I've had a BAD day. It was all ok until i got a letter from Edexcel basically suggesting that i cheated on my History AS re-take.... basically they're claiming that there are two different handwriting styles on my paper (which is possible- i tend to rush and start writing in italic) now i have to write an answer explaining myself aswell as sending in examples of my work...... tch. This is my response thus far, i have'nt finished yet.


Richard Andrews: Edexcel Statement

You have asked me to respond to your allegation of suspected irregularity or misconduct in the above examination. With my parents’ assistance I submit the following comments and documentation for your consideration

We are a little puzzled in the way that the possible allegation has been worded. The examiner suggests that there are ‘two distinctly different styles of handwriting’ and you have asked for my comments. We are a little surprised that you have not supplied a copy of the script, which would give me an opportunity to confirm unequivocally that it is my handwriting.

We offer the following comments to assist in your investigation:

Conduct of the examination

 The above examination was carried out on the correct day and at the correct time.
 The examination was stopped at the appointed time.
 The examination took place in the main hall. Only a small group (less than 10) took examinations at that time.
 I was the only history candidate at that session. The other students were physics students.
 There was another candidate taking this History Unit on the same day but for scheduling reasons he was forced to take the module in the afternoon and was kept in isolation all day until his exam started. I had no contact with him.
 My examination was started under the direction of the Examinations officer Miss De Vane.
 At approximately 9:00am Miss De Vane handed over invigilation responsibilities to Mrs Putt, who remained until my examination ended.
 When my examination ended Mrs Putt told me to finish in the normal manner and I was told I could leave the examination room. The physics students remained.
 My examination script was collected by Mrs Putt and that script has not been seen by me since.
 There were no irregularities or disturbances in the course of the examination that I was aware of at the time or since. Had any such irregularities occurred I understand that these would have been reported to you under a clearly defined procedure.
 Miss De Vane and Mrs Putt will be able to verify these facts, as the statement requested from them will show.

Conduct of candidate

 I confirm I conducted myself in the appropriate manner for the examination.
 My examination script was written onto the provided Edexcel booklet and no other unauthorised material was used. I assume that you are satisfied on this point as you have not raised a concern over it.
 I confirm that I did not have prior sight of the examination paper.
 The only communication between the invigilator and myself were the general start and finish comments. These were addressed to the group as a whole.
 The single occasion the invigilator spoke to me was when I was told my examination had ceased and I could leave the hall. This was because I was the only history candidate.
 I confirm that I did not introduce any material or take any action to undermine the integrity of the examination.
 I confirm that the examination paper I completed was all my own work.
 I confirm that all my work was completed within the specified time available and was contained inside the Edexcel answer booklet.
 I confirm that I have not seen the examination script since being told by the invigilator that I was to finish and leave the examination hall.


As I have already stated we find the allegation most peculiar. The concern would appear to be that another person has entered work on my examination script, given the fact that I was the only history candidate to sit this exam at that time would suggest that if from another candidate this would involve the assistance of a physics student. To do so would suggest gross negligence on behalf of the invigilators who, given the extremely small numbers of students sitting the examinations, could not fail to witness such collusion.

Today was another day of comfort to me. Actually it wasn't but you'd never know. Just three lessons of school. Discussing the merits of the Battle of the Bulge (Hitler's last offensive of the war), the Great Purges and "The Sick Rose" in English. The afternoon was spent playing rugby at my Primary School (for anyone ignorant of the fact I go into my mum's primary school once a week and do stuff). My second lesson (on the aforementioned Great Purges) was excellent. I successfully argued the 'totalitarian opinion' that Stalin was in fact responsible for the estimated 15 million deaths between 1936-38. My opponent (the Undisputed AAA Jonny) tried the 'revisionist opinion' approach claiming it was the fault of the state and a lack of law and order. I immediately opened the offensive by daring to claim that this 'state' was created by Stalin and therefore was his responsibility. Anyway, it lasted into break and ended without a firm conclusion. Lots of fun. I'm sure I had Jonny on the ropes, but these revisionists get out of the tightest spots you know.

An essay (or part of it) on the two poems "The Drum" by John Scott and "The Send-off" by Wilfred Owen.

The two poems, whilst having essentially the same theme, were written over a large time span. This gulf in time, nevertheless, does not affect the themes that the poems both express. Whilst being two different poems written by differing poets in differing situations they both present ideas about slaughter and sacrifice.
“The Drum” is a fast and furious poem, full of vigour that clearly establishes itself via the drum-like quality of the lines that appear to symbolize the very essence of a drum and thus war. The repetition of words such as “and” and “round” emphasize the energy seen in the lines. Other words such as “moans”, “tears” and “groans” also add to the semantic field of noise epitomised by the very title of the poem.
The use of Scott’s own somewhat objective voice “I hate” gives the poem both direction and force. The pronoun “I” gives the poem a very personal feel that assures the reader of the importance of the subject, both to society and Scott himself. The “hate” that Scott expresses is towards the “drum’s discordant sound” and is repeated twice to stress the point. The paired couplets used throughout the poem, most significantly in the first two lines “sound” and “round”, make the image seem tangible and, due to the poems pace this is sustained throughout the poem.
On a plain level “The Send off” appears to be completely the opposite in terms of rhythm. Lines such as “their breasts were stuck all white with wreath and spray” are deliberately slow in order to create a sense of the slaughter and gore of war. The poem also specifically contrasts against the fever of “the Drum” with “too few for drums and yells” creating a more demure and sullen atmosphere.
The soldiers are “silent” and “creep back… to village wells” contrasting to the very vivid image of “mangled limbs”. This passion that is absent in “The Send Off” suggests its inferiority however the complex nature of the poem on a multi-dimensional level. The concepts of slaughter and sacrifice are delivered in differing ways but still provide power. The sombreness explored in “The Send-Off” via the “dull porters” and “wrongs hushed-up” is as much an indication of the horror of war as the ferocious “burning towns” in “The Drum”.
“The Drum” describes the mutilated ‘glory’ off war as opposed to “The Send-Off” that describes the after effects of war on the soldiers and their return to ‘normality’. This contextual difference provides us with a clue to how slaughter and sacrifice are presented. “The Drum” talks off the “thoughtless youth” and “widows tears”, the results of war, in a somewhat ironically glorifying way. Clearly, being a pacifist, Scott would not wish to glorify the acts of war and therefore we can only assume that his personifying account of war is done in order to imply an ironic state of mind.

A couple of my poems for anyone willing to digest:

This is my wall

Of all the things in life
My greatest fear is
Of walls

Walls to block, walls to hold
Walls that rip and tear
And destroy

Walls that tell me ‘stop here’
Walls that pretend they’re…
Curtains.

So I say tear them down
Broken and shattered
Jericho

The walls that separate
Lie at mans own feet
We’re home.


You’re not here

Is that what you wanted?
I’m the Grim Fandango.
Teachers screaming out their power.
Am I really here?
Do you believe it? Or do you just hope?
My life seems so contrived.
Am I really here?
Green scrawl on white.
She went away and never came back.
Am I really here?
Please just help me get out of this mess.
Watch the crystal castles falling down.
Look at the camera, smile pretty girl.
Am I really here?
What you want you’ll never get.
You have to be joking!
Comic intrusions on your public private life.
Tears of stardust, eyes of gold.
I can’t believe you’re not here.
Don’t pack me off.

Am I really here?
Or am I just dreaming?
Am I really here?
I don’t know, just stop.

Let me deliver a simple piece of advice unto the world. People aren't always what they seem. It's true. Theres never a more contradictory state than that of humanity. See innocence and experience for that. People often wish they were famous, but why? it's a strange position when you look at it. Celebrities have no freedom. It's like the clause in their life contract. They are owned by the public whether they like it or not, most don't. Therefore, working on this premise, I stake my ownership rights over Chris Martin. He should have to play on my beck and call. He can bring Gwynith along as well if he wants to. Isn't it ironic, Chris Martin is Coldplay and yet without Jon, Guy and Will (we're on first name terms) he'd most likely be nothing. Interesting.

In accordance with the notations of my friends i shall look to disect my name in order to find out what, in theory, I am all about. My name in full is Richard Phillip Andrews. Richard means Powerful ruler/brave one. Obviously some connection to Richard I- le coeur-de-lion. Phillip on the other hand is a Greek name meaning lover of horses. Andrews obviously means son of Andrew (even though my dad's not called Andrew) (neithers my mum) and therefore if i look at the stem of my surname Andrew means manly/valiant/courageous. I kid you not. There looks to be a theme developing. Basically i'm in principal really brave, a great leader, manly (or virile I suppose) and I love horses. Which incidentally I don't but two out of three isn't bad.