Video Summary

In a recent discussion, Daniel Shenmith addressed the controversial topic of extra benefits allocated to second wives in polygamous marriages, highlighting that such arrangements have been legally recognised since 1975. This situation, he argues, is not the fault of current politicians, such as Rachel Reeves, but rather rooted in longstanding legislation.

Shenmith explains that under the Social Security and Family Allowances, Polygamous Marriages Regulations, benefits are available to individuals in polygamous marriages if they meet specific criteria, including being of pensionable age and having legal marriages in their respective countries. He questions the rationale behind this when English law prohibits polygamous marriages, suggesting this discrepancy highlights a broader issue within government policy.

He further delves into the ongoing debates surrounding biological males being allowed in women’s spaces, citing a recent shift by organisations like Girl Guiding and the Women’s Institute to ban trans women from membership. Shenmith argues for the importance of safeguarding spaces for women and girls, emphasising the need for clarity on gender definitions in law without undermining rights.

Overall, the discussion raises significant questions about the intersection of law, gender rights, and societal norms, advocating for transparency and the necessity to protect women's spaces while navigating complex contemporary issues.

Transcript

Outrage in the headlines once more with Rachel Reeves being slammed as extra benefits are dished out to second wives in polygamous marriages. And it's not just second wives either; it's third wives, fourth wives, fifth wives, sixth wives. You get the gist. There is no limit. But another day brings another example of some somewhat selective outrage in the headlines, because this is not a new thing and it’s not really Rachel Reeves’ fault either. Although the numbers are going up and they are going to be paying more to the second, third, fourth, fifth wives, there is still no limit. But as I say, it's not quite Rachel Reeves' fault and it’s not quite a new thing either. In fact, this has been going on since 1975. So, welcome to the channel if you are new to me. I am Daniel Shenmith, the barrister of England and Wales. Please do subscribe to the channel for a brutally honest analysis of what goes on in the headlines, the news, and politics, and hopefully a frank explanation of the law. So, please do subscribe. I am almost on the way to one million subscribers.

You see these headlines, and it is obviously designed to grab attention. It is somewhat tabloid in nature, but that doesn’t make it wrong. Now, you get a lot of people saying, "You’re reading this in the XYZ newspaper. Surely that’s not true?" They label it as tabloid or right-wing or whatever they label it as, and they say, "Surely you’re not relying on that as your news source." But it is true, at least because I can show you the law for this because it has been brought about in 1975 in the Social Security and Family Allowances, Polygamous Marriages Regulations of 1975. This was under, you guessed it, a Labour government.

Now, aside from the fact that it is an offence under English law and has been for a very long time to be party to a polygamous marriage, if I move this, you can probably see it a little bit better. Under the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861, Section 57, you can actually go to prison for a very long time if you are found to be involved in a second marriage. This law, students will recall, refers to some sort of obscurity that once was in law, where they made it an offence to become party to a second marriage. They then made it so that any marriage ceremony was null, i.e., it wasn’t valid if you were already married. Thus, the offence could never be committed. They tweaked it and changed it so that going through the marriage ceremony and everything else that makes it a marriage is the offence, and therefore being party to a second marriage becomes an offence.

So why then do we allow polygamous marriages, and why are the DWP paying out benefits to those who have a second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth wife? Now, this is actually relatively straightforward. To be fair to the article that I quoted, whilst it does have a headline designed to grab your attention, that’s what my thumbnails do. It does explain in the article how this works.

In simple terms, someone who is party to a polygamous marriage and of pensionable age is entitled to a weekly amount currently of £119.50. According to the document I found, this is going up to £121.60 for 25 to 26 and then up again to £127.35. This is indeed available to each additional spouse who is a member of the same household. What might not be clear from the headline is that in order to qualify for this, they must be of pensionable age and must be domiciled, i.e., they must be living in another country, not in the UK, when the marriage takes place, and it must be a valid marriage in that country. So, even if they are the second, third, or fourth wife, as long as they are married in another country and it is legal there and then come here, they are entitled to claim this spousal benefit.

This still leaves open the question as to why we allow that when our own laws don’t permit someone to be married more than once. That is simply a matter of international private law. It was brought about in 1975 and has sort of stuck around since. That is not to say that it has gone without question. The Conservatives raise this question again and again against each Labour government when they arise. This question is then put again to the Labour government, much like it is to Rachel Reeves here. It was put in 2008 under the Gordon Brown government. Again, just raising the question, why are we still supporting this when we don’t allow polygamous marriages under English law? That is a question I cannot answer; that is one of government policy.

I thought it was useful to explain this so that you’re not just left with the headline. There is an explanation underneath it. But all of this does give rise to the potential for some absurdity, because there is also a huge amount of work going on at the DWP to combat benefit fraud and reclaim payments fraudulently claimed or potentially not even of pensionable age. I don’t know, I just know that there is all sorts of fraud that goes on, and the DWP makes a lot of effort in recovering that money once it’s been paid out.

Now, one might suggest that the laws could be changed to streamline and simplify them so that it is not trying to chase down all of these avenues where it has the potential for fraud. But again, that’s a matter of policy and that is not down to me. Now, with Christmas rapidly approaching, you might be doing some extra shopping, and I can help you find better prices for those things because, believe it or not, some retailers will change the prices of their products and services depending on where you live. How do they know? Well, you connect to the internet and that tells them roughly where you are. This is called targeted pricing. But I can help you avoid that or at least find the best price available if you use a partner of my channel, which is NordVPN. They give you an anonymous IP address where you can virtually change your location and see whether the price changes. A little bit sneaky on the retailer’s part, but they are perfectly allowed to do that, and that is certainly something they do.

Also, at Christmas time, you might be travelling, so you might be connecting to unsecured networks. NordVPN will protect you for that as well. You might be receiving lots of messages and emails with deliveries and updates, and you might be tempted to click links in those emails as well. Don’t think that you might not be fooled because some of them are very convincing. But NordVPN will check for malicious websites, malicious downloads, and it will protect you from those as well. NordVPN takes the communication and data from your devices through an encrypted virtual private network tunnel through their VPN servers ultimately to the destination website. Thus, it makes this data and traffic encrypted or invisible to your internet service providers, hackers, other companies, agencies, employers, and anyone else who wants to snoop on your data.

And as they’re a partner to my channel, you can get an additional four months free using my code BBB linked in the description below. Just head over to nordvpn.com/bb and you’ll get four months free on top of any deal that they are running. It is less than the price of a cup of coffee every month to know that you have that peace of mind of being secure on the internet and getting the best deals for Christmas. So check out NordVPN with four months free using my code BBB linked in the description below.

In other news, more updates on policies from organisations banning biological males from girls' or women's spaces, including Girl Guiding and the Women’s Institute. Let’s take a look at those in turn. This, to be perfectly frank, is a little bit of a garbled article from the BBC. Here it says, "Trans girls can no longer join Girl Guiding." Now, a trans girl is obviously a biological boy, and the Supreme Court has made absolutely crystal clear that any organisation that splits a service into sexes, men, women, girls, boys, it is to be done based on biology. Meaning if the Girl Guiding, as it did, allowed biological boys to be part of Girl Guiding, that would be in breach of the Supreme Court ruling on the Equality Act, thus breaching the Equality Act.

The BBC reports the organisation that oversees Girl Guiding groups in the UK has announced that it’s banning trans girls from joining, in other words, biological boys. It goes on to say that Girl Guiding has said this move, which means it will not accept biological boys identifying as girls, was in response to the Supreme Court ruling earlier this year, and it has taken them this long to do so. That meant biological sex in equality law. The trustees said they’ve made the difficult decision with a heavy heart, and there would be further announcements on what this will mean for current members. But I have to say here, there’s no balancing act. I know the BBC is just reporting here, but there’s no balancing act there. If it is a difficult decision with a heavy heart, it surely is to protect the safety and dignity of the girls who take part in Girl Guiding and indeed the women that run it. Banning biological males from it shouldn’t be a difficult decision and it shouldn’t be with a heavy heart; it should be a straightforward decision.

It will negatively affect some people, I understand, and that’s obviously why they say it, but it should really be for the greater good here. Trans rights organisation Transactual said there is no problem being solved here, only harm being done, and with great respect, that’s absolute nonsense because it is absolutely protecting girls and indeed women who are involved with Girl Guiding. They say around 385,000 girls and young women between the ages of four and eighteen take part in rainbows, brownies, guides, and rangers across the UK. From today, trans girls and young women and others not recorded female at birth will no longer be able to join Girl Guiding as new members, but then they went on to say that there’ll be no immediate changes for young members and more information will be released next week.

A similar story about the Women’s Institute: they will no longer accept trans women as members from April. Now, of course, translating that, the Women’s Institute will no longer accept biological males as members from April. I don’t know why from April next year when the law applies now, because the Supreme Court made it absolutely clear what the Equality Act said and has said since 2010. It has not changed the law; it has just clarified what the law always was. So if they allow a biological male in the Women’s Institute today, in my view, they are breaking the law. Not to be taken as legal advice, but it is my view.

Melissa Green, the Chief Executive here of the National Federation of Women’s Institutes said that they have no choice and that it was with the utmost regret and sadness that they are banning trans women from the membership. Again, I feel the need to speak out here and express my protected right and philosophical belief that biological men cannot become women and that women’s institutes, women’s organisations, and women's spaces, etc. should be protected for women and girls, and that men and boys should not be allowed into those. This happens everywhere, whether it’s a restaurant, a company, an organisation, a bathroom, a changing room, a gym, or whatever. If you are a woman or a girl using those spaces that are designated based on sex, you shouldn’t have to expect or worry about a biological male entering those spaces.

This is not to say anyone doing so is necessarily going in with malicious or nefarious intent, but that shouldn’t be something that you have to think about. Melissa Green went on, "Incredibly sadly, we will have to restrict our membership on the basis of biological sex from April next year." Again, in my view, that should apply immediately and should have done all along, but at the very least as soon as the Supreme Court judgment was released because that clarified the law as it has always been.

And for the avoidance of doubt, the Supreme Court made it clear that it is not eroding trans rights of any sort. If someone said you are not welcome here because you are trans, then that would be discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment. It doesn’t mean, however, that you ought to go into women's spaces because you remain biologically male. The message I really want to get across is that it remains our firm belief that transgender women are women, and that doesn’t change. With great respect, I think that’s absurd because I think it erodes what it really means to be a woman. I know I’m a man saying this, so some people will say men shouldn’t explain this. I don’t care; I have my views and I can express them. That is my right. I believe that women and girls and everything that it means to be female should be protected and not eroded by allowing biological males into it.

Let me know what you think about that in the comments below. I think it is a bit strange that we have the Chief Executive of the Women’s Institute saying that it is incredibly sad they have to restrict membership to biological females and ban men from that institute. I think that is just a bit bizarre. But that’s just my view. I respect yours if you have a different one. We won’t fall out over it. But let me know your thoughts in the box below. And, as always, thank you for watching.