It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Great Pyramid Of Giza And Why It Was Probably Not A Tomb

page: 8
20
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2020 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: bluesfreak
If I was head of Antiquities in Egypt, the dating of the paint could seal the argument once and for all.
... or it could bring down a hammer blow on accepted timelines. Is this why it hasn’t been done?


Bingo!




posted on Mar, 25 2020 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: bluesfreak


bluesfreak: Has the paint you guys are debating been tested c14 as I can’t find any reference to that anywhere ?


SC: Not officially, AFAIK. The paint sample (illegally) taken from Campbell's Chamber by Gorlitz and Erdmann some six years go was radiocarbon tested in a German laboratory but the sample was too small to provide a date (contrary to what some media publications were reporting at the time). The ochre paint (iron oxide mixed with water) would have to have had some gum, fish oil, honey, egg etc added to the mix as a binder in order for there to be any organic material which could be radiocarbon tested. There may, of course, be other, less intrusive/destructive scientific tests that might be able to yield some useful information.


bluesfreak: If I was head of Antiquities in Egypt, the dating of the paint could seal the argument once and for all.


SC: As far as the Supreme Council of Antiquities and most Egyptlogists are concerned, this is a closed matter. The painted marks in the 'Vyse Chambers' are authentic because - well because they say so.


bluesfreak: ... or it could bring down a hammer blow on accepted timelines . Is this why it hasn’t been done?
Surely the only way the debate is settled is this crucial evidence being tested?


SC: Like I said - the SCA don't need to test the marks. They regard them as the genuine article and, as far as they are concerned, there is little reason to doubt their authenticity.


bluesfreak: Easily done, these days.


SC: Not when they already have the answer they want and refuse to consider any objections or evidence that points to the marks having been faked. See this article here for just some of the evidence I have uncovered recently that I consider points to fakery. My forthcoming book will present much more.

SC
edit on 25/3/2020 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2020 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Hi Scott,
its very interesting stuff indeed, I must say .

I can totally accept some form of ‘marking up’ at the quarries, or at stone finishing sites at Giza itself during construction, on a project of such vastness, you simply couldn’t have random blocks turning up on site, with the labourers/ foremen not knowing where it was for etc, it doesn’t work like that .
But surely , just by probability , more of these ‘labels’ would have been found elsewhere throughout the GP? Or even Numbers painted on.
Or even, if this was the method , in other Pyramids?
Does this type of thing occur in the other pyramids at Giza?

Similarly, I also wonder , if it’s graffiti from a work gang , painted on once the part had been fixed in place , ready to be mischievously sealed in for eternity, why write the name of your king/employer/and why would they have a cup of paint on hand ,at this point and indeed at this location in the construction effort, on a dangerous site where masonry was the prime skillset?
If they needed to mark parts/blocks in situ, or near in situ, then we should find more of them, surely ?

If this had happened in England , and it was by the work gang, archaeologists would be marvelling at the ochre ‘cock and balls ‘ left by the workmen...

Also, perhaps Byrd or another Egyptologist could answer what other major construction work was ongoing parallel to the GP project a the time .
Quite possibly loads of others , I’m no expert, but I would imagine that a lot of stonework was being carried out at different sites.
Are these debated marks on Aswan Granite, or Giza limestone?
I’m imagining (there’s that word) that there would have been a separate site or area in the granite quarry for the Pharoahs granite, for his ‘tomb’ , the best stuff , the best guys on the best gig, if not the entire quarry earmarked for Giza, if that’s the case , why need to mark it for khufu? Not sure either way on this tbh
But I may be wrong- probably am!

As a fabricator , if the AE’s were into labelling parts , I would expect to see more numbers painted or code relating to ‘where it goes’ in the construction ,not simply the name of where it was ‘going to’.

The planning for this project is still beyond us, I fear; it’s truly immense if you dare start writing down what you’d need, how it could truly WORK, as I tried once, with an architect friend of mine- ended up with a piece of a2 paper that still wasn’t big enough to fit on all the Venn diagram !!!
It’s stunning , the co operation required by any beings to construct such a thing.

I feel we should be finding more marks like these, if they are part of the ‘plans’.

a reply to: Scott Creighton


edit on 25-3-2020 by bluesfreak because: Word



posted on Mar, 25 2020 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton


... See this article here for just some of the evidence I have uncovered recently that I consider points to fakery. ...


“Published 31st May 2018” - so not that recently. I seem to remember also that it attracted some comment.


... My forthcoming book will present much more.


May we expect this from Inner Traditions • Bear & Company? They are remarkably patient, if so.



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 02:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton


H: How in all these years has it escaped your attention that the ˤpr names are on undressed limestone surfaces?



SC: The roof blocks of Campbell's Chamber are no less 'dressed' limestone blocks than the roof blocks of the Queen's Chamber. Yet we find no painted crew names on the dressed QC roof blocks but we do find them on the dressed roof blocks of Campbell's Chamber. The blocks of the Descending Passage (before it meets and is cut into the bedrock) are of a similar 'dressed' appearance to the limestone wall blocks in the 'Vyse Chambers'. Yet not a single painted mark has ever been reported on any of the blocks in the DP, and yet they're all over the place in the 'Vyse Chambers'.


Sorry, Scott, but questions based on untruths are not ones I feel any obligation to answer. The roof blocks of Campbell’s Chamber are conspicuously less dressed than those of the Queen’s Chamber.

Why have you again picked out one sentence and ignored the rest? Not for the first time, your procedure and your question lack even the appearance of good faith.

I haven’t noticed you alleging recently that all of the ochre marks in these chambers - including those “set far back into the masonry” - are forgeries. Why are you not complaining that these are unparallelled? Could it be that even you have realised that crying “forgery!” in this case lacks credibility - more so when you appeal to such a “solution” as Dennis Payne’s plywood forgery device (SCO, p. 110 and HOAX, p. 98)? The principal objection to this silliness was stated here.

I suggest you think about the various respects in which these architectural spaces differ from the chambers and passages elsewhere in the pyramid. Try thinking for once in a register other than that of confirmation bias.

You might also consider how your obvious compulsion to carry on adding weak-as-water rationalisations to your case reveals a lack of confidence in your core arguments.



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 05:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Hooke


H: ... questions based on untruths are not ones I feel any obligation to answer.


SC: Untruths? Baloney! You'll be calling me a liar next, Hermione - just like your co-author usually does when he's run out of argument.

For your erudition, the dressing of a stone is about taking an irregular stone block from a quarry, then sizing and shaping the stone for a particular use. Almost all of the visible stones in the Great Pyramid meet this criteria. Now, if what you're actually referring to is the surface finish of the stones, then you should have been more precise.


H: The roof blocks of Campbell’s Chamber are conspicuously less dressed than those of the Queen’s Chamber.


SC: And then you present links to two pictures of the roof blocks in Campbell's Chamber. How are we meant to make a comparison with two images from the same chamber? But no matter--I have stood in the Queen's Chamber and have looked at the roof blocks there. Admittedly, I have not been in Campbell's Chamber but from what I see in photos of the roof blocks there, compared to what I saw in the Queen's Chamber, there didn't seem to me to be any appreciable difference in the surface finish of the roof blocks. Admittedly, again, the lighting in the Queen's wasn't great at the time and I didn't have a ladder, but they were certainly not as well finished as the granite surfaces in the King's Chamber (which I also saw).

So let us, for the sake of discussion, accept that the surfaces of the roof blocks in the "architectural space" that is the Queen's Chamber are finished to a higher standard than those in Campbell's Chamber. I suspect that what you are implying here is that the resulting higher finish on the QC roof blocks would have effectively removed any painted crew names that may hitherto have been present upon the stones? Was that the purpose of the higher finish, to remove any painted marks?

If that is what you are essentially saying, then why would they not do likewise with the surfaces of the limestone blocks in the "architectural spaces" of the 'Vyse Chambers'? Why not give the roof blocks in Campbell's a similar finish? Why leave painted marks in those "architectural spaces"?

SC

edit on 26/3/2020 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)

edit on 26/3/2020 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Further to my previous comment...

It was perfectly legitimate for candidates, post-election, to reward their loyal support with a subsequent voluntary payment provided such a payment was not "on account of his vote" and, therefore, not considered as bribery. However, if a payment made by the candidate to his voters before, during or after the election was "on account of their vote", then that is unequivocal bribery. Right from the beginning, electoral bribery was always about the procurement of an elector's vote in exchange for financial reward: in short, buying the vote constitutes bribery.


The whole object of the bribery laws is to prevent the purchase of the vote.


Joseph Hind's 1869 testimony tells us that Vyse made the 'customary payment' for the purchase of votes and tells us how many and how much was paid for those votes. Vyse didn't spend that money on anything else; according to Hind's testimony the money was used for the sole purpose of purchasing votes.

Purchasing votes, as Vyse did, was clear and unequivocal bribery as the law stood in 1807, no matter when the actual payment for those purchased votes was made. It's the purchased votes that makes it automatically and unequivocally an illegal act.

SC

edit on 26/3/2020 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton


H: ... questions based on untruths are not ones I feel any obligation to answer.



SC: Untruths? Baloney! You'll be calling me a liar next, Hermione - just like your co-author usually does when he's run out of argument.


But I didn’t. Your own statements, however, are not true. So how am I supposed to describe them?


For your erudition [sic], the dressing of a stone is about taking an irregular stone block from a quarry, then sizing and shaping the stone for a particular use. Almost all of the visible stones in the Great Pyramid meet this criteria. Now, if what you're actually referring to is the surface finish of the stones, then you should have been more precise.


Precision as requested: the glossary of a work entitled World Architecture defines “undressed” thus:


Undressed. Of stone: not trimmed or made smooth.


- and according to this, “finish” is a result of dressing. So I think we may safely discount your “erudition” on the point.

Allow me to remind you that you wrote this:


SC: The roof blocks of Campbell's Chamber are no less 'dressed' limestone blocks than the roof blocks of the Queen's Chamber. ...


Which is untrue.


SC: And then you present links to two pictures of the roof blocks in Campbell's Chamber. How are we meant to make a comparison with two images from the same chamber? ...


I didn’t notice you presenting any pictures at all. The ones I linked to (here) show that the blocks were not made smooth.


If that is what you are essentially saying, then why would they not do likewise with the surfaces of the limestone blocks in the "architectural spaces" of the 'Vyse Chambers'? Why leave painted marks in those "architectural spaces"?


My suggestion was that you think this through yourself.



posted on Mar, 26 2020 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Hooke


H: - and according to this, “finish” is a result of dressing. So I think we may safely discount your “erudition” on the point.


Yes, but 'finishing' the stone to a smooth surface is not essential, nor is polishing. A dressed stone can simply be a stone that has been cut to size, shaped and plained (to remove surface irregularities). This is a usable dressed stone. Finishing/polishing are 'optional extras' and not strictly necessary to the dressed stone. So just because someone has a slightly different understanding of when a stone is a 'dressed stone', you then immediately infer they are lying just because their understanding differs to yours? Whit!!?? Away and raffle yourself!

THAT is your problem right there, Hermione. You think the rest of the world should see things and understand things exactly as you do. Well, that might work in Hermione fantasy land but it's not how the real world works. I see a dressed stone as taking a rough stone and sizing and shaping it to serve a useful purpose. Those are the essential elements to stone dressing, finishing/polishing are merely 'extras' that may be done for aesthetic reasons and to different degrees. A dressed stone does not have to be a perfectly smooth surface or polished stone to be used in construction. And that is not an untruth or a lie.


SC: If that is what you are essentially saying, then why would they not do likewise with the surfaces of the limestone blocks in the "architectural spaces" of the 'Vyse Chambers'? Why not give the roof blocks in Campbell's a similar finish? Why leave painted marks in those "architectural spaces"



My suggestion was that you think this through yourself.


SC: Why can't you just tell the board your view on this? Why the cop-out?

SC
edit on 26/3/2020 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2020 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton


H: ...we cannot exclude the possibility that the Select Committee in 1808 knew all about the post-election payments (and we cannot exclude the possibility that they were post-election).


Again we see one sentence only of a post of quite a few more than one.


SC: And when will you get it into your head ...


I see that your appeal to a tolerant “live and let live” relativism has been quietly forgotten, but then I dare say no one took it seriously or imagined that you intended anyone other than you to benefit from it.


... that even IF the money Hind speaks of was paid after Vyse's election, Hind still tells us exactly what that money was used for. He tells us it was used to BUY VOTES ...


He tells us no such thing. Saying such a thing was the last thing on his mind. He produced this evidence in mitigation of the behaviour of the voters. He was trying to put a kinder construction on it. He stated explicitly: “We do not call it bribery. It is the old customary payment.”

Buying something entails in law a contract between buyer and seller. After all I’ve done to explain this, citing actual practitioners of the law, you still have no idea how difficult it was and is to prove such a thing - and proving it is a requirement of the law. Third time of quoting Simeon (1795):


... a distribution of money after the election, unless coupled with an act done, or a promise made before, however it may induce suspicion [my emphasis], will not raise a presumption in a court of justice; ...


Why (pray tell) would Parliament feel a need as late as 1842 to pass a new Act which explicitly targeted payments made after an election, if existing law covered them?

As before, I think we may safely discount your “expert” legal opinion.


... (which, logically, implies there WAS a pre-election promise ...


Petitio principii. In saying that the votes were bought, you have merely assumed that there was one, whereas the law explicitly disallowed an inference from post-election payments to pre-election promises. See Simeon, above.


... - again this was part of Staples' petition). ...


It seems not to have reached you that I do not consider Staple a reliable source.

Your basis being so unsound, I discount the rest.



posted on Mar, 27 2020 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Hooke

Hermione,

You can try and spin this every which way you like but it won't ever change the simple fact that monies (payments) were exchanged FOR VOTES. Those payments weren't given for fresh air. It was PAYMENTS FOR VOTES. And THAT was illegal even in 1807. THAT is precisely what the bribery laws were trying to prevent, the PURCHASE of VOTES.


SC: ... that even IF the money Hind speaks of was paid after Vyse's election, Hind still tells us exactly what that money was used for. He tells us it was used to BUY VOTES ...

H: He tells us no such thing. Saying such a thing was the last thing on his mind. He produced this evidence in mitigation of the behaviour of the voters. He was trying to put a kinder construction on it. He stated explicitly: “We do not call it bribery. It is the old customary payment.”


SC: Yes - the "old customary payment" for THEIR VOTES. Why the hell else would Hind (presumably under oath) then go on to say:


For a plumper the amount paid was 3l 8s [£3 and 8 shillings], and a split vote 1l and 14s [£1 and 14 shillings]."


In the name of the wee man on a bike!! What the hell do you think Hind is saying there? The money he mentions there is unequivocally PAYMENTS FOR VOTES. How much clearer does this have to be for you to understand that these PAYMENTS WERE FOR VOTES?

And the law, even in 1807, was unequivocal on the point: the PURCHASE of VOTES, PAYMENT for VOTES was clear BRIBERY and thus automatically illegal. Staples, in 1807, (self-evidently) didn't have the evidence of these vote payments that Hind had in 1869 because if he did have Hind's little Black Book of Beverley Bribery available to him, showing all those PAYMENTS FOR VOTES, then I am certain the outcome for Vyse (and Staples) would have been the complete opposite.

And yes, you're perfectly welcome to take a different view as I have oft said. Now, if you still disagree, then you will just bloody well have to agree to differ on the point. Going round and round on this is just utterly pointless.

SC
edit on 27/3/2020 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2020 @ 03:05 PM
link   


Was it really necessary to install five chambers in order to deflect pressure and tension affecting the King's chamber so that it can have a flat, planar ceiling?


Perhaps each of the 5 roofs signify a roof to the five worlds that must be crossed before reaching the fields of Aaru.



posted on Mar, 27 2020 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: bluesfreak

...

I can totally accept some form of ‘marking up’ at the quarries, or at stone finishing sites at Giza itself during construction, on a project of such vastness, you simply couldn’t have random blocks turning up on site, with the labourers/ foremen not knowing where it was for etc, it doesn’t work like that .


Absolutely.


But surely , just by probability , more of these ‘labels’ would have been found elsewhere throughout the GP? Or even Numbers painted on.


Further examples of crew-marks have indeed been found on the casing-stones, and in the second boat-pit (beneath a 14- or 15-ton sealing stone).


Or even, if this was the method , in other Pyramids?
Does this type of thing occur in the other pyramids at Giza?


Yes. And yes. See, e.g., Reisner's Mycerinus.


Similarly, I also wonder , if it’s graffiti from a work gang , painted on once the part had been fixed in place , ready to be mischievously sealed in for eternity, why write the name of your king/employer/and why would they have a cup of paint on hand ,at this point and indeed at this location in the construction effort, on a dangerous site where masonry was the prime skillset?


Many AE work-crews, aperu, liked to incorporate the name of their reigning monarch into their own name, perhaps as an ironic way of making themselves feel more important - so, "Khufu's Mates," "Sneferu's White Crown Boys," etc.


If they needed to mark parts/blocks in situ, or near in situ, then we should find more of them, surely ?


If, as some people believe, these marks acted as instructions to different aperu dealing with different sections of the relieving chambers, there wouldn't have been much point in inserting them in situ. It was more likely that they were painted on the blocks whilst they were still on the site below, so that the crews could see the instructions and act on them.


If this had happened in England , and it was by the work gang, archaeologists would be marvelling at the ochre ‘cock and balls ‘ left by the workmen...


I'm sure that English builders must put scrawled markings on construction materials to indicate where such-and-such an item has to go ...


Also, perhaps Byrd or another Egyptologist could answer what other major construction work was ongoing parallel to the GP project a the time .
Quite possibly loads of others , I’m no expert, but I would imagine that a lot of stonework was being carried out at different sites.


This question is considered in Part II of Martin Stower's book, The Strange Journey of Humphries Brewer.

...


As a fabricator , if the AE’s were into labelling parts , I would expect to see more numbers painted or code relating to ‘where it goes’ in the construction ,not simply the name of where it was ‘going to’.


This is discussed in Roth, Phyles of the Old Kingdom, and Reisner, Mycerinus.



posted on Mar, 27 2020 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton


Yes, but 'finishing' the stone to a smooth surface is not essential, nor is polishing. A dressed stone can simply be a stone that has been cut to size, shaped and plained (to remove surface irregularities). This is a usable dressed stone. Finishing/polishing are 'optional extras' and not strictly necessary to the dressed stone. So just because someone has a slightly different understanding of when a stone is a 'dressed stone', you then immediately infer they are lying just because their understanding differs to yours? Whit!!?? Away and raffle yourself!

THAT is your problem right there, Hooke. You think the rest of the world should see things and understand things exactly as you do. Well, that might work in Hooke fantasy land but it's not how the real world works. I see a dressed stone as taking a rough stone and sizing and shaping it to serve a useful purpose. Those are the essential elements to stone dressing, finishing/polishing are merely 'extras' that may be done for aesthetic reasons and to different degrees. A dressed stone does not have to be a perfectly smooth surface or polished stone to be used in construction. And that is not an untruth or a lie.


Perhaps you’ve forgotten that you were faulting my quite ordinary use of the word “undressed”? You’ve chosen to quibble about a word in place of discussing the substantive issue. The limestone blocks visible in the “chambers of construction” are not as finely dressed as the ones visible in the Queen’s Chamber. Deal with it.

As for your (resumed) appeals to a “live and let live” relativism, allow me to remind you that we have already seen how one-sided they are.


SC: Why can't you just tell the board your view on this? Why the cop-out?


Refusing the responsibility of thinking through the (non-forgery) alternatives for yourself is a rather more serious cop-out, in my opinion.



posted on Mar, 27 2020 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Hooke


H: This is discussed in Roth, Phyles of the Old Kingdom, and Reisner, Mycerinus.


SC: Do these publications prove the painted marks in the 'Vyse Chambers' are authentic? If so, explain how exactly.

Thanks.

SC



posted on Mar, 27 2020 @ 04:03 PM
link   

If, as some people believe, these marks acted as instructions to different aperu dealing with different sections of the relieving chambers, there wouldn't have been much point in inserting them in situ. It was more likely that they were painted on the blocks whilst they were still on the site below, so that the crews could see the instructions and act on them.

Agree entirely.

Thank you Hooke,for the reply, not being an expert I was unaware of markings in other Pyramids.
I’ll take a look at all suggested text . a reply to: Hooke



posted on Mar, 27 2020 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton


Perhaps you’ve forgotten that you were faulting my quite ordinary use of the word “undressed”? You’ve chosen to quibble about a word in place of discussing the substantive issue. The limestone blocks visible in the “chambers of construction” are not as finely dressed as the ones visible in the Queen’s Chamber.


SC: Stop trying to deflect your own ignorance of what constitutes a "dressed stone" onto me. Fact is - the roof blocks in Campbell's Chamber AND in the Queen's Chamber are BOTH "dressed stone" which you now seem to accept. When I said that in an earlier post, YOU called that an "untruth", inferring I had somehow lied. And you do not even have the decency or courtesy to retract or apologise. Which speaks volumes really.


H: Deal with it.


SC: I'm trying to. But it's difficult when YOU point blank refuse to constructively answer my very simple question. Here it is again:


SC: I suspect that what you are implying here is that the resulting higher finish on the QC roof blocks would have effectively removed any painted crew names that may hitherto have been present upon the stones? Was that the purpose of the higher finish, to remove any painted marks?

If that is what you are essentially saying, then why would they not do likewise with the surfaces of the limestone blocks in the "architectural spaces" of the 'Vyse Chambers'? Why not give the roof blocks in Campbell's a similar finish? Why leave painted marks in those "architectural spaces".


SC: Now - can you give a constructive answer on the second time of asking?


SC: Why can't you just tell the board your view on this? Why the cop-out?

H: Refusing the responsibility of thinking through the (non-forgery) alternatives for yourself is a rather more serious cop-out, in my opinion.


SC: What I think on this issue is immaterial (for the moment). I am interested here in what YOUR answer is to this question. So - what is your answer?

SC

edit on 27/3/2020 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)

edit on 27/3/2020 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)

edit on 27/3/2020 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2020 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Hooke


H: Further examples of crew-marks have indeed been found on the casing-stones, and in the second boat-pit (beneath a 14- or 15-ton sealing stone).


SC: Some questions.

1) Which crew-marks have been found on "casing stones"? My understanding is that Leslie Grinsell (and Goyon) found a crew name on the inside face of a core block on the 5th course, west side of the GP (presented upside-down). Can you provide a link/reference to those crew marks that you say are on the "casing stones"?

2) When were the 14-15 ton sealing stones first placed over the boat pit and what evidence is there for this date?

Thanks.

SC
edit on 27/3/2020 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2020 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton


You can try and spin this every which way you like but it won't ever change the simple fact that monies (payments) were exchanged FOR VOTES. ...


And as usual, Scott, what follows the phrase “simple fact” (when you use it) is neither simple nor a fact. There is no evidence (as the law required) of a contract to exchange a vote for money and you can’t simply bluster your way through that requirement.


... THAT is precisely what the bribery laws were trying to prevent, ...


The bribery laws are agents now? Whose thoughts you can read?

What the laws were intended to prevent and what they actually did prevent are two different things. Every relevant Act post-1807 tells us that the law as it stood in 1807 was inadequate - all of which has been explained in some detail already, so I’m not about to repeat the exercise now.

I notice that your linked source on the “object of the bribery laws” is, again, Mr. Austin, Q.C. speaking in 1843 - so “the bribery laws” of which he spoke were those of 1843 and not those of 1807. Most notably, in 1843, the Bribery at Elections Act 1842 was in force, with its explicit declaration that payments of the kind made at Beverley were to be deemed bribery.


... For a plumper the amount paid was 3l. 8s., and a split vote 1l. 14s. ...


Hind was not at this point quoting from the book, except perhaps for the figures. Hind was an elected official; he was not a legal professional, giving his learned opinion on whether or not there was a contract in the case, so reading a lot into his choice of words is questionable at best. Against his having intended to suggest that the votes were purchased, we may quote again his explicit statement:


24.055. (Mr. Barstow.) They were all bribed for Keane?—They were all paid 1l. We do not call it bribery. It is the old customary payment.

24,056. (Mr. Barstow.) Very well, we will distinguish.


I suggest you stop SHOUTING and expend some effort on trying to understand law.



posted on Mar, 28 2020 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton


H: There is no evidence (as the law required) of a contract to exchange a vote for money and you can’t simply bluster your way through that requirement.


SC: At the umpteenth attempt at trying.

The very act of BUYING THE VOTES tells us a contract self-evidently was in place. You simply cannot make a payment for something if the other party does not agree to SELL IT. Use your common sense! The very fact of having bought votes IS, of itself, proof of a contract/agreement and, as such, no further proof of a contract/agreement would have been required.

Hind's little Black Book of Beverley Bribery would have been exhibit #1 had Staples had access to such information in 1807.

That little book of bribery would have entirely obviated the need for further proof that a contract/agreement was in place for it tells us Vyse paid:


For a plumper the amount paid was 3l 8s [£3 and 8 shillings], and a split vote 1l and 14s [£1 and 14 shillings].


In 1807 paying actual cash for actual votes was straight-up bribery.

Vyse paid cash for votes.

Vyse broke the law.

SC

edit on 28/3/2020 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join