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. 37 No. 16 · 27 August 2015

Search by issue:

Almost Lovable

Sheila Fitzpatrick is right to remind us how unpopular Stalin’s ‘wedding-cake’ architecture was in Soviet times (LRB, 30 July). The Poles in particular had more than just aesthetic grounds for resenting their Palace of Culture, a ‘gift’ thrust on them by the Russians. This was brought home to me during a tour of that overpowering building in 1965. Our group was taken to the public observation platform at the top, where our official guide rather daringly recounted a joke then doing the rounds. A Russian visitor goes up to admire the view from the observation platform and is pleasantly surprised, if somewhat puzzled, to find it jam-packed with Poles. ‘Simple,’ he is told on inquiring why this should be the case. ‘It’s the only place in Warsaw from where you can’t see the Palace of Culture.’

John Dewey
Wareham, Dorset

Weapons Inspections

As the first executive chairman of the United Nations Special Commission (Unscom) from April 1991 to July 1997, I read with some amusement Scott Ritter’s fanciful account of the UN weapons inspections in Iraq (LRB, 2 July). ‘The continued failure of Unscom to uncover significant proscribed activities and material in Iraq, combined with the political fallout from the no notice inspections, caused Unscom’s collapse in 1998,’ Ritter writes. By the time I left, Unscom had effectively identified and eliminated all the prohibited items identified by Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), which established the ceasefire after the Kuwait War, namely chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres. The IAEA reported at the same time that it had essentially completed its mission: to destroy, remove or render harmless any material that could be used to build a nuclear weapon, as well as related subsystems and research and manufacturing facilities. Any chemical weapons that Unscom inspectors identified were destroyed in a drawn-out process ending in June 1994. The situation with biological weapons was more complicated because the Iraqis consistently denied their existence, but by 1995 Unscom was in a position to provide complete proof of the existing biological weapons programme, which was finally eliminated with the destruction of the research and production facility Al Hakam in 1996.

Beginning in 1991, a number of undeclared ballistic missiles were found and destroyed by Unscom. The remainder of the Scud missiles, imported in the 1980s from the Soviet Union, were secretly destroyed by Iraq, and accounted for later by Unscom specialists, who dug up the buried components. Unscom concluded in 1996 that only two of the 913 imported missiles remained unaccounted for. (Ritter, like the US and the UK, insisted before the invasion in 2003 that Iraq still had a hundred missiles.)

When I left Unscom in 1997 I reported to the Security Council that Unscom, working with the IAEA, had uncovered the full extent of Iraq’s WMD programme. This was verified by Unscom’s successor organisation, Unmovic, which after four months in Iraq in 2003 reported to the Security Council that it had not found any prohibited items. After the end of the war in 2003 the Iraq Survey Group began inspections that lasted two and a half years (and cost $3 billion); its final report in early 2005 stated that it had found nothing to contradict the findings of Unscom and the IAEA.

Ritter writes that ‘intelligence provided by the US played … an important role in the Unscom inspections.’ US, UK and other intelligence organisations provided hardly any useful data during my tenure, with the one exception of the information that made possible the successful document inspection in Baghdad in September 1991. The rest of the intelligence produced by the US was seriously flawed and misleading. Instead, Unscom generated its own intelligence through the work of its Information Assessment Unit, which assembled and analysed data obtained by scientists in the field. Further intelligence was gathered by the IAEA Action Team and through Unscom’s overhead inspections using its own U2 high-altitude aircraft and a flotilla of helicopters.

Rolf Ekéus
Stockholm

Megafauna

Adrienne Mayor asks why Aristotle ignored the evidence of fossil animals and plants known to the Greek world, thereby consigning evolutionary biology to two thousand years of obscurity (LRB, 2 July). The simplest explanation is that Aristotle chose to ignore what did not fit neatly into his grand scheme of the eternity and immutability of organic life. While he may not have seen fossilised bones, he is unlikely to have missed the Sigri petrified forest on Lesbos, with tree trunks and root systems that have remained in their original position for more than twenty million years, ever since successive volcanic eruptions covered them with pyroclastic material. Many of the fossilised remains would still have been buried during Aristotle’s lifetime, but the pyroclastic material is easily eroded in places, exposing tree trunks. Even more conspicuous would have been the trunks lying underwater by the seashore. Aristotle’s disciple Theophrastus, the ‘father of botany’ from nearby Eresos, would surely have known about them and shown them to Aristotle.

The tree trunks, mostly of extinct pine, sequoia and cypress species, are remarkable in that silica has replaced the organic material, preserving the original structure of the wood; the growth rings are still visible. They look just like the pines and cypresses growing today on the island; to the uninitiated even the sequoia trunks look like large pines. Viewed this way, it becomes easier to understand how the petrified forest, rather than presenting a problem for Aristotle’s theories, would reinforce his idea of well-defined, fixed species.

Chronis Tzedakis
University College London

In Athens

Tariq Ali connects the events of this past month in Greece with those of April 1967, when the military seized the state (LRB, 30 July). This is a fundamentally unhelpful comparison. No one has been imprisoned or tortured in the last few weeks because of their political views; no one in Greece today fears for his or her life.

‘The Greek parliament voted overwhelmingly to give up its sovereignty and become a semi-colonial appendage of the EU,’ Ali writes. I believe that participating in an economic and currency union entails giving up some degree of sovereignty. Alexis Tsipras got elected on the promise that he wouldn’t lead the country out of the Eurozone. He didn’t have a mandate to go back to a national currency. If he had done that, he would be accused of treason.

The referendum of 5 July was a ‘calculated risk’, Ali writes. Tsipras ‘thought the “Yes" camp would win, and planned to resign and let EU stooges run the government.’ I haven’t met a single person in Athens who believes that Tsipras intended anything of the sort. Tsipras campaigned relentlessly on TV and in front of massive crowds in Syntagma Square. He went to great lengths to assure Greeks that a ‘No’ vote wouldn’t lead to Grexit. This seems a bizarre strategy if it was intended to get Greeks to vote ‘Yes’.

‘A planned Grexit would have been far better for Greece than what has happened,’ Ali adds. This is the usual revolutionary stance. In the last months, as Tsipras’s government has become the vogue among leftists around the world, we have heard similar views articulated by journalists, economists and theorists, ranging from Paul Krugman to Paul Mason and Joseph Stiglitz. But it isn’t their standard of living that will deteriorate if Greece leaves the Eurozone. Our country depends hugely on imports, has few products to export and is in desperate need of reform.

Xenia Kounalaki
Kathimerini, Athens

I find the German government’s current attitude to Greece incomprehensible. If in the years after 1945, when Germany was at its poorest and weakest, Britain, France and America had pressed West Germany for prompt repayment of war reparations, the country would have become the most abject in Europe. Instead, they did much to help West Germany to rebuild and prosper, and part of its debt was written off in 1953. But West Germany’s position was that a complete settlement depended on a peace treaty being signed, and that this could happen only when Germany was unified. Yet when reunification came, in 1990, there was no further mention of repayments: Germany’s entire war debt was in effect cancelled. Should this not be relevant to Germany’s treatment of Greece today?

Peter Dronke
University of Cambridge

Tariq Ali doesn’t say enough about the cancer at the heart of the Greek economy: tax evasion. In 2010, when George Papandreou was prime minister, Christine Lagarde sent the Greek government a list of the country’s principal tax evaders. All of them held undeclared accounts at the Geneva branch of HSBC; several of those on the list were members of or close to the Greek government. The list was ‘mislaid’. It became known to the Greek public two years later when Kostas Vaxevanis published the names in his magazine, Hot Doc. The Greek police proceeded to arrest not the tax evaders but the messenger, Vaxevanis.

John Saunders
Oxford

The Hijackers

If by ‘the Syrian opposition’ Brian Slocock means the Syrian element of the opposition to the Assad regime, I have not accused it of intransigence at all and, in quoting Lakhdar Brahimi’s assessment without comment, I accepted that the regime showed more intransigence in the Geneva II talks (Letters, 30 July). My central point is that the Syrian opposition’s sponsors – the Western powers, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia – queered the pitch early on with their insistence that Assad must go, a point that Slocock does not contest. Given the degree of dependence of the Syrian opposition on its external sponsors and the clearly stated position of these sponsors, it has been unrealistic to expect the regime to make concessions to its Syrian opponents for as long as their foreign sponsors’ position remains unchanged and the armed insurgency continues with external support. Hence my conclusion that Western policy should be changed, a conclusion Slocock does not address.

Hugh Roberts
Tufts University

Stuck with Them

Martin Sanderson isn’t correct that ‘neurons cannot repair themselves’ (Letters, 30 July). In fact, neurons are capable of amazing feats of regeneration: the peripheral neurons within the sciatic nerve are more than one metre long and can regrow along their entire length if damaged. Perhaps Sanderson is thinking of cell replication: it is true that neurons in the brain cannot be replaced if lost (it is fortunate that humans have so many to start with – around 86 billion). In terms of atomic turnover, hydrogen-deuterium exchange experiments prove that the individual atoms within neurons are constantly being replaced – but how long it would take for the entire brain to be renewed is anyone’s guess.

Peter Fernandes
University of Edinburgh

#lowerthanvermin

To add to the store of anecdotes about the afterlife of Nye Bevan’s speech (Letters, 30 July), Angus Wilson told me many years ago about a Labour politician coming to make a speech in the part of rural Suffolk where he lived and being prevented from doing so by a handful of old ladies in the front row who kept up a singsong chant of ‘We haven’t forgotten we’re vermin. We haven’t forgotten we’re vermin. We haven’t …’

Peter Smith
Buffalo, New York

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.