Peter of England: A REal guru.

[NYGman]

The GOOFers think that Banks clear checks by using Book Entries. So they are in effect creating a sub account at their bank, tracking the inflows (payable from) and the Outflows (Payable too) on a daily basis. They don't believe that Banks ever Settle up, and make payment between them. They beleive they just acccount for it on their books. There was one quote on GOOFY, can't find it now, about how the banks don't load up a van full of cash and deliver it between banks, so obviously no money is being exchanged.

No one has explained to them how the bank will eventually get paid, so they are of the impresssion these book entreis are maintaied for ever, and is part of teh reason why banks create money.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I think the post you mention is on Peter's Faceache page.

Baron David Ward Having Been a computer systems Engineer and being involved with many Banks and government Bodies I can shed some light on how funds are cleared. What I can say off the Bat is that there is no Man in a van driving round the country moving Bank notes from one Bank to another. So to keep this simple it is a process of notifiation and comunication where Bank ledgers (Electronic Accounts) Are updated by electronic comunications. As long as there is clear comunication and record then accounts are updated accordingly. So in the simplist form this can be done by email. Bank A Mails Bank B. Is there cleard funds? Bank B to Bank A. Yes.. Ledgers get updated accordingly. How was this done before the days of computeres?? Apparently Bank Staff of today have forgotten.......... How conveaniant. But it is a process of notification only.

Is that the one?

[NYGman]

Is that the one?

That's the one, no man in a van driving around to pick up the excess cash and deliver it to another bank, therefore it must be all book keeping.

Seems to miss the point, that money is transferred electronically now days, but I guess they think electronic money transfers are not real either. Goodbye Apple Pay, Goodbye Google Wallet, Goodbye Direct Deposit for your pay, goodbye electronic bill pay. If electronic transfers are not really a transfer of anything, and only cash can convey the transfer of value, then how have we been managing lately??

[tm169]

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.

A minor point but I can confirm beyond doubt that peters date of birth is 18/10/57

[ArthurWankspittle]

That's the one, no man in a van driving around to pick up the excess cash and deliver it to another bank, therefore it must be all book keeping.

Seems to miss the point, that money is transferred electronically now days, but I guess they think electronic money transfers are not real either. Goodbye Apple Pay, Goodbye Google Wallet, Goodbye Direct Deposit for your pay, goodbye electronic bill pay. If electronic transfers are not really a transfer of anything, and only cash can convey the transfer of value, then how have we been managing lately??

I was told that years ago the major Scottish banks met daily and balanced their accounts with each other by exchanges of cheques.

[PeanutGallery]

Is that the one?

That's the one, no man in a van driving around to pick up the excess cash and deliver it to another bank, therefore it must be all book keeping.

Seems to miss the point, that money is transferred electronically now days, but I guess they think electronic money transfers are not real either. Goodbye Apple Pay, Goodbye Google Wallet, Goodbye Direct Deposit for your pay, goodbye electronic bill pay. If electronic transfers are not really a transfer of anything, and only cash can convey the transfer of value, then how have we been managing lately??

Goodbye PayPal! Oh wait, that already happened.

[slowsmile]

I think the post you mention is on Peter's Faceache page.

Baron David Ward Having Been a computer systems Engineer and being involved with many Banks and government Bodies I can shed some light on how funds are cleared. What I can say off the Bat is that there is no Man in a van driving round the country moving Bank notes from one Bank to another. So to keep this simple it is a process of notifiation and comunication where Bank ledgers (Electronic Accounts) Are updated by electronic comunications. As long as there is clear comunication and record then accounts are updated accordingly. So in the simplist form this can be done by email. Bank A Mails Bank B. Is there cleard funds? Bank B to Bank A. Yes.. Ledgers get updated accordingly. How was this done before the days of computeres?? Apparently Bank Staff of today have forgotten.......... How conveaniant. But it is a process of notification only.

Is that the one?

"Baron" David Ward thinks every individual transaction can be cleared e-mail??

I hope he was never involved in designing computer systems in any financial establishment / department I deal with.

[daltontrumbno]

I think the post you mention is on Peter's Faceache page.

Baron David Ward Having Been a computer systems Engineer and being involved with many Banks and government Bodies I can shed some light on how funds are cleared. What I can say off the Bat is that there is no Man in a van driving round the country moving Bank notes from one Bank to another. So to keep this simple it is a process of notifiation and comunication where Bank ledgers (Electronic Accounts) Are updated by electronic comunications. As long as there is clear comunication and record then accounts are updated accordingly. So in the simplist form this can be done by email. Bank A Mails Bank B. Is there cleard funds? Bank B to Bank A. Yes.. Ledgers get updated accordingly. How was this done before the days of computeres?? Apparently Bank Staff of today have forgotten.......... How conveaniant. But it is a process of notification only.

Is that the one?

"Baron" David Ward thinks every individual transaction can be cleared e-mail??

I hope he was never involved in designing computer systems in any financial establishment / department I deal with.

He boasts that he knows more about computer systems than practically anyone on the planet and installed computer systems in everyone of the top banks and he knows more about banking than any banker. In the delusional stakes I would put him somewhere between Lou Lotus and Ved Chaurdray.

[PeanutGallery]

The Goofers seem completely sucked in but what nothing more than a scam - a cash grab by Peter. They adopt a superior knowledge attitude, when clearly they know nothing about the topics they discuss

That's actually quite a common attitude around those who have been suckered by a scam. They can't allow themselves to think it is a con and anyone who challenges that perception is too stupid to see the benefit of it.

I've had it happen in my own family, one member did some work in Ireland and came back with a fixation on lotteries, this was before the National Lottery in the UK had launched. They then looked around and found an advertisement for a company calling itself the 'European Lottery Guild' or some variation, the guild proposed that you could enter a syndicate with them to play all the various European lotteries.

I pointed out that what he was actually doing was sending this company £5 a week, for which he received nothing. He didn't even know what numbers on which tickets the guild was playing or how many tickets they bought or which lotteries were being played. In fact from the way the company literature read it was feasible that to meet the terms they simply needed to buy one ticket a week for each lottery in order to profit.

I felt it was a scam. But trying to convince my family member of this led to a great many arguments where they tried to explain what they thought I wasn't seeing and I tried to explain that it wasn't that I wasn't seeing it, it simply wasn't their. Eventually I was able to show them how it was a scam, but that was a difficult enough task of itself.

[PeanutGallery]

The GOOFers think that Banks clear checks by using Book Entries. So they are in effect creating a sub account at their bank, tracking the inflows (payable from) and the Outflows (Payable too) on a daily basis. They don't believe that Banks ever Settle up, and make payment between them. They beleive they just acccount for it on their books. There was one quote on GOOFY, can't find it now, about how the banks don't load up a van full of cash and deliver it between banks, so obviously no money is being exchanged.

No one has explained to them how the bank will eventually get paid, so they are of the impresssion these book entreis are maintaied for ever, and is part of teh reason why banks create money.

I was always under the impression, and perhaps I am mistaken, that all the banks operating in the United Kingdom are required to hold an account with the Bank of England. As such they transfer and settle accounts through that establishment (which limits the number of vans containing exorbitant amounts of cash being driven around at risk of robbery).

While the amounts being transferred at the Bank of England are most likely to be achieved by accounting at that bank (as their would be little need to open a vault and move money from one pile into another), it is made good by the Banks having deposited actual money in the BoE to account for their dealings. So in a certain sense what is transferred is not the physical object of money but rather the ownership of that money. But in order to transfer that ownership the actual money must exist.

[wanglepin]

Here's one from what appears to be a dissenter (he's already been attacked for whinging and not contributing).

by CrazyDutch » Mon May 11, 2015 7:58 pm

A letter has been received today from SSE with headline stating: returned cheque followed by the statement:

Your bank has returned your cheque for £655.31 to us unpaid. The reason they gave was RETURNED BY BANK so the money is still outstanding.

What i find interesting about that statement that in the 1st sentence it states "your bank has returned your cheque", which should be read as WeRe bank has returned your cheque. However, i'm not sure i'm reading the next sentence correctly, but the way i read it is that WeRe bank has returned the cheque because it was returned by another bank?

He then goes to his interpretation (or not understanding) what it is he has received.

Your bank WeRe Bank has returned your cheque for £655.31 to us unpaid. The reasontheyWeRe Bank gave was RETURNED BY BANK so the money is still outstanding.

Maybe these "they" they are refereeing to is someone else , like clearing house or a bank they bank with so it could read:

Your bankWeRe Bank has returned your cheque for £655.31 to us unpaid. The reasonthey Clearing House gave was RETURNED BY BANK so the money is still outstanding.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... VGgKTTF98E

[littleFred]

I was always under the impression, and perhaps I am mistaken, that all the banks operating in the United Kingdom are required to hold an account with the Bank of England.

The C&CCC process needs the bank to have an account at the Bank of England. (See http://www.chequeandcredit.co.uk/cheque ... ing_cycle/ ). But I don't think this is an absolute requirement; a bank doesn't need to use the C&CCC process.

So in a certain sense what is transferred is not the physical object of money but rather the ownership of that money. But in order to transfer that ownership the actual money must exist.

I think that is correct.


WeRe "Bank" certainly isn't a registered bank. For starters, it won't have paid the £25,000 application fee (see http://www.fca.org.uk/your-fca/document ... on-process ). So it isn't authorised to do a number of activities as listed in Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. In particular, it can't take deposits. I don't know if the Promissory Notes count as deposits; I suspect not.

I think a company or an individual can accept and process bills of exchange without authority. I can write a letter to my mate Belinda asking her to pay £100 to Zoe. Instead of posting the letter to Belinda, I can post it to Zoe who can then, whenever she wants, take the letter to Belinda and claim the cash. And that is the essence of a cheque. Belinda might then say she doesn't have enough cash to give Zoe, or that she's fallen out with me and won't do as I've asked, and Zoe has no comeback against Belinda. But if I owed £100 to Zoe, she could then sue me for the amount.

This would be legal, and Belinda wouldn't need authorisation to do this. If this is all Peter did, there wouldn't be a problem.

Suppose I had a mortgage for £100,000. I could write to my building society, enclosing a letter addressed to my mate Belinda asking her to pay the building society £100,000. The building society might write back to me saying this isn't a form of payment that they can accept. Or they might go to Belinda, who might say, "Sorry I don't have that much sterling cash, would you accept these magic beans instead?"

If these things happen, my building society haven't been paid, and I still owe my mortgage. But in Peter's magic world, even though the building society hasn't received £100,000 my mortgage has been wiped clean. Peter's explanations are junk, and I think they amount to false representations as defined in Fraud Act 2006.

I think it should be obvious to everyone that unless my letter to Belinda results in her transferring £100,000 to my building society, my mortgage hasn't been paid. Otherwise we could all write letters to each other with no further action and our debts would magically vanish.

Peter claims that a bounced cheque writes-off a debt. He also claims a law degree and a background in Financial Services (see video in GOODF thread). If this is true, I don't think he can pretend he doesn't know that a bounced cheque doesn't write-off a debt.

[wanglepin]

This is a post made only yesterday by the goofer idiot mavrik defending Peters scam. It was in reply to the poster lobster

by mavrik » Mon May 11, 2015 1:00 pm
lobster wrote:
Sick of hearing bollox. I want results!!!!!!

I have posted on here that I have had a result if you care to check the posts 'Were Bank receives check for £120,000'
It isn't bollox, I paid and received. Mavrik
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... VGlLDTF98E

Well I did care to check his posts and not once does this lying bellend mention having “had a result”.

[fat frank]

this question was asked

, now the worrying bit for me is the prom notes you send to him, for £150k, in theory these are as good as cash,(I keep being told) so if he sells them on say for £100k, the person who buys them can come to you and say please pay us our £150k, as you have signed this prom note and says promise to pay the bearer on demand, so can we have our money please, and take you court for the money



this was the answer

Baron David Ward Well if someone does try to collect on the promisary note, we then make an offer of payment under the bills of exchange Act 1882 of 1p. Just an offer of payment mind. If they refuse the OFFER of payment then the debt is discharged. Now lets look at the words. "Offer of Payment" It is not posible to pay for anything as there is no money and a Bank Of England Bank Note is also a promisary note. Which is not payment. As well as all this. The signature on a Bank of England Promisary Note is a faxcimily of a signature which is fraud by misrepresentation. So a Bank of England Bank Note is material evidence of fraud.



mmmmm

[wanglepin]

this was the answer

Baron David Ward Well if someone does try to collect on the promisary note, we then make an offer of payment under the bills of exchange Act 1882 of 1p. Just an offer of payment mind. If they refuse the OFFER of payment then the debt is discharged. Now lets look at the words. "Offer of Payment" It is not posible to pay for anything as there is no money and a Bank Of England Bank Note is also a promisary note. Which is not payment. As well as all this. The signature on a Bank of England Promisary Note is a faxcimily of a signature which is fraud by misrepresentation. So a Bank of England Bank Note is material evidence of fraud.mmmmm

Was this on P of E face book?
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Peter-Of ... 68?fref=nf

It seems like a typical freeman reply that only a freeman sov could make up.

[wanglepin]

It gets whackier.
Peter of England`s legal services department is now issuing;

freeman legal services arrest warrants
Postby bertiebert » Mon May 11, 2015 9:37 pm
http://www.freemanlegalservices.com/arrestwarrants.html

[rumpelstilzchen]

I see no embossed court seals on those warrants. Nor do I see any wet ink signatures. In fact, they are not even dated. FRAUD!

[wanglepin]

I see no embossed court seals on those warrants. Nor do I see any wet ink signatures. In fact, they are not even dated. FRAUD!

My ribs hurt

[littleFred]

Those warrants are two years old.

[fat frank]

this was the answer

Baron David Ward Well if someone does try to collect on the promisary note, we then make an offer of payment under the bills of exchange Act 1882 of 1p. Just an offer of payment mind. If they refuse the OFFER of payment then the debt is discharged. Now lets look at the words. "Offer of Payment" It is not posible to pay for anything as there is no money and a Bank Of England Bank Note is also a promisary note. Which is not payment. As well as all this. The signature on a Bank of England Promisary Note is a faxcimily of a signature which is fraud by misrepresentation. So a Bank of England Bank Note is material evidence of fraud.mmmmm

Was this on P of E face book?
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Peter-Of ... 68?fref=nf

It seems like a typical freeman reply that only a freeman sov could make up.

yes