Were Bank

colsten

grumbler wrote: »

IMO, this happening in our nanny state shows and obvious flaw in the laws that had to be corrected years ago instead of keeping giving lengthy explanations to people/victims that are, in fact, incapable of understanding even far more basic financial matters.

Our nanny state?

The very fact that "Were Bank" are still allowed to operate demonstrates we do not live in a nanny state.

Although we should probably consider free nannies for the fools that fall for the Were Bank Scam, at least for as long as the Were Bank Scamsters are still allowed to operate.

grumbler

Yes, nanny.
PPI, packaged accounts, 'unfair' bank charges, 'unfair' CC surcharges, ...

Yes, it's surprising that some packaged accounts is a more important problem to deal with than a bogus 'bank' robbing uneducated people. And as so lengthy explanations from FOS are needed, this is rather a problem with the law than just with education.

colsten

I think you may have misunderstood what a nanny state is.

The state expected its citizens to make informed decisions for themselves, not to bicker about PPI, packaged accounts, 'unfair' bank charges, 'unfair' CC surcharges.

When on this earth will people take responsibility for their own financial affairs?

eDicky

If a person ventures down a dark alley in the wrong part of town at night, perhaps lured somehow, and has their wallet stolen by a mugger, they are considered careless and stupid for putting themselves in that situation.

Nevertheless, in a country which has rule of law, the actual mugging is a crime and the mugger will be prosecuted if identified and apprehended. This is nothing to do with ideas of "nanny state".

The victims lured into a scam involving a fake bank are displaying a similar carelessness and stupidity. Has the bogus banker committed a crime and been prosecuted? (I don't actually know) - or does rule of law in the UK vary in this situation?

I don't think "nanny state" comes into this either, it is something else more basic. . .

robatwork

Well they don't appear to exist. Website gone.

Other observation is that the FCA isn't impressed:
https://www.fca.org.uk/news/consumer-notice-were-bank
And I'm not impressed the FCA is using broken protocols (chrome shows its secure page is broken):
This page is insecure (broken HTTPS).

Paul_1977

Lets not fool ourselves, these people that sent off the Were bank cheques, they knew full well what they were doing.

grumbler

colsten wrote: »

I think you may have misunderstood what a nanny state is.

The state expected its citizens to make informed decisions for themselves, not to bicker about PPI, packaged accounts, 'unfair' bank charges, 'unfair' CC surcharges.

I don't understand your point. If the state isn't 'nanny' and expects informed decisions from from citizens, then there is no need in all these alleged misselling refunds pushed by the state. And the CC surcharges can be regulated by the market without state intervention.

When on this earth will people take responsibility for their own financial affairs?

Unfortunately, judging by FOS verbous rulings, in this case the law is far too imperfect/convoluted/flawed for the majority of people to make an educated decision. In this case, unfortunately, it's more a matter of common sense than the law, but in practice they don't always go together.

rizla_king

Paul_1977 wrote: »

Lets not fool ourselves, these people that sent off the Were bank cheques, they knew full well what they were doing.

youd have to be stupendously dim to think paying with fake money was legitimate or had the faintest chance of working.

JuicyJesus

Paul_1977 wrote: »

Lets not fool ourselves, these people that sent off the Were bank cheques, they knew full well what they were doing.

No person who actually had mental capacity could have read the WeRe Bank page and thought it to be anything other than weapons-grade b*llocks. If you were going to try it you were either too desperate or too greedy to register the fact that it was just clearly rubbish from start to finish, or knew it was clearly rubbish but thought it worth a punt anyway.

But, according to FOS, those mortgage-sized promissory notes they asked people to sign appear to be legally binding. Which is nice.

grumbler

rizla_king wrote: »

youd have to be stupendously dim to think paying with fake money was legitimate or had the faintest chance of working.

Define 'fake'.
Is a bitcoin fake? You can pay with them somewhere, but I don't think that any UK bank accepts cheques in bitcoins.