MangoKorat

The more I read the article I quoted above, the angrier I get: '6. The Sharia Court judge said I was to stay within the walls of my house for 40 days. I was not allowed to answer the telephone, the front door or even to go into the garden during this time because a man may see me! I felt like I was in prison. I was told to pray or look after my grandchildren. What could I do but do as the Sharia judge said. My sons believe they are right. 7. After 40 days were completed I began to go out again but I am only allowed to go to the shops with my sons or my grandchildren. I am also allowed to visit one friend. She is a widow too so there are no men in her house. It is from my friend’s house that I am making this statement. I want people to know what is happening. 8. My husband has been dead for almost 4 months. I am now coming under a lot of pressure from my sons to sell my house and give the money to them. They have been speaking to this Sharia judge again. He told them that in English law I may own the house I live in but this is not the right way in Islam. He said that my husband’s property should have been given to my sons so that they could look after me and manage everything. Since the day the judge said this, both my sons keep putting lots of pressure on me to sell the house and hand over all the money to them. I cry every day because I do not know what is going to happen to me. Where will I go? The judge said I should live with one of my sons in their house. I want to be in my home' https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/75313/pdf/

Correct, they have no legal authority and cannot administer law - so why do they exist? Many muslims in the UK have no loyalty to the state, their loyalty is to Islam - I have personally heard that stated and its been demonstrated many times. Do you seriously think that a muslim living in the UK would ignore a ruling made by a Shariah court and get away without punishment. I think you would do well to read the statements contained in the link below - given by muslim women to a British parliamentary committe looking into the practices of Shariah Courts in the UK. 'The imam told us the divorce obtained in the English courts was not recognised and that Lubna would have to seek a khula from a Sharia court.' https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/75313/pdf/ 'The imam told us the divorce obtained in the English courts was not recognised' - who the hell do they think they are? There is clear evidence in those statements that the extremists that run these 'Shariah Courts' - want no part in the British legal system and try to exert their own influence wherever they can. This type of behaviour is why I say that there is no way that muslim and British cultures can co-exist peacefully. The extremist factions simply use the UK for what they can get from it. They have no intention at all of taking part in its culture, traditions and laws. Personally, I would deport people who come to live in the UK and then try to set up a completely different society, living under a separate branch of law. Its hardly surprising that there is so much conflict between muslim and native British populations where they crossover. The behaviour of these groups plays straight into the hands of the racists and provides them with ammunition. Its time that these courts were banned completely. We have a legal system, there is aboslutely no need or place for a parallel legal entity.

There have been honour killings in the UK but that's not the point. The point is that these people wish to administer their own law, educate their children outside the legal UK system.

I thought AirbnB's were banned???

This guy doesn't understand who he is dealing with. These people have no fear of death, they think they're going to a better place.

Well for one, that is Old Testament - I'm not sure if many Christians either believe or follow that anymore than they believe much of what's in that book. It is also at odds with more modern Christian teachings. You might note though that the punishment applies to both men and women, not only women. Whatever, the stoning of women deemed to have been unfaithful and gay people being thrown off high buidings is totally abhorent to most of the World's societies - as are many other extreme Islamic actions/teachings.

Not a book I've read but I do posses one. Where does it say that?

I believe that is very rare in Thailand. Very few of the long haul carriers have any sort of agreement with domestic airlines. I think most people book the two flights separately which means collecting your bags on arrival at Suvarnabhumi and checking them in for the domestic flight. That being the case, I wouldn't risk having a bottle confiscated by security in the domestic terminal - when its too late to put it in your bag. Remember, security is after check in.

You clearly can't see the wood for the trees. It is not Islamaphobic to criticise a religion that dependent on the location, teaches hatred of all non-muslims and other muslim sects, jails and otherwise harms homosexuals, subjugates and in some cases, withdraws education and normal human rights from females. That is not Islamaphobic, its pro-equality and human rights. Maybe you think stoning a woman accused of being unfaithful to death is OK? Should that not be criticised? In my opinion, the brand of Islam that promotes such extreme beliefs and behaviour, should be outlawed and stamped out. No religion or abnormal way of life, should be imposed on people. That is not in fact, religion, its conditioning. The brand of Islam applied throughout most of the UK's muslims is very closely related to the most extreme varieties that exist - that practised in Afghanistan for example. If criticising such extremist behaviour is Islamaphobic - guilty as charged.

The problem of Sharia courts has little if anything to do with refugees or asylum seekers - fake or real. Shariah courts are operated by the Islamic society in the UK who mostly arrived by legal means. The beginnings of that was initially to help rebuild Britain after WW2 and then to fulfill a severe labour shortage in the mill towns of Northern England. The problem was that not only did we allow the workers to come, they were allowed to bring their families too. That was also abused by claims that 'dependent' relatives needed to come. As far as I know, the families and dependent relatives thing has now bee stopped but it is way, way too late. We now have a Muslim community large enough for politicians to court them for votes during elections. Due to the size of that community, we also have Muslim politicians. How do we maintain British culture when those people are beginning to have affect the government and law making? That might sound awfully racist - its not intended that way. I have no problem with a person of a different race or colour being in government. I do have a problem with someone from a different culture who wishes to impose a different way of life, set of values and laws on the UK being in government. It is not for the UK to change its ways, its the duty of those who are given the privilege of living here to adapt to our ways. For other religions, there would be no problem but Islam requires Muslims to live by its codes - it controls their entire lives. Many of those ways are archaic and totally unacceptable in the UK. The subjugation of women is one such facet of the version of Islam they practice.

I most certainly am not a part of that. I have no control over the actions of my government - all factions of which are totally subservient to our US masters. There is little to be achieved by voting differently - they are all the same. However, that's as far as I'm going on that - I've seen far too many threads closed over off topic posts.

Yes but instead they keep telling us what a wonderful multi cultural society we live in. The Jewish society in the UK segregate themselves and live their lives according to Judaism but they don't seem as militant about it as Muslims are. I don't think that either are wholly compatible with UK culture but one appears to be a bigger problem than the other.

I'd rather visit more often thanks. Business class is great but its not worth 3 times the price in my opinion. Economy mixed with no queues and lounge access is perfecty adequate for me.

Jeez I'm sick of hearing that. I'm not proud of my country's history but it is just that - history. I am no more responsible for the crimes of my forefathers than German people are for the behaviour of the Nazis. This is the 21st century!!!

1. I've never used business class unless I've been upgraded. 2. Saving money on flights allows me to visit as often as I do.

Do what I'm doing - leave.

Then you know very little about what's been going on in these 'courts' - the punishments that have been handed out. I suggest you check out some of the mainstream reports and documentaries - not made by 'political activists' but investagative journalists. You'll be telling us they don't stone women or throw gays off the top of high buildings in some countries next. Are they civil matters? It really doesn't matter if they are used for civil matters on a voluntary basis. The UK has its own legal system and that should be adhered to.

Let me in to the Alfursan lounge? I read that somewhere online but the official website says nothing about it. Do you know the cost?

Firstly, whilst there is growing evidence that these 'Sharia Courts' exist, they remain illegal in the UK and the authorities claim they are cracking down on them. However, is it surprising that they exist? Islamic culture is totally incompatible with British culture - the two cannot co-exist, not if a Muslim is to remain faithful to his/her faith. Whilst Brtish society cannot in reality claim to be Christian anymore, our laws and values are based on Christian values. The Church has very little say in today's lawmaking and very few Britons openly practice Christianity. Muslims, to be true, must live their life according to Islam. Islamic laws, in reality, take precedence over the laws of the country they live in. Praying 5 times a day, shunning alcohol etc. etc. - and those are just the mild characteristics. Yet who is to blame for the state of how things are? British law for example, provides for the humane slaughter of animals for human consumption. Except that is, for Muslims and Jews who are allowed to bypass those laws to comply with their own - Halal and Kosher slaughter. Muslim kids are routinely educated at underground Islamic schools with the intention of preventing them from being immeresed in British culture. Again, the authorities claim to be clamping down on those schools yet there are literally hundreds of them - there was a TV documentary on the very subject a few years ago. They are known to practice forced segregation between girls and boys and there have been reports of homophobic and misogynistic sermons being preached. There have been some prosecutions and fines but nowhere near enough and the schools carry on. When I was a kid, a lad came down from Scotland to live in England - I believe his father's work was the reason for the move. He became a good mate but when he arrived in Yorkshire aged 11, he had a very strong Scots accent. By the time he was around 14, he had totally lost it and spoke with a strong Yorkshire 'twang' - just as I do. How many Brits here know or have heard a 3rd or 4th generation immigrant Pakistani youth speak? They all speak with an Asian accent. Why is that? Its because they are in the main, kept away from mainstream British kids and culture. We had Pakistani families living in my area for many years - whereas my Scottish mate regularly attended a Youth Club with me and later 'went down the pub', I can't remember a single Pakistani kid doing the same. When I was an apprentice, a Pakistani lad started at the same time as me - he was allowed 10 minutes to pray twice a day, in fact by law, the boss had to provide a private space to allow that. I couldn't have a 5 minute break for a smoke. Why are many Brits resentful towards Muslims? I'm not talking about the racists, I have no time for them, I am talking about 'normal' British people who are increasingly appalled that there seems to be one law for them and another for us - that is, when they are allowed to learn of what goes on. How do they they get away with their behaviour? Because we let them, that's why - we accommodate their beliefs and culture . Imagine demanding English speaking teachers in Thailand? Would the Thai government make a grant towards the building of a Christian church in Thailand? Yet in Bradford a few years back, parents demanded Urdu speaking teachers and a £100,000 grant was given towards the building of a new mosque. I'm pretty sure the Thai authorities and the people would point us in the direction of the border - to put it politely. There is, as far as I can see, no way that a Muslim can live in the UK whilst accepting our customs and traditions. There is even less of a chance that they can stay faithful to Islamic laws whilst practicing those of their host country. Islam runs their entire lives and to be true to it, they must live according to it. I have several friends from Jamaica, their culture is a little different to ours but it doesn't confict with ours and they have little difficulty in integrating into British society. They are of course, discriminated against in terms of employment and housing etc. but that's a totally different matter. I really cannot see a way in which Islamic and British cultures can co-exist. There may not appear to be much of a problem to many people - but if the practises I have mentioned above are seriously clamped down on, let's see what happens then. At the moment we more or less, let them 'get away with it'. Moreso, and I think this is the crux of matters (it also plays right into the hands of racist right wing groups) - we have changed and adapted British laws and customs in order to accommodate Muslims. For me its quite simple. If Britain is to avoid further, much bigger and more widespread roiting as took place in the UK this summer, it needs to revert to type. Adaptations of British culture and laws, made to accommodate Islam need to be reversed. Nobody asked the British people if they wanted the 'Multi Cultural Society' our politicians and lawmakers seem to be so proud of. When they talk of that they seem to refer to things like Chicken Tikka Masala being the most popular Sunday lunch now. I don't have a problem with that but its lightweight, romantic idiocy that totally ignores the root of matters. I do however, have a serious problem with forced marriages, the subjugation of women and 'honour killings', for example.

Mods, feel free to move this if its in the wrong place. Flights being expensive I booked a split flight for my forthcoming visit - thinking I was saving a substantial amount. The split was using Saudia Airlines outbound from the UK and Qatar on the way back. Not using Qatar both ways means foregoing my usual gold card entitlements on the outbound. I'm not being snobby - when you've had those entitlements for many years, having lounge access and not having to queue with 300 other people at check in really makes a difference but OK, I'll live with that this one time. The stopover in Riyadh is quite a long one and a quick check revealed that I could get 3 hours of lounge access for £27 through Expedia - not too bad, or so I thought (its now gone up to £35). My Saudia flight arrives at terminal 4 in Riyadh and departs from the same terminal. The only lounge in that terminal is the Alfursan lounge which is for Saudia's first, business and gold members only. When attempting to book the lounge access with Expedia, I noticed the Plaza Premium Lounge they are selling access to is located at terminal 2. So before booking I checked with the airline as to whether I could travel between terminal 4 and 2. Not without a visa or an electronic visa waiver I can't and the cost of that is £45. Before calling the airline I searched for an answer online but only came up with a lot of discusssion from people who had been told they could not go between the terminals without a visa and others who claimed they had done just that. However, as a result of that search I came across some Trustpilot reviews on the airline itself - they did not make good reading. To add to that there is no alcohol allowed on the flight and none in the lounges if I was prepared to fork out for one or could even use one. So Saudia land you at a terminal where you cannot gain access to a lounge. You can't even use a paid lounge unless you are also prepared to pay for the visa waiver - seems very wrong to me. That's my experience pre-flight, I'm hoping is doesn't go downhill from here - I'll just have to suck it up this time. The imposing of Islamic laws on international travellers had already made my mind up that this would be my first and last flight with Saudia but this latest thing over lounge access has sealed that decision. There will no doubt be those amongst you who may have had a pleasant experience with this airline but I'm not expecting good things. I've only travelled with either Etihad or Qatar for many years and this has confirmed why. It just goes to show, check out an airline before you travel - 12 - 14 hours + stopovers is a long time, just be sure you are aware of any pitfalls before you choose an airline you're not familiar with. I normally review check any large purchase I make, god knows why I didn't on this occasion.

Are you sure about that? I think it depends if she is staying airside. I had some aftershave confiscated on a similar journey. As I say, I believe it will depend on her staying airside and that is doubtful.

Her tickets are separate yes? So she will collect her bags at Bangkok and check them in for the flight to Phuket? As far as I know, provided she puts it in her suitcase in Bangkok and that is checked in as hold luggage, I can't see the problem. She definitely won't be allowed to hand carry that amount of liquid.

I still find this one, that I believe was originally posted on here, very funny:

Horses mouth on this one. I went into Santander yesterday and asked the question. The official line is that provided you obtain a TIN from the country in which you are now resident, you can keep your Santander account and use it through online banking from abroad. You cannot open a new account though. Without reading the entire thread, I believe others may have given the same answer - in which case, this is confirmation.

I'm not in anyway supporting this guy - he was far from a good pick as Attorney General. But let's just get one point into perspective here - the 'underage' girl was 17. Unless things have gone backwards since I was 17 - most people have had sexual experience by then. Apparently this guy used hookers quite a lot, I haven't followed the story closely but this girl could quite easily have been a hooker. In this case, the girl is only classed as 'underage' because the state's age of consent is 18. Cross a state line and all's well - that's how 'illegal' his actions were. He's far from an angel in many other ways though - speaks volumes about Trump's mindset.