Peter of England: A REal guru.

[ArthurWankspittle]

So basically he's trawled his sovcit paperwork for a number that looks a lot like a genuine sort code. I'll leave it for a jury to decide why he came up with that number as opposed to any of dozens of others.

[PeanutGallery]

I wonder if it's Peter's date of birth, reversed i.e. 18/10/57?

Given that my earlier research into Peter and his company history turned up a director profile which indicated Peter was born in 1957, this theory may well be accurate.

As far as I understand the history of the sort code on the cheques, Peter has stated that the printers told him that he could put any sort code on, provided it wasn't in use by another bank. Which is probably for the best, as it will mean the scam unravelling rather quickly.

[mufc1959]

Someone on GOODF's now had a lightbulb moment.

Just supposing we " accidentally ". " overpaid" and require a credit payment ?? ...I know people who overpay all year and request a refund at Xmas , using the Utility as a savings bank...sounds fun

So not only would he be paying his utility bill with a fake cheque, he'd be using it to deliberately get real money back to which he isn't entitled. In other words, theft.

I think this week will be an interesting one for Peter of England. Clearly Goofers are ignoring his instructions to write only one cheque per week - a number of people have said they have a pile of bills to pay and will be sending off the cheques today. I'm not sure how, or if, it's been worked out how anyone will keep track of these so Peter knows how much the individual account holders have used out of their £150,000. (I am suspending my disbelief that this is a real bank and assuming there's some kind of record-keeping going on here, which I doubt.) I'm also wondering how it'll go down at his mailing address in Manchester when the Fraud Squad turns up on the door step. As it can only be a matter of time before that happens.

[wanglepin]

Astonished! A bit of common sense over on goofer.

GWC » Mon Apr 20, 2015 12:10 am
It would appear to me that Peter does not understand what "holder" and "drawee" means. And this is the man who is supposed to be running a bank.

I have a feeling GWC won't last long....he appears to be far too sensible.
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... TS_fjTF98E

[PeanutGallery]

Indeed and it seems he has been supported by another, but BertieBert has acted quickly to post up some convoluted nonsense in order to drown out the heresy of those explaining what reality is.

[littleFred]

Some people who post on GOODF do understand real life and real laws. There is an art to posting factually correct material on GOODF without being banned and having your posts removed. I have attempted this art, and failed miserably.

As I want such posters to survive on GOODF, I would refrain from identifying them on this forum.

A GOOFer might post correct material for a while, and I begin to think, yes, this guy has common sense, but will then post some utter garbage. Maybe this is a ruse; some garbage is necessary for survival.

[wanglepin]

Indeed and it seems he has been supported by another, but BertieBert has acted quickly to post up some convoluted nonsense in order to drown out the heresy of those explaining what reality is.

I see bertiebert has wheeled out Lord Denning but again has failed to mention that the pn has to be backed with real money that is cash sterling.

[littleFred]

Perhaps by coincidence, Peter has picked up on my comment upthread that Peter's court is superior to all other courts, so can rule his scam I mean scheme is entirely legal. A new WeRe page ICLCOR says:

INTERNATIONAL COMMON LAW COURT OF RECORD 750181

Please be informed that all disputes concerning re-payments by Re-Members of their DEBTS (so called) via WeRe Bank [SORT CODE 75-01-81] are ultimately arbitrated by the International Common Law Court of Record 750181.

Any party found, by this court, of Interfering with Due Process, hindering said members,ignoring relevant statutes enacted by the VERY SAME HAND to which mitigation is now delivered, will be called before the People’s Common Law Court and tried before a JURY of their peers. There is NO COURT WITHIN ENGLAND SUPERIOR TO A COMMON LAW COURT DULY CONVENED

This is a Life-line to Members and a WARNING to PROTAGONISTS

Interesting wording: any party found by this court of doing bad things will then be tried. In more conventional courts, trials come before decisions.


The WeRe website has some other new pages of junk, eg how to protest for dishonour.


Peter has often said his date of birth is 18 October 1957 (eg ReMovement - Declaration of SACREMENT and Preamble to Affidavit 1, "date of birth eighteen ten fifty-seven"). In the British way this is 18/10/57. I don't suppose it is a coincidence that this reversed is the court number. He has said (on the 2.5hr video, I think) the sort code came from the court number.

[littleFred]

I've had a reply from the Prudential Regulation Authority, which I would summarise as, "WeRe isn't a real bank, so any problem isn't our concern."

Dear [redacted]

Thank you for your email of 7 April regarding your concerns surrounding WeRe Bank.

If I may begin by briefly outlining the responsibility of the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), within the Bank of England. The PRA is responsible for the ‘prudential’ regulation of deposit-takers (banks, building societies and credit unions), insurers and some major investment firms. As the prudential regulator, it is the PRA’s role to promote the ‘safety and soundness’ of these firms – that is, to promote their resilience against failure, and to help ensure that they avoid causing harm through any disruption to the continuity of their provision of financial services.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), however, focuses on the interaction between customers and financial institutions; making sure that the institutions offer a reliable and fair service to their customers. The PRA works alongside the FCA creating a “twin peaks” regulatory structure in the UK. Each of the financial firms regulated by either the PRA and/or the FCA can be found on the Financial Services Register. I have been unable to find a match on the Register to WeRe bank, however please find a link to the Register below to conduct your own search to confirm my findings. It may be that WeRe bank is operating under a different name and trading as part of a group. I should warn you that if you deal with an unauthorised firm you will not be covered by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) or the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) if things go wrong. Unfortunately there are firms that operate without authorisation and some knowingly run scams like share fraud.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/home.do

Turning specifically to the concerns you raise about WeRe bank being a scam; as you suspect fraudulent activity I would recommend that you contact the police via the Action Fraud. Action Fraud is the UK’s national fraud and internet crime reporting centre, I provide their contact details below for ease :

Email : http://www.actionfraud.police.uk/contact-us
Telephone : 0300 123 2040

I thought, for your own interest, you may also like some clarification about promissory notes. The Bills of Exchange Act 1882 Section 83(1) provides that a 'promissory note is an unconditional promise in writing made by one person to another signed by the maker, engaging to pay, on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money, to, or to the order of, a specified person or to bearer'. There is no reason, in principle, why a debtor cannot create a promissory note payable to a specific institution (a creditor) for a specific amount due from the debtor to the creditor. However, that does not mean that the creditor is obliged to accept the note as payment for the debt, since the method of payment is a matter of agreement between the parties to the transaction. In other words, unless the creditor has agreed to accept the note in discharge of the debt, it would not be required to do so.

Thank you once again for taking the time to write to the Bank and I hope the information above is useful to you.

Yours Sincerely

[redacted]
Public Enquiries Group
Bank of England | Threadneedle Street | London EC2R 8AH | +44 (0)20 7601 4878
enquiries@bankofengland.co.uk

[vampireLOREN]

I've had a reply from the Prudential Regulation Authority, which I would summarise as, "WeRe isn't a real bank, so any problem isn't our concern."

Dear [redacted]

Thank you for your email of 7 April regarding your concerns surrounding WeRe Bank.

If I may begin by briefly outlining the responsibility of the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), within the Bank of England. The PRA is responsible for the ‘prudential’ regulation of deposit-takers (banks, building societies and credit unions), insurers and some major investment firms. As the prudential regulator, it is the PRA’s role to promote the ‘safety and soundness’ of these firms – that is, to promote their resilience against failure, and to help ensure that they avoid causing harm through any disruption to the continuity of their provision of financial services.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), however, focuses on the interaction between customers and financial institutions; making sure that the institutions offer a reliable and fair service to their customers. The PRA works alongside the FCA creating a “twin peaks” regulatory structure in the UK. Each of the financial firms regulated by either the PRA and/or the FCA can be found on the Financial Services Register. I have been unable to find a match on the Register to WeRe bank, however please find a link to the Register below to conduct your own search to confirm my findings. It may be that WeRe bank is operating under a different name and trading as part of a group. I should warn you that if you deal with an unauthorised firm you will not be covered by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) or the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) if things go wrong. Unfortunately there are firms that operate without authorisation and some knowingly run scams like share fraud.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/home.do

Turning specifically to the concerns you raise about WeRe bank being a scam; as you suspect fraudulent activity I would recommend that you contact the police via the Action Fraud. Action Fraud is the UK’s national fraud and internet crime reporting centre, I provide their contact details below for ease :

Email : http://www.actionfraud.police.uk/contact-us
Telephone : 0300 123 2040

I thought, for your own interest, you may also like some clarification about promissory notes. The Bills of Exchange Act 1882 Section 83(1) provides that a 'promissory note is an unconditional promise in writing made by one person to another signed by the maker, engaging to pay, on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money, to, or to the order of, a specified person or to bearer'. There is no reason, in principle, why a debtor cannot create a promissory note payable to a specific institution (a creditor) for a specific amount due from the debtor to the creditor. However, that does not mean that the creditor is obliged to accept the note as payment for the debt, since the method of payment is a matter of agreement between the parties to the transaction. In other words, unless the creditor has agreed to accept the note in discharge of the debt, it would not be required to do so.

Thank you once again for taking the time to write to the Bank and I hope the information above is useful to you.

Yours Sincerely

[redacted]
Public Enquiries Group
Bank of England | Threadneedle Street | London EC2R 8AH | +44 (0)20 7601 4878
enquiries@bankofengland.co.uk

Well Done Fred.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Oh well, it is Monday afternoon and no doubt there are now dozens of WeRe cheques sealed safely inside dozens of envelopes merrily on their journey with the Post Office and are about to hit the system. Perhaps soon Peter will be on the run like some of the other gurus.

[Normal Wisdom]

Indeed and it seems he has been supported by another, but BertieBert has acted quickly to post up some convoluted nonsense in order to drown out the heresy of those explaining what reality is.

I see bertiebert has wheeled out Lord Denning but again has failed to mention that the pn has to be backed with real money that is cash sterling.

Is see GWC came back again with a carefully crafted destruction of bertiebert's nonsense. Faced with someone that obviously won't back down to pseudo-legal jibber-jabber bertie replied in the only way possible ..

"As you seem to know so much why don't you tell Peter"

Glorious! Sometimes I wish I could post on GOODF but I know I wouldn't last five minutes so it's not even worth the bother of registering.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... TUpEKY2_zI

[wanglepin]

I've had a reply from the Prudential Regulation Authority, which I would summarise as, "WeRe isn't a real bank, so any problem isn't our concern."

I should warn you that if you deal with an unauthorised firm you will not be covered by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) or the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) if things go wrong. Unfortunately there are firms that operate without authorisation and some knowingly run scams like share fraud.

Doesn`t leave the suckered many places to go, does it?

[wanglepin]

.goofer bertie bert says
"As you seem to know so much why don't you tell Peter"
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... TUpEKY2_zI

I did predict this would be the response from goofers . Won't be long before that thread is locked and Mr Common Sense is banned.

[Bones]

So they have some cheques which are drawn on a bank that does not exist.

These cheques have a made up sortcode being Peter's Date of birth reversed and an account number of 88888888. No printed name of the account holder - All sounds good, can't see any reason why these won't be accepted

I am waiting for the first SOVCIT to think, of using one of the cheques to try and pay £150,000 into their own bank accounts

[Bones]

Indeed and it seems he has been supported by another, but BertieBert has acted quickly to post up some convoluted nonsense in order to drown out the heresy of those explaining what reality is.

I see bertiebert has wheeled out Lord Denning but again has failed to mention that the pn has to be backed with real money that is cash sterling.

Looking at how hard Bertiebert is pushing this fake bank that people have to pay £10 per month to join and £25.00 for a cheque book, I hope Peter is paying him commission

[PeanutGallery]

I have considered the possibility that Bertiebert is either Peter, posting in order to shill for himself, or a stooge who is in on the scam. Of course he could just be a useful idiot happily supporting Peter's con.

My worry is that a Goof might try some modification of the old overpayment scam (wherein a buyer of an item 'accidentally' sends a payment that is far too large and simply asks you to wire the excess funds back. You do this, because the money is credited to your account quickly and it look like the funds have cleared, however the payment is a forgery and by the time the money is rolled back, you've already transferred a substantial amount to Johnny Fraudpants and are now on the hook for it).

While most GooFs will only try to use the cheques to get out of actually paying their debts there is a chance that some may view these as a chance to con their way to a large payday.

[Hercule Parrot]

While most GooFs will only try to use the cheques to get out of actually paying their debts there is a chance that some may view these as a chance to con their way to a large payday.

If the attitude of the financial regulation bodies is "any problem isn't our concern" then maybe the banks deserve to lose some money through this werebank scam. It will teach them a lesson about complacency.

[PeanutGallery]

Unfortunately I feel that any losses the banks suffer will be passed on to their customers. I do find it somewhat galling that a well meaning man, like David Fishwick, ran into a lot of hurdles when he tried to set up his own bank, properly. In fact as I recall he was unable to call his enterprise a 'bank' for fear of falling foul of regulation. But when a charlatan fraudster brazenly sets up a bank, calls it a bank, issues bank cheque books and promotes his bank to gullible saps, the regulators stand back and do nothing.

I wonder why the double standard exists. I fear it is because Peter's "Bank" website makes such preposterous claims and is both rambling and nonsensical, that the regulators seem to underestimate how popular it is with the kooks and crazies.

[littleFred]

I didn't see the Bank of Dave programs, but I suppose he went with a camera crew to interview head honchos of regulators, who would explain how difficult it all is because they want to give out the message that banks are properly regulated so we can all be confident they'll never go bust, and so on.

Peter doesn't care about regulations or protecting his customers or anything much else. If his bank gets people into trouble, he doesn't care. He knows it won't work; otherwise he wouldn't bother with the allonges.

The regulators may have enough faith that the clearing process will weed out the WeRe cheques, and the real banks will have no problems.