badgerx16

"You're happy to see a parallel legal system operate in the UK, regardless of it discriminating against women.......". If that is simply a 'yes/no' question then the answer would be no - a simple answer to a simple question, easy for you to understand. It CANNOT be allowed to discriminate against women, as that contradicts UK Common Law. However, I read it as a nuanced question with a conditional answer; I am quite content that Sharia, as with the Jewish religious law, can be applied in circumstances that do not run counter to the broader principles of UK law and social integration. As I stated in an earlier post, any 'parallel' system cannot be seen to be impose upon, over rule, or contradict UK Common Law. Here is a 'yes/no' question for you - can you understand the above paragraph ?

Are you being deliberately obtuse or is it that you cannot understand the following sentence; "If there are 2 people who agree to settle a domestic dispute by the intervention of a particular third party agent, and both accept the ruling as binding, is there a problem ?".

You seem to be incapable of understanding clearly written English, bizarre.

75.3% of statistics quoted by Brexiteers might be, it's only 69.7% of those used by Remainers.

Why are people expected to repeat statements ad nauseum ? Read through my earlier posts and come to your own judgement.

Well, we've already covered 3 on this page, and when you add in the Canon Law of the CofE & the Romans then that's 5 already. I suppose that we'll also have to add in European Law, at least for the next 2 years, so it seems I'm at least happy with 6 ! However, the key thing is that there is a clear adherence to the principle that the Civil Law of the UK is always paramount.

Who would want to saddle themselves with 4 Mothers-in-Law ?

Did I say that ? If there are 2 people who agree to settle a domestic dispute by the intervention of a particular third party agent, and both accept the ruling as binding, is there a problem ?

If it's for domestic issues, ( for instance as reported in the link below ), and there is no adverse social impact beyond those directly involved, then no, I don't. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7233040.stm

If you have a problem with Sharia being used to rule on domestic issues, do you feel the same about the Beth Din being applied by Jews ?

Surely you're not implying that the facts are being distorted and used to mislead the gullible ?

That's more accurate.

Still backing Saints for 17th ?

Very rarely, and not this time.

Poor, flat, toothless.

Controlled the game from start to finish, and could possibly have scored more if their keeper had been at the same standard as his team mates. Not one player for Saints can realistically be criticised after that performance. Bring on Be'er Sheeva.

So much for their new ground. 4 wins, 4 clean sheets. #meltdown

Because the article was published through the Gatestone Institute, a New York based right-wing 'NeoCon' think tank.

Well deserved :-)

Should be out of sight by now. Hopefully we can keep this level of performance up in the second half.

Because bugger all has happened so far. Once we trigger Article 50, and start trying to get our own way in trade negotiations, then we'll see if there's an impact.

But we're Great Britain, and we're special. We can negotiate with anybody and will always get exactly what we want. I know it's true, a politician promised me.

How little you understand about this forum.

Should have been a much clearer margin of victory.

Cuco adding cover for Cedric against Montero.