(First Port use the term "Development Manager" to label warden-janitors who look after the needs of the residents in a given address. A property manager is a person who manages the development manager and property managers are managed by regional managers who in turn answer to a wizard of oz with an address in New Milton down in the new forest
A ratcatcher is still a ratcatcher even if dressed as a rodent exterminator)
Below are four sheets sent out by FP to determine whether residents sorry leaseholders want a reduction in hours written into the terms for a new a change of hours on the appointment of a new warden. It is a ballot with three pages of explanation. Lease holders only can vote and each leaseholder has only one vote even though some own moere than one lease. Nobody knows how many votes are on the table in this ballot.
Nobody knows how many of the residents here rent thier accomodation from the lease holder. Nobody knows how many leaseholders live in their property. It is assumed that anyone who rents also lives but leaseholders may
1. Own the lease and rent out their flat or flats.
2. Own the lease but choose neither live in it or to rent it
3. Own the lease and live most of the time somewhere else.
4. Own the lease and live here all the time.
X. Think they own the lease of the flat they live in
Peruse the ballot paper and notice we do not know how many 'entities' are entitled to vote or who they might be. There are 48 accommodations in all and some have nobody in them. Some are inhabited by the leaseholder (voter?) some are uninhabited because the leaseholder chooses not to live here and others are rented out. Others are uninhabited because there has been an exodus of renters this year. Not even the local authorities seem to know who lives here.
"51%" of an unknown number is a nonsense but 51% have to exercise the plebiscite to make the ballot valid. 66% of some notional number have to vote 'yes'. 66% is of ALL leaseholders or 66% of those who return a ballot? And what about the 25% who might say nay and render the 66% option void? 25% of what? Do you get the impression that "looney bin" is a reasonable label to put on what looks like a farce. Leaseholders do not get to interview the prospective person even thought they pay the wages
A ratcatcher is still a ratcatcher even if dressed as a rodent exterminator)
Below are four sheets sent out by FP to determine whether residents sorry leaseholders want a reduction in hours written into the terms for a new a change of hours on the appointment of a new warden. It is a ballot with three pages of explanation. Lease holders only can vote and each leaseholder has only one vote even though some own moere than one lease. Nobody knows how many votes are on the table in this ballot.
Nobody knows how many of the residents here rent thier accomodation from the lease holder. Nobody knows how many leaseholders live in their property. It is assumed that anyone who rents also lives but leaseholders may
1. Own the lease and rent out their flat or flats.
2. Own the lease but choose neither live in it or to rent it
3. Own the lease and live most of the time somewhere else.
4. Own the lease and live here all the time.
X. Think they own the lease of the flat they live in
Peruse the ballot paper and notice we do not know how many 'entities' are entitled to vote or who they might be. There are 48 accommodations in all and some have nobody in them. Some are inhabited by the leaseholder (voter?) some are uninhabited because the leaseholder chooses not to live here and others are rented out. Others are uninhabited because there has been an exodus of renters this year. Not even the local authorities seem to know who lives here.
"51%" of an unknown number is a nonsense but 51% have to exercise the plebiscite to make the ballot valid. 66% of some notional number have to vote 'yes'. 66% is of ALL leaseholders or 66% of those who return a ballot? And what about the 25% who might say nay and render the 66% option void? 25% of what? Do you get the impression that "looney bin" is a reasonable label to put on what looks like a farce. Leaseholders do not get to interview the prospective person even thought they pay the wages
Homenene has a vultural harpie which perches, early morning, at the entrance to Hades, balefully monitoring comings and goings and picking salacious gossip out of the aether for editing, polarisation and forwarding ,,, to such ears are want to hear say twist and extrude to the vacuous
Homenene had a launderer until [he] imploded on the culmination of responsibility and accumulated burden of onersome duties outlined HERE
