>This decission has allowed new provisions to be made for welfare payments for the additional spouses, and of course permanent residence and eligibility for citizenship.<<

New provisions? The existence of these would need to be published somewhere, otherwise nobody would know to claim their entitlements. I haven't been able to discover any new provisions of this kind, but would of course be open to hear the evidence.

>>So dispite the spin from the government in trying to play it down and confuse the issue, that is the current situation<<

How does this fit with your earlier observation that "no public announcement was made? If there was "spin" and attempts to "play it down", surely there would have been some kind of public announcement?

>>So a confusing statement issued by the government is no more valid than a newspaper article that shows quotes from various people in inverted commas.<<

It would also be useful if you could point us to the confusing statement, so we can make up our own minds as to its validity.

Making unsupported assertions like these can easily be misconstrued as mischievous, Banjo.

I suspect that the cost to the-host- community of such relationships might be a little bit more than the £33.65 / $76.73 sum mentioned . The cost is also likely to include the educational and medical expenses of any offspring, and perhaps subsidized housing.

A Current Affair had a story about an example in our own backyard (Granville, Sydney) approx 12 months ago. From memory, though the marriage(s) were not officially recognized the females were receiving single mother benefits & the husband unemployment benefits. Associates of mine who do voluntary community work report it is not an isolated example.

While seeking a link for the ACA Granville story, I came upon this interesting piece:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/01/1033283486605.html
Note the part about his amorous ambitions: "1998 as their worst year when Trad fell in love - 'became obsessed', his wife says - with another woman. In desperation, Hanifeh proposed marriage on her husband's behalf to the other woman"
Note also, the fact that it contravened Australian law didnt seem to faze him.

Maybe, closer to home, we could look at Tribal marriages?