It may, I suppose, be interesting to enquire why Guest Hardy writes as poorly as he does, when, for example, my dentist (Sikh) succeeded in qualifying as a dentist, and her sister as a surgeon.

Should we suspect that Sikhs are genetically superior to the indigenous English (well, OK there are arguments over exactly who are or were the aboriginal people of England, and oddly many of the English nazis model some parts of their personae on the invading and conquering Germanic tribes)?

Hardy, your supposed facts have long been shown to be false.

The Talmudic (on the one hand) and Koranic (on the other hand) courts derive jurisdiction only by consent of the parties, although I personally believe that there should be something akin to the Unfair Contract Terms Act (or the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts regulations) to regulate unjust procedures and outcomes otherwise contrary to the protective panoply of the law of the land. But by way of comparison there is a large body of ecclesiastical law that is indeed not a matter of consensual submission, but part of English law, and I sometimes wonder about that.

Nobody gets free houses. There is always rent, although it may be paid by benefits - the rules for which are the same for all. Immigrants do not automatically get to jump the queue. If their need criteria entitle them, then they get their entitlement (as does anyone else).

You cannot simultaneously say that the immigrants are taking "our" jobs and "sponging off benefits". If they are doing jobs then they are contributing to the economic wellbeing of the country (and paying taxes towards their infrastructure needs, like everyone else).