Bro obviously you can't charge him until there is tangible evidence. But this man was not even questioned! He wasn't even followed, nor did he have his phone tapped. This can be blamed on the authorities, the buck stops with them. They are in charge of safety of the country. There's also a fine line between radical views and literally saying that such and such an attack should happen, that's a crime. As I understand his referral was on the basis that he advocated attacks on the country.
As for the lefties, they will always be there and can be ignored. It's high time to go back to a month without charging someone, stripping people of their citizenship and locking people away for public safety.
Bro. It's not that easy as ABC, Ok, let's say the authorities arrested him. What will they have done to him? Prosecute/imprison him for airing his views about justifying past terrorist attacks in Britain/Europe? If that's the case then I'm afraid there are even some muslim members on here who might also be in jail for trying to justify terrorist attacks as merely 'retribution/payback by muslims' etc. etc. lol
I'm sorry, but I can't blame our authorities on this aspect. Since they can't start arresting and wasting tax payers money by prosecuting radical islamic individuals who hold certain radical views, since such cases will surely by dismissed by our courts, since they are not credible enough offences to imprison these radicals. Even if we did that, you can bet that our leftists and human rights activists will start condemning this and protesting about violation of their human rights etc etc.
I'm sorry to say this but the only credible way to get them, is to simply keep tracking them until they are about to commit a terrorist act practically or maybe even when they have started carrying out the attack itself. Else, it's difficult to make a strong case against them in our courts by simply using the radical views,hate preaching they indulge in.
That's the sad reality. So let's be more realistic about what can be done with our existing laws/rules and less emotional.
Maybe I can give you two my insight with the topic, me coming from a investigative (Counter Intelligence) background and my wife's law background. In fact, we have just the same discussion out of the blue a few days ago after the Manchester Bombing.
In an investigative point of view, the investigation would have been easy if we can focus on the overseas connection, but for the domestic connection, things will get a bit trickier.
The problem is that the British Law (or Common Law) does not allow phone tap or wire tap or any sort of personal surveillance unless you can obtain a court order, being in the EU, the personal liberty is tad bit more highly regraded than in the US, where they can do that with a probable clause, the UK won't allow such activities unless that are tangible evidence pointing someone's illegal activities.
And unfortunately, some one call in a hotline pointing to someone's extremist view is not exactly tangible proof that they can obtain a court order, more like an accusation and a hearsay.
Normally investigation started with a previous attack, then try to link the connection between the actual player with the possible support circle and then link the possible connection. Back up with paper trail and actual account. Only then, a person can be monitored and their world raided.
The problem with this is, if a person does not seemingly connected to something illegal (In our field, we called them CLEANSKIN, which have no criminal record and is apparently clean) Cleanskin was perfect to be used in an attack because it raise no flag and the terrorist know it, which mean we will need to have concrete evidence to be able to pull them out. Which both take time and resource and most of the time, we don't even know who they are and we are just simply rounding the diamond head and going round and round and round.
In the point of law. The common law "innocent before proven guilty" is being heavily at played by the terrorist, which mean they can enjoy their maximum benefit, and unless someone slip up and did something wrong, their operation is basically, protected by law, well, up to the point they start murdering people. And at any point before that, unless there are physical evidence, not circumstantial evidence, we cannot investigate them, and without an investigation, there are no way one can even arrest people without a due clause. That is the problem we face today.