Tourette Scotland have shared today that over £15,000 has now been donated in the past week, with more than 500 generous individuals showing their support for the charity and for John Davidson. Thank you to everyone who has donated and shared messages of support. This will go such a long way for so many families living with Tourette’s. As well as support from across the UK and Ireland, international donations have come in from Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Sweden and the USA. Thank you once again everyone. Your kindness and support has been truly outstanding. 🫶 tourettescotland.enthuse.com… – at Straiton, Scotland

What an absolute disgrace. Cambridge University, supposedly one of the world's leading academic institutions, has managed to demonstrate a staggering level of ignorance about disability during its own so-called "inclusivity training". John Davidson's involuntary Tourette's tic at the BAFTAs was presented in a discussion about "microaggressions", with the suggestion that explaining his disability wasn't sufficient to acknowledge the harm caused. ARE YOU ACTUALLY SERIOUS? John cannot control his tics. That's the bloody disability! What exactly do these people expect him to do? Apologise for being disabled? Take responsibility for neurological symptoms he cannot control? The sheer arrogance of lecturing people about inclusion while demonstrating such spectacular ignorance of disability is breathtaking. Nobody is denying that people can feel offended. But being offended does not automatically mean somebody else has done something wrong. And apparently, even explaining an involuntary neurological condition is now considered making excuses. If your understanding of inclusion is so catastrophically poor that you cannot distinguish between deliberate prejudice and an involuntary disability-related symptom, you have absolutely no business teaching it. Perhaps Cambridge should spend less time lecturing others about inclusion and more time educating itself. What an absolute embarrassment for a world-renowned university. – at Calafell, Spain

Another promise of “immediate action” and another route map. GIRFEC says support should be based on need, not diagnosis. Yet families experience the opposite, and even diagnosed children are going unsupported. Mainstream placement alone isn't inclusion. Without resources, specialist provision and accountability, it's just a policy ambition at the expense of children. – at Vilanova i la Geltrú, Spain

This article mirrors much of what I’ve been saying over the past week, and I think it gets to the heart of why this whole situation has made so many people uncomfortable. First and foremost, John’s choice should be respected. He has been very clear that watching from a separate space is what feels right for him, and nobody else gets to tell him that his choice is wrong. Individual autonomy matters. There is no single “Tourette’s response”, and what is right for John does not automatically become the model for every other person with Tourette’s. But respecting John’s choice doesn’t mean we shouldn’t examine the circumstances around it. Our past experiences inevitably influence the choices we make today. If someone has spent years experiencing confrontation, judgement or hostility because of something they cannot control, that history matters when they decide where they feel most comfortable. That doesn’t diminish their agency. It is precisely why we should be careful about turning an individual choice into evidence that separation is somehow the inclusive solution. That distinction matters enormously to me as the parent of a child with Tourette’s whose vocal tics can be extremely offensive sounding. We have always encouraged him that he belongs in the classroom, at events and in society alongside everybody else. He should never grow up believing that inclusion means he is welcome only when his disability is quiet enough, convenient enough or placed in another room. And the article makes a point about BAFTA’s language that I completely agree with. They repeatedly talk about creating a “safe” environment and mitigating “distress and harm”. Safe from what, exactly? Who is unsafe because a person with Tourette’s involuntarily vocalises a word? Someone can absolutely find a tic offensive, upsetting or uncomfortable. Nobody is required to pretend otherwise. But discomfort and offence are not automatically the same thing as being unsafe, particularly once everyone understands that the words are involuntary and do not represent the beliefs or intentions of the person saying them. That is where education, understanding and acceptance are supposed to come in. Inclusion cannot simply mean moving the disabled person when their disability becomes difficult for everyone else. Equally, inclusion shouldn’t mean stripping anyone else of their own agency. Everyone involved can make choices about how they participate. The person with Tourette’s should not automatically be the one expected to disappear. That is why the individual has to remain at the centre of this discussion. John has made his choice and it should be respected. Another person with Tourette’s may make a completely different choice, and that should be respected too. The irony highlighted in this article is difficult to ignore: I Swear tells us that John deserves to be there as much as anyone else, and that the answer is education, understanding and acceptance. Those principles are easiest to repeat when inclusion is comfortable. The real test is whether we still believe them when it isn’t. – at Straiton, Scotland

This article hits on something we have now experienced first-hand with City of Edinburgh Council. What happens when an independent review finds serious failures, but the same organisation being scrutinised still controls what gets released, how it is interpreted, how the recommendations are implemented and what elected representatives are actually able to challenge? Our son’s safeguarding review was completed months before we were given it. Its release was delayed while legal concerns were cited. Elected representatives raised questions. We eventually received the report, but we are still asking who actually decided to withhold it, under what authority, what changed before it was finally released, and whether elected councillors had any meaningful ability to intervene. Then comes implementation. Serious recommendations were made. Yet instead of a clear action plan setting out who will do what, by when, how progress will be measured and who will provide independent oversight, we are still having to chase basic answers. Ask perfectly reasonable questions and suddenly everything disappears into legal advice, internal processes or FOI. At what point does that stop being accountability and simply become an institution controlling the scrutiny of itself? This is exactly why the question of unelected officer power matters. Nobody needs to allege a conspiracy. The structure itself should concern people. If a council can commission an independent safeguarding review into its own failures, then retain control over disclosure, implementation, interpretation and the flow of information afterwards, where exactly is the independent accountability? “Recommendations accepted” means very little if nobody can tell you what has actually changed. And if elected representatives cannot force clear answers when serious safeguarding failures have already been independently established, then we should probably be asking a much bigger question: Who is actually in charge? – at Hermiston, Scotland

Since you've blocked me after repeatedly demanding that I provide the solution, I'll put the question directly to you and anyone else who shares your position. This started with John Davidson and BAFTA, but let's apply your argument strictly. If someone knows they have offensive involuntary tics, and knows other people may hear and be upset or offended by them, you appear to believe their decision to attend means they're "forcing" those tics upon everyone else and prioritising themselves. So reform that argument into an actual workable solution. My position is simple: individual autonomy applies to everyone. The person with Tourette's decides how they participate. Everyone else decides how they participate and respond. Nobody automatically acquires authority over somebody else's choices simply because those choices bring them into the same space. So what's your alternative? School? Work? University? Restaurants? Shops? Public transport? Concerts? Sporting events? Offensive tics can potentially offend anyone, anywhere. If knowing that possibility exists means the person with Tourette's shouldn't attend, where exactly does your principle leave them? How do you guarantee nobody ever has to hear an offensive involuntary tic while still allowing the person with Tourette's to participate equally in society? Where can they go? Who decides? What happens when somebody offended by their tics enters that space? If your solution requires restricting where the person with Tourette's can participate, say so plainly. You've spent long enough telling me my position is wrong. Restore some substance to the argument and tell me what replaces it. Because my solution is individual autonomy for everyone. If you believe you have a better way of resolving that conflict without progressively excluding the person with Tourette's from ordinary society, I'm genuinely interested to hear it. – at Straiton, Scotland

Something I keep coming back to after the conversation around John Davidson and the BAFTA Scotland Awards is agency, autonomy and individual choice. And I think the word individual really matters. John has made clear that watching the BAFTAs from a separate relaxed space is his choice. If that allows John to enjoy and celebrate the evening in the way that feels right for him, then that decision should be respected. But respecting John’s choice also means not taking his individual decision and turning it into an expectation for everybody else with Tourette’s. My own experience as a parent is a good example of why. I have a child with Tourette’s who has vocal tics throughout the day, every day, some of which can be extremely offensive sounding. They don’t choose the words, when they happen or who happens to hear them. We’ve always encouraged our child not to be ashamed of that. They have the same right to go to school, attend clubs, go shopping, attend events and participate in ordinary life as everybody else. Generally, they want to be right in the middle of it. If they decide an environment is overwhelming and want somewhere quieter, we support that. If they want to leave, we support that. If they want an adjustment that makes participating easier, we support that too. But if they want to stay in the room with everybody else, enjoy themselves and allow their tics to happen naturally, that choice deserves exactly the same respect as John Davidson’s choice at the BAFTAs. Other people don’t lose their agency because my child exercises theirs. Someone who hears one of their tics and experiences momentary discomfort, shock or offence still has choices about how they respond and how they participate. This is where I have a problem with some of the discussion I’ve seen surrounding the BAFTAs. A person with Tourette’s choosing a separate or quieter space because it benefits them is a reasonable adjustment. Saying John has made the “right choice” because other people therefore won’t have to hear his tics is something entirely different. We should never reach a point where the person with the disability becomes the accommodation for everybody else. Reasonable adjustments aren't one size fits all. What John wants at the BAFTAs may be completely different from what another person with Tourette’s wants in exactly the same situation. Even the same person's needs and preferences can change depending on their circumstances and previous experiences. That is what genuine inclusion should look like. Respect John Davidson choosing a quieter space at the BAFTAs because that is what John wants. Respect another person with Tourette’s choosing to sit in the middle of that auditorium and tic freely because that is what they want. Everyone retains agency over their own participation. Inclusion should expand a disabled person’s choices, not reduce them for everybody else’s convenience. – at Straiton, Scotland

I genuinely cannot believe I’m still having to argue this seven months later. John has made clear that watching from a separate room via video feed is his choice, made for his own comfort. That choice should absolutely be respected. But we should be asking ourselves why, in 2026, anyone with Tourette’s might feel that being somewhere they cannot be seen or heard is the most comfortable way to participate. Because apparently the possibility that somebody might experience a few seconds of discomfort from hearing an involuntary tic is enough for people to argue that the person with Tourette’s should remove themselves instead. Think about that trade-off. Your momentary discomfort versus somebody being made to feel that their neurological condition means they are better off out of sight and out of earshot. Seven months ago I was arguing that my son deserves to leave his house, attend events and exist in public without apologising for involuntary symptoms he cannot control. Apparently I still am.

And this is where that argument leads if you apply it consistently. My son has extremely offensive sounding vocal tics throughout the day, every day. Should he therefore not attend school? Should he be removed from his classes? Avoid public places? Stay away from anyone who might be offended by something he involuntarily says? Of course not. That cannot be the answer. John has made his own choice about what makes him comfortable at this particular event, and I respect that. But we cannot turn one individual’s personal choice into a wider expectation that people with Tourette’s should remove themselves whenever their disability might make somebody else uncomfortable. My son’s school has taken the opposite approach: education, understanding and inclusion. His peers and teachers understand that his tics are involuntary and don't represent his thoughts or beliefs. That is the model we should be working towards, not segregation. – at Danderhall, Scotland

TMZ calling an involuntary Tourette’s tic an “N-word outburst” is exactly how stigma and misinformation are perpetuated. An involuntary tic is not an expression of someone’s feelings, beliefs or character. The X community clearly understands that, hence the Community Note. TMZ undoubtedly knew inflammatory framing would farm engagement. I won’t stay quiet while a debilitating and deeply misunderstood condition is misrepresented for clicks.

That wording genuinely disgusts me. “The safest way possible for all”? John isn’t a danger to anyone. My son has Tourette’s and has vocal tics that can be extremely offensive. Is he somehow a danger to people because a neurological misfire causes him to involuntarily say words that make them uncomfortable? I’ve said it before. Tourette’s is the ultimate test of inclusion. It’s easy to preach acceptance when a disability is comfortable and convenient. The moment Tourette’s does what Tourette’s actually does, far too many people suddenly decide the person with the disability is the problem. John shouldn’t be treated as a safety risk because of an involuntary vocal tic.

I really hope I Swear sweeps the awards. My son and I were incredibly lucky to be part of this film, and we’ve made lifelong friends along the way, including John himself. I just wish John didn’t feel he had to segregate himself. He should be in that room with everyone else, celebrating what has been achieved. This film exists because of his life, his story and everything he has spent decades fighting for. John shouldn’t be watching that celebration from another room. He should be right at the heart of it.

This is disgraceful. John Davidson should be sitting in that room celebrating I Swear like everyone else. Instead, the man whose LIFE inspired the most nominated film at the Scottish BAFTAs plans to watch from a separate room. And let’s be clear: the UK has overwhelmingly stood behind John. America? There’s still a hell of a lot of education to do. What happened in February wasn’t John’s failure. His tic was involuntary. The BBC failed by broadcasting it. Yet the outrage and conversation that followed somehow left the disabled man carrying the consequences. Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo received apologies and enormous sympathy. Where was their public support for John? Where was the acknowledgement that HE was the person living with the disability? Months later, John is the one considering sitting in another room. Think about how backwards that is. John didn’t choose his tic. He didn’t choose for the BBC to broadcast it. He didn’t choose other people’s ignorance. Yet HE is changing his behaviour. HE is making himself less visible. HE is carrying the burden. John, you should not have to hide yourself away to protect other people from a disability they haven't bothered to understand. Their ignorance is not your burden. You belong in that fucking room.

Eight months. No completion dates. Key actions still outstanding. And when we asked questions, Legal Services were consulted. Eight months after City of Edinburgh Council completed an independent safeguarding review into what happened to our son Joseph, we have finally been sent what the Council describes as its “final action plan”. What we received is deeply disappointing. It largely repeats the review recommendations. There are no completion dates recorded. Numerous actions are marked RED. And there is very little evidence showing what has actually been completed. So we asked some basic questions. What has actually been done? Why have actions been missed? Where is the evidence? How has Joseph been involved? Who is overseeing this? And why, eight months later, had we still not even received the apology recommended by the review? Only after we challenged that did an apology arrive. And even that, in my opinion, falls well short of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman’s guidance on a meaningful apology. Instead of clearly acknowledging the specific failures, their impact and what is being done to put things right, we received a broad apology for the “shortcomings identified within the report”. Then came the part that concerns us most. Rather than directly answering our detailed questions about how its own safeguarding recommendations are being implemented, we were told that Legal Services had been consulted and that the detailed questions would now be dealt with through Freedom of Information. We spent months unable to see the review. We finally get it. We ask what is actually being done about its findings. And another barrier appears. This is especially difficult to understand when the review itself required a clear action plan and said Joseph’s voice should be central to the process. At this stage, based on what we have experienced over the past eight months, it is increasingly my view that the Council is not treating either the seriousness of the safeguarding findings or implementation of the recommendations with the urgency they require. Accountability is not producing a tracker. Accountability is not issuing an apology only after being chased. And accountability should not mean putting another process between a family and straightforward answers about how safeguarding recommendations are being implemented. Eight months later, we are still asking. #Safeguarding #Accountability #AdditionalSupportNeeds – at Straiton, Scotland

Yesterday, @PhilipDoggart raised the implementation of our son Joseph’s independent safeguarding review directly with the Council Leader at full Council. His question was simple: when a serious safeguarding review involving a child makes recommendations, should those recommendations be implemented promptly, and what happens when they are not? The Council Leader’s answer was equally clear. Recommendations should be implemented “as fast as possible.” Officers have “a responsibility and a duty” to make sure that happens. So why are we still asking? Joseph’s independent safeguarding review has been complete since January. In April, the Council told us work on the recommendations was already underway. It is now September and we are still trying to obtain the most basic evidence of implementation: What has actually been done? What remains outstanding? Who is responsible for each recommendation? What are the completion dates? Where is the action plan? The agreed Terms of Reference required a clear action plan. The final report we eventually received still ends with: “Action Plan To be determined.” This is not some minor administrative exercise. The independent review identified serious failures in how safeguarding and child-protection concerns involving our five-year-old son were handled. It found that allegations which should have triggered child-protection consideration were not dealt with through the appropriate procedures. Recommendations arising from findings like these cannot simply sit in a report for months while a family repeatedly asks what has happened to them. A safeguarding review only protects other children if its findings actually lead to change. Eight months after the review was completed, we should not have to fight for evidence that this has happened. Thank you to @PhilipDoggart for putting this question on the public record. The question for @Edinburgh_CC remains incredibly simple: What has actually been implemented since January, and why is it proving so difficult to tell us? – at Straiton, Scotland

This should be much bigger than it is. PE1979 is not about one type of abuse, one setting or one group of children. It is about whether every child in Scotland can be properly protected when serious safeguarding concerns are raised and whether there is somewhere genuinely independent for families, survivors and whistleblowers to turn when public bodies fail. That protects every single one of our kids. Every parent, grandparent, carer and anyone who cares about children’s safety should be paying attention to this petition and supporting it. Four years is already far too long. We cannot allow this to drag on for another four while government continues to deliberate and discuss. Children continue to be at risk while the system remains inadequate. Please read Alison’s post, follow #PE1979, share it and ask your MSP what they are doing to strengthen independent safeguarding and accountability in Scotland. This affects all of us. – at Straiton, Scotland