Is this fair to British taxpayers?

[Capn_Birdseye]

Multiple wives will mean multiple benefits

By Jonathan Wynne-Jones
Last Updated: 1:52am GMT 04/02/2008

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.

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

[lofter1]

society unravels slowly but surely ...

[Meerkat]

The outcome will chiefly benefit Muslim men with more than one wife, as is permitted under Islamic law.

Another example of the slow but sure Islamification of the UK. Frightening.

[Luca]

What do you expect? Polygamous goat-fuc#ers are a small but solid constituency for Labour.

The Scum and a few other tabloids will scream, but the mainstream media protrays any attempt by, say, the Tories to nix such a project as inherently racist.

I think Britain could be the first European country to become politically/legislatively islamified.

[lofter1]

This seems to be a good as reason as any to outlaw marriage for everyone -- once and for all.

[Meerkat]

I think Britain could be the first European country to become politically/legislatively islamified.

I fear you may be right, but to say that in public would result in hysterical accusations of Islamophobia. People will realise when its too late - in fact it may already be too late.

[alonzo-ny]

Could someone please explain why, other than this one law, the UK has apparently become an Islamic state?

[Meerkat]

^because its now law for everyone to wear a hijab. Mine is a soft blue colour with purple trim.

[alonzo-ny]

I dont think so. Could I have a real answer please.

[Meerkat]

Alonzo - where's your sense of humour? I was joking.

I don't think anyone has said it HAS become an Islamic state, but it certainly feels that we are slowly heading that way. Go to this http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8626 thread. I added a number of posts voicing my concerns - rather than re-writing it all again here.

[alonzo-ny]

I do have a sense of humour, i apologise but my patience is pretty thin on the whole Capn Birdseye/ Gregory Tenenbaum constant whining about britain, posting every negative story they find concerning it and completely ignoring everything good about the Uk which vastly outweighs the bad. It is getting extremely old.

[Meerkat]

^ yes i agree, but if i say anything negative its directed at the government, not the country. Captain Birdseye, i think i secretly quite patriotic, although he'd never admit that :p. The other one, well, i'm as perplexed as you:confused:.

Remember when people find fault in others, its usually because they are unhappy with themselves.

[alonzo-ny]

The government makes mistakes as does every other government in the world. The country is in a great state because the government for the most part is doing well. Id hate to see this board if it existed before 1997.

Yes I believe CB and GT have alot of issues with themselves.

[Luca]

Yo Alonzo, you know very well from my posts that I'm far from a Tenenbaum-Birdseye 'Jeremiah', least of all about Britain. I think the same can be said of Meerkat (despite his/her silly net moniker :))

I do think that the mix of large, concentrated, newly self-aware, ethnically-conscious Islamic population centers on one hand and an entitlement-rich, stridency-rewarding, politically-correct political system on the other will produce situations, over the next 5-15 years, where laws that would not otherwise have been considered will hit the UK statute books.

I did not say the UK is islamified, just that it is more likely to become islamified than countries that either have a less self-assured Islamic presence or ones (take France) which tended to be governed more top-down.

If we regard the term 'phobia' as an irrational fear or dislike of something, then I'm not an islamophobe. I am against all theocratic movements and I am strongly against the imposition of any legal of customary restraints on the liberties of civilized peoples due to religious superstition, be it Islamic, Judaic, Christian or Jedi. :mad:

[investordude]

Why are we assuming all polygamous relationships in Britain are among Muslims? I would conjecture you'd get at least some libertarians among the mix of people who would be bigamists.

Sounds like this is just a badly written law that parlaiment should fix.

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

Yes I believe CB and GT have alot of issues with themselves.

And you dont?

Seriously, what are you?

My mother?

QFT.

[Ninjahedge]

And you dont?

Seriously, what are you?

My mother?

QFT.

If he was your mother he would not be as bothered by your incesant ranting against the UK.

It is not the best place for solutions, but you make it sound like hell on earth and more than a few would like you to temper your comments with a bit of reserve. Hell, even lighten up a bit, say something about somethnig you LIKE that is not something that is bad for the UK!




As for poligamy, WHO CARES!!!!

Get religion the hell (pun) out of this! They say it is freedom of religion, but that is bunk. This is societal. Poligamy was coming from a time when we were still an Alpha-Male DOMINATED society where the men were the moneymakers. The more money you made, the more you could support, the more you spread your genes into the world. We had it her in the states with the Mormons not too long ago!

Monogamy is another religious belief brought on by other factions supported by societal leanings. I am not 100% sure of ITS roots, but it did not just magically appear!

Maybe there should be less regulation imposed by the government on religious pairings? That only the thnigs that have direct social impact (such as inheritance, visitation rights, custody of children) should be considered and regulated by the government. Otherwise, have one, have ten, have 100 wives, or HUSBANDS for that matter.

Putting it up to the government on how you should live your life in ways that really would not effect those around you is very invasive and maybe this is a sign that we should stop getting into every detail of an individuals life in the name of the state and of the nation.

[Capn_Birdseye]

The government makes mistakes as does every other government in the world.
...its just that the Labour government makes more mistakes than most!

The country is in a great state because the government for the most part is doing well.You are joking of course! Britain has gone down hill since 1996. We have seen more repressive legislation introduced over the last 10 years than ever before in our history, our hard-fought for freedoms are being continually erased.

Taxation has risen dramatically by Gordon Brown's devious tactic of not increasing allowances in line with inflation and introducing a great swathe of stealth taxes. Our trade deficit is ever widening, (e.g., £7.5 billion in September 2007), and our public finances are in such a mess that we are very vunerable to a down-turn in the world economy.

Our streets are vacated by the Police who have been banished to their offices to spend hours filling in politically-correct forms - a recent report described our Police as being "risk adverse"!!! :)

Our streets are now populated by knife-carrying drug-fuelled yobs who wouldn't think twice about robbing and/or stabbing you for your wallet. 24/7 drinking of alcohol, legislated by the government, despite public criticism, has meant our town centres have virtually become no-go areas at night and week-ends.

Our educational system has been dumbed down to such an extent that some employers refuse to accept some qualifications from some so-called "universities". Our gold standard "A" levels are no more academically stretching than a "O" level was 20/30 years ago! No one is allowed to "fail" anymore!

Colleges have been re-named "universities", as though a name change will somehow bestow some form of legitimacy on the institution. These new so-called "universities" now run Mickey Mouse 3rd rate degree courses that wouldn't even equip a person to flip burgers at McDonalds - they're a total con on our young students!

A recent survey showed that from a sample of students from one of these new universities, most students surveyed thought Robin Hood, Sherlock Holmes & Robinson Crusoe were real historical figures, whereas Winston Churchill, Charles Dickens & Richard the Lionheart were just legends!

This government has lost control of our national borders resulting in a massive influx of illegal immigrants into this country that has caused, and will continue to cause, social unrest and overloading of our infrastructure such as schools, housing, health-care, etc. The government haven't got a clue how many are here, who they are, where they are, what they are doing, and even when they catch a few they can't deport them!

This Labour government has managed over the past ten years to turn "spin and sleaze" into an art form - quite a feat after the Tory era!

I could go on, but I won't, but hopefully it gives you a flavour as to why your statement about "the government doing well" is so wrong! - and I haven't even mentioned the illegal Iraq war, cash for honours scandal, undeclared illegal expenses claimed by government ministers, etc etc.

Yes I believe CB and GT have alot of issues with themselves.Just for the record alonzo, I have no issues with myself, I consider myself to be balanced human being, self-aware, and knowledgeable about what is happening around me and in the wider world. Are you sure your comments shouldn't be addressed to yourself?
As for GT, well thats whole different ball game, but I won't even begin to go there! :)

^ yes i agree, but if i say anything negative its directed at the government, not the country. Captain Birdseye, i think i secretly quite patriotic, although he'd never admit that :p.
... no not secretly patriotic, but I am very proud to be British and to live in Britain, but that doesn't stop me from pointing out that our wonderful country, that has given so much to the world, also has another, darker side.

"Patriotism" is a word I'm very careful about - to quote Samuel Johnson, "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."

[alonzo-ny]

"Patriotism" is a word I'm very careful about - to quote Samuel Johnson, "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."

Anyone can say anything they want and subsequently be quoted, It doesnt make it true.

Your obsession with this issue and incessant posting of negative stories borders on an unhealthy obsession. Had you been also posting positive stories and saying how proud your were of the acheivements of the UK.

The country has gone downhill in your opinion because of loss of freedom? Well I felt totally free and that I could acheive anything I wanted. I went to one of the worst schools in the coutry and still recieved an education good enough to go to University and recieve an excellent education. The country prepared me so well in fact I easily got a job at an excellent architecture firm in New York. The economy is booming, people have more money and there are more people working. pre-labour interest rates and inflation rates were astounding.

Yes labour makes mistakes but the country was a s***hole under John Major's leadership. Do you watch PMQs? David Cameroon has nothing to say except recycle stupid quotes and jokes because there is nothing he can truely attack the Labour party about except when someone makes a slip up because Labour policy has transformed the country.

[Capn_Birdseye]

The country prepared me so well in fact I easily got a job at an excellent architecture firm in New York.
So, lets summarise alonzo, you got your free education courtesy of the British taxpayer then, because you love your country so much and were deeply grateful for the free eduaction it gave you, you dashed off to NYC at the first opportunity - very patriotic if I may say so, we need more people like you, (like we need a hole in the head).

The economy is booming, people have more money and there are more people working.Wake up and take a reality check! You've been living in NYC too long already! This was 2006, its much worse now.

Britain becomes 'never, never land' as personal debt runs out of control

UK borrowers account for one third of unsecured debt in western Europe
On average, a Briton has twice the debt of a European
Total consumer debt in the UK is at a record £1.3 trillion
New debt last year came to an unprecedented £215bn
Citizens Advice faced 1.25 million new debt cases last year - the figure is rising
Related Articles
A precarious situation - especially if house prices crash (http://www.independent.co.uk/money/loans-credit/a-precarious-situation--especially-if-house-prices-crash-417810.html)
Hamish McRae: Till debt us do part? Rate rises will test our ability to live with credit (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/hamish-mcrae-till-debt-us-do-part-rate-rises-will-test-our-ability-to-live-with-credit-417797.html)By David Prosser, Personal Finance Editor The Independent
Thursday, 28 September 2006

Britain's "buy now, pay later" consumer culture has led to unprecedented levels of personal debt. The average Briton now has more than twice as much unsecured borrowing - including overdrafts, personal loans and credit card debt - as the typical European, according to a report published by Datamonitor.

The market research analysts said yesterday that even before mortgage borrowing was considered, the average Briton owes £3,175, compared to the average debt in Europe of £1,588. Datamonitor said Britons had "an insatiable appetite for credit", taking on new unsecured loans of £215bn last year alone.

Borrowers from the UK now account for a third of all unsecured debt in western Europe, Datamonitor added. Paul Marsh, author of the report, said: "While the UK enjoys a buy-now pay-later culture ... many major European countries have a culture of saving and frugality. Countries such as France and Germany are particularly debt adverse."

The boom in unsecured lending has boosted total consumer debt, including mortgages, to almost £1.3trn, close to three times the level of borrowing in 1997, when Labour came to power.

The consumer borrowing crisis is set to become the most pressing concern for Gordon Brown's successor as Chancellor of the Exchequer. George Osborne, the shadow Chancellor, said: "Gordon Brown is presiding over an economy increasingly built on debt. This has left many families vulnerable to the triple blow of rising mortgage rates, taxes and energy bills."

The debt crisis is even hitting young borrowers, according to separate research published yesterday by One Advice, the debt advisers. The company said the average 18 to 24-year-old now owes £2,860 in unsecured borrowing. One Advice said the average figures obscured worrying individual cases. It said 108,000 18 to 24-year-olds had credit card debts of more than £5,000.

There are increasingly worrying signs that many borrowers are struggling to stay on top of repayments. The average person has debts that total 150 per cent of their annual income, according to the Bank of England, half as much again as in 1997.

The Bank believes around one million households face problems coping with debt repayments - around 10 per cent of the four in 10 households that have unsecured borrowing.

A report from Citizens Advice earlier this month said 770,000 mortgage borrowers had missed at least one mortgage repayment over the past year, while two million homeowners said they were concerned their finances would not stretch to cover their debts.

The charity said younger people were particularly vulnerable, with mortgage-holders aged 21 to 24 the most likely to default.

The latest figures from the Government's Insolvency Service, published last month, have also unnerved debt campaigners. The numbers becoming insolvent in the second quarter of the year reached 26,000, a 66 per cent rise on the same period in 2005.

Borrowing difficulties have already begun to affect the housing market. Britain's housing boom has saddled newer homeowners with far larger mortgages. Figures from the Hay Group consultancy , published yesterday, showed the typical borrower now spends 51 per cent of monthly pay on mortgage repayments.

The Council of Mortgage Lenders said the number of homes repossessed in the first half of the year was 8,140, the most for more than five years.
At the same time, there is evidence that Britain's biggest banks, which have all reported a rise in bad debt in recent months, are cracking down on consumer credit. Two weeks ago, for example, HSBC said it would introduce annual reviews of all its customers' overdrafts, with cuts to many borrowers' overdraft limits likely to follow.

[voodoochild]

Multiple wives will mean multiple benefits

By Jonathan Wynne-Jones
Last Updated: 1:52am GMT 04/02/2008

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.

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
Did somebody actually wake up and think of this law???? I can not believe what I am reading. If a man wants to take on 3 wives that is his choice, but why should the tax payers have to suffer for his lifestyle?

[Capn_Birdseye]

Could someone please explain why, other than this one law, the UK has apparently become an Islamic state?

This is what the Archbishop of Canterbury, Head of the Church Of England, said a few hours ago, can you believe it! Wake up alonzo!

Sharia law unavoidable - Archbishop of Canterbury

http://eur.i1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/i/uk/ne/palog.gif?x=170&y=25&sig=EGsD3shQTFr88JTnz.snnA-- (http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/pa/SIG=113i5evue/**http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pa.press.net%2F)
Press Assoc. - 2 hours 51 minutes ago

The adoption of some aspects of Islamic sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable", the Archbishop of Canterbury has said.

Other religions enjoyed such tolerance of their own laws, he pointed out, but stressed that it could never be allowed to take precedence over an individual's rights as a citizen.

He said it would also require a change in perception of what sharia involved beyond the "inhumanity" of extreme punishments and attitudes to women seen in some Islamic states.

Dr Williams told BBC Radio 4's The World At One: "It seems unavoidable and, as a matter of fact, certain conditions of sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system.

"We already have in this country a number of situations in which the internal law of religious communities is recognised by the law of the land as justifying conscientious objections in certain circumstances."

He added: "There is a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law as we already do with aspects of other kinds of religious law.

"It would be quite wrong to say that we could ever license a system of law for some community which gave people no right of appeal, no way of exercising the rights that are guaranteed to them as citizens in general.
"But there are ways of looking at marital disputes, for example, which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them. In some cultural and religious settings they would seem more appropriate."

He said people needed to look at Islamic law "with a clear eye and not imagine, either, that we know exactly what we mean by sharia and just associate it with ... Saudi Arabia, or whatever".

[alonzo-ny]

So, lets summarise alonzo, you got your free education courtesy of the British taxpayer then, because you love your country so much and were deeply grateful for the free eduaction it gave you, you dashed off to NYC at the first opportunity - very patriotic if I may say so, we need more people like you, (like we need a hole in the head).



Exactly the stupid response I expected. Just because I love Britain doesnt mean I must spend every living second there. If you have ever left British soil then you do not love your country. That attitute reminds me of the 'If you dont like it get the **** out' attitude I receive here in the US. What I do with the free education Im entitled to as a British citizen is at my own discretion.

It is every persons personal choice to incur debt. That is not the country or governments fault.

[voodoochild]

Exactly the stupid response I expected. Just because I love Britain doesnt mean I must spend every living second there. If you have ever left British soil then you do not love your country. That attitute reminds me of the 'If you dont like it get the **** out' attitude I receive here in the US. What I do with the free education Im entitled to as a British citizen is at my own discretion.

It is every persons personal choice to incur debt. That is not the country or governments fault.
At Britain gives their citizens free education. I remember when I was first in college and I was dating an Albanian non-US citizen. He received all schooling and books for free while my parents who also had to raise and provide for a handicapped child, had to struggle to make the payments.

[Capn_Birdseye]

Learn to appreciate things in life alonzo, and stop occasionally to examine your own behaviour before criticising others - just a piece of constructive advice which I hope you'll accept in the same spirit in which its given. :)

It is every persons personal choice to incur debt. That is not the country or governments fault.
Gordon Brown's so-called economic prudence and succeess was solely built on the back of personal (consumer) debt, egged on by the government without any restraints or meaningful regulation in the market place - result - record levels of debt that will stymie the economy and throw millions of people out of work, out of their homes and into bankruptcy - yea, that's the sort of government we've got in this country.

Debt worries become the chief reason citizens seek advice

Debt problems have for the first time become the largest source of inquiries at Citizens Advice, according to figures yesterday from the free advice charity.

An increase of 20% over last year meant Citizens Advice dealt with 1.7m inquiries about debt, putting it ahead of welfare rights and other long-standing issues, the charity said.

The situation is expected to get worse over the next few months as homeowners continue to wrestle with the impact of five interest rate rises in 18 months and holidaymakers add up the bills from their summer spending.

Citizens Advice, Britain's largest provider of free debt advice, said debt accounted for one in three of all inquiries, and its advisers around the country were dealing with more than 6,600 debt problems each working day.

The charity said: "The figures confirm there is no let-up in the rising toll of casualties from an unprecedented consumer credit boom and recent sharp increases in the cost of living, making mortgages, council tax and utilities more expensive for many people."

Inquiries about bankruptcy jumped by 50% on last year. The consumer boom of the past 10 years has brought with it some unexpected new victims as people with serious spending habits find they cannot afford to repay debts. Traditionally, serious debt problems are triggered by life-changing events, such as divorce, unemployment or the death of a near relative. Though they have remained important factors, the steep rise in personal insolvencies - to 107,000 last year from 28,000 in 2005 - can be largely blamed on over-spending.

The Consumer Credit Counselling Service (CCCS), a free debt advice charity, said it had seen a marked rise in the number of people aged over 65 who were using personal loans to boost their retirement income. Many of them were unable to repay loans from their fixed income and were forced to file for bankruptcy. Women in their mid-30s who lived in rented flats were also advised to file for bankruptcy in ever greater numbers. In cases where they have few assets other than their wardrobes, advisers have recommended bankruptcy as the obvious route to escape creditors.

The group with the most unsecured debts were couples in their early 30s who had bought a home and started a family. They had the most credit cards with large balances and the most personal loans, many of them used to subsidise monthly mortgage payments.

And by the way, Gordon himself lost control of public finances, leaving poor hapless Alistair Darling with a major headache:

From The Times

December 7, 2007
OECD warns Alistair Darling of bleak choices in economic turndown

Gary Duncan, Economics Editor

The Chancellor faces having to raise taxes or cut spending during the impending economic downturn if he wants to avoid breaching the Treasury’s tough rules for the nation’s finances, he was told yesterday.

In the latest blow for an embattled Alistair Darling, he was warned by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development that the slowing economy will send the Government’s finances £13 billion deeper into the red than planned, as tax revenues are undermined.

The OECD’s prediction threatens the Chancellor with a bleak choice between breaking the tough financial rules put in place by Gordon Brown, watering them down in a new embarrassment for the Prime Minister, or imposing higher taxes or spending cuts that could deepen the economy’s woes.

[alonzo-ny]

Still no-one forces anyone to take out that loan.

I dont need your advice, such emotional responses arent the norm for me but I am getting really bored of how this forum has become your personal rantfest. My behaviour is just fine. You are the one posting drivel constantly. Is your life so horrible you must find a scapegoat? I suspect your just a Tory who cant stand the fact the country is in a good position, debt or no debt. In fact I remember now an article on the BBC website that explained how this 'mountain of debt' was not a problem at all and was a product of growth not that the growth was built on a foundation of debt. Ill try and find it, however it is funny you didnt instantly post it yourself seeing as how it refutes everything you have said.

[alonzo-ny]

Media stories suggest the nation's debt is at worrying levels. But what's the full story, behind the statistics in the headlines?
Debt in the UK is out of control, hurtling to record levels, now well past £1 trillion.

Lenders can't chuck out cheap cash quickly or irresponsibly enough, the economy is built on shadows, bankruptcies are rising and the crunch is coming.

Records are all but inevitable in a growing economy

That's a story you've probably heard. Here's another.

Debt is basically fine. In fact, we're coining it in the UK, with more wealth stretching ever further ahead of the amount we owe.

The people in trouble - who do exist - are a tiny minority accounting for a vanishingly small part of the trillion. Most debt is a sign not of penury, nor impending crash, but prodigiously increasing wealth.

Why believe one rather than another? After all, can't you prove anything with the right statistics, as the old cynicism goes?


No, you can't. What you can do, if you want to mislead (or be misled) is treat one number as if it tells the whole story. But that's not proof, nor anything like it.

So here is a quick guide to seeing a story one way, based on one number, and seeing it another, based on a richer reading of others.

The single number in the debt crisis story is the one that shows debt going up. Shouldn't that worry us?

Media neglect

Not really. The number of pounds in circulation in the British economy doubles through a combination of economic growth and inflation, every 15 years. It quadruples every 30 years. The number of pounds of almost everything multiplies madly, almost all the time. This is normal. It's what happens in the good times.

"Gone Up!" says the headline, "Hits Record!" But what, really, did we expect? Do we really think that as the number of pounds in the economy quadruples in a generation, the number of pounds of debt is going to go down? The bad, the worrying world is the one where everything starts contracting.

So the first statistical point to get out of the way is that records are all but inevitable in a growing economy. And a record amount of debt, on its own, tells us nothing, except, perhaps, that life is proceeding much as usual.

To say simply that because debts have passed £1 trillion we are at a crisis, is like concluding that since your child has grown recently she must therefore be a giant.


Personal debt can have serious consequences
The next point is that debt is only one half of a calculation everybody makes all the time in working out how well off they are, but which news reporting strangely neglects. The half we're always hearing, the alarming half, is how much we owe. The other half is how much we own.

So we hear that the British owe more on their mortgages than anywhere else in Europe. But we seldom hear the obvious corollary - that the British also own more housing wealth than anywhere else in Europe.

This is straight from the Enron school of reporting. It looks at only one half of the balance sheet, and ignores the rest. Enron reported its assets and ignored its debts. Reports of debt are often the other way round. They tell us that debt is going up, shock, but don't say what is happening to wealth.

But no one would look at their own finances this way. If you did, you would compare what you owed aged 16, look at what you owe in later life, and conclude on the basis of a bigger number that you were heading for middle-aged financial calamity.


But are you really better off aged 16 than in the peak earning years of working life? The truth is almost always the opposite. Rising debts are an indication of rising ability to borrow, resulting from rising wealth.

Got-richer years

So what do we see when we take both halves of the balance sheet? Here's the picture for the UK.


In 1987 the total personal wealth of all the households in the UK added up to about four times as much as the annual income of the whole country.

By 2005 wealth was six times as great as annual national income. Not poorer, but hugely richer, is the story of the last 20 or so years.

This wealth is held in houses, pensions, shares, bank and building society accounts, and it is held very unequally, with the rich holding most of the wealth, as well as most of the debt.

Some of the increase reflects house-price growth, some increases in share prices, but there is no denying that as the economy has grown, and incomes with it, so have savings and wealth. Debt has been rising, but wealth has been rising much more quickly, as we see from the line showing wealth minus debt.

Guess who owes most? The richest - by far

And what of those debtors in real trouble? Their plight is genuine and miserable. We don't mean to belittle it.

And it's quite plausible that there are more of them, though it's not clear that the bankruptcy numbers are a sure guide to this, since the bankruptcy option may simply be more readily taken, given how widely advertised it now is.

But they have precious little to do with the big numbers, they do not indicate a national crisis, and they do not show that debt is bad.

Because guess who owes most? The richest - by far. Are they, or the nation, in crisis? Let's put it this way: they're not exactly weeping over their platinum credit cards.

The Tiger That Isn't by Michael Blastland and Andrew Dilnot is published by Profile Books

[alonzo-ny]

And you dont?

Seriously, what are you?

My mother?

QFT.

I dont project them into others lives constantly. and I didnt tell you what to do therefore the mother comparrison doesnt hold water. and QFT, I dont know what the hell that is.

[Capn_Birdseye]

Alonzo, you seem paranoid about me (and GT), you need to take a chill pill. Relax, sit in a darkened room close your eyes, and repeat for about 15 minutes, "the Captain is right, he speaks the truth" - you'll feel better believe me. :)

[alonzo-ny]

How can I be paranoid? This is the first time I have brought up my opinion on the matter in a meaningful way. Also paranoid would mean somehow I am worried that your actions will harm me in some way? Not sure how that works.

I wont relax, I find you offensive and you are a drag on this site.

I would love to post positive things about the UK so the site and fellow brits like Meerkat et al could have an intelligent discussion but I know you would barge in and start your nonsensical ramblings and ruin it all.

I also notice you didnt respond to the article i posted.

[Capn_Birdseye]

I wont relax, I find you offensive and you are a drag on this site.
Getting a bit personal aren't we alonzo, chill out and stop reading or responding to my postings if they upset you so much - betcha won't.

I would love to post positive things about the UK so the site and fellow brits like Meerkat et al could have an intelligent discussion but I know you would barge in and start your nonsensical ramblings and ruin it all.
You and Meerkat can have all the "ïntelligent conversations" you like, I'll only contribute if I have something positive, (subjective, I know), to offer. Not trying to introduce censorship are we alonzo?

I also notice you didnt respond to the article i posted.
I've just had my late night large rum snifter so I'm off to the hammock on the poop deck - Í'll save my response until tomorrow, If I can be bothered. I'm surprised you want me to comment with my (quote) "nonsensical ramblings" :)
Good night alonzo, sleep well and don't forget that chill pill, you'll feel better in the morning.

[Ninjahedge]

So Alanzo, unlike the numbers that are posted about the US and its various debts, the one you are mentioning is personal debts over assets?

It is, say, the amount of mortgages out there?

That's nothing, if the salaries are enough to support them being paid off rather than not even being enough to pay the interest (ala USA).

[alonzo-ny]

Getting a bit personal aren't we alonzo, chill out and stop reading or responding to my postings if they upset you so much - betcha won't.

When wasnt it personal? I was directing my opinion at you personally. 'betcha wont' Oh no how dumb am I going to look by continueing to express my opinion. I will continue because this is a public site I can do, read, respond to what I want. I wont be told what to do by you.


You and Meerkat can have all the "ïntelligent conversations" you like, I'll only contribute if I have something positive, (subjective, I know), to offer. Not trying to introduce censorship are we alonzo?

You have nothing to offer. No we cant have intelligent discussions because you will butt in with some random crap that is irrelevant twisting whatever I was to post into something against the government.

I've just had my late night large rum snifter so I'm off to the hammock on the poop deck - Í'll save my response until tomorrow, If I can be bothered. I'm surprised you want me to comment with my (quote) "nonsensical ramblings" :)
Good night alonzo, sleep well and don't forget that chill pill, you'll feel better in the morning.

For someone who hates the government you could be a good politician by the way you are sidestepping a reasonable article refuting your scaremongering.

[investordude]

The idea we should allow a group of people to practice sharia law is absurd. This is 1 thing the US does better than the UK I think. It's important to push hard for assimilation and patriotism among the immigrant population.

Debt in the UK is a problem, but the US is a lot worse.

[Meerkat]

QFT, I dont know what the hell that is.

I think, perhaps, he was trying to say QED, but who knows, let alone cares.

As for Rowan Williams, what an irresponsible thing to say. This will merely inflame tensions - ludicrous.

[Capn_Birdseye]

Sharia is no law for Britain (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/christopherhowse/february2008/sharianolawforbritain.htm)

Posted by Christopher Howse (christopher.howse@telegraph.co.uk) on 07 Feb 2008 at 19:25
Tags: Islam (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/christopherhowse/default.htm/Islam), Muslims (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/christopherhowse/default.htm/Muslims), Archbishop of Canterbury (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/christopherhowse/default.htm/Archbishop%20of%20Canterbury), Sharia law (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/christopherhowse/default.htm/Sharia%20law), Rowen Williams (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/christopherhowse/default.htm/Rowen%20Williams)

The Archbishop of Canterbury seems to have lost the use of his senses. He told the BBC today that the application of Sharia in Britain "seems unavoidable". This would entail lashing for fornication and amputation for theft.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/VirtualContent/85659/vieledwomen_.JPG
The rights of women have moved on, says Dr Williams

Dr Williams is a good and learned man, but he is mistaken to think that Islamic law works like English law or the sympathetic deliberations of a middle-class Welshman.

Indeed he said in his BBC interview: "Nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that’s sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".

Sharia means literally the road to a watering place: a clear path to be followed. It is translated as "law", but it governs without restriction, as an infallible doctrine of duties, the whole of the religious, political, social, domestic and private life of those who profess Islam.

How would extreme punishments and bad treatment of women be prevented where the jurisdiction of Sharia was recognised? In Islam Sharia is the law of God as revealed in the Koran and through the behaviour and words of Mohammed.

Like Judaism, Islam is a thoroughly legalistic religion, and though there are no priests, there are clergy in the sense of men who know the law and make judgments. A religious scholar who gives opinions is called a mufti; his legal opinion is called a fatwa. The latter word is familiar now in a way it used not to be before silly old Salman Rushdie was condemned to death.
"I don’t know enough about the detail of the law in the Islamic law in this context," Dr Williams said, "I’m simply saying that there are ways of looking at marital dispute for example within discussions that go on among some contemporary scholars which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them."

Since the days of the Prophet, Dr Williams thinks, "the rights and liberties of women has moved on and the principle, the vision, that animates the Islamic legal provision needs broadening because of that." But Sharia does not rely on mere principles. It derives from the revelation of God, which may not be abrogated. Dr Williams referred to "principles laid down in the Quran". Here is one (4:34): "Admonish those women whose rebelliousness you fear, shun them in their resting-places and hit them. If they obey you, do not seek a further way against them."

How does Dr Williams address the prohibition on a Muslim woman to marry a man who is not a Muslim?

I am sorry to say he has made relations between Christians and Muslims more difficult.

[Meerkat]

^ The Archbishop should be ashamed of his comments. Sharia law in the UK no matter what form it takes -NO WAY. Residents of the UK should accept our laws and way of life or leave. At a time when tensions are high, these sort of comments will increase these tensions rather than diffusing them.

This is all the more sickening considering Rowan Williams colleague, The Rt Rev Dr Michael Nazir-Ali is now under police guard following death threats after his recent (and lets face it, true) comments about no-go areas for non-moslems in the UK. Just go to Oldham - A town almost completely segregated between moslems and non-moslems.

[BenL]

Far from being respectful to Islam, I think these proposals for Sharia are pretty patronising to the vast majority of British Muslims who are perfectly happy to continue using secular British law. Even the often less than moderate Muslim Association of Britain is against any aspects of Sharia being incorporated into law.

Britain has a proud tradition of the rule of law and if acted on, this proposal would be a significant threat to it. Given the response of all three parties and the overwhelming voice of British Islam, I think Williams' ideas are extremely unlikely to be acted upon. All this proposal really does is confirm my belief in the disestablishment of the Church of England.

[Capn_Birdseye]

Far from being respectful to Islam, I think these proposals for Sharia are pretty patronising to the vast majority of British Muslims who are perfectly happy to continue using secular British law. Even the often less than moderate Muslim Association of Britain is against any aspects of Sharia being incorporated into law.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/i/t.gifPoll reveals 40pc of Muslims want sharia law in UK

By Patrick Hennessy and Melissa Kite - Daily Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:14am GMT 20/02/2006

Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country, a survey reveals today.

The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/02/19/nsharia19a.jpg
50pc said interracial relations were worseningOverall, the findings depict a Muslim community becoming more radical and feeling more alienated from mainstream society, even though 91 per cent still say they feel a degree of loyalty to Britain.

The results of the poll, conducted for the Sunday Telegraph, came as thousands of Muslims staged a fresh protest in London yesterday against the publication of cartoons of Mohammed. In Libya, at least 10 people died in protests linked to the caricatures.

And in Pakistan, a cleric was reported to have put a $1 million (£575,000) bounty on the head of the Danish cartoonist who drew the original pictures.
Last night, Sadiq Khan, the Labour MP involved with the official task force set up after the July attacks, said the findings were "alarming". He added: "Vast numbers of Muslims feel disengaged and alienated from mainstream British society." Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "This poll confirms the widespread opposition among British Muslims to the so-called war on terror."

The most startling finding is the high level of support for applying sharia law in "predominantly Muslim" areas of Britain.

Islamic law is used in large parts of the Middle East, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, and is enforced by religious police. Special courts can hand down harsh punishments which can include stoning and amputation.

Forty per cent of the British Muslims surveyed said they backed introducing sharia in parts of Britain. Twenty per cent felt sympathy with the July 7 bombers' motives, and 75 per cent did not. One per cent felt the attacks were "right".

Half of the 500 people surveyed said relations between white Britons and Muslims were getting worse. Only just over half thought the conviction of the cleric Abu Hamza for incitement to murder and race hatred was fair.

[Meerkat]

^ Why does none of this surprise me?