3 ms·
I get the impression that the way the law was being interpreted was that there is a window of one hour in which: a) in which one does not have the right to re
by Kim_Bruning 3y ago
I get the impression that the way the law was being interpreted was that there is a window of one hour in which:
a) in which one does not have the right to remain silent
AND
b) one doesn't have the right to a lawyer.
I could imagine a potential world in which one or the other might briefly apply, but both together would be a complete license for abuse of course. So that can't be entirely right.
Reading the actual text of the law [1] I can't quite see how that would be the intended interpretation. I hope someone with more knowledge of British Law can clarify.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/7 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/7
(edited for clarity)
- grecy 3y ago> there is a window of one hour in which: It could be interesting to simply waste time for that hour, while still being co-operative. Answer extraordinarily slowly, be as verbose as possible, go on as many tangents as possible and go into as much detail on your first answer as you possibly can imagine, so the first answer takes the entire hour. You're still being co operative and answering questions, they just run out of time before you get a lawyer or they cut you loose.