Scott Creighton wrote:

> And let us also not forget here that bribery was only one of
> the corrupt means employed by people such as Howard-Vyse.
> Elections at this time were not secret ballots. If a particular
> voter could not be ‘bought’ then other means were often
> employed – intimidation, violence or the threat of being
> evicted from their home or thrown out of their jobs. It takes a
> very particular type of person to go to such lengths – to do
> whatever it takes – to win the ballot. It may not have come to
> that in Howard-Vyse’s case but it COULD have and he would have
> known that beforehand; he would have known before standing that
> he would have to be prepared to stoop to such low means if that
> is what was needed in order to win. [. . .]

So you’re basing your case now on what “COULD have” happened?

Vyse “COULD have” sacrificed babies to Satan, THEREFORE he was a VERY EVIL MAN, whose EVIL encompassed archaeological forgery.

Brilliant argument.

> SC:You're quite right - Howard-Vyse wasn't particularly
> concerned about how he got into Parliament and that lack of
> concern would manifest itself by him employing whatever means
> necessary to get himself there which often included bribery,
> intimidation, violence, threats of eviction from home and job. [. . .]

I see. Not just what he COULD have done, but what he WOULD have done, into which you have an unexplained mystical insight.

We’re to condemn Vyse, not for what he did, but for violence, intimidation and threats of eviction which happened entirely in your imagination.

I don’t think so.

M.