https://fullfact.org/law/uks-sharia-courts/
> While feuding couples have to at least consider mediation before going to court, it doesn't override family law. A court has to sign off on any agreement made after divorce for it to be legally binding, and won't do so if the judge thinks it's unfair.
> In 2013, the High Court was asked by an Orthodox Jewish couple to accept the ruling of a Jewish religious court on post-divorce family arrangements. The judge said that while the agreement would carry weight, it would be non-binding—neither party could get around English law by agreeing to abide by the decision of another tribunal.
edit: I mean practically, not formally. It's enough that violations of host country's laws stay unreported and violations of whatever other norms are punished unofficially.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-go_area#Contemporary_no-go_...
Getting people from oppressive cultures who end up living in isolation with others like them to suddenly start exercising their new rights is a hard problem which can't simply be wished out of existence.
This (certainly as far as I'm aware) isn't true. The laws and courts of England and Wales apply in England and Wales, and the relevant local laws and courts (e.g. Scottish laws in Scotland etc) apply elsewhere in the UK.
In terms of Sharia, there is a voluntary arbitration system for civil issues as an alternative to the civil courts, the same as the Beth Din Jewish courts voluntarily used for Jewish civil issues in the UK.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/anders-breivik-trial-lu...
From your link:
Local police forces denied the claims [of no-
go areas]
Katie Hopkins could not name areas of Britain
that were no-go areas because it would not be
"legally accurate"
British Prime Minister David Cameron described
Steven Emerson as "clearly a complete idiot".What else would they do if the claims are not true?
Either way, that instance was related to drug dealing, not Sharia law.