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

[Jeffrey]

Wait did something happen with Darren?

[Bones]

Wait did something happen with Darren?

He found out you can't pay debts with a WeRe Cheque and is now repaying his firstplus loan like a good little boy

[Jeffrey]

Give us some links or something.

[Bones]

Give us some links or something.

Sadly not possible, his thread has been deleted on the were forum.

[rumpelstilzchen]

He found out you can't pay debts with a WeRe Cheque and is now repaying his firstplus loan like a good little boy

If that is all that has happened he should consider himself to be a very lucky little boy.

[Daft Ada]

Why is it so difficult for these people to understand that you don't get something for nothing?

If you want to get out of debt, then do what the rest of us do and get a bloody job and spend your money wisely.
I would love a new car or not have to pay my mortgage and generally live for free.

You GOOF'ers and your freeloading is one reason my bills and taxes are so high.

And as for PissPotoFEngland,
You should be ashamed to call yourself English.

I hope the authorities find some way to put you behind bars when hopefully you will find out first hand what it feels like to get shafted.
You have made false promises to people who may well be hard working and on minimum wage and only trying to get out of debt so they can have a better life.

I sincerely hope your parents regret the day you were conceived and that you never breed yourself and contribute to the human gene pool.

[Bones]

He found out you can't pay debts with a WeRe Cheque and is now repaying his firstplus loan like a good little boy

If that is all that has happened he should consider himself to be a very lucky little boy.

No doubt he will also have to pay all the costs that have been incurred by Firstplus in protecting the security for the loan. There is usually a T&C covering the lender for costs

[hardcopy]

Why is it so difficult for these people to understand that you don't get something for nothing?

If you want to get out of debt, then do what the rest of us do and get a bloody job and spend your money wisely.
I would love a new car or not have to pay my mortgage and generally live for free.

You GOOF'ers and your freeloading is one reason my bills and taxes are so high.

And as for PissPotoFEngland,
You should be ashamed to call yourself English.

I hope the authorities find some way to put you behind bars when hopefully you will find out first hand what it feels like to get shafted.
You have made false promises to people who may well be hard working and on minimum wage and only trying to get out of debt so they can have a better life.

I sincerely hope your parents regret the day you were conceived and that you never breed yourself and contribute to the human gene pool.

That's true. But when our Banks and financial institutions crashed in 2008, the taxpayer was made to cough up billions to repair their balance sheets.
It is a pity that the common man is turfed out of his home often by banks who were the beneficery of tax payers to keep them afloat.
There is a massive injustice in all of that, so I have sympathy with people who may lose their homes because they are in financial difficulties. That's not to say I endorse the doomed " get out of debt" nonsense, which only helps people to lose their homes and incur even more debt.

[Skeleton]

Why is it so difficult for these people to understand that you don't get something for nothing?

If you want to get out of debt, then do what the rest of us do and get a bloody job and spend your money wisely.
I would love a new car or not have to pay my mortgage and generally live for free.

You GOOF'ers and your freeloading is one reason my bills and taxes are so high.

And as for PissPotoFEngland,
You should be ashamed to call yourself English.

I hope the authorities find some way to put you behind bars when hopefully you will find out first hand what it feels like to get shafted.
You have made false promises to people who may well be hard working and on minimum wage and only trying to get out of debt so they can have a better life.

I sincerely hope your parents regret the day you were conceived and that you never breed yourself and contribute to the human gene pool.

That's true. But when our Banks and financial institutions crashed in 2008, the taxpayer was made to cough up billions to repair their balance sheets.
It is a pity that the common man is turfed out of his home often by banks who were the beneficery of tax payers to keep them afloat.
There is a massive injustice in all of that, so I have sympathy with people who may lose their homes because they are in financial difficulties. That's not to say I endorse the doomed " get out of debt" nonsense, which only helps people to lose their homes and incur even more debt.

Agreed it does not sit well with me that the banks, RBS anyone? get bailed out by the unwashed masses who have little or no say in the matter, and they then proceed to evict people who have fallen on hard times, sometimes it must be said by a situation not of their own making, EG the only factory for miles around closes, you lose your job but can't sell your house because no one wants to move in because their are no jobs. That being said their is a hard core on Goofy who simply are not willing to play by the rules and will wheedle their way out of paying anything whenever they can, and are quite happy to post "how not to." Most of them sound like they have not got a pot to piss in, a good number of them are in that position entirely through their own making and believing society owes them.

As for Peter for personal reasons, the man is scum, I would not piss on him if he was on fire.

[PeanutGallery]

That's true. But when our Banks and financial institutions crashed in 2008, the taxpayer was made to cough up billions to repair their balance sheets.
It is a pity that the common man is turfed out of his home often by banks who were the beneficery of tax payers to keep them afloat.
There is a massive injustice in all of that, so I have sympathy with people who may lose their homes because they are in financial difficulties. That's not to say I endorse the doomed " get out of debt" nonsense, which only helps people to lose their homes and incur even more debt.

The issues behind the bail out and the financial crash of 2008 are certainly rather difficult to justify, especially when an emotive issue such as people losing their homes and the banks having been "bailed out" but I think the way it has played out is largely fair, both to those who were given a subprime mortgage and the banks.

Admittedly I did struggle with some of the issues, namely people losing their houses until I realised that if those individuals who had lost their houses were never given a mortgage in the first place the financial crash would not have happened and the banks would not have needed to be bailed out. Which in turn raised the question, would it be fair if a person received a 'free' house on the basis that they were unable to pay the mortgage owing on it (because they shouldn't have been loaned the money) while someone who has the means to pay (no matter how much difficulty they incur in doing so) should not?

I then was forced to conclude that contrary to my first assumption, their wasn't an injustice as people were losing something they shouldn't have been given in the first place. They weren't getting an advantage, it only seemed that they were being significantly disadvantaged (they were, in my opinion slightly disadvantaged in that they would now be liable for legal fees relating to the eviction and would likely have a damaged credit rating).

While the banks were very wrong to advance a lot of credit and money (that due to fractional reserve banking practices they didn't actually have) to people who would be unlikely to repay it - in order to make some short term gains, it can also be argued that those taking out the mortgages shouldn't have benefited from taking on a debt they couldn't repay.

This is not to say that I do not have sympathy for those who were a victim of sub-prime lending and who have had their lives damaged as a result, I very much do. I think a fairer solution would be to try and roll back the financial damage done to them as much as possible (such that they are returned to the position they should have been in had the bank not made it's error) but at the same time I cannot say that they should be rewarded for taking on more debt than they realistically could afford.

[hardcopy]

That's true. But when our Banks and financial institutions crashed in 2008, the taxpayer was made to cough up billions to repair their balance sheets.
It is a pity that the common man is turfed out of his home often by banks who were the beneficery of tax payers to keep them afloat.
There is a massive injustice in all of that, so I have sympathy with people who may lose their homes because they are in financial difficulties. That's not to say I endorse the doomed " get out of debt" nonsense, which only helps people to lose their homes and incur even more debt.

The issues behind the bail out and the financial crash of 2008 are certainly rather difficult to justify, especially when an emotive issue such as people losing their homes and the banks having been "bailed out" but I think the way it has played out is largely fair, both to those who were given a subprime mortgage and the banks.

Admittedly I did struggle with some of the issues, namely people losing their houses until I realised that if those individuals who had lost their houses were never given a mortgage in the first place the financial crash would not have happened and the banks would not have needed to be bailed out. Which in turn raised the question, would it be fair if a person received a 'free' house on the basis that they were unable to pay the mortgage owing on it (because they shouldn't have been loaned the money) while someone who has the means to pay (no matter how much difficulty they incur in doing so) should not?

I then was forced to conclude that contrary to my first assumption, their wasn't an injustice as people were losing something they shouldn't have been given in the first place. They weren't getting an advantage, it only seemed that they were being significantly disadvantaged (they were, in my opinion slightly disadvantaged in that they would now be liable for legal fees relating to the eviction and would likely have a damaged credit rating).

While the banks were very wrong to advance a lot of credit and money (that due to fractional reserve banking practices they didn't actually have) to people who would be unlikely to repay it - in order to make some short term gains, it can also be argued that those taking out the mortgages shouldn't have benefited from taking on a debt they couldn't repay.

This is not to say that I do not have sympathy for those who were a victim of sub-prime lending and who have had their lives damaged as a result, I very much do. I think a fairer solution would be to try and roll back the financial damage done to them as much as possible (such that they are returned to the position they should have been in had the bank not made it's error) but at the same time I cannot say that they should be rewarded for taking on more debt than they realistically could afford.

Well, one of the reasons people had to take out ridiculously high loans is due to the inflated house price market. If prices were to fall to affordable levels we wouldn't have been in this situation.
People need to live somewhere, and house prices should really reflect what is affordable for the majority of society. Banks are suppose to be trusted with lending. In fact they embarked on reckless lending and gambling in the markets leading to the crash. There used to be a rule on lending in the UK that you could only borrow two and a half times your annual salary. This in effect kept a lid on prices to some extent, but banks were happy to lend out outlandish sums that just fueled the price boom. Or the Government would raise interest rates to damp down the a rapid rise in prices, an option no longer available once control was handed back to the B of England.
Now we have endured over 6 years of austerity, with people losing jobs , suppressed wages, and evictions, as a direct result of the banks failings.
There is social injustice in all of that, but we shouldn't confuse that with the rubbish written over on GOODF which is just preying on peoples misfortune and offering solutions to desperate people which clearly do not work

[Losleones]

I'd love to be a fly on the wall of PToEs tin can on wheels to hear the delightful conversations he has with his masochistic partner. We may never know whether Petey set out to purely scam his legion of suckers or that he actually believed his buffoonery would work but it does beg the question either way.....isn't he at great risk of his collar being felt by the long arm of the law as well as a bunch of irate dossers wanting a huge slice of his arse?

I'll give the deluded fella some credit, he's got a set of cojones..........only they are between his ears.

[Skeleton]

I'd love to be a fly on the wall of PToEs tin can on wheels to hear the delightful conversations he has with his masochistic partner. We may never know whether Petey set out to purely scam his legion of suckers or that he actually believed his buffoonery would work but it does beg the question either way.....isn't he at great risk of his collar being felt by the long arm of the law as well as a bunch of irate dossers wanting a huge slice of his arse?

I'll give the deluded fella some credit, he's got a set of cojones..........only they are between his ears.

I thought at one time the Police would pay him a visit but have learned from posts on here that "all" he is doing is selling worthless cheque books, yes they are causing people grief and undoubtedly are getting people into further trouble, but they are the ones trying to pay their mortgage off etc with fraudulent cheques, not Peter.

He is in more danger me thinks from a disgruntled client who will sort his complaint out with the odd flying boot or fist. Not all his clients can be Goofy minded in that they know these cheques are worthless but they will give it a go. Their will be some who truly believe in Peter until they lose their house and Peter blames them for not following his "system." Their the ones that will kick off.

[Losleones]

I'd love to be a fly on the wall of PToEs tin can on wheels to hear the delightful conversations he has with his masochistic partner. We may never know whether Petey set out to purely scam his legion of suckers or that he actually believed his buffoonery would work but it does beg the question either way.....isn't he at great risk of his collar being felt by the long arm of the law as well as a bunch of irate dossers wanting a huge slice of his arse?

I'll give the deluded fella some credit, he's got a set of cojones..........only they are between his ears.

I thought at one time the Police would pay him a visit but have learned from posts on here that "all" he is doing is selling worthless cheque books, yes they are causing people grief and undoubtedly are getting people into further trouble, but they are the ones trying to pay their mortgage off etc with fraudulent cheques, not Peter.

He is in more danger me thinks from a disgruntled client who will sort his complaint out with the odd flying boot or fist. Not all his clients can be Goofy minded in that they know these cheques are worthless but they will give it a go. Their will be some who truly believe in Peter until they lose their house and Peter blames them for not following his "system." Their the ones that will kick off.

In some tedious 3hr long vid of PT he insists the cheques must be accepted & if all else fails go down the back up plan unsuccessful route of a NP. PT also states that Were forgeries will not be accepted by his mythical Bank .....how about a cheque from a legit Bank with funds available to clear PT? Isn't that the same form as legal tender (albeit no legal tender) Petey? .....or can't your revolutionary Bank process legit cheques......or is it because your Nationwide Bank account is frozen? Why do you need cash Petey when your movement wants to eradicate the horrible, nasty toxic stuff?

Piss on him if on fire i wouldn't Skel & neither would i piss down his throat if his lungs were on fire.

[CommonOrGarden]

I think if Peter was to hold another seminar/meeting, he'd run the risk of a getting a good shoeing from a disgruntled "customer" (sucker). I'm not a violent person, but that's one PoE related video I wouldn't mind seeing. The bloke is vile

[Skeleton]

I think if Peter was to hold another seminar/meeting, he'd run the risk of a getting a good shoeing from a disgruntled "customer" (sucker). I'm not a violent person, but that's one PoE related video I wouldn't mind seeing. The bloke is vile

It is a very good point and I have said before I am convinced it is one the reasons the meetings have stopped, and the reason the meet was in a supermarket car park before the last non meeting. The shills and trolls did not arrange for it to be that way, he did so he could vet the few that by all accounts turned up.

Losleones mate if you could find some lighter fluid we could also fan the flames.

[Burnaby49]

That's true. But when our Banks and financial institutions crashed in 2008, the taxpayer was made to cough up billions to repair their balance sheets.
It is a pity that the common man is turfed out of his home often by banks who were the beneficery of tax payers to keep them afloat.
There is a massive injustice in all of that, so I have sympathy with people who may lose their homes because they are in financial difficulties. That's not to say I endorse the doomed " get out of debt" nonsense, which only helps people to lose their homes and incur even more debt.

The issues behind the bail out and the financial crash of 2008 are certainly rather difficult to justify, especially when an emotive issue such as people losing their homes and the banks having been "bailed out" but I think the way it has played out is largely fair, both to those who were given a subprime mortgage and the banks.

Admittedly I did struggle with some of the issues, namely people losing their houses until I realised that if those individuals who had lost their houses were never given a mortgage in the first place the financial crash would not have happened and the banks would not have needed to be bailed out. Which in turn raised the question, would it be fair if a person received a 'free' house on the basis that they were unable to pay the mortgage owing on it (because they shouldn't have been loaned the money) while someone who has the means to pay (no matter how much difficulty they incur in doing so) should not?

I then was forced to conclude that contrary to my first assumption, their wasn't an injustice as people were losing something they shouldn't have been given in the first place. They weren't getting an advantage, it only seemed that they were being significantly disadvantaged (they were, in my opinion slightly disadvantaged in that they would now be liable for legal fees relating to the eviction and would likely have a damaged credit rating).

While the banks were very wrong to advance a lot of credit and money (that due to fractional reserve banking practices they didn't actually have) to people who would be unlikely to repay it - in order to make some short term gains, it can also be argued that those taking out the mortgages shouldn't have benefited from taking on a debt they couldn't repay.

This is not to say that I do not have sympathy for those who were a victim of sub-prime lending and who have had their lives damaged as a result, I very much do. I think a fairer solution would be to try and roll back the financial damage done to them as much as possible (such that they are returned to the position they should have been in had the bank not made it's error) but at the same time I cannot say that they should be rewarded for taking on more debt than they realistically could afford.

Well, one of the reasons people had to take out ridiculously high loans is due to the inflated house price market. If prices were to fall to affordable levels we wouldn't have been in this situation.
People need to live somewhere, and house prices should really reflect what is affordable for the majority of society. Banks are suppose to be trusted with lending. In fact they embarked on reckless lending and gambling in the markets leading to the crash. There used to be a rule on lending in the UK that you could only borrow two and a half times your annual salary. This in effect kept a lid on prices to some extent, but banks were happy to lend out outlandish sums that just fueled the price boom. Or the Government would raise interest rates to damp down the a rapid rise in prices, an option no longer available once control was handed back to the B of England.
Now we have endured over 6 years of austerity, with people losing jobs , suppressed wages, and evictions, as a direct result of the banks failings.
There is social injustice in all of that, but we shouldn't confuse that with the rubbish written over on GOODF which is just preying on peoples misfortune and offering solutions to desperate people which clearly do not work

Any more on this issue and it's time to get very heavy-handed again. Quatloos has a very strict rule against anything relating to political discussion. This discussion, if not already over the line, is on it.

[hardcopy]

What's political about evictions and debt and the possible causes of it ? It all relates to how some people are driven into the hands of GOODF, and to seek out WeRe as a means of paying their way out of debt and the moral issues around it..
It's really ridiculous to shutdown discussion about it under the spurious excuse that it's "political".
If I was relating it to government policy or political ideology then I would understand it, I purposely avoided that in my comment.

[ArthurWankspittle]

What's political about evictions and debt and the possible causes of it ? It all relates to how some people are driven into the hands of GOODF, and to seek out WeRe as a means of paying their way out of debt and the moral issues around it..
It's really ridiculous to shutdown discussion about it under the spurious excuse that it's "political".
If I was relating it to government policy or political ideology then I would understand it, I purposely avoided that in my comment.

Burnaby beat me to it regarding moderating this thread but it was wavering into government bailing out of banks and political policies regarding such matters. You just have to get used to it that Quatloos doesn't do that.

[Bones]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/can-you-r ... te-6487660

In the cases seen by the Ombudsman, the people providing this information often call themselves Freemen of/on the Land.

In one case, a woman said she’d been told by a friend about a so-called legal loophole that meant many mortgage contracts weren’t technically valid.

The Ombudsman has also now seen cases where people have tried to pay their debts with ‘cheques’ issued by a ‘bank’ set up by those providing the misleading information about debts being unenforceable.

The ‘bank’ (referred to as WeRe Bank) is not registered or authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority.

“The ‘cheques’ are not valid as they are not from a real bank, and people using these to attempt to pay their debts are finding this out the hard way,” the Ombudsman said.

“The Financial Ombudsman Service is urging people, especially those facing financial difficulty, to be vigilant and not to be fooled.”