Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website ( — 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.


Vol. 27 No. 12 · 23 June 2005

Search by issue:

Getting Rid of Inheritance Tax

David Runciman (LRB, 2 June) mourns George W. Bush’s repeal of the federal estate tax, ‘the most progressive part of the American tax system’, which ‘had been on the statute book for nearly a hundred years’ and ‘took from the relatively few to relieve the burden on the very many’. Wrong. The US estate tax provided only 1.7 per cent of federal revenues in 1996. The ability of such a minor revenue raiser to relieve the burden on the very many is minimal.

There are two important reasons for getting rid of inheritance taxes which conservatives have been reluctant to emphasise. The first is that the revenue they raise is pitiful, bearing in mind the elaborate machinery required to collect them. The second is that they are easily avoided: one estimate is that even after leaks in the US estate tax were mended, in 1986 only $36 billion of an estimated $123 billion of inter-generational wealth transfers were reported in estate tax returns.

As an Australian lawyer specialising in tax, I have experience of Australia’s abolition of death duties, as we called them. They were first repealed in Queensland, and by the early 1980s there was complete repeal at state and federal level. Before this, the main burden of death duties had been on the middle class. The wealthy avoided inheritance taxes by discretionary trusts, offshore tax havens, governing directors’ shares and so on. More than two decades on, some death duty avoidance structures are still in place because they make it easier to minimise income tax.

A simple way of avoiding a death tax is to give your assets away while you are alive. An effective death tax therefore has as its ghostly companion a tax on gifts between living people. The US allows annual gift transfers of $10,000 or less per donee to be excluded from the gift tax base, which is part of the estate tax base. However, recurring annual gifts require liquidity and long-range planning which is beyond the capacity of many older testators, particularly if funds are tied up in a family business or farm. All of this may or may not stifle job creation, but it certainly makes estate planning complex, and may stop bequests being made to those who need the money, if it’s thought they might die soon, thus causing double tax.

Runciman suggests that raising the exemption threshold in America, which before 2001 was $675,000 for an individual, would have alleviated the impact of estate tax on family businesses. But inflation erodes thresholds and politicians can’t be relied on to maintain them. In 1916, the US estate tax exemption was $50,000, the equivalent of $11 million now.

Runciman worries that the repeal of death taxes is the prelude to an attack on progressive income tax. Australia’s top marginal income tax rate is 48.5 per cent, higher than in the US and UK, both of which have death taxes. In Australia we’ve been waiting more than 20 years for the other shoe to drop.

Geoffrey Lehmann

David Runciman cannot quite hide his rather British disapproval of the American attitude to wealth. It reminded me of a saying popular in the 1950s: ‘When an American worker sees his boss drive past in a Cadillac, he dreams of the day he will have a Cadillac. When a British worker sees his boss drive past in a Rolls-Royce, he dreams of the day he can pull him out and make him walk like everyone else.’

Victor Black
Lahitte-Toupiere, France

No Apartheid in Israel

Ilan Pappe writes of ‘white’ Israelis and ‘dark’ and then ‘black’ Palestinians, implicitly to suggest a comparison with apartheid South Africa, as Palestinian propagandists frequently do these days by referring to the ‘Apartheid Wall’ and so on (LRB, 19 May). As it happens, the Israeli of median coloration has a darker skin than the median Palestinian. Of substantive importance – unlike pigmentation silliness – is the continuous exercise of democratic representation on the part of Israeli Palestinians whose votes elect the many Israeli-Palestinian mayors, town and regional councillors, and members of parliament. If that had been true of apartheid South Africa, with one-man-one-vote representation at the local, regional and national level, the word ‘apartheid’ would signify the accomplishment of political equality, instead of its opposite. Moreover, a few brave and very imperfect experiments aside, Israeli Palestinians remain the only Arabs anywhere who do have civil rights and democratic representation.

Edward Luttwak
Chevy Chase, Maryland

The Right Toolkit

Partha Dasgupta assures LRB readers that the way many economists approach environmental problems is ‘the correct way to evaluate public policy … a policy should be accepted if and only if it is expected to lead to an increase in wealth per capita’ (LRB, 19 May). I am exasperated by such imperiousness, which will serve only to isolate economics further from the environmental debate. ‘There is no evidence’, Dasgupta continues, that Jared Diamond ‘even realises he doesn’t have the equipment to hand with which to study our interactions with nature’. He worries, too, that Diamond’s readers will ‘not even notice they haven’t got the tools’. The ‘tools’, ‘equipment’ and ‘toolkit’ to which Dasgupta refers are those of ‘modern economics’.

The vast majority of politicians, policy-makers and opinion-formers have no understanding or interest in intricate technical stories. More important, there’s little evidence that these technical stories have any influence on the thinking even of those who understand them. Market economists are supposed to respond to customer demand, not rebuke customers for failing to have the right toolkit.

Economists might begin by recognising the limitations of economic analysis. Dasgupta is right to emphasise the uncertainties that plague attempts to quantify natural capital, but wrong to imply that the solution is less ‘biased’ quantification. Since Keynes, most applied economists have accepted that genuinely uncertain outcomes cannot be quantified. Only the most austere Bayesians believe everything has a probability. Setting problems of uncertainty aside, quantification remains spurious. We would think it absurd to invoke cost-benefit analysis to justify say, homeland security policy. Environmental security should not have to pass such a test either. Bush and Blair know that cost-benefit analysis cannot legitimise their military expansion plans; they must appeal to morality. In this respect at least, environmentalism can learn from them.

Jonathan Aldred
Emmanuel College, Cambridge

Blood for Oil?

Retort cast doubt on the idea that oil resources might be reaching their peak (LRB, 21 April). They say, correctly, that oil statistics are notoriously unreliable, but then list a number of elements which they do not evaluate – indeed, which one cannot evaluate, as things stand – to support a ‘rather different picture’: ‘vast’ resources in the West African Gulf States, deep-water fields in Mexico and Brazil, Canadian tar sands, the Caspian, and ‘the emergence of Russia as an oil superpower’. However, the existing figures, despite their unreliability, still point clearly to a durable predominance of Middle Eastern oil. The BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2003 estimates that Mexico has reserves of 13 billion barrels, Brazil has 8 billion, Angola 5 billion, Nigeria 24 billion, Russia 60 billion; in contrast, the figures for Saudi Arabia and Iraq are 262 billion and 112 billion respectively. As to the idea that ‘new technological advances’ are about to redraw the map of energy resources, the techniques referred to are fraught with unresolved problems. Deep sea drilling, for example, risks disturbing volatile methane hydrate beds, while transforming tar sands into oil requires colossal quantities of water, sand and clay. The ecological impact of both systems is far more dramatic than that occasioned by conventional drilling.

Mat Pires
University of London Institute in Paris

Mr and Mr

James Davidson does not discuss an element of Alan Bray’s The Friend that to my mind comes across powerfully: the religious dimension of sworn brotherhood (LRB, 2 June). Bray suggests that this found its greatest expression in the writings of Aelred of Rievaulx, a Cistercian abbot of the 12th century. His ‘On Spiritual Friendship’ has been regarded as a beautiful, but exceptional, account of the ideals of medieval monastic life. Bray, however, sees the work as one which would have made sense to many people over several centuries. According to Aelred, ‘spiritual friendship’ was a love for another of such intensity that it afforded the two friends a glimpse of the love of God. Paradoxically, this divine love was experienced particularly on the death of the friend, since then the surviving friend would come to know the joy of his friend’s spiritual (internalised, we might say) presence. This is the union finally celebrated in the shared grave, and anticipated when the friends shared holy communion and the kiss of peace as the ritual seal of sworn brotherhood. The religious context is significant for public reasons, too: it gave the relationship social weight – in the same way that marriage did. It was the loss of the religious context for such friendship in modernity that made sworn brotherhood largely unintelligible and contributed to its disappearance. But it is not clear that Bray’s work can easily be recruited in support of gay marriage today. Rather, it shifts the ground on which both the religious conservatives and liberals stand: on the one hand, the fact that sworn brotherhood is ancient undermines traditionalists’ rhetoric; but, on the other, there is scant support for liberal arguments in these spiritual friendships.

Mark Vernon
London SE5

Look north

Nicholas Guyatt writes that ‘the Founding Fathers of the United States were mainly Southerners’: he lists Washington, Madison and Jefferson (LRB, 2 June). But Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, John Adams of Massachusetts and Alexander Hamilton of New York are usually considered Founders. One could also add Tom Paine, who lived for some years in Pennsylvania and died in New York. It was Hamilton who proposed the first Constitutional Convention and Gouverneur Morris of New York who wrote the final draft of that document.

Carol Hamilton

Tell me where I’m wrong

David Elstein’s claim that ‘hanging was commonplace in Kenya’ at the time of the Mau Mau rising is no doubt right, but it is wrongly based on the claim that during the period in which 346 Mau Mau were hanged for murder, 247 non-Mau Mau were hanged for the same crime (Letters, 2 June). This is not so; the correct figure is 99. This information is available in the capital punishment returns in the National Archives, CO 822/1256. The real point to be made from the figures is the extensive use of capital punishment under the emergency regulations for offences which would not normally have attracted a death sentence – between the declaration of emergency in October 1952 and September 1959 there were 744 such executions. These included more than 50 people executed for taking part in oathing ceremonies.

A.W. Brian Simpson
Sandwich, Kent

Do you have my book?

In his review of Lee Harwood’s Collected Poems, August Kleinzahler describes the activities of Stuart Montgomery’s Fulcrum Press in the late 1960s and early 1970s (LRB, 19 May). He doesn’t mention Montgomery’s final publication, my collection For the Flames (1974). This is hardly surprising because Montgomery’s bankruptcy coincided with a flood in his basement: almost the entire stock of For the Flames was drowned. A few copies did survive, though, and I would be interested to hear where they ended up.

Donald Gardner

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.