
No
Living in a forrest would mean building on greenbelt land.
378 publicly visible posts • joined 29 Jun 2009
Is short for Monger, or Minger as it also know, not "Mongaloid", which is what your thinking of.
–noun
1. a person who is involved with something in a petty or contemptible way (usually used in combination): a gossipmonger.
2. Chiefly British. a dealer in or trader of a commodity (usually used in combination): fishmonger.
–verb (used with object)
3. to sell; hawk.
Origin:
bef. 1000; ME (n.); OE mangere, equiv. to mang(ian) to trade, act as a monger (≪ L mangō salesman) + -ere -er 1 ; c. ON, OHG mangari
It comes from the derogatory use.
Fine as a proof of concept, but realy, what is the worry for those of us who think a tinfoil hat is nothing more than a cheep way to finish off a fancy dress outfit?
Realy, how many people carry a passport around with them? The passport office says you should not. And out of those people how many don't have a mobile? And from that fraction, how many don't have another RFID chip on them, such as a work door pass or a bus pass?
I don't see what all the paranoia is about. There are much better things to worry about.
Profitable companys can fail through not having enough cashflow. Cashflow is just as important as profit, as without cashflow a company dose not have enough liquidity to pay its bills.
Facebook may be about to fail if investors pull out, but the fact is that all PLCs are in the same position. If all of the investors in BP pulled out then they would have no money, so would fail. The same with any company on any stock exchange, or any company with investors. That is the point in investment. Without seeing facebooks accounts you can't say what is happening to them.
Please don't type in CAPS and use lots of punctuation!!!??!??!?!?!?! unless you know what you are talking about, as it just makes you look stupid.
You don't understand. The private sector dose everything better than the public sector. The profitability and greater efficency has nothing to do with the fact that privet companys do what makes the most money rather than what is in the public interest, or the way they treat staff (to the letter rather than spirit of the law, and to minimum levels rather than best practice etc)
already show a big place police are going wrong. They confuse assertivness with agressivness. It would be so much better if they were trained to deal with the public in a better way.
I do not have a bad oppinion of the police, and I do not think the problem is down to inherant problems, but just to bad training, or lack of training. To many of them think that standing and shouting "shutit you slag" should get people to calm down, when all the need to do is say, in a calm voice "please do not speak to me like that." etc etc. I know it sounds like hippy crap, but people respond to aggresion with more aggresion or fear. Its part of being a human.