Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

[NOACROSS]

Absolutely. I've replied in the affirmative when I last spoke to the nice police lady on the phone.
I'd take a packed lunch and everything!

[TheNewSaint]

Interestingly, on the day of 'purchase' he left some papers by mistake from when (I guess) he joined 'WeRe Stupid' that are quite funny, including general ramblings that say things like 'I AM LEGAL TENDER, and THE GAME IS FINALLY UP AND THE LIE NOW FULLY EXPOSED. THE KNOWLEDGE IN THIS DOCUMENT IS ALL YOU WILL EVER NEED TO ENABLE YOU TO WALK FREE!...'

There's clearly the knowledge supplied to him from WeRe Stupid that they won't work and all the information and paperwork to fight it are given to the new member. As I'm fairly tecno-inept I can't seem to see how to ad them here for you to see, but I guess others have posted them previously?

It's probably these two documents. They contain the exact phrasing you mentioned:

https://www.werebank.co.uk/wp-content/u ... _SIZE1.pdf
https://www.werebank.co.uk/wp-content/u ... LTA_21.pdf

[rumpelstilzchen]

I'd take a packed lunch and everything!

Welcome to Quatloos, NOACROSS. Your input is greatly appreciated. It is good to get info from the other side of the fence, so to speak. Can I ask what sort of figure we are talking here? Was the car a lot of money?

[NOACROSS]

Many thanks for your kind welcome. I have read from afar for a while now and I'm glad to be sharing the comedy and underlying tragedy.

In all seriousness though, as I think you've touched on before: you'd like to feel sorry for these gullible idiots, and maybe I should, but honestly? No. I really don't. Maybe that makes me a bad person. I don't know. Or-quite frankly care. It's hard enough to make a living with the wider general public in the motor trade, but dealing with the lunatic fringe is something I could do without.

Yup- those examples you give are among those I had. I just wish that maybe I should have opened those two large brown envelopes he left on the doorsteps as I wonder what delights they would have produced.

In answer to the purchase price- no, surprisingly (or probably not if I'd made you bet in advance), he chose the cheapest car on the site! I guess his hand was only writing cheques his ego could handle!

£2495 v.boring Renault Modus, when there's 25 grand cars he could have chosen if he was that sure of the validity of future of payments!

I'd personally have thought that if you were convinced you could buy a dull French poo-box with magic beans (a phrase I believe I stole from yourselves and was very happy to recite to 'Tom'), then you may as well buy something special? Perhaps that's my old school brainwashed capitalist mentality & maybe a Doom-blue Modus is a dream car of choice when you're a post-apocalyptic Britain? Just the job for storing your months supply of river water, spam and steri-tabs?

[TheNewSaint]

Yup- those examples you give are among those I had. I just wish that maybe I should have opened those two large brown envelopes he left on the doorsteps as I wonder what delights they would have produced.

Probably just more of the same material, downloaded from Peter of England's website. Sending voluminous amounts of paperwork is a common tactic of this lot.

[rumpelstilzchen]

In all seriousness though, as I think you've touched on before: you'd like to feel sorry for these gullible idiots, and maybe I should, but honestly? No. I really don't. Maybe that makes me a bad person. I don't know.

Don't feel any sympathy for the tosser. He was trying to pull your pants down. He knows he does not have any money to spend. Like you say, it is very difficult to make a decent living from the motor trade these days, it is no longer a licence to print money like it was a few years ago. The last thing you need is a wine taster with a moody kite. I find it very interesting that he went for the cheapest car. It is as though he was aware that he might be biting off a bit more than he could chew and it probably wouldn't work.

[notorial dissent]

Most interesting, thanks again and welcome NOACROSS, it is nice to see the police finally getting called in on something that they can deal with, and hopefully it will come to that. The WeRe idjit seems to be of the really really stuupid and confrontational variety, so he may yet get himself multiple charges on top of the fraud charge. The German authorities seem to be willing to prosecute just for attempting to deposit one of those WeReNotAChecks or trying to pay your rent with one, so it is about time the UK authorities got after someone using them to attempt to defraud a merchant. Looking forward to further developments.

[Zeke_the_Meek]

Just wanted to join the chorus of warm welcomes and add my thanks for posting. As you've probably seen so far, there's a massive degree of frustration that there's not been enough tangible action from the UK authorities so far regarding the WeRe Bank scam. I strongly believe you could singlehandedly be starting the long-awaited domino effect here - and I'd like to think I speak for most people on this thread - for that we're extremely grateful.

Obviously, as noted by the police make sure you and your staff are physically safe above all else. That really goes without saying, though these idiots are pretty much all fart and no follow through.

Otherwise, happy hunting and do keep us posted. We're all here to offer our tuppence for what it's worth if you want to bounce ideas around or want background info, too.

[Dr. Caligari]

Plus 100 to every part of what Zeke said.

[NOACROSS]

Cheers- I will gladly keep you posted.

[Jeffrey]

I'm going to go ahead and predict that Peter's excuse in case of any criminal charges will be that the cheques are not to be used for buying things.

[Hercule Parrot]

It's probably these two documents. They contain the exact phrasing you mentioned:
https://www.werebank.co.uk/wp-content/u ... _SIZE1.pdf
https://www.werebank.co.uk/wp-content/u ... LTA_21.pdf

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

No, a cheque is not Legal Tender in England. Your argument is rebutted. Have a good day.

[Dr. Caligari]

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

A check is neither a promise nor an IOU. It is an order by the Maker to the Maker's Bank to pay money to a third person. And neither a check nor an IOU is legal tender.

[notorial dissent]

As Dr Caligari so rightly points out, a check is legally neither of those things, and is separately defined by law in each country, and "legal tender" is a status only granted by law by the gov't and not something some fool yahoo, PoE specifically, can just arbitrarily declare, so PoE's claims are both denied and debunked. I think the dog ate his checks defense will be quite entertaining right up to the point where the judge locks him up.

[rumpelstilzchen]

PoE wrote:

BUT THE WORD “TENDER” IS A VERB AND NOT A NOUN - IS IT NOT?

Incredible massive fail by Peter there. All he had to do was check the dictionary:

noun
4. the act or an instance of tendering; offer


5. (commerce) a formal offer to supply specified goods or services at a stated cost or rate


6. something, esp money, used as an official medium of payment: legal tender

Peter, you have really shown that you are an idiot of the highest order.
Yes "tender" can be a verb, in fact it can also be an adjective, but in the case of "legal tender" it is an effing noun you prize prick.

[Jeffrey]

Or instead of consulting the dictionary check the menu under chicken tender.

[notorial dissent]

This, as in all things, he is wrong about, so very very wrong.

[TheNewSaint]

Hialriously, the UK laws pertaining to cheques were initially set forth in the Bills of Exchange Act 1882. The same act Peter cites to justify his whole cockamamie scheme. That will make any "sincere misunderstanding" defense difficult when he's finally forced to explain himself to a judge.

As for the rest of it, Peter seems to be trying to argue that legal tender = currency = promissory note = promise to pay = IOU = cheque. But that logic chain is wrong at every step.

The whole document is an exercise in equivocation fallacy. Especially when it comes to legal terms. He invents distinctions that don't exist (between "promise to pay" and "IOU", both informal terms) while ignoring precise legal meanings that do exist, like "promissory note." And when he's not equivocating, he's completely wrong, as we have seen. He's not even internally consistent:

LEGAL TENDER IS THEREFORE A PROMISE TO PAY IS IT NOT?

LEGAL TENDER IS NOT A PROMISE FROM THE GOVERNMENT OR THE US/UK TREASURIES

I also found this comment revealing:

A PROMISE ALWAYS INFERS THAT THE ACTUAL ARTICLE IN NOT PRESENT [OR NOT TO BE HANDED OVER OR CANNOT BE DELIVERED]AT THAT MOMENT OTHERWISE THE PROMISE WOULD BE IRRELEVANT WOULD IT NOT?

No, it doesn't. You can have a debt, and the ability to pay it, but choose not to do so immediately. Individuals and organizations make the conscious choice to carry debt because there are more important debts to service first; because it's not due yet; because the money that would pay off the debt can be used more profitably; or other strategic reasons. This comment betrays a very unsophisticated view of debt on Peter's part.

[mufc1959]

I think the odds on PoE appearing in court to give evidence are slim to none. If the bloke who tried to buy the car is charged with attempted fraud, he may well want to call Peter as a witness for the defence. But as we recently heard in one of the German/Austrian Skype calls, PoE says he will only attend court if he is summonsed in the name 'Peter of England', as opposed to his actual name of Alan Peter Michael Smith. The courts, naturally, will have none of that malarkey.

In criminal cases it's usually more of a problem for the prosecution if its witnesses don't attend, as the trial can collapse if key witnesses don't turn up - after all, it's for the prosecution to prove its case, not the defence to disprove it.

I'd imagine a witness summons would be issued by the defence solicitors for Poe to attend, which he'll ignore if it's not addressed to his made-up name. From my experience, there might be an adjournment to the next day if he didn't attend while the defence tries to contact him (good luck with that!), but after that the trial would probably continue without his valuable input. Which is a pity, as no doubt it'd be entertainment of the highest value.

You'll also recall the recent Court of Sessions case in Edinburgh that PoE had allegedly been meant to attend. Of course, he did no such thing.

[NOACROSS]

I still laugh every time I read 'Peter of England'!
Apologies if I'm going over old ground you've covered before, but was he always a nutter or is it a recent thing? When/what started all this 'of England' strangeness? Does he come from a professional background?

He seems (at least at first glance) to be fairly eloquent no? None of it makes any sense, but I guess his angle is to use big words in the hope of him not being called out- as he appeals to the less-educated or easily lead? (patronism not intended)