Essaybay, what do you think?

Hi StrugglingStudent,

Your posts are really interesting - thank you. It's really good to get the facts from someone who deals with this kind of complaint and actually knows their stuff.

Jennifer

:-)

lol.. a little birdy told me that WB owns a rival essay company. Is that true WB? Never mind a sitcom, this is just like politics! :-)

This forum is full of people who make accusations without the SLIGHTEST amount of proof. There are only 2 or 3 members of this forum, including me, who ALWAYS provide verifiable evidence. Everyone else starts their sentences with "I think" or "I heard" (especially the members who I can PROVE are associated with essay companies), followed by a bunch of crap they they can't back-up.

So just who have you contacted then writers beware as you certainly haven't contacted the IWF or the police as internet crime is dealt with through one central office not regional offices and as I work at the central office I would have heard of this.

I can 100% back up all of the information I have stated based on the fact that I deal directly with this area of crime.

I am not associated with any essay company whatsoever and found this site since I enrolled on a part time course at university doing my Phd in law.

And before people start offering me assistance in writing my research project don't bother as I am already well into my paper and am managing just fine. The struggling bit is the money side although I am still employed by the police so have a regular income to enjoy, the Phd has cost me rather more than anticipated.

Essaybay I was pleased to be of assistance as this was getting rather silly with talk of obscene images that make a mockery of the images I deal with daily.

I am totally against obscenity as you would expect but there really does have to be a line drawn between an image that might cause amusement and an image that would turn your stomach.

WB of course children need protecting but not from seeing a picture of a man in a bath something that they are likely to see any day of the week should they run into the bathroom to use the toilet whilst dad's taking a bath (my kids have done that more than once much to my husband's embarassment- and they never batted an eyelid just used the loo then left :)

WB it appears to me that you are using those images to try to score points off Jennifer just because she dared to use this site to advertise her company. Yes that was naughty of her but it is ridiculous of you to think that anyone in any position of authority would listen to your rantings about pr0n when it is quite clear these images are not offensive.

I spend my days trawling the internet for offensive material to protect all persons from the harm it causes but especially children as they are defenceless.

At least the comments of WB raised a laugh in the office when they accessed the images to see if they were offensive. WB don't waste your time with this you are flogging a dead horse

If I wanted to disclose that information, I surely would have. Did that not cross your mind?


See my previous post. More misinformation and twisted words. Can you please show me exactly where I typed the would, pr0n? Can you also please quote for me precisely where I even came CLOSE to suggesting that the pictures are even remotely as serious as chil pr0n? You're jumping the gun and completely skewing my argument. I do, however, appreciate your completely unbiased, detailed diatribes in defense of EssayBay, considering that you are merely a student who does not know Jennifer but whose commitment to EssayBay is nonetheless unwavering.

I have no commitment to anyone at all WB!

I have never used the services of an essay writing company and am never likely to either as I am totally confident in my own abilities!

I am not MERELY a student I am a police sergeant of 5 years standing and am doing a phd as a part time student to further my career when I finish my 30 years service with the police.

You hide behind the statement of not disclosing which agencies you have spoken to as you haven't spoken to anyone.

I have no axe to grind with anyone here and merely posted to highlight the ridiculousness of your assertion that agencies in the UK would be concerned by these images. I have named the agencies involved with the control of obscene publications in the UK neither of which have received any such complaints and neither of which would be interested even if you did complain as these images do not meet the criteria as required by the charging standards in respect of any obscenity.

I fail to see why pointing out the law with regard to obscene publications in the uk translates as supporting essaybay. My aim was to expose the nonsense that you are posting in this forum that agencies in the uk would take action against these images.

I admit to averting to the fact that you were suggesting that these were pr0n, that was an error on my part but it still does not alter the fact that these are never going to be regarded as obscene.

WB you seem to be full of your own self importance and like everyone to think you have the power to do certain things. On this particular occasion I have been able to successfully demonstrate how little power you have in this quest which is why you are attempting to turn this into me displaying support for essaybay.

I have absolutely no reason to support anyone. Why don't you just admit the truth that you haven't contacted anyone in respect of this and that you are unlikely to as you know full well that the information I have posted is correct and the agencies would tell you exactly the same.

The facts are as follows

The IWF and the police in the UK are not in the slightest interested in the assertion that these pictures are obscene (especially given that they have now been removed)

UK law legislates to prosecute internet sites that display images regarded as obscene. Obscenity is viewed as material that will deprave or corrupt.

These photos do not show what you claim they show. To prove the point my inspector asked our forensics department to enhance the image in the lab and surprise surprise all we could see was foam. The equipment in the lab is so sophisticated that if the pictures showed what you claim they show it would have been clear in the enhanced images. I wont bore everyone here with the processes that the forensic department go through to enhance the images but I am sure you have seen forensically enhanced images before that are taken from CCTV footage and stills to help trace criminals. It is amazing how clear things can be enhanced with a bit of technology.

Anyway I have made my point quite succinctly and I think everyone on here has got the message concerning these images and the likelihood of police or CPS interest in them ie NONE.

Well, that should bring down some of the self-inflated ego. It had been difficult to post even an innocent comment on this forum because Beware would pounce upon any comment to show his/her self-importance, by making some cutting remark or other. Often I had wondered why the administrator allows absolutely unconnected, futile arguments, sometimes even using rather obscene words.

Glad that at last someone has spoken some sense.

Struggling, if you don't work for anyone and don't use anyone's services, why are you on this board? I'm sorry, but it seems really odd that a police officer would just wander through cyberspace to find this site and then post a long series of posts that essentially defend a company that has been a subject of writer and customer complaint.

@^
I'm inclined to agree (although I did not read the volume of posts. >.<). We all have our own agendas. Let's at least be frank about that because otherwise, we'd look like big worthless jokes like WB. :)

A typo is an "error." Stating that 7 + 4 = 10 is an "error." Stating that I accused EssayBay of engaging in CH pr0n is a blatant, intentional misrepresentation of fact. One would think that an aspiring attorney would know better.


That's nonsense. I'd hate to think that the British public depends on such faulty equipment. You must not have viewed BOTH pictures, or are simply lying. Anyone can clearly see SKIN at the base of the foam in one of the pictures. Heck, even JENNIFER admitted that skin is clearly visible, although she claimed that it is his "hand":


By the way, does your supervisor approve of using tax-payers' funds to conduct petty, personal business? I doubt it.

As for all of your other completely baseless claims about what I have and have not done, that shows the TRUE nature of your association with EssayBay. If you were a TRULY unbiased party, you would NOT immediately resort to using blatant insults against me or jump to absurd conclusions about what I have or have not accomplished. That's OK--you didn't fool me for a second. Is it merely a coincidence that you are a law student in the UK and the owner of EssayBay is a Barrister in the UK? What school do you attend?


I've done plenty, pal. I've uncovered dozens of frauds in the course of my postings in this forum alone. Unlike you, I also post VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE.

I am interested in what your definition of "corrupt" may be. You don't see the potential corruption of ANY human being through photos of a grown man admiring his obscured erection on a site that does not warn visitors, in advance, about the potential to come across such material? Here are some of the definitions of the word, "corrupt":

"debased in character; depraved; perverted"
"tainted"
"to destroy the integrity of"
"to lower morally; pervert"
"to mar; spoil"
"to infect; taint"
"Marked by immorality and perversion"
"To ruin morally; pervert"

dictionary.reference.com/browse/corrupt


Yes, YOU do.


You make a living by knowingly working for a fraudulent term paper writing service in the Ukraine, and you're referring to ME as a "worthless joke"? LMAO!


Let's see an example of one of your so-called "innocent" comments, to which one of my truthful responses apparently hurt your feelings.

Bottom line: the only members who have a problem with me are those who:

a. advertise a Web site or company name (against this forum's rules);

b. ask for someone to write a paper (against this forum's rules);

c. make accusations without providing evidence;

d. pose as a customer in order to artificially promote a site (against this forum's rules);

e. knowingly work for companies that I have proven--with VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE--to be fraudulent

f. can't handle the truth

g. don't respect consumers

h. disrespect America or Americans, while making a living by writing for American consumers

i. defend companies that I have proven--with VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE--to be fraudulent

j. pose as an unbiased party in order to defend another member who is guilty of one or more of a-i.


Lavinia, I actually gave him/her the benefit of the doubt until he/she started with the unprovoked insults and blatant misrepresentations. If one is unbiased, such statements do not flow so freely, especially not with the venom displayed by strugglingstudent.

Now who is misquoting. I did not say that you said it was child pr0n. Child pr0n is not children looking at pr0n but children depicted in pr0n images. What I errantly said is that you were suggesting the images were pr0nographic which obviously they are not and neither are they obscene.

I can assure you that I have viewed both images and there is certainly no genatalia of any kind visible. I did not say that you could not see skin I said you could not see the man's genatalia. That was the point in issue.

This was at the supervisor's instructions and is not petty business as you put it. If after all your assertion was correct this was supposed to be an OBSCENE image. We are entitled to use the equipment in this way as this is how we discover obscenities in the first place. Glad to see you are now admitting that it is PETTY though.

I am doing my Phd through Cambridge university and have no asociation with any essay company at all. I am doing my thesis on the legality of essay sites in the light of recent UK controvery over sixth form students using essay writing services and submitting the work as their own (which incidently is how I came to find this site)

As far as my definition of corrupt goes when I stated that these images do not DEPRAVE or CORRUPT that is following the guidelines laid down by the CHARGING STANDARDS from CPS which is how all prosecutions are determined in the UK. If you had viewed the images I have had to view in my job you would know exactly what CORRUPT is.

I never said I was a barrister - please read properly- I am a sergeant for the Metropolitan police in London working specifically in the line of internet pr0nography. Would you like my collar number so that you can verify I am a police officer?

I have no connection with essaybay and had frankly never heard of them until I started researching essay writing companies for my thesis.

Whenever did I attack you with venom. I merely pointed out that the power you claim to have with regard to your actions against these OBSCENE images was utter hogwash (a point which you haven't been able to challenge).

Stop trying to divert the argument away from the truth which is that

1. You HAVEN'T contacted anyone
2. No one would take you SERIOUSLY even if you decided to
3. The images are not OBSCENE
4. You were hoping to score points off Essaybay by AVERRING to the fact that you SUPPOSEDLY could take LEGAL action against the company

Give me a break! Your diatribes are based on the claim that my argument is fruitless simply because decidedly more hamrful, ch pr00n pictures are also available in cyberspace.


Yet another misrepresentation. I clearly stated that your waste of public resources resulted from your PETTY need to win an argument.


This matter has absolutely nothing to do with any other images that you have viewed in the course of doing your purported job, especially since I have NEVER suggested that the images in question were somehow even remotely as serious or dangerous as images involving ch pr00n. Stop trying to distract with irrelevant information.


So, with a straight face (that may be difficult, considering the question), are you actually going to suggest that the visible, wrinkly, pink skin is something other than his testicles?


That's an utter lie. Here's the PROOF:



You're hilarious! Now you're claiming that I referred to you as a "barrister." Again, please post the quote that proves I did so. I referred to you as a "law student," which is the label that YOU gave to YOURSELF. (I think it is YOU who needs to read properly.)

There are more holes in your posts than in a swiss cheese factory after a gun battle. Can you please quote for me the post in which I stated that I can or will take personal, legal action against EssayBay or any other entity?

Unless others refuse to let this matter drop, I'm done.

What is wrong in others' straying into this Forum? Anybody can become a member!!

Lavinia and WB are a bit rattled to be shaken out of high priest/priestess domain??!!

Actually it is nice to have new members with diverse points of view and knowledge. The existing members, especially the domineering lot are pretty boring.

There are 2 agencies in the UK that deal with obscene images on the internet the IWF and the police in the guise of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (which is where I work). I have direct contact with the IWF on a daily basis and ANY new reports of ANY site supposedly displaying OBSCENE images would come through them to MY OFFICE. I have just finished an 8 hour shift and surprise, surprise there is no report to investigate.


This has absolutely nothing to do with parents agreeing or disagreeing. The fact remains that EVEN if someone did report this site there is nothing that would be done about this because

a) The images have to meet the criteria required by LEGISLATION as defined in the CHARGING STANDARDS for CPS in order for ANY action to be taken against the site

b) The images when ENHANCED do not show GENITALIA and where not posted with the aim of causing ALARM or DISTRESS to those viewing them (As required by legislation) Do I need to scan the relevant information from the Police National Database in order to demonstrate what would be required before charges could be brought.


Well sorry but they did lol My Inspector thought it was hilarious that you would consider these to be obscene. He thinks you must have led a very sheltered life if you find the image of a man in a bath filled with foam offensive lol


This is not a venomous attack (I have read many of your postings on here and think you are the King/Queen of venomous attacks). Your postings on this issue ARE utter nonsense as you obviously did not do your research as to whether any of the agencies that are involved with policing this kind of material would be interested and I have proven categorically that they would not even bat an eyelid.

The comments I have made are not PERSONAL attacks on you but attacks on your assertions apart from the comment about you being filled with your own self importance (which others seem to agree with)

I actually did not refer to myself as a 'Law student' I said I was doing a phd in law on a PART TIME basis. I am actually a full time police sergeant for the Met (which I can certainly prove and which you obviously accept that I can prove as I did ask if you would like my FIN number as proof of my rank etc and you did not respond)

You are still attempting to divert this from the real issue that you haven't contacted anyone and that nothing would be done if you did.

I can produce chapter and verse on police procedure in this area which would bore the pants off anyone reading. You keep stating that posters on here do not post proof I have repeatedly posted the proof that no such reports have been made, where is your proof that you have reported it?

Wow, what an interesting conversation here.

Strugglingstudent:

Being a Sergeant in the Police force and now doing a part-time PHD from Cambridge Uni. Did you also take your LLB and LLM during working in the force?

Based on the fact that you are doing a PHD, the title that you are writing about, I presume that your Thesis is around 80,000 words, on the topic of the legality of Essay writing services? Do you think you're going to get enough material for that, and who would actually take part in your study, the students or the companies? What is stimulating about this topic exactly? Why not read the T & Cs of these companies, seems like it is the way in which the students use the sites that is the issue and also the guidelines that the Universities set! It is quite interesting that a Professor of the University of Cambridge would approve such a topic without having written a proposal on the topic. Also interesting to note that Cambridge offer Part-time PHD courses!

Don't you think it would be much more worthwhile and more meaningful to your line of work if you did your study based around your collaboration with the Internet Watch Foundation since this is exactly the area that you are working in your present job? After all, it was you, who stated, 'believe me I deal with obscene material every day of my working life.'

I found it quite disturbing when you wrote: At least the comments of WB raised a laugh in the office when they accessed the images to see if they were offensive. Surely every image that you view should be taken seriously, isn't it your very office that is there to protect children?

It seems that if you are doing proper research on this site then you would have not launched into a deep and complicated topic, rather you would have started a discussion to assist you with your 'thesis research', how are you now going to go about doing that when your telling everyone that you are a Police officer and your going to ask all the students and essay writing companies on here whether what they are doing is legal?

Although anything is possible, something is just not exactly right about the way in which you are posting and the fact that you work in such a very responsible role yet you are typing so much, please if you are working as someone who roots out internet pr0n on the net, spend your time wisely doing that and not looking at this site! The times that you have made your posts look like you are doing your PHD research whilst in working hours.

My how strange that NEWLY registered Greg comes onto the forum and immediately jumps to the defence of Writers beware and then challenges everything that I have written about.

Yes Cambridge do part time courses for phd's especially if the person is paying for their own course. In actual fact a phd can be spread over 5 years and as contact with the supervisor is only required once every 6 months then you could theoretically class every phd student as part time.

Of course the proposal was written and approved and the professor I am working with has welcomed the research as there has been a lot of controversy about Oxford university students working for the essay writing companies.

I chose not to do about online ch pr0n as quite frankly I like to escape this when I return home from work at night.

As for the time I spend on the internet my working day starts at 6am and finishes at 2pm so thereafter I am free to spend my time as I wish.

As I am writing my thesis that of course involves browsing the web. I have plenty of subjects for my research thanks and having been using information from here to delve into the various different companies to establish their policies on the selling of essays and what efforts they take to try to prevent students submitting the work as their own.

I am sorry you find it worrying that people in my role have a sense of humour, but it is impossible to take WB seriously when she becomes offended by a picture of a man in the bath. when you deal with the stuff we see everyday you need a lighter moment such as this to lift the mood.

incidentally I did my LLB and LLM before starting working for the police and also had my son before joining the police. I was intending to go to law school after doing my degrees but became pregnant and shelved that idea only to return to work once my son started school.

You are CLUELESS as to how Internet promotion works. Keep putting your foot in your mouth.

I repeat my statement that unless strugglingstudent lets this matter drop, things will only get worse for her essay writing friends--guaranteed.


This statement comes from "strugglingstudent," also a NEW member--with a grand total of 9 posts--who joined this forum with the sole intention of arguing with me and defending EssayBay. Hilarious!


You are the MASTER of misrepresentation. As someone who is a purported POLICE OFFICER and law student (yes, working on a PhD--through a university--qualifies one as a student), you should be ashamed by the manner in which you have INTENTIONALLY twisted facts! The pictures do not merely show "a man in a bathtub." The pictures clearly show a naked man making obscene gestures that focus on his ERECTION. Whether or not an actual erection exists within the foam is irrelevant. The picture is crude, immoral, corrupting, and completely inappropriate for any site that does not contain a proper disclaimer on the home page.

The fact that I have caught you in multiple LIES (including the "no genitals visible after image enhancement" lie) speaks volumes about your true intentions in this forum. A truly unbiased person--especially a POLICE OFFICER--would not stoop to such levels in the course of discussing a matter in which he/she does not have a vested, personal interest.

I know that Cambridge offers part time PHD. Why only Cambridge, almost all the universities do so now. Next year I will be starting another research, part time.

When a person got the admission for PhD, it naturally means that the research proposal was approved. Which Supervisor will accept a student without the research proposal?

What is wrong in doing research that is not connected with one's employment? Why should it be connected at all? That is a mutilated thought.

All these questions sound funny to me.

Nice post.

Actually, just like you strugglingstudent I'm also new to this forum! Only as a poster, I've been visiting and reading it with interest for some time. Just thought I'd use this particular forum for my first post as it's quite interesting.

I can and could easily look into WB posts and question them to, not an issue. It's just that on this particular thread he does not seem to be hiding behind a persona.

FrostatMidnight, 'correct, you don't necessarily need to write your PHD on something which is not directly related to your occupation, however, how in the world can CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY, enroll a student who is working in the Police force for x number of years to do a PHD on a topic matter not related to anything that the student has an idea about, or something which will not have any benefit to anybody? Maybe somewhere like The Open Uni would entertain that perhaps, however I cannot see Cambridge doing so.

Would the tutor approve it based on the fact that some Oxford students are writing work for Essay writing companies?

Personally In addition with a LLB, LLM and PHD in Law I would not expect someone to go to the trouble of paying all the fees over 3-5 years to do a PHD and then have the intension of going on to do the full 30 years slog in the police to retire at 60 for 'better job opps'. Would it not be just better to use your pension and go on holiday and play around in the garden?

strugglingstudent who works hard everyday states that they chose not to do about online chil pr0n as, quote: quite frankly I like to escape this when I return home from work at night. If they quite frankly like to escape from another to do with these types of things then why are they having such dedication writing long and complicated responses on this forum?

Is this person going to survive another 20 something years in the force doing this particular job?

Going back to your thesis topic, you have now stated that you have "been using information from here to delve into the various different companies to establish their policies on the selling of essays and what efforts they take to try to prevent students submitting the work as their own." Does it not strike you that Essay Writing services are perfectly legal otherwise the companies would have been closed down a long time ago and the various places such as the search engines which help to promote them would not be doing so? Just seems such a pointless topic to research.

Hi Greg,

I am only answering the part that you had addressed to me.

I don't think that everything should fall in place according to our assumptions. We always have a pattern in our minds that people should take decisions, choose courses, take employment, get married, have children, retire etc. It need not be that way. People might be having diverse interests and desire to do many things in life. Actually that is how it should be. I did my masters, MPhil and did PhD by paying for it, because I wanted to do it and it is my business and I do not care if someone approves it or not. From English Literature, I am going to Benthic Marine Ecology for the next research, because I like it. Why should your opinion matter to Struggling? That is your opinion and matters only to you.

Cambridge does not care about what you had been doing. They will be more interested in your qualifications and your proposal. Before joining another University, I had applied to Cambridge and irrespective of the fact that I was working in a factory, the future supervisor was very receptive. It came later and I had already joined another uni, by paying fees, is a different matter.

People can do unexpected things. Every one need not tread the conventional path. There are untrodden roads too, and they are the ones who make all the difference.

Greg it is acceptable to write your thesis on any topic you fancy. there is no requirement in the prospectus that states that you must be working in a particular field in order to write on the topic.

the topic may seem pointless to you however it does not seem pointless to the number of sixth form students that failed their courses last year for using essays written by essay mills and submitting them as their own work.


this is only YOUR opinion WB it certainly is not the opinion of the legislation on obscenity in the UK. No matter how you frill it up the police or cps are powerless to bring charges against images that do not fit with the definition of obscenity as proscribed by legislation. Maybe you should petition parliament for a change in the law to cover the images YOU find offensive etc.

You have not proven that the picture shows the man's genitals at all. The enhanced images clearly DO NOT show his genitalia as stated several times. I only wish I were entitled to post the enhanced images to prove the point but this of course is not allowed. If a prosecution were impending (which it is not) then these images would have to be disclosed as damaging to the prosecution as they do not show what we would be suggesting they did show.


I was not dealing with internet promotion I was dealing with the involvement of the agencies that you stated would be interested in this material. In the UK the 2 agencies quoted are responsible for examining allegedly offensive material and then making a decision as to whether the claims are well founded and whether a successful prosecution would ensue. These images do not even come close to sufficient for a prosecution or fit the definition of offensive as mentioned god knows how many times now.

Thanks for the reply strugglingstudent,

Please reply to my other points when you get chance!

Quote: The topic may seem pointless to you however it does not seem pointless to the number of sixth form students that failed their courses last year for using essays written by essay mills and submitting them as their own work.

Surely the A-Level students using these sites should not be submitting the work as their own, that constitutes plagiarism. they are meant to be model answers, correct?

FrostatMidnight - Yes, one can do anything one chooses and it is no one elses business as long as it is not causing harm to others. Again I am just suprised that such a prestige University such as Cambridge Uni is enrolling students in this fashion based primarily on fees and not talent! Strikes me as odd, I must ask a admissions officer from Oxbridge to post on this site.

Yet more misrepresentation from strugglingstudent. Please quote for me a statement in which I named a particular agency. This is all in your head, my friend. All of your posts revolve around your ill-informed ASSUMPTION of what I mean by an "agency."

"an organization, company, or bureau that provides some service for another"
"A business or service authorized to act for others"
"a business that serves other businesses"

dictionary.reference.com/browse/agency

Your assumptions--and continued misrepresentations--are laughable.

In what way Cambridge or any other university for that matter is erring by taking a student for research with complete or even more than required qualifications? Do you feel that universities should reject the qualifications and perfect research proposals only on the ground that the candidate is working in an unconnected profession? Does it mean that a qualified, but unemployed person is preferable?

Cannot understand how you can call it 'based primarily on fees'. No University will do it only to get the fees unless they are sure that the candidate is talented and capable. I do not think that fee is connected to it in any way. Universities need not 'grab' a student simply because he is a paying student. Most students pay for the research. All do not get funding.

Also you must know that funding is unavailable for part time studies!

This is part of what my thesis is concentrating on and yes they did fail due to plagarism.

After 30 years service I will only be 58 having joined the service when I was 28. I could retire but I would be bored within a week. Besides I am always on the search for knowledge and it has always been an ambition of mine to do a doctorate.

I wouldn't normally post on a forum but was just astonished by the claims made by WB that I was compelled to respond and point out the law on obscene publications on the net especially given that this is a speciality of mine. I figured someone should set the record straight and who better than someone who is dealing with this stuff on a daily basis.

quote=WritersBeware]
Your assumptions--and continued misrepresentations--are laughable.[/quote]
So which AGENCIES are you suggesting would be remotely interested in 'bath man' (tongue in cheek)


Oh and by the way you did question whether it violates any British laws and you did refer to the AUTHORITIES in the UK not agencies.

I think you have your answer as to the above NO THEY DO NOT VIOLATE ANY LAWS IN THE UK

Is that clear enough for you

WOW.

"the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine."
"an expert on a subject"
"right to respect or acceptance of one's word, command, thought, etc.; commanding influence"
"a warrant for action; justification"
"testimony; witness"
"A public agency or corporation with administrative powers in a specified field"
"An accepted source of expert information or advice"

dictionary.reference.com/browse/authorities

You DO realize that words often have multiple meanings, right? I would LOVE for you to show me proof that the words "authorities" and "agencies" refer strictly to governmental bodies.

The fact that I mentioned "law" once simply means that the parties to which I have--and shall continue to--report will make an independent call as to whether or not THEY consider the content to be unacceptable under the law, and THEY have the sole authority to determine whether or not the site--and all associated sites--should remain in public view.

i posted one question rather nicely and i'm "rattled" by my loss of "high priestess domain"? LOL.

Thank you for the good laugh.

And their response was....?????

Let me guess - they are going to do nothing BECAUSE there is nothing they can do BECAUSE the law in the UK does not recognise these images as OBSCENE (point proven)


In the context in which your diatribe was written the insinuation was that authorities referred to those with the power to do something about those images (which in terms of internet publication of obscenities is the IWF) especially when in the same sentence you ask if it violates any laws!!


And you were right to question how I came by this site. I blame google as I typed in the word essay writing sites and came up with several and then typed in the names of specific ones which led to the forum, obviously because there have been complaints about these sites on here.

Try reading my previous response to this question. I won't play my hand until I have the right cards in place. Unlike you, I also do not post claims until I have VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE to support them.


You can't come up with your own words now? By the way, do yourself a favor and look-up the definition of "diatribe." The only long-winded, know-it-all denunciations in this thread have come from YOU! I have merely been defending my stance. Educate yourself.

Struggling, your phd topic sounds like an interesting one. I know in the US we have to follow fairly strict rules in order to remain legal. For example, the essay companies based in the US cannot legally endorse cheating and they have to tell clients that the papers are only to be used as references/writing aids. I think it's true in at least some states that the essay company cannot create title pages for someone else.

Does the UK have similar rules? I've never worked for a UK based company and don't know how the UK is handling the problem of cheating.

The companies in the UK are required to instruct students that the essays are for reference only, however, legislation in this area is very remiss at present and little if anything is done to punish essay sites in the UK that do not adhere to this policy.

The recent problems with six form students has brought this to the fore and has lead for calls to tighten up legislation to try to punish those who allow students to pass the work off as their own.

This is one avenue I am exploring in my thesis. At present in the UK most univerisites in their prospectuses regard any use of essay writing sites as plagairism and even if reference is made to the essay as source material the usage of such is frowned upon by the schools and universities.


Such as the law on obscenity in the UK does not recognise these as obscene - is that what you mean as verifiable evidence.

That seems like a cultural difference between the US and the UK. I have worked with a lot of students over the years who were actually recommended to a company by a professor in order to get help with their writing, particularly ESL students. Professors don't have the time to go back and teach writing skills and so quite a few recommend custom support.

Since you thrive on definitions here is the definition of diatribe

diatribe
noun
1. An abusive, bitter denunciation.
2. A prolonged discourse.
3. A speech or writing which bitterly denounces something.

allwords.com/word-diatribe.html

or maybe this one
]1archaic : a prolonged discourse
2: a bitter and abusive speech or writing
3: ironic or satirical criticism

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diatribe

In your case numbers 1 and 3 apply in the first definition and number 2 in the second


Lavinia

Could I consult with you via email regarding the US situation as I am obviously making comparions with other countries legislation on this matter and also getting an overview of the effectiveness of policing this in other countries.

I had got the impression from this site and a number of US sites I have been on that the use of such sources is regarded as legitimate research so long as it is properly referenced etc.

Thank you for proving my point. It is crystal clear that you simply do not understand the definitions of the words that you use.

Do you not understand the concept of a DENUNCIATION? You came to this forum--without my solicitation--and proceeded to do absolutely nothing but DENOUNCE my position and claim all of my statements to be false (with zero evidence or knowledge of my precise actions, of course). You posted BITTER, PROLONGED attacks against both my position and character, based solely on your ASSUMPTION of who or what I had or had not contacted. As someone who claims to be a police officer and PhD student, your actions in this forum are shameful, and you should be embarrassed.

Tell me--do you harass British citizens based on your assumptions? I'd hate to live on your patrol route.

Now that is laughable since I do not have a patrol route...apart from patrolling the internet lol

If highlighting your lack of knowledge in UK legislation can be inferred as bitter then I accept you comment that this was SUPPOSEDLY a BITTER attack in much the same vein as the pictures you showed us all as being OBSCENE (tongue in cheek)

I am not ashamed of defending the legal stance of the UK on obscene materials I am a servant of the laws binding this country and will uphold that role to the best of my ability.

How can my actions of exposing someone as a fraud be shameful. You profess that the law in the UK might be interested in these images but are blatantly struggling to disprove the fact that the law in this country would not recognise these pictures as obscene.


that is because you have provided ZERO EVIDENCE of your precise actions except to infer that the authorities might regard this as violating the law in the UK which I do not intend to cover again as this has been dealt with too many times in this section and quite frankly I am bored with having to repeat myself.

Again, why don't you explain to everyone exactly why you have BLATANTLY LIED on multiple occasions? (If you'd like, I can post the proof for everyone to see again.)


Please quote for me exactly where I claimed knowledge of any UK legislation.

Haha.. I just read this now. :p Thanks! ^__^

Another brilliant contribution by the CROOK.

You accuse me of misquoting and then go and do it yourself.

I did not say that you claim to have knowledge of UK legislation I said I was highlighting your lack of such knowledge which you obviously do not disagree with.

Please quote me where I supposedly said that you were claiming knowledge of UK legislation


I have never BLATANTLY lied I have told you and everyone on here how these images would be regarded IN LAW. I have explained the enhancement procedure and verified that genitalia was not visible though guess I averred that no skin could be seen by stating ALL WE SAW WAS FOAM.

showing bare skin is not an offence.

Why dont you just accept that in a legal sense nothing will be done about these images and from the perspective of the IWF these are of no interest to them as they are not OBSCENE or OFFENSIVE

Get it yet? Understand? You have attacked me for having a lack of knowledge in a certain area of which I have NEVER claimed to have knowledge in the first place! Your entire argument is utterly meaningless.

I will give you ONE more chance to admit that you lied about several issues. If you do not admit it, I will simply list every one of the lies and misrepresentations. (By the way, you have already ADMITTED--without an apology--to one of the lies, and now you are denying that you have ever lied at all! Classic.)

You stated as above 'quote me where I claimed to have knowledge' Exactly my point I NEVER CLAIMED THAT YOU HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE I said I was highlighting your lack of knowledge in this area this does not mean that you CLAIMED to have knowledge in the first place. This means that the knowledge was absent 'ab initio' .

I have supported all of my points on this matter throughout. You asserted that the images showed genitalia, you did not say they showed skin. I have proven that the genitalia claim is utter hogwash. You were trying to make these out to be obscene when they clearly are not form the point of view of the authorities in the UK that would take action if they were.

I have told you where I work and have proven that there has been no contact with the police or the IWF (a fact you don't deny- you would like pretty silly if you tried to deny this since I would know about the report as soon as it was made)

Its time for once that you admit that you bit off more than you can chew on this issue as you have actually encountered someone who can disprove your assertions as they work in this field.