Peter of England: He's going to be in REal trouble

[Bones]

Can't listen to him anymore as he just talks through the hole in his arse. Nice badge he's sporting of WeRe fraud though. What a complete & utter bellend of the highest order.

He admits that it could be well said to be true that a cheque is not legal tender

https://youtu.be/N_7to4TSftQ?t=53s

He also reads out this

http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/polici ... guidelines

"Legal tender has a very narrow and technical meaning in the settlement of debts. It means that a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment if he pays into court in legal tender. It does not mean that any ordinary transaction has to take place in legal tender or only within the amount denominated by the legislation. Both parties are free to agree to accept any form of payment whether legal tender or otherwise according to their wishes. In order to comply with the very strict rules governing an actual legal tender it is necessary, for example, actually to offer the exact amount due because no change can be demanded."

But Peter no one has agreed to accept WeRe Cheques, FFS, you don't even accept them


He also admits that Banks do not have to accept cheques @8:52

https://youtu.be/N_7to4TSftQ?t=8m49s

This latest video is pure desperation - talking rubbish - in a single video rushed out to argue back against the FCA warning, he has debunked his own claims about cheques being legal tender and that banks must accept them.

Well done Peter, you have just admitted you have been conning people

[notorial dissent]

One thing that sticks out like a sore thumb is that nowhere amongst the people who claim they have successfully settled a debt using a WeRe cheque do we see PoE. Peter has never said that he has used a WeRe cheque successfully. It is strange that the only available evidence comes from anonymous customers of the WeRe bank. The head of the bank AFAIK has never even mentioned using a WeRe cheque. The GOOFs latch on to any claim by an anonymous poster that a cheque has cleared but they never ask Peter for proof of him using one successfully. It is my belief Peter uses cash to settle up and not a WeRe cheque.

Mebbe 'cause good ole Pete knew he was shinin' the marks the entire time, kne that his pretty pieces of paper weren't worth the pretty paper they were written on, and didn't want to get banged up for falling for his own con?????? He has the patter and he has the excuses down to a fairtheewell, but he doesn't seem to be taking advantage of any of it, which shows all the marks of a con in action. I think at this point he will start trying to obliterate anything that looks dodgy, not that it isn't too late, but he'll try, and the testimonials will be the first to not exist, then other things. His problem is that I think he overstayed his run and it is starting to come down around his ears now.

[longdog]

New Video !!!!!!!!! - just when I thought the entertainment might stop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_7to4TSftQ

Is a promise to pay legal tender -Yes or no?

Published on Sep 18, 2015

The fact that a cheque is said by the FCA NOT to be Legal Tender raises factual examples of why then is a BOE promissory note Legal Tender - when it is naught but a prom note and why it is impossible for society to function without MANDATORY ACCEPTANCE AT ALL LEVELS of a promise to pay!

Imagine if the world really worked to the basis that promising to do something and actually doing it were the same thing, particularly when you have no intention of ever actually abiding by the promise in the first place...

"No... I'm sorry... I'm not going to deliver the goods you ordered but I am going to promise to deliver them".

"No... I'm not going to pay you this month's wages but I am going to promise to pay you".

It's like a kid continually promising to tidy their bedroom but never doing it... Except these people are supposed to be adults.

[Losleones]

Good post Longdog. I've had a spare 10mins & endured PToEs waffle & i know it's been said repeatedly by con man that Banks must accept the offer of payment via a dud cheque or go down the Notarial Protest bullshit route blah, blah, blah.....yet he won't accept a WeRe cheque, only hard cash! If i recall, Petey said he won't accept WeRe cheques initially. When will you accept them Petey? When is the launch of gold impregnated notes you promised on Aug 1st & Re car insurance Petey? Aren't you getting it yet goofers?

I get the impression something happened in his life similar to Haining to go down the crazy path (sorry sal no pun intended) of self destruction.

[notorial dissent]

... Banks must accept the offer of payment via a dud cheque or go down the Notarial Protest bullshit ...

This of course is the veriest of BS, NO ONE is obliged to accept a check or a promissory note or a BOE, and more importantly the notarial protest is issued against the bank or person refusing to pay the BOE, NOT the person refusing to accept it. So any protests need to be issued against PoE, not the banks refusing to take his dud paper. So PoE has lied to them twice at this point.

[Losleones]

... Banks must accept the offer of payment via a dud cheque or go down the Notarial Protest bullshit ...

This of course is the veriest of BS, NO ONE is obliged to accept a check or a promissory note or a BOE, and more importantly the notarial protest is issued against the bank or person refusing to pay the BOE, NOT the person refusing to accept it. So any protests need to be issued against PoE, not the banks refusing to take his dud paper. So PoE has lied to them twice at this point.

& he used to work in the nasty Banking cartel. Shame on you Petey. You are indeed correct NP.

[Losleones]

ND even

[rumpelstilzchen]

He admits that it could be well said to be true that a cheque is not legal tender

Hang on a minute. Are you trying to tell me that the head of an International Bank has only just learned this? Up until now he did not know that a cheque is not legal tender? And this geezer is supposed to be running a bank? Incredible.

[rumpelstilzchen]

& he used to work in the nasty Banking cartel.

I don't believe it. Peter has demonstrated repeatedly that his knowledge of banking is severely limited.

[YiamCross]

& he used to work in the nasty Banking cartel.

I don't believe it. Peter has demonstrated repeatedly that his knowledge of banking is severely limited.

Just like a real banker if the last 10 years are anything to go by...

[littleFred]

Is a promise to pay legal tender -Yes or no?

Interesting video. At the end, Peter acknowledges that debtors are not obliged to accept his rubber cheques, or indeed any cheques at all.

Peter then uses his weird analogies to argue that debtors should accept his rubber cheques. No, Peter, refusing to accept rubber cheques is nothing like refusing to breathe. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Earlier he uses lies to argue the same thing. Yes, Peter, Bank of England banknotes are legal tender (in England and Wales). They are because Currency and Bank Notes Act 1954 s1 says they are. It isn't because they contain the words "promise" or "twenty pounds" or anything else.

As usual, Peter says one or two things that I agree with. If everyone insisted on always being paid in legal tender, we would need an awful lot of it. True, but so what? The last time I encountered an organisation that would accept only legal tender was about 20 years ago. And it didn't cause major difficulty, I just popped into a bank and obtained some legal tender. Most organisations don't much care how they are paid, so long as they are paid. And WeRe Bank won't pay the amounts written on the cheques.

Even if WeRe Bank did pay the amounts written on the cheques, debtors would not be obliged to accept them, because there is no legislation that requires it.

[NG3]

Riddle me this, quatloosian's, if per chance Mr. Smith were to have his collar felt, by the long arm of the law, for matters relating to his pretend bank, and the assets were seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, who would own the promissory notes?

[longdog]

The last time I encountered an organisation that would accept only legal tender was about 20 years ago. And it didn't cause major difficulty, I just popped into a bank and obtained some legal tender.

You don't go to the pub much then?

I know some bars, maybe half of them, now have card payment facilities but they are pretty much the last bastion of 'legal tender or GTF out' in this world.

Of course none of this makes Poe's worthless cheques acceptable anywhere in the known universe.

[notorial dissent]

Riddle me this, quatloosian's, if per chance Mr. Smith were to have his collar felt, by the long arm of the law, for matters relating to his pretend bank, and the assets were seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, who would own the promissory notes?

IANAL and certainly not an expert on English law, but I would suspect that since they are the result of a crime, fraud, and theft by deception, that they would go back to the makers. Again, see my previous caveat, but it is also my opinion that the notes aren't worth the paper they're printed on, no real consideration having been given for them, and they are certainly secured by nothing, and so would be deemed unenforceable in any real court they were ever taken in to. I am also of the opinion, that his customers marks would also have legal grounds to come back on him for any and all fees he charged for a non-existent service he could neither legally nor actually provide, and possibly any fees they incurred as a result of using the product, that one I'm not so sure about. Always assuming he hasn't already spent it all, which I'm not.

[Tml69]

IANAL and certainly not an expert on English law, but I would suspect that since they are the result of a crime, fraud, and theft by deception, that they would go back to the makers. Again, see my previous caveat, but it is also my opinion that the notes aren't worth the paper they're printed on, no real consideration having been given for them, and they are certainly secured by nothing, and so would be deemed unenforceable in any real court they were ever taken in to.

Yeah if (which seems unlikely) the PNs are valid they would be void for fraud or voidable for misrepresentation. Ie the customers signed them on the basis of Peter claiming his cheques would be accepted etc.

I'm no expert on fraud but I believe the fees paid would be held by Peter on trust for the victims and could be traced in equity.

[Hercule Parrot]

Riddle me this, quatloosian's, if per chance Mr. Smith were to have his collar felt, by the long arm of the law, for matters relating to his pretend bank, and the assets were seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, who would own the promissory notes?

I do not think the PN's would be considered an asset, but as a worthless piece of paper used in a fraudulent enterprise (like a forged banknote). I think the court would order their destruction.

[YiamCross]

Riddle me this, quatloosian's, if per chance Mr. Smith were to have his collar felt, by the long arm of the law, for matters relating to his pretend bank, and the assets were seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, who would own the promissory notes?

IANAL and certainly not an expert on English law, but I would suspect that since they are the result of a crime, fraud, and theft by deception, that they would go back to the makers. ...

In a perfect world TPTB would be duty bound to dispose of the assets for the best price they can obtain in order to reimburse the public purse for the cost of detaining the miscreant PoE. And I wish that were so since the idiots who signed up to Weary bank are, as near as dammit, to a wo/man are just as much scumbags as he is and I'd love to see them suffer along with him.

[Alex C.]

New poster here (found out about Were bank from MoneySavingExpert and did some research and found here).

I have been browsing GOODF and find myself shaking my head constantly at the claims that these people make (which is no doubt why it is quite easy for PoE to keep conning people).

It is incredible is that they genuinely believe that banks don't actually transfer money to each other, they just make up some entries on a computer. Ten seconds of googling will find you independent resources which explain how fractional reserve banking works. Every 'resource' seems to be either a paragraph from case law which is completely unrelated to what they are saying, or a youtube video from some random person.

This is before you even look at the insane statements which PoE - supposedly running a bank - puts out via Facebook

I just can't understand how these people can get through life... if their employer (or the government if on benefits) suddenly decided to pay anyone with a WeRe account in RE, would they accept it? They seem to have no problems with the fact PoE only accepts cold hard cash.

The whole thing just fascinates me - thank you for all the insight on here though, it brings me down to earth and makes me feel sane again

I'd be interested to find out the ending to the first plus story but I guess we'll never hear - the fact they've removed the charge is clearly an administrative error, will a court be open to them putting a charge back in place?

[NG3]

I'd be interested to find out the ending to the first plus story but I guess we'll never hear - the fact they've removed the charge is clearly an administrative error, will a court be open to them putting a charge back in place?

All I can say is the gentleman in question is now firmly in the anti-WeRe Bank camp and will hopefully learn from this experience and find a way to use it as a positive on the road to finding a better life.

[littleFred]

Welcome to Q!

I'd be interested to find out the ending to the first plus story but I guess we'll never hear

The Firstplus customer was named Darren Darling. In a comment to the Guardian article:

I paid First Plus with a Were Bank cheque and now the fraud department of First Plus have made a complaint to the police.

I suspect the comment is genuine and that when he heard the police were investigating, he decided to remove his triumphant thread from the private WeRe forum.