Jimmy McGovern Common

[KenDoddsDadsDog]

I love his writing, that was really hard going.

I really liked it but Jimmy McGovern was so keen to portray Jonjo as an innocent that I think it betrayed most of the people who have been caught up in Joint Enterprise in real life.

The real issue with Joint Enterprise is that most people involved either know something is going to happen beforehand or if they don't, when it all kicks off, are guilty of no more than intimidation or assault - minor or major. Or going along to rubberneck. That's not good, but it's not murder.

It's inconceivable that Jonjo wouldn't know that some violence was being planned. Not Tommy's murder - because that was on the spur of the moment - but the plan to beat up Albie.

I can just about believe that the others tricked Jonjo into driving them - just - but I don't believe that they'd have been able to avoid discussing Albie on the way. Young men like that would be so pumped up they would have shouted about it.

Jonjo would still have gone along with it because someone like him would be too naive and intimidated to be able to stand up to them at that point.

But if it had been written like that you wouldn't have felt so sympathetic to Jonjo. Well, not at first, but once you really think about it, it's impossible not to feel sympathy for someone who gets in over their head.

But then, of course, Jonjo would be guilty of something. He said as much in the letter, but that was a bit melodramatic because obviously he wasn't guilty of being born - whether it was as a scally or a rah.

While I liked the idea of the letter, and the twist of having Tommy Ward's mother forgive/understand Jonjo's mother, I think it would have been more realistic if Jonjo had said something like "if I'd said no to giving them a lift, because even though I genuinely thought we were going for pizza, they wouldn't have been there if I hadn't driven them so that's guilt of a sort..." rather than the rather melodramatic and OTT "if I'd never been born..."

I was shocked that the police can interview a minor without a solicitor or any guardian present. I know he turned that down but surely he's not competent to make that decision.

Can they do that?

The cut-off in police interviews is 17 not 18, limited. 17yos can have it either way - be accompanied by a parent/guardian or not, as they choose.

Just watched this, brilliant bloody brilliant! !

Does anyone know what would have happened if Jonjo had pleaded not guilty to murder by joint enterprise while the others admitted the GBH charge and the one who stabbed Tommy had admitted murder?

Would that mean everyone got charged with murder by joint enterprise - including the one who admitted murder - and not allowed the GBH option? They might have covered this and I missed it.

There was a big fight between two rival schools a few years ago. A boy of 15 was chased through a station at about 5pm by a large number of teenagers and stabbed and beaten to death by a smaller group.

This what I'm talking about

About 20 teenagers were charged with murder under Joint Enterprise but not all of them were convicted. Some were convicted of lesser offences and most were acquitted. Some of them weren't present on the day but have received and contributed to Blackberry messages.

I have nothing but sympathy for the dead boy and suspect that the several juries involved got it right and the young men convicted over his killing deserved their punishment. But it can't go on.

I might have been convicted of Joint Enterprise.

We'd have called it a bundle when I was 14 back in the 14th century and for days talked about it so excitedly that our teachers should surely have had a word with us, if not the police. We didn't have social media but were stupid enough to talk about venues and meeting points and best cheerleading positions because that's what teenagers do. They must have known.

Fortunately no one got killed, and in my teachers' defence it, was unknown in our group back then for people to carry knives. Not unknown for the odd boy to carry a bike chain though. Odd being the operative word. And he was known.

I went to a grammar school. The bundles were either against another grammar or a secondary modern. It really wasn't a class-based thing. It was idiotic rivalry of the type that teenagers excel at unless there are adults to stop them.

Forgot to say that I'll be watching tonight's documentary on BBC1 at 10.35pm on this. That might answer some of my questions. It's just that I thought that in the meantime someone might be able to answer me.

My niggles with the play don't mean I think it was no good or the issue shouldn't have been raised.

limited The other boys would not have been offered the opportunity to plead guilty to GBH had Jonjo stood out and insisted on pleading not guilty to joint enterprise murder - it was an all or nothing offer. That was what the scene in the prison van was about when they were all shouting at him to take the six years - if he had insisted on pleading NG to joint enterprise murder, they would all have been tried for it and therefore all risked getting life imprisonment.

What I think could have happened is that Jonjo could have pleaded not guilty to the GBH charge once it had been added to the indictment, regardless of how the others had pleaded as it was a materially different offence and not being charged as joint enterprise. He would then have been tried separately and the others may then have been adjourned for sentencing pending the result of his trial.

It all depends on the timing and conditions of the JE murder charge being withdrawn. If the condition of the withdrawal of the murder charge was that all the defendants would enter a guilty plea to something, then if Jonjo had chosen to plead not guilty at the last minute, the prosecution barrister may have asked for leave to withdraw the GBHs and revert to the original charge, which so long as it had not been formally withdrawn in court, would be possible (frowned on, but possible).

In reality however, a defence barrister would only agree to the original charge being replaced and his client entering a plea to a lesser offence once the client had fully agreed to do so in conference, so it is pretty much unheard of for a 'plea bargain' to be agreed and then the defendant to renege on pleading guilty once back in court' - but of course that would have taken a big chunk of the "is Jonjo going to say guilty or not guilty???" suspense away from the court scene last night!

Follow up on bbc1 tonight at 10:30

Thanks SignYourName

I didn't understand why Jonjo got 5 years 8 months. i.e. the only concession was one third off for pleading guilty. The other two got an extra year off for previous good character, which would surely also have applied to him, and I would have thought he'd get some credit for going to the police voluntarily and for giving them the name of the murderer.

He didn't get time off from the police interview as he hadn't struck a deal . That bit was mentioned . I'm not sure about the good character .

But you don't have to strike a deal to get time off. The judge can and should take into account all mitigating circumstances - if anything it would go to his credit that he came forward and named the murderer without any personal incentive.

The relevance of striking a deal was in relation to the fact that the fifth man wasn't charged at all.

Must have misunderstood that part then.