[Closed] Common (joint enterprise)

Aye, very good and quite an eye opener

Yep, excellent programme. I had no idea such a thing existed and can see how easily 'innocents' could end up inside. It was also nice not to have to wait a week for the next part!

Very well written and acted drama. I did not know anything about joint enterprise, before I saw this.

Its tough isn't it - because for example If three armed men rob a security van, one of them shoots and kills the guard, they get caught five minutes later and all of them admit the robbery, but deny being the one who pulled the trigger...

Oh look, didn't take someone long to come in with a hypothetical. Yay. Inane arguing is alive and well.

Yes Darcy, you're right, a lot of TV Dramas are hypothetical situations, aren't they...

Yes Darcy, you're right

Thanks. It would help if you said this more often. 😉

To be fair, what you say is true...the drama is a hypothetical situation, but (IMO), is supposed to be a broader brush stroke from the reality of how "Joint Enterprise" is used in trials and convictions, than say, your armed robbery one. I think that the general message of the drama is that Joint Enterprise is often used to frighten defendants without education, the money for good legal representation into pleading guilty for lesser crimes and shorter sentences, whereas, it would be more than fair (again, IMO) to use it in the hypothetical situation you describe. The question is: How is it being used?* Is it being used to get working class scum off the streets or is it being used in a more specialised sense to try a group of people who are all trying to get off by saying "I didn't do it" when clearly, one of them has.

*I don't know the answer to this one. I'm sure someone will google it during the thread to find out.

ALWAYS GET A LAWYER/solicitor is the take home message from that programme.

That Jimmy McGovern can write a good script.

He's getting a good point across about abuse of virtually archaic laws to 'round up' a group of individuals and try them under a single charge but if he didn't create a convincing set of characters and a situation where it was (clearly?) not the case there was joint enterprise in the way that most people would understand the term who'd watch 'til the end?

**SPOILER** - do not read this post unless you've already seen it. 🙂

He's getting a good point across about abuse of virtually archaic laws to 'round up' a group of individuals and try them under a single charge but if he didn't create a convincing set of characters and a situation where it was (clearly?) not the case there was joint enterprise in the way that most people would understand the term who'd watch 'til the end?

This.

It was one drama that needed a few more parts I thought. I'd like to have seen a [i]Not Guilty[/i] from John-Joe and Part 2 showing how the trial might proceed.

It was one drama that needed a few more parts I thought. I'd like to have seen a Not Guilty from John-Joe and Part 2 showing how the trial might proceed.

I don't think that would have served the point he [Jim Mc] was trying to get across.

I don't think I gave the end away and the 'joint enterprise' bit was right at the beginning?

But yes, *thread on last nights telly discusses last nights telly warning* 🙂

David Norris and Gary Dobson would still be walking the streets without joint enterprise.

I don't think I gave the end away

Soz, I may not have been clear, but it was my post to which I was referring. 🙂

David Norris and Gary Dobson would still be walking the streets without joint enterprise.

Indeed, nobody is denying that it has its uses. I think the debate is about [i]how[/i] it's being used.

Apparently the inspiration for this was the Gary Newlove case in Warrington. Penny for his wife's thoughts....

Just watched this.
Bloody hell, Jimmy McGovern - he doesn't really do middle of the road does he!
Never heard of Joint Enterprise before.
That scene at the end (mums) is quite overwhelming 😥