Bafta awards controversy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a PP but also Black. Maybe, the only one on this thread. I can't speak for all Black Americans or individuals but I don't fault John Davidson for his condition. He can't control his Tourettes, he shouldn't have to live as a shut-in, and he should absolutely be allowed to attend a major awards show that's potentially honoring a film about his life. I also think he should publicly apologize to the targets of his outburst in the same way most decent people will apologize for accidentally stepping on someone else's foot. Unintentional, sure but the person still has a hurt foot or dirty shoes.

The fault of this is 100% with BAFTA and the BBC. BAFTA should have better prepared the presenters and crowd for potentially offensive outbursts... not just "potential disruptions." There should have been more context provided so people weren't caught off guard and could maybe even respond in a way that would defuse any controversy.

Worse is the decision to not edit the outburst. That's inexcusable and there should be significant blowback. I don't know how Europe's equivalent of an FCC operates, but the BBC should be fined significantly and, if Black performers boycott the BAFTA's moving forward, that should be understandable. The fact that "poltical" statements were censored, but the outburst was allowed to remain in the broadcast seems intentional and there's very little explanation that would make me feel otherwise.

You can control your foot. He can't control Copralalia. So he can apologize but he could have many more outbursts for things he has just apologized for. Apologizing makes sense if you have control. If you have a muscular condition and can't control your foot due to muscle contractions and spasms so you step on my foot - apologize, then step on my foot again, apologize, step on my foot again, apologize, step on my foot again, apologize...what is the point and where does it end?

Lets start with him actually apologizing and then we can discuss where it might end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He had no intent so what is he apologizing for - the inconvenience of his disability?

If a blind man bumps into someone who loses their balance, is it physical assault? Should he be hit in turn and arrested for his physical violence?

There are quitea few conditions, including severe ASD where people have vocalizations that are uncontolled and involutary. That is the nature of the condition. Can it be bothersome - yes but that is what diversity is - accepting inclusion of people who are diverse and different from you.

You can't be against John Davidson but for Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion. You are either for both or against both.

Impact matters over intent. It’s amazing that you can’t understand if you do something without intending to, you still apologize for causing harm.

Some people would be on a 24/7 apology tour - especially parents of kids with significant autism whose behaviours can impact continuously. Basically you feel they need to apologize for existing and for having a disability. I had a client with a muscle disorder whose spasms meant I got hit / kicked often. I definitely didn't need an apology letter every time that demonstrated she truly understands the impact of her actions on me. This outburst isn't about intent even as it is uncontrolled and involuntary. Intent is usually related to someone not having the knowledge or understanding. People don't choose to have a disability. You have no idea likely how he modifies his day and his life continously - and the humiliation and pain he deals with daily with this disorder so your view that he should be hung in the town square because the disability / intent / controllability aren't relevant - shows you need to watch his movie more than anyone.

You missed the point. It’s not about his intent but the IMPACT of what he said. His disability isn’t an excuse to not apologizing for the harm he caused.

He didn't cause harm.

He didn't *intend* to cause harm. However, we now believe words cause physical harm and intent no longer matters. Outcomes are all that is important.

So how do we hold those with dementia responsible for the harm they cause? How do we hold those with severe autism responsible for the harm they cause?

Posters on this board want to pull the plug on "drains" to society. So, yeah, they are advocating to hold them responsible for financial harm and burden on the medical system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He had no intent so what is he apologizing for - the inconvenience of his disability?

If a blind man bumps into someone who loses their balance, is it physical assault? Should he be hit in turn and arrested for his physical violence?

There are quitea few conditions, including severe ASD where people have vocalizations that are uncontolled and involutary. That is the nature of the condition. Can it be bothersome - yes but that is what diversity is - accepting inclusion of people who are diverse and different from you.

You can't be against John Davidson but for Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion. You are either for both or against both.

Impact matters over intent. It’s amazing that you can’t understand if you do something without intending to, you still apologize for causing harm.

Some people would be on a 24/7 apology tour - especially parents of kids with significant autism whose behaviours can impact continuously. Basically you feel they need to apologize for existing and for having a disability. I had a client with a muscle disorder whose spasms meant I got hit / kicked often. I definitely didn't need an apology letter every time that demonstrated she truly understands the impact of her actions on me. This outburst isn't about intent even as it is uncontrolled and involuntary. Intent is usually related to someone not having the knowledge or understanding. People don't choose to have a disability. You have no idea likely how he modifies his day and his life continously - and the humiliation and pain he deals with daily with this disorder so your view that he should be hung in the town square because the disability / intent / controllability aren't relevant - shows you need to watch his movie more than anyone.

You missed the point. It’s not about his intent but the IMPACT of what he said. His disability isn’t an excuse to not apologizing for the harm he caused.

He didn't cause harm.

He didn't *intend* to cause harm. However, we now believe words cause physical harm and intent no longer matters. Outcomes are all that is important.

Intent DOES matter. Of course, it does.

Also, response to impact can be a choice too. When the blind person bumps into you, you can understand and move on, or push them back, or call the police and file battery charges. When the child with cerebral palsy spills their drink and it drips on your shoe, you can wipe off your shoe, or scream and cause a public scene, or smack the kid in anger. You moderate yoru response precisely becasue intent adn ability to control behavior does matter.

It's a horrific word that no one wants to hear and it is triggering, and yet when you choose to understand how it came to be utterred, you can choose how to respond: with empathy, or by humiliating the individual with a disability, or by running them through with your anger. You do have a choice in this, whereas, he dd not.

Since the advent of the twitter verse, the only thing that matters is how does it make you feel. Context and intent are irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He had no intent so what is he apologizing for - the inconvenience of his disability?

If a blind man bumps into someone who loses their balance, is it physical assault? Should he be hit in turn and arrested for his physical violence?

There are quitea few conditions, including severe ASD where people have vocalizations that are uncontolled and involutary. That is the nature of the condition. Can it be bothersome - yes but that is what diversity is - accepting inclusion of people who are diverse and different from you.

You can't be against John Davidson but for Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion. You are either for both or against both.

Impact matters over intent. It’s amazing that you can’t understand if you do something without intending to, you still apologize for causing harm.

Some people would be on a 24/7 apology tour - especially parents of kids with significant autism whose behaviours can impact continuously. Basically you feel they need to apologize for existing and for having a disability. I had a client with a muscle disorder whose spasms meant I got hit / kicked often. I definitely didn't need an apology letter every time that demonstrated she truly understands the impact of her actions on me. This outburst isn't about intent even as it is uncontrolled and involuntary. Intent is usually related to someone not having the knowledge or understanding. People don't choose to have a disability. You have no idea likely how he modifies his day and his life continously - and the humiliation and pain he deals with daily with this disorder so your view that he should be hung in the town square because the disability / intent / controllability aren't relevant - shows you need to watch his movie more than anyone.

You missed the point. It’s not about his intent but the IMPACT of what he said. His disability isn’t an excuse to not apologizing for the harm he caused.

He didn't cause harm.

He didn't *intend* to cause harm. However, we now believe words cause physical harm and intent no longer matters. Outcomes are all that is important.

So how do we hold those with dementia responsible for the harm they cause? How do we hold those with severe autism responsible for the harm they cause?

Posters on this board want to pull the plug on "drains" to society. So, yeah, they are advocating to hold them responsible for financial harm and burden on the medical system.

Canada is already granting euthanasia to autistic people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you want to be angry or do you want to learn? Many posters here have offer credible, research-based explanations of what Davidson did, that entirely fit with the characteristics of Tourette's. Yet so many refuse to consider that their own (layperson's) opinion is not reality. It's astounding sometimes the effort it must take to remain ignorant.

Again, I strongly encourage every doubter on this thread to give the movie a watch. It is a fantastic film regardless, and it's ridiculous that it was snubbed so by the Oscars.

Met any anti-vaxxers??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He had no intent so what is he apologizing for - the inconvenience of his disability?

If a blind man bumps into someone who loses their balance, is it physical assault? Should he be hit in turn and arrested for his physical violence?

There are quitea few conditions, including severe ASD where people have vocalizations that are uncontolled and involutary. That is the nature of the condition. Can it be bothersome - yes but that is what diversity is - accepting inclusion of people who are diverse and different from you.

You can't be against John Davidson but for Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion. You are either for both or against both.

Impact matters over intent. It’s amazing that you can’t understand if you do something without intending to, you still apologize for causing harm.

Some people would be on a 24/7 apology tour - especially parents of kids with significant autism whose behaviours can impact continuously. Basically you feel they need to apologize for existing and for having a disability. I had a client with a muscle disorder whose spasms meant I got hit / kicked often. I definitely didn't need an apology letter every time that demonstrated she truly understands the impact of her actions on me. This outburst isn't about intent even as it is uncontrolled and involuntary. Intent is usually related to someone not having the knowledge or understanding. People don't choose to have a disability. You have no idea likely how he modifies his day and his life continously - and the humiliation and pain he deals with daily with this disorder so your view that he should be hung in the town square because the disability / intent / controllability aren't relevant - shows you need to watch his movie more than anyone.

You missed the point. It’s not about his intent but the IMPACT of what he said. His disability isn’t an excuse to not apologizing for the harm he caused.

He didn't cause harm.

He didn't *intend* to cause harm. However, we now believe words cause physical harm and intent no longer matters. Outcomes are all that is important.

How do words cause physical harm?

Ask modern science. I am just reporting the conclusions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the word even prominent or even used in Scotland?
How does this guy know it?

Maybe he's heard rap music.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the word even prominent or even used in Scotland?
How does this guy know it?

Come on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He had no intent so what is he apologizing for - the inconvenience of his disability?

If a blind man bumps into someone who loses their balance, is it physical assault? Should he be hit in turn and arrested for his physical violence?

There are quitea few conditions, including severe ASD where people have vocalizations that are uncontolled and involutary. That is the nature of the condition. Can it be bothersome - yes but that is what diversity is - accepting inclusion of people who are diverse and different from you.

You can't be against John Davidson but for Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion. You are either for both or against both.

Impact matters over intent. It’s amazing that you can’t understand if you do something without intending to, you still apologize for causing harm.

Some people would be on a 24/7 apology tour - especially parents of kids with significant autism whose behaviours can impact continuously. Basically you feel they need to apologize for existing and for having a disability. I had a client with a muscle disorder whose spasms meant I got hit / kicked often. I definitely didn't need an apology letter every time that demonstrated she truly understands the impact of her actions on me. This outburst isn't about intent even as it is uncontrolled and involuntary. Intent is usually related to someone not having the knowledge or understanding. People don't choose to have a disability. You have no idea likely how he modifies his day and his life continously - and the humiliation and pain he deals with daily with this disorder so your view that he should be hung in the town square because the disability / intent / controllability aren't relevant - shows you need to watch his movie more than anyone.

You missed the point. It’s not about his intent but the IMPACT of what he said. His disability isn’t an excuse to not apologizing for the harm he caused.

He didn't cause harm.

Are you just trolling or do you really believe that?

I believe that. If my infant throws up on my nice sweater just as I am about to leave for work - I do not feel the infant caused me harm and that they need to take responsibility or the impact of their actions. I do in fact consider that it was involuntary, uncontrolled and there was zero intent to soil my clothes as it is simply part of being an infant. How would you want me to hold my infant accountable and responsible for the harm they caused and the impact on me and my day?

I don't see my infant as harming me nor do I see copralalia as harming me. When things are involuntary and uncontrollable and due to factors outside the control of the person - I see them as such.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He had no intent so what is he apologizing for - the inconvenience of his disability?

If a blind man bumps into someone who loses their balance, is it physical assault? Should he be hit in turn and arrested for his physical violence?

There are quitea few conditions, including severe ASD where people have vocalizations that are uncontolled and involutary. That is the nature of the condition. Can it be bothersome - yes but that is what diversity is - accepting inclusion of people who are diverse and different from you.

You can't be against John Davidson but for Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion. You are either for both or against both.

Impact matters over intent. It’s amazing that you can’t understand if you do something without intending to, you still apologize for causing harm.

Some people would be on a 24/7 apology tour - especially parents of kids with significant autism whose behaviours can impact continuously. Basically you feel they need to apologize for existing and for having a disability. I had a client with a muscle disorder whose spasms meant I got hit / kicked often. I definitely didn't need an apology letter every time that demonstrated she truly understands the impact of her actions on me. This outburst isn't about intent even as it is uncontrolled and involuntary. Intent is usually related to someone not having the knowledge or understanding. People don't choose to have a disability. You have no idea likely how he modifies his day and his life continously - and the humiliation and pain he deals with daily with this disorder so your view that he should be hung in the town square because the disability / intent / controllability aren't relevant - shows you need to watch his movie more than anyone.

You missed the point. It’s not about his intent but the IMPACT of what he said. His disability isn’t an excuse to not apologizing for the harm he caused.

He didn't cause harm.

Are you just trolling or do you really believe that?

I believe that. If my infant throws up on my nice sweater just as I am about to leave for work - I do not feel the infant caused me harm and that they need to take responsibility or the impact of their actions. I do in fact consider that it was involuntary, uncontrolled and there was zero intent to soil my clothes as it is simply part of being an infant. How would you want me to hold my infant accountable and responsible for the harm they caused and the impact on me and my day?

I don't see my infant as harming me nor do I see copralalia as harming me. When things are involuntary and uncontrollable and due to factors outside the control of the person - I see them as such.

You can’t see how? Say this was a Holocaust event and someone shouts “Hitler should have finished the job!” You won’t feel bad because it was unintentional?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have confidence that the two actors involved are able to comprehend disability and uncontrolled / involuntary actions and that they would no more go after him about harm he caused them than they would go after a blind man who bumped into them or an adult with austim whose vocalizations interrupted an interview etc.

Although some on here can't understand that concept, I would like to think that those involved can.

It seems BAFTA did tell the audience in advance that he was in attendance and that there could be vocalizations without warning.

“Prior to the start of the ceremony, floor managers warned guests and attendees sitting around Davidson of his condition, without specifying what kinds of outbursts they might hear. According to multiple sources, none of the nominees or attendees were contacted by BAFTA or BBC ahead of the show with any such warnings.”

https://variety.com/2026/film/awards/bafta-aired-n-word-michael-b-jordan-delroy-lindo-owed-apology-1236669999/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He had no intent so what is he apologizing for - the inconvenience of his disability?

If a blind man bumps into someone who loses their balance, is it physical assault? Should he be hit in turn and arrested for his physical violence?

There are quitea few conditions, including severe ASD where people have vocalizations that are uncontolled and involutary. That is the nature of the condition. Can it be bothersome - yes but that is what diversity is - accepting inclusion of people who are diverse and different from you.

You can't be against John Davidson but for Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion. You are either for both or against both.

Impact matters over intent. It’s amazing that you can’t understand if you do something without intending to, you still apologize for causing harm.

Some people would be on a 24/7 apology tour - especially parents of kids with significant autism whose behaviours can impact continuously. Basically you feel they need to apologize for existing and for having a disability. I had a client with a muscle disorder whose spasms meant I got hit / kicked often. I definitely didn't need an apology letter every time that demonstrated she truly understands the impact of her actions on me. This outburst isn't about intent even as it is uncontrolled and involuntary. Intent is usually related to someone not having the knowledge or understanding. People don't choose to have a disability. You have no idea likely how he modifies his day and his life continously - and the humiliation and pain he deals with daily with this disorder so your view that he should be hung in the town square because the disability / intent / controllability aren't relevant - shows you need to watch his movie more than anyone.

You missed the point. It’s not about his intent but the IMPACT of what he said. His disability isn’t an excuse to not apologizing for the harm he caused.

He didn't cause harm.

Are you just trolling or do you really believe that?

I believe that. If my infant throws up on my nice sweater just as I am about to leave for work - I do not feel the infant caused me harm and that they need to take responsibility or the impact of their actions. I do in fact consider that it was involuntary, uncontrolled and there was zero intent to soil my clothes as it is simply part of being an infant. How would you want me to hold my infant accountable and responsible for the harm they caused and the impact on me and my day?

I don't see my infant as harming me nor do I see copralalia as harming me. When things are involuntary and uncontrollable and due to factors outside the control of the person - I see them as such.

If a narcoleptic or someone with a seizure disorder drives and causes an accident, should they be held responsible? If highly functioning autistic man makes gross sexual comments to a female coworker, should that just be ok?

There are numerous scenarios where a disability doesn't completely excuse actions and that's okay.

That's not even to mention how infantilizing a disabled person is offensive to them and you've quite literally infantilized Davidson.

[Anonymous]

Why no public statement from BAFTA’s president (Prince William)!? 🤦‍♀️

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have confidence that the two actors involved are able to comprehend disability and uncontrolled / involuntary actions and that they would no more go after him about harm he caused them than they would go after a blind man who bumped into them or an adult with austim whose vocalizations interrupted an interview etc.

Although some on here can't understand that concept, I would like to think that those involved can.

It seems BAFTA did tell the audience in advance that he was in attendance and that there could be vocalizations without warning.

“Prior to the start of the ceremony, floor managers warned guests and attendees sitting around Davidson of his condition, without specifying what kinds of outbursts they might hear. According to multiple sources, none of the nominees or attendees were contacted by BAFTA or BBC ahead of the show with any such warnings.”

https://variety.com/2026/film/awards/bafta-aired-n-word-michael-b-jordan-delroy-lindo-owed-apology-1236669999/

BAFTA is the one who should apologize and BBC for airing it without context.

[Anonymous]

I think Prince William is rather busy dealing with his Uncle Andrew right now.