I’m not sure what it is with blacklisted comedians starting their own news channels on YouTube, but I guess they feel like they’re getting the “truth” out there or at least asking questions that MSM won’t, like whether Russell Brand’s accusers were paid to make allegations against him.

Davidson tells viewers he’s not a fan of Brand but wanted to ‘ask a few questions’, such as whether the women who accused Brand of rape and sexual assault were ‘paid to give evidence to Channel 4 or the Times newspaper.’ Watch below:

Davidson goes on to ask if police were ‘going to check out the facts… a woman said she was raped by him so why aren’t the old Bill down there arresting him for it and finding out if it was true or not, and if it’s not true why don’t they arrest her, why don’t they arrest the people form The Times newspaper or Channel 4 for making a programme without any corroborative evidence if there’s no corroborative evidence?’

Obviously Davidson is entitled to air his views on his YouTube channel just like Brand’s alleged victims are entitled to make their allegations against him. Although by talking to the press I’m not sure they’ve made the job of conviction easier but they have essentially destroyed Brand’s career. If the alleged victims took legal advice before making their accusations, they would have been told this.

At the end of the day, the police and the courts will determine the truth, not newspapers and people on social media. Will we ever find out the answer to Jim’s question though? Probably not.

To watch Sean Lock eviscerate Russell Brand in a resurfaced 8 out of 10 Cats clip, click HERE. Did he know something?