Peter of England: A REal guru.

[Dai Kiwi]

Kiri Campbell was able to print out fake debit cards no problem, so I see no issue why Peter shouldn't be able to do the same.

I may be misremembering, but I don't think the cards were ever issued. People were given cardboard placeholders. Several months down the line some people were still posting "where's my card?" on Facebook. I do remember that both Paymark and EFTPOS wouldn't have a bar of them, which cut them out of 99.99% of outlets. Some noise was made about investigating 'an alternative', but it was all pretty much over.

[PeanutGallery]

Printing a fake card isn't that difficult, a google turned this site up http://www.plasticprinters.com/creditdebit/.

Getting one that would work is a little trickier, what with the chip and pin and rfid but that is still not out of range of most fraudsters. In fact another google turned up this: http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/chip-and-pin-cards.html, I'm not even using the 'dark net' to look for these this is just stuff that anyone can easily find and buy online. However I'm not sure that Peter would have one that would work, after all he's not that bothered about his Cheques working.

Of course the tricky part isn't getting the card, it's getting the details to put on the card. The register had this to say about the security: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/13 ... _research/.

In regard to how Peter would likely roll out the cards, he'd make probably make up an application form (another Prom note) to establish a line of credit and then send the card on once the application and fee's had been received. Of course he'd be clear to tell his marks that the cards can only be used on public facing debts and no doubt Bertie would be pushing that they would only be for emergency situations.

[YiamCross]

Not sure if Bertie isn't back-peddling even more rapidly by suggesting that joining WeRe bank to pay off any kind of debt, even "public" is not a good idea. Whatever reasons one might join for, staying out of court should not be one of them. Nor paying off any debts it would seem. Has anyone found a reason other than helping Peter fill the tank of his camper van?

www.facebook.com/bertie.bert.1?fref=ufi

My thoughts on ( get them to drop themselves in it)
So you joined WeRe bank and bought a chequebook to pay off some "public" debts,and if that was the only reason you joined, then I would suggest it was the wrong reason.
However lets say you attatched the allonge, filled the cheque in correctly did the notarial protest, and they have reverted your account back etc etc...
on that journey you hopefully have some names...WHAT NEXT...
The objective would be to get the WeRe bank into court.
Why I hear you ask, why would you want to do that after joining the WeRe bank.
The answer is quite simple, Barclays, Halifax, nationwide, councils etc are NOT going to take the WeRe bank to court (they would exposed their own fraud), they will however take YOU to court.
So what you need are the NAMES of all those that stand in the way of accepting, presenting the WeRe cheques.
As far as you are concerned you have sufficient funds in your WeRe account and you are attempting to pay.
Do all your dealings with them in writing, never on the phone. (you will then have a paper trail)
Whenever a named man/woman writes to you saying the cheque is fraudulent, or invalid, wont present it, wont accept it or the cheque bounced etc.. (making sure you filled the cheque in correctly) make sure you GET their NAMES.
HeRe comes the punchline..
These named individuals you require them to put in wiiting the reasons why (its fraudulent etc) because they are going to be your witnesses for the PROSICUTION AGAINST the WeRe bank...
If they won't do that, then your account is now in dispute..(which should stop them threatening for payments until the dispute is resolved, in a place where they don't want to go)
now insist they present your WeRe cheque.. and follow the allonge to the letter..
hope this helps...
bertiebert
Platinum Member

Posts: 2172
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:18 pm

[PeanutGallery]

I don't think that plan will go quite the way they envisage it going. Mostly because it is totally reliant on a misunderstanding of how banks work.

All banks that take part in organised cheque clearing in the UK are required to have an account at the Bank of England. They have to deposit a certain amount of cash their in order to operate (basically enough to cover their day to day operations). This is very obviously for security, if the banks didn't all have one central bank, then on a daily basis they would be moving large amounts of currency around the country and this would naturally be a target for thieves.

So all the banks have a separate account at the Bank of England, and when they need to add more cash they can send it along to the bank as needed.

The Bank of England holds a lot of money from all the banks, it doesn't keep this in separate piles for each bank, because it would be constantly moving the money from one pile into another and likely moving it back again for each transaction. It would be rather silly, so it's better to imagine that what the bank does have is one large pile and accounting books to say who owns how much of it.

So when one bank wants to send money to another, it asks the Bank of England to update a ledger. It's the simplest way, the bank sending the money says:

"Hey Bank of England, I want to pay like £50 to that other bank for these cheques."
"Cool, you've got enough in your cash pile, so I'll update the books."

Now if they didn't have that cash pile, or any money on account the bank couldn't transfer the funds, which totally happened even though nobody moved any money from any one pile to another. What was transferred was the ownership of the money. The sending bank no longer has any claim to £50 that up until it sent it on, it previously owned. If the bank was running a bit light, the Bank of England may ask them to deposit a bit more, although at the same time a number of transactions are happening that will have money flowing every which way. I would assume that someone who knows more about the inner workings of the Bank of England would be able to further expand on this, or correct any errors I may have made in my simplification.

Peter doesn't understand that money, and in particular the ownership of money is a very real thing, so he thinks that his bank can work by updating a ledger because that is what the banks do. But the key difference is, when the Bank of England updates it's ledger, it's making a record that relates to a very real amount of very real money.

Gradually as money becomes less of a tangible commodity and becomes more digitally used (and Bitcoin and other crypto-currencies are proving that an economy can exist without the need for a physical medium, so long as the supply is regulated to avoid inflation), paper money will cease to be of value and will likely play little part in our economy. Of course just because money becomes an intangible good it would not mean that the volume and value of that good would not be tightly controlled, simply because of the risk of hyperinflation.

[littleFred]

http://www.facebook.com/bertie.bert.1?fref=ufi

Bertie has posted that on Peter's FB, and GOODF, and the private WeRe forum.

The WeRe party line now seems to be: use WeRe cheques only when your back is against the wall. I think this is because they know the cheques won't work, but may buy the suckers a few days grace.

Bertie has picked up on Peter's idea "Tell the payee you want to take WeRe to court." They don't say what type of court action. Small claims, to get back the £35? Or a private criminal prosecution for fraud?

Of course, it is merely a smoke-screen. By pretending to be considering court action against WeRe, the sucker is pretending to be an innocent, fearful he may have been duped by Peter. This is hilarious as he has been duped, but willingly.

[PeanutGallery]

I note that a question has been posed to ask how many retailers are displaying the WeReHeRe sign in the Were bank thread by fellow forumer LeTissier.

The responses, which seem to be 'none of your business' and 'go away' seem to suggest that the majority of people looking to take advantage of the WeReHeRe program don't actually know of any retailers.

Conversely I thought I'd check up on a local currency so I picked, by means of letting Google chose which was the most popular, the Bristol Pound. This is a unique and cuddly currency made just for the use in Bristol by Bristolians who presumably love Bristol. Helpfully this currency publishes a map and a directory of all the venues that accept this unique form of money along with the more normal currency of the UK. http://bristolpound.org/directory.

I am reasonably sure that if I were to ask the same question to the people operating the Bristol pound I would not be told it was 'none of my business' or ordered to depart.

So why do people respond so negatively when asked the same question about the WeReHeRe program, the answer is simple, it's because pointing out that no retailers accepts Peter's fledging new currency and that nobody has a WeReHeRe sign (in fact Peter hasn't even mocked one up, so we have no idea what it would look like), is an indicator that the reality - which is screaming this is a scam - is intruding on the more pleasing fantasy - which is pleasantly reassuring them that this is not a scam - means that the victim tries to force any dissent to be silent because the alternative would be to admit they have fallen for a scam and that the fantasy and to realise that someone has taken advantage of them.

You see this behaviour a lot in people who have fallen for a scam, if you point out the blindingly obvious, they ignore it and attack you for asking a question which is both seemingly innocuous and which one would imagine should be answered quite clearly and legibly if this scheme was indeed on the level.

[longdog]

These named individuals you require them to put in wiiting the reasons why (its fraudulent etc) because they are going to be your witnesses for the PROSICUTION AGAINST the WeRe bank...
If they won't do that, then your account is now in dispute..(which should stop them threatening for payments until the dispute is resolved, in a place where they don't want to go)

I think Bertrude is barking up a wrong tree of a totally different colour here.

The fact that a ReMember has tried to make payment with a ReCheque has acknowledged the debt as being valid and the fact that the WeRe bank won't can't pay out or the creditor won't can't present it for settlement no more puts a debt 'in dispute' than does paying with an envelope full of forged tenners.

In any event the goofer's reliance on putting an account in dispute as a means to stave off legal proceedings is charming but unrealistic. They seem to think you only have to demand a creditor jumps through a constant stream of ever more idiotic hoops or they can't actually come after you... Not the way the world works I'm afraid. If the creditor wants to prove you owe them the money and have to pay it they can settle the 'dispute' by suing you... That's rather the whole point of the thing.

[Jeffrey]

acknowledged the debt as being valid

Let's not kid ourselves, these guys think if they owe a debt it's invalid, if they're owed a debt, then it's valid.

[Losleones]

Hang in there defiance you're entertaining the Quatlusians. We love debunker's of scams.
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... Ysfx3CkqrU

[YiamCross]

I think, as far as it's possible to tease out a coherent thread from the Goodfer nowt's ramblings, they claim that if a cheque is presented to the WeRe bank & WeRe refuse to, er, honour it then the presenting bank must take WeRe to court or the debt somehow disappears. The whole things seems to depend on their theory that the fraudulent criminal banks fear revealing their criminal fraud to the world by taking a "lawful" bank to court so they, well, won't take it to court. Et voila, debt gone!

This is the reason why they're so intent on getting the poor saps with bouncing cheques to carry on plugging away with more letters, more delays, more time before they jump ship At least I think that's the theory behind the latest addition to the system and their last ditch attempt at convincing the faithful to keep on plugging away. Oh, and to keep on paying their monthly fees, of course, so they have continued access to Peter's legal services. God help 'em.

Sadly they somehow overlook the fact that if a bank fails to or refuses to or just plain won't honour a cheque, the liability for paying the debt doesn't somehow disappear. It remains firmly with the person trying to pay it off with a dud cheque. Except now they lay themselves open to a criminal charge of fraud as well as all the additional financial charges which come with late payment.

It's not difficult stuff, but then when so many of these people don't even know how to write a cheque I guess their chances of understanding what they're getting into are slim and none.

I was tempted to run a competition here to come up with the best idea to keep the great unwashed paying their monthly fees in spite of a complete lack of any successful payments when this one bites the dust. Trouble is, they might well take it up so best forget that one.

[AiusLocutius]

I was tempted to run a competition here to come up with the best idea to keep the great unwashed paying their monthly fees in spite of a complete lack of any successful payments when this one bites the dust. Trouble is, they might well take it up so best forget that one.

You need to speak to Mehran Tavakoli KESHE over at the Keshe Foundation, he's a master at this tactic.

[mufc1959]

Someone on the FB page suggested, to thwart the trolls/shills, PoE might like to do his presentations via Skype and broadcast the glad tidings of WeRe Bank to people all around the world in their homes. No take-up on that because, well, how's he going to collect the cash when he's sitting at his laptop in his camper van ...

[SoLongCeylon]

Perhaps Peter Of England could do well to follow the example of Atom Bank and see how it is done properly.................



Digital-only challenger bank Atom wins licence

The Durham-based lender hopes to offer products to customers later this year


Metro Bank co-founder Anthony Tompson is Atom's chairman

Atom Bank has received its full licence from the Bank of England, moving the digital-only lender one step closer to opening to customers.

The Durham-based lender plans to offer a full range of consumer and business accounts, loans and savings products, and expects to start serving customers this year.
It will launch through a mobile application, with a desktop computer service to follow at a later date.
Atom’s licence comes with restrictions, as its systems need further testing before regulators let the new bank go live.
It paves the way for Atom to get a settlement with the Bank of England and to start to run tests to ensure its IT systems integrate properly with the wider payments system.
Atom also needs to finish raising the £75m required to meet the regulatory capital rules. Star fund manager Neil Woodford is among the bank's biggest investors, alongside venture capitalist Jon Moulton and the former Goldman Sachs asset manager Jim O’Neill.

Neil Woodford was among Atom Bank's first investors - but it needs more money to meet regulatory capital rules (Credit: Jeff Gilbert)

Chairman Anthony Thomson expects the bank to have a major impact on the market.
“Mobile banking has overtaken branches, telephones and even internet transactions,” Mr Thomson said, citing research published by the British Bankers’ Association last week.
“In four or five years’ time, we want to have 5pc of the market. We think we are the first real alternative to the high street banks – we have no branches, no legacy costs, no legacy IT systems or legacy balance sheet.”
Mr Thomson previously co-founded of Metro Bank, another challenger which opened in 2010 and takes a different approach. MetroBank operates high street branches which are open seven days a week and offer extended opening hours.
He is establishing Atom Bank alongside chief executive Mark Mullen, who used to head up First Direct, which is HSBC’s digital bank brand.
Mr Thomson expects Atom to break even in two to three years.
He said that there is still plenty of space in the market for an alternative bank like Atom, despite the recent influx of new banks joining the market, including Aldermore, Shawbrook and Virgin Money, as well as other digital-only banks, such as Starling.
“There are 64m current accounts in the UK, and we only need a tiny proportion of those to become very successful. The current account switching service (CASS) sees about 120,000 switchers per month, but all of our research tells us that is only the tip of the iceberg,” Mr Thomson said.
“CASS means you switch your whole account, everything from bank A to bank B. The data show us there is a much bigger number of people who open a new account, but don’t close the old one until they are happy the new one is working well.”
The current licencing system was established to make it easier to set up a new bank. Previously, a catch-22 situation meant that would-be banks could not get authorised until they raised enough capital and hired suitable executives, but investors and staff were reluctant to join before the licence was granted.
The new two-step system is designed to overcome this hurdle, and appears to have succeeded – the Bank of England said it authorised five new banks in the 2014-15 financial year, and is in talks with 25 other prospective banks.

[PeanutGallery]

Perhaps Peter Of England could do well to follow the example of Atom Bank and see how it is done properly.................
[...]
Atom also needs to finish raising the £75m required to meet the regulatory capital rules. [...]

I think I see the problem Peter would face if he tried to go and do this legitimately.

[Syf]

I've been reading this thread with interest, i stumbled accross it by accident while doing some reasearch in to POE.
So after being told to "Go away" because i'm not a were member over on GOODF. And not forgetting my favorite one, being Called a "labotomised Shill" Never getting my questions answered, its like

To answer a comment frurther up the page.. Im hanging in there and i'll keep debunking them until it all falls apart around them..

So i thought i'd sign up here..

[FatGambit]

Perhaps Peter Of England could do well to follow the example of Atom Bank and see how it is done properly.................
[...]
Atom also needs to finish raising the £75m required to meet the regulatory capital rules. [...]

I think I see the problem Peter would face if he tried to go and do this legitimately.

No problem, Peter will give them a Prom note for the £75Mil...

[Losleones]

Welcome Syf! Bertie won't answer any obvious questions as he's in on the scam. Have you noticed over on goofy it's only the idiots that post there have joined this Bank & the sensible posters have either swerved the topic altogether or debunked it? It's the perfect forum to expose a scam such as WeRe Bank with so many numbskulls to shaft from. Why don't you ask Bertie,Ceylon or PoE how they are getting along with their sent cheques? Then again, don't bother as you won't get an answer & could lead to a ban (not a bad thing IMO) but surely a gentleman like Peter would have road tested the scheme before selling to his marks......wouldn't he?

[Syf]

I've messaged POE, on GOODF and facebook. no response
I hope Peter's intentions are honerable but from where i'm sat it's sad to say it doesnt look that way.
They would be better off sending their money to Nigeria, better chance of a return on their investment

[PeanutGallery]

Also welcome Syf. I'm glad you've found this little thread useful.

I think the issue is, even if Peter's intentions are honourable, and even if he genuinely believes his scam will work, the reality is that it won't. Peter at best is a kook whose rants about finance and conspiracy should be ignored and left well alone and at worst is conman preying on other kooks who believe him for some easy money.

I would suspect that he falls somewhere in between those two extremes. He believes his own woo, but he also wants the money and intends to profit from his own woo. To a certain extent I think his beliefs contradict themselves, in that he wants to create a new utopian currency but at the same time recognises a need for the old currency.

Is this hypocrisy? Well yes, obviously but only if you stare the facts in the face and I think a man like Peter has long had his back turned to reality.

[mufc1959]

Lots of people have been complaining that they've not had their cheque books. Apparently the new batch of cheque books will now contain the customer's name and WeRe a/c number.

For one thing, I doubt the printer who produced the chequebooks for the first batch (a business called Communisis I believe) will want anything to do with this. They're risking their accreditation with the Payments Council if they do. And although chequebook printing is probably a diminishing part of their business given the electronic nature of banking these days, they'll need accreditation to be able to produce anything that has a Giro slip on it or that relates in any way to financial transactions. So if they've any sense, they'll reject any further orders from PoE.

But - even if there is a willing printer - logistically this is also going to be impossible for Peter and a couple of volunteer helpers to manage. For a start it's likely to be far more expensive than producing 300 books of identical cheques. Secondly, the likelihood of people getting other punters' chequebooks is massive, with the resultant fallout of people writing WeRe cheques against other mugs' prom notes. Of course, we all know the cheques are about as valid a payment instrument as a roll of Andrex (but not as useful) but I can see the potential for much hilarity in future weeks as this trainwreck rumbles on.

I wonder if the 'names and account numbers' will be added by PoE and his little band of helpers sitting at the collapsible table in the camper van with a few of these.