So......if he is cleared of all charges (just now) , that means he isn't guilty....so he's been to trial over allegations specific to him where he didn't do it......so why don't we then get an examination of the reasons and evidence used by the CPS to bring the original charges.....Innocent means he hasn't done it....so by deduction the claims are false? Isn't that the logic?

So false allegations, allegeations that the CPS thought were credible and yet that a jury having heard the evidence seem to think otherwise.

The girl in question surely now needs to be examined and questioned over the allegations that appear to have taken everybody for mugs..........

For me, it doesn't follow that the allegation when proved false allow for the person making the allegation to still be annonymous........that is too much of the balance (or non balance) in the wrong direction