Why do we allow this to happen?

He should be deported Rosinaand why on earth should the British tax payer pay more for him to be monitored on his early release then it would have cost to keep him in jail.

Rosina
Just be patient. The law that he was charged on is being amended, hooray. He will trip himself up on his conditions, and by then this new law will be in place and he will back in Belmarsh for a long long time.

He can’t be deported Smileless because he was born in London, so that makes him British. I wish he could be too, and so will many others, but that will never happen. But what could happen in my opinion, is he could be kept in prison. Why on Earth is a dangerous man like this allowed to get parole?

Rosina - excellent OP and I fully agree.

Human rights should work both ways and that vile, hate-preaching, terrorist-supporting individual who enjoys all the benefits of the UK thanks to the taxpayer, ought to be locked up for life, in harsh conditions. He does not deserve mercy.

I am glad we are a tolerant nation but why are we treading on eggshells with regard to the revolting Choudery?

It doesn't make us bigger, stronger, better - it makes us appear weak, stupid and foolish to allow this repugnant man to walk freely amongst us.

Rosina brilliant post which i am sure many people will agree with.

I don't think being born in Britain is sufficient under our current laws to make one British. I know this with regard to a friend of mine, one of whose children is not British even though he was born here because his foreign mother was not married to a Brit at the time.

I have no idea if Choudery is British. I Agree with the OP that laws need to change to deal with people like him in ways more in keeping with real justice.

Whoops. I think the spelling is Choudary.

I agree with those who feel the law needs to be able to deal with people like Choudary in a way that is
a) safer for the majority of citizens
b) enables better use of resources
c) enables UK to be a civilised government.
Like Baggs not sure of his status re deportation but he is a British born lawyer aged 51. However deportation might mean less monitoring and more danger.

The Times has an article about all the resources needed to keep him safe, yet on the next page they said many of the victims of the Manchester bombing had had little psychological support. I know the skills.needed.are.different for both, but the finances are the same....taxes.

If he was born here, he's British so deportation isn't an option.
Our prisons are increasingly populated by people like Choudary and during their sentences, these people go about encouraging others to join their distorted and dangerous belief systems.
I share the frustration and anger of other posters here. I wish he could be denied any state benefits but the precedent that would set means it's a bad idea. Here's hoping he'll be re-arrested and sent back to prison very soon.
Meanwhile, what suggestions do we have to reduce the radicalisation of others, both in society and in our prisons.

What I can’t understand is why he was released having served only around 2 years of a 5 year sentence?

There is a loophole in the law, Gillybob. In the Sunday Times today it’s says they will be closing it, but too late to keep him in prison

I understand he is now planning to sue the government (using legal aid of course) because the restrictions on him breach his "human rights". Isn't it strange how he is very quick to demand his rights yet supports Isis which seeks to deny rights to others

Thank you Humbertbear

And no doubt some scum lawyer will be only too pleased to take it on ££££££ oldwoman70

I gather he was born and raised in Kent and spent his youth indulging in every vice known to man. He also qualified as a solicitor but has spent most of his adult life on benefits. Not only a total waste of space but an ongoing threat to the public. On the news a couple of days ago, one Muslim man was furious he had been released, commenting he had destroyed many families and caused much grief and heartache.

It's baffles me that someone who was born and raised, housed, fed and educated in this country, has such hatred for their own people. He's never contributed anything positive to society yet can continue to sponge of our taxes and still spout his 'rights' as a British citizen. I wish they could lock up him and all those like him and throw away the key. We are far too soft on these vile individuals.

He's probably a psychopath Willow10, at least that was my immediate thought on reading your post.

He is definitely a menace and I'm not ashamed to say I resent my taxes being used to fund his lifestyle. What we do about it, is beyond me. If we stop his benefits, that sets a precedent for stopping the benefits of any non conformist. Given the difficulties ordinary folks have in getting legal aid, surely there must be a way the Courts can refuse his application for legal aid>

Tbh, I'm speechless that this appalling person has been released from Prison. He's just a horrible horrible creature! How on earth can the families whose lives he's ruined be feeling? We the tax payer are expected to keep him!, despite the fact that he would murder us all given the chance, trying to sue the government at our expense! I despair!

It just shows the weakness countries like ours have adopted.

It just shows the ridiculous sentencing countries like ours have adopted.

It just begs the question what deterrent is there when countries like ours have adopted such weakness to protect the country and it's citizens?

A person with clout - perhaps a Minister? - please !! needs to demonstrate some backbone and start tough legislation to change this insane situation. Emergency laws can be passed quickly - this has been demonstrated; there is precedent. There should also be no option for this man to start legal action, unless he is funding it himself. I have known people desperate for justice, who have been refused legal aid - how does this person get funding, and repeatedly?

I meant to add that Judges can refuse the right to appeal; why did the Judge here not say that he could not appeal the conditions of his release? Another option would be for him to have had to agree to those conditions before release. Whilst my knowledge of law is obviously very flimsy and amateur, and largely the result of 'googling', this has been left wide open for him to start yet another legal wrangle at taxpayers expense.

Do you know, I begin to think ,what with one thing and another that this country deserves everything it gets! except of course it's the poor people on the receiving end of our absurd, liberal to the point of idiocy, laws that deeply affect them who suffer - never subservient politicians though!!

I think keeping someone like this safe from a lynch mob is actually a good, strong thing about our country.

It's on the same plane as the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven—principled.

The problem is really that, as the law stands, he could not be kept in prison for a much longer time for what he did. I think there is a move in government to make the law more robust and punishments more in keeping with the crime.

With uou on that sentiment Baggs