Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I dont like laughing at other peoples misfortune, but its a very human thing to do. However I love stories where the person who suffers the misfortune truly deserves it on a deep moral level and has only their own stupidity to blame. Those stories I rather enjoy. But why keep good news to yourself.

Two convicted drug dealers Daniel & Samuel Sledden couldnt beleive their luck when their case judge gave them a two year sentence suspended for two years.
So they celebrated as only chavs can, by taunting the judge on Facebook, laughing about their minimal punishment and making sexual taunts which can't be reposted here.

Linky
Double Sauce

Today the pair were back in court, where the lack of gravity of their approach to the crime was reconsidered. As with many criminals a good defense lawyer will highlight remorse felt and the lessons learned to lighten punishment delivered. Because the prisons are full this is allowed to work more often than no. However this ploy was somewhat undermined by the Facebook comments, some dating from only two minutes after the trial ended. This was enough to indicate a lack of respect for the court and proof of a lack of willingness to reform. It also doesn't help to make sexual taunts at the judge who writes your own ongoing provision order.

The brothers were re-sentenced today with their custodial sentence to begin immediately. If I was a guard in the van transporting these fools to prison I would probably find it hard to suppress a big grin right now.

Note: searched articles for this story are from 16th February when the brothers were ordered to re-attend court. as of this writing the trial hearing and re-sentencing is not in the printed press.



Yet another lowlife chav who just didn't know when to shut up.

 Orlanth wrote:
lowlife chav

I'm not completely up to speed on Brit slang but isn't that redundant?

 Breotan wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
lowlife chav

I'm not completely up to speed on Brit slang but isn't that redundant?

It sounds like a bit of a double statement, however not all chavs are violent or drug dealers, or deserve misfortune.

Agreed, most Chavs are harmless chavs. But you do get some who are really low on the scale.

Then again, I think is this part of a larger overall issue that people seem to forget that what happens on social media will actually affect your real life.

I wonder who dobbed them in to the court.

 Breotan wrote:
I'm not completely up to speed on Brit slang but isn't that redundant?

Yup, it's a tautology like 'tall giant' or 'nerdy wargamer'

Not to be confused with an oxymoron. Controlled chaos, sound of silence, ground pilot.

These two guys are just normal morons.

This whole thread is the most British thing that I have read in a while...

Don't post stuff about your crimes on social media.

Dumbasses.

Some people just don't appreciate good fortune. Especially when they get lucky facing the criminal justice system.


It never fails that most hoodlums and punks will turn around and screw up again in due course.


If they get locked up, maybe somebody can give them this to keep them company in their cell :

Stupid fething chavs. Glad the judge got em back before the bench.

This really further exposes our inefficient sentencing system which in turn reflects the state of the prison estate and structure of offender management in the UK.

Prison service is seriously overstretched, the system doesn't want to sent offenders down unless they do something particularly abhorent or they are a persistent menace.

Its actually hard to get sent down for small scale cannabis trafficing, or other class C drugs. This pair went above and beyond the bar to qualify as a small minded self destructive gobshite.

The US doesn't want to be left behind in this news:

So... These guys were already sentenced? And the judge decided to change the sentencing because they said something disrespectful online?

Yeah; that doesn't sound right to me.

 cincydooley wrote:
So... These guys were already sentenced? And the judge decided to change the sentencing because they said something disrespectful online?

Yeah; that doesn't sound right to me.

Think of it like violating your probation in the US. Pretty much the same situation.

 cincydooley wrote:
So... These guys were already sentenced? And the judge decided to change the sentencing because they said something disrespectful online?

Yeah; that doesn't sound right to me.

We just had a thread about a occupation of a government building resulting from a resentencing. Sentences can be appealed just like a trial in most court systems where trial and sentencing are treated as separate procedures.

 cincydooley wrote:
So... These guys were already sentenced? And the judge decided to change the sentencing because they said something disrespectful online?

Yeah; that doesn't sound right to me.

Read the articles. I was careful to explain in the thread text.

The Sledden brothers were not gaoled for insulting the judge. The judge herself explained why they were re-sentenced.

Daily Mail wrote:
At today's hearing, Judge Lunt told the court that it was an 'unusual case'.
She said: 'I have thought about it and researched it long and hard and it doesn't amount to a contempt of court or even an indirect attempt so I have no powers to deal with them.
'I am not aware of them having committed any criminal offence.
'It's plain they never intended for me to see it so it's not harassment.
'In my judgment the appropriate thing is to look again at my sentences and the things I had taken into consideration, looking at the questions of remorse and contrition as I also took that into account as well as the length of time that had passed [since the offences].
'Let me make it plain, I'm not talking about increasing the sentence. Two years is correct. I have no doubt about that whatsoever.
'It is about what I would have done had I appreciated as I now do from the posts their true views and what they really thought of the court proceedings.'

In a nutshell:

- The Sledden brothers defence lawyer made a successful defence that the defendants were contrite and had ceased trading in drugs.
- Facebook comments posted immediately afterwards contradicted the defence and proved the Sleddens were unreformed.
- Judge Lunt reserved the right to re-sentence them as they were under a lawful suspended sentence order.

Judge Lunt made it clear that remarks made about her were not relevant to the legal process following. Members of the public can read what they wish into the Sledden's full comments, but the courts cannot. The only relevance to the legal procedings was: Did the social media comments posted by the defendants immediately after the trial contradict the legal defense they used to avoid prison? The Crown has argued that this was so.

Had the Sleddens been aquitted then blagged afterwards they would likely have got away with it. However they were found guilty and under a suspended sentence, the courts have every right to make them serve the time standing over their heads under the previous sentencing. So now they get to serve the two years rather than have a two year suspended sentence and can only blame their own gloating on social media for the change in circumstances.

 Orlanth wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
So... These guys were already sentenced? And the judge decided to change the sentencing because they said something disrespectful online?

Yeah; that doesn't sound right to me.

Read the articles. I was careful to explain in the thread text.

Judge Lunt made it clear that remarks made about her were not relevant to the legal process following. Members of the public can read what they wish into the Sledden's full comments, but the courts cannot. The only relevance to the legal procedings was: Did the social media comments posted by the defendants immediately after the trial contradict the legal defense they used to avoid prison? The Crown has argued that this was so.

I did read them.

I disagree with her opinion and do not find it just.

This is, IMO, a judge being vindictive, the exact thing they should not be.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
So... These guys were already sentenced? And the judge decided to change the sentencing because they said something disrespectful online?

Yeah; that doesn't sound right to me.

Read the articles. I was careful to explain in the thread text.

Judge Lunt made it clear that remarks made about her were not relevant to the legal process following. Members of the public can read what they wish into the Sledden's full comments, but the courts cannot. The only relevance to the legal procedings was: Did the social media comments posted by the defendants immediately after the trial contradict the legal defense they used to avoid prison? The Crown has argued that this was so.

I did read them.

I disagree with her opinion and do not find it just.

This is, IMO, a judge being vindictive, the exact thing they should not be.

Why is it vindictive. they wrrent punished for the remarks, they were orderd to serve time already ordered because their in court excuse of remorse turned out to be a lie.

It seems to me that convicted criminals should not laugh, scoff and pour scorn on the sentences they are given. If they do it shows the sentence was not hard enough to be an effective punishment.

Pure giggling comedy. Teens going into the pen. What's the Bubba version in UK?

 Jihadin wrote:
Pure giggling comedy. Teens going into the pen. What's the Bubba version in UK?

Hahah! It's a joke about a minor getting prison-raped!

I mean, seriously, the actual story is pretty funny - don't taunt the judge - but come on.

Minors? One's 22 and the other is 27. Yeah, the age of majority is younger in the UK than it is in the US, but even by our standards they're adults.

 Psienesis wrote:
Minors? One's 22 and the other is 27. Yeah, the age of majority is younger in the UK than it is in the US, but even by our standards they're adults.

Some may have assumed they were teens, others that the acted like them. I didn't see a point in correcting anyone who thought the former.
The ages were clearly referenced in the articles and the age of criminal culpability is 10 in the UK. The sort of behaviour shown by the pair is quite common for chavs of all ages. Chav is a part of self destructive teen culture that has no upper age limit, chavs approaching 30 are by no means uncommon.

 Psienesis wrote:
Minors? One's 22 and the other is 27. Yeah, the age of majority is younger in the UK than it is in the US, but even by our standards they're adults.

Apologies; I read the story without the ages sticking in my mind, and then made my comment in response to Jihadin's without rereading.

 cincydooley wrote:
So... These guys were already sentenced? And the judge decided to change the sentencing because they said something disrespectful online?

Yeah; that doesn't sound right to me.

A suspended sentence is essentially a custodial sentence, but put on hold on the basis of good behaviour. It can be lifted if they offend again for instance. Usually it gets added onto their new sentence.

In this case, the sentence was suspended because they showed remorse, which proved not to be the case, so the suspension was lifted.