Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To not understand the JD Vance weird face meme all over the Cotswolds?

250 replies

BlueJuniper94 · 15/08/2025 11:45

So I understand he is not popular and has recently been holidaying in the Cotswolds. But I don't understand this big exaggerated AI face some group has been putting on billboards and driving around.

Firstly, are they mocking his appearance? That's not very nice, no matter what someone's politics are, their actions should be the target not what they look like.

And if it is about his remarks about free speech - again, I really don't understand how this image "owns" him, he's a foreign politician. UK gov aren't going to care about that, wouldn't it make sense to prove the point by criticising power that is actually British?

Fill me in please, I don't understand - what am I missing?

OP posts:
Createausername1970 · 15/08/2025 19:34

Is Vance one of the Project 25 authors?

Mustbethat · 15/08/2025 19:39

MrsSkylerWhite · 15/08/2025 19:27

Or any young Tom, Dick or Harry looking at the appalling number of school shootings. I certainly shan’t be lectured by a citizen of a nation where marriage between adult males and female minors is still allowed in several states.

Especially when marrying the female minor gets you out of a rape charge.

Willywonty · 15/08/2025 20:00

Tryingtokeepgoing · 15/08/2025 13:13

As someone who has lived in the US, I’d say it’s more shocking how little many Americans know about the rest of the world, and how blind they are to how quickly their freedoms are being eroded by an autocratic government.

What confuses Americans is our lack of constitution, and an inability to understand the differences between a young country that has a prescribed constitution, and a much older country where the starting point was do what you like, unless it was outlawed. In the US, the constitution sets out what they can do and what your rights are - though as can be seen the government is happy to ride roughshod over that, with no meaningful protection for citizens when that happens. For us, without a formal constitution, we can do anything, unless it’s actually illegal. Now, that leads to differences and court cases and an evolution of law. But I’d rather live in a country where everything is allowed, unless it’s not, than a country that only allows you to do what they say, and can override that with impunity.

It’s best summarised as most of the developed European countries having a framework which gives us freedom from things. Where as the developing US has a framework which is a freedom to do things ;)

Well said. And it's the lack of a constitution that makes many Americans think that we dont have rights, or free speech. We do, it just hasn't been written down. Mind you, look how the Orange Donkey & Chucky Vance have trodden all over the rights of numerous people in the USA.

BlueJuniper94 · 15/08/2025 20:02

MiloMinderbinder925 · 15/08/2025 19:33

So you don't know.

You are right. The difference is that one pled guilty and the other didn't. All those Southport protestors who were told to plead guilty shouldn't have done so as those who didn't got off. Moral of the story? Do not plead guilty.

OP posts:
pointythings · 15/08/2025 20:02

BlueJuniper94 · 15/08/2025 19:31

Similar enough for the BBC to talk about the Lucy case in their reporting on the councillor, so save the faux naivety

OK, so the BBC with its much vaunted 'neutrality' really isn't an unbiased source of news any more given who runs it. There's a thread on the Lucy Connolly/Ricky Jones situation where a lot of experienced posters with an understanding of how the law actually works in the UK explain why the two can't reasonably be compared. The Secret Barrister also has some explainers on the topic (and he's hardly a leftie).

DdraigGoch · 15/08/2025 20:02

Looks like staff at a local pub (which has previously hosted Kamala Harris) threatened to walk out if his booking was honoured. Good on them.

FatherFrosty · 15/08/2025 20:08

DdraigGoch · 15/08/2025 20:02

Looks like staff at a local pub (which has previously hosted Kamala Harris) threatened to walk out if his booking was honoured. Good on them.

I’ve added the pub to my list of places to visit.

MrsSkylerWhite · 15/08/2025 20:10

Mustbethat · 15/08/2025 19:39

Especially when marrying the female minor gets you out of a rape charge.

Oh, yes indeed.

MiloMinderbinder925 · 15/08/2025 20:46

BlueJuniper94 · 15/08/2025 20:02

You are right. The difference is that one pled guilty and the other didn't. All those Southport protestors who were told to plead guilty shouldn't have done so as those who didn't got off. Moral of the story? Do not plead guilty.

No. One was charged with encouraging violent disorder and the other was charged and prosecuted under section 19(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 under which a person is threatening or abusive and intends to stir up racial hatred. The prosecution's case was that there was not only intention to incite serious violence but also to directly encourage activity which threatened or endangered life. This placed the offence on the A1 category of the relevant sentencing guidelines, which meant a starting point of three years in prison, which could go up to six years.

Not similar offences, not similar circumstances, not similar outcomes and different pleas.

Public Order Act 1986

An Act to abolish the common law offences of riot, rout, unlawful assembly and affray and certain statutory offences relating to public order; to create new offences relating to public order; to control public processions and assemblies; to control the...

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/19

skippy67 · 15/08/2025 21:01

BlueJuniper94 · 15/08/2025 19:31

Similar enough for the BBC to talk about the Lucy case in their reporting on the councillor, so save the faux naivety

She pled guilty. No trial. He pled not guilty and was cleared by a jury. No two tier at play. I know you'd really like there to be, but no.

pointythings · 15/08/2025 21:10

MiloMinderbinder925 · 15/08/2025 20:46

No. One was charged with encouraging violent disorder and the other was charged and prosecuted under section 19(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 under which a person is threatening or abusive and intends to stir up racial hatred. The prosecution's case was that there was not only intention to incite serious violence but also to directly encourage activity which threatened or endangered life. This placed the offence on the A1 category of the relevant sentencing guidelines, which meant a starting point of three years in prison, which could go up to six years.

Not similar offences, not similar circumstances, not similar outcomes and different pleas.

Edited

You're heroic in your persistence, but OP doesn't want to know the truth. Too many people don't.

MiloMinderbinder925 · 15/08/2025 21:19

pointythings · 15/08/2025 21:10

You're heroic in your persistence, but OP doesn't want to know the truth. Too many people don't.

We have to persist or people believe disinformation and end up in an echo chamber.

pointythings · 15/08/2025 21:32

MiloMinderbinder925 · 15/08/2025 21:19

We have to persist or people believe disinformation and end up in an echo chamber.

I agree with you, and I will also persist. I'm just not always going to be sweetly nice about it.

Radiatorvalves · 15/08/2025 22:44

FatherFrosty · 15/08/2025 20:08

I’ve added the pub to my list of places to visit.

I’ve booked for next week. Not cheap. 😬😖

whyschoolwhy · 15/08/2025 23:26

CharmingDryad · 15/08/2025 12:14

You really don’t have free speech in the UK though. It’s shocking to us Americans.

What does this actually mean and how is it different in the US?

It's ironic given that that some US visa applicants now are required to share their social media accounts so that the government can check that they aren't posting anti-American sentiments before issuing their visa. What's free about that?

maudelovesharold · 15/08/2025 23:35

hattie43 · 15/08/2025 12:29

People are nasty . The guys on holiday with his family .

J D Vance is nasty. He’s on holiday in a country which he apparently despises, so he can just fuck right off.

Milliejacksonhouseforsale · 15/08/2025 23:44

He's a fucking hick goon.

Mustbethat · 16/08/2025 07:22

whyschoolwhy · 15/08/2025 23:26

What does this actually mean and how is it different in the US?

It's ironic given that that some US visa applicants now are required to share their social media accounts so that the government can check that they aren't posting anti-American sentiments before issuing their visa. What's free about that?

American logic apparently is that their freeedoms don’t extend to non US citizens. “Land of the free” indeed.

so they don’t have the right to free speech, due process etc, despite their constitution, and I believe the Supreme Court on multiple occasions, stating otherwise.

you’re only free if you’re American. Like I said though, the mental gymnastics doesn’t extend to realising that if there’s no due process, you have no right to establish your US citizenship at any point, so you are no more free than any non US citizen.

Serpentstooth · 16/08/2025 07:37

And, increasingly, you're only American if ICE agree, no matter how loudly you're shouting about your constitutional rights. The vaunted constitution is worthless.

FatherFrosty · 16/08/2025 07:41

Radiatorvalves · 15/08/2025 22:44

I’ve booked for next week. Not cheap. 😬😖

Nowhere is these days is it.

best put it on the “someone’s birthday” list then!!

Createausername1970 · 16/08/2025 07:52

Serpentstooth · 16/08/2025 07:37

And, increasingly, you're only American if ICE agree, no matter how loudly you're shouting about your constitutional rights. The vaunted constitution is worthless.

Indeed I have/had a a few relatives in the US. One family relocated back to UK about 18 months ago, they said the writing was on the wall if you looked closely.

Another family are reviewing their options. She married an American and took American citizenship after the children were born. The children are dual nationality but always travelled under an American passport. They have recently got British Passports for the children. They work in the education sector at one of the larger universities and they have said that things are very different to 12 months ago, the US government is slowly implementing Project 25 despite Trump denying it, and one of the big Universities is likely to be the scapegoat to bring all the others in line.

To me, sitting here in the UK it sounds very far-fetched and over-dramatic. But these are level headed people so I am not sure what to think.

whyschoolwhy · 16/08/2025 08:07

Also all this clamping down on what museums and schools etc can and can't say about American history and societal matters doesn't sound very freedom of speechy. Not to mention the 'jokey' threats about getting rid of American citizens who don't agree with the Trump way of thinking.

Serpentstooth · 16/08/2025 08:12

Friend escaped Communist Czechoslovakia in 1967, came here, political asylum granted then emigrated to USA a few years later. Lived there, marrying and raising a family until 3 years ago when, for the second time in her life, the writing on the wall again said 'It's time to leave'. Thankfully had dual citizenship and they moved to a European country. To anyone, thousands of people, who fled political oppression to the guaranteed safety of the USA, the current circumstances of US politics is completely traumatising.

1dayatatime · 16/08/2025 08:57

@maudelovesharold

"J D Vance is nasty. He’s on holiday in a country which he apparently despises, so he can just fuck right off."

I haven't seen anything from Vance where he has said he despises the UK.

But whilst we are on the topic Cornwall has plenty of English tourists that most definitely and openly criticise the Cornish and they can most definitely fuck off.

StandFirm · 16/08/2025 09:22

Serpentstooth · 16/08/2025 07:37

And, increasingly, you're only American if ICE agree, no matter how loudly you're shouting about your constitutional rights. The vaunted constitution is worthless.

But because ICE is subjected to extremely unrealistic targets, they won't bother even asking themselves what your actual status might be. So you're screwed if they get you.