Polygamy in the UK - the benefits (system)

Polygamy in the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Polygamous marriages may not be performed in the United Kingdom, and if a polygamous marriage is performed, the already-married person may be guilty of the crime of bigamy.

Polygamous marriages legally performed in another country where the law allows it are not recognized for pension, immigration or citizenship purposes.^[1] However, they may be recognized for the purposes of welfare benefits. This decision was not made without controversy, and there have been protests against it.^[2] None the less, it is unofficially believed that there are up to 20,000 polygamous marriages in the Muslim community of the U.K. ^[3]

No comment necessary

Benefit cuts have pushed more people into work, says Ben Broadbent

'Ben Broadbent says welfare reforms have encouraged people on benefits to rejoin the labour force

Benefit cuts have encouraged more people back into work, though demand for lower paid jobs has also pushed down wages, according to the deputy governor of the Bank of England.

Ben Broadbent said changes to welfare rules had encouraged more people to look for jobs.

''In certain areas of the labour market, particularly the lower-skilled end, there are things that are increasing the supply of labour," Mr Broadbent told Bloomberg. "I'm thinking of changes to welfare rules in particular that mean that people might be less inclined at the margin to want to stay in unemployment, or even to stay outside the labour force. It may encourage them to come back in."'

That's Ben Broadbent with some official news that a key government policy is working. Noticeably there's not been a word about this news on the BBC who never forgo an opportunity to explain how Iain Duncan Smith's policies cannot succeed. I wonder if the BBC are waiting for Labour's line to take.

More here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/bank-of-england/11002322/Benefit-cuts-have-pushed-more-people-into-work-says-Ben-Broadbent.html but not on the BBC where Vote Labour is the message.

NHS Great Britain

Battsby gets it right....

'...  Our borders are sold, our armed forces made toothless, terrorist imams recruit in our jails and our easy-going largesse with tax money is abused by hordes of freeloaders we are powerless to deny. The hospital ship of state is holed below the waterline yet the stewards still ply the takers with all-inclusive drink and drugs while the captain and officers squabble over the course. Meanwhile, at each port of call, the sober and self-reliant slip away quietly, their empty bunks taken up by ever more stowaways. Cruise Ship Britain; doomed to roam the polluted seas until every paying passenger has gone overboard and taken the lifeboats with them.'

More here http://batsby.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/i-name-her-nhs-great-britain.html

The Mail versus The Guardian

On Tuesday The Mail published this article entitled 'Dying to get into Britain: Four desperate migrants are killed in Calais in just one week as they target lorries bound for UK.'

Yesterday The Guardian published this article entitled 'Why are the nerves of empathy severed when it comes to immigration?'

Please read both articles, I have.

Now why doesn't Jonathan Jones in his Guardian piece ask these questions: If these poor people are struggling for a better life away from Africa or Eastern Europe, why are they so desperate to get to the UK rather than settling in Germany or France, where they already are? What is it about the UK that makes them so desperate to get here?
 

But why is England the only place to 'escape' to?

This BBC piece shows the desperate lengths that people will go to in order to get to the UK. Whilst the article tells us that:

'Immigration Minister James Brokenshire said there had been an "increase" in people trying to get into the UK through the channel ports.

This was mainly due to conflict in the Middle East and North Africa, he explained.'

It does seem odd that these people are desperately trying to get to the UK (for which you can read England or most likely London) not from Syria or Egypt or 'Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Eritrea' but from France. They've already escaped from civil war, persecution etc. but for some reason '"This country is not good to live in, we have to go to England."'

What is is so bad about France and so good about England? Is it the benefits system? Don't expect the BBC to ask those types of questions, that would be against the narrative.

A comfortable life on welfare

This confessional is from the USA but the same situation pertains in the UK too.

"... People do not have big salaries here and will obviously be interested in the salaries and the benefits in England."

That was said by the mayor of the Romanian mayor of two Romanian villages. Not that you'd know this if you relied upon the pro-EU, pro-unfettered immigration BBC

Lambeth council let the cat out of the bag

'If you claim benefits, it is likely you will receive less and may have to find work or move to a different property.'

I think Lambeth council have just worked it out, 'find work'.

Benefits families could pay off £1m mortgage - Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9107504/Benefits-families-could-pay-off-1m-mortgage.html

NHS tourism

Here is an article from a while back regarding the how the NHS is being abused. This Telegraph article reports:

'Ministers have confirmed that GPs do not need to ask prospective patients for ID or proof of address when registering them, raising fresh fears over “health tourism”. It allows foreign nationals who arrive in England on a six-month visitors visa to begin receiving health care immediately. But the pressure group Migration Watch UK says that it could also mean illegal immigrants getting NHS treatment. Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the organisation, said: “What this means is that someone getting off a plane with a valid visitors visa, is, in effect, able to access the GP services of the NHS without ever having paid a penny into the system. Over one and a half million such visas were issued last year. “And once registered with a GP it is, in practice, an easy step to potentially highly expensive and long term treatment - all at the expense of the UK taxpayer with little or no prospect of the beneficiaries ever being charged for it.” '

Ah the NHS, it's 'the envy of the world' and also usable by anyone who manages to get to this country.

Read and weep - ‘I am entitled to live in a house like this’

‘I am entitled to live in a house like this’

The Mail  have the weep-making details, here's an extract:

'Mrs Mahmoud, who has five young daughters and two teenage sons, insisted she had the right to live in the house - which only underwent a £76,000 refit - half of which was paid for by public money - three years ago. 

All of her children live at the address apart from her oldest son who is in prison for drug dealing. 

She told Sun reporters: 'I deserve to live in a nice house and get benefits. In this country, it is our right to live here.''

 

The equivalent of almost £100, 000 a year gross salary

The Telegraph report the case of the family whose benefits amount to around £50,000 a year. Of course this is even more extravagant than it first appearance as this is NET income and is the equivalent of almost £100,000 a year before Tax. The other point is why are we paying people to breed and live off of benefits, family of 12?!
'A family of 12 who receive £50,000 a year tax-free on benefits have told how they are "taking advantage of the system" as the Department of Work and Pensions condemned their case as "outrageous".
Stephanie and Ian Fennessy-Sharp, who live in a five-bedroom home, said they would be "silly not to take advantage of the system" and admitted benefits are "too easy to get if you don't work."
The Department of Work and Pensions will now be looking into the case and said people would be "astonished" to hear of benefit claimants receiving higher incomes than those in work.
...
The Fennessy-Sharp family, from Erith, Kent, told Closer magazine they had been moved into a privately-rented house with large garden because their old house was damp.
Mrs Fennessy-Sharp, a 29-year-old charity shop volunteer, said: ""We're taking advantage of the system, but that's the system's fault – we'd be silly not to with so many mouths to feed.
"I feel this situation has been forced upon us by the Government. The minimum wage is too low and you lose your benefits if you work, but they're too easy to get if you don't work.
"If I have to get a job I want a good one. For now, I have to make the most of the system."
The family are understood to receive £20,400 in housing benefit, £14,456 in child tax credits, £8,320 incapacity benefit, £4,524 child benefit and £1,200 council tax benefit.
Mr Fennessy-Sharp, 56, said he suffers light-headedness, migraines every three weeks and feels ill and stressed if he works for more than an hour. He used to be employed in a factory but has been unable to work for 20 years.
The couple have ten children between them: Mrs Fennessy-Sharp has three under ten years old from a previous relationship and her husband has seven aged between three and nine years.
She told the magazine she felt guilty about claiming so much money but that she was financially better off volunteering than working, adding: "I know taxpayers are being punished – I hate taking their money. But we're being allowed to get away with it."'

Why is the EU and beyond in this economic mess?

Devils Kitchen has the explanation:

'The simple fact is that the people of the Developed Nations have selfishly continued to vote for politicians who promise to give them more of other people's money.

The Western social democratic model is bust—but there is no shortage of ideological idiots and selfish morons who think that things can carry on as before.

This is dangerous stupidity.

A step change in the attitude of the Western demos is required—for it is, let us to beat about the bush, they (we) who are at fault.

I propose that the first start should be an attitudinal change: whenever someone receives benefits, they should also get a covering letter with the following inscribed in large, red, block type:

This money was stolen by force from your neighbours. You are a thief and an extortionist. Enjoy!

It's a small thing, but might be a first step in to pointing out the intrinsic truth of our benefits system.'

Does anyone seriously disagree? if so, why?

Why bother to vote in local elections?

Why indeed, when so much of the areas that local councils are meant to control or manage are in fact controlled by the EU.

'This video aims to highlight a sample of just 8 local issues upon which the EU Parliament has usurped the control of central and local government in the UK - often to disastrous effect. Some appear scandalous, others farcical, but all illustrate that the EU is the hidden local issue. www.hiddenlocalissue.co.uk

This film was produced by the Europe of Freedom & Democracy Group in the European Parliament. It incorporates EU-critics, eurosceptics and eurorealists. The main goals of the Group are to reject the Treaty establishing a constitution for Europe and to oppose all forms of centralisation.
www.efdgroup.eu'

Europe, and by that I mean the EU, is not a marginal issue; it is the main issue in the UK as it affects so many aspects of our lives. So you have a choice in the upcoming local elections: vote for a pro-EU Labour party, vote for the mostly fanatically pro-EU Lib Dems, vote for a Conservative party with many EU-realists in the party but lead by pro-EU people or vote for a truly EU-realist party UKIP.

Doreen's story aka 'Lazy Cow'

This 'mockumentary' satirises Britain's benefit cheats, features fictional mother-of-two Doreen, who claims a host of state handouts but complains she gets tired opening the envelopes to take the cheques out. Doreen treats her 'Lazy Cow' medical condition with heroin and cocaine, the drugs are paid for along with the family car and Sky TV subscription from state benefits.

Is there anything about the UK's willingness to give anyone benefits that will ever surprise me?

From The Telegraph:

'The key suspect in the murder of WPc Yvonne Fletcher was claiming taxpayer-funded benefits at the time the policewoman was shot dead, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Matouk Mohammed Matouk, who is at the centre of an extradition row between Britain and Libya, took advantage of this country’s generous social security rules during two years as a student here.

The payments are disclosed in a cache of documents found by this newspaper in the wreckage of Mr Matouk’s home outside Tripoli.

The papers show that he applied for child benefit for his two daughters, Buthina and Bushra, after enrolling in an architecture course at Edinburgh’s Heriot-Watt University in 1982.

A letter from the then Department of Health and Social Security, written in June 1983, confirmed that Mr Matouk and his wife, Salma Salem, qualified for child benefit.

The couple were entitled to keep claiming the payments, which were backdated seven months from the date of the letter, until Mr Matouk was deported following WPc Fletcher’s murder in April 1984.

In total, the couple were entitled to more than £800 of child benefit — the equivalent of £2,000 today. The letter states that “child benefit is payable for Buthina and Bushra at the weekly rate of £5.85 each from and including 6/12/82”.

It has also emerged that Mr Matouk was allowed to graduate in absentia from Heriot-Watt in July 1986, more than two years after he had been thrown out of the country over his suspected involvement in WPc Fletcher’s death. '

So a foreign student comes to the UK from Libya, claims benefits for his children, works in the Libyan embassy, is accused of murdering a British Policewoman, leaves the UK using diplomatic immunity to avoid arrest and gets a degree in-absentia.

I asked, 'Is there anything about the UK's willingness to give anyone benefits that will ever surprise me?' The answer is probably not.

Broken Britain?

In case you are wondering what type of people are rioting and why take a listen to these two linked items.

Two looters admit that they can afford to buy what they are stealing, one's doing it because the government can't stop him and the other says "I'll keep doing this every day until I get caught" and "When I get home nothing is going to happen to me." The prisons are full... ASBOs don't seem to be much of a deterrent.

Two Croydon girls giggle "It was good though" and say it's "the government's fault.. whoever it is". "Showing the police we can do what we like". They are targeting "rich people" and showing them that "we can do what we want".

There you have it, modern Britain after years and years of pandering to the underclass. Protecting them from reality by supplying more and more benefits and allowing them to live on benefits whilst bringing in East Europeans and third world labour to do the jobs that our pampered underclass have decided are beneath them. Years and years of erasing discipline from the home, the school, the workplace and the streets and oddly enough we have raised a generation or more of people with no respect for authority, no concept of morality or civic pride and no moral scruples about looting, burning and beating people up.

Welcome to Britain; in fact you're welcome to it.

'John Rentoul: The right to speak truth unto prejudice'

John Rentoul defends Howard Flight's right to free speech and much of what he said.

'John Rentoul: The right to speak truth unto prejudice

The words about breeding by a former Tory MP were correct. It was the ritual 'gaffe' fallout that was really unspeakable

...

The soon-to-be Lord Flight suggested that state benefits encourage claimants to have more children. "We're going to have a system where the middle classes are discouraged from breeding because it's jolly expensive, but for those on benefit there is every incentive," he told the Evening Standard. Both parts of that statement are demonstrably true, but the social psychology of groupthink requires everyone to perform their allotted roles in rituals as formalised as those of the Roman Catholic Church that condemned Galileo.

First, journalists report a "gaffe" – a word of almost theological definition, which is not used in normal English. Opposition politicians and commentators then condemn the maker of the gaffe, often for things that he or she has not said but for an implication or extrapolation. The third stage of the ritual involves disciplinary action and attempts to avoid it. In this case, Flight went through the full sequence of available responses, from "my words were taken out of context" (which they weren't) to an "unreserved apology" and a retraction. That proved enough to avoid stage four of the ritual, and to persuade David Cameron not to withdraw his nomination to the peerage. '

The politically correct left and their thought police control too much of what passes for public debate in the UK and I can't see how that will change as they are too well entrenched.

One of the problems of paying too much attention to the media and chattering classes

David Cameron's speedily administered slap on the wrist to Howard Flight was the result of his not being a conviction politician but a person too easily influenced by the media and the chattering classes. Howard Flight's words

"We're going to have a system where the middle classes are discouraged from breeding because it's jolly expensive. But for those on benefits, there is every incentive. Well, that's not very sensible."

may not have been very sensitively expressed and the use of the word "breeding" in relation to matters of class is a tricky area but he was right.

The BBC's reaction to Howard Flight's comments was as predictable as it was vicious. They managed to get the usual suspects to line up with their evil Tory type comments. There was:

Shadow work and pensions secretary Douglas Alexander: "These shameful but revealing comments cast serious doubt over David Cameron's judgement in personally appointing Howard Flight to the House of Lords only a few days ago.

"Last week one of the prime minister's senior advisers told us we'd never had it so good and now his latest hand-picked peer comes out with these comments."


TUC general secretary Brendan Barber branding the ex-MP "an insensitive throwback to the worst of 1980s politics".


Plaid Cymru MP Hywel Williams branded the comments "disgraceful" and said they "showed the Tories' true colours".'

The Mirror of course lashed out and I presume the other left-wing papers did too.

I had a bit of driving to do this morning and so listened to more BBC Radio phone-ins than I would usually do and I was fascinated that the majority of the callers seemed to be supporting Howard Flight's comments and his right to make such comments. I was surprised by the number of callers ringing to say that they worked in Benefit Offices or similar and that they knew of many many young women who were having children for the benefits that would accrue to them as a result. Yes there were those who deprecated Howard Flight's sentiments but I get the feeling that they were the type who automatically hate anything a Conservative says and love to be offended on behalf of themselves and others. The weight of calls was such that I believe even Nicky Campbell was moving towards a position of agreement with Howard Flight; listen to the last half an hour of his Radio 5Live show and see if you agree. I don't know what the views were on the Victoria Derbyshire show as I have all but given up listening to her, her show being bad for my mental equilibrium. I do know that the callers to Vanessa Feltz's Radio London show that I heard seemed to be overwhelmingly supportive of Howard Flight.

I did learn an interesting fact from this listening; apparently once a child reaches the age of 10 he or she is no longer allowed to share a bedroom with a sibling so many council housed families are routinely moved to a larger house when they run out of bedrooms. I wonder how many children there are in private accommodation that share bedrooms after the age of 10?


What do I conclude from this? First, I may be wrong but it seems that the majority of the UK population seems to have realised that the excesses of the Labour years have to stop. They seem to have realised that whilst they were prepared to tolerate inefficiencies, waste and supporting scroungers when (they thought) they were getting richer, they are not prepared to do so now the economic pigeons have come home to roost.

Second, I wonder if David Cameron will realise that the country is willing to be lead to 'the right', or more accurately toward sense and prudence or if he will carry on trying to pointlessly carry favour with those elements like the BBC who hate him and all he stands for.

Third, I hope that the BBC take note of the seeming change in the country's sentiments but somehow I doubt that they will. Rather than listen to the people, the BBC will continue to listen to the likes of Polly Toynbee and carry on attacking the 'nasty Party'. Rather than listen to the people they will try and lead the people back to the sunlight lands of Labour righteousness.


Looking around the blogosphere it seems that I am not alone  in my thoughts but what I also found interesting was the analysis of two sites. The first is Channel 4's Fact Checker and here is their analysis and (somewhat reluctant) conclusion:

'Howard Flight’s turn of phrase was not only clumsy but offensive. But at its heart was a valid question: do tax and benefits influence how many children people have?

Earlier research suggests it might. In 1999, the independent financial think-tank, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, looked at the impact of the introduction of child-related welfare which went up the more kids you have – benefits like Gordon Brown’s cherished tax credits.

It found that between 1999 and 2003  government spending per-child on these benefits rose by 50 per cent in real terms, and that there was an increase in births (by around 15 per cent) among low-income families.

David Cameron has promised to stop child benefit for higher rate taxpayers from 2013. So will that discourage the better off from having more children?

Child benefit accounts for a smaller proportion of income for better off families than poorer households.

But that’s not the only middle class welfare cut the coalition government is making.

Higher rate taxpayers (the richest 15 per cent of families),  will also have their tax credits taken away.

The poorest families, by contrast will keep their £21-a-week child benefit and will also see their tax credits increase from £44 to £47 per week.

The coalition’s decision to put up rail fares will also hit better-off commuters.

So it’s no wonder the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, is making attempts to reach out to what he calls “the squeezed middle”.

Cathy Newman’s verdict
To suggest, as Howard Flight did, that it was somehow more “sensible” for the middle classes to have bigger families was downright offensive. But if he’d expressed himself a different way he might have had a point. If he’d pointed out that the combination of spending cuts – everything from stopping child benefit to increasing rail fares – and the soaring cost of living was “squeezing” the middle classes, few would have quibbled with him.'

 The second is from the always readable Chris Dillow aka Stumbling and Mumbling, who is definitely no Tory, as his last line will demonstrate:

'But the truth - of course - is that people do, at the margin, respond to incentives. If you raise the cost of having children, people will have fewer of them.
For example, this study of the introduction of working tax credits - which increased work incentives for single parents - found that the move "led to a significant reduction in single mothers’ subsequent fertility."
This paper finds that:

Financial incentives play a notable role in determining fertility decisions in France...Adding to the existing tax-benefit system a child subsidy of 150 euros per month...would raise total fertility by about 0.3 points.

And there's also evidence here (pdf) from Israel.
It is, therefore, clearly true that withdrawing child benefit from top earners - forget that "middle class" crap - will discourage them from "breeding."
In this sense, Mr Flight is quite right. Where we might disagree with him, naturally, is in the class hatred indicated by that last sentence. But then,who would expect anything else from a Tory?'

I don't see any 'class hatred' in what Howard Flight said just some home truths that many on the left would prefer to ignore and many on the right are often too scared to vocalise for fear of the sort of vitriolic attacks that Howard Flight has experienced.

Of course there  is another angle to this subject and that is the effect of immigration on the British indigenous poor but that is something that I will tackle another day.

Spending welfare

1) In the UK The Mail reports that:

'Most families who are due to lose their child benefit are worrying about how they'll make ends meet without it.

But for Kelly Marshall, who has five children by four different fathers, the handout has never been about paying for nappies, food and other everyday expenses.

She saved her benefit money to help pay for breast enhancement.

And as many parents envisage tightening their belts after the Tories announced plans to cut the benefit for higher-rate taxpayers, she plans to save more of hers for liposuction and a tummy tuck.

Miss Marshall, who has never worked, rakes in almost £29,000 a year from benefits - and last year spent £4,500 to go from a 34A to a 34DD.

She explained: 'I have wanted a boob job since I was a teen. But it wasn't until I had five children that I could afford it - with all the extra benefits I get. Now I hope to have liposuction, a tummy tuck and regular Botox.

'I thought having children would make my boobs bigger, but that never happened so I decided to do something about them.

'I saved money from my benefits for four months to cover half the cost and put the rest on a credit card, which I pay back with my benefits.

'I know most people will think it is wrong I am spending taxpayers' money on my looks. But I deserve it because I am a good mum. Having children has taken its toll on my body. All mums should be able to have cosmetic surgery.'

Do read the whole piece, it's a doozy...


2) In the USA USA Today reports that:

'The Los Angeles Times is reporting that California welfare money meant to help the needy pay for food, clothes and other essentials has been withdrawn on at least 14 cruise ships sailing out of Miami and other ports.

The news outlet says an investigation of state records found $16,010 of California welfare money was taken out on cruise ships between January 2007 and May 2010 -- in some cases on vessels sailing to such faraway and pricey destinations as Rio de Janeiro.

Results of the investigation, published Monday in the Times' print edition, found California welfare money also had been withdrawn along the Las Vegas Strip, at Florida's Walt Disney World and at other vacation resort areas from Hawaii to the U.S. Virgin Islands.'

What a world.