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

[notorial dissent]

I would suspect that any of their WeRe checks hitting a real financial institution or some large outfit that deposits directly in to one will bounce almost immediately. The ones going to a local council or gov't body as they don't usually handle money the way a business does, so a certain built in delay there, particularly if they don't get a lot of checks. I've known insurance companies and the like to lose real checks for upwards of a month or better just sitting on someone's desk, so that could add to it, but I'm betting that in the main, they are coming back pretty quickly despite the claims to the contrary. There will probably be the most lag at the local level where it takes time to process, get them deposited, and then once they come back someone to do something about it, and that is what I think they are thinking is their success.

[Skeleton]

Jimmy not unlike Swifty changes his mind like the wind & hasn't posted anything up to say his cheques aren't being accepted - in fact - the numbskull has stated he wants more cheques so that's 2 happy punters.........for now.

Jimmy is trying to get back in the good books at the moment after he mistakenly pronounced on Goofy that he does indeed use his real name when it suits him, he will be posting what he thinks people will want to hear. Swity seems to condemn Weird Bank then change his mind everytime he thinks he may be pissing off his much beloved Ceylon.

Chong is putting in a late charge to be the biggest dickhead out of the three of them though. Don't admit you were conned and their are indeed repercussions for issuing these cheques, but do the usual goofy cowardly act of blaming everyone else. I want Peter prosecuted but i doubt Chong wears shoes that have laces you need to learn to tie so to expect him to produce a letter that leads to a prosecution is simply laughable and a diversion tactic from his own failings.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I believe the only one over there still claiming a 100% success rate is peaceful_warrior,

Yes, but I would be interested to know if Chong has actually admitted his cheques failed.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... f_Qq1UViko

They did accept the cheque, even Peter got in touch to say he had spoken to their bank and cleared it.
Then I was told Peter was keeping all the loot and my balance was still outstanding,

Thanks I must have missed that. Peter is keeping all the loot? Chong really believes that by sending a promissory note to PoE the piece of paper becomes real money? The stupidity is amazing.

[mufc1959]

I'm told Chong is also being called out for his shit on the WeRe Bank forum too.

[NG3]

I would suspect that any of their WeRe checks hitting a real financial institution or some large outfit that deposits directly in to one will bounce almost immediately. The ones going to a local council or gov't body as they don't usually handle money the way a business does, so a certain built in delay there, particularly if they don't get a lot of checks. I've known insurance companies and the like to lose real checks for upwards of a month or better just sitting on someone's desk, so that could add to it, but I'm betting that in the main, they are coming back pretty quickly despite the claims to the contrary. There will probably be the most lag at the local level where it takes time to process, get them deposited, and then once they come back someone to do something about it, and that is what I think they are thinking is their success.

I was helping a neighbour with their council tax a couple of weeks ago. They paid by cheque, then about 5 weeks later closed the account, as they were changing banks, and then only after that was the cheque presented for clearing. Of course with the account closed by then the cheque bounced and the council came after them. Perusing them vigorously, with the neighbour facing added charges.

I've managed to smooth the matter over and as I say it was resolved about 2 weeks ago, but it related to last years bill, so for any goofys getting excited these things can sometimes take a lot of time, so don't be surprised if some of these cheques take weeks, or even many months before they come back to haunt you.

[NG3]

http://www.fca.org.uk/news/consumer-notice-were-bank

Published: 17/09/2015 Last Modified: Today

Anyone spot the difference?

[Forsyth]

http://www.fca.org.uk/news/consumer-notice-were-bank

Published: 17/09/2015 Last Modified: Today

Anyone spot the difference?

In the third to last paragraph they changed '[...] to proceed with caution' to '[...] to exercise caution'. A subtle, but significant, change.

[hardcopy]

http://www.fca.org.uk/news/consumer-notice-were-bank

Published: 17/09/2015 Last Modified: Today

Anyone spot the difference?

In the third to last paragraph they changed '[...] to proceed with caution' to '[...] to exercise caution'. A subtle, but significant, change.

While they say "exercise caution " instead of "proceed with caution", and we all know what it means, I'm afraid it still won't be clear enough unless it's spelled out in foot high letters that the cheques don't work, and to not even try it.
But hey ho, let em hang themselves.

[NG3]

But hey ho, let em hang themselves.

As my police employed ex-girlfriend said, when discussing it with her, we shouldn't be to concerned about the time frame, especially given that the majority of sign ups will be useful names to have on a database.

She seemed to believe that seeing as Peter's gone to great lengths to recruit members that their might be those who view this as a useful honey trap, until it's eventually closed down.

[Tml69]

I was thinking about cheque processing as I recieved a large (real) cheque at work recently. It made me see how easily things can go awry.

The cheque came in and was scanned and then routed directly to our accounts department. I got a message enclosing a black and white scan of the cheque. Within a day or so they amount appeared on my client account ledger although clearly it hasn't cleared yet.

At that stage I could have raised cheques etc without question from accounts. And I never really got a proper look at the cheque itself.

I imagine our firm receives 100s of cheques a day (still the primary method of payment in the legal world) and a were bank cheques could easily get added to a pile and sent off to our bankers without question. My guess would be they don't send the bank cheques every day so there is a probably a large back log before it makes it way to the bank. By which time I would probably have already sent the "thanks for your payment" letters out and any overpayment refunds.

Now you would expect lenders would be more cautious about cheques bouncing whereas our firm probably mostly gets cheques from solicitors or insurers etc who are good for the money. But you can easily see how mistakes can be made or processes flawed.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I'm afraid it still won't be clear enough unless it's spelled out in foot high letters that the cheques don't work, and to not even try it.

If they did that the GOOFs would view that as positive. In their pea brains they would interpret such a message as an indication that TPTB know their own game is up so they have to rubbish the WeRe bank because TPTB fear the WeRe bank is exposing the truth. It's how the GOOF mentality works. If TPTB say it does work, it works. If TPTB say it does not work, that is proof that it does work but TPTB don't want you to know it works.

[guilty]

So just to re-state what others had said. The sickest part of Peter pushing this in the states is that the laws here are far harsher towards those passing bad checks.

I've just given the FBI a nudge towards PoEs 'USA' video.

[Pox]

http://www.fca.org.uk/news/consumer-notice-were-bank

Published: 17/09/2015 Last Modified: Today

Anyone spot the difference?

In the third to last paragraph they changed '[...] to proceed with caution' to '[...] to exercise caution'. A subtle, but significant, change.

POE previously put a load of spin on the word 'proceed' saying that the FCA was basically saying that it was OK to 'proceed' with weird bank.

I wonder if he will be able to put a similar spin on the word 'exercise'?

I can imagine some of the spin now -

Exercise your fingers to write more envelopes to me with money in.
Go on an exercise to recruit more members.
Exercise your right to ............ (Insert any nutty cause)
Exercise your mind about re-movement

Etc.

[wanglepin]

getting a bit lively in goofsville

Woodenhead, if you think I would tell you anything, your dummer than us WeRe members.. Lol
I'm keeping cards close at moment.

Hold on a minute you contradictory hypocritical moron!!!
You first say :

I'm seriously trying to prosecute WeRe Bank, and you would think that these companies who are refusing WeRe cheques would bend over backwards to help!

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/p ... 0&p=418065
Then come out with this shite!!!

I for one am not giving up on WeRe Bank.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... f_6-DTF98G
I am only asking who you will be addressing your letter to? (If it exists?)
Make up your mind you "dummy", either you feel conned or you don't. So who is the letter to? The con man you feel conned by, or those companies who won't help you "prosecute" WeRe bank!!!!!!

[notorial dissent]

I have a better question, does this moran even know what prosecute means???? And if so how does he propose going about it? The stupid here is, I think, weapons grade.

[Forsyth]

Now you would expect lenders would be more cautious about cheques bouncing whereas our firm probably mostly gets cheques from solicitors or insurers etc who are good for the money. But you can easily see how mistakes can be made or processes flawed.

When it comes to big utility companies and large banks the problem is far worse. In all probability the incoming post from customers is divided into blocks allocated to minimum wage workers who may be given a hundred pieces to deal with in a day - as well as answering the phone and other tasks. The vast majority of the post will be straightforward to process: decipher the account number and enter it into the computer, log the piece of post in, select a standard response from a menu, move onto the next piece of post. Nowadays they may not even get to see the physical item, it may just be a scan presented on screen.

One thing that's almost certain, however, is that the main metric that is used to measure the staff's performance will be the number of items they process in a day. Getting a strangely worded letter cuts into their average, so there's an incentive to try and interpret it in a way that means they can send a standard letter out. If they see a cheque that they think is dodgy it's probably not in their interest to do anything other than pass it on for payment - if they refuse the cheque they may get a pat on the back at the time, but then lose their bonus because they failed to reach their target for items processed at the end of the month.

When cheques get returned unpaid by the bank, the same thing probably happens - they turn up on someone's desk in a big bundle to deal with by the end of the day. Most go down the same route - find out the account number, send standard letter "Cheque returned, insufficient funds. Please send us more money. kthxbye." In the case of Werebank it probably comes back in the same way, but with a more interesting reason - a problem with the sort code or something technical and confusing. That doesn't exist on the standard letters and writing a letter out manually is time consuming. Besides, there IS a sort code on the cheque, so maybe the bank just scanned it incorrectly? Sending the cheque back to the bank for another try is by far the easiest option and, if it doesn't work and it comes back again, it might land on someone else's desk next time and be their problem to solve. In a big office paperwork can bounce around for months like this.

The more obscure the problem is, the more likely it is that the paperwork will ultimately just get lost. Part of that is due to the number of movements as things do get lost occasionally anyway. In an office were you have badly paid and poorly trained people desperately trying to clear paperwork as fast as possible, however, worse things happen. Faced with the same cheque in front of them for the third time, it gets clipped to the back another cheque and made to disappear. An electronic return is harder to make vanish, but most systems are fallible. The account stays in credit but the cheque is never paid simply because someone didn't want to spend an hour dealing with it. In the unlikely event that the file is audited it looks like a clerical error - they get a slap on the wrist (if it can be traced to them), but their cleared post total stays up high, so they're not going to get the sack unless they make too many mistakes.

In summary, I'm not surprised that some Werebank cheques take a long time to be rejected, and that some are never rejected. I'm sure they're not actually being paid though. Companies may not want to accept the cheques, but that doesn't compare to the power of minimum wage staff working to inappropriate targets. My best guess is that in many cases the first cheques only got spotted late in the day and that systems have now been changed to implement processes for Werebank cheques. This is why the failures are coming in thick and fast now, and we don't normally see the same companies identified twice as a success.

[YiamCross]

.... and of course not forgetting the Illuminati, which hasn't existed for over 200 years.

Thats what they WANT us to think and the fact that everyone THINKS they don't exist just goes to show how successful they have been at secretly infiltrating the power structure of the world. I think that's the logic employed here.

[Tml69]

When it comes to big utility companies and large banks the problem is far worse...Getting a strangely worded letter cuts into their average, so there's an incentive to try and interpret it in a way that means they can send a standard letter out.

Yes very good points. Our firm is probably behind some of the bigger ones but it does recognise reference numbers automatically and destroy some post automatically depending what it is.

I think the same thing about goodf letters and why you often get a standard response saying "thank you for your complaint" or "thank you for you CCA request" because minimum wage overworked temps can't be bothered to go through whatever process it is to filter out the post / escalate it to a manager etc.

After I finished school I worked for a multinational pension company for a bit. This was years ago but they still had a system where post was scanned and the key points put into some sort of spreadsheet which was sent to India every night for people there to decide which standard letter should be sent in reply. Anything weird got flagged and sent back to the UK office to consider further. You can see the temptation for the difficult customers to be deleted from the spreadsheet and go astray if someone earning £2 per hour has to take time out of their date to file a report and lose their KPI stats of dealing with x number of letters per shift etc.

[NG3]

.... and of course not forgetting the Illuminati, which hasn't existed for over 200 years.

Thats what they WANT us to think and the fact that everyone THINKS they don't exist just goes to show how successful they have been at secretly infiltrating the power structure of the world. I think that's the logic employed here.

A logic invented by Nesta Webster, a member, and propagandist, of Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists.

She also claimed that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were genuine.

Yet suckers still fall for it.

[Losleones]

Chong is attempting to dismantle Jimmy Wyld as King goofer looking at the hilarious thread over on retardsville.......wait a minute Daveiron1 is in the running for that mantle;

Just like to thank you squatloosers for helping me to decide to stay with Were Bank

Not deterred by the overwhelming evidence of its failures & now in the public domain via an article from a well established news source Davey is keen to press on regardless.


http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... gALD1p4WrU