John Davison BAFTA Tourette’s incident and competing rights

I don’t misunderstand what you’ve said. I’m going by your actions, which are to keep doubling down on targeting the least powerful person and the person with the least ability to change. You started well; attacking the powerful. Now you are targeting the weakest person in this scenario.

I’m going to quote your words back at you with one change and then that’s it.

”If MBJ and DL were decent people they’d have empathy and look to address it directly in this extreme circumstance. We’d also expect JD to reciprocate that empathy, but it should be mutual…”

Is that wrong to say? Yes, because they didn’t create this situation. None of them did.

Were you wrong to insist JD isn’t a decent person and has no empathy if he doesn’t address them personally? Yes.

Because he did not create his disability. He had no power over what he said. Comparing it to a one off incident with a car simply shows that you have no understanding of a life long condition where this incident is, quite simply, Tuesday.

MBJ and DL were the ones on stage, on TV in front of millions so they absolutely were the ones who should’ve been acknowledged.

How hard is it to say ‘I wish MBJ and DL, along with other POC in the room and the wider audience did not have to experience hearing that word on a night of celebration’?

They were winding you up (I glossed over it as it was getting boring) but I’m failing to see where the blatant racism was. Happy for you to provide examples and for me to be corrected.

But if you have an “own condition” and understood coprolalia properly as a condition, then you’d know that there’s nothing to be triggered by.

Clearly you don't understand how 'being triggered' works, as it's not something a person can control. You'd think you'd understand that, as Tourette's works the same way...but apparently not.

But if you have an “own condition” and understood coprolalia properly as a condition, then you’d know that there’s nothing to be triggered by.

Black people know perfectly well they aren’t going to be triggered by Dave Chappelle’s frequent use of the word in his Netflix comedy specials, because they understand that it’s Dave Chappelle. So equally, if they understood John Davison’s condition properly then they know it’s just like Chappelle using it, a word that comes out without the intention of harm.

Yes. It’s clear from this thread that people don’t understand the condition. I don’t think “John will be here. He has TS. He may say something offensive” would be enough. I think there probably needed to be explicit explanations of what may be said. People may expect “fuck” but not the N word.

Or, you know, someone could make a film to explain it.

We really fucking do, but not for the same reasons as you think.

It’s not an accurate analogy at all. What has trans women got to with anything? If it were a meeting advertised for women to discuss their experiences of sexual assault and a trans woman was attending, I’d argue women should have the right to know a man would be attending. Pre Supreme Court obvs
and luckily wouldn’t happen now. No reasonable
adjustments have to be made for men to be in women’s spaces so yeah, irrelevant.

It would be if it were ‘a white person known to have racist tendencies is going to be there. You might get abused (intent). Come or don’t’.

John has a disability. This. Is. Not. The. Same.

I honestly despair for people’s comprehension skills.

The only condition in the world is Tourette's, it seems.

Nope. Your comments are illogical and offensive and as always in those kind of scenarios, once the poster gets themselves tangled up, they try to deflect to other scenarios. It's a specific scenario and you are incorrect in the way you approach it, as repeatedly explained. A reasonable person should never prioritise 'feelings' of an able-bodied and minded person over the person with a disability. You have some education about Tourette's to do, as well as about the fact the world doesn't revolve around those two actors, or around you.

Imagine waking up and typing three whole paragraphs about saying sorry when the person you’re quoting has explicitly stated multiple times that an apology is not required. This thread has shown we have a serious issue with reading comprehension in this country, open the schools 😅

So wheel out the disabled person to "celebrate" him then put him somewhere away from the nice people cos we don't accept him??

There’s a lot the thread has demonstrated. Not least the tendency for people to want to ‘take a side’, show how ‘their side’ is absolutely the worst off, and then dismiss everything that challenges their position.

(Not everybody, obviously).

I was wondering if John had used this term before in a tic. Could his team have contacted BAFTA & BBC production units beforehand to prevent the distress on both sides? I.e adequate sound production/ editing facilities in the ‘van outside’ and as pp said a while ago why have mics on the audience. Obviously this is wise after the event but there will have been weeks of preparation for this programme.

But, He only calls black people the n word. Not white people. That shows some level of consciousness there. Even if he cannot help it.

But that’s not true. It’s like his brain says, in the blink of an eye “oh God, the worst word these people could hear is N**r, mustn’t say-“ then his brain tics and he says it.

Think of it like trying to not think of a pink elephant but your brain can’t help but shout “PINK ELEPHANT” while you’re trying not to think of it.

Offensive language does hurt and can cause extreme distress.

At present many are censored from voicing their views calmly respectfully with regard to a wide range of issues, some of the language used wasn't just minor it was deeply offensive and are at the most extreme end of the spectrum. I understand that this was a ceremony where a film about someone's life was being honoured but I believe that actions - maybe an operate room etc should have been used. I think that as much for JD as others as he is clearly extremely upset by his actions, what we shouldn't do in my view is normalise those actions even though they are due to his disablity as we would be accepting that language as ok in certain situations.

So someone who may know that they might be triggered by it due to their own conditions, shouldn't be allowed to protect themselves?

The only condition in the world is Tourette's, it seems.

You don’t seem to understand the condition at all. It’s been explained over and over again. TS causes the sufferer to use the most offensive terms in the specific circumstances. The N word is the most offensive term in the presence of people of colour. The only thing it demonstrates ‘consciousness’ of (and I don’t think that is quite the right term for an involuntary tic) is the words offensiveness. Most people are aware of the word (otherwise the use of the term ‘the N word’ wouldn’t be understood) and are aware of its offensiveness.

I guess we had better make sure not to tell women that someone is a transwoman ahead of time, lest it prejudice them too. (Not an exact analogy, but close enough).

Somehow I doubt that would be accepted on FWR, but not forewarning black people and other people of colour that racial insults may be said is prejudicial and wrong.

Oh wow, way to show you don't understand the history of oppression that goes with the n word. Swearing at someone is not even remotely anywhere near a ballpark as serious as using the n word. Saying 'fuck' is not REMOTELY the same as calling a black person an 'n'.

I can't believe the racist ignorance on this thread.

Using the 'n' word is the SAME as swearing at someone? Wtf? Is this level level of ignorance black people have to face? In 2026?

This thread has been eye opening to see how little people understand about the condition.

For me too, I thought the condition was well know, I've been stunned to see how wrong I was.

I haven't been surprised by the lack of compassion and tolerance from the New Left though, they're all month and no trouser when it comes to practicing what they preach at the rest of us.

This is insane.

I've used myself, and my very real trauma as an example, and I'm being called self-centred and 'making something about me' for explaining that kind of interaction would probably cause a trauma response for me in that situation, on the feminist section. It's actually a little upsetting.

It's nice to know that no other condition, trauma, or personal boundary matters, except that of the man with Tourette's.

People are wrong for feeling upset, people are prejudiced if they want to stay away and shouldn't be informed they may be racially abused, the N word isn't that big a deal, the two black men probably use the N word so shouldn't be upset, that it's impossible to cause offence due to a disability, and so on.

There's absolutely no nuance at all.

That’s not what the poster said. Reasonable adjustments have to be made, excluding John, sending him off to another room wouldn’t be reasonable.

You could argue letting ALL the actors know in advance (which I think they did?) know that there’s a Tourette’s sufferer in the audience, explain what tics are, you might hear involuntary offensive language which have no malice intent etc etc and they can make their own mind up whether to attend or not.

Going up to any black actor in advance and saying ‘one of John’s tics sometimes presents as the N word’, could be a reasonable adjustment as a forewarning for all the obvious reasons, or it could be prejudicing John from the outset because of
his disability, to be labelled a potential racist etc and the reason for them not to attending, if this is what they decided to do in this situation. It’s clear very little understand tics.

Do you not see? Do we go up to anyone else and say ‘oh this person has a disability that might make you feel uncomfortable so it’s ok if you decide not to attend’. No, absolutely not.

I’m also failing to see all this racism. I asked the previous poster who is displaying their own appalling racism on their own thread and no examples were forthcoming.