Brothers Jailed for Facebook Posts While ‘Rich Kid’ Walks Free in Child Pornography Case


By Michaela Whitton at


United Kingdom — Two brothers who were initially given suspended terms have been recalled to court and ordered to serve the full two-year sentences after writing Facebook posts mocking the judge who presided over their case. The Sledden brothers, from Lancashire, had originally received suspended two-year jail terms after admitting to being involved in the supply of cannabis in 2014.

Shortly after receiving the suspended sentence, jubilant Daniel Sleddon updated his Facebook status: “Cannot believe my luck 2 year suspended sentance [sic] beats the 3 year jail yes pal! Beverly [sic] Lunt go suck my ****.” 

His brother Samuel wrote: “What a day it’s been Burnley crown court! Up ur **** aha nice 2 year suspended…”

The defendants were swiftly recalled to Preston Crown Court after their comments were brought to the attention of the judge, who said their posts indicated they had not changed at all. She added that their posts contained “offensive and sexual content directed at me as a judge, and also as a woman judge.”

While we’re on the subject of offensive sexual content, elsewhere in the U.K., a former Eton College pupil was spared jail, despite sharing images of the most graphic child abuse imaginable — to an undercover cop.

Andrew Picard not only made horrific images of children, but shared them via Skype to an undercover police officer. Some of the images included children as young as two being forced to have sex with dogs. Picard was given a suspended 10-month sentence with a requirement that he receive mental health treatment.

Two cases: one is a couple of immature boys who insulted a judge, the other is a lawyer’s son caught making and distributing unfathomable images of brutal child abuse. Some might say the disparity in sentencing couldn’t be summed up any better than by the words of one of the judges:

“This defendant Andrew Picard was a privileged young man. His family are clearly wealthy enough to send him to school in Eton. Quite how you found your way into this unpleasant world Mr Picard, the world of chat rooms and exchanging this material, is not clear to me.”

This article (Brothers Jailed for Facebook Posts While ‘Rich Kid’ Walks Free in Child Pornography Case) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Michaela Whitton and Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email [email protected].


Get Your Anonymous T-Shirt / Sweatshirt / Hoodie / Tanktop, Smartphone or Tablet Cover or Mug In Our Spreadshirt Shop! Click Here



  1. Idiotic and poorly conceived. Not the sentencing per see but more your summation of the issues. I don’t think anyone should get a custodial sentence for dealing weed, but these two were spectacularly stupid and spectacularly rude to the judge. They had made a point of their great apology in court and that influenced sentencing.

    I don’t think anyone should get a custodial sentence for viewing pornography either. Regardless of the class of the offender, this was a first offence, he was 17 and this isn’t an unusual sentence.

    I assume your compared the two cases because every case you looked at of a working class kid viewing child pornography as a first offence yielded a similar sentence.

    This is piss poor journalism that bring the movement into disrepute

    • It wasn’t anyone “viewing pornography” it was a man who CREATED CHILD PORN BY FORCING A TWO YEAR OLD TO HAVE SEX WITH A DOG.

    • Jesus, you don’t know the huge difference between pornography and child pornography? Shame on you for that comment!

  2. Yep, that is how the system works… AND what we as a human race should be fighting against. I do not really care if others have more than me but the LAW should apply to all!!!!!

  3. I don’t see a parallel on the two cases…. The two brothers got what they deserved for proving their judicial apology as false.
    The pedo artist does not seem terribly light, mental health help is clearly what he needs, unless some evidence that he has acted on his urges in the past, why should it be harder on him?
    Things seem well in line here…..

  4. The article says that he “made” the pictures. If that means screen grabbed them from a video that already existed, that’s one thing, but if he took them himself, that’s a whole different level.
    I’d like clarification.

    • Even if the pictures were ‘grabbed’ as you put it, the children involved were still abused in order for those pictures to be made and circulated. Please don’t think that it eventually becomes a victimless crime, as every time a photo of child abuse is shared, that child is abused again.

  5. A man has horrific videos of CHILD porn, and two dumbass teenagers (like myself)
    post comments on social media.

    But yet the teenagers get jail time and the pedo doesnt. wow.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here