UK net migration hits record high

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

...and was it not Tony Blairs " muscular Christianity" that got us into the business in Iraq?

 

[Soulman]

...and was it not Tony Blairs " muscular Christianity" that got us into the business in Iraq?

I don't believe it was down to Christianity, was war in which he joined up with Bush, not sure it was for religious reasons more like power imo.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

I don't believe it was down to Christianity, was war in which he joined up with Bush, not sure it was for religious reasons more like power imo.

Peel away the veneer of "just" wars and Abrahamic religion is just below the surface. You don't even need to try that hard to see it.

 

[Soulman]

I don't buy that personally. I keep saying "The Abrahamic religions" of Islam, Judaism and Christianity are the main problems we see around the world but all of those mentioned in your list are responsible for religious outrages somewhere.You mention Judaism as " not being a problem" for example " here" but the Zionist movement is squarely behind the entire problem in the Middle East and the weastern worlds slavish adherence to Israels agenda there is a key factor in the problem we have with Islamist Jihadis. Like I say religion is the problem, especially the Abrahamic, but surely the priests of all religions could benefit from arguing it out between themselves and we, as a race, would only benefit from locking them securely away somewhere (not a concentration camp) to do just that. When they all agree on who is right we can let them out to share the " one" true word of God with everyone else. Don't hold your breath though.

Depends what gets reported i suppose, has this been on the news?................... Hundreds of Palestinians set fire to Joseph’s Tomb overnight, causing severe damage to the holy site in Nablus. http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...-of-palestinians-burns-down-jewish-holy-site/

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Depends what gets reported i suppose, has this been on the news?................... Hundreds of Palestinians set fire to Joseph’s Tomb overnight, causing severe damage to the holy site in Nablus. http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...-of-palestinians-burns-down-jewish-holy-site/

There we go. Jews kill Muslims muslims kill Jews Christians kill Muslims for Jews and Muslims kill Christians for killing Muslims.

Let God decide. In a prison.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

There we go. Jews kill Muslims muslims kill Jews Christians kill Muslims for Jews and Muslims kill Christians for killing Muslims.

Let God decide. In a prison.

And who judges all the atheists and agnostics who have surely killed just as many believers and non believers?

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

And who judges all the atheists and agnostics who have surely killed just as many believers and non believers?

No one judges atheists. They have no invisible friends telling them what to do. And if you believe that atheists have killed more people in the name of atheism than have killed with God as the motive then you need your bumps felt. The biggest murderer in this category being Stalin by a country mile but he didn't kill for atheism he killed because he was a thoroughly nasty *******. He was persecuting everyone.

 

[Soulman]

No one judges atheists. They have no invisible friends telling them what to do. And if you believe that atheists have killed more people in the name of atheism than have killed with God as the motive then you need your bumps felt. The biggest murderer in this category being Stalin by a country mile but he didn't kill for atheism he killed because he was a thoroughly nasty *******. He was persecuting everyone.

So Blair was doing it in the name of Christianity, but Stalin not because he was an atheist, but because he was nasty........same to me.

 

[cunning fergus]

There is a clear distinction between the Lords debating this disgusting medievalism and sharia being given any sort of equivalence under British law. Read that article and it's clear that this was an evidence gathering exercise designed to look at ways to prevent sharia from being allowed to flourish in some sections of Pakistani society.

Oh well. Next example please.

I don't follow, the "evidence" gathered sets out a number of examples summarised in the article where the principles of sharia law were operating de facto in relation to polygamous marriage. If the "evidence" is correct then polygamous marriage under sharia law is alive and well in the UK.

Sharia law may not be given equivalence formally under the UK's legal system, however that does not mean the state does not find ways to tolerate certain cultural practices for minorities even if prima facie they are illegal to the wider mainstream community.

This can be done pragmatically (e.g. by not making Qat illegal) or by allowance under the law (e.g. the UK accommodates Sikhs from the protective headgear requirements of the Highway Code).

The Lords has debated the issue of polygamous marriage under sharia law however nothing has happened in law since...........and so polygamous marriage will continue to be tolerated and flourish.

That's the point of the article.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

What are you morons doing? You know we're playing football right now?

 

[Soulman]

What are you morons doing? You know we're playing football right now?

Jeez, i am watching it via stream, and commenting on the thread, saw the whole thing. Even had the radio on Sussex as well.......no problem, us morons can easily multi task..............and you?

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

I don't follow, the "evidence" gathered sets out a number of examples summarised in the article where the principles of sharia law were operating de facto in relation to polygamous marriage. If the "evidence" is correct then polygamous marriage under sharia law is alive and well in the UK.

Sharia law may not be given equivalence formally under the UK's legal system, however that does not mean the state does not find ways to tolerate certain cultural practices for minorities even if prima facie they are illegal to the wider mainstream community.

This can be done pragmatically (e.g. by not making Qat illegal) or by allowance under the law (e.g. the UK accommodates Sikhs from the protective headgear requirements of the Highway Code).

The Lords has debated the issue of polygamous marriage under sharia law however nothing has happened in law since...........and so polygamous marriage will continue to be tolerated and flourish.

That's the point of the article.

What do you mean "nothing has happened in the law since" last time I looked the law is that a polygamous marriage is illegal. If these village idiots choose to have multiple " wives" who don't report any crime then how is anyone supposed to know about it? They aren't married and, if women choose to come forward, the state protects them. I say again this will eventually become a big enough issue for the state to step in and sort these idiots out.

If I decided tomorrow to set up with five " wives" I wouldn't be allowed to legally say I was married to any more than one of them at once and, provided my " wives" we're happy with the arrangement I could live with them all in my house quite happily. It's almost impossible to police a non legal consensual issue like this.

If these poor girls are being forced into polygamy then, of course, the state should intervene but until someone comes forward there's nothing anyone can do as these communities are secretive and hardly likely to complain to the police. I could have just said " it isn't allowed to flourish, it's going on very far under the radar"

 

[carlzeiss]

What do you mean "nothing has happened in the law since" last time I looked the law is that a polygamous marriage is illegal. If these village idiots choose to have multiple " wives" who don't report any crime then how is anyone supposed to know about it? They aren't married and, if women choose to come forward, the state protects them. I say again this will eventually become a big enough issue for the state to step in and sort these idiots out.

If I decided tomorrow to set up with five " wives" I wouldn't be allowed to legally say I was married to any more than one of them at once and, provided my " wives" we're happy with the arrangement I could live with them all in my house quite happily. It's almost impossible to police a non legal consensual issue like this.

If these poor girls are being forced into polygamy then, of course, the state should intervene but until someone comes forward there's nothing anyone can do as these communities are secretive and hardly likely to complain to the police. I could have just said " it isn't allowed to flourish, it's going on very far under the radar"

not sure if this is still current :-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/1577395/Multiple-wives-will-mean-multiple-benefits.html
Husbands with multiple wives have been given the go-ahead to claim extra welfare benefits following a year-long Government review, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

Have your say: Should multiple wives get recognition from the state?

Even though bigamy is a crime in Britain, the decision by ministers means that polygamous marriages can now be recognised formally by the state, so long as the weddings took place in countries where the arrangement is legal.

The outcome will chiefly benefit Muslim men with more than one wife, as is permitted under Islamic law. Ministers estimate that up to a thousand polygamous partnerships exist in Britain, although they admit there is no exact record.

The decision has been condemned by the Tories, who accused the Government of offering preferential treatment to a particular group, and of setting a precedent that would lead to demands for further changes in British law.

New guidelines on income support from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) 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."

Income support for all of the wives may be paid directly into the husband's bank account, if the family so choose. 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.

The ruling could cost taxpayers millions of pounds. Ministers launched a review of the benefit rules for polygamous marriages in November 2006, after it emerged that some families had benefited financially.

The review concluded in December last year with agreement that the extra benefits should continue to be paid, the Government admitted. The decision was not publicly announced.

Four departments - the Treasury, the DWP, HM Revenue and Customs, and the Home Office - were involved in the review, which concluded that recognising multiple marriages conducted overseas was "the best possible" option. In Britain, bigamy is punishable by up to seven years in prison.

Islamic law permits men to have up to four wives at any one time - known as a harem - provided the husband spends equal amounts of time and money on each of them.

A DWP 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".

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.

In addition, officials have identified 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.

"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," an immigration rulebook advises. "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."

Chris Grayling, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said that the decision was "completely unjustifiable".

"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.

 

[cunning fergus]

What do you mean "nothing has happened in the law since" last time I looked the law is that a polygamous marriage is illegal. If these village idiots choose to have multiple " wives" who don't report any crime then how is anyone supposed to know about it? They aren't married and, if women choose to come forward, the state protects them. I say again this will eventually become a big enough issue for the state to step in and sort these idiots out.

If I decided tomorrow to set up with five " wives" I wouldn't be allowed to legally say I was married to any more than one of them at once and, provided my " wives" we're happy with the arrangement I could live with them all in my house quite happily. It's almost impossible to police a non legal consensual issue like this.

If these poor girls are being forced into polygamy then, of course, the state should intervene but until someone comes forward there's nothing anyone can do as these communities are secretive and hardly likely to complain to the police. I could have just said " it isn't allowed to flourish, it's going on very far under the radar"

The report's evidence and the foreword by Baronness Cox indicates it is a significant issue now.

Nothing has happened since the debates in the Lords and nothing will until the state decides to deal with it; in the meantime polygamy under sharia law will be tolerated despite it being illegal.

Of course dealing with matters like this will put the state on a head-on collision course with the Muslim community, I won't hold my breath.

 

[Soulman]

The report's evidence and the foreword by Baronness Cox indicates it is a significant issue now.

Nothing has happened since the debates in the Lords and nothing will until the state decides to deal with it; in the meantime polygamy under sharia law will be tolerated despite it being illegal.

Of course dealing with matters like this will put the state on a head-on collision course with the Muslim community, I won't hold my breath.

Does not really match "Western ideals" does it.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

The report's evidence and the foreword by Baronness Cox indicates it is a significant issue now.

Nothing has happened since the debates in the Lords and nothing will until the state decides to deal with it; in the meantime polygamy under sharia law will be tolerated despite it being illegal.

Of course dealing with matters like this will put the state on a head-on collision course with the Muslim community, I won't hold my breath.

No. No it won't be tolerated it will be conducted away from prying eyes among closed and backward communities. The post about husbands being able to claim extra benefits is interesting but also, upon a little probing, amounts to a man claiming extra benefits for co dependants within a property which, again in my fictional multiple marriage, I too would be entitled to claim if any or all of my "wives" were mothers to my children. It wouldn't mean my marriage was legal it would entitle me to state benefits that anyone could, theoretically, claim.

I emphasise again that Sharia law is not given any sort of equivalence under UK sovereign law but some Muslims have worked out that they can properly claim state benefits in the same way that anyone living in complex family systems. Yes. That includes some white British too.

There is no current circumstance where Sharia law is legally enforcible in the UK. There just isn't no matter how hard you guys look for specious examples of law " bending" by some Muslims, Believe me, if it ever came to one of these jokers trying to claim primacy of Sharia over extant British law they would be squashed out of hand by the courts.

After all. If we didn't pay entitled state benefits to these women that would be compounding an already pretty disgusting practice with another.

 

[Soulman]

I emphasise again that Sharia law is not given any sort of equivalence under UK sovereign law but some Muslims have worked out that they can properly claim state benefits in the same way that anyone living in complex family systems. Yes. That includes some white British too.

There is no current circumstance where Sharia law is legally enforcible in the UK. There just isn't no matter how hard you guys look for specious examples of law " bending" by some Muslims, Believe me, if it ever came to one of these jokers trying to claim primacy of Sharia over extant British law they would be squashed out of hand by the courts.

After all. If we didn't pay entitled state benefits to these women that would be compounding an already pretty disgusting practice with another.

Still a bit worrying though, this drip drip effect over the last few years...
http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/uk-sharia-law.html

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

not sure if this is still current :-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/1577395/Multiple-wives-will-mean-multiple-benefits.html
Husbands with multiple wives have been given the go-ahead to claim extra welfare benefits following a year-long Government review, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

Have your say: Should multiple wives get recognition from the state?

Even though bigamy is a crime in Britain, the decision by ministers means that polygamous marriages can now be recognised formally by the state, so long as the weddings took place in countries where the arrangement is legal.

The outcome will chiefly benefit Muslim men with more than one wife, as is permitted under Islamic law. Ministers estimate that up to a thousand polygamous partnerships exist in Britain, although they admit there is no exact record.

The decision has been condemned by the Tories, who accused the Government of offering preferential treatment to a particular group, and of setting a precedent that would lead to demands for further changes in British law.

New guidelines on income support from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) 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."

Income support for all of the wives may be paid directly into the husband's bank account, if the family so choose. 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.

The ruling could cost taxpayers millions of pounds. Ministers launched a review of the benefit rules for polygamous marriages in November 2006, after it emerged that some families had benefited financially.

The review concluded in December last year with agreement that the extra benefits should continue to be paid, the Government admitted. The decision was not publicly announced.

Four departments - the Treasury, the DWP, HM Revenue and Customs, and the Home Office - were involved in the review, which concluded that recognising multiple marriages conducted overseas was "the best possible" option. In Britain, bigamy is punishable by up to seven years in prison.

Islamic law permits men to have up to four wives at any one time - known as a harem - provided the husband spends equal amounts of time and money on each of them.

A DWP 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".

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.

In addition, officials have identified 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.

"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," an immigration rulebook advises. "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."

Chris Grayling, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said that the decision was "completely unjustifiable".

"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.

Also, that article from the Torygraph uses highly selective language.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Still a bit worrying though, this drip drip effect over the last few years...
http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/uk-sharia-law.html

I'm not worried and neither should you be.

 

[Soulman]

I'm not worried and neither should you be.

Ok, if you say so,