[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Parmy

You're talking about a word that's branded around on every gaming server like it's the norm. Nobody blinks an eye atbuts use in movies, claiming it shows reality.

The BBC were on this occasion correct to air what happened as it highlights almost everything surrounding this illness.

You have John himself unable to hold the word in and blurting it out for the world to see, still embarrassed and ashamed enough like g is 16 yr old self, to get up and leave, to sit alone to make it easier on everyone. Like his 16 yr old self did.

You have the 2 award presenters, seemingly unaware there was a guy with tourettes in the audience. Hearing the shout, yet staying calm and dignified like everyone should when confronted by a tourettes outburst.


Then you've got Foxx, the ignorant tosser over the other side of the street, ignorant to everything about anything. Pointing and shouting like every bully John has endured his whole life.

It’s important to remember that Tourette’s is a neurological condition, not a choice, and John’s reaction shows how difficult and distressing these involuntary outbursts can be. His embarrassment and instinct to remove himself aren’t signs of intent — they’re part of the lived reality of the condition.

The presenters handled the moment calmly, which is exactly how people should respond when someone experiences a Tourette’s tic in public. The wider discussion really benefits from keeping the focus on understanding the condition rather than judging individuals who may not have recognised what was happening.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

It’s important to remember that Tourette’s is a neurological condition, not a choice, and John’s reaction shows how difficult and distressing these involuntary outbursts can be. His embarrassment and instinct to remove himself aren’t signs of intent — they’re part of the lived reality of the condition.



The presenters handled the moment calmly, which is exactly how people should respond when someone experiences a Tourette’s tic in public. The wider discussion really benefits from keeping the focus on understanding the condition rather than judging individuals who may not have recognised what was happening.

Yep exactly.

[arista]

[Ammi]

…in his first interview after the BAFTA event, John Davidson himself has questioned why he was seated near a microphone…

As I reflect on the auditorium, I remember there was a microphone just in front of me, and with hindsight I have to question whether this was wise, so close to where I was seated, knowing I would tic.


…with the editing as it was, so much speculation as to whether the BBC/BAFTA were using him to generate a viral moment….

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Ammi

…in his first interview after the BAFTA event, John Davidson himself has questioned why he was seated near a microphone…

As I reflect on the auditorium, I remember there was a microphone just in front of me, and with hindsight I have to question whether this was wise, so close to where I was seated, knowing I would tic.


…with the editing as it was, so much speculation as to whether the BBC/BAFTA were using him to generate a viral moment….

Absolutely terrible if true Vile behaviour but wouldnt be at all surprising

[Crimson Dynamo]

What im shocked about is the BBC has up to this point had an unblemished reputation so this flies in the face of what has gone before..

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Seems like a lot of American media and social media are really going in on John Davidson and running with the narrative that he is racist and using the Tourettes as an excuse.

Didn't see this sorry Niamh.

A lot of American media and social media commentary seems to be heavily criticising John Davidson and framing him as racist. I understand why people feel strongly about it, but the situation is far more complex than that narrative suggests.

This incident brings together several difficult elements at once: a word with enormous historical weight, two Black actors caught off guard on stage, and a man with Tourette’s syndrome who had no control over what he said. After the outburst, he removed himself from the proceedings, which was the responsible step to take. None of these factors cancels out the others.

What I’d like people to appreciate is both the nature of Tourette’s syndrome and the historical context of the n‑word, including its ties to slavery and Jim Crow. What we’re seeing here is the collision of two very different realities and sensitivities. In that sense, no individual is “at fault” — the only real lapse may lie with the BBC and BAFTA for allowing circumstances where this could happen.

Because there isn’t a single person to blame, the reaction has intensified. People often want a clear target for their anger. The most constructive outcome, though, would be for everyone to try to understand each other’s perspectives rather than condemn those who reacted in the moment.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

Didn't see this sorry Niamh.



A lot of American media and social media commentary seems to be heavily criticising John Davidson and framing him as racist. I understand why people feel strongly about it, but the situation is far more complex than that narrative suggests.



This incident brings together several difficult elements at once: a word with enormous historical weight, two Black actors caught off guard on stage, and a man with Tourette’s syndrome who had no control over what he said. After the outburst, he removed himself from the proceedings, which was the responsible step to take. None of these factors cancels out the others.



What I’d like people to appreciate is both the nature of Tourette’s syndrome and the historical context of the n‑word, including its ties to slavery and Jim Crow. What we’re seeing here is the collision of two very different realities and sensitivities. In that sense, no individual is “at fault” — the only real lapse may lie with the BBC and BAFTA for allowing circumstances where this could happen.



Because there isn’t a single person to blame, the reaction has intensified. People often want a clear target for their anger. The most constructive outcome, though, would be for everyone to try to understand each other’s perspectives rather than condemn those who reacted in the moment.

Yeah you're right of course and like people (including John) have suggested, it almost seems orchastrated to pit us all against each other. Better all us ordinary folk are fighting amongst ourselves, eh?

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

Didn't see this sorry Niamh.

A lot of American media and social media commentary seems to be heavily criticising John Davidson and framing him as racist. I understand why people feel strongly about it, but the situation is far more complex than that narrative suggests.

This incident brings together several difficult elements at once: a word with enormous historical weight, two Black actors caught off guard on stage, and a man with Tourette’s syndrome who had no control over what he said. After the outburst, he removed himself from the proceedings, which was the responsible step to take. None of these factors cancels out the others.

What I’d like people to appreciate is both the nature of Tourette’s syndrome and the historical context of the n‑word, including its ties to slavery and Jim Crow. What we’re seeing here is the collision of two very different realities and sensitivities. In that sense, no individual is “at fault” — the only real lapse may lie with the BBC and BAFTA for allowing circumstances where this could happen.

Because there isn’t a single person to blame, the reaction has intensified. People often want a clear target for their anger. The most constructive outcome, though, would be for everyone to try to understand each other’s perspectives rather than condemn those who reacted in the moment.

no individual is “at fault” — the only real lapse may lie with the BBC and BAFTA for allowing circumstances where this could happen.


And how would they do that? Tell black people they can't attend because there's a guy with a mental disability attending or tell mentally disabled people they can't attend because there's black people attending..


Or just not air it, keep it hidden fron the public..cause the event would still have happened in the auditorium, only difference would be Foxx and his ill informed mouth would be oblivious to the event.

[Zizu]

All is well .. Lisa Nandy is getting involved

Jesus ..

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Parmy

no individual is “at fault” — the only real lapse may lie with the BBC and BAFTA for allowing circumstances where this could happen.


And how would they do that? Tell black people they can't attend because there's a guy with a mental disability attending or tell mentally disabled people they can't attend because there's black people attending..


Or just not air it, keep it hidden fron the public..cause the event would still have happened in the auditorium, only difference would be Foxx and his ill informed mouth would be oblivious to the event.

A detail that keeps getting overlooked is Davidson saying there was an open mic near him for the entire show. If that’s true, then the BBC had several ways to manage the situation that didn’t involve removing people from the broadcast. They could have muted that mic, repositioned it, or adjusted the audio setup so that involuntary vocalisations weren’t picked up in the first place.

Given that, it’s hard to see omission as the only available response. The technical side of the production clearly wasn’t handled as well as it should have been, and that failure sits with the BBC and BAFTA, not with the individuals on stage.

[arista]

[that failure sits with the BBC and BAFTA]


Very true GiRTh

[Oliver_W]

What even was the mic, just one to pick up audience laughter, applause, etc?

[Parmy]

The film hits Netflix 10th march.

[Crimson Dynamo]

The BBC f++cked up with Bob anti-semite Vylan last year and they learned zero lessons here

They need defunded

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

The BBC f++cked up with Bob anti-semite Vylan last year and they learned zero lessons here

They need defunded

He was moaning...feeling vexed he said, so he can say that but I can't say free palastine...


I replied...he can say both.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

The BBC f++cked up with Bob anti-semite Vylan last year and they learned zero lessons here

They need defunded

They edited out one of the award winner's "Free Palestine" speech, so they've learned something.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

They edited out one of the award winner's "Free Palestine" speech, so they've learned something.

I guess

[Alf]

I can only praise the BBC this time for not editing it out.

Education over authorirarian censorship is more benificial for all of us.

[GoldHeart]

I recently watched a review video talking about the dating TV show ' Undateables', and an interesting point was made ... it's funny how all the participants looking for a date who had tourettes ,seem to all have the same type of tourettes - "coprolalia' , when in reality only a small percentage of people suffer from this condition. Channel 4 just like the BBC & The Baftas wanted to cause a big stir and exploit for ratings and a viral moment of course.

How coincidental the mic was so close to John Davidson .

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

The BBC f++cked up with Bob anti-semite Vylan last year and they learned zero lessons here

They need defunded

Agree.

I’ve said on here before that if the BBC operated like a subscription service — something I could just cancel with a click — I probably would have done it by now. Not out of spite, but because they’re simply not delivering what they’re meant to deliver. Other platforms are sharper, more responsive, and far more aware of the audiences they serve. Meanwhile, the BBC keeps acting like it’s still the only game in town.

The one thing I’ll still give them credit for is iPlayer. The tech works, the archive is deep, and the interface is better than most UK streaming apps. But one good product can’t carry an entire institution that keeps stumbling over the same issues.

[bots]

If people weren't forced to pay a licence fee, no-one would care what the BBC put out. They can't put content out, paid for by the general population, that doesn't match their expectations and thats an impossible requirement