I am sorry that you or NL are not too interested in answering my very important questions, but thanks for your question anyway. : )

Our 2:1 answers are 2:1 standard or above. It costs more time to write to a 1st class standard and not all our experts are qualified to a 1st class level.

We supply 2:1 answers to those that want them and 1st class to those that would like to pay extra for a better answer.

Just like travelling 1st class or standard on a train, one service takes more cost to provide, so the price is higher. For others standard quality provides better value.

I hope this answers your question! : )

Simply Wondered – I am sorry you find my simple points and arguments hard to grasp. : )

Given your knowledge of literature, (I learned a few things from your post – thank you!) I’m sure if you apply yourself you’ll be able to comprehend them.

After all you got through Clarissa! ; )

As a point of polite feedback in return, somebody that obviously reads so much as yourself and purports to be an expert in clarity, should at least try and properly capitalise their sentences. Add to that an effort to ensure they are being clear themselves!

Ending with
“do we think he is written by computer” somewhat undermines your contribution!

Your point on the BVC is a good one. You’ll be glad to know I have plenty of plans for the provision of real education in the near future.

On the point of business, I’m always eager to learn, so I’d love to hear about any business success or advice you have so I can absorb any wisdom you can pass on. : )

Best

Barclay Littlewood

CEO

Academic Answers Ltd.

If the point of a ghostwritten essay is simply to show how it should be done, why charge extra for a guaranteed First? Shouldn’t every model essay be a First?

Ian

You disappoint me! I wait all this time for 4 words? : )

Come on you know you can do better than that! : )

It’s not like you to be lost for words.
Now I’m not too proud to admit I didn’t have a clue what you posted, but using my wonderful friend Wikipedia, I take it you mean..

“You feel that further details are unnecessary; the proof of the case is self-evident.”

I wish I had remembered that in my debating days NL, I could have won every round with just a few words! ; )

Let me just rip my arguments up then, now you put it like that! Unless of course it’s your way of agreeing with me? ; ) Or was it reference to my typos? I admit I didn’t proofread my post, hardly grounds for your lack of reply!

Here are the points again for you -

1. Universities have no right to decide how students learn or buy as long as students learn honestly – point unanswered.

2. The only way Universities can ensure complete honest use is through some sort of collaboration – point unanswered.

3. All study aids are misused – that doesn’t mean that they can’t be used honestly – point unanswered.

4. Selling essays is not unlawful – there’s no need for us to hold copyright, discourage cheating, educate on our site, have our policies as we do etc. – point unanswered.

5. We put all the information on the website – the very focus of your rant – in order to self regulate and educate against misuse, not avoid any laws – point unanswered.

6. I talked with MP Barry Sheerman to ask for regulation – point unanswered.

7. We push away cheating customers – point unanswered.

8. Essays won’t be phased out – because as useless as they are on the whole, Universities profit by setting them – point unanswered.

9. Universities are by and large teaching quite useless skills in some areas and for some courses – point unanswered.

Are you going to reply to those 9 points?

Anyone going to help him/her out?

Please show me I am wrong, anyone, I am waiting for some genuine insight and opinions!

Best

Barclay

NL

Wow I can certainly get the bit between my teeth when I get going!

Anyway, I’ll pop back to see if you reply later in the week.

If not, no worries and no hard feelings and sorry if I bored you. : )

I’ve enjoyed the chat anyway, and best of luck with your career and the blog.

Best

Barclay

Manners my friend please. I am a visitor! : ) Do you not find it odd you are insulting someone you have never met who has no issue with you and just seeks a healthy debate?

My, my NL you do get hot under the collar! Play fair! : ) Fight me with your mind, not your insults, or are you scared you can’t beat me?

You apologise for calling me “Littleknob” and I think we might be getting somewhere, then no sooner do you move on to
“mealy mouthed, canting hypocrite.”

“Mealy?” “Canting?” Then you say, “Powers of precis” quite! I’m not even going to Google them! I’m sure you talk like that all the time NL, but please I’m only a simple business man – there’s really no need to try and impress me!

Please join me and talk like a polite adult for the benefit of your readers. Leave out the emotion, subjectivity, Old English, and insults. If you really want to insult me arrange a face to face meeting at the very least, stop hiding behind a blog “NL” and being daft, again you only discredit yourself!

As I’ve said before all your personal remarks do is show the rest of the world what type of person you may well be. I don’t want people to see you in a poor light – do you? It devalues any debate and you and yuor blog. Again I will leave it at that.

Well you’ve said I’ve made two points, it’s a start. You haven’t really made any so far, look at all the ones you missed -

It’s not unlawful. You’ve ignored that point.

We put that information on the website – the very focus of your rant – in order on to self regulate – you ignored that point.

I talked with Barry Sheerman to get regulation – point ignored.

We push away cheating customers – point ignored.

Essays won’t be phased out – because Universities profit from them point ignored.

Universities are teaching quite useless skills – point ignored.

So of 8 points at least, you found only 2.

You really hate someone you’ve never met NL – good for you. That seems to be your main point. That’s it. You hate me because we put some advice to help students on our site about misuse – not to avoid any laws as you first thought. You hate me for that. Yet no, really you hate you, not me, because you have hate in you. I don’t dislike you, hate you, I have no grudge against you. I’m sure you’re perfectly nice person deep down.

I’ll stick with you. Some advice, every second you hate me is a second you can’t do something more constructive with you life – more fool you! : )

So I’ll reply to your points. But first – NL some more advice, take it or leave, or more likely hate it, you’re very good at trying to tell me what I am saying. Please focus on what you are saying and concentrate hard on what I am saying! The two are separate. You seem to think I am saying what you want me to say. I am not.

Please, take on board my opinions and stop deliberately misconstruing my comments! : )

“£16,000 ‘model’ MA thesis is, naturally, a nonsense, and anyone who seeks such a thing should not be doing post-graduate work in the first place”

The rich have a right to study do they not? (See how annoying that is? That’s what you keep doing – cease misconstruing please!)

So back to the point in hand. I earn (or could draw) more than £16,000 a week. I am hardly wealthy by some standards. £16,000 is nothing to an awful lot of people. (It’s still a lot to me!) Compared to the extra income over the next 30 year it could generate, it’s an investment, and not much more than the course costs! You agree there is legitimate use, so do I, so that ones dealt with.

Now onto the Universities and the mens rea issue you mention in your post.

Universities do not allow our use – legitimate or otherwise. A simple solution would be that they allow our use and we can send them all essays as we go. Hey presto – no one can cheat and the 90% of students that are scared of using would use us. I’ve made them fully aware of my intentions, and made the first steps, I should know. I’ve met with JISC, not you! I’ve lobbied Parliament – not you! You know nothing about their position or the industry! You have 6 hours worth of knowledge, I have 6 years, so please listen and trust the expert.

I am not going to make all the movement on my own, because as you know, they will say “thanks very much” and do nothing at all. Where does that leave us? I’ll tell you where, the cheating customers will not get replaced with honest ones (because Universities still won’t allow our use) and we lose out on custom. Honest students will still be deprived of the best study aid in the world and I lose my influence.

So I refer you to the points made to House – please see my post on the benefits.

We take steps to protect Universities; they take no steps to assist us at all. We are both businesses. Whilst you might see them in some position of moral superiority because they are part of the state architecture, it matters not one iota to us, a business is a business, and believe me, when you know how they operate, even you’d like us in comparison.

Many people, as do you, continue to be blinded by your perceptions, and what you think you know. Look beyond the exterior, of both my site and what the Universities are really doing – churning people out with very little skills. Making a nation of essay writers.

I’ve challenged them to stop setting essays and teach something useful. I’m still waiting to be put out of business. This is about education as I’ve said.

Anyhow NL, don’t worry, I’m well ahead of you, we’re launching something similar very soon, a completely cheat free service that submits essays to the Universities. So we shall see what they do then! I’ll bet you they’ll come up with an “outside help” offence.

Some Universities are already doing so!

I’ll say it again. Universities are not here to tell anyone how to learn, they are here to help educate and award degrees. They are operating outside their remit by not allowing the use of our product and hindering learning not assisting it.

So you can rest easy once and for all -

Cheating

Actus reus – Buying and handing in another essay
Mens rea – Doing so with intent

Contrast Honest Use

Actus reus – Buying an essay and using it to study
Mens rea – Doing so to learn

That was the point I was making on the website, as I’m sure you know. That the act of buying an essay on its own cannot constitute plagiarism, it’s how you use it that counts. I do hope that is clear enough for you, and that you can’t read in any more imagined arguments to my words, which again is of course what was meant by misread!

So that’s that, end result, you hate me, you acknowledge there is legitimate use, and I’m sure you now understand the mens rea/actus reus point – and please no more boring legal speak, let’s stick to the real issues.

On the first point I don’t care – you’ll get no hate or anger out of me – insult away : ) , and on the second point, good man/woman, on the third, great.

Best

Barclay

This is debatable, but I have no problem in agreeing that they can be on occasion, although it is entirely dependent on context. A £16,000 ‘model’ MA thesis is, naturally, a nonsense, and anyone who seeks such a thing should not be doing post-graduate work in the first place, as you are well aware. But the value or otherwise of model essays is also beside the issue, which is, of course, my view that you are a mealy mouthed, canting hypocrite. And so to your second ‘point’.

Universities should ‘collaborate’ with you, then and only then will they get to check the ‘misuse’ of your essays.

What a useful word ‘collaborate’ is – it sounds terribly collegial. But what do you mean by it? You say Universities ‘don’t allow’ students to use you and want them to sanction it. But if your purchasers are just after model essays, how does the University’s permission or sanction come into the picture? It doesn’t, of course. No, you were very clear about what you mean by collaborate in the post I quoted above. You want the universities to promote your ‘service’ and until then you are content for plagiarism using your products to take place.

There is, as you are very well aware, an extremely easy way for your setup to shed its unfortunate image of being the recourse of the well heeled plagiarist and so help to convince the universities of your good intentions. You refuse to take that step. The reasons why are abundantly clear, and in insisting that universities should actively help your business, and unless they do you’re not going to take any active steps to prevent the ‘misuse’ of your products, you have made my case. Thank you.

Pedantry Corner

On actus reus – you wrote ‘the key [...] is how it is used, [...], it’s the mens rea that counts, how it is used and with what intention’.So I didn’t misread at all. But in any event, to describe buying or reading an essay as the actus reus of plagiarism is wrong, the actus reus of plagiarism is handing in work that is not, in part or in whole, by you, with the mens rea being the intention to pass the work off as your own. Misidentification of the elements of an offence makes it a nonsense.

On ghostwriting – each Nearly Legal contributor posts under their own name or pseudonym. As I started the blog, mine is nearly legal or NL, which nobody else uses. Thusly we are not ghostwriters.

Thanks for your comments. : )

Please explain why you disagree that any student has a right to choose the information they want to learn from?

Please also explain how reading a high standard essay can hinder intellectual development?

I think you mean you disagree with the fact people can abuse our service. So do I! Try ringing in and saying you want to hand in – my team always educates you why you can’t!

On to the BVC then!

Okay, I cede the point. The 1 year on the BVC was better than the 3 years doing the LLB. At least there was some attempt to focus on the real skills required. Yet we are comparing bad to awful here. Comparatively speaking whilst it was a better course, it was still an atrocious waste of time and money, with a lot of fluff centred around some very basic principles and skills.

Value for money it is not I think we agree, and it could be packed into 3 months, not stretched out for 8 or 9! Many of the skills taught there should be taught on the LLB, instead of the endless essay writing!

If advocacy takes so much practice (I don’t agree – at least not on the basics – but still) – why does the BVC teach it for only around 50 hours over 9 months? Why not do 5 hours a week over 3 months?

8 – 10 hours a week of lessons was absurd! I did 1 day a week all at home. I didn’t attend from January onwards and still passed first time by reading the manuals. The students were being made to fit in around the teachers schedules, what a waste of time.

The BVC is all about keeping costs low and fees high in my opinion. These places are businesses – when will the public say “enough is enough”? The longer the course, the more they can charge too. Either way, as it was at University, the customer is getting ripped off.

I suppose there are salaries to be paid, but at the end of it all, it’s a very raw deal for any student. Plus applicants are let on that have no chance of obtaining pupilage, which again is an awful abuse of such students.

Given that many applicants obtain pupilage beforehand, I still think it shows that Chambers see the BVC more as a formality. It should not be, it should be a course that promotes and shapes brilliance!

The legal profession doesn’t just need a shake up qualification wise, it has been over charging (and under paying its workforce) for a long time, do you agree that minimum fees are just a protection racket?

There are hundreds of talented unemployed lawyers that would drive costs down and give the consumer more choice!

Best

Barclay