David Walliams gay jokes from a 2006 Channel 4 clip have resurfaced, with the exchange now circulating in the shadow of Russell Brand's later conviction. The footage, from the first episode of The Russell Brand Show on November 24, 2006, shows Walliams and Brand joking about pretending to be gay as a “smokescreen.”
Matt Lucas set up the exchange with the line, “You’re like the two gayest straight blokes there are, aren’t you?” Walliams answered, “Isn’t it a wonderful smokescreen?” and Brand followed with, “Isn’t it though? Isn’t it glorious? It works wonderfully well.”
Channel 4 in 2006
The clip was filmed nearly 20 years ago, when Brand’s profile was rising fast and the joke was played for studio laughter rather than public scrutiny. On its face, it was a quick bit of comic banter; in today’s context, it sits uneasily beside what followed in court.
Brand was jailed for ten-and-a-half years after being found guilty of raping a 21-year-old fan at his Hampstead home in 2009 and sexually assaulting three female television and radio workers in 2004, 2005 and 2009. His victims included women working at Channel 4, Capital Radio and MTV, and he was cleared of two further rape charges and one allegation of attempted indecent assault.
Southwark Crown Court
Mr Justice Bennathan told Brand at Southwark Crown Court on Monday, November 9: “About 20 years ago, Russell Brand, you were becoming famous.” He added, “You were clever - and in many people’s eyes, funny and charismatic,” before telling him, “You had also become a sexual predator.”
That is why the old television exchange is drawing attention now: the clip is framed as a joke between friends, but it is resurfacing alongside Brand’s conviction for raping and sexually assaulting four women. There is no suggestion that Walliams was aware of Brand’s offending or involved in any wrongdoing, which leaves the footage as an uncomfortable artifact of an era when that material could air without challenge.
For viewers, the practical takeaway is blunt. The clip is not a new allegation against Walliams; it is a reminder of how much of Brand’s broadcast history is now being reassessed through the verdict. The question left hanging is the simplest one: why this clip started circulating again now.
