· 187 comments · Save ·
For Sale Apr 8, 2026 at 1:01 PM

BAFTAs N-Word Broadcast Ruled a ‘Clear Breach’ of BBC Editorial Standards, but Was ‘Not Intentional’

Posted by darth_vader39

BAFTAs N-Word Broadcast Ruled a ‘Clear Breach’ of BBC Editorial Standards, but Was ‘Not Intentional’
Variety
BAFTAs N-Word Broadcast Ruled a ‘Clear Breach’ of BBC Editorial Standards, but Was ‘Not Intentional’
The BBC complaints units has found that the broadcast of the n-word from the BAFTA film wards breached editorial standards but wasn't intentional
🚩 Report this post

187 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
Rpanich Apr 8, 2026 +1098
Didnt they have like a 2 hour window to edit it, and they just didn’t? Definitely feels intentional 
1098
Dangolian Apr 8, 2026 +476
> The ECU accepted this was a genuine mistake, especially as the team did correctly identify and edit out a subsequent use of the same word, in line with the protocols that were agreed in advance of the event regarding offensive and unacceptable language. Hanlon's razor. Still a f*** up, but not necessarily a deliberate one.
476
kevihaa Apr 8, 2026 +152
Hanlon’s razor is a great rule to live by when dealing with people, but is way too generous when dealing with corporations.
152
this_is_theone Apr 8, 2026 +131
I don't get why it's so hard for people to think critically about this. Is it more likely they made a mistake, since they did edit out another utterance of the word. Or is it more likely they just decided to deliberately leave it in, for... reasons?
131
Honest-Possible6596 Apr 8, 2026 +70
There is no reasonable outcome to intentionally leaving it in where the BBC ends up in a good light, so the idea that it’s been done out of anything more than stupidity or carelessness just doesn’t ring true. This isn’t a case of ‘any publicity is good publicity’. People love a good conspiracy, but there’s just no logic to purposely making yourselves look this shit.
70
jvpewster Apr 8, 2026 +51
The comment above about corporations not being capable of just complete and utter errors is hilarious for anyone who worlds in a corporate environment.
51
Deeppurp Apr 8, 2026 +25
Corporations are run by humans. We all know humans are dumb as hell.
25
weirdhoney216 Apr 8, 2026 +55
Everything is a conspiracy online remember
55
error521 Apr 8, 2026 +10
Sounds like something a bot would say!
10
SweetNeo85 Apr 8, 2026 +9
>I don't get why it's so hard for people to think critically yeah, about that...
9
mrlolloran Apr 9, 2026 -1
If it was a semi common word said several times throughout the event that would be way more believable. This is supposed to be (one of) the most racially charged words of all time yelled out during a presentation. I feel like the amount of grace I’m being asked to give them is as wide and deep as the f****** ocean.
-1
this_is_theone Apr 9, 2026 +4
Nobody is asking you to give them any grace, we're asking you to try and summon both braincells to do a little critical thinking and consider 'why would they censor one use of the word and leave the other in, just to cause themselves a load of problems for little gain'
4
unrealisedpotential Apr 8, 2026 +37
Not to be a bootlicker but corporations are comprised of people. Don’t get me wrong, there’s tonnes of instances where the bureaucracy of corporations and the combination of perverse incentives inadvertently lead to companies taking bad decisions. But are we so certain that some overworked sound engineer or mixer just didn’t catch it quickly enough to cut it out?
37
jvpewster Apr 8, 2026 +17
Or even just a guy who fucked up. People do it all the time every day.
17
BestShaunaEU Apr 8, 2026 +9
Who do you think work for the company?
9
beefcat_ Apr 8, 2026 -22
Hanlon's Razor should only apply to *people*. Corporations and billionaires aren't people, they have more in common with rabid dogs.
-22
Incorrect_Oymoron Apr 8, 2026 +47
Ok, but corporations are made up of people that make decisions. Are you picturing a boardroom deliberating on keeping the slur in broadcast? Or is it more likely that everyone thought that editing the stream was someone else's job? You must have had a job where at some point a manager comes by and ask's something like "why is the doorway so dirty?" and everyone says "that's not my job, I clean this and that" Was the "corporation" maliciously keeping a dirty doorway in that example?
47
Thetonn Apr 8, 2026 +31
Also, this is not a Fox news, or a private sector corporation, or anything else. Its the f****** BBC. A public sector broadcaster with a gigantic, massive incentive to avoid pissing people off and getting negative coverage. I get that in America it is always sensible to assume that everyone's incentive is to be a c*** if it gets you the ratings, but that isn't the case for them. Their incentive is infinitely more focused on avoiding controversy and keeping everyone happy. It. Was. A. F***. Up.
31
Wareve Apr 8, 2026 +12
It's kind of hard to believe that a corporation would deliberately want to leave it in, but more importantly, it probably wasn't even the call of a corporation, so much as a f*** up by a small number of producers and editors who needed to catch and cut it.
12
likeyournamebutworse Apr 8, 2026 +9
Do you think it was a sentient corporation physically editing the show? Or do you think its possible there was an actual human involved who could possibly have made a mistake?
9
slagodactyl Apr 9, 2026 +5
That especially makes it seem like there was probably one guy told to edit out the n-word, so he scrubbed through the broadcast, found it, removed it, and forgot or didn't think to look for a second use of it.
5
bucky-barnes Apr 9, 2026 +2
I find it a bit sus. I worked for a radio station and we could manually dump the last few seconds of live audio in (mostly) real time if something like this happened, and that was 15 years ago. Seems pretty unbelievable that BBC's film crew can't even do some kind of time stamp.
2
AlstottsNeckGuard Apr 8, 2026 +2
I feel like we have all done this with a save file on a video game before
2
xvf9 Apr 8, 2026 +239
As an editor, a two hour window is *nothing* when the finished product is still two hours long. You would have a producer picking things to cut out and you just skip straight to those bits, make the cut, check a few seconds before and after to make sure the cut works and move on to the next preselected point to cut time. At no stage are you sitting back and watching the whole show back to check it. If it was missed live or there was a miscommunication (maybe they were told to cut the racial slur and didn’t realise there was another one) then there is next to no chance of picking it up. 
239
totheregiment Apr 8, 2026 +44
Absolutely this. As another editor I can totally see how this happened. It was in fact as you said. They edited out a racial slur, were then told about the other racial slur but thought it referred to the one they'd already cut. Wouldn't have had any time to think about it further. Also as someone else further down says, to think that the BBC would do this deliberately to court controversy absolutely misunderstand the BBC. They don't need further shit to add to the pile!
44
Z_Overman Apr 9, 2026
these guys edit!
0
cannibalpeas Apr 8, 2026 +26
They had plenty of time to edit out pro-Palestine statements.
26
xvf9 Apr 8, 2026 +53
Yep, that’s usually how it works. Big obvious things like speeches that go on too long (and/or get into “controversial” territory) are easy to identify and would be the first thing being removed in a cutdown. Tidying up off-mic outbursts is the absolute last thing an editor has time for in a cutdown like this, but it does appear that they made a significant effort to remove most of them. Obviously a huge shame that a bad one got through but a two hour window is simply not enough time to be doing a polished cut on a program that basically runs two hours. 
53
Undeniable-Quitter Apr 8, 2026 +150
Which were very obvious and audible because they were said into a microphone on stage. Surely you realise the difference here?
150
Quasic Apr 8, 2026 +36
It feels like people are being deliberately dense over this. "How could it possibly have been a mistake? They didn't make a mistake this other time!"
36
TIGHazard Apr 8, 2026 +21
Its almost as if there was a giant controversy involving another live BBC show last year and they would have been told to pay very strict attention to mentions of Palestine. > BBC employees with the authority to cut the live stream of Bob Vylan's Glastonbury performance were among 550 members of staff at the festival, director general Tim Davie has said. > Ending the broadcast "was an option open to those on the ground on the day", Davie wrote in a letter to the Commons' culture select committee. > The punk duo led a chant of "death, death to the IDF [Israel Defence Forces]" and made other derogatory comments during the performance, prompting apologies from the BBC and Glastonbury, as well as triggering a police investigation. > While the feed was monitored and warnings appeared on screen, the broadcast - which went out on iPlayer - was not stopped after the band's comments were made.
21
ImTellingTheEmperor Apr 8, 2026 -10
>It’s almost as if there was a giant controversy involving another live BBC show last year and they would have been told to pay very strict attention to mentions of Palestine. This person solved it everyone, let’s pack it up. Apparently you can focus so hard on Palestine you miss slurs, despite it being your job.
-10
Quasic Apr 8, 2026 +3
So that's the argument? This couldn't possibly be a mistake since the mistake wasn't repeated elsewhere?
3
ImTellingTheEmperor Apr 8, 2026
The argument is the jump to label it a mistake. Every instance of racism, in a vacuum, could theoretically be an accident. And if we operated on a level that brainless, the only instances of anti-blackness in history would involve slavery, white hoods, and ironically the n-word. Rational, well-adjusted, adults know better than that. Im not saying it objectively was *anything*. What I’m saying is that ironically, this “everything is always racism to you people” rhetoric, in the rare instances where it indeed has little foundation, *stems* from backlash to the eagerness other people have to dismiss any and every instance of it that isn’t airtight.
0
Quasic Apr 8, 2026 +3
It's not a jump to call it a mistake when they successfully edited out almost all the other slurs and left the quietest one. There is also nothing to be gained by deliberately leaving it in. There's no motivation to deliberately sneak slurs into a broadcast. They had two hours to edit a three hour show, in a van. It shouldn't have happened, and they should take responsibility; but to imply that it was this calculated act of racial subversion is just so inane and flies in the face of common sense.
3
pushaper Apr 8, 2026 +4
I would love to work with you.
4
Vivid_Maximum_5016 Apr 8, 2026 -13
As an editor, it's possible to cut out a specific, well publicised few seconds within two hours if you have a competent editor and project supervisor. Stop defending racism.
-13
Undeniable-Quitter Apr 8, 2026 +31
Nobody’s defending racism
31
[deleted] Apr 8, 2026 -16
[removed]
-16
Undeniable-Quitter Apr 8, 2026 +24
😂 good one
24
cannibalpeas Apr 8, 2026 +4
You know, I was just looking through my comment history to verify, but the *only* time I get heavily downvoted is when I call out British racism and the post-colonial disasters they left in their wake. I love the English people and culture, but goddamn, they do *not* like to accept their horrifying past or the present-day implications.
4
Vivid_Maximum_5016 Apr 8, 2026
Yeah it's worst. I do anti-racism organising here and people are unbelievably hostile to it.
0
cannibalpeas Apr 8, 2026 +2
You know, that’s exactly the issue that people are missing. Yeah, this is almost certainly an unintentional mistake in every single way, but the problem isn’t that there was a lack of racist intent. The problem is that there was a clear lack of editorial intent. With repeated warning both before and after they clearly had no sense of urgency or responsibility. “Mistakes were made” is the most British way of hand waving 500 years of overt oppressive racism.
2
xvf9 Apr 8, 2026 +9
Of course it’s possible. But mistakes happen. Possibly it was missed live (given it was off-mic and sort of hard to hear) or they noted it live but removed another incident and didn’t realise there was another moment. Or it was just a straight f*** up. If you don’t have enough time to rewatch the cut, there is no way to be 100% sure it’s perfect. It’s a rapid cutdown of live tv, not a feature film, nobody should expect perfection. They cut several other potentially offensive outbursts, including racial ones, so not sure why you’d think they deliberately left this one in…
9
ogjaspertheghost Apr 8, 2026 -19
As an editor also, this is an easy fix. It happened at a very specific moment within the show. It would have taken little time to fix this
-19
xvf9 Apr 8, 2026 +15
Have you ever had to edit something longer than your allotted time to edit it? You can’t watch the whole edit, so you’re completely reliant on people flagging anything you need to cut. Given they cut out other racial outbursts it seems like this one was just missed or miscommunicated, and there was obviously no time for QC. 
15
TheLimeyLemmon Apr 8, 2026 +15
You make it sound like they had 2 hours to edit just that two-second moment, and not a whole show that runs longer than what's even broadcast.
15
likeyournamebutworse Apr 8, 2026 +51
Never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by incompetence.
51
fandomacid Apr 8, 2026 +8
It's not even incompetence, it's a timeline that's too short.
8
[deleted] Apr 8, 2026 -1
[deleted]
-1
this_is_theone Apr 8, 2026 +2
So what was their goal deliberately leaving it in? What do they have to gain?
2
QP709 Apr 8, 2026 +2
you get money for every n-word you can sneak on tv broadcast
2
must_not_forget_pwd Apr 8, 2026 +12
Yeah, the BBC is clearly anti-Black and wanted to change the world by having a man with Tourette's yell the N-word.
12
Woffingshire Apr 8, 2026 +3
Yeah, they had 2 hours to edit a 2 hour show. That's not much time to get through it all to check for mistakes
3
Alternative-Being181 Apr 9, 2026 +5
I read that Warner Brothers reached out to the BBC to request it was censored, and the BBC didn’t act promptly on that warning. Also, microphones were set up right near the man with Tourette’s, when there was no need for a mic to be so close to his seat.
5
bguzewicz Apr 8, 2026 +2
I think other outbursts of his were edited out as well. Which if that’s true, that was quite a doozy to miss.
2
99thLuftballon Apr 8, 2026 +2
Intentional? What exactly do you think their goal was?
2
NATHAN4U007 Apr 8, 2026 +24
There's no way they skimmed over that part on accident. That dude didnt deserve the harrassment he got for it.
24
indianajoes Apr 8, 2026 +103
It's crazy how so many people were demanding an apology from him even after he had given one but Jamie Foxx, David Banner and Deon Cole were able to say vile ableist shit and no one demanded an apology from them or even considered that they needed to give one. A disabled man had to apologise for something he had no control over but these dicks didn't have to apologise for stuff they chose to say because of their ableism
103
ThisI5N0tAThr0waway Apr 8, 2026 +44
I totally get the initial reaction, but once you take 5-10 minutes to inform yourself about tourette syndrome, you should understand they can't stop their coprolalia more than people with cerebral palsy can keep their arms straight. Edit minor typo
44
Informal-Money-1518 Apr 10, 2026
Nope. If he knew he would have outburst that could offend ppl and still goes he better apologize 
0
EchoesofIllyria Apr 8, 2026 +46
Tbh if you think the BBC of all organisations would do this deliberately to court controversy, you don’t understand the BBC. I don’t believe for a second they would deliberately do anything that would immediately put themselves under more scrutiny than they’re already under, on a national (let alone global) scale.
46
Putrid_Loquat_4357 Apr 8, 2026 +97
They had to cut down a 3 hour broadcast to 2 hours and also had to edit out several of his other tics. It was definitely just a mistake and all these American conspiracy theories around an organisation absolutely petrified of any form of controversy are moronic.
97
CompetitiveEqual4124 Apr 8, 2026 -29
I understand you have a weird obsession with America, but American didn’t do this.  They managed to edit out the actress saying “Free Palestine” but somehow couldn’t edit this out. That isn’t a conspiracy its just a fact. 
-29
Economy-Inflation-52 Apr 8, 2026 +43
The "Free Palestine" was said as part of a speech. It seems obvious that it is going to be easier to spot whilst doing the edit than someone shouting from the audience, so I don't really understand your seeming scepticism of it as even a possibility. 
43
unwocket Apr 8, 2026 +27
They had a two hour window for everything not just one thing. I don’t know if you work with people who are idiots, or who f*** up. But shit happens in the real world
27
Putrid_Loquat_4357 Apr 8, 2026 +11
Not blaming America, I'm fine with America, but all the conspiracy theories I've seen have come from Americans who just don't understand the BBC.
11
whelpineedhelp Apr 8, 2026 +2
That doesn’t mean it wasn’t a mistake. 
2
blazing_ent Apr 8, 2026 -3
So why didnt they bleep it out like the Palestine moment?
-3
[deleted] Apr 8, 2026 +1
[deleted]
1
blazing_ent Apr 8, 2026 +1
I meant did they. My bad
1
egnards Apr 8, 2026 -17
The reality is that the broadcaster knew the situation at hand, and they knew the concerns that this man had about being front and center, and he was given a very large amount of assurances about the care that he would receive in regards to editing to make sure that these types of things didn’t happen. It may have been accidental, I’m not going to say it was a conspiracy, but it was very negligent for them to not really be on guard to exactly the types of things that were expected to happen.
-17
SnowbearX Apr 8, 2026 +18
Tbh I highly doubt the editors were given a long brief about expecting a man with tourettes, it's not like the night was specifically focused on him. There are several people who either organised the event, knew about the categories and nominees and then were in charge of the show and later on the editing. There's no negligence, that's just how jobs work especially when the focus isn't specifically on him
18
egnards Apr 8, 2026 -1
This is the problem. The editors **should have** been briefed on this. You’ve put a man with a disability that puts him in a position to say very obscene things on a stage near a microphone. That man expressed concerns about it and was reassured about the care that would be given. That person was failed. If you’re editing an event, and you as an organizer are aware of a potential situation occurring, you’re making sure to notify the people who are going to need to appropriately respond, that there is a higher chance of a situation occurring. Not doing so? Negligence.
-1
SnowbearX Apr 8, 2026 +11
Again, you're just saying that because of the incident and because it's not your job. Like I said the night was not specifically focused on him, he's not even a nominee, he was an audience member and he was not on stage both literally and figuratively. Hell, the organisers and broadcasters of the event are an entirely different set of people and again there's a whole chain of tens to near hundreds of people between who either spoke to or invited him and then filmed and later edited it. A random swear word by an audience member that wasn't on stage would not have been top of their priorities because and I stress again the night was not specifically catered to him and the broadcasters were not the ones who invited him
11
[deleted] Apr 8, 2026 -5
[deleted]
-5
spaceandthewoods_ Apr 8, 2026 +7
They didn't put one next to him specifically, the whole audience would have been peppered with mics to capture the ambient audience noise. It was just an oversight, the audio team on the day would have had no idea he was sitting there
7
[deleted] Apr 8, 2026 -18
[deleted]
-18
sp0rk_walker Apr 8, 2026 +4
The definitely removed a "free Palestine" comment before air.
4
ValleyFloydJam Apr 8, 2026 +1
Well that window would have closed due to overrun. Plus they weren't just editing it for language but to meet a broadcast window, they only missed one out of like 10 times too.
1
kachzz Apr 10, 2026 +1
By BBC standards editing it out would be ableist ...like CGI-ing in a missing limb or something xD
1
ChronoMonkeyX Apr 8, 2026 -4
Didn't they edit out mention of Palestine?
-4
Shockwavepulsar Apr 8, 2026 +12
Which was said directly into a hot mic rather than indirectly off an ambient mic. 
12
Undeniable-Quitter Apr 8, 2026 +18
Yes, but that was very obvious and audible due to it being said into a microphone on stage, rather than it being said from the audience. They also edited out other racial slurs, but missed this particular one.
18
joejamesjoejames Apr 8, 2026 -6
the two black men on stage visibly reacting to very clearly, audibly being called the n-word wasn’t “obvious and audible”? I know this was a mistake, but it’s an absolutely egregious mistake and shows that BBC did not take the appropriate care to edit that section. If they knew black men were called the n-word, and they did know this, they should’ve scrubbed that section with a fine toothed comb. But they obviously didn’t care enough to take the appropriate action to review and edit it, else they would’ve noticed their egregious mistake
-6
EpsteinBaa Apr 8, 2026 +10
It's a lot easier when you're specifically listening out for it on a 10 second clip. I doubt I'd catch that if I didn't know it was coming.
10
joejamesjoejames Apr 8, 2026 -5
> It’s a lot easier when you’re specifically listening out for it So, it’s easier when you’re doing your job correctly? If I was editing the BAFTAS and multiple people reached out to me telling me that two black men were called the n-word while they were on stage, you better believe I would “specifically listen” for the N-word for the entirety of the time they were on stage. That is just the basic level of care and attention that should be afforded this situation
-5
EpsteinBaa Apr 8, 2026 +10
They did specifically listen to it. They found another instance of the n-word and edited it out. They missed this one. I'm not sure there needs to be some grand conspiracy here.
10
Gyshall669 Apr 8, 2026 +24
They supposedly edited out a ton of stuff including another instance of the n word and gay slurs.
24
ishtar_the_move Apr 8, 2026 +1
Because the whole point, from why the film was celebrated to how the guest was being treated, was to show how people suffering from tourette should be treated. Editing it out would be the opposite of it.
1
mikey7704 Apr 8, 2026 -19
They didn't. Even thought it's broadcast two hours after the start time, shows like this are being edited while they are happening and are sent off in 15 minute increments before being sent off. If they didn't hear it and sent off the clip I'm not sure that there's any way they can edit it again
-19
muad_dibs Apr 8, 2026 +13
They edited out other things he said during the broadcast. What do you mean, if they didn’t hear it?
13
centre_of_what Apr 8, 2026 +32
they also edited out other instances of the n-word. The program was edited from inside a van, not a studio and most people who watched the broadcast live never made out the word either. Sometimes mistakes happen and it's actually not a grand conspiracy to risk all their jobs and reputations so that they can broadcast the n-word.
32
feage7 Apr 8, 2026 +3
I really feel like accountability should be relative to pay too. If you're paid high money then be held to high standards and mistakes should have more weight, since that's kind of why it's so high paid. But a lower editorial team missing one of many background tics and slurs in a live setting probably shouldn't have to deal with that much backlash.
3
mikey7704 Apr 8, 2026 +5
It's quite possible the one that did make it to the broadcast was the least audible one. If you watch the clip without knowing what he said I don't think the word is clearly identifiable, especially if you're crammed into an editing truck
5
pileshpilon Apr 8, 2026 +19
The whole point is that they had heard and edited the first occurrences, but missed this one that was less audible. They thought the comms about editing referred to the first times, and by then they already had broadcast it.
19
KillerWattage Apr 8, 2026 +14
They also edited out another racial slur [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5ykl7y2zv9o](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5ykl7y2zv9o) Why leave one in intentionally while taking out another? It is very obviously sloppy work
14
[deleted] Apr 8, 2026 -1
[deleted]
-1
EchoesofIllyria Apr 8, 2026 +7
(That’s their point)
7
[deleted] Apr 8, 2026 -2
[deleted]
-2
[deleted] Apr 8, 2026 +9
What's hard to believe about not hearing something said in the audience vs. in a mic on stage? The editors aren't sitting in the auditorium, they're in a completely separate area.
9
KillerWattage Apr 8, 2026 +160
The BBC did edit out a different racial slur [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5ykl7y2zv9o](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5ykl7y2zv9o) (yes, along with pro palestine voices and a bunch of other stuff) They were also explicitly told to edit out a racial slur and did (the one above). I cannot see why a producer would intentionally leave one in while editing others out. I can imagine a situation where they got told to edit one out, heard one, edited it out then moved on missing the second one which was quieter It really does seem like a massive mistake and not the mad conspiracy that I've seen floating around, that the BBC was either intentionally trying to offend black people, those with tourette's, or just trying to get views. Someone fucked up, that really does seem like the most likely occurrence
160
SkorpioSound Apr 8, 2026 +45
It's an especially understandable f*** up when you realise they had two hours (between time of recording and time of broadcast) to edit a three-hour show down to two hours _and_ censor all the parts that needed censoring. It means that didn't have time to play back the finished edit and check over it; they were just cutting the bits they were told to on the fly and then hitting "broadcast". Like you said, it's probable the producer either didn't hear it and flag it to be censored, or they flagged a timestamp and the editors cut something there, but didn't listen 15s longer and hear the next one. It definitely never came across as malicious or cynical to me; it's just the reality of trying to edit 'live' broadcasts.
45
TIGHazard Apr 8, 2026 +16
> It means that didn't have time to play back the finished edit and check over it; they were just cutting the bits they were told to on the fly and then hitting "broadcast". Also the BBC requires 3x the length of the finished show for it to count as a 'recorded' show. > All programmes contracted to deliver ‘close to transmission’ or required to deliver after the TX-9 file delivery deadline will be required to call Content Delivery Operations to discuss file delivery and will be required to have a lines booking in place as a contingency via the following two lines feeds options: > Lines Recording: the programme cannot deliver within the file delivery deadline and will be played down the line to Red Bee Media, to be recorded and then played out from server for transmission. > **Lines to Air: the programme will not be available to deliver via lines recording and must be played out directly to air** > To use the line recording facility, the Red Bee Media recording must be completed no later than twice the programme duration before the scheduled transmission time. This means the playback of the programme must start no later than three times the programme duration. **For example a one-hour programme must start playback three hours before transmission.** https://www.bbc.co.uk/delivery/live-late-ob-delivery
16
Sy_Fresh Apr 8, 2026 -1
BBC willfully left it in
-1
ishtar_the_move Apr 8, 2026 -5
The f*** up is people taking offense to a symptom of a disability.
-5
corobo Apr 8, 2026 +70
Aye fair enough. Hope the lad's doing well now it's all dying down 
70
Zhymantas Apr 8, 2026 +70
Hate he got was unreal, unreasonable and unfair.
70
TCsnowdream Apr 8, 2026 +18
“But I’m doing my part by bullying a disabled person because I refuse to take nuance into consideration.”
18
BrockStar92 Apr 9, 2026 +5
A disabled person who was only there for his film which is about raising awareness of this specific issue to try and stop people from bullying and mocking those with the condition, no less.
5
wellwellwellwellll Apr 8, 2026 +28
American exceptionalism and ignorance was in full swing during the controversy.
28
calhoumi27 Apr 8, 2026 +24
When isn't it?
24
wellwellwellwellll Apr 8, 2026 +14
True, the world is awfully sick and tired of them.
14
ChewiesLipstickWilly Apr 8, 2026 +9
They showed the world how truly dumb they are
9
Informal-Money-1518 Apr 10, 2026
Why is that word even in his vocabulary to begin with. The hate he got was appropriate. Be quiet 
0
Zhymantas Apr 10, 2026 +3
He can't control what he can say, coprolalia makes him swear and say slurs.
3
Informal-Money-1518 Apr 10, 2026
Oh really? What other slurs he said that night? And like I said. The timing? You think it was a coincidence?
0
mr_ji Apr 8, 2026 +73
Oh good, let's rehash all of the same comments from a couple of weeks ago about this
73
Some_Appearance_1665 Apr 8, 2026 +26
My favourite is 'even if he had Tourettes, he should've tried not to say it'. It's great that his film had such a big impact on awareness.
26
TCsnowdream Apr 8, 2026 +15
It was so *cringe* to watch people dogpile on a disabled person once their disability was, *gasp*, inconvenient. It would be like being upset at a quadriplegic for not standing for the national anthem.
15
Chronic_Lurker_1901 Apr 8, 2026 +20
It seems to have been a legit f*** up but it's one of the most specific, absurd and absolute worst nightmare f***-ups possible for a television network. 
20
TheBatemanFlex Apr 8, 2026 +201
I don’t know about how intentional the editing was, but people attacking the person with Tourette’s shows exactly why we need the awareness. There were even many Americans that were convinced he knew what he was saying and that the Tourette’s was an excuse.
201
Squidgynutz Apr 8, 2026 +135
Like Jamie Foxxx. Dude lost a whole lot of respect from me over his comments about Big John.
135
indianajoes Apr 8, 2026 +46
Me too but he won't suffer because of it. He'll still be successful and the d*** didn't even have to apologise like John did. Same with Deon Cole. Joked about beating up a disabled man for existing and a whole audience full of rich celebs were laughing. Lost respect for people I liked like Colman Domingo 
46
lospollosakhis Apr 8, 2026 +34
One good thing to come out was that it did bring out some more awareness and understanding for Tourette’s, especially for myself. Unfortunately, on the other side, you’ve got absolutely morons not even trying to understand how Tourette’s affects a person.
34
wellwellwellwellll Apr 8, 2026 +14
Thing is. People being made aware of it, were still choosing to be ignorant of it in order to be offended by it.
14
KnightsOfCidona Apr 8, 2026 +13
Was genuinely mental how some were suggesting his tongue should be ripped out.
13
Heroic_Sheperd Apr 8, 2026 +64
/r/blackpeopletwitter was really showing its ignorance with its outrage over a mental medical condition.
64
[deleted] Apr 8, 2026 +4
[removed]
4
Heroic_Sheperd Apr 8, 2026 +3
If your claim is true, the inverse would also be true and every thread also contains fake loony right wing bots. This claim would especially be true if it’s been happening for the duration of a decade as you believe. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but the only way to get past this belief is always assume EVERYONE online is fake, either trolling, or a bot, myself included.
3
[deleted] Apr 8, 2026 +3
[deleted]
3
Heroic_Sheperd Apr 8, 2026 +3
I think it’s very close to /r/DeadInternetTheory
3
Rich_Housing971 Apr 8, 2026 -14
They had justifiable outrage during the George Floyd aftermath but unfortunately they've become a community who believes anti-Black racism is the ONLY form of bigotry that matters, and always assumes people are racist. I'm not saying someone who uses a racial slur as a Tourettes tic is racist, of course.
-14
QP709 Apr 8, 2026 +16
> they've become a community who believes anti-Black racism is the ONLY form of bigotry that matters it's a community of black people about black people. of coruse they'll be focussed on only one form of racism - that's literally the point of groups like this.
16
ImTellingTheEmperor Apr 8, 2026 +28
Ironically the entire existence of the sub is because of non-black people generalizing the entire community based on a couple anecdotes *just like you’re doing right now*. “They were justified here but not here” like it’s a herd of animals or an organization and not millions of human beings with vastly different opinions who’re only in the same group because of a non-ideological subset of memes on the internet.
28
[deleted] Apr 8, 2026 +2
[deleted]
2
ImTellingTheEmperor Apr 8, 2026 +1
>isn't this the sublistnook where they wouldn't allow you to post in certain threads unless you had provided I mean yes but it's far from the only one, nor is it the only huge one. "Coincidentally" it's the only one "certain people" ever seem to know about however, despite them all doing it for the same reason.
1
[deleted] Apr 8, 2026 +1
[deleted]
1
ImTellingTheEmperor Apr 8, 2026
>it's the only one i know of that does it  Oh trust me I know lol.
0
[deleted] Apr 8, 2026 +3
[deleted]
3
Rich_Housing971 Apr 8, 2026 -3
>generalizing the entire community based on a couple anecdotes just like you’re doing right now. lol YOU'RE the one talking about the Black community. I'm talking about a F****** SUBLISTNOOK. obviously when you're talking about a Listnook community you can generalize.
-3
ImTellingTheEmperor Apr 8, 2026
“You’re talking about the black community” > only in the same group because of a non-ideological subset of memes on the internet. Alright buddy, have a good one.
0
Heroic_Sheperd Apr 8, 2026 -1
Their voice matters. Because their voice matters, their opinions should be just as subject to critique as anyone else. However that sub has created a way to literally silence non black voices to express critique. They have become the very racists and bigots they sought to silence.
-1
UnTides Apr 8, 2026 -19
Well nobody is bringing a screaming baby to the awards show for the same reason of general annoyance + filming. Is that unfair to the tourettes person? Sure is, but also its completely unfair to the people who go on to the best night of their life to receive a once in a lifetime award and then getting heckled called homophobic and racist slurs when you step on stage.
-19
TheBatemanFlex Apr 8, 2026 +27
Im sure the person with tourettes appreciates being compared to a screaming baby. I also feel very sorry for the rich celebrities having their moment interrupted by someone who has to live their life with tourettes. great points all around. /s
27
blacked_out_blur Apr 8, 2026 +15
Due was there for his f****** movie about the pains and advocacy he’s gone through for his condition. He had just as much a right to attend as anyone else. He wasn’t “heckling”, he has tics, which are a NEUROLOGICAL condition, literally equivalent to a vocal seizure.
15
asmallman Apr 8, 2026 +6
Screaming babies dont have a disability they cant control. Also by rights they are brought to places *technically* against their will.
6
secretformula Apr 8, 2026 -43
Its always funny how Black people are the ones who always need to change their feelings in Listnook's mind. Tourette's is real but so are peoples feelings about having hateful words yelled at them...
-43
lospollosakhis Apr 8, 2026 +24
No one’s saying it shouldn’t have an affect on black people hearing the n-word but you also need to understand that Tourette’s is literally like saying your intrusive thoughts out loud — they cannot control it. I’m pretty sure you’ve had intrusive thoughts that are pretty messed up but you can control yourself; they cannot.
24
hypermog Apr 8, 2026 +6
They also used the V-word to refer to the Dark Lord
6
amanset Apr 8, 2026 +30
Christ it is so depressing to see the same old comments that are absolutely desperate to show the BBC is racist and the same explanations having to be given again. Just give it a rest, people. We get it. You don't like the BBC.
30
Dogbin005 Apr 9, 2026 +3
What a completely f****** overblown story this is.
3
[deleted] Apr 8, 2026 +27
we still talking about this? Jesus F Christ move on already.
27
I-Have-Mono Apr 8, 2026 +3
Can’t believe there’s still almost conspiratorial replies about all of this.
3
0verstim Apr 8, 2026 +12
Sorry kids, we had to spend this years Peppa Pig budget on a month long investigation to tell us what everyone rational already knew
12
ishtar_the_move Apr 8, 2026 +4
LOL. Way to turn an exercise of showing how to properly treat people suffering from Tourette into a circus show.
4
Imaginary-Can7999 Apr 9, 2026 +3
They said Nigel Farage? Disgusting!
3
AwesomeWaiter Apr 9, 2026 +3
This sucked for every person involved, but the hate John Davidson got from people who didn’t even have the sense to look up Tourette’s Syndrome was awful
3
Techno_Core Apr 8, 2026 +24
But they edited out a comment supporting Palestine... so it kinda feels deliberate.
24
xvf9 Apr 8, 2026 +45
They edited out a bunch of other things too. Having a two hour window to edit a three hour broadcast is nightmarish for an editor. You don’t even have time to rewatch the program, you just snip, make sure the edit works and then skip to the next point where you’re cutting time. 
45
mrkylematz Apr 8, 2026 +6
Especially if that 2 hour window includes the time to turnaround the segments and make sure everything got delivered on time.
6
NoTitleChamp Apr 8, 2026 +53
That was said into a mic. Bit easier to pick up.
53
KillerWattage Apr 8, 2026 +66
And they edited out a racial slur [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5ykl7y2zv9o](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5ykl7y2zv9o) So it kinda seems like it was accidental
66
whelpineedhelp Apr 8, 2026 +19
Despite your feelings, logic would indicate it was not intentional. Why would they edit out one instance and not the other? Because they made a mistake. 
19
EpsteinBaa Apr 8, 2026 +5
Big difference between editing something that someone on stage visibly said into a mic and something quietly picked up on an audience mic. This is just deliberately disingenuous.
5
soonerfreak Apr 8, 2026 -2
WB reached out and asked multiple times for it to be edited out of the broadcast. I cannot believe people are willing to give the BBC slack on editing something that was a big moment at the event and should have easily been edited out. The BBC made a choice to drive discussion about the event.
-2
ChristianAlexxxander Apr 8, 2026 -5
Bingo, we are not being cynical in realizing this either we are being honest and realistic and want accountability when the word would rather just shrug it off.
-5
ValleyFloydJam Apr 8, 2026
Crazy that lazy shit like this is seen as an actual point.
0
Unfair-Technology120 Apr 8, 2026 -27
Wait there’s a difference between making a political provocative statement and an uncontrollable medical episode? Who would have guessed?
-27
Parker4815-2 Apr 8, 2026 +6
Im curious, if we can all agree that it wasnt said in malice, and was literally said by a person who is promoting inclusion and awareness for his disability, then what's wrong?
6
Kinitawowi64 Apr 9, 2026 +2
It's one of those things; a white guy simply can't yell it at two black guys, *regardless of whether it's malicious or not*. The fact that no offense was intended does not alter the fact that offense was taken, and it's not up to (most of) us to police what people get offended by, especially when it's a word with such a uniquely loaded history. "No offense bro" simply doesn't cut it here.
2
Pugilist12 Apr 8, 2026 +4
This is all well and good, but I still don’t understand why there was a microphone near him the whole show. Why would you do that? It really undermines the whole thing. How can you do that and not be expecting something inappropriate to happen? It makes no sense. You don’t mic up anyone in an awards show. Never heard of such a thing. But this guy has one pointed at him? WHY
4
FlamingGnats Apr 8, 2026
Lol who cares.
0
Releases_the_bees Apr 9, 2026 +1
Americans.
1
Satoriinoregon Apr 8, 2026 +1
IIRC, there was time to edit ‘free Palestine’ out of the broadcast.
1
Karmer8 Apr 9, 2026 +1
SPUNK FOR MILK!!! P.S. F*** the BBC.
1
With-that-Axe Apr 9, 2026 +1
who cares about the n-word jesus there is so much worse happening. f****** move on.
1
fjoes Apr 8, 2026 -1
This shit is so funny, thank you for reminding me. The best part is how far Listnook is up it's own ass acting outraged about the whole thing.
-1
nopalitzin Apr 8, 2026
Agree.
0
Patutula Apr 8, 2026 -1
Whats the big deal?
-1
Ok-Wolf5932 Apr 8, 2026 -3
But they were able to edit out Free Palestine? Bullshit.
-3
Big-Performance-2075 Apr 8, 2026 -2
I don’t get it, so this dude with turrets says it and everyone loses their mind. But the n word is used and thrown around in every rap and hip hop song, and it’s widely accepted?
-2
Surturius Apr 8, 2026 -30
I genuinely don't understand how this could have happened if it WASN'T intentional
-30
mcclain Apr 8, 2026 +7
guess you’ve never made a mistake while working on a project under a tight deadline?
7
TheScarletCravat Apr 8, 2026 +23
You've got two hours to go through three hours of footage. You're hitting the arrow keys on your keyboard zipping through the footage, matching your edits up to timestamped notes taken during the recording and snipping as you go. You've got hundreds of edits to make. One slips through. Could be distracted, overworked. Someone could have said 'Oh God, make sure to remove the n word at 45 mins in!' so you do, not realising that three seconds later it's said again, because you've already zipped to the next timestamp. It's extremely easy.
23
VerilyShelly Apr 8, 2026 +5
Just because you can't understand it doesn't make you right. In fact it means the opposite.
5
zowietremendously Apr 11, 2026 -1
People just love the tourettes excuse to say the n word. If it wasn't in your vocabulary to begin with, you wouldn't say it.
-1
← Back to Board