Back on topic, I read the article and it triggered few thoughts:

- Why is polygamy related to multiculture?
In one US state (South Dakota) there is 50,000 polygamy cases amongst the same culture and religious beliefs.

- Doesn't polygamy exist already with the existence of the 'sperm bank'? Different females can have babies with the same 'virtual male' and each of them claim single mother benefits?

Peace.

Fellow_Human,

"Why is polygamy related to multiculture? In one US state (South Dakota) there is 50,000 polygamy cases amongst the same culture and religious beliefs."

Haven't you been paying attention, you wicked child, you? Multiculturalism is the root of al social evils including child slavery and the abolition of child slavery. (Yes I know that's a contradiction, but when you're against multiculturalism you can say whatever you like.)

Play us another tune on the old Banjo!

You're acquiring some habits eerily reminiscent of Boaz, I'm afraid Banjo. And one of them is a refusal to put issues into a realistic context.

>>My contacts in UK virtually confirmed all that was in the newspaper article<<

Well of course they virtually did. They virtually read about it in the newspaper, so it must be right.

>>Ask yourself this. If nothing has changed and additional spouses for some migrants are NOT recognised, why then is it necessary to make provission for welfare for additional spouses?. Your 'official statement' disclosed that.<<

You did not read it very carefully, Banjo.

It was a self-contained statement, explaining that the law had not changed, nor had the benefits changed, since 1988.

You might also care to reflect on the lower part of the original Daily Mail article - the part that people with low attention spans tend to miss - also points out that:

"The review concluded in December last year with agreement that the extra benefits should continue to be paid"

Note the word "continue", Banjo. That means that the benefits already existed.

The article also made the point that:

"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 do you reckon would count as a "small percentage", Banjo?

Five? Ten percent.

Let's say twenty, just to make the size of the "problem" clearer.

Fewer than 200 people is not a significant number in a population of 61 million

£33.65 a week for fewer than 200 people is not a significant amount in a £1.3 trillion economy

Can we please try to keep these events in perspective?

>>I was genuinely shocked to see that UK law now provides for polygamy, in any circumstance.<<

No you weren't.

You just saw a whack-a-mozzie stick, bent over and picked it up.

Spikey,

LOL, you are right I think I should pay more attention in the future :-)

My point as you might have guessed that polygamy should be catered for predominantly from a secular point of view now that marriage types are a freedom of choice to consenting adults (see the Sperm Bank example above).

Also, the number of polygamy cases (see the US example) is above 100,000 cases in the US alone (Google polygamy in the US). So not really sure how few handful of Muslims became the world's problem on polygamy.

Banjo & Polycarp,

Care to comment?

Peace,

We shouldn’t put too much reliance on departmental announcements such as : “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 this line should have said was -The number of REGISTERED polygamous marriages is fewer than 1000-
While the number of such marriages in the UK (and Aust) is likely to be small relative to monogamous marriages. Statements by those who should know point to the number of unregistered polygamous relationships being greater perhaps -much greater- that those registered
Note this:
“Sheik Khalil Chami, of the Islamic Welfare Centre in Lakemba, said we already had Muslims in polygamous marriages here, and should protect them with legal status.
These weren't just polygamists who had somehow slipped through immigration checks, either: ‘THERE ARE A LOT OF SHIEKS HERE . . . (WHO) CONDUCT THAT MARRIAGE NO PROBLEM AT ALL.’”
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23928410-5000117,00.html
( and I doubt if the situation would be much different in the UK )

And for the above reason, the comment “ and only a small percentage of these are claiming social security benefit." is of doubtful veracity. An unregistered marriage may preclude you from the spouse payout, but there are other perhaps even more lucrative benefits that can be claimed, with a little creativity

Hi F.H.. yes.. I definitely care to comment :)

Pericles first:

<<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.>>

Hmm...'common courtesy' ? absolute rubbish. It is blatant discrimination...that's what it is. One law for them..and one law for us.

The simple and consistent conclusion is that NO person who has multiple wives (or multiple husbands for that matter) should be allowed into the UK as a migrant ...bringing that culturally offensive and illegal (as in bigamy) family structure to the UK or Australia.

It's really so simple ..I don't know why anyone is arguing it.

State Policy.. THE LAW.. is a,b,c....end of story.
Immigration policy must follow: "No person who wishes to bring an alternative family structure to the UK may do so"...

Bigamy.. is illegal...because it is considered 'wrong'.... if it is not considered wrong..then change the law to make it available for everyone.

How hard is that? Pericles...you always minimize small steps in cultural erosion...don't you realize every journey begins with small steps? Surely that's not too big for your brain? Or is your increasingly obvious agenda at play here?

FH.. the existence of illegal marriage relationships does not mean the law should be changed. The idea of a sperm bank= polygamy? nah.. it's wrong way around.. that would =Polyandry.

The closest the bible comes to this is that a man's brother could give his seed and bring about a descendant for his brother. But I sense this was due to the social situation of the day. Obviously, the descendant was his own..not his brothers. But in those days, family name was life itself. There is much more to that issue than we see from our modern perspective.

SUMMARY
So.. my solution to the issue raised by the topic is:

Law on marriage must translate into migration policy, and people who wish to migrate to Australia, must do so on our terms not their's.

If not...then we will morph into a 27 headed cultural monster