furthermore it shows persons as corporations and non for man or [wo]man

The whole point of a corporation or Ltd company is that they are legally treated as a "person" - separate from the living individuals that own the Ltd Company. Such corporate persons can own property (e.g. shares in other companies etc.), and are subject to laws separately from the owners.

It is well established, and is not (generally) a means of hiding ownership or being devious in any way. It is just the way corporations work.

If only there was an easy way to find out information about them...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giffgaff

It is even there on their website, if you look:

https://www.giffgaff.com/data/giffgaff_modern-slaver...

Why do the leg-work yourself when you can use this forum as a free consultancy service where other people do the work for you?

In reply to a post by jchamier:

yep i am real
point is
know who you are dealing with
it goes for view thereof that corporations hide behind other corporations
furthermore it shows persons as corporations and non for man or [wo]man

No different to VW Group that owns Audi, Porsche, Seat, Skoda, and even Bugatti. Or Toyota whom own Lexus.

VW also own Bentley of course .

In reply to a post by gods_child:

furthermore it shows persons as corporations and non for man or [wo]man

Quite apart from the main discussion I'm still puzzled by what that was meant to say.

Also by the "[wo]man". A very strange construction. How is it pronounced?

In reply to a post by pluralist:

Also by the "[wo]man". A very strange construction.

Maybe now part of the latest + group.

How could you forget Lambo and Ducati. Tut tut

In reply to a post by pluralist:

Also by the "[wo]man". A very strange construction. How is it pronounced?

Software programmer type construct for optional, essentially saying woman OR man. Some mathematics types would use "woman || man" for example.

Nope. I think you misread what the child posted.

I am familiar with the common || construction having spent my working life as a programmer and higher levels in the IT industry. But the quote I gave was "man or [wo]man". Your interpretation turns that into "man or man or woman" .

There is a remote possibiity the poster is fully woke so is catering for the possibility of a trans woman, (or the other way round?), but that begs the question of why not also a trans man. Maybe woman? 🤐