I wasn't "calling for" anything. What I was responding to was the mistaken belief that "not guilty" is the same as "innocent," when in actuality, it means "not found guilty." The statement that the legal implications are the same is actually utterly false. For the defendant, perhaps---but not for the system that prosecuted him.
An exception to the above would be when the accused presents an affirmative defense. But the defense doesn't need to do that.
I strongly disagree that a "not guilty" and a "not proved" verdict are the same thing. The former means that the court found that the defendant didn't commit the crime; the latter means that the court didn't find that the defendant did. That's a huge distinction and one that should remain in the verdicts of courts of law.