Daniel and Samuel Sledden have again shown how the combination of a demonstrably low intellect and access to social media can be a terrible combination. The two drug dealing brothers were pulled back into court in England by Judge Beverley Lunt after they posted abusive remarks — mocking her for giving them only probation. That directly contradicted the expressions of remorse that the brothers had just made as the basis for suspended sentences.
The brothers admitted being involved in the supply of cannabis between May and September 2014.
Just forty minutes after leaving Burnley Crown Court, Daniel, 27, posted online: “Cannot believe my luck 2 year suspended sentence (sic) beats the 3 year jail yes pal!” He then added “Beverly [sic] Lunt go suck my cock”.
Showing that intelligence levels really are set genetically, his brother, Samuel, 22, then wrote: “What a day it’s been Burnley crown court! Up ur **** aha nice 2 year suspended…”
What is particularly bizarre is that they were heaping insults on a judge who cut them a huge amount of slack in handing down suspended sentences. The postings did not sit well with Lunt who called the men back to court and stated “The question I have to ask myself is this: if I had not known their real feelings at being in court would I have accepted their remorse and contrition, and suspended the sentence.And the answer is of course not.” So now the two brothers will spend two years in jail thinking about the perils of social media.
25 thoughts on “Two Brothers Heaped Insults On Judge After She Gives Them Suspended Sentences . . . Judge Calls Them Back and Sends Them To Jail For Two Years”
Thanks! I just couldn’t think of a good word to rhyme. 🙂
On the contrary isaac. This oligarchy is not the result of adherence to the principles of a constitutionally-limited government. This bureaucratic, administrative state is the too-big-for-its britches offspring of the progressive movement; which by the way has no patience for the slow-moving constitutional process. It’s egoism is fueled by power endowed by money and votes. The money changes hands because progressive politicians CAN be bought and sold. Votes come because the people can be bought and sold. I’ll believe you truly despise the oligarchy when you are able to subordinate your progressive worldview to a constitutionally-limited government. Until that epiphany arrives, I’ll expect you’ll continue to beat the drum loudly for more of the same.
So you believe that the founding fathers intended for America to descend into the oligarchy it is today. You believe that if the people want something and a concentrated financial power does not it should be applauded when it uses its money to buy the politician and power contrary to the wishes of the people. Interesting, how sacred documents can be interpreted any way one wishes. In whose pocket do you reside?
I guess isaac that Scalia hadn’t yet evolved to his better (progressive) nature. His resistance to change likely killed him. Don’t fret though, there is an abundance of constitutional ignorance in this country and you’ll have your President and SCOTUS nominee willing to continue to ignore those tired, sacred documents yet.
There was a case about 10 years ago where a Maryland attorney lost a case at the trial level, and then filed an appeal with the state’s Supreme Court, filled with insults toward the lower court judge. The State Supreme Court disbarred him. Fortunately for the foul-tempered attorney, he was also licensed in the District of Columbia, which wasn’t so sensitive about insults to MD judges. All he got was a reprimand and a 30 day suspended license.
I wish the courts were as concerned about the victims of crimes as they are about their personal dignity.
Sometimes, society is just better off taking a break from such individuals while they are in jail.
Saying sorry is one of the key ingredients that mitigates a sentence. Lying is perjury. These mutts perjured themselves. You can stake all the claims you want to sacred texts and the blindness of justice but in the end it is the human condition that interprets. Case in point, there is no way the founding fathers meant for corporations or billionaires to own politicians yet the late Scalia designed a route especially suited for that to happen. Scalia contributed to the American oligarchy and sanctimoniously labeled it justice, when it was nothing but his ideological opinion or desire.
The judge made a judgement call and should be applauded for it. She makes Scalia look like the politician he was.
Sheee-aaatt. Dontcha hate when that happens? I bet they both thought they’d be in the pool hall right now.
“What is particularly bizarre is that they were heaping insults on a judge who cut them a huge amount of slack”
They were heaping insults on the judge because she cut them a huge amount of slack.
It’s England, where criminals are coddled and self-defense is against the law.
She deserved to be mocked.
She punished them in the end not for any crime, about which the courts do not care, but about being insulted about which the courts care a great deal.
Tin – they were originally sentenced to two years and then had it suspended. She just took off the suspension. It may be appealable, but it will take so long they will be out of prison before it is heard.
And the Donald was heard saying, “They could be my sons.”
Welcome back Squeeky and good finish on the poem. 😉
If I were the prison, I would let these guys have all the social media they want. They want to brag to the world about what they have done or what has been done. They could be great prison snitches.
The judge let her emotions make the determination..that these idiots were thrown in jail is not my concern. I am wondering how many others were given light sentences who deserved to be in jail, and what is the risk to the community?
Yes, they were stupid and arrogant, but two years in prison is not an appropriate response to an insult. The judge’s reaction is vindictive and should be overturned.
Well, there goes the theory about pot supposedly mellowing you out. I guess that this pimple-faced duo didn’t get the memo. Hope that the prison commissary carries Clearasil.
Now Jonathan, where is the Freedom of Speech thread? Oh wait…its England. Some of our jurists could benefit from the Brit-ish brush over here…and that’s saying something as my heritage is Irish. For some reason, I’ve got this strange urge to invite them to the pub and let the lads have a gooo….and justice “reign” down upon them. T’war noo wheeyy ta traeet a liadee.
LOL! Great psycho-analysis! These dweebs deserve an Irish Poem!
Sledden On Thin Ice???
An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm
There once was a jurist named Lunt,
Who got angry at two brothers’ stunt!
With a bad attitude,
They said something rude,
And then went and called her a very bad name!
I believe that JT is mistaken when he attributes the brash, arrogant actions of the Sledden brothers to stupidity. Rather, a deeper, more profound motivation was at work here. The great American writer, Edgar Allen Poe, understood and expounded on the underlying principles that are at work here, in such literary classics as “The Imp of the Perverse,” “The Tell-Tale Heart,” and “The Black Cat.” Though the boys won’t directly admit it, they really felt that Judge Lunt’s original suspended sentence ruling was insufficient punishment.
They should be banned from using the internet while locked up. Two years was light.
Comments are closed.