In all of these discussions I find it bewildering and slightly comical that everyone seems to hold the British law courts in such godlike high esteem.

The fact is that in sexual abuse crimes - particularly ones in which years have elapsed - there is unlikely to be much evidence. If there isn't much evidence, it's unlikely someone will be found guilty. All an innocent verdict tells us is the available evidence tells us we should acquit. An innocent verdict is qualitatively different from a guilty one in this respect.

I find it quite weird that everyone seems to think Rolf Harris is a dirty paedo because he was found guilty whereas Roy Harper is clearly completely innocent because he was found innocent. The law makes mistakes, and makes decisions based on what evidence is AVAILABLE, not through a unique godlike omniscience denied to you or I.

In reality, the only people who will EVER really know what happened in cases of sexual abuse are the accuser and the accused. Everyone else has to make a largely partisan decision based on what they've read of the case.