Jonathan Ross Says He Was Unaware of Walliams and Brand Conduct
Jonathan Ross says he is horrified by revelations about David Walliams and Russell Brand, and that he did not know about their conduct.
According to the Guardian, the TV presenter Jonathan Ross has said he is as horrified by recent revelations about David Walliams and the crimes of Russell Brand as the rest of the country. Ross said he was genuinely unaware of the pair's conduct.
The BBC reports that Ross described himself as once being friendly with both men. Its coverage refers to a conviction involving Brand and to allegations concerning Walliams, and it also carries Ross's statement that he had no knowledge of their behaviour.
The Guardian notes that Ross had joked at the British Comedy Awards in 2004 about a 15-year-old girl going home with Walliams. Walliams is one of Britain's best-known television personalities and a top-selling children's author. The outlet has published a full investigation into the wider story, along with an explainer on the legal issues involved.
Full details of the revelations about Walliams are not yet clear from the reporting so far, and the specifics of Brand's case are not set out in the coverage available here. Readers should be cautious about drawing firm conclusions from headlines alone.
Background
Jonathan Ross has been a familiar face on British television for decades, hosting chat shows and major award ceremonies. The British Comedy Awards were, for many years, a prominent televised event, and its broadcasts often included jokes and banter that would draw a very different response today. Early-2000s entertainment culture tolerated many kinds of edgy humour about celebrities and their private lives, and jokes that touched on sex or age were not always challenged at the time.
The climate changed significantly in the late 2010s, after international movements encouraged people to speak publicly about sexual misconduct in workplaces, including the entertainment industry. Broadcasters and production companies in Britain responded with stricter codes of conduct, complaints procedures and safeguarding policies, particularly where children or young people were involved.
British law draws several distinctions that matter in stories like this one. An allegation is a claim that has not been tested in court. A charge is a formal accusation brought by prosecutors. A conviction is a finding of guilt by a court. A person who has not been convicted is presumed innocent under British law, and newspapers and broadcasters work within defamation and contempt rules when reporting on people who have been accused. Those boundaries shape what outlets can say and how readers should interpret it.
Institutions also carry their own responsibilities. Organisations that commission, broadcast and present television have duties to protect staff and audiences, and public trust depends on how seriously those duties are treated when concerns are raised.
Why it matters
The story touches on several issues at once. For audiences, it raises questions about how much those who work in television knew about colleagues' behaviour, and whether industry circles were aware of concerns that never reached the public. For the broadcasting sector, it puts pressure on processes that were designed to prevent harm, and on whether those processes were applied consistently across different eras.
The joke Ross made in 2004 is also being looked at again. Its reappearance in the coverage shows how material that once passed without comment can be re-examined when public attitudes shift. That raises a broader question about how archives of older programmes and events should be treated, and whether broadcasters should review them.
For Walliams, whose work is aimed in large part at children, the reporting has consequences for how families view his books and shows. For Brand, the conviction is a matter of public record, and its effects on his career and reputation are likely to remain a subject of debate.
There is also the matter of fairness. Ross has said he was unaware of the conduct described, and that statement should be weighed alongside the facts that are established, rather than treated as proof either way.
What to watch
Readers should watch for the full details of the revelations about Walliams, which are not yet clear from the reporting. Any formal statements from Walliams, his representatives or the organisations he has worked with would help clarify the picture.
It will also be worth following whether broadcasters or award organisers comment on their past events, and whether they review archived material. Any explanation of Brand's conviction, including its legal steps and sentencing, will shape how the wider story is understood.
Finally, watch for further reporting from the Guardian's investigation and the BBC's coverage, which may add verified detail over the coming days.
Viewpoints
Commentary from our columns: three angles on this story.
The Long View history and context
Every era writes its own rules about what can be laughed at, and the rules are often clearer in hindsight. A joke delivered at a televised ceremony in 2004 may have seemed like harmless banter at the time, yet its reappearance now shows how far attitudes have moved. The history of British comedy is full of material that was once accepted and later reconsidered, from scripts that treated women as punchlines to backstage habits that were quietly tolerated for decades.
What this story asks is not only what people knew, but what the culture around them made it easy to ignore. Entertainment was built on personalities, and institutions often protected them. The lesson of the last decade is that those protections deserve scrutiny, and that silence can be a kind of consent. Looking back is not about settling scores. It is about understanding how an industry learned, slowly and painfully, to take concerns about power and harm more seriously than it once did.
The Rulebook law, policy and institutions
When a story like this emerges, the question that follows is who was responsible for noticing. Broadcasters, production companies and award organisers all have policies that are meant to protect staff, audiences and especially children. Those policies only work if they are applied consistently, reviewed regularly and backed by reporting routes that people trust.
The legal framework adds another layer. Britain presumes that people are innocent until a court finds otherwise, and it sets clear limits on what the press can say about people who have not been convicted. Those limits protect fairness, but they can also make it harder for the public to understand what institutions knew at the time. The sensible response is not to rush to judgment. It is to ask whether the safeguards that exist today would have caught problems years ago, and whether they will catch them next time.
The Ground Level what it means for ordinary people
For ordinary viewers, this kind of story can feel unsettling. Many people grew up watching these presenters and reading these books, and it is natural to wonder whether that affection was misplaced. It can also be hard to know how to talk about it with children, who may have strong feelings about a favourite author or show.
A useful starting point is to acknowledge that it is fine to feel uncertain. Parents can explain, in simple terms, that adults are responsible for keeping young people safe and that they should always feel able to talk about anything that worries them. Anyone affected by these kinds of issues can look for support from established helplines and organisations, and should not feel pressure to take a side in public debate. The most important thing is to keep the focus on the people who may have been harmed, and on making sure that concerns are heard and taken seriously.