I want to start this post with a significant caveat – attempting to talk about complex, emotive and highly charged issues within the constraints of the frenzied news cycle is difficult and unpredictable. Still, as the story of John Davidson’s tics at the BAFTAs last night continues on, I think it’s important to try and respond.

For context, John Davidson, who has Tourettes, attended the awards ceremony in London last night as part of the team who produced I Swear, the biopic about his life released last year.

During the ceremony, John ticced some highly offensive racial slurs, which understandably caused distress in the room. From what I know, an announcement was made at the start of the event to let the audience know that John was there and would be ticcing throughout. This message was repeated several times. The presence of John’s tics should not have come as a surprise to anyone.

There is a well-documented aspect of Tourettes that can involve saying or doing the worst possible thing in a given situation, these are known as oppositional tics — something I’ve written about before on this blog. Understanding tics like this doesn’t mean that we should minimise the impact of the words themselves. The pain caused by what John said last night cannot be ignored but understanding it in context is crucial.

Every time I agree to do an interview, especially on live TV or radio, I’m aware of the risk that I might say something I don’t mean as a tic. We do a lot of work to make sure this is clearly understood by researchers and presenters. But the risk remains.

In 2023, I attended the BAFTAs with the pilot of my sitcom Biscuitland. My team put a lot of thought into how my presence at the ceremony would be handled, and we worked closely with BAFTA, who were supportive and flexible.

Still, ultimately, I knew I was the one taking the risk of causing offence. Fortunately, I didn’t tic anything too controversial, and I was able to enjoy the evening.

The fact is, the enormous backlash John is facing today could just as easily have been directed at me, or at almost anyone else with Tourettes.

What concerns me most is that the BBC chose to air John’s tics. The ceremony goes out with a 2-hour delay, so this decision would have been approved by producers and, almost certainly, by expert lawyers.

Comments made in solidarity with the people of Palestine by other award winners were simply not broadcast — they were made in the room and stayed in the room. So why were John’s offensive tics broadcast?

Because of this editorial decision, which the BBC has already apologised for, John is now facing poorly informed criticism from around the world, including from high-profile Hollywood actors.

John has spent much of his life sharing his story to help people better understand Tourettes. Before I received my diagnosis, seeing the documentaries he made when he was younger helped me understand my own neurology and feel more confident seeking a diagnosis.

I can only imagine the pressure and distress this situation must be causing him today. I know many others in the Tourettes community are feeling it too.

To understand tics, you first need to understand intention. The difference between saying something involuntarily and saying it because you mean it is absolute.

If someone in the audience had shouted racist slurs because they meant them, it would be right for them to be publicly condemned. But holding someone responsible for tics that do not reflect their views isn’t appropriate at all — it requires compassion, understanding, and education.

Black and brown people with Tourettes often face the greatest difficulties when their tics are misunderstood, which can often lead to hostile responses.

As I said at the start of this post, communicating complex ideas in the news cycle is extremely difficult, especially at a time when there’s a wider climate of hostility towards disabled people in mainstream media and politics.

Last year, when I was forced to stop working due to sudden and unexpected cuts to my Access to Work support, we tried to alert the media. We produced fact-checked press releases and spoke to reporters and outlets, but apart from Channel 4 News, we received either polite rejections or no response. There was no interest in the story even though it impacted huge numbers of working disabled people.

This morning, however, I’ve received calls, emails, and texts from at least five media outlets, all asking for my opinion and my “lived experience” on this story.

There are real issues at stake here, but it does make me question the motivations behind this sudden feverish attention.

To John, and to anyone whose tics have ever caused offence or distress, I am with you in solidarity.

To those at the BBC who chose to air John’s tics while censoring support for Palestine, I urge you to consider whose interests you’re actually serving.