No smoke without fire

[Fluidic Kimbo]

The person who first came up with the phrase, "No smoke without fire", and the people who continue to use the phrase again and again, fall into two categories:
(1) Very naive people with very little real life experience
(2) Intelligent but immoral people serving their own personal goals

I say this because anyone who has lived life a bit, in particular in caring roles or in roles of authority, will know that false allegations are just as common as true allegations.

I mentioned in another thread here a few months ago that I sat in a police station in the UK a few years ago, and I was discussing a few matters with a police officer sitting across the table from me, and the office said to me "We receive more complaints of sexual assaults that didn't happen, than did".

The phrase "No smoke without fire" is total nonsense. For thousands of years, communities of humans have been composing accusations against each other, some of them 80% true, some of them 50% true, some of them 20% true, and some of them 0% true.

People tell lies and compose life-changing allegations against other people. I suppose the only saving grace in it all is that people in positions of authority tend to be well aware of this trait.

[Test Monsterone]

While it may or may not be true that the majority of sex crimes reported are false accusations, if the reports are repeatedly against a single person... that's where the saying "no smoke without fire" comes into play. If a person has multiple unrelated people making the same accusation against them over a period of time, I would think that at least some of what is claimed is true.

[Fluidic Kimbo]

While it may or may not be true that the majority of sex crimes reported are false accusations, if the reports are repeatedly against a single person... that's where the saying "no smoke without fire" comes into play. If a person has multiple unrelated people making the same accusation against them over a period of time, I would think that at least some of what is claimed is true.

I agree with this in a more general sense, not just in the context of sex crimes. For example, if I'm working in a children's care home, and I have a report in front of me about a new child coming to stay, and if that report says:

2011 - Michigan - Reported theft
2013 - Colorado - Reported theft
2015 - New York - Reported theft

If three different care homes in three different states are saying this kid has stolen things, then really I would have to start to lean toward the kid being an habitual thief.

But there's another thing to consider, and I'll give an extreme example before I give smaller examples. Let's say that it's 1940's Germany and the accused is walking around with a big yellow star on the front of their coat -- maybe this person is a prime target for false accusations.

Bringing it into the modern day though, a person can be singled out for false accusations for a myriad of reasons: being gay, being black, speaking with a lisp, being homeless, being HIV+, having naturally red hair, the list is endless.

I had a friend of mine who really liked playing rugby but also had a fulltime job, and so he only went rugby training one or two weekday nights per week. He told me that the full-time players throw in elbows when tackling the part-timers.

Even if a person has a string of accusations against them froma variety of (seemingly independent) sources, you need to consider whether there could be something innocent about this person that makes them a target for fictional allegations.

And you need to just simply ask the accused if they have anything to say about it all?

[lovbyts]

While it may or may not be true that the majority of sex crimes reported are false accusations, if the reports are repeatedly against a single person... that's where the saying "no smoke without fire" comes into play. If a person has multiple unrelated people making the same accusation against them over a period of time, I would think that at least some of what is claimed is true.

I can think of a certain board member that analogy would fit 100%