Different IMO. That just reaffirms your right to say nothing, even encouraging you to do so. What it does NOT do is threaten you by warning that if you don't speak in your defence now, but do so later, what you later say will have less value.
Isn't that a good thing?
Nope. The UK version smacks of cops trying to trick you into saying something they can use against you later. The best bet is to say nothing - exercise your right to remain silent until you can talk to a lawyer. Give the cops NOTHING.
That doesn't sound like it was UK police?
For once this is something the police can't do behind closed doors (or closed ranks) all interviews are recorded, these days that means video recording.
I think smartcookie mistakenly wrote UK instead of US. An easy typo to make.
No, audio recording is the main method.
Yeah, I get that. What I wasn't getting was the assertions about what the US does in civil trials and what prosecution can't do in criminal trials. Both were way off.
No I wasn't. Your 5th amendment doesn't apply to civil cases, so if you don't answer questions if you are called as a witness the prosecution can use that against you, and in criminal cases where the 5th amendment applies they can't. (The judge will more than likely make that point as part of their jury directions.)
...we weren't talking about the 5th amendment. We were talking about not disclosing an alibi early on that you rely on later. If you relied on it later, you were not invoking the 5th amendment at all.
Yes. Several posters here say and believe things that I view as dehumanizing and degrading. I will absolutely argue with them about their views, but they should have every right to express those beliefs.
Yes. I see people on the internet and even occasionally in real life expressing such sentiments fairly regularly. I see muslims saying that females don't deserve human rights with abandon. I think their views are crap, and I think those views should be argued against at every opportunity. But people should still have the right to express those views.
That gets a bit trickier. There is a distinction between expressing a belief and advocating or calling for an action... but it's not always a bright line. I've seen tons of people quite happily opining on which celebrities or public figures should be assassinated, as well as calling for females who believe in biology to be punched, raped, knifed, beaten, and decapitated. I've also seen people express the sentiment that some crimes absolutely should merit execution as punishment. I've seen people argue that the death penalty should be used more freely, and I've seen people express that infidels should be killed indiscriminately. Some of those I see as attempts to incite violence, others I see as absolutely abhorrent beliefs but NOT as active attempts to cause harm to others. '
Yes there are: incitement to violence or criminal activity. There are also some types of speech which should not be limited but which may incur penalties, such as libel, slander, and defamation.
Interviews in the home are recorded only if the officer has his bodycam turned on, or if the interviewee chooses to record them.
The flag of Palestine dates back to 1964 according to the interwebs. Muslim-governed lands have been engaged in waging a global jihad against infidel nations since the founding of the religion itself. Expansion of Islamic territory by force is an doctrine of the religion itself.
Not really. There are a lot of things that you and other posters here have said that I view as being dehumanizing and degrading... but that you and those others seem to think aren't anywhere near offensive or insulting. It lies solely in the eyes of the beholder.
I disagree with your perspective on this. A whole lot of things get framed as "hate speech" that 1) don't involve any hate and 2) in no way whatsoever suggest that the other person shouldn't have the right to exist and 3) absolutely do not incite or advocate for violence.