Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Tourette’s/BAFTAs offensive language

1000 replies

Lochroy · 23/02/2026 16:37

I wasn’t watching, I’ve just read the article on BBC news. I will admit I know little of Tourette’s and therefore posting to understand.

The tics agree involuntary, and often use offensive language. But what I’m struggling to get my head around is excusing use of the N word because it was caused by the disability when it was (seemingly) only directed at black people?

Also presumably it’s learned vocab so children don’t have swear words as tics? How does this develop?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
notaurewhatusername · 23/02/2026 20:35

iwouldshagtomhardy · 23/02/2026 17:02

He also wore tartan trews because he knew he couldn't be trusted to wear a kilt.

Hmmm there we go. If it’s a disability not his fault then sick precautions wouldn’t be made would they. Flashing is offensive but the n word at two innocent actors isn’t,

TheEdenSide · 23/02/2026 20:35

callmeLoretta1 · 23/02/2026 20:24

Editing out a racial slur does not mean we are editing out the person.

Do you genuinely believe black people and African Americans at home should have to hear that?

I know this site has a reputation for racism, but this is really ridiculous. Common sense and a base level of human decency should tell a person that this should have been edited out because of the impact on people of colour.

Does MN have a reputation for racism?! Really?

JanBlues2026 · 23/02/2026 20:35

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

DotAndCarryOne2 · 23/02/2026 20:35

canklesmctacotits · 23/02/2026 20:32

You keep making this point, that not intending to do harm absolves a person of all responsibility for their actions, forcing the victim to not just deal with what they’ve been forced to handle but also take on the burden of compassion and understanding for their aggressor. This is what 8 and 9 year olds say: but it wasn’t my fault!!! I didn’t meaaaaaan it!!!

Adults are responsible for their actions, morally and under the law. That’s the only way to organize a society. Otherwise we can all go about maiming and harming and hurting and killing and raping and abusing and just say “I didn’t mean to!”.

With disabilities we all KNOW there’s no intent (most of the time). That’s just not the point. The point is apportioning responsibility for outcomes, because someone somewhere is paying a price. And responsibility always lies with the perpetrator (except in cases of duress where it additionally lies with the coercing person).

Do you understand this?

Nope. If there is no intent and the person in the firing line is capable of understanding that it’s the disability talking, not the person, what is the problem ? Comparing disabled people to children is pretty insulting.

TheEdenSide · 23/02/2026 20:36

Possiges · 23/02/2026 20:25

As I said above, if the person in the wheelchair ran over someone’s foot then YES THEY SHOULD APOLOGISE. If you hurt someone because of your disability, why should you be excused from being a decent person and apologising?

Explain your logic. I call bullshit on all of you.

But John isn’t physically harming anyone with his words. He is just living his life in public and they pop out. No he shouldn’t have to apologise because it’s not the same as running over someone’s foot

Possiges · 23/02/2026 20:36

TheEdenSide · 23/02/2026 20:32

JFC

Bumping into someone is not the same as a disabled person displaying a symptom. But if you bumped into me because you are disabled and bump into everyone, I wouldn’t make it about meeeeeee, I’d get the fuck over it because I’m not an ableist loser with the brain of computer mouse

And words can’t kill children. Stop comparing words with killing people, it’s just weird and makes you look very unhinged.

Should a wheelchair user apologise to everyone they pass for making the get out the way? Because that’s the correct analogy

YOU should be ashamed of yourself expecting disabled people to apologise for their disability

Oooooooohhh I see. So black people objecting to being called nigg*rs are - in YOUR OWN VERY WORDS - “losers” and “should get the fuck over it” and are people who are making it all about “meeeeee”.

Well, well, well. Look who has turned up and shown their true colours.

Catterbat · 23/02/2026 20:36

I think the people still arguing that John was in the wrong are probably the same people who argue on social media that a person suffering from psychosis who attacked someone was ‘playing the mental health card’ in court.

Some people really struggle to comprehend that personal responsibility isn’t always a reality.

DotAndCarryOne2 · 23/02/2026 20:37

Possiges · 23/02/2026 20:27

That is so very wrong. You apologise if you hurt someone. End of.

If I run you or your child over because I have a heart attack at the wheel of my car, would it be ok to tell you to fuck off wanting an apology or wanting me to feel bad because it wasn’t my fault I had a medical issue. You should get over your pain.

There’s a difference between apologising if you hurt someone and being continually forced to apologise because you have a disability which you have no control over.

callmeLoretta1 · 23/02/2026 20:37

TheEdenSide · 23/02/2026 20:25

Do you think he meant it?

I'm not sure. I'm really genuinely not sure. I'm not discounting the possibility though. I think this has created a loophole for a slur that would not be excused at any other time. It just seems very convenient.

Vivi0 · 23/02/2026 20:37

callmeLoretta1 · 23/02/2026 20:29

Yelling out the N word black people IS racism. It does not matter what the intent is, the impact is still the same. As a black person on X said: "the meaning of what was said matters. intent doesn’t outweigh impact. a racial slur is a serious thing even if said unintentionally. the facts of the matter are that this happened not once, but 3 times that night, all directed at black people. people are allowed to be upset"

intent doesn’t outweigh impact

Most people understand that the impact of this disability on John is far greater and outweighs the impact on anyone else.

AshHeart · 23/02/2026 20:37

I first watched John in a TV series from around the 1980s when I'd never heard of Tourettes. I was shocked that such a condition existed.

John has had a very difficult life and coped remarkably well. I remember when he was older he had a dog and would tell the dog it was safe to cross the road when it clearly wasn't. The dog was more understanding than some people in the comments.

Possiges · 23/02/2026 20:37

TheEdenSide · 23/02/2026 20:36

But John isn’t physically harming anyone with his words. He is just living his life in public and they pop out. No he shouldn’t have to apologise because it’s not the same as running over someone’s foot

Being called a nigg*r is harmful. Only a racist wouldn’t understand that.

SpaceRaccoon · 23/02/2026 20:38

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

I know you mean well, but... fucking hell.

Tiswa · 23/02/2026 20:38

This is a complete failure of the BBC and BAFTA - they should have clearly briefed and
explained to Michael B Jordan and Delroy Lindo that it could very well happen so they could be prepared
then they should also have been on the look out for it occurring and acted accordingly in terms of removing it online

the failure to do so has pretty much thrown everyone under the bus

Vivi0 · 23/02/2026 20:38

callmeLoretta1 · 23/02/2026 20:37

I'm not sure. I'm really genuinely not sure. I'm not discounting the possibility though. I think this has created a loophole for a slur that would not be excused at any other time. It just seems very convenient.

You’re not sure if he meant it?

He has Tourette’s! Educate yourself.

TheEdenSide · 23/02/2026 20:38

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 23/02/2026 20:27

Perhaps we disabled folk should wear badges or get tattoos that says "may act out of the ordinary, sorry for any inconvenience" or carry a big banner with us when we leave our houses.

I know I mean heaven forbid you <gasp> cause offence! Because being offended is surely the worst thing that can happen to a person 🙄

There are countries not too far away from us that shut disabled people, including children away. It’s utterly horrifying that may people including on this thread want us to be the same.

But as I said on the other thread, I think if we are gonna lock anyone away, it should be the ableist and bigots

IceOnTheLake · 23/02/2026 20:38

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Oh that's a good idea, we could make him wear a scold's bridle.

Jesus Christ.

Livelovebehappy · 23/02/2026 20:39

Possiges · 23/02/2026 20:25

As I said above, if the person in the wheelchair ran over someone’s foot then YES THEY SHOULD APOLOGISE. If you hurt someone because of your disability, why should you be excused from being a decent person and apologising?

Explain your logic. I call bullshit on all of you.

Different situation though. The person in a wheel chair has probably rarely run over someone’s foot. Someone with Tourette’s will shout out something offensive multiple times a day. Should they spend their entire day apologising for something they can’t control? Someone in a wheelchair can control themselves not running over someone’s foot again. Someone with Tourette’s can’t control not being offensive again. There lies the difference.

DotAndCarryOne2 · 23/02/2026 20:39

Possiges · 23/02/2026 20:36

Oooooooohhh I see. So black people objecting to being called nigg*rs are - in YOUR OWN VERY WORDS - “losers” and “should get the fuck over it” and are people who are making it all about “meeeeee”.

Well, well, well. Look who has turned up and shown their true colours.

Nope. Not what the poster was saying at all. This is about intent. And there was none. So why do you think a disabled person should be made to apologise for something over which they have no control ?

callmeLoretta1 · 23/02/2026 20:39

Vivi0 · 23/02/2026 20:37

intent doesn’t outweigh impact

Most people understand that the impact of this disability on John is far greater and outweighs the impact on anyone else.

Ah, I see. A race that had segregated water fountains, schools, that were literally hanged on trees all while called the 'n' word no longer matters the moment the person who uses that slur has Tourettes. All rather convenient isn't it how little black people and our struggle and traumas and even lynchings matter, the moment someone has tourettes. I can guarantee you that our lived experience and the impact of that is far, far greater.

beAsensible1 · 23/02/2026 20:39

RedToothBrush · 23/02/2026 19:15

Put yourself in these two men's places. They gone to a awards ceremony got shed loads of exposure and publicity from this incident which they otherwise would not have got and have helped inadvertently to raise awareness about Tourettes at the same time. Win win.

do you think micheal b jordan needs bloody exposure? the film they're both in is up for an oscar as well as them both having individual noms as well.

amazingly enough black people dont want "exposure" from being called a slur.

TheEdenSide · 23/02/2026 20:39

callmeLoretta1 · 23/02/2026 20:27

He yelled out the N slur on three separate occasions throughout the night. One was prior to the ceremony. It was not a once off.

If one is mortified and doesn't mean to harm, then the decent thing is to apologise. Why do you believe a person with Tourettes should be exempt from that? No, he might not mean harm, but it's good to teach people to apologise when they do cause harm.

He’s a campaigner who specifically tells other people with Tourette’s that it’s important they don’t perpetually apologise for being disabled. And he’s right.

He did nothing wrong. Why should he apologise?

DotAndCarryOne2 · 23/02/2026 20:40

Possiges · 23/02/2026 20:37

Being called a nigg*r is harmful. Only a racist wouldn’t understand that.

Nobody is saying it isn’t. It’s about intent. And if there is no intent by reason of disability there is no cause for offence.

Nevermind17 · 23/02/2026 20:40

Possiges · 23/02/2026 20:34

Good lord. Is that really your logic? You really think that’s a satisfactory answer that explains why that man cannot apologise afterwards? Running over someone’s foot is no different. It’s an involuntary action (assuming not done deliberately). So is running someone over if you pass out at the wheel. So why should “that” man be excused from apologising. He caused harm. That warrants an apology.

Why the fuck would someone who had a heart attack at the wheel be expected to apologise for it? He didn’t ‘cause harm’. It would be completely out of his control. It’s like expecting someone to apologise for a tsunami or earthquake. Shit things happen, and often nobody is responsible.

SpaceRaccoon · 23/02/2026 20:40

callmeLoretta1 · 23/02/2026 20:37

I'm not sure. I'm really genuinely not sure. I'm not discounting the possibility though. I think this has created a loophole for a slur that would not be excused at any other time. It just seems very convenient.

The first documentary about this man was from the 1980s when he's sixteen years old. His life is already hard, he's struggling, he tries so had not to tic he holds his own lip shut:

s

He's now in his 50s - he's appeared on several more documentaries, received an MBE from the Queen for his campaigning, lived a very challenging and difficult life as fully and meaningfully as possible - and you think he's done this to create a loophole to be a racist? Seriously??

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=201s&v=wxfJDpd3XcY

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.