Not drowning, just waving

NOW FORGIVE me if I've got this wrong, but isn't bigamy against the law in this country?

Every now and again a story will crop up in the tabloids about the serial wife who's been busy taking husband number three to the cleaners without bothering to dispense with husbands one and two. She's usually a late forties bottle blonde with a spray tan and a well-used pair of stockings. She'll wink at the judge but still get two years in the nick while drunken, feral Dad-killers get sentenced to nothing more strenuous than painting an old lady's fence.

Very occasionally you'll get a male bigamist, usually a former member of the armed forces who's taken the adage about a girl in every port a bit too far. He'll do time as well, because there's nothing the State hates more than someone who unwittingly demonstrates that many of its laws are outdated and useless. Seven years is the top whack. Meanwhile, it can only be a matter of time before a taxi driver is prosecuted for failing to carry a bale of hay.

So how does the Department of Work and Pensions (until recently the domain of absent-minded pocket-stuffer Peter Hain) get away with blithely announcing that not only is polygamy now an officially recognised status, but that those indulging in the possession of more than one wife can now claim state benefits for all of them?

This extraordinary announcement is, of course, a scaredy cat sop to Islamic law, which dictates that a man can take up to four wives. (Although why anyone would want to is beyond me. Nagging in quadrophenia? No thanks.)

The DWP has decreed that the going rate is £92.80 a week for hubby and wife one, with a further £33.65 for subsequent wives. They don't say that the upper limit is four, but I bet that it is.

So what would happen if our local vicar suddenly decided that he fancied adding another three fillies to his stable? Would Mr Plod turn a blind eye, or would the miscreant be hauled before the courts for a full-on tabloid monstering? I think you know the answer.

So how did this happen? When did Parliament decide that sharia law is now applicable in Britain? Who decided to give extreme Muslims immunity from the day-to-day strictures that apply to the rest of us? I must have missed that debate and subsequent vote.

The truth is that there has been no debate and there has been no vote. This outrageous move is just a craven, cowardly capitulation by a branch of Wee Gordie Broon's Turkey Army; a politically correct accommodation by Guardian-reading cyphers who find it hard to relate to real life … or real people. It's an absolute disgrace.

Funnily enough, half of me says bring it on. Let's embrace Islamic law in all its hard-line cruelty. Let's chop the hands off junkies caught shoplifting in Lidl. Let's hang murderers, paedophiles and rapists. I'm even up for stoning the odd adulteress, particularly if she's just done me out of a house in the divorce settlement.

I think what worries me most about this whole farce is the damage it does to simple racial integration. We should be striving towards a society that treats everyone equally; a society where no-one enjoys special privileges and no-one is subject to victimisation.

Yet when I'm doing overtime tonight in a desperate bid to pay the ever-increasing mortgage, the thought that my taxes will be subsidising the serial bed-hopping, Viagra-popping sex life of Mr Patel from the corner shop will be of little compensation, trust me.

WHILE I'M now clearly at risk of the six o'clock knock from the Thought Police, I may as well bash on with this next one. The BBC is in trouble after apparently breaching the Race Relations Act by advertising for a "young, zany Oriental or Asian person with a science background".

It seems that you are not allowed to advertise job requirements "that lead to one or more racial groups being favoured over others". Well why not? What's more honest? Saying up front that you definitely want Asian applicants because the programme you are making is aimed at an Asian audience, or making candidates from other ethnic groups jump through the hoops of pointless, time-wasting interviews just to keep the quota up when you already know who you want for the job?

Again, legislation designed to protect minorities only results in resentment and bad feeling. Maybe the Department of Work and Pensions could find a way around it?

OH GOOD, I thought. Pancake Day next week. Let's watch out for some idiotic Health and Safety officer closing down a pancake race on the grounds that it is a threat to public safety. Little did I know that it would be the famous 600-year-old Ripon Cathedral race that would fall foul of the fluorescent jacket-wearers.

Insurance costs, the lack of marshals, the issue of road closures and increasing paperwork have all been blamed for the cancellation. I'm getting tired of this. When will some organisation stand up and say: "Sod this - we're going to do it anyway, and prosecute all you like after the fact"?
Who knows, maybe some legal immunity can be found under Islamic law.

THE PUBLIC Information Film is back, only this time it's not Joe and Petunia at the seaside ("Oh look, that man's waving at us") or even the classic 'Charley Says' series. This time around it's some annoying carton about alleged global warming in which we are informed by some earnest kid that: "Just one recycled bottle keeps a computer running for 20 minutes".

In the spirit of which, I should inform you that this column has been brought to you by four bottles of Lindeman's Bin 65 Chardonnay. Enjoy.

FOOTNOTE: This column was written before the Archbishop of Canterbury, who I've long regarded as Satan's representative on Earth, weighed in with his ludicrous and dangerous support for a two-tier society, as outlined above. Frankly, the man must be barking mad.