Losleones wrote:Jimmy one cell, a big supporter of PToE is awfully quiet over on goofy. Didn't he successfully pay his CT with a fake cheque? Meanwhile another debunker has opened another thread on Peter's overwhelming success http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... fvR_sSkqrU
I love the way Robswift informs everyone:
...a clever game has been played
So clever that it was first seen as a scam over a year ago, and was so flawed that only the very stupid, or very greedy, should ever really have been at threat from it?
Maybe that's the problem, Robswift is finding it so hard to admit he's been stupid that he's overcompensating by trying to portray PoE as a genius?
"Those three characteristics are much the same as those stated in Paget's Law of Banking, 6th ed. (1961), p. 8:
"No-one and nobody, corporate or otherwise, can be a 'banker' who does not (i) take current accounts; (ii) pay cheques drawn on himself; (iii) collect cheques for his customers.""
Shows Peter is wrong to call himself a Banker or WeRe a bank
Well I don't know about you but I've seen that Bourne film and you know what happens to nosey Guardian journos who get too close to the "troof". Can't blame the chap if he backs off.
I'm delighted too that Peter has been recognised as a fellow Scouser, one that sadly has lived up to our wholly undeserved stereotype.
exiledscouser wrote:I'm delighted too that Peter has been recognised as a fellow Scouser, one that sadly has lived up to our wholly undeserved stereotype.
Given that the only time I've been to Liverpool (to watch the Grand National) the group I was travelling with was afforded a full police escort from station to track and we didn't stop for traffic lights. Didn't check to see how many hubcaps the coach had left at the end of the day mind.
exiledscouser wrote:I'm delighted too that Peter has been recognised as a fellow Scouser, one that sadly has lived up to our wholly undeserved stereotype.
Sorry to disappoint you, but Peter was born in Stoke. Though he did live in Liverpool for a short while.
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
On his Facebook page, PoE is now claiming, by selectively editing/misrepresenting the FCA statement, that the FCA is advising people to proceed with their dealings with WeRe Bank.
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT FROM WeRe Bank.
THE FCA IS TELLING YOU TO PROCEED......PROCEED WITH YOUR DEALINGS WITH WeRe Bank [don't you see that?] but just use "caution", which is about the most sane advice they've ever issued, and short of COMPELLING YOU TO GET on board our bus as kind a comment as could be uttered: -
""As such, while WeRe Bank does not appear to be carrying on any activities which require FCA authorisation, we advise any consumers considering dealing with WeRe Bank to proceed with caution.""
He naturally omits the advice that;
We believe that you are unlikely to be able to pay any of your debts using a cheque from WeRe Bank. Instead, you may end up with additional charges from your creditors for late payment. You could eventually be subject to other sanctions such as County Court Judgements or repossession proceedings.
I thought it was worth a try but Robswift's lack of response indicates that he's not interested in legitimate avenues for bringing PoE and his Weary bank down. I suspect he has other more direct action in mind. I'd like to be at the next meeting if PoE ever has one. Somehow I doubt that even PoE will be that mad, though.
Were Bank
Sent: Wed Sep 16, 2015 9:36 am
by tryagain
Do you really want to play a part in making Peter of England pay for what he has done?
If so, let me know.
Re: Were Bank
Sent: Wed Sep 16, 2015 5:27 pm
by Robswift
Definitely what's your plan???
Re: Were Bank
Sent: Wed Sep 16, 2015 6:00 pm
by tryagain
I have a contact at BBC Radio 4 who was interested in doing a story on WeRe bank. They need people who have had a bad experience to talk to them otherwise there's no show. If you or anyone you know would be interested let me know and I'll give you the details to get in touch.
I would think they'll be able to do something regarding names & stuff but I think it's better for everyone to hammer him publicly than go chasing after him physically.
Re: Were Bank
Sent: Thu Sep 17, 2015 4:11 pm
by tryagain
Robswift wrote:
Definitely what's your plan???
You said you were serious and I think this is a serious opportunity to put a big stick in the spokes of PoE's little scheme. You do realise what's coming next, don't you? When he decides he can't get any more punters on board he's going to use all that National Insurance and bank data to either cash in on the promissory notes in some way or sell the info on to people who will have no hesitation in making use of it for identity theft or other painful scams.
I don't think finding him and putting him on his arse will help stop that and a lot of people who are already suffering are going to suffer a lot more. Getting him public exposure will make it more likely that the police will pay him proper attention and maybe stop him before it gets that far.
If you have concerns about your identity coming out then I'm pretty sure there's a way around that. Just let me know if you think there's a way you might be willing to go forward with this or definitely not.
Stuart Mckenzie What do you say Peter to the Guardians comment, about a cheque does not need to be accepted as payment...
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
Peter Of England This is NOT true! The cheque or the PROMISE TO PAY is the bedrock of every financial transaction on the planet - a CREDIT CARD IS A CHEQUE - it's an electronic IOU or promise to pay is it not? The bottom line is WHAT IS MONEY? A cheque is a just as valid a facilitator of wealth exchange between 2 people as anything else. - this is like telling someone that they can pay in ICE CREAM but then objecting when some one brings you straight vanilla!
But we all know Peter does not accept cheques as payment, whether they are from WeRe or Barclays or anyone. Peter does not accept cheques, and he claims he doesn't have to. So how can he also claim that everyone has to accept cheques as payment?
The cheque or the PROMISE TO PAY is the bedrock of every financial transaction on the planet - a CREDIT CARD IS A CHEQUE - it's an electronic IOU or promise to pay is it not?
Wrong - twice. A cheque is not a promise to pay, it is a request for your bank to pay from your account. A credit card is not an electronic IOU, it is a request for your bank to pay from your account. Both can be declined by your bank.
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
That same Stuart McKenzie in a later comment claims to have successfully kited a WeRe cheque and with a government agency to boot. No, he won't give details or the shills and trolls will be out. He then offers a £10k wager to show that the cheques DO work.
Tell you what Stuart, I'll take up that offer and if you succeed I'll issue you with a nice WeRe cheque for the full amount. After all, there's no reason why you wouldn't accept one. Is there? Give Peter a tinkle when it arrives, enjoy the energy transfer my friend.
The cheque or the PROMISE TO PAY is the bedrock of every financial transaction on the planet - a CREDIT CARD IS A CHEQUE - it's an electronic IOU or promise to pay is it not?
Wrong - twice. A cheque is not a promise to pay, it is a request for your bank to pay from your account. A credit card is not an electronic IOU, it is a request for your bank to pay from your account. Both can be declined by your bank.
Hence why they are sent to a clearing house, to check there are sufficient funds within the payees account for the cheque to clear, clearing houses don't recognise Re energy / promises as 'sufficient funds' for some reason
A Credit Card is NOT an IOU, or Cheque.. it is considered a temporary or short term LOAN from a FINANCING company.. (Mastercard, Visa, American Express etc.. are all LLC Financing companies)
CHEQUE - (amerikun, Check)
Is not an IOU, it is a permission to transfer funds (IF THEY EXIST) from account A to account B (or holder of said cheque)
Peter is just fleecing the flock o sheep tards with fancy mumbo jumbo.. one of the failed cheque writers really needs to file a criminal charge against Peter.. he even TELLS them to go after WeRe bank in some of his original posts.
And to note, Peter is skimming a fine line.. while the promise to pay RE is not criminal in any way.. (it is in 'essence' like purchasing .. say BitCoin).. he has posted that you can use it to pay things that require actual Cash.. not RE.. thos posts, and guidelines COULD get him into a lotta hot water, IF a 'customer' actually gets a pair and files against him
Jeffrey wrote:BBC radio interview isn't the way to take down Peter.
It would serve a purpose by raising the profile of the scam, bringing it to the attention of a wider audience, & therefore hopefully protecting a greater number from being sucked in, but...
Jeffrey wrote:
You need people who have been fleeced to report him to the relevant authorities.
Yes, those scammed need to find the name again, and contact relevant authorities, not least because they've left themselves open to future abuses if they don't.
this is like telling someone that they can pay in ICE CREAM but then objecting when some one brings you straight vanilla!
Which is exactly what Peter does do.
Peter charges £10 (ICE CREAM) per month subscription to WeRe bank. A customer attempts to pay their subscription with "straight vanilla", a WeRe cheque, and not only does Peter object, he refuses the payment.
I can only assume that Peter never thinks anything through before he posts his garbage. He debunks himself.
BHF wrote: It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
