IS supporter wants to 'come home'

Not being funny Stu but this has happened before ,others came back, jailed,  released from jail then carried out terror attack,
Is it worth the risk, it appears that it's trying to get back on her terms ,the more i read the more i believe it should be left to rot, said it won't come back if it can't keep it's kid or if the family can't have the kid ,the bitch should be sterilised ,also remember that it burnt it's passport and renounced british citizenship, destroyed it's phone and swore allegiance to isis, whored itself out to the bloke she was told to marry, says she had nothing to do with hurting people, sorry but everyone her so called husband killed she also had a hand in, she knew what was going on but like most cowards wants to come home because it easier.

Like others have muted make her go to her hubby s homeland as surely her kid has dual nationality which is a thing a lot of wrong un's desire as they can choose which country to sponge of 

a very low percentage of terrorists are jailed on return

Re-read my post which you've quoted - I said IF I was aware who she was. By the way that is quite possible given she will continue to be making headlines for months to come.
 You are so blinkered in your views of people you've stopped reading posts properly - you seem to desperately want to believe anyone who doesn't share your political views is racist when it was you that bought skin colour in to it. 

Not at all.
The point is the actual Likelyhood of you knowing anyone sat near you on any form of transport has an intention to commit terrorism is about zero.
So there is no if, and or but in it. Which renders your point and question to Stuart meaningless. It's just a straw man argument.
In all this there are only a couple of known facts.
She is a UK Citizen. As such under international treaties we have signed up to it is illegal to make her Stateless. She has every right to 're enter the country. How she gets here is her and her family's issue.
We have the rule of law here still (thank god). If she has committed a crime under those laws then it is for the CPS to prosecute her before a court.

That's it.
No amount of "lynch mob self righteous" ranting should change that.

Back to my post. I said if I was aware who she was then I'd get well away from her. Whether she was planning an act at that particular moment or not is irrelevant - if I recognised her and obviously being aware of her ISIS links I wouldn't take the chance. 
Harold Shipman didn't murder every granny he came across but even though the odds would be in your favour you'd wouldn't want him anywhere near your mother. Sidney Cooke didn't molest every child he came across but you wouldn't trust him to work in a school. 
My point is if you know someone is a potential threat to your or your family you take evasive action, regardless of the odds. That said it shouldn't be down to normal people to make such calls, the authorities should take action to ensure there is no risk to the general public by locking her type (terrorists and terrorist sympathisers) up indefinitely.
By the way I still don't understand why you needed to bring skin colour into the discussion when responding directly to my post.

A very funny BBC sketch. Yes, BBC!

Seems no-one is cynical about her stories of having two children die. I am. I don't believe a word that comes out her mouth.

Why would she lie I hear you ask, who would do such a thing and for why.

Hmmm, I wonder.

Are those the only two options, leave her there or let her roam free in the UK with public money?

Probably Yes. Despite equality laws there is a lot of pressure for women not to be jailed in this country, especially if they have young children. I don't know what she will be charged with as how will we get evidence or witness statements on what she was up to whilst with ISIS? If she does get imprisoned I doubt it will be for long. Human Rights lawyers will help her keep the child.
The roam free bit is interesting. If she has no convictions or serves a short sentence she will be free to do as she wishes. Surveillance would be the only option and this costs thousands per week and leaves security services in a very difficult position of having to decide which suspicious characters to monitor as they will have a limited resource. 
My prediction is that in a year or two you will see newspaper headlines showing her in her new life win new house, car and benefits pushing her kid along in a pushchair. Unless of course she gets given witness protection or media injunctions protecting her privacy. 

She'll get 10 years just for being a member of a proscribed organisation. She's already confessed do that. There will be more, but we are talking about if she makes her own way out, not us going into Syria do get her.

As for human rights lawyers, I'm not sure they are as influential as they have been, PIL have seen to that.

Regarding mothers, perhaps, I do know that my sister in law served time away from three under 10 despite committing no violent crime.