Preacher Anjem Choudary claims David Cameron and police are the guilty ones as he faces charge of inviting support for Isil

From the Telegraph and ITV News

Radical preacher Anjem Choudary launched a 20 minute court monologue protesting his innocence after being charged with a terror offence for the first time. Why on earth did the Magistrate let him go on for so long? It was a committal hearing, not the trial. No need for 20 minute monologues – save that for the defence examination. 

The controversial cleric said he would be pleading that David Cameron, the police and the courts are the guilty ones after being accused of inviting support for the terror group Isil. The 48-year-old claimed his arrest and charge was a “political manoeuvre to silence Muslim voices” and insisted he would defend himself in court. 

When asked how he intended to plead, the former lawyer said: “I will be pleading Cameron, police and the judges are guilty and the only people who are innocent here are me and Mr Rahman.” 

Wearing a white Islamic robe, he refused to stand when the magistrate entered and smiled and smirked during the hearing. And why does the current generation of the judiciary tolerate these blatant examples of Contempt of Court?

At the Westminster court, Choudary said he had openly said he wanted to live under Shariah law and had described what a caliphate was but that was a “world of difference” from saying to people they should go.

Prosecutor David Cawthorne said of the two defendants: “Both are high profile figures and are well aware of their influence across social media and their wider community.”

Chief magistrate Howard Riddle praised Choudary’s representations but refused him bail.