I know it’s not very progressive to say this but maybe he shouldn’t be there if he can’t stop yelling homophobic and racial slurs while he’s there?
To respond charitably, that way lies “People like him shouldn’t be allowed out in public at all”, and the very, very ugly history of the treatment of disabled people. And if he can’t attend an event in which his own life and cause feature prominently, what can he attend?
In other threads discussing this, it has been said that the BBC promised to remove all his outbursts, given that the show is usually on delay anyway. And didn’t. And seems to have deliberately miked where he was sitting in the 40th row. If true, it does seem like a stitch-up.
Delroy Lindo should reasonably expect to go to the BAFTAs and not have the n word shouted at him. That doesn’t change because someone else has limitations he can’t help. Like you said Davidson wasn’t even up for an award, he’s just an audience member.
Again:
“Just”?
I think this leads to saying that Davidson should not go anyplace he might encounter a Black person, or any other person that his tic could come out against. Or not go anywhere formal. Or not go to place where a movie about himself is being awarded.
Individual rights are easy to advocate for when there is only one person involved. When one individual’s rights clash with another individual’s rights the debate begins. Should Davidson be able to go wherever he wants? Sure. Should Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo be able to go to the BAFTAs without being called something heinous? Of course. But the former just has to suck it up I guess.
I’m not clear on this. Do you mean that Davidson (the former) just has to suck it up? That sentence reads like sarcasm, but it’s kind of what you’re suggesting sincerely in your earlier post. Did you mean to suggest, sarcastically, that Jordan and Lindo (the latter) just have to suck it up? or am I just super confused?
Sorry I was distracted by life. I meant to say the latter.
At least not up on stage with cameras aimed at him. It seems that BAFTA or maybe the BBC did this on purpose for the publicity.
Hollywood saying- “There is no such thing as bad publicity”.
Got it. In a different thread, someone just mentioned that Davidson was seated next to a mike–a decision made by the producers, not by Davidson. Without that seating, his outbursts would have been inaudible to almost everyone in the audience, and almost certainly inaudible to presenters onstage.
Does that change your opinion of who’s to blame in this case?
Allow me to become the latest in the line of people telling you he was never on stage.
Cameras and microphones, however.
Well, sort of. He will have to endure the unpleasantness, but should be immediately and sincerely apologized to, and once the context is made clear, should find the experience greatly mitigated.
My understanding is that the actual studio audience had been warned about what to expect. Some have said the warnings weren’t as clear and explicit as they should have been, but they shouldn’t have been taken completely by surprise.
It really didn’t sound like he was miked-up. It seemed to just be ambient sound picked up by room mics.
Now, he might have been wearing a mic for some purpose other than for the program audio. Maybe a documentary or news. But if he was miked for the program it doesn’t sound like his outburst was relayed via a microphone he was wearing.
This conversation has been going on all day across multiple threads, so I might have missed something, but I don’t recall anyone saying that he was actually wearing a mic.
I think someone said he was miked. They might have just meant he was picked up by the ambient mics but then why point that out? Everyone and everything is picked-up by ambient mics.
I will try to find where the person said that. I wonder where they got that idea because it doesn’t really make any sense to mic him.
It also doesn’t make sense to consider a person miked merely because there are room mics picking up everything. In my mind you are “miked” only if you have a microphone on you specifically and individually.
I believe the truth is that he was seated very near one of the ambient mikes. Which sure, they’re probably not going to review the seating chart before deciding where to put the mics, but it appears several other outbursts were picked up before he dropped the N-bomb, so someone should have figured out what was happening.
AIUI, the point was that, apparently, he was seated very close to one of the ambient mics, which would have made it more likely that anything he said would have been clearly picked up, compared to if he would have been seated further away from any of the ambient mics.
From a statement which Davidson made afterwards:
Ah. OK. That probably explains all the microphone comments. But IMO, he really didn’t sound very close to a mic. I wish I could see where they had the mics placed.
I’m having some trouble understanding why a mic would be very close to him. that’s not the way ambience is normally miked because you do not want it to pick up anything specific like what people are saying, only the general ambience.