He had an eye condition which would have entitled him to be registered blind, but it is a condition which responds to corrective lenses, so it's by no means clearcut as to how much vision he actually had.
He is the 15yo Jordan Cunliffe referred to at the end of the drama, whose mother Janet is campaigning against the principle of joint enterprise. Jimmy McGovern is patron of the campaign.
and thus why this should never have been on the BBC. Propoganda for a political campaign to garner sympathy from the masses (some of which are evident here from the comments).
Certain writers have their work greenlit on their names alone. McGovern is one. Others that come to mind are Lynda La Plante and Stephen Poliakoff. Always "right on" and self indulgent.
"Gritty BAFTA" comes to mind (type Gritty BAFTA into your favourite search engine if you don't know what I mean).
I thought that one of the consequences of watching this would be to make some of the toe rags who might get involved in such a situation think very hard about what they're getting into. Unfortunately, very few of them would have the attention span to follow even this one-off drama. It's sad then that they wouldn't be able to follow Criminal Justice , which would terrify them down to their bones.
Felt a bit sick to think i could give a lift to a m8 who then brings along some nutter who knifes someone and i can get stuck away for 13 yrs.
That's the reality, am sure there are plenty of people who find it boring , they certainly wouldn't find it boring if their son, daughter or even themselves faced the same situation.
Enjoyed the drama but that's irrelevant it highlighted something very wrong in our justice system that has to be changed.
Meh, it's just a political campaign disguised as a TV program.
I call that propoganda.
I'm actually surprised the BBC would allow something like this to be published, part of its remit is to NEVER take sides on law, politics etc.
Agree, very poor programme...... Political agenda, gives jo public a completely wrong impression of the law. It was just a campaign off those in jail due to this law. And let's be honest if they were knowingly involved in a murder then they bloody well should be locked up....... Oh and I can't stand that main actor ( jonjo) he jus needs a good shaking, he's got the same hang dog expression whatever he's in!
We enjoyed the programme very much. Well acted & kept you watching till the end. It made you think, & if nothing else made you take a look at the law. As with any programme or newspaper you read between the lines. Michelle Fairley was a surprise in this, after playing the mad woman in 24.
I thought it was well done, but one thing distracted me - if they were in Manchester, wasn't it a bit of a coincidence that the Detective and the mother of the victim knew each other from (presumably, from their accents) Northern Ireland?
I thought it was pretty obvious they were Liverpool Irish. Clues: the names, the accents, the religious allegiance. In addition, Jimmy McGovern is from Liverpool. Most of his writing is based in or about Liverpool.
Agree, very poor programme...... Political agenda, gives jo public a completely wrong impression of the law. It was just a campaign off those in jail due to this law. And let's be honest if they were knowingly involved in a murder then they bloody well should be locked up....... Oh and I can't stand that main actor ( jonjo) he jus needs a good shaking, he's got the same hang dog expression whatever he's in!
Wasn't that the whole point. you dont have to knowingly be involved with a murder to be charged. the boy driving the car only thought they were going for a pizza. problem was he either had to stand trial under Joint Enterprise knowing his lawyer believes he has no chance or plead guilty to GBH and get 5yrs 4months.
Ive no idea why people think this has anything to do with politics.
and thus why this should never have been on the BBC. Propoganda for a political campaign to garner sympathy from the masses (some of which are evident here from the comments).
So do you think the BBC should not show Watchdog, since that is all about campaigning against injustices?
Wasn't that the whole point. you dont have to knowingly be involved with a murder to be charged. the boy driving the car only thought they were going for a pizza. problem was he either had to stand trial under Joint Enterprise knowing his lawyer believes he has no chance or plead guilty to GBH and get 5yrs 4months. Ive no idea why people think this has anything to do with politics.
Neither do I. It's an issue about a concept that is enshrined in law and has been for hundreds of years, albeit one that is being used increasingly in recent times.
The British legal system is riddled with miscarriages of justice and always has been, but it's up to the lawyers and the judges to ensure that these don't happen.
Maybe the documentary tonight will give us some statistics regarding the overall efficacy of the Joint Enterprise law to give us a more balanced opinion than the clearly partisan opinion which was rather ham-fistedly thrust down our throats last night?
Wasn't that the whole point. you dont have to knowingly be involved with a murder to be charged. the boy driving the car only thought they were going for a pizza. problem was he either had to stand trial under Joint Enterprise knowing his lawyer believes he has no chance or plead guilty to GBH and get 5yrs 4months.
Ive no idea why people think this has anything to do with politics.
The problem with this drama was that the character of Jonjo wasn't really a good example of joint enterprise. The only reason that he could have been convicted was if it was believed that he was knowingly acting as the getaway driver. It would be the same as if they had robbed the pizza place at knifepoint - he would be guilty of armed robbery too.
The other two lads in the shop were better examples, as they were knowingly involved in the attack on the other guy, but were not intending to kill anyone, especially not an innocent bystander. By making Jonjo the central character, I felt that the drama was overplaying its hand, giving us a totally innocent victim.
The problem with this drama was that the character of Jonjo wasn't really a good example of joint enterprise. The only reason that he could have been convicted was if it was believed that he was knowingly acting as the getaway driver. It would be the same as if they had robbed the pizza place at knifepoint - he would be guilty of armed robbery too.
The other two lads in the shop were better examples, as they were knowingly involved in the attack on the other guy, but were not intending to kill anyone, especially not an innocent bystander. By making Jonjo the central character, I felt that the drama was overplaying its hand, giving us a totally innocent victim.
I tend to agree, and think that it is likely that if this case had been real life and Jonjo had gone to trial he would probably have been acquitted; the other two would very likely have been convicted.
However if Jonjo had pleaded not guilty and been convicted of murder he would have had a minimum sentence of at least 25 years. Taking the plea means that he will be aged 20 when he is released and still be able to make a lot of his life. Even if there is only a small risk of a guilty verdict, 25 years in prison would totally wreck someone's whole life, so it is probably not going to be worth it.
This sort of thing is much more common in America where prosecutors threaten huge sentences unless defendants plead guilty to lesser offences, and even innocent people feel they have no choice but to go along with it.
I forgot to record this last night and it's not up on the iPlayer on my Sky box. Is it there for anyone else? I'm hoping it's just a little late for me.
The problem with this drama was that the character of Jonjo wasn't really a good example of joint enterprise. The only reason that he could have been convicted was if it was believed that he was knowingly acting as the getaway driver. It would be the same as if they had robbed the pizza place at knifepoint - he would be guilty of armed robbery too.
The other two lads in the shop were better examples, as they were knowingly involved in the attack on the other guy, but were not intending to kill anyone, especially not an innocent bystander. By making Jonjo the central character, I felt that the drama was overplaying its hand, giving us a totally innocent victim.
But then there perhaps wouldn't have been much of a 'drama'. Yes, the other 2 lads didn't intend to kill anyone, but they did go in there to cause bodily harm to someone, in the company of their mate, the total nutter Kieran. I think they could have reasonably expected that something really bad could happen in those circumstances, (even if it was only that Kieran would have gone OTT on the intended victim rather than the innocent bystander). So I wouldn't have had much sympathy tbh.
Jonjo's position was obviously different because we viewers knew the facts of the matter, but is there really any reason why a jury should have believed that he was an innocent lad, happy to give a lift to his dodgier cousin and mates, as opposed to being the willing getaway driver?
For me, this is where his barrister should have built his case around the fact that Jonjo had no previous, was not a member of his cousin's gang, and had no beef whatsoever against the target, (who strangely was never even interviewed apparently). As it was, his barrister threw in the towel immediately and we saw Jonjo being given no individual defence whatsoever, which doesn't make any sense to me.
But then there perhaps wouldn't have been much of a 'drama'. Yes, the other 2 lads didn't intend to kill anyone, but they did go in there to cause bodily harm to someone, in the company of their mate, the total nutter Kieran. I think they could have reasonably expected that something really bad could happen in those circumstances, (even if it was only that Kieran would have gone OTT on the intended victim rather than the innocent bystander). So I wouldn't have had much sympathy tbh.
Jonjo's position was obviously different because we viewers knew the facts of the matter, but is there really any reason why a jury should have believed that he was an innocent lad, happy to give a lift to his dodgier cousin and mates, as opposed to being the willing getaway driver?
For me, this is where his barrister should have built his case around the fact that Jonjo had no previous, was not a member of his cousin's gang, and had no beef whatsoever against the target, (who strangely was never even interviewed apparently). As it was, his barrister threw in the towel immediately and we saw Jonjo being given no individual defence whatsoever, which doesn't make any sense to me.
True, there wouldn't have been as much audience sympathy, but on the other hand it would have been a more accurate representation of how joint enterprise can be misapplied.
Even if Jonjo had been in the shop, it might have seemed more realistic to me, but the fact that he was deliberately misled about the group's intentions, was not present at the time of the attack, and that he was the one to inform the police... I don't know, it seemed a stretch of credibility to me.
What you say about audiences potentially not sympathising with the other two is true, but is that fair? Joint enterprise is often misapplied when one person clearly escalates the violence, but everyone present is blamed. Humanising those who are harshly punished and highlighting the complexity of these cases would have been a more worthwhile avenue to follow than giving us a naive teenager who did almost nothing wrong (bar not calling the police immediately).
I forgot to record this last night and it's not up on the iPlayer on my Sky box. Is it there for anyone else? I'm hoping it's just a little late for me.
True, there wouldn't have been as much audience sympathy, but on the other hand it would have been a more accurate representation of how joint enterprise can be misapplied.
Even if Jonjo had been in the shop, it might have seemed more realistic to me, but the fact that he was deliberately misled about the group's intentions, was not present at the time of the attack, and that he was the one to inform the police... I don't know, it seemed a stretch of credibility to me.
What you say about audiences potentially not sympathising with the other two is true, but is that fair? Joint enterprise is often misapplied when one person clearly escalates the violence, but everyone present is blamed. Humanising those who are harshly punished and highlighting the complexity of these cases would have been a more worthwhile avenue to follow than giving us a naive teenager who did almost nothing wrong (bar not calling the police immediately).
Oh yes, I totally agree. This whole drama was too black and white, with none of the complexities shown. I think that Jimmy McGovern clearly had an agenda, based on the real life case which he freely admits inspired him to write this fictionalised drama.
That's fine - it's fiction, but I really do hope we get to see at least part of the other side of the coin on tonight's documentary, (although as it's clearly based on 3 perceived miscarriages of justice, I'm not holding my breath).
Oh yes, I totally agree. This whole drama was too black and white, with none of the complexities shown. I think that Jimmy McGovern clearly had an agenda, based on the real life case which he freely admits inspired him to write this fictionalised drama.
That's fine - it's fiction, but I really do hope we get to see at least part of the other side of the coin on tonight's documentary, (although as it's clearly based on 3 perceived miscarriages of justice, I'm not holding my breath).
I do not see how anyone could say that the drama was too black and white. In fact it was the exact opposite of black and white.
Black and white would be to say - X is totally guilty and Y is totally innocent and you either guilty or innocent and nothing in between. That is not what this drama said.
We were shown the impact of the crime and the various different degrees of guilt those involved from the guy who stabbed him, to the two mates who knew they were up for a fight, to the pizza manager who set it up, to Jonjo who was just going for a pizza, who at the end admitted his own degree of guilt in that if had not driven the car the boy would still be alive. There seems quite a lot of shades of grey there.
Jimmy McGovern's main agenda was to write a thought provoking drama which would engage the audience and inform them about a real issue that gets little or no publicity. Over 4,000 people have been charged with joint enterprise murder in recent years and it is right that the issues are aired.
Everyone who watched it will be able make up their own mind about it.
The problem with this drama was that the character of Jonjo wasn't really a good example of joint enterprise. The only reason that he could have been convicted was if it was believed that he was knowingly acting as the getaway driver. It would be the same as if they had robbed the pizza place at knifepoint - he would be guilty of armed robbery too.
The other two lads in the shop were better examples, as they were knowingly involved in the attack on the other guy, but were not intending to kill anyone, especially not an innocent bystander. By making Jonjo the central character, I felt that the drama was overplaying its hand, giving us a totally innocent victim.
Yes i agree they were a better example. it's one thing going to confront a lad and even hit him but they had no intention of knifing him, the most important fact is they never knew the killer had a knife. the prosecution accepted this i think as they settled for GBH.
Jonjo left the engine of the car running, that can easily be interpreted as wanting a fast get away. His defence warned him he would loose if he did not plead to GBH
As Oldnjaded has said there is a documentary on tonight on BBC1 10.35PM, am sure we will learn a lot more of the facts.
People dont seem to care as if it will never affect them or it's all drama, being locked up for something when you are innocent should never be treated as hysteria. it must be a long nightmare for the whole family and the worry is it can happen to anyone.
I do not see how anyone could say that the drama was too black and white. In fact it was the exact opposite of black and white.
Black and white would be to say - X is totally guilty and Y is totally innocent and you either guilty or innocent and nothing in between. That is not what this drama said.
We were shown the impact of the crime and the various different degrees of guilt those involved from the guy who stabbed him, to the two mates who knew they were up for a fight, to the pizza manager who set it up, to Jonjo who was just going for a pizza, who at the end admitted his own degree of guilt in that if had not driven the car the boy would still be alive. There seems quite a lot of shades of grey there.
Jimmy McGovern's main agenda was to write a thought provoking drama which would engage the audience and inform them about a real issue that gets little or no publicity. Over 4,000 people have been charged with joint enterprise murder in recent years and it is right that the issues are aired.
Everyone who watched it will be able make up their own mind about it.
Some of this is true, but the protagonist himself was clearly supposed to be in the right.
Jonjo did right that letter admitting guilt, but was the audience really supposed to agree with his sentiment that "if he hadn't been born, there would be nobody to drive the car"? I thought that was designed to elicit sympathy for a young man who was striving to find meaning in his conviction. He even says that he has to believe it, because serving his sentence while believing in his innocence would be too hard.
I don't think anyone was supposed to watch this drama and finish with the belief that Jonjo deserved to go to prison at all.
If, for example, his cousin had been the protagonist, it would have been much more grey.
Comments
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Criminal-Justice-Collection-Ben-Whishaw/dp/B0039LAQLA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404686691&sr=8-1&keywords=criminal+justice
and thus why this should never have been on the BBC. Propoganda for a political campaign to garner sympathy from the masses (some of which are evident here from the comments).
"Gritty BAFTA" comes to mind (type Gritty BAFTA into your favourite search engine if you don't know what I mean).
That's the reality, am sure there are plenty of people who find it boring , they certainly wouldn't find it boring if their son, daughter or even themselves faced the same situation.
Enjoyed the drama but that's irrelevant it highlighted something very wrong in our justice system that has to be changed.
Agree, very poor programme...... Political agenda, gives jo public a completely wrong impression of the law. It was just a campaign off those in jail due to this law. And let's be honest if they were knowingly involved in a murder then they bloody well should be locked up....... Oh and I can't stand that main actor ( jonjo) he jus needs a good shaking, he's got the same hang dog expression whatever he's in!
With its well known left wing bias you can never accuse the bbc of impariality
Ive no idea why people think this has anything to do with politics.
Have you ever watched the Daily and Sunday Politics, Andrew Neil’s personal Tory-loving bandwagon?
Absolutely awesome performances by Jodhi May and Susan Lynch as the 2 mothers.
Brilliant.
So do you think the BBC should not show Watchdog, since that is all about campaigning against injustices?
I would give it a 9
Neither do I. It's an issue about a concept that is enshrined in law and has been for hundreds of years, albeit one that is being used increasingly in recent times.
The British legal system is riddled with miscarriages of justice and always has been, but it's up to the lawyers and the judges to ensure that these don't happen.
Maybe the documentary tonight will give us some statistics regarding the overall efficacy of the Joint Enterprise law to give us a more balanced opinion than the clearly partisan opinion which was rather ham-fistedly thrust down our throats last night?
The problem with this drama was that the character of Jonjo wasn't really a good example of joint enterprise. The only reason that he could have been convicted was if it was believed that he was knowingly acting as the getaway driver. It would be the same as if they had robbed the pizza place at knifepoint - he would be guilty of armed robbery too.
The other two lads in the shop were better examples, as they were knowingly involved in the attack on the other guy, but were not intending to kill anyone, especially not an innocent bystander. By making Jonjo the central character, I felt that the drama was overplaying its hand, giving us a totally innocent victim.
However if Jonjo had pleaded not guilty and been convicted of murder he would have had a minimum sentence of at least 25 years. Taking the plea means that he will be aged 20 when he is released and still be able to make a lot of his life. Even if there is only a small risk of a guilty verdict, 25 years in prison would totally wreck someone's whole life, so it is probably not going to be worth it.
This sort of thing is much more common in America where prosecutors threaten huge sentences unless defendants plead guilty to lesser offences, and even innocent people feel they have no choice but to go along with it.
But then there perhaps wouldn't have been much of a 'drama'. Yes, the other 2 lads didn't intend to kill anyone, but they did go in there to cause bodily harm to someone, in the company of their mate, the total nutter Kieran. I think they could have reasonably expected that something really bad could happen in those circumstances, (even if it was only that Kieran would have gone OTT on the intended victim rather than the innocent bystander). So I wouldn't have had much sympathy tbh.
Jonjo's position was obviously different because we viewers knew the facts of the matter, but is there really any reason why a jury should have believed that he was an innocent lad, happy to give a lift to his dodgier cousin and mates, as opposed to being the willing getaway driver?
For me, this is where his barrister should have built his case around the fact that Jonjo had no previous, was not a member of his cousin's gang, and had no beef whatsoever against the target, (who strangely was never even interviewed apparently). As it was, his barrister threw in the towel immediately and we saw Jonjo being given no individual defence whatsoever, which doesn't make any sense to me.
True, there wouldn't have been as much audience sympathy, but on the other hand it would have been a more accurate representation of how joint enterprise can be misapplied.
Even if Jonjo had been in the shop, it might have seemed more realistic to me, but the fact that he was deliberately misled about the group's intentions, was not present at the time of the attack, and that he was the one to inform the police... I don't know, it seemed a stretch of credibility to me.
What you say about audiences potentially not sympathising with the other two is true, but is that fair? Joint enterprise is often misapplied when one person clearly escalates the violence, but everyone present is blamed. Humanising those who are harshly punished and highlighting the complexity of these cases would have been a more worthwhile avenue to follow than giving us a naive teenager who did almost nothing wrong (bar not calling the police immediately).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p021gb62/common
That's fine - it's fiction, but I really do hope we get to see at least part of the other side of the coin on tonight's documentary, (although as it's clearly based on 3 perceived miscarriages of justice, I'm not holding my breath).
I do not see how anyone could say that the drama was too black and white. In fact it was the exact opposite of black and white.
Black and white would be to say - X is totally guilty and Y is totally innocent and you either guilty or innocent and nothing in between. That is not what this drama said.
We were shown the impact of the crime and the various different degrees of guilt those involved from the guy who stabbed him, to the two mates who knew they were up for a fight, to the pizza manager who set it up, to Jonjo who was just going for a pizza, who at the end admitted his own degree of guilt in that if had not driven the car the boy would still be alive. There seems quite a lot of shades of grey there.
Jimmy McGovern's main agenda was to write a thought provoking drama which would engage the audience and inform them about a real issue that gets little or no publicity. Over 4,000 people have been charged with joint enterprise murder in recent years and it is right that the issues are aired.
Everyone who watched it will be able make up their own mind about it.
Jonjo left the engine of the car running, that can easily be interpreted as wanting a fast get away. His defence warned him he would loose if he did not plead to GBH
As Oldnjaded has said there is a documentary on tonight on BBC1 10.35PM, am sure we will learn a lot more of the facts.
People dont seem to care as if it will never affect them or it's all drama, being locked up for something when you are innocent should never be treated as hysteria. it must be a long nightmare for the whole family and the worry is it can happen to anyone.
Some of this is true, but the protagonist himself was clearly supposed to be in the right.
Jonjo did right that letter admitting guilt, but was the audience really supposed to agree with his sentiment that "if he hadn't been born, there would be nobody to drive the car"? I thought that was designed to elicit sympathy for a young man who was striving to find meaning in his conviction. He even says that he has to believe it, because serving his sentence while believing in his innocence would be too hard.
I don't think anyone was supposed to watch this drama and finish with the belief that Jonjo deserved to go to prison at all.
If, for example, his cousin had been the protagonist, it would have been much more grey.