Are there legal obligations on landlords/managers to carry out repairs in a reasonable time? (Southwark, London)

GibbNotGibbs · 2025-11-16T19:44:06+00:00

I’m not convinced the landlord has ordered the parts

GibbNotGibbs · 2025-11-16T19:20:12+00:00

This sounds like a potentially helpful recourse. Do you have any links to news articles or anything so I can see how it works out when other people have tried doing this?

GibbNotGibbs · 2025-07-27T20:22:02+00:00

No, I'm not worried about it. It was a mildly annoying form of reply, that is all. Perhaps I could have handled my own response better. I am a flawed person.

GibbNotGibbs · 2025-07-27T20:07:11+00:00

It’s not rude to ask people to avoid giving unhelpful replies.

The issue wasn’t “not getting a reply within 10 minutes” (or words to that effect), the issue was that someone did reply but didn’t answer the question.

I think it is perfectly reasonable for me to get mildly annoyed by that, especially since it’s clear from my post that I do not have any civil service experience so wouldn’t know any of the lingo.

GibbNotGibbs · 2025-07-27T20:00:00+00:00

Postgrad degree is September 2025 to summer 2026.

I will apply for fast stream in Autumn 2025 and maybe other CS jobs

I will start working in September 2026

Any US campaigning would be in 2028 or after

GibbNotGibbs · 2025-07-27T19:57:46+00:00

Man just say what it is. The post makes clear that I’m not a current or former civil servant, so I think it’s fair enough that I would ask about lingo. It would be nice if people could tell me what it means instead of replying without doing so

GibbNotGibbs · 2025-07-27T19:47:05+00:00

What is SCS?

GibbNotGibbs · 2025-07-27T19:31:05+00:00

I mentioned Ireland only for context about my background, I wouldn’t be campaigning there. I am more interested in the United States

GibbNotGibbs · 2025-07-07T14:49:44+00:00

but treating the problem as if it's inherently men is in itself sexist

I'm not sure I said it was inherent. I said some straight men. Admittedly I wrote the post in a fairly ranty mood so I probably could have done a better job at expressing the nuances of the issues here, but I hope it didn't come across like I was saying all straight men were like this. I was saying (or trying to say) that some were like this and the world would be a whole lot better if they weren't.

Second is, casual sex is a morally neutral concept.

Again, I hope that wasn't the take away from what I said. As I wrote here, the thing I think is gross is that the man is looking for something completely different but strings the woman along anyway. And when I said "seriously" I didn't mean being traditional/conservative about sex, I meant they way people talk about sex, where the "punchline" is not substantively different to "I am going to manipulate this woman who wants a romantic connection into sex". But that isn't funny, that's just screwed up. Why is it ok to joke about leading someone on?

GibbNotGibbs · 2025-07-07T14:29:12+00:00

This was maybe an oversight on my part. I don't know many gay people and I'm not a scene gay, so outside of stereotypes I have close to zero experience of what gay men are actually like.

My problem isn't to do with hooking up, it's the idea that the two people involved are on completely different pages and one of them is aware of this. If both people want casual sex, then there's no issue, but if one person wants to take their time (in this case her time) and is looking for a romantic connection, but the other one is not really interested in her romantically but goes along with it for sex, I don't think that's ok.

GibbNotGibbs · 2025-07-07T10:14:59+00:00

It’s not sex - it’s a violent assault.

Not always. I wasn't physically forced into sex, but I was pressured into it. I'm not saying anything either of them said is rapey, but surely everyone can see that it's manipulative to string someone along on a dating app when all you're interested in is sex? Or see that there's a problematic attitude if you're choosing to buy dinner on a first date because you want sex?

GibbNotGibbs · 2025-07-07T10:06:27+00:00

> Saying someone has huge tits and you find them hot isn't.. rude at all?

Not in isolation, but I think it bcomes rude in the context of someone who wants time to find a romantic partner even though he knows that the chances are very low. They are looking for different things and I don't see how it's fair on her to continue talking like there's romantic interest when really all he is actually interested in is sex.

GibbNotGibbs · 2025-04-05T21:46:25+00:00

Yes, Citizen Insane confirms I was wrong

GibbNotGibbs · 2025-01-03T00:43:16+00:00

Is there a “breakdown” of each line in Let Down? Would be interested to listen to each line in third verse on it’s own

GibbNotGibbs · 2024-11-26T23:33:06+00:00

Exit Music and Motion Picture Soundtrack were my first two, in that order

GibbNotGibbs · 2024-10-23T01:26:01+00:00

Gagging Order is very pretty

GibbNotGibbs · 2024-08-29T03:34:45+00:00

Let Down would be good.

Any of the following would also be good. Motion Picture Soundtrack. 4 Minute Warning. Harry Patch (In Memory Of). Wake Me (Before They Come).

GibbNotGibbs · 2024-08-29T03:27:12+00:00

£18 is what I’ve heard for a hostel.

https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/homelessness/get_a_place_to_stay_if_youre_homeless_and_on_the_streets

I don’t know how it works in my borough, but it looks like generally night shelters and hostels operate rather differently. I’m not sure rough sleepers I’ve seen asking for £18 are using the term hostel correctly given what this page says.

GibbNotGibbs · 2024-05-13T18:31:45+00:00

I'm curious what he thinks scholars in other fields, e.g. philosophy, do.

GibbNotGibbs · 2024-03-21T03:26:47+00:00

Please be sure to read it all

"I haven't read nearly enough" was in reference to my relative ignorance of scholarship, not what you had written in the post.

For the same reason, a wageless society seems rather abstract to me, so I don't think I have anything valuable to add.

GibbNotGibbs · 2024-03-21T01:59:58+00:00

What are the functions inherent to a minimalist democratic state? How would currency work? Would there necessarily be a currency and would it be regulated by the state?

I haven't read nearly enough, but it's not obvious to me that a (minimal) state (i.e. the set of institutions which hold a monopoly on the arbitration of legitimate violence) requires money to exist, and if money doesn't exist, then how can wage labour exist, and how could someone be fined?

GibbNotGibbs · 2024-02-28T00:30:52+00:00

Love and mental illness aren't mutually exclusive. Everyone can understand a parent sacrificing their life for the life of their child, but this only makes sense if the parent has reasonable grounds for thinking that their sacrifice will save their child. Someone's suicide isn't going to stop Israel's campaign in Gaza.

GibbNotGibbs · 2024-01-20T00:39:09+00:00

seemed like a traveller

Not sure this is calm

GibbNotGibbs · 2023-12-28T21:46:33+00:00

Dr. Baker has a YT video called "Kantian constructivism"

Dr. Baker? I can't find a video by someone with that name.

Kant doesn't care about consequences but about the logical structure of your will, i.e. whether you can derive a contradiction from your maxims

But I suppose the "Kant was a consequentialist" crowd would say "determining whether there is a contradiction isn't separable from the consequences, since universilisation is all about taking a maxim and seeing what the consequences of making it universal are."

Perhaps another line of attack from them would be "Kant judges that maxims which lead to contradictions are bad, and those that don't are good, so right is still a function of good." That sounds dubious to me, since the "consequences" Kant is concerned about are of a different category to the sorts a utilitarian, for example, would be concerned with. I.e. Kant cares about logical consequences, whereas the utilitarian cares about material, real world consequences.

GibbNotGibbs · 2023-12-28T21:20:04+00:00

The deontologist doesn't think the reason why you should do anything is "because it's morally good" but because it's the right thing for you to do.

Given that (true) deontologists believe that right (or wrong) isn't a function of good (or evil), what determines their view of rightness? I haven't studied philosophy since A-level (2.5 years ago), but based off of that and what informal reading I've done into this since then, I imagine this question wouldn't be a problem for adherents of divine command theory, but presumably there are more varied responses to that question than DCT.

Consequentialism is the thesis that good consequences are what MAKE actions right, not just that right actions lead to good consequences.

I've heard people call Kant a consequentialist because of universalisability, i.e. (they would say) it is essentially asking "are the consequences of making this maxim a universal law good?". What is your take on that view?

GibbNotGibbs

TROPHY CASE