Peter of England: A REal guru.

[littleFred]

It is £500,000 per owner, not per vehicle.

According to a FOI request, as of November 2013 there were four such deposits, all companies, presumably with vehcle fleets.

The exemption does not cover social, domestic or pleasure purposes.

Being exempt from needing insurance does not, of course, remove financial liabilities. If the driver puts someone in a wheelchair he could be liable for millions.

[rumpelstilzchen]

It gets worse for Peter's plans:

 The Depositor must meet the full costs of any insurance claim awarded against

it (This is unlimited in the case of personal injury).

 The £500,000 cannot be used to meet these claims unless the depositor is

declared bankrupt and then the deposit is used to meet their liabilities.

[mufc1959]

Being exempt from needing insurance does not, of course, remove financial liabilities. If the driver puts someone in a wheelchair he could be liable for millions.

He can just write a WeRe cheque backed up with his promissory note. As WeRe Bank has £356 billion a week coming in from the 1% tax wibble, its resources are unlimited.


Seriously, this must be stopped. Please everyone, report this to the FCA/Action Fraud.

[wanglepin]

Surprise surprise, the Bank of England hasn't heard of WeRe Bank and suggested that they should be reported to the FCA. They even provided a helpful link and a degree of encouragement.

after sending an email concerning the Peter of England WeRe bank that was being heavily promoted over on goodf by bertiebert, I have just received a reply from FCA stating among other things;

Thank you for your email dated 13 April 2015 regarding http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org. I will now pass this information on for the consideration of the unauthorised businesses department within the FCA (Financial Conduct Authority).

It also tells me that;

restrictions placed on us by legislation we are unable to provide updates on any potential investigation that may or may not take place.

[PeanutGallery]

Report to Action Fraud has been made. Can I encourage others to follow suit? Despite the entertainment value WeRe Bank is providing, there's real potential for people to end up in serious financial difficulty because of it. Some of the Goofy (Peter of England, Spainiard, Ceylon, etc) deserve everything coming to them. But people who don't understand finance and are taken in by this need protecting from making some bad decisions as a result of being misled by charlatans.

I believe you'd be the third poster in this thread, including myself and LittleFred to report this via ActionFraud. Hopefully they will take an interest considering they should, presumably, have three different reports, from three different individuals, who I presume reside in three different parts of the country.

[Hercule Parrot]

32:26

Were also prepared to defend anyone in the courts , if the gas electric take you to court, we will have our own lawyers call them what you will....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4ZcTwsubzk

Okay, thanks. I think I'll call them deluded barrackroom lawyers who will destroy any hope of success for their "client".

[littleFred]

Yes, I've reported it. I don't know how busy they are or how much harm has to occur before they take action.


I can't decide between two alternatives:

(a) Peter has a law degree and a background in financial services. He knows what he is doing is an offence under most sections of the Fraud Act 2006, among others. He is deliberately throwing people under the bus. He aims to scarper before the sticky brown stuff hits the air movement device and continue the scam from elsewhere. Or he figures that a couple of months of free B&B would enhance his guru reputation. OR:

(b) Peter is really stupid and gullible. He has no law degree and no background in financial services. He falls for every scam under the sun. He believes all the woo on the internet. If he and everyone else fall under the bus, it will be because the bus is evil and corrupt.

Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

[rumpelstilzchen]

It's (b).
The bloke's an idiot.

[Normal Wisdom]

... If he and everyone else fall under the bus, it will be because the bus is evil and corrupt.

This is the only part of the whole scheme which is guaranteed

[littleFred]

Yes. For this reason, I would rather Peter wasn't stopped until he has harmed a few suckers.

[PeanutGallery]

The problem, as far as I can see it, with waiting for Peter to harm a few suckers is whether the suckers will realise that they've been conned. A lot of the time people have a hard time realising that they've been scammed and often these people will walk into the same scam time and time again. I would imagine that the early adopters of the scheme will be loathe to admit that they've been sold a pup.

It strikes me as being likely that if when Peter's bank runs into trouble reality, it will be blamed on the "Rothschild banking Jew elite cartel and other sundry powers that be" who will have changed the rules to prevent this "good idea" from working in order to keep the good honest citizenry of Goodf down.

[littleFred]

Indeed, PeanutGallery. SovCits who don't give their name at a traffic stop and get locked up until they do regards this as a "success". In the distorted GOOFy worldview, any action or non-action by the authorities may be seen as a "success".

Peter has now received the cheque-books. I suppose suckers will receive them in a week, then start "paying" with them, with no problems in the first few days. Interesting times ahead!

[PeanutGallery]

I am reminded of a video of Peter's I posted earlier in this thread. In which Peter proclaims a 2-0 aggregate victory over the Sheriff, because he was escorted out of the court by the police.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Peter has taken delivery of a box of his cheque books and they certainly do look like real cheque books. He is sending them out and claims to be getting twenty to twenty-five customers a day signing up.
I do hope hundreds of people start to use them. This could be the most entertainment any English footle has ever provided.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRPsWXs9ncM

(He has made his film is a churchyard because it marks "the death of the Babylonian Debt Slavery Conventional Fractional Reserve Banking Industry.")

[PeanutGallery]

I'm just wondering if the printers could be liable in some way for supplying Peter with the cheque books.

The relevant legislation would be from section 7 of the Fraud Act 2006. It reads:

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article—
(a)knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud, or
(b)intending it to be used to commit, or assist in the commission of, fraud.

Now the printer should, in my opinion, have looked into WeRe Bank before agreeing to do business with them. They should also have been aware that a 'fake' chequebook that looks legitimate could be used fraudulently. However whether this is enough to meet the standard of knowing, as set out in the act is debatable.

Certainly the printer knows that WeRe bank isn't a 'proper' bank, in that it doesn't have a sort code and Peter earlier said he was told by the Printers that he could use any sort code, provided it wasn't in use by a real bank. This, to me, suggests criminality on the part of the printers. I would welcome the opinion of other members.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I would be interested to know how Peter paid the printer.
Was it in cash?
A cheque?
Debit/credit card?
What legitimate printer of cheque books would accept and deliver such an order?

[PeanutGallery]

I believe the answer to that question lies in the WeRe Bank FAQ. Which reads:

Q: The Paradox of asking for £ sterling when you claim you have your own unit of money of account?

Supplemental:

Many will ask: “But if you are telling us that the unit of currency, the Re, is what you claim it is, then why do you ask £10 sterling from us and/or £25 for a cheque book? Why can’t we pay you in Re? Isn’t this a bit of a contradiction?” Is it not a scam?

A: The answer to all those questions is a No! But it appears to be a contradiction to many. However, please think it through!

Yes, is appears to be a contradiction BUT that is only because during the embryonic stages, we require £ to pay for the various items and services which we cannot re-solve with our Re units i.e. website designs, printing, web hosting and the printing company certainly would NOT entertain “taking a cheque” for the first run of cheque books etc. Eventually this sterling requirement will NOT be required. Also we are pragmatic in that, for now, we will HAVE TO RUN THE TWO CURRENCIES SIDE BY SIDE in order to facilitate an eventual TOTAL cross over.

Also you should be fully aware that any cheque signed off in STG £ is honoured to the PAYEE not in STERLING but in Re units – which are “monetary units of account” “cheque book money” or “bank ledger money of account”.
*emphasis mine

Peter needs your real money, so he can get his imaginary money off the ground. But you won't need your real money once everyone is using imaginary money.

[tm169]

I'm surprised by how relistic the cheques look. I was expecting something much more along the lines of the Goodf promissory note template.

Although the video doesn't give you a close look they are good enough to fool a cursory inspection and perhaps even be accepted as payment.

I think things are going to get interesting fairly quickly.

I associate myself with previous comments that whilst it would be all good fun for some of the gurus to end up in financial or legal trouble, only a cursory look at the people who have signed up shows they are probably naive and desparate and don't deserve to be victims of fraud.

This just confirms what I have always thought that the gurus are just as bad as the unscrupulous lenders in that they play on fear and ignorance to make money or satisfy their ego.

[rumpelstilzchen]

We should keep in mind there is a self-confessed forger amongst the GOODfer nuthin' ranks.

[littleFred]

I was also wondering about the printer's position with respect to fraud. In my view, the printer would have a good defence if he could prove he had good reason to believe the cheques would not be used in fraud. For example, a sworn statement from Peter that they would be used to make a TV programme or some such, and would be immediately destroyed after filming. This might get the printer off the hook.

I suspect that, after cheques start bouncing, Peter will find it more difficult to get his next batch.