Peter of England: He’s still F RE?

[Bones]

WeRe Banks response to the FOS decision

https://www.werebank.co.uk/wp-content/u ... ouse-1.pdf

[#six]

WeRe Banks response to the FOS decision

https://www.werebank.co.uk/wp-content/u ... ouse-1.pdf

Thats barely english. I stopped reading halfway through.

But ultimately PoE can rant as much as he likes. He still doesn't offer any solution to his cheques not being accepted.

Yet no doubt his faithful will lap it all up.

[notorial dissent]

I would say all is not well in WeRey land. Poor bunnies.

[mufc1959]

I see PoE's threatened the ombudsman with being hauled before a Common Law Court and being subject to a commercial lien. She's also required to leave her office, which she probably does at about half-past five every weekday.

[notorial dissent]

I'm sure she's quaking in her shoes or whatever. Doesn't this qualify as threatening language or some such?

[exiledscouser]

I've just had a quick look at that pdf and, as my kids would say - OMG!!!

It's not on his FB so I'm assuming it has been posted somewhere on the resurrected WeRe site.

His last posting on FB has the title "Almost there, Happy Easter!" to which one poster responds;

Freegirl Austria
Almost there - almost where? In Jail?

Like your style girl.

Another poster poses this question

Sam Beckett

I think you'll all find that Peter of England covered this. We all know that the ombudsman operate for the banks so of course his decision is going to be one of no. This is the problem, where to go NOW!? Is it a case of doing a tom crawford and fighting?

I think you'll find Sam Beckett that Peter has covered none of it and his impotent shouty UPPER CASE rage is just empty words tilting against harsh reality. And if following the road to ruin that is the TC method has an attraction for you then crack on lad.

Quoting from the annotated Ombudsman report with Pete's bit preserved in shouty BLUE is great fun;

if WeRe Bank has no funds, how does it make payment?
BUT EQUALLY IF IT DOES HAVE FUNDS THEN WHY ARE MONIES NOT ACCEPTED OR REQUESTED?

But then almost immediately he contradicts himself in an extract quoted by the Financial Ombudsman herself from the WeRe site, admitting that there is no money;

WeRe Bank does NOT have cash in it's vaults and neither does it deal with legal tender in the form of "notes and coins".

Except those notes and coins arriving by the daily bucket load into Dulcie Street. PoE is, if nothing else, a monumental hypocrite. He continues;

CORRECT NO SCRIP – BUT IT DOES HAVE PLEDGED ASSETS IN GOLD AND SHARES AS EWELL AS COMMERCIAL LIENS – ADDED TO BY ANOTHER ONE FINDING ITS WAY TO THE DOOR OF THE OMBUDSMAN VERY SOON NO DOUBT!] MOTO PROPRIO

Excellent, another Commercial Lien for my growing collection and that reference to the pledged precious metal must be the legendary 'Fool's Gold'. Moto Proprio is Italian for (roughly) "my own motorcycle" and I think PoE was trying for Mutu Proprio which is a document issued by the Pope. Or maybe he means none of those things.

On with the show;

creditors aren’t obliged to accept cheques in payment of
a debt; POSSIBLY TRUE – BUT IS TAKING ON THE WEIGHT OF BANKERS DRAFTS THEN THE REASONS FOR REFUSAL WOULD NOT STAND IN A COURT OF LAW

Quite ignoring his own tacit acceptance that a creditor isn't obliged to accept a cheque if they don't want to. There's more legal action to come!

WeRe Bank ‘cheques’ have no value, as there are no funds available to pay them;
 UTTER RUBBISH – WE'LL SEE YOU IN COURT ON THIS POINT – HOW DOES THE FED IN THE USA OPERATE OR THE US TREASURY RUNNING A 19 TRILLION DEFICIT – MORON]

Well here's your chance Peter, everyone is watching, you've clearly got an iron-clad case, pop along to the court, get it all straightened out. Win and I'll 'swallow' my pride and admit you WeRe right all 'alonge', lose and I'll 'spit' in your general direction.

I understand Mr O feels very strongly about this matter. I appreciate that he genuinely believes a WeRe Bank ‘cheque’ is a valid method of paying off his mortgage. But, for the reasons I’ve given above, it is not. Mr and Mrs O’s mortgage debt has not been repaid and remains outstanding. AS YOU HAVE STATED THIS NOW YOU WILL BE CALLED BEFORE A COMMON LAW COURT TO JUSTIFY YOUR STATEMENTS – SEE THE NATURE OF MONEY CREATION – IMF CHICAGO PLAN

Ahhh! So its not a REAL court, just your own totally impartial unbiased and completely irrelevant tribunal of the mind. Probably presided over by one of these;



He askes the Ombudsman

PLEASE DEFINE GENUINE CHEQUES?

but even I can assist here; they'll be the ones that result in an actual payment being received by the payee. Jeez, is the guy thick?

The Ombudsman concludes;

I cannot emphasise strongly enough the seriousness of the position in which Mr and Mrs O now find themselves. They are faced with the prospect of losing their home. AND THAT’S FULLY SUPPORTABLE BY YOU IS IT MR OMBUDSMAN? WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THEIR PRECISE POSITION WITHOUT WERE BANK? ALSO HOW DO YOU CONDONE A SYSTEM IN WHICH EVERY SINGLE REPOSSESSION ORDER FOR EXAMPLE IN THE UK OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS – AMOUNTING TO SOME 3,OOO,OOO – NOT ONE MORTGAGOR HAS PREVAILED IN A COURT. THE LAW OF PROBABILITY PRECLUDES THIS. EVEN THE CASINO GIVES BETTER ODDS

Where is the actual support here for Mr. and Mrs. O, Peter swinging into action with a proper court appearance, issuing proper proceedings and being transparent about this? Instead he's just hiding behind one of his usual pointless rants, seemingly content to see his 'clients' lose their home. After all, as he himself callously observes, they were losers before they ever got involved with the likes of him.

The Ombudsman must be pissing herself laughing at this - I certainly am.

Thank you for posting this Bones, a proper public service and it deserves to be seen by as wide an audience as possible so they can assess who's the real fraud here.

[littleFred]

For a change, Peter gets one thing correct.

A PROMISSORY NOTE AND CHEQUE ARE DIFFERENT ENTITIES COMPLETELY.

Yes, they are different. This contradicts what Peter says in Yalta Bite Size:

A CHEQUE IS BOTH A “PROMISE AND AN IOU” AND IS LEGAL TENDER THEREFORE IS IT NOT?

On the aspects of suckers demanding the cheque back because it is the sucker's property: I suppose the law on this is the same as for personal letters.

If I write a letter to my friend, the physical letter becomes the property of my friend. The words may be my copyright, but the physical letter belongs to my friend, to do with as she pleases: she can destroy it, or give it back to me, or give it to someone else.

I assume the same is true of cheques. If I send my council a cheque, it becomes their property. If they send it to their bank, it becomes their property, and so on.

But I'm open to correction. Under UK law, I think sending a cheque to someone also passes ownership of the physical paper. True or false?

[mufc1959]

I've re-hosted PoE's "rebuttal" of the ombudsman's decision in case he removes it from the Werebank website.


http://docdro.id/6Cka8XS

In case anyone's not sure, the ombdusman's decision is the black print, written in clear, concise English explaining why WeRe Bank is a scam. PoE's rebuttal is in blue gibberish.

[#six]

For a change, Peter gets one thing correct.

A PROMISSORY NOTE AND CHEQUE ARE DIFFERENT ENTITIES COMPLETELY.

Yes, they are different. This contradicts what Peter says in Yalta Bite Size:

A CHEQUE IS BOTH A “PROMISE AND AN IOU” AND IS LEGAL TENDER THEREFORE IS IT NOT?

On the aspects of suckers demanding the cheque back because it is the sucker's property: I suppose the law on this is the same as for personal letters.

If I write a letter to my friend, the physical letter becomes the property of my friend. The words may be my copyright, but the physical letter belongs to my friend, to do with as she pleases: she can destroy it, or give it back to me, or give it to someone else.

I assume the same is true of cheques. If I send my council a cheque, it becomes their property. If they send it to their bank, it becomes their property, and so on.

But I'm open to correction. Under UK law, I think sending a cheque to someone also passes ownership of the physical paper. True or false?

I'm unsure of the law regarding a real cheque. But in the case of a worthless piece of paper it would be classed as unsolicited goods and therefore covered by the Unsolicited Goods Act 1971 and latterly by the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000. As such the recipient is free to "use, deal with, or dispose of the goods as if they were an unconditional gift to him and the rights of the sender to the goods are extinguished"

Edit - it looks as though only the 1971 act applies to businesses receiving goods but the result remains the same

[Seelenblut]

I translated key parts of the ombudsman's decision (I thought it was well written in a manner any layman should understand) into German and posted it to the three German WeRe skype channels (negative WeRe info almost never makes it there as the WeRe guru's usually provide all the translated stuff).

Although there were, of course, the usual defenders that jumped in right away, there were a number of reactions showing understanding and support of the obvious conclusions, and the main channel had a lengthy discussion about it. If only one person is kept from falling for the scheme or made to retire from it, it was worth the time. And those that stick to the scam despite such information can't be helped anyway.

I'm curious if they actually dare to translate Peter's rant as a rebuttal.

[NYGman]

I'm curious if they actually dare to translate Peter's rant as a rebuttal.

It isn't really comprehensible English, so I am not sure if it would even be possible to translate. Perhaps if someone offered a Gibberish to English translator we would all be able to understand it.

Edit: found this - http://funtranslations.com/yoda might help

[rumpelstilzchen]

WeRe Banks response to the FOS decision

https://www.werebank.co.uk/wp-content/u ... ouse-1.pdf

It's just more evidence that shows Peter the Conman talks out of his arse.

[PeanutGallery]

Peter now claims that WeRe bank will accept the Re to pay for it's services.

In this regard, it’s interesting to note that WeRe Bank refuses to accept payment for monthly
subscriptions in Re or WeRe Bank ‘cheques’.[NOT SO IT DOES AND CAN NOW...]

[Philistine]

Moto Proprio is Italian for (roughly) "my own motorcycle" and I think PoE was trying for Mutu Proprio which is a document issued by the Pope. Or maybe he means none of those things.

Snort!
Peter gone Bodmin

[Colin123]

A warning on the Daily Mail web site

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/mortga ... -bank.html

[exiledscouser]

The comment made earlier by Freegirl of Austria has been purged by ol' Captain Commercial Lien himself, Petey.

Someone else pulls him up over the damming Ombudsman report to which he responds with spectacular twisted logic. It is worth preserving before Pete realises he's made a complete twat of himself and it too vanishes into the night.

Peter Of England

Please tell me that you are NOT a shill? So let me get this straight. You ask if this is an illusion? What precisely? The fact is that this couple WeRe going to have their house repossessed were they not - with ot without WeRe Bank - they tried to do something about it and so now it is the fault of WeRe Bank that this is going to happen, is this correct? In the past 20 years over 3 million homes have been repossessed. WeRe Bank was NOT there.

Without WeRe bank they might have had a chance, taken proper impartial professional advice, negotiated some arrangement with their lender. With it they were doomed because the scheme is fraudulent, there are as Pete himself admits no funds in WeRe and in any event this phoney people's champion has written them off already. So much for customer service.

It enrages me to read this crap, the man's sheer arrogance, the use of real people's desperation to push this fantasy. The buy-in by the needy, greedy and particularly the ignorant. Its like those lotters scammers who target the elderly; the victim will keep paying even after its been shown by friends, family and the police to be wholly fraudulent as the mark genuinely thinks the scheme might eventually pay out and can't get off the barbed hook.

[#six]

The comment made earlier by Freegirl of Austria has been purged by ol' Captain Commercial Lien himself, Petey.

Someone else pulls him up over the damming Ombudsman report to which he responds with spectacular twisted logic. It is worth preserving before Pete realises he's made a complete twat of himself and it too vanishes into the night.

Peter Of England

Please tell me that you are NOT a shill? So let me get this straight. You ask if this is an illusion? What precisely? The fact is that this couple WeRe going to have their house repossessed were they not - with ot without WeRe Bank - they tried to do something about it and so now it is the fault of WeRe Bank that this is going to happen, is this correct? In the past 20 years over 3 million homes have been repossessed. WeRe Bank was NOT there.

Without WeRe bank they might have had a chance, taken proper impartial professional advice, negotiated some arrangement with their lender. With it they were doomed because the scheme is fraudulent, there are as Pete himself admits no funds in WeRe and in any event this phoney people's champion has written them off already. So much for customer service.

It enrages me to read this crap, the man's sheer arrogance, the use of real people's desperation to push this fantasy. The buy-in by the needy, greedy and particularly the ignorant. Its like those lotters scammers who target the elderly; the victim will keep paying even after its been shown by friends, family and the police to be wholly fraudulent as the mark genuinely thinks the scheme might eventually pay out and can't get off the barbed hook.

actually, there is nothing in the ombudsmans report, as far as I have seen, to suggest they were at risk of losing their home before they used a WeRe cheque. It seems to me like they were greedy and tried to clear their mortgage just because Petey said they could. He is 70% responsible for them risking their home. Them 30% responsible for being stupid and greedy.

[Jeffrey]

The fact is that this couple WeRe going to have their house repossessed were they not - with or without WeRe Bank

Yeah but with WeRe bank, they lose their house and the £35 for the checkbooks.

Not to mention the potential for penalties and criminal charges for trying to pass the fake checks.

[PeanutGallery]

It's also worth considering that if they had taken a reasonable tack with their mortgage company, they might have been able to negotiate some sort of arrangement that didn't end with a repossession order and the subsequent fees or costs that will come with it.

Instead they've gone down this road and are simply breaking bits of their only ladder off to use as shovels with which to dig themselves a deeper hole. That and they are out £35 at a minimum, maybe more, and given what we've read of their financial position I would think that is a large amount of money to them.

[SteveUK]

Another satisfied customer

The fact is that were bank LLTs doesnt work! second fact is that you are a cheater! third fact is all humans who believe in you are not the smartest! currently all of the lies you told are become uncovered! you cheated people who believed in you, you are a conman, nothing else. and hopefully you end up in jail soon! our bankingsystem is not ok, i absolutely agree, but however, you are cheater!