Richard Feynman once suggested the following mental experiment. Chinese citizens are not allowed to see the face of the Emperor. How does one estimate the length of the Emperor's nose? One can simply poll a large number of citizens, asking them, "What do you think is the length of the Emperor's nose?" By averaging the results we should get a reasonable estimate of the length of the Emperor's nose...
Except, since no citizen has any data allowing them to say virtually anything about the length of the Emperor's nose, all the collected data is completely useless, and the estimate makes no sense.

Similarly, I do not think that the number of allegations against an individual says anything about how actually guilty he is. Hate campaigns are a thing, and very often it only takes one or two voices for thousands other voices to join in, not because they have all been victimized by the target of the campaign, but because, for one reason or another, they want the target removed or seriously hurt - or it even may be as simple as wanting to extort some money from him.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is not just some legal technicality, but an essential philosophical principle when it comes to justice in general. Much like the burden of proof, this principle assures that simply making a negative claim about someone does not have any direct consequences, and some concrete evidence or argumentation is required for the accusation to be considered seriously. This principle does not suddenly become irrelevant because a large enough number of people accused someone of something. Even if 99.999% of the world's population says that someone has raped someone, without concrete evidence these are just empty words. Now, individuals are free to err on the side of safety if they want and assume that the person is guilty even without due evidence - but I refuse to err on he side of safety if it means giving bullies a free reign over society. I do not want to live in a society where a few people can group up and accuse someone of something and destroy their life, regardless of whether they are guilty or not, and I will not contribute to emergence of such a society.

I just realized that I actually never said what I think about Russell Brand in general. As a comedian and a public figure, I think he is fun - but he is a weak intellectual. His ideas are very banal and he delves in a lot of new age stuff, which is a common rabbit hole for wellness-oriented people to fall into. He is much like your average hippie from the 60-s, set on a crusade against politicians and corporations and advocating for simple, humble and natural life.