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. 31 No. 3 · 12 February 2009

Search by issue:


Henry Siegman worries that Israel’s attempt to hold on to the Occupied Territories will ‘bring about the end of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state’ (LRB, 29 January). But if democracies are judged by the way they treat their minorities, Israel never has been one. From 1948 to 1966, Palestinian citizens of Israel lived under military government, and though ‘Arab Israelis’ (the official euphemism) have been allowed to vote and to serve in the Knesset, their rights to purchase land have been restricted, their communities and schools severely neglected. In the words of Azmi Bishara, a Palestinian representative in the Knesset, ‘Israel is a democratic state for Jews and a Jewish state for Arabs.’ Bishara is now in exile, having been accused of providing Hizbullah with secrets with which he is unlikely to have been entrusted; Balad, his party, has been banned from running in the next elections. As Siegman surely knows, Israel has never hesitated to place its Jewish identity above its democratic principles whenever the two have clashed. The deterioration of the situation in the Occupied Territories is not so much jeopardising Israel’s democracy as exposing its contradictions.

André Bénichou

Henry Siegman says that he isn’t aware of a single major American TV channel whose coverage of the assault on Gaza questioned the Israeli line. He must have missed the extraordinary exchange broadcast live on CNN, after the station decided to fact-check the allegation made by the Palestinian politician Mustafa Barghouti that Israel, not Hamas, had broken the truce.

The exchange began with the presenter Rick Sanchez waving a sheaf of print-outs from the internet, the evidence for Barghouti’s claim. He read first from a US News and World Report story: ‘“The six-month ceasefire started coming apart at the beginning of November, after Israeli commandos killed a team of Hamas fighters during a raid on a tunnel."’ Then he said: ‘I got another one for you, I believe, here. OK, this is the Guardian. Questionable, but nonetheless.’ (In the US the Guardian seems to be seen as a Hamas mouthpiece.) ‘“A four-month ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza was in jeopardy … after Israeli troops killed six gunmen in a raid in the territory."’ After reading another extract, from the Economist, confirming that Israel broke the truce, Sanchez turned to his co-presenter and said: ‘So, the question as to who started this … Is this now a little more in question?’

The other presenter shrugged off this suggestion. ‘But you know,’ Sanchez said, ‘I guess what it is, Americans, we like our order; we want things delineated for us; we like to see a quid pro quo. They’re saying this happened. Are they right? And they’re saying this happened, are they right? It’s almost like we’re left – when you talk about the Middle East, you’re left with such subtleties that sometimes everything is vague …’ Then they moved on to less troublesome material.

Karl Sabbagh
Newbold on Stour, Warwickshire

Resident Aliens

David Runciman quotes Josiah Ober as defining Athenian democracy by ‘native male franchise, majority rule and authority of law’ (LRB, 29 January). Among the multitude of sins covered by that, two stand out. One is the absence of women from any formal part of the process, to which Runciman does make reference. But there is no elaboration at all of what is meant by ‘native’. This in fact excludes the whole commercial, entrepreneurial class of resident aliens, known as metoeci in Latin transcription, on whom much of Athens’s wealth depended. They did indeed benefit, to a limited extent, from the rule of law. But they could not sit in the Assembly, they could not be archons, and they could not hold military or naval commands. Athenian democracy, in other words, excluded, besides slaves, many of those who helped make Athens more than just any old city-state.

John Gretton
Lafage, France

All Too Human

According to Glen Newey, ‘copulating without regard to season’, ‘recreational killing’ and ‘torturing’ are all ‘distinctively human pastimes’ (LRB, 29 January). But our near cousins the bonobos are famous for having it off with each other, every which way, pretty much all the time (though Newey’s particular point may still hold, because the bonobos live in equatorial climes, where the seasons don’t change much). As for recreational killing and torture, what are we to make of a cat that spends an hour tossing a mouse around before finally breaking its neck, then walking away from the corpse? I concede that it’s hard – indeed impossible – to say for sure that the cat tortured and killed the mouse for fun: maybe it didn’t realise it wasn’t hungry (having forgotten, or not having the capacity to remember, the big bowl of Whiskas it had had for breakfast) until it came to the point of actually having to eat the mouse. Kill first, work out if you’re hungry later: no doubt there’s some plausible Darwinian reason why cats that behave like this are more likely to survive – maybe their owners find it cute. But then it’s not hard to come up with plausible reasons why finding certain things fun is more likely to make certain kinds of people, too, outlive and outbreed their peers: you can always rely on an evolutionary psychologist to take the fun out of fun.

George Adams

Glen Newey mentions ‘the early modern English spectator sport of hanging, drawing and quartering’. Not just early modern: in 1820, three people were hanged, drawn and quartered; one man in Glasgow and two in Stirling.

The widespread unemployment and famine that followed the Napoleonic Wars were accompanied by demands for political reform. On 1 April 1820, a few months after the Peterloo Massacre and the uncovering of the Cato Street Conspiracy (supposedly to murder the prime minister and his cabinet), a petition entitled The Address to the Inhabitants of Great Britain and Ireland was circulated throughout the West of Scotland. The government sent up from London the cavalry officer Sir Richard Hussey Vivian, who assembled 2000 infantry and cavalry. Four days later, a demonstration took place in Glasgow. Following a skirmish, about 20 men left the city to march the 20 miles to the Carron Ironworks, where they hoped to find weapons. On the way, they joined up with another 40 or so protesters. Before reaching Carron, there was another skirmish with the cavalry and 47 men were taken to Stirling Castle.

James Wilson, who lived 14 miles outside Glasgow, in Strathaven, did not even get as far as Glasgow or the demonstration, but, a known radical, was arrested close to his home, and charged on four counts. The jury found him guilty on one, ‘compassing to levy war against the king in order to compel him to change his measures’. He was sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered. On 30 August, Wilson was hauled head down on a hurdle to Glasgow Green, where he was duly hanged and beheaded. The crowd seems to have intimidated the headsman, however, because he did not quarter Wilson. On 8 September, the leaders of the march to Carron, two weavers called Andrew Hardie and John Baird, were hanged, drawn and quartered in Stirling. This punishment was not removed from the statute book until 1947.

Bill Gilmour

How can you tell?

John Borneman’s comment that ‘in all-female settings, the veil functions like a uniform, to create equality and erase outer distinctions,’ covers up one of the most basic, but seldom discussed, uses of an abaya: to display wealth (LRB, 18 December 2008). On the Arabian Peninsula, where I have lived for five years, women get their abayas and sheilas (headscarves) from a tailor, so they know the weight, drape, feel and cost of every kind of black fabric. Some of the more expensive shops attach a label or symbol to publicise the brand, which the cheaper stores will then copy. The women may, at first glance, look equal, but the choice of fabric, cut and decoration of the abaya and sheila, and the method of wrapping the sheila, show how much money the outfit cost, as well as how stylish the woman wishes to appear. And since men have to buy their own fabric to have a dishdash made, and will sometimes also buy abaya fabric for their sister or mother, they too know how to tell the quality of fabric. A student, trying to learn this body of knowledge in a new context, recently asked a colleague of mine: ‘How can you tell if a tie is expensive or cheap?’

Marielle Risse
Salalah, Oman

Bennett’s Dissection

Chris Horner says that he is ‘a bit mystified’ by Alan Bennett’s suggestion that pupils in private schools are better taught than those in state schools (Letters, 29 January). He explains his bit of mystification by the fact that the state school in West London where he himself teaches was recently told by the Ofsted inspectors that it was ‘outstanding’. Very well done, those teachers. I wouldn’t begin to know how Ofsted inspectors go about their duties, or how consistent their ratings may be, faced as they are with visiting schools in such widely disparate social settings. Horner’s personal experience takes nothing away from Bennett’s comment in any case, since none of those many of us who share Bennett’s ‘unease’ over the continued prestige or indeed existence of private schools would doubt that there is an overlap in terms of the quality of teaching between the two sectors, with the worst private schools teaching less effectively than the best state ones. But taking the sectors as a whole, we wouldn’t doubt either that the private schools do better, as examination results remind us year in year out. It would be nice to think that Bennett’s unease, and my own, might be lessened by what is currently going on in the economy. One of the green shoots I have enjoyed reading about in the past few weeks was one not of economic recovery but of the reverse, if you like, of the likely demise of some of the more tottery private schools, à la Woolworths, as the families of their pupils start finding it beyond them to go on paying the fees. May the next Tory government not get into office in time to bail them out.

John Scott
London N6

Domes, Domes, Domes

To rebuke me for slighting Buckminster Fuller’s achievements, Paul Taylor points out that Fuller ‘developed the material and invented the machinery for manufacturing’ the wood-fibre bricks that he sold as a young man (Letters, 1 January). That’s true, but so is what I wrote, namely that Fuller’s father-in-law designed the bricks, that Fuller was in charge of selling them, and that he failed at this task. In his 1989 biography, Lloyd Steven Sieden writes that Fuller was in charge of ‘every aspect’ of the company’s operation, ‘including sales, marketing and management, as well as engineering’, and was later to ‘admit that he was a terrible businessperson’. As Sieden tells it, Fuller fell short as a salesman, not as an engineer, and for the purposes of my summary, this seemed salient as a factor that may have contributed to the suicidal despair he experienced soon after.

Taylor also claims I was wrong to write that Fuller ‘saw no greater value in hand-made domes than in mass-produced ones’. But in Paper Heroes: A Review of Appropriate Technology (1980), Witold Rybczynski writes that

In an interview appearing in Domebook 2 Fuller was asked if he thought that there was any conflict between making geodesic domes by hand and mass producing them with high technology. Fuller answered that he himself had experienced the excitement of personal experimentation, ‘but after you’ve done it for a while and so you really feel it and understand it, you’ll feel that … there are more important things to do.’

Caleb Crain

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.