Peter of England: A REal guru.

[exiledscouser]

Look at the kerfuffle after just one innocent post - my first one at that!

Flattered as anyone would be to be mistaken for GWC I remain but his or her shade.

I'm flattered too that no less a poster than 'Tilts' prowls this forum and took note. I've well and truly arrived it would seem.

It never fails to amaze me the capacity some have for self deception whenever the latest snake oil salesman rolls into town.

The ideas and tenants of Freemanism are entirely cyclic in nature - you only have to trawl through Veronica Chapman's site to see the same hapless theories of five years ago regurgitated and endlessly repackaged for the 2015 intake. What's tragic is the inevitability of disaster for new adherents and I would spare them that if I could.

Goodf and all its works might be better suited to giving proper advice in association with organisations with actual solutions. It could be a force for good. Instead there is a strand of 'something for nothing' running through those posts not dealing with casual anti semitism or threats to 'string up' I.e. murder those they don't like. Peter is a highly articulate chap, not unintelligent. When I read the postings on his FB page I cant help notice the lower-case entries and the shouty ranty UPPERCASE STUFF and draw a parallel with the conversations Gollum has with himself.

I know Dulcie Street quite well and it is perhaps ironic that the bottom end towards town is dominated by Strangeways gaol.

And to Bill L - sadly I'm neither as my team the 'mighty' Tranmere has just been booted out of the football league after coming 92nd. Gutted.

[notorial dissent]

Arayder, I think the term you are looking for is braindead rather than brainwashed.

Petey is still confused, NO business is required to accept a payment they don't want to deal with, checks, good or bad, fall within that parameter. The only legal tender is cash, and even then the business can specify what they will or won't take. If a store doesn't want to take your check it doesn't mean you can then walk out of the store with the merchandise. Doesn't work that way, same applies to BOE's.

What I'm still trying to wrap my head around is just exactly how the bank of hoodoo is actually going to clear a check, since in this day and age the only way to actually clear a check is through the clearing house, and I can't see a modern bank sending a messenger to collect the money, which is what they would want from Petey.

[littleFred]

Peter's latest Facebook post says:

WeRe + WIR = Financial Freedom
WeRe Bank is all of WIR + more and is the only economic and financial model powerful enough to navigate the up and coming global financial crisis. JOIN

Peter is saying, "It's been done before, and it worked there." Yes, it has. Some Swiss businesses decided to trade with each other in an invented currency. No reason why they shouldn't. If a person decides to accept some currency that isn't legal tender, nothing prevents this. The idea expanded until thousands of companies now trade mutually in WIR units, which is now a recognised currency.

GOOFer landlubber comments:

The Swiss have taken to their scheme, so why is it so difficult for some to realize that Peter's scheme won't, and yet it is virtually the same?

I see two big differences. First, the WIR Bank is regulated. Second, Swiss businesses are not obliged to accept WIR francs. Peter asserts that companies are obliged to accept his Re units, so if a debtor decides not to, then the debt is discharged. This is not true, and a moment's thought by half a brain cell will show why: because if it were true, then anyone could invent any currency they wanted and insist that debtors had to accept it. This would instantly devalue all money.

[PeanutGallery]

Their is a third glaring difference between the WIR and WeRe, which is that when the WIR was started all the businesses involved used real things with real value as the basis of their trade. They could choose to do business with each other using either the Swiss franc or the WIR, or even do business part in part.

Peter's system has nothing of value being traded for Re units. The Promissory notes are worthless, nothing more than junk bonds, they can't actually be called in and if they were I do not imagine the individual would have the funds to make good the promise. Their is no real world value and certainly no goods or services that you can buy with Re.

I would also suggest that when the WIR was founded the number of WIR's in circulation was very strictly limited and controlled, each business most likely had a finite number as this encourages them to be traded and used and also helps to prevent inflation from getting out of hand. Peter's system, instead encourages hyper-inflation (Remember the story about how the old people earned Re by needing to employ a roofer).

The WIR seems to be a soundly designed system (the Swiss are good at those) while the WeRe is Menards ACCP dressed up like a street walker from Vancouvers Seymour street.

Of course the GooFer response will be that Pounds Sterling are backed up by junk bonds or are traded for things with no value. This simply isn't true. Everything a GooFer owes money on was purchased using Pounds Sterling. It's also a noted difference that the people I want to buy things from, recognise Pounds Sterling as having value and are willing to exchange their goods and services for it, they aren't going to accept the Re and neither should a creditor.

[littleFred]

... or the Swiss system is a beautifully-crafted timepiece that loses only a second a year, where Peter's system is a broken clock with no hands so never tells the correct time at all.

[slowsmile]

PoE is collecting all those lost seconds by "energetic osmosis" and adding them to the WeRe Bank balance sheet.

IN YER FACE GNOMES OF ZURICH!!!!

[PeanutGallery]

In regard to osmosis Peter keeps using that word, I'm do not think it means what he thinks it means.

[NYGman]

... or the Swiss system is a beautifully-crafted timepiece that loses only a second a year, where Peter's system is a broken clock with no hands so never tells the correct time at all.

Actually, a stopped watch is correct twice a day, although, the same can't be said for PoE.

[littleFred]

Yeah. That's why I said Peter's broken clock has no hands. I hate explaining jokes.

[Normal Wisdom]

It's times like these when I wish there was a "like" button for posts. Good stuff everybody, very entertaining and informative.

[Bones]

The hypocrisy of both GOODF and PoE deleting questions and banning people that dare ask a question struck me this morning.

It was not that long ago that people were advised to send a list of questions to their mortgage companies - on the premise that they could not be answered as they would show that mortgages don't exist and all that rubbish.

Now the roles have been reversed and one of the SovCit's have created (I use the term loosely ) a bank, they is a complete refusal to answer questions.

If Peter or for that matter GOODF have nothing to hide and everything about WeRe bank was above board, why do they refuse to answer reasonable questions.

Peter has continually ducked the question of what actually happens to the sterling that he receives and converts (by using the power of grey skull) into Re's. When these payments are made to his account via paypal (as nationwide is no longer permitted) - how is the sterling converted into Re, when the sterling is still in his own personal account.

If sterling is converted into Re, how can it still exist as sterling in his bank account

I am curious about the role of Bertie ( I love the BNP and EDL) in this scam. Whilst he has posted on GOODF about opening an account, which was obviously done to authenticate this scam to other SovCit's, he has made no mention of any success he has had with issuing cheques from his own WeRe account. Bertie talks a lot but does not appear to actually do anything himself.

Now we have Sallinae the new moderator of GOODF that is deleting posts that dare question WeRe bank faster than I can read them. Why is Sallinae, being so proactive in hiding anything and everything negative about WeRe bank.

Why are people like Bertie and Sallinae so concerned about people asking questions about WeRe Bank ? What is the benefit to them personally for this scam running aslong as it can.

[Bones]

I have to congratulate PoE

He has already created the story of how all of the banks have ganged up on him and it is because of them that this has failed and nothing to do with the fact that he has made up a fictional bank which uses a currency he dreamed up and issues cheques which do not have account numbers and only have a sort-code which is just his own date of birth in reverse.

He even has people feeling sorry for him because he has worked so hard and done his "homework" but the jewish rothchild (any other crazy conspiracy you care to name) are working against him to end his fight for financial freedom

PoE has no knowledge of banking or the way that the clearing process works, except for what he has found on Google. He has no idea of how banks, credit card companies and non high street mortgage lenders work.

Companies such as subprime lender Southern Pacific Mortgage Lenders (SPML), actually bank with Barclays as I remember. Most credit card companies that aren't high street banks also bank with high street banks or it would be more accurate to call them Clearing Banks - only the below banks clear cheques. Any company such as MBNA, American Express etc, must hold an account with one of the below, to accept payments via cheque

Bank of England
Bank of Scotland PLC
Barclays Bank
Clydesdale Bank
HSBC Bank
Lloyds Bank
Nationwide Building Society
National Westminster Bank
The Royal Bank of Scotland
Santander UK
The Co-operative Bank

When a payment is received by for example MBNA, it is credited to the customers credit card account and the cheque is sent to clearing and processed. If the cheque is returned unpaid (possible reasons include lack of funds or no account etc), the credit entry that had been applied to the customers credit card account is reversed.

A similar process also applies to direct debits. On the day that the direct debit is due to be applied a credit is applied to the credit card account. If the direct debit payment is rejected (lack of funds or a cancelled instruction etc) the credit is reversed.

[Bones]

As the idiots over at GOODF are reading this thread

http://www.chequeandcredit.co.uk/cheque ... o_cheques/

The Law Relating to Cheques

The definition and use of cheques are covered by The Bills of Exchange Act 1882, and the Cheques Acts of 1957 and 1992. The Bills of Exchange Act 1882 defines a cheque as a written order from an account holder instructing their bank to pay a specified sum of money to one or more named beneficiaries.

Ever since their inception it has been the case that cheques are not a promise to pay by the bank, but a request to the bank that it pays, out of the funds deposited by the customer, an amount to a third party. This means that the bank will only honour the cheque if the account holder has sufficient funds to meet it or it can be covered by an agreed overdraft or other line of credit. Cheques are not legal tender and never have been. Even today, if you owe someone money they are not obliged to accept a cheque. Instead a creditor is entitled to be paid in legal tender and can refuse payment in any other form.

[Bones]

This should help clarify how a cheque is processed

http://www.chequeandcredit.co.uk/about_ ... _overview/

Cheque Processing Overview

The cheque and credit clearing process managed by the C&CCC is for sterling cheques and credits drawn on UK banks and paid into bank accounts in Great Britain. It involves the exchange of items and settlement of payments for customers whose accounts are held either at different banks or at different branches of the same bank in Great Britain. The term bank is used in this context to describe any bank or building society which offers customers a payment account facility.

The cheque clearing operates within a 48 hour period over three days. The clearing does not operate on Saturdays, Sundays and bank holidays as settlement across Bank of England accounts can only take place Monday to Friday.

Day 0

At the end of each working day (day 0), every branch of each of the collecting banks sends all the cheques paid in by its customers to its bank’s clearing centre, to arrive by the early hours of the following working day.

Day 1 – early in the morning

The clearing centre processes the cheques through its reader/sorter machines which capture the amount the amount of each cheque and the code line, containing the customer’s account number, branch sort code and cheque serial number. This data is converted into encrypted digital files, known as IBDE (Inter-Bank Data Exchange) files.

The electronic files thus created are signed with a digital signature for authentication purposes and are sent to the relevant paying banks later that morning (by 11 a.m. on day one). This is done by means of a secure network known as the IBDE network.

Day 1 – later that morning

The physical cheques are then batched up together with all other cheques drawn on accounts at the same bank and are handed over to the paying banks at the English exchange (also by 11 a.m. on day one), or at the Scottish exchange in the case of cheques drawn on accounts held at branches in Scotland.

The Northern Ireland banks do not participate in IBDE but operate to the same timeframe as the banks in Great Britain. Cheques drawn on banks in Northern Ireland are sent to Northern Ireland for local processing.

Day 2 – the morning

On the morning of day 2, the Cheque & Credit Clearing Company calculates the net amount the banks must pay to or receive from each other in Great Britain on the basis of the value of all the cheques exchanged on the previous day. The net Sterling balances are then settled across accounts held at the Bank of England. In Northern Ireland each pair of the four clearing banks agrees bi-laterally the net sum due to or from each bank and a CHAPS payment is sent to settle the account owed.

Also on the morning of day two, the paying bank updates its customers’ accounts. Following the Deregulation Bills Act 1996, cheques no longer have to be returned to the drawee branch as a matter of course, but can be examined for irregularities at a central paying bank point. This is also the day on which the pay/no pay decision is made. If the paying bank decides not to pay a cheque, it will send the unpaid cheque back to the collecting bank by special courier for advice to the beneficiary.

Day 3

The unpaid cheque arrives back at the collecting/beneficiary bank and is reclaimed from the beneficiary’s account, so he cannot withdraw the funds on day four. Depending on the reason the cheque is returned unpaid, the beneficiary/collecting bank will either try to get the cheque paid again, or it will send the cheque back to the customer and advise them it has been unpaid.

Day 4 and Day 6

In November 2007 2-4-6 timescales for clearing cheques came into force. The timescales provide increased clarity and, for the first time, certainty for customers paying cheques into their current, basic or savings bank or building society accounts.

After paying in a cheque the customer can be sure that at the end of six working days the money is theirs to keep. The customer is protected from any loss should the cheque subsequently be found to be fraudulent unless he is a knowing party to a fraud.

The 2-4-6 timescales also set maximum times for customers to start earning interest on money paid in by cheque (the start of day 2) and similarly, maximum times for when the funds are available for withdrawal (the start of day 4 or day 6 if paid into a savings account).

[Bones]

Another interesting read for the SovCit's that are considering paying PoE for a bunch of worthless and meaningless cheques

http://www.paymentscouncil.org.uk/files ... v10%29.pdf

[rumpelstilzchen]

It looks as though I have been proven to be wrong again. I said he would not blame his disciples when it all turns turtle. But Peter is blaming the account holders for doing it the wrong way. They have been told their cheques are fraudulent. Peter dismisses that as "nonsense" because that can easily be disproved.

SEVERAL MEMBERS HAVE "COMPLAINED" saying they have been accused of FRAUD or have been told the cheque is "fraudulent". This is nonsense and can easily be disproved, but look at it from the bankers POV. This word is inappropriately used.
They [our ReMembers] are NOT helping their own cause or case as they ReFuse to follow the BIBLE = Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth and they have & continue to make errors, which aren't too serious BUT cause confusion in the minds of the bank clerks and clearers.
Upon speaking to them [ReMembers] and asking the following questions they reply often as follows and some have MADE EVERY SINGLE MISTAKE BELOW ON THE SAME PRESENTMENT!!
1. Did you sign the cheque on the back = YES = MISTAKE
2.Did you make it payable to the entity asking for the money? NO= MISTAKE
3. Did you make it payable to the POST OFFICE? YES= MISTAKE
4. Have you tried to pay it into your own account or an account in your name? YES= MISTAKE
5.Did you attach an allonge to your cheque or enclose one? NO = MISTAKE
http://www.werebank.co.uk/how-cheques-clear/

Peter makes a reference to the bible in there. Is he a god botherer?

[little mouse]

Yes of course it's the fact they filled in the cheque wrong not that it's a fake cheque!

[rumpelstilzchen]

Yes of course it's the fact they filled in the cheque wrong not that it's a fake cheque!

That's about the gist of it. The cheque would be fraudulent but if you perform these "legal" manoeuvres it becomes legit. Peter comes to the rescue again.

[longdog]

His posts are getting more and more bizarre. You can do all of those things without making a REAL cheque fraudulent so what the hell is he blathering on about?

"Anyone attacking ReMovement or WeRe I 100% ASSURE YOU ARE WORKING FOR THE BANKSTERS - deal with them accordingly."

What the fudge?

[wanglepin]

SEVERAL MEMBERS HAVE "COMPLAINED" saying they have been accused of FRAUD or have been told the cheque is "fraudulent". This is nonsense and can easily be disproved,

1. Did you sign the cheque on the back = YES = MISTAKE

Why?

2.Did you make it payable to the entity asking for the money? NO= MISTAKE

Why?

3. Did you make it payable to the POST OFFICE? YES= MISTAKE

Why?

4. Have you tried to pay it into your own account or an account in your name? YES= MISTAKE

Why?

5.Did you attach an allonge to your cheque or enclose one? NO = MISTAKE

Yes, but it made no difference, the cheque bounced like a space hopper. Why?