Nope. So that's going in the bin.
Nope. Try again.
As you are about to illustrate:
The Criminal Justice and Public Order act which introduced this change sets out very specific circumstances in which an adverse inference may be drawn. I can list them if you want, but in short it covers the specific circumstances where the defendant does not mention something which they later rely on in court, ie. in their defence. The jury cannot draw an adverse inference because of their silence, but because of their failure to mention something while being questioned that they then bring up.
It is not a carte blanche to take their silence as an indication that they are guilty, and the judge must specifically instruct the jury if they may draw an adverse influence, having ensured that all the conditions are met.
Therefore, the right to remain silent is an absolute right. All that has changed is that the defendant cannot wait until they get to court and then offer up a cock and bull story at the last minute.
Bullshit. They are not warned that their silence allows an adverse inference, but rather that if they don't mention it now, and pull it out of a hat later, it may harm their defence. The reason that it may harm their defence is that the judge may instruct the jury that they may draw an adverse inference from the fact that the accused waited until his court appearance before claiming that someone else must have stolen his car, run over the deranged blogger, and parked his car back on his drive. I appreciate that this is a subtle difference and you're not very bright, so you probably won't understand.
Anyhoo, it's not particularly relevant because you claimed that to interview the McCanns or their friends would kill the case stone dead, and that is complete horseshit. You are doing exactly as I predicted you would. Carry on, it's very amusing, as is your staggeringly childish "You shouldn't be friends with him because he called Becky Williams a slag" Vicki Pollard tribute act you've got going on.