Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Is Sharia Law vs British Law - Which is more moral? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Which is better for an equal, moral justice system?
    British - It is far superior than Sharia, I do not want Sharia at all. It is not good at all. We must continue with British law and shun foreign laws based on religion.
    82.03%
    Sharia - It is superior, more moral. People should be more open minded to the idea. They may even begin voting for it themselves.
    17.97%

    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Common misconception actually.
    Not within the point of the context.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    In your belief, here we have these things called liberty and tolerance, rationality and so forth. They cropped up a few hundred years ago during what's known as the 'Enlightenment', which has to do with Christianity. Islam has not undergone such a phase, which is sad.
    1. I'd argue that Islamic enlightenment came 1400 years ago, even if it no longer exists to that degree today.

    2. Things such as bestiality, porn, drugs, gambling etc. isn't something everyone would consider "enlightenment". Again, it really would depend on who you ask.

    3. Also, when it comes to Christianity, it doesn't speak highly of its legitimacy if humans are able to constantly change and manipulate its regulations.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    But being gay and acting upon it is perfectly legal. In Shariah it is not.
    It cannot be "illegal" in Shariah to be gay in the sense of what you're attracted to, as you would have no control over it. What would be illegal is acting upon it in public.

    It would also be illegal to do it in private, but this is considered haqq-Allah, the rights of God; and thus, it's not punishable under Shariah provided you don't go around boasting about your acts, or make a self confession to it on four separate occasions [which is strongly discouraged in itself].

    Prophet ( صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said: “God has forgiven my ummah for whatever crosses their mind so long as they do not speak of it or act upon it.” [Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2528) and Muslim (127)]

    (Original post by Steevee)
    You can try and spin it however you want,
    Not a spin, just what the majority of the Islamic scholars in 14 hundred years have stated. It would be nice if you had ever picked up and read a book on the subject to not make yourself look more ignorant.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    if 4 people come upon 2 or more engaged in Homosexual action, then they have grounds for prosecution.
    The four person rules has never been achieved in 1400 years. The reason is this;

    1. These four people would have to be of upright character [no bad reputation, no previous criminal acts etc.]

    2. They'd have to have seen the act in public. In a private property, their testimony would get rejected and they would get in trouble for "spying". It's legal, that if someone spied through a hole into your house, you could poke their eyes out.

    3. They would have to leave the Qadi (judge) no room for doubt [ie. They're friends, or relatives etc. as to giving chance to a conspiracy]

    4. They would actually have had seen the sexual act take place. As some scholars would describe [for adultery, but also applies to sodomy], that the actual witness would need to have seen ; "Kohl needle entering the Kohl bottle"

    5. They would need to report the incident immediately, any considerable delay would be rejected, unless the Imam was distant from them.

    6. If any of them takes their testimony back before the actual punishment is carried out, the whole case is also dropped.

    There may be other factors that I'm forgetting. The whole basis of the above is on "doubt", if there's any doubt when it comes to hadd punishments, then the case cannot go ahead.

    The Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said;

    “Avoid from giving hudud ruling as far as you can avoid it.” [Sunan Ibn Majah, hadith no: 2545]

    and;


    “Keep the Muslims away from punishments as much as possible. If there is any way out for an offender to escape punishment, acquit him. It is better for a judge to make an error in acquittal than in conviction.
    - (Sunan Tirmidhi, no: 1424)


    Ibn al-Munzir states:

    “The scholars have collectively agreed that hudud law is not accepted based on doubts.” [Stated by ‘Abdullah bin Abdul Rahman al-Bassam in Taudih al-Ahkam min Bulugh al-Maram]


    (Original post by Steevee)
    Under Shariah it is the act which is illegal, not the place.
    Already explained this above.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    And regardless of this, a bigger issue is the fundamental lack of morality surrounding legislating against something such as that, and adultery and so on.
    Already debated morality and the issue of it from a social perspective. Read the thread.

    (Original post by Jacob :))
    So killing babies is moral? Just because a religion says so? It may be deamed a nessessary evil to torture an animal for the benefit of humans but every sane human would agree torturing an animal for no reason is morally wrong.

    You blindly follow the morals of your god but what makes them right opposed to the morals of any other god?
    Keep talking based on your emotion, it's clear you just can't debate.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Skip_Snip)
    Well, British law allows us to do pretty much anything we choose, as long as we don't seriously injure, kill, or steal from others. And people don't get executed for being gay.

    Yeeaaah, close call
    Yeaaaaaah, because it is moral to lie, commit adultery, intentionally damage ones health, allow the consumption of alcohol (90% crime alc related, 80% all murderers were under the influence, its the substance in the grapes that makes wine good for you, not the alcohol, hence beer isnt good for you)..... ect.... YEAHHHHHHHHH!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SexyNerd)
    Yeaaaaaah, because it is moral to lie, commit adultery, intentionally damage ones health, allow the consumption of alcohol (90% crime alc related, 80% all murderers were under the influence, its the substance in the grapes that makes wine good for you, not the alcohol, hence beer isnt good for you)..... ect.... YEAHHHHHHHHH!
    Sure these things are immoral, but the blame doesn't fall on the lack of religous-enforced rules
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Perseveranze)
    Not within the point of the context.



    1. I'd argue that Islamic enlightenment came 1400 years ago, even if it no longer exists to that degree today.

    2. Things such as bestiality, porn, drugs etc. isn't something everyone would consider "enlightenment". Again, it really would depend on who you ask.

    3. Also, when it comes to Christianity, it doesn't speak highly of its legitimacy if humans are able to constantly change and manipulate its regulations.



    It cannot be "illegal" in Shariah to be gay in the sense of what you're attracted to, as you would have no control over it. What would be illegal is acting upon it in public.

    It would also be illegal to do it in private, but this is considered haqq-Allah, the rights of God; and thus, it's not punishable under Shariah provided you don't go around boasting about your acts, or make a self confession to it on four separate occasions.



    Not a spin, just what the majority of the Islamic scholars in 14 hundred years have stated. It would be nice if you had ever picked up and read a book on the subject to not make yourself look more ignorant.



    The four person rules has never been achieved in 1400 years. The reason is this;

    1. These four people would have to be of upright character [no bad reputation, no previous criminal acts etc.]

    2. They'd have to have seen the act in public. In a private property, their testimony would get rejected and they would get in trouble for "spying". It's legal, that if someone spied through a hole into your house, you could poke their eyes out.

    3. They would have to leave the Qadi (judge) no room for doubt [ie. They're friends, or relatives etc. as to giving chance to a conspiracy]

    4. They would actually have had seen the sexual act take place. As some scholars would describe [for adultery, but also applies to sodomy], that the actual witness would need to have seen ; "Kohl needle entering the Kohl bottle"

    5. They would need to report the incident immediately, any considerable delay would be rejected, unless the Imam was distant from them.

    6. If any of them takes their testimony back before the actual punishment is carried out, the whole case is also dropped.

    There may be other factors that I'm forgetting. The whole basis of the above is on "doubt", if there's any doubt when it comes to hadd punishments, then the case cannot go ahead.



    Already explained this above.



    Already debated morality and the issue of it from a social perspective. Read the thread.



    Keep talking based on your emotion, it's clear you just can't debate.
    Morality is all about what's right and wrong which is all about people's emotions!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Perseveranze)
    It cannot be "illegal" in Shariah to be gay in the sense of what you're attracted to, as you would have no control over it. What would be illegal is acting upon it in public.

    It would also be illegal to do it in private, but this is considered haqq-Allah, the rights of God; and thus, it's not punishable under Shariah provided you don't go around boasting about your acts, or make a self confession to it on four separate occasions [which is strongly discouraged in itself].
    So you cannot mention your sex life if you are gay? Also what does acting on it in public mean precisely?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    So you cannot mention your sex life if you are gay? Also what does acting on it in public mean precisely?
    First question; no. You're not allowed to talk about your sex life even if you're straight, it's indecent.

    Second question; Read my post.


    (Original post by Jacob :))
    Morality is all about what's right and wrong which is all about people's emotions!
    Lol.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Perseveranze)
    Not within the point of the context.



    1. I'd argue that Islamic enlightenment came 1400 years ago, even if it no longer exists to that degree today.

    2. Things such as bestiality, porn, drugs etc. isn't something everyone would consider "enlightenment". Again, it really would depend on who you ask.

    3. Also, when it comes to Christianity, it doesn't speak highly of its legitimacy if humans are able to constantly change and manipulate its regulations.



    It cannot be "illegal" in Shariah to be gay in the sense of what you're attracted to, as you would have no control over it. What would be illegal is acting upon it in public.

    It would also be illegal to do it in private, but this is considered haqq-Allah, the rights of God; and thus, it's not punishable under Shariah provided you don't go around boasting about your acts, or make a self confession to it on four separate occasions.



    Not a spin, just what the majority of the Islamic scholars in 14 hundred years have stated. It would be nice if you had ever picked up and read a book on the subject to not make yourself look more ignorant.



    The four person rules has never been achieved in 1400 years. The reason is this;

    1. These four people would have to be of upright character [no bad reputation, no previous criminal acts etc.]

    2. They'd have to have seen the act in public. In a private property, their testimony would get rejected and they would get in trouble for "spying". It's legal, that if someone spied through a hole into your house, you could poke their eyes out.

    3. They would have to leave the Qadi (judge) no room for doubt [ie. They're friends, or relatives etc. as to giving chance to a conspiracy]

    4. They would actually have had seen the sexual act take place. As some scholars would describe [for adultery, but also applies to sodomy], that the actual witness would need to have seen ; "Kohl needle entering the Kohl bottle"

    5. They would need to report the incident immediately, any considerable delay would be rejected, unless the Imam was distant from them.

    6. If any of them takes their testimony back before the actual punishment is carried out, the whole case is also dropped.

    There may be other factors that I'm forgetting. The whole basis of the above is on "doubt", if there's any doubt when it comes to hadd punishments, then the case cannot go ahead.



    Already explained this above.



    Already debated morality and the issue of it from a social perspective. Read the thread.



    Keep talking based on your emotion, it's clear you just can't debate.
    That doesn't even make sense?

    Have you heard of this thing? It's called progress, it is a forward path, it is not always perfect, but how many thousands of years did it take to outlaw slavery? Is that progress? I believe so. For how long did all sorts of discrimination live as the norm? And now we are moving away from it. Personal liberty, over illogical moral abhorrence on the basis of delusion and text, that is progress.

    See, so the act is not legal. Wich in itself is very wrong to me. One legally cannot talk about making love to another man in Shariah? What madness is it that you call this moral? Make myself look ignorant? I've merely illustrated what you have admittied! That to act upon one's homosexual urges, should one have them, is illegal. It's like saying dealing drugs is not illegal, so long as noone catches you.

    The 4 person rule has never been achieved? Perhaps, and yet how many homosexuals have been punished under Shariah? How many adulterers? How many female victims of sex crimes? Of course now, you'll vainly assert 'But woe! That is not true, proper and perfect Shariah!' But that is a moot point, no justice system works perfectly, some of the very accusations you and other Muslims level at our justice system are because it does not work perfectly, to expect it to is madness. But this aside, again I say, to even suggest that sexual intimacy between lovers is something that constitutes a crime is morally bankrupt. Also, you're suggesting to put out the eye of someone looking into your house is morally and legally acceptable? :lolwut:

    We fundamentally disagree on the nature of morality.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Dafaq is with that poll? The amount of bias in that is just stupid.

    You can't really ask "Which is more moral", since the two cultures in which they are used in have different views on morality.

    Which is better for a more equal, moral justice system? Again, that depends on your views of equality and morality. Maybe Sharia wins on this one, but I don't have too much knowledge on their law system.

    Which would I rather have? British system.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slickrick666999)
    i'VE often wondered myself. If we took a look at Sharia, would we like it? should we be more open minded to it?
    What do you mean by "more moral"? Morals are questions of preferences not objective entities that can be subjected to reason. Also, why would a country adopt another country's law for no reason?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/20...n-or-elsewhere

    Says it all really, there's no place for laws like that in Britain.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I would do anything to prevent sharia law taking over in western europe.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    That doesn't even make sense?
    Of course it does, what can't you understand?

    (Original post by Steevee)
    Have you heard of this thing? It's called progress, it is a forward path, it is not always perfect, but how many thousands of years did it take to outlaw slavery? Is that progress? I believe so. For how long did all sorts of discrimination live as the norm? And now we are moving away from it. Personal liberty, over illogical moral abhorrence on the basis of delusion and text, that is progress.
    Yup, it's called Islam. Study it.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    See, so the act is not legal.
    Don't take the meaning of what I said out of context. We're talking punishments here, otherwise most religions outlaw acting on homosexuality.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    Wich in itself is very wrong to me.
    It's not to me, it's pretty clear Shariah isn't trying to punish people, but rather to deter them.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    One legally cannot talk about making love to another man in Shariah? What madness is it that you call this moral?
    Or woman, or a man and a woman etc. And read my post in full, who would not have anything better to do than to hear about your sex life?

    (Original post by Steevee)
    Make myself look ignorant? I've merely illustrated what you have admittied! That to act upon one's homosexual urges, should one have them, is illegal. It's like saying dealing drugs is not illegal, so long as noone catches you.
    And I've corrected you in regards to what context.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    It's like saying dealing drugs is not illegal, so long as noone catches you.
    In Islamic law, there's Haqq-Allah (right of God), and then there's haqq al-aadami (right of man). The former is between you and God, and you're not suppose to admit to it or talk about it in public - if you admitted it, you're suppose to retract your statement. For example, in the case of fornication/adultery/sodomy;

    It is recommended for the one who commits zina to conceal his mistake and not tell anyone about it. Rather, he or she should turn to Allah in sincere repentance. It is not necessary or recommended to confess at an Islamic court and face the hadd punishment, and if someone did confess, it would be recommended for them to withdraw their confession and not be punished (Tuhfat al-Muhtaj + Hashiyat Abd al-Hamid, 9.113).

    ^As far as I'm aware, the above has happened before, I believe it was during 14th century, two adulterers admitted to adultery, then retracted their statement before the punishment. The Qadi (judges) then produced a fatwa stating that anyone who kills them has committed murder (second biggest sin in Islam). I'll see if I can find the reference for elaboration on it.

    The latter (haqq al-aadami) is against the people, such as theft etc. which is something you can't retract your statement in, unless it's absolutely proven that you made your testimony in distress/force.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    The 4 person rule has never been achieved?
    Nope, never in Shariah has it been achieved.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    Perhaps, and yet how many homosexuals have been punished under Shariah? How many adulterers?
    It would be very discredited to use something like Iran to make your point. Up until the Caliphate 1924, the amount of adulterers executed would be countable with your fingers, all of them, self-confessions. No idea about homosexuals, would be even rarer.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    How many female victims of sex crimes? Of course now, you'll vainly assert 'But woe! That is not true, proper and perfect Shariah!'
    The irony of this statement of someone who doesn't even know what Shariah is.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    But that is a moot point, no justice system works perfectly, some of the very accusations you and other Muslims level at our justice system are because it does not work perfectly, to expect it to is madness.
    I believe Shariah works perfectly. Even if humans are imperfect, as long as the humans adhere and enforce it with sincerity, that civilization is bound to prosper, corruption is bound to decrease, along with the enormous deaths thanks to alcohol, drugs, smoking, abortions etc. wealth distributed and so on.

    (Original post by Steevee)
    But this aside, again I say, to even suggest that sexual intimacy between lovers is something that constitutes a crime is morally bankrupt.
    Based on what exactly?

    (Original post by Steevee)
    Also, you're suggesting to put out the eye of someone looking into your house is morally and legally acceptable? :lolwut:
    So you're saying it's morally acceptable [without any standards mind you] to spy in the homes of other people?

    (Original post by Steevee)
    We fundamentally disagree on the nature of morality.
    Except, my morals are based on الْعَالَمِينَ (Lord of the Worlds), One, who knows humans and objective morals better than anyone else. Whilst your morals are based on an ever changing social order, created by man. In 10 years time, what you thought today was morally right may change, in 20 years time, it may change back and so on.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Perseveranze)
    Of course it does, what can't you understand?



    Yup, it's called Islam. Study it.



    Don't take the meaning of what I said out of context. We're talking punishments here, otherwise most religions outlaw acting on homosexuality.



    It's not to me, it's pretty clear Shariah isn't trying to punish people, but rather to deter them.



    Or woman, or a man and a woman etc. And read my post in full, who would not have anything better to do than to hear about your sex life?



    And I've corrected you in regards to what context.



    In Islamic law, there's Haqq-Allah (right of God), and then there's haqq al-aadami (right of man). The former is between you and God, and you're not suppose to admit to it or talk about it in public - if you admitted it, you're suppose to retract your statement. For example, in the case of fornication/adultery/sodomy;

    It is recommended for the one who commits zina to conceal his mistake and not tell anyone about it. Rather, he or she should turn to Allah in sincere repentance. It is not necessary or recommended to confess at an Islamic court and face the hadd punishment, and if someone did confess, it would be recommended for them to withdraw their confession and not be punished (Tuhfat al-Muhtaj + Hashiyat Abd al-Hamid, 9.113).

    ^As far as I'm aware, the above has happened before, I believe it was during 14th century, two adulterers admitted to adultery, then retracted their statement before the punishment. The Qadi (judges) then produced a fatwa stating that anyone who kills them has committed murder (second biggest sin in Islam). I'll see if I can find the reference for elaboration on it.

    The latter (haqq al-aadami) is against the people, such as theft etc. which is something you can't retract your statement in, unless it's absolutely proven that you made your testimony in distress/force.



    Nope, never in Shariah has it been achieved.



    It would be very discredited to use something like Iran to make your point. Up until the Caliphate 1924, the amount of adulterers executed would be countable with your fingers, all of them, self-confessions. No idea about homosexuals, would be even rarer.



    The irony of this statement of someone who doesn't even know what Shariah is.



    I believe Shariah works perfectly. Even if humans are imperfect, as long as the humans adhere and enforce it with sincerity, that civilization is bound to prosper, corruption is bound to decrease, along with the enormous deaths thanks to alcohol, drugs, smoking, abortions etc. wealth distributed and so on.



    Based on what exactly?



    So you're saying it's morally acceptable [without any standards mind you] to spy in the homes of other people?



    Except, my morals are based on الْعَالَمِينَ (Lord of the Worlds), One, who knows humans and objective morals better than anyone else. Whilst your morals are based on an ever changing social order, created by man. In 10 years time, what you thought today was morally right may change, in 20 years time, it may change back and so on.
    You claimed that the 'Flat Earth' belief was, at some point, widespread. I pointed out this was wrong, and you said that didn't matter in the context of the point.

    I have, and I find it rather abhorrent

    Ah, no, you're attempting to dodge the point again. I agree, most religions outlaw the practice of Homosexuality. As does Islam, don't attempt to wriggle out of it.

    I see, so because you find a topic of discussion distatseful, it is outlawed? And you believe you are making a good case for Shariah? :lolwut:

    This is rather pointless, is it not? The point remains the same. Again, you're trying to twist the point. The point was, as you stated, if someone were caught committing the act by the appropriate number of upstanding citizens, then they would be prosecuted. It being then, that the act is a crime. But your claim is that you would say it's not a crime, so long as the perpetrators are not caught. Which is utterly mad.

    Ahh, so now we're using Islamic accounts of Shariah justice? I see. But how many Homosexuals and adulterers do you expect have been punished under the guise of Shariah, upon the basis of Shariah, in the name of Islam and Shariah? And on the basis of what? A type of love you do not approve of? How wonderful.

    There's no irony, rather you don't understand it. I'm talking about the application of Shariah, not the concept. I don't think many people are so arrogant as to profess their system perfect, but the religious have the monopoly on such things. And yet we see so many instances of improper Shariah, of new judgements and interpretations in regards to much of Islam and it's scripture. And yet you make the claim that Shariah works perfectly? But all evidence points to the opposite. So let me re-iterate. If you believe Shariah in concept is perfect, bully for you. But you must agree that there has never been and is highly unlikely to be a perfect application of Shariah.

    Of course not, it is not morally acceptable to spy into other people's homes. But here in the West our first recourse is not to blind the person, or lop off limbs of repeat offenders. Though Islam seems to revel in barbarism when it comes to punishments in Shariah.

    Or rather, your morals are based on a man made religion with the moral values taken from the time and land, along with inherenting other parts of it's moral code from a previous man made religion. Whereas my morals are based on human experience, compassion and logic. I am glad moral standards change with time, as we progress. I'm glad we no longer lash adulterers, kill apostates, punish people for whom they love or their sexual tendencies. Your objective morality and God are morally abhorrent to me.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Perseveranze)
    First question; no. You're not allowed to talk about your sex life even if you're straight, it's indecent.

    Second question; Read my post.




    Lol.
    Emotion should be key when you decide whether something is right or not. Your emotions and others. Not doing so is a sign of a phycopath!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What fools!!!!!
    Consider rape
    Shariah law : made by God- the best legislator, the creator, knows what's good and bad for us, includes the entire human population (consider it as an instruction manual for us)
    RESULTS:
    Egypt
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
    the no of rapes in the following years
    British law: made by man- didn't create himself, based on likes and dislikes, may apply only for british citizens,
    RESULTS:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
    FOR UK
    the no of rapes in the following years

    AS you should see that the Shariah law is crude but practical. In the end the efficiency is to be analyzed and compared along with its results.
    And you do know
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slickrick666999)
    i'VE often wondered myself. If we took a look at Sharia, would we like it? should we be more open minded to it?
    I'm muslim myself and I don't believe law should be based off a single religion. God gave us the freedom to choose. Making a law only off a single religion would take away that freedom. It would be unfair. If you want to be a christian, jew, atheist buddhist, sikh, practice toaism etc., then be. Whether you did right or wrong, it's all on you. The law that should be put is one that protects the individual person. Nothing more. So murder, rape, theft etc. They should stand But things like drugs and such, personally, as long as it wouldn't affect others it should be legalised. What you do to yourself should be up to. However you should have NO rights at all to hurt or force another person to change in any way.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Perseveranze)
    First question; no. You're not allowed to talk about your sex life even if you're straight, it's indecent.

    Second question; Read my post.




    Lol.
    So it restricts your freedom of speach? That is enough for me to say it is not good.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Jesus at least make an unbiased poll and a coherent thread title.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jacob :))

    If they are not abstract please explain why eating pork or blood is morally wrong. Please don't say because Allah says so.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAbptCIH7S4
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dursty)
    Jesus at least make an unbiased poll and a coherent thread title.
    unbiased? :confused: I'm suprised at how many people said sharia. It's quite simple..there are only two options. Well, it's rather eye-opening anyway. Maybe most Muslims on TSR want Sharia.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.