Close

Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website (www.lrb.co.uk — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.


  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.
Close

Letters

Vol. 27 No. 10 · 19 May 2005

Search by issue:

Tell me where I’m wrong

In the opening paragraph of his review of David Anderson’s Histories of the Hanged and Caroline Elkins’s Britain’s Gulag, Bernard Porter attacks me and my book Empire, which he refers to as a ‘panegyric to British colonialism’ (LRB, 3 March). This misrepresents the book. My conclusion is explicit. ‘No one,’ I write, ‘would claim that the record of the British Empire was unblemished. On the contrary, I have tried to show how often it failed to live up to its own ideal of individual liberty, particularly in the early era of enslavement, transportation and the “ethnic cleansing" of indigenous peoples.’

What I do argue is that the British Empire was nevertheless on balance preferable to the available alternatives:

The 19th-century empire undeniably pioneered free trade, free capital movements and, with the abolition of slavery, free labour. It invested immense sums in developing a global network of modern communications. It spread and enforced the rule of law over vast areas. Though it fought many small wars, the empire maintained a global peace unmatched before or since. In the 20th century too the empire more than justified its own existence. For the alternatives to British rule represented by the German and Japanese Empires were clearly – and they admitted it themselves – far worse. And without its empire, it is inconceivable that Britain could have withstood them.

I am still wondering what part of that argument Porter and other critics can credibly disagree with.

As to my memories of the two years I spent in Kenya as a child, I make it perfectly clear in the introduction that these are not the basis of the book’s argument, which is rooted in modern economic theory and historical scholarship, not least Porter’s own.

Porter wonders why I do not discuss Mau Mau in the last chapter of my book. The last chapter is concerned to explain why the British Empire declined and fell. I try to show that nationalist or other indigenous resistance movements, Mau Mau included, had very little to do with this, compared with Britain’s parlous financial position after 1945.

Niall Ferguson
Harvard University

More like Supermarkets

David Runciman hasn’t got the economics of PFI quite right (LRB, 21 April). More than once he says that Labour has looked to the private sector for additional capital. That argument was widely used by New Labour ministers in the mid-1990s to bring around laggards in the constituencies. The trouble is, it isn’t true (and that’s why you never hear them say it any more). Under PFI, the private sector finances capital expenditure, i.e. borrows the money for it, while the public sector funds it through the annual payments it makes to PFI consortia. Any additional capital is thus paid for by the public sector alone. PFI is a mechanism by which the government borrows through an intermediary (at a higher rate of interest than if it had borrowed in its own name). Allyson Pollock shows in NHS Plc how the high costs of PFI-related debt servicing have led to major reductions in NHS capacity: since 1997, 12,000 NHS beds in England have closed (5 per cent of the UK total), many of them in hospitals procured under the PFI. The first 14 PFI hospitals had their budgets cut by 25 per cent, which they mostly managed by hiring fewer nurses. All Labour’s arguments in favour of PFI now turn on risk transfer, which Runciman rightly takes a jaundiced view of as there is little evidence of the private sector assuming any real risk. The PFI debt bubble and associated contractual problems are already unravelling: witness the Jarvis schools PFI scheme in Brighton.

Pace Runciman, there is every reason to suppose that Blair does not mean what he says when he talks about maintaining the NHS as a non-discriminatory system that is free at the point of delivery. As Pollock points out, he is the first prime minister to introduce time limits on NHS care, and to introduce charges for personal and nursing care in NHS hospitals.

Neil Vickers
King’s College, London

I note from David Runciman’s article that the health secretary no longer answers questions about the operations of foundation hospitals in view of their relative independence. Do we know how much John Reid’s salary has been reduced to reflect his reduced responsibilities?

Richard Guy
Tonbridge, Kent

How the Tories Used to Be

James Meek credits ‘the Labour transport minister, Herbert Morrison’, with setting up London Transport in 1933 (LRB, 5 May). But the London Passenger Transport Board, which brought all public transport under a single management, was established by the (Conservative-dominated) National Government in 1933. Baldwin’s government had been working towards this end in collaboration with the public-spirited entrepreneur Lord Ashfield before MacDonald’s Labour government took over in 1929. Herbert Morrison is indeed to be praised in this connection – it was his scheme that the National Government adopted – but by 1933 he was out of office and more or less running the London County Council, whose chairman was ex officio one of the LPTB’s trustees. London Transport was only one of several public corporations that interwar Conservatives sensibly put in charge of national utilities: the BBC, the Central Electricity Board and the British Overseas Airways Corporation chief among them. Conservatives in those days were not as doctrinaire as they were to become two generations later.

Geoffrey Best
Oxford

Obstacles to Seeking Asylum

Katharine Fletcher draws attention to the role of ‘incompetent government agencies’ in the application of punitive government policies (Letters, 5 May). As someone frequently called on to produce expert witness reports in regard to the claims of asylum seekers from Africa and the Middle East, I have noticed that Home Office case workers and adjudicators are overworked and often have very little time in which to prepare their cases. Melanie McFadyean, writing in the Guardian on 24 November 2004, quoted one adjudicator as saying that ‘typically … adjudicators get case papers at 10 a.m., hear appeals at 11 a.m., and then have only one day in which to consider four cases.’ Under these circumstances, they are obliged to rely on the Home Office Country Information Policy Unit (CIPU) reports. Often these are simply quoted verbatim, irrespective of their relevance or otherwise to the case in question.

Given this reliance on secondary material (few of the case officers or adjudicators appear to be familiar with the real conditions in the countries from which asylum seekers have fled), it is worrying that the CIPU reports are often woefully inadequate. In an analysis of a range of CIPU reports published in October last year, which Fletcher discussed in her original piece (LRB, 17 March), the Immigration Advisory Services (IAS) expressed ‘serious doubts’ about their validity. They also drew attention to the ‘particularly problematic’ use of ‘out-of-date material’. The government announced measures to improve the standard of country reports, but the effect of this remains to be seen. Furthermore, the number of reports has been reduced from 35 to 20. For the many other countries from which people seek asylum, there is no single up-to-date and accurate source of information for overburdened Home Office officials.

The lack of real knowledge or understanding of the conditions prevailing in many countries from which people are seeking asylum, combined with strong political pressure to reduce the number of those granted asylum, often results in crude and essentially punitive decisions. Many of these are then upheld, often in the face of strong contradictory evidence, resulting in unjust outcomes and in untold harm to those individuals who are sent back. Sometimes, these crude decisions, based on inadequate but ‘acceptable’ reports are, rightly, subject to appeal and further legal proceedings, all of which consume significant public resources. While some of these appeals are successful, of course many are not. But it is by no means clear that the eventual outcomes, taken as a whole, truly reflect the balance between cases where there are real risks of harm to the asylum seeker and those where the risks are limited. The frequent failure to determine the outcome of asylum cases on the basis of adequate, up-to-date information, carefully evaluated by an adjudicator with both the relevant expertise and the time to do the job properly, means that it is hard to argue with any confidence, as Matt Cavanagh does (Letters, 31 March), that ‘tax-payers’ money is going to the people who are entitled to it.’

David Seddon
Norwich

Blood for Oil?

The piece by Retort (LRB, 21 April) brought to mind Blair’s monstrous prewar mendacity: ‘It’s got nothing to do with oil.’ He must have considered what Larry Goldstein, president of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation, told the Wall Street Journal on 16 January 2003: ‘If we go to war, it’s not about oil. But the day the war ends, it has everything to do with oil.’ When the liberators reached Baghdad, the only ministry they protected was the Oil Ministry. Now the newly ‘independent’ government appoints Ahmad Chalabi – convicted in Jordan of embezzling $20m from a bank – to run it.

Sydney Bernard Smith
Dundalk

Along the Corniche

I visited Beirut some ten days after Mustafa Bayoumi’s return to New York (LRB, 5 May). By then a fourth bomb had exploded in Broumanna, east of Beirut. The Martyrs’ Square tent city was quiet and orderly. Mourning citizens continued to pay their respects at the shrine to the former prime minister Rafik Hariri. Preparations were in train for National Unity Day, the 30th anniversary of the civil war’s ‘official’ beginning in 1975.

Bayoumi’s tone is apprehensive and pessimistic. It is plainly discouraging to hear young Lebanese with relatively limited knowledge, and no direct experience, of the 15-year conflict, talking of doing the same again. But meanwhile everyday life in Beirut feels as ‘normal’ and free from tension as one could hope for anywhere. I was staying in the suburb of Hamra. In the evenings its streets are busy with all the usual trades and services: hot food, shirt-makers, shoe-menders, hairdressers, hooting taxis. Along the Corniche Beirutis promenade, jog, roller-blade, power-walk or stroll, chatting, smoking, eating snacks from street vendors. As for restored downtown Beirut, it is Hariri’s great monument, drawing people back to the city centre, to the new shops and the dozens of restaurants and cafés.

No more bombs were reported during April. By 13 April there were fewer than four thousand Syrian soldiers, and withdrawal was eventually declared complete on 26 April. Of course, the bewildering sectarian fractures in Lebanon run as long and deep as ever. But Lebanon’s chief of Security Services, thought to be a central instrument of Syria’s control, resigned within a day of the farewell ceremony. The elections at the end of May offer more encouraging prospects than the last two generations of Lebanese have dared hope for.

Graham Brown
Shrewsbury

How to Survive the Vortex

Zaphod Beeblebrox does not survive exposure to the Total Perspective Vortex ‘because he has such an enormous ego’, as Thomas Jones would have it (LRB, 5 May), but because he is, without knowing it, in an artificial universe fabricated for him by a Hitchhiker’s Guide employee called Zarniwoop – a universe in which he really is the most important person. I’ve just seen the new film. It’s not as bad as everyone says; sadly, it’s not as good either.

Timothy Knapman
Weybridge, Surrey

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.