Newly-elected British prime minister, Boris Johnson promised, in the Queen’s speech this week outlining his legislative programme, to end ‘vexatious’ prosecutions of British soldiers, a pledge that has raised Nationalist hackles in Ireland.
But what exactly does ‘vexatious’ mean? Here is what my Apple thesaurus says:
annoying, vexing, irritating, irksome, displeasing, infuriating, maddening, exasperating, provoking, galling, rankling, grating, jarring, harassing, harrying, bothersome, tiresome, troublesome, niggling; upsetting, perturbing, worrying, worrisome, concerning, trying, taxing, distressing, traumatic, unsettling, unpleasant; difficult, awkward, problematic, inconvenient, lamentable, deplorable.
So, I guess we won’t be seeing any British soldiers in the dock any time soon….
The Broken Elbow 
Brits. all above the law when it comes to killing Irish men, women and children. Nothing new there.
Pingback: So, Just What Does ‘Vexatious’ Mean? | The Broken Elbow – seachranaidhe1
Maybe not the most popular view but I think they should close the book on all ‘Troubles’ related deaths. Chances of successful convictions lessen with each passing year. The best tribute to all the victims of the conflict is that we ensure that not another life is lost. Picking at the scab of the past only causes it to fester. I’m not sure the relatives of those who lost there lives would agree though. All they want is justice, but in another generation who is going to take up their cause?
Terrytonic:
The security forces are continuing to withhold evidence in a great many cases involving their direct or indirect involvment in the killings. It could be said that every fresh discovery brings potential convictions ever closer -not that that is the reason families are still seeking answers.
As for your demeaning term of picking at scabs causing them to fester –for some the wounds have not healed because after a relative has been killed the security forces or state poured vinegar on the wounds of the next of kin by making various false claims about their loved ones -ie, they were rioting, handling guns or explosives etc.
If nothing else I think the truth should be told about what was done -otherwise future generations will suffer from festering ignorance and misinformation.
Christy Walsh.
I am referring to ALL victims of the conflict which includes those killed by state forces and paramilitaries. I will also referring to the chances of successful convictions, which as the years go by get less and less. The early release of prisoners was very hard for a lot of relatives to stomach, but was necessary piece in the jigsaw which ended the conflict. Drawing a line under all conflict related crimes may also be a necessary evil if, as you rightly state, future generations should be afforded the truth.
Yes, a some sort conflict Truth Forum would be ideal, but unless there is immunity from prosecution then the chances of people even taking part would be very slim never mind admitting to committing any crimes.
The state will continue to lie whether you take it to court or not. It will be down to a few very brave individuals to reveal it’s dirty tricks. Even the remote threat of a prosecution is hardly going to entice anyone into doing so.
Terrytonic
Pursuing the truth has been down to whoever is motivated to get at it, for whatever reason -not necessarily for prosecutions. Many would like to just live normal lives and get on with things but they cannot for a myriad of reasons personal to each case.
You have not made a very convincing argument why people should give up their search for truth or why it should be denied to them. Your demeaning terminology that truth seekers are just trying to pick at scabs and maintain festering wounds demonstrates your ignorance about what is at stake.