<i>
The
UK probably should have had this debate seventy years ago, when it gave the same rights
to Orthodox Jews that some Muslims want now.</i>

Erm, it didn't. It granted Brits the right to refer civil disputes to arbitration. Batei din -- in Hebrew, "din" means law, incidentally, not religion ("din"'s meaning in Arabic) -- act as mutually agreed upon arbitration fora. The London Bet Din is so respected that none challenge it by setting up alternative systems. So it goes.

<i>However,
at that time, Talmudic law probably didn’t inspire the kind of visceral
hatred that Sharia does, and the Beth-Din courts came into operation.</i>

1. The batei din were in operation for centuries before that.

What changed with the arbitration rules was the ability -- for Jews, Muslims, absurdists, and the rest of Britain's merry bands -- to make halakhic rulings binding upon the parties as a quasi-contractual obligation.

2.Visceral hatred? I think that most Brits regard Jewish law courts as closed middling affairs that don't affect them much -- there are few Jews (and ever fewer), they don't try to convert anyone, and they are generally confined to a private sphere.

Islam in the UK is not seen as confined to the private sphere -- it's seen as a public and converting religion which occupies an increasing portion of public space. That perception is probably true. That Brits are bothered by that perception is indeed troubling, but it's probably worthwhile to pinpoint that difference rather than resort to plaintive cries of victimization.