John Davidson, Tourette Syndrome campaigner, blurts out the N-word to Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo during the BAFTA awards, 22 February 2026

[HmmMysterious]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2025725410026443091

https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/22/entertainment/baftas-2026-tourettes-racist-slur

 

[Baciagalupo]

They will scream the biggest taboo. It's a sad situation for everyone.

 

[MelmothTheLost]

My partner is a voting member of the British Film Designers' Guild and therefore votes on the BAFTAs. His view is that, while what happened was regrettable, John Davidson cannot and should not be held responsible for what came out of his mouth since he has absolutely no control over his tics. To suggest that he was responsible for what he said and that he should be held accountable for it is itself crass ignorance of John's disability. The situation was even more "off" since the film about John and his disability was featured during the evening and it was known that he would be present and that there was accordingly a possibility that he would uncontrollably say something which someone would find offensive. In effect, the BBC failed to provide reasonable accommodation for John's disability by not anticipating that something of this nature was likely to occur.

Where my partner lays blame it is with the sound engineers who failed to ensure that microphones were kept well away from John and with the BBC for not ensuring effective editing of the sound from the event.

 

[Strangeworld]

My partner is a voting member of the British Film Designers' Guild and therefore votes on the BAFTAs. His view is that, while what happened was regrettable, John Davidson cannot and should not be held responsible for what came out of his mouth since he has absolutely no control over his tics. To suggest that he was responsible for what he said and that he should be held accountable for it is itself crass ignorance of John's disability. The situation was even more "off" since the film about John and his disability was featured during the evening and it was known that he would be present and that there was accordingly a possibility that he would uncontrollably say something which someone would find offensive. In effect, the BBC failed to provide reasonable accommodation for John's disability by not anticipating that something of this nature was likely to occur.

Where my partner lays blame it is with the sound engineers who failed to ensure that microphones were kept well away from John and with the BBC for not ensuring effective editing of the sound from the event.

Not intended to be aimed at you specifically, but what you are describing is discrimination of John. Nothing about his behaviours related to his disability are 'regrettable'. He is just been John and his tics are involuntary. I even find it hard to read in articles that he felt he should remove himself or that he thought any outburts related to his tics should be edited out. Why should he feel compelled to say this? There was a time (and probably for some people out there still exists) a very overt discrimination of people with physical or mental disabilities to the point that they were hidden away from society.

He shouldn't be silenced to accomodate people's potential uncomfortableness with his tics. Why should he be restricted from accessing a microphone? Why should his voice be deleted?

Yes, sometimes people's uncomfortableness can be attributed to people with disabilities, but honestly, that is on them, and not on the person with the disability

 

[MelmothTheLost]

Not intended to be aimed at you specifically, but what you are describing is discrimination of John. He shouldn't be silenced to accomodate people's potential uncomfortableness with his tics. Why should he be restricted from accessing a microphone? Why should his voice be deleted?

I gather from my partner that John himself expected microphones to be kept away from him for precisely the reasons that transpired and that he was comfortable with the arrangements he thought had been put in place.

I wonder whether the N-word was the only slur which could have elicited the reaction it did. Would he have been criticised as vehemently or in the same way if he had blurted out the F-word instead (F-t rather than F-k)?

 

[Strangeworld]

I gather from my partner that John himself expected microphones to be kept away from him for precisely the reasons that transpired and that he was comfortable with the arrangements he thought had been put in place.

I wonder whether the N-word was the only slur which could have elicited the reaction it did. Would he have been criticised as vehemently or in the same way if he had blurted out the F-word instead (F-t rather than F-k)?

I do get what you are saying, but society is often the reason people with disabilities will accommodate the perceived needs of others. They shouldn't have to. Having worked closely with people with disabilities, there have been many occasions where I've seen them stop interacting in social situations because of the reactions of others.

I can think of many celebrities that maybe should be censored before someone with tourettes (joking but not lol)

 

[sds71]

The disability activist who yelled the N-word during the BAFTAs ceremony on Sunday says that the BBC edited out a homophobic slur he screamed at host Alan Cumming during the ceremony.

Disability Activist Says BBC Cut Homophobic Slur He Yelled at Alan Cumming During BAFTAs

In an interview, John Davidson says he has been “upset and distraught” over the events of the ceremony.

www.them.us

 

[tlcya]

I just don't really see how this is a story. This man, who has tourette syndrome, did what individuals who have tourette syndrome do. And people are acting shocked and offended. What am I missing?

 

[joe jones]

I gather from my partner that John himself expected microphones to be kept away from him for precisely the reasons that transpired and that he was comfortable with the arrangements he thought had been put in place.

I wonder whether the N-word was the only slur which could have elicited the reaction it did. Would he have been criticised as vehemently or in the same way if he had blurted out the F-word instead (F-t rather than F-k)?

he did say other things, such as paedo and called the gay host the f word, he is nothing if not an equal opportunity tikker, nothing he ticks has any meaning, it is an involuntary action over which he has no control, he swore often and loudly, that is the nature of his condition,

 

[Skigh]

The disability activist who yelled the N-word during the BAFTAs ceremony on Sunday says that the BBC edited out a homophobic slur he screamed at host Alan Cumming during the ceremony.

Disability Activist Says BBC Cut Homophobic Slur He Yelled at Alan Cumming During BAFTAs

In an interview, John Davidson says he has been “upset and distraught” over the events of the ceremony.

www.them.us

The BBC had plenty of time to edit out the N word so it seems for some reason they wanted the controversy they knew it would cause by broadcasting it.
The BBC are a disgrace these days.

 

[MelmothTheLost]

I just don't really see how this is a story. This man, who has tourette syndrome, did what individuals who have tourette syndrome do. And people are acting shocked and offended. What am I missing?

I agree. It's like someone getting angry because a person with cerebral palsy accidentally kicked them.

 

[MelmothTheLost]

he did say other things, such as paedo and called the gay host the f word, he is nothing if not an equal opportunity tikker, nothing he ticks has any meaning, it is an involuntary action over which he has no control, he swore often and loudly, that is the nature of his condition,

Ah, so he did also use the F-word. I didn't watch the broadcast as TV and film really don't interest me. In that case, how did any gay people in the audience react?

I suspect that the exact degree of offence caused by some slurs can be culturally related. For example, within the world of intellectual disability in the UK, the R-word is considered by many to be on a par with the N-word, yet it is apparently far less offensive in the US.

 

[joe jones]

Ah, so he did also use the F-word. I didn't watch the broadcast as TV and film really don't interest me. In that case, how did any gay people in the audience react?

I suspect that the exact degree of offence caused by some slurs can be culturally related. For example, within the world of intellectual disability in the UK, the R-word is considered by many to be on a par with the N-word, yet it is apparently far less offensive in the US.

I expect most people were very understanding of his tikking, in the UK we have watched documentaries about John from when he was a child and are very proud of what he has achieved, he has done an enormous amount to remove the stigma of Tourette's and it is well understood that none of his tics are voluntary and the words hold no meaning for John, IMO once you understand Tourette's and still choose to be offended by what he tics that is on you (not directed at you but anyone who chooses to be offended at something that is uncontrollable),

 

[Skigh]

These days there are so many virtue signallers whose life mission is to find things to be offended about,particularly on behalf of other people.

 

[MelmothTheLost]

These days there are so many virtue signallers whose life mission is to find things to be offended about,particularly on behalf of other people.

AKA the Offenderati.

 

[MelmothTheLost]

The BBC had plenty of time to edit out the N word so it seems for some reason they wanted the controversy they knew it would cause by broadcasting it.
The BBC are a disgrace these days.

Indeed they are. Any pretense of impartiality by the BBC was discarded several decades ago. Apart from anything else, you'd think they would be very wary of creating outrage and controversy at present in view of Trump's stated plans to sue them for defamation.