The use of the phrase 'collusive behaviour'.

political analyst

https://www.irishlegal.com/articles/police-ombudsman-identifies-collusive-behaviours-in-ruc-handling-of-udauff-attacks

Instead of using the phrase 'collusive behaviour', why doesn't the Police Ombudsman just say that some police officers (without publicly mentioning their names, of course) committed specific crimes that were committed by these officers, e.g. perverting the course of justice?

The problems with the Ombudsman's use of the phrase are that it gives the false impression that the use of informers who were involved in murders is itself proof that the officers to whom those informers were meant to report were aware of the informers' involvement in those crimes and that it portrays police incompetence as being itself criminal rather than simply a breach of disciplinary rules.

GM228

She says "collusive behaviour" because that is the long standing correct terminology to be used, it can be criminal or simply non ethical behaviour and is a very broad definition, it is aligned with the definition afforded by Lord Stevens regarding collusion between loyalist paramilitaries and the state security forces in the Stevens Inquiries.

It applies to acts and omissions which can encompass collaboration, agreements, or connivances. It can also include the more passive "turning a blind eye".

why doesn't the Police Ombudsman just say that some police officers (without publicly mentioning their names, of course) committed specific crimes that were committed by these officers, e.g. perverting the course of justice?

The ombudsman can't make such a claim as she is not a court and can't make conclusions in terms of criminal offences.

Jim_Hodge

She used the term because it's the correct term.

political analyst

Her use of the phrase has its roots in a legal challenge taken by retired RUC officers - it was to do with the Loughinisland massacre, I think.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-60287905

But what's the difference between collusion and collusive behaviour?

Jim_Hodge

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118600941#Comment_118600941

That article is incorrect. The term has been in use for close to 100 years and is clearly defined: "Collusive behaviour involves secret or illegal co-operation, especially between countries or organizations."

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118602203#Comment_118602203

I've never been heard of it used in a context pre-dating the Troubles.

Jim_Hodge

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118602822#Comment_118602822

There you go then. Every day is a school day.

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118602882#Comment_118602882

What evidence is there to substantiate your claim that the BBC is wrong about the roots of the term 'collusive behaviour'?

Jim_Hodge

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118603684#Comment_118603684

The simple fact that it's usage dates to well prior to their claim.

But, look, I couldn't give a sh@#. You believe whatever you want.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118604103#Comment_118604103

But you posted earlier that the term had been in use for over a hundred years, and you quoted a definition.

I'm not doubting you. But it would be helpful to know a bit more about where and by whom and in what context the term was used, and where the definition you quoted comes from.

GM228

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118602203#Comment_118602203

I'll be a bit pedantic and note your quote (which I believe is from the Collins dictionary?) is actually the description of the term "collusive", not "collusive behaviour" which is the topic of discussion.

What part of the article is incorrect?

The BBC make no claim the term "collusive behaviour" was first coined out of the troubles, indeed it was not, rather it deals with what is considered collusive behaviour in the legal context regarding police action (and of course inaction), context is important.

There is no universally accepted definition of "collusive behaviour" in law in this regard, but, there are broadly accepted concepts of the term used by the courts and adopted by the various ombudsman over the years.

The current ombudsman adopted the definition of collusive behaviour afforded by Lord Stevens as I noted in post #2.

Jim_Hodge

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118604143#Comment_118604143

It's a standard term in Economics. 'On Collusive Behavior Models of Cartel Formation, Organizational Structure, and Destabilization (Fischer)' springs to mind.

Peregrinus

Mmm. I gotta say that the notion of collusive behaviour in economics is quite far removed from the notion of collusive behaviour in the context of policing terrorists. How economists use the term is probably not hugely relevant to this discussion.

Jim_Hodge

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118608867#Comment_118608867

It's relevant to the origin of the phrase though.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118609250#Comment_118609250

Well, maybe. The word "collusive" has been in the English language since the 1600s. I don't know when it was first used in conjunction with the word "behaviour", but I'm guessing it would have been a fair while ago.

"Collusive behaviour" as a jargon phrase is a different matter. It has a particular significance in this context (policing terrorists), and I think the evolution of the term as used in this context is well explained in the BBC piece linked earlier.

In a broader legal context "collusive behaviour" goes back at least 200 years - Google Ngram finds references going back to 1800 (complaints about justice being denied by the "oppressive devices and collusive behaviour" of corrupt attorneys; objections to the "oppression, extortion, collusive behaviour or culpable neglect of duty" of sheriffs and court officers; etc.) I'm pretty sure these are at least as old, if not older, as instances of the same term being used by economists to discuss anticompetitive practices.