@EmilyMaher11084 As a complete neutral he let Ireland get away with murder. Didn’t ref the breakdown at all. Irelnd constantly off their feet and slowing ball down.
Jegou has a direct line of sight and puts his fingers in Ashman’s eyes not once, but twice. That’s not reckless, that’s intentional.
Between Etzebeth (which was too light by half) and Jegou (which is utterly laughable) rugby isn’t sending the right message on gouging.
@madeukeszn@Saor_Caledonia@ChalynRugby Not necessarily, if this were to happen with Ireland not getting a BP & Scotland getting 2 BP they'd be tied on 18pts and it would come down to points Difference to break the tie and Scotland would win
I had posted saying they never learn, but these journalists really need to stop the rage baiting, particularly with the amount of criticism aimed at Irish media when they do the same.
When John Davidson was 16 years old he talked about killing himself because he felt humiliated by his disability and frustrated by the harm it caused. To have the NAACP Awards openly mocking him for his disability is evil, mean spirited, calloused and ableist.
Are we really saying that if a white man with Tourette’s had an involuntary tic and shouted the N word at the NAACP Image Awards on BET, he should have been beaten up?
Thrown out? Verbally attacked? Punished for a disability he cannot control? Should white Tourette’s sufferers be segregated from society in case they offend black people?
Because that is the implication of saying ‘read the room, it won’t go the way you think’.
The decision by BBC and BAFTA not to censor John Davidson’s Tourette’s tic, in which he involuntarily said the n word toward Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo, was a mistake.
It was horrible to hear that word broadcast on the BBC. For the two black men it was directed at, it must have been awful. It is probably the most offensive word a white person can say to a black person even as an involuntary tic.
But mocking someone’s disability with intent is worse. Deon Cole doing so at the NAACP Image Awards was not involuntary. It was intentional. Disgusting.
I’m dealing with a family emergency, so I won’t be doing broadcast interviews on the John Davidson Tourette’s tic at the BAFTAs story.
Hearing the N word shouted at two of the most successful black actors in the world, on stage at the BAFTAs and broadcast on the BBC, was horrible. It made people uncomfortable. It should have. But it was an involuntary tic from someone who lives with Tourette’s syndrome. It was not chosen. It was not intentional. It was not an expression of belief.
What’s astonishing is watching people who constantly lecture the public about inclusion suddenly abandon it the moment it becomes complicated. The same voices that demand respect for lived experience are now acting as if a neurodivergent man consciously decided to shout a slur for sport.
Tourette’s is a neurological condition. It is not a political statement. It is not a moral failing. You cannot preach DEI and then punish someone for symptoms of their neurodivergence.
Even the Royal Household has previously understood Davidson’s condition. Not even the late Queen was immune to his tics he said “F*ck the Queen” TO HER FACE. If that reality can be accepted there, it should not be beyond the rest of us.
Two things can be true at once. The word is abhorrent. The tic was involuntary. If your commitment to inclusion collapses when it involves neurodivergence, then it was never inclusion in the first place.
At this juncture you people are trolling a man with a disability, open and shut.
He spent his formative years apologising for something not in his gift to stop. Do you understand how damaging that is to the psyche? Apologising day in, day out for having no malice or malintent? It plays on the mind and John has spoken candidly about his suicidal ideation because of that.
The 2 beautiful black men who, yes, were stunned, are also intelligent enough, inquisitive enough to have read John's statement which is sincere.
But to apologise for a disability raises so many questions that John deliberately, through his campaigning, documentaries and film tries to answer.
If he apologises, what is he apologising for? Something he has no control over? A verifiable, medical industry diagnosed condition? We are going down a rabbit hole if the disabled have to apologise for being.
The 2 actors are black men, a cohort of humanity who literally were told to apologise for attempting to go into a school or ride a bus but because brave campaigners fought for the right not to be "other", segregation no longer is a legal reality. So instead of outlets like yours quoting "outrage and disgust" from "sources close to the actors", maybe in good time we'll hear from them, in context and in clarity.
The only wiggle room anyone has morally when arguing for an apology is courtesy. That John choses to call the men and informally explain his condition, the scenario on the night ( stressful for a Tourettes sufferer) and offers just a personal "I hope you understand". A common courtesy many would agree with.
But be under no illusion, John needs not to apologise for his disability and any explanation of his condition to anyone offended by words he involuntarily said should be his choice, in his time and in tne basis that he can not ( UK law backs this up) be blamed for an involuntary act.
Your headline and desperate need for this to be about racism when in fact it is about disability and the grey area of involuntary act meeting understandable offence, an area that if outlets like you took the heat out of the situation would more than likely happen between the 3 men.
BREAKING: ICE officials are reportedly worried that, if Congress requires ICE agents to unmask and wear identification, 75% of the agents will quit rather than be ostracised for the rest of their lives by family, friends, employers, and society.