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. 41 No. 19 · 10 October 2019

Search by issue:

Our Alien Planet

Don Lock reproaches Francis Gooding for failing to see trees as a ‘carbon capture technology’ (Letters, 12 September). He’s right in principle. Through photosynthesis, plants of every kind, from grass to redwoods, convert carbon dioxide in the atmosphere into bulk matter: the majority of the mass of any plant is carbon captured from the air. A plant is however only a temporary store of carbon, since that carbon will be released directly or indirectly into the atmosphere when the plant is consumed by animals, or dies and decays, or is otherwise disposed of. A forest is a large, temporary carbon store, in a dynamic equilibrium between growing trees and decaying or harvested trees; burning, and other forms of destruction, release that carbon ahead of schedule.

The point of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is to prevent a store from ever releasing its carbon. For trees, that would mean burying them deep beyond the reach of oxygen for a few thousand years, and planting replacements. Broadly, sequestered carbon is buried carbon, and the cause of our climate problems is our diligent unsequestering of carbon through its transformation into coal, oil and gas, which last saw daylight in the Carboniferous period.

What would this mean in practice? Even if we buried 10 per cent of the trees on the planet (10 per cent of about 422 gigatonnes of wood worldwide), we would roughly match only a year’s worth of CO2 emissions at 2017 rates. This would be at the cost of an epic expenditure of energy – and we would need to repeat the process every year. CCS (not involving trees) is not fundamentally implausible. But it is expensive, speculative, and designed to reduce industrial emissions, rather than remove carbon in bulk from the air.

Norman Gray
University of Glasgow

He never goes away

‘Enoch never goes away,’ said Nigel Farage, approvingly, about Enoch Powell (LRB, 26 September). Thalidomide victims and their families may agree. According to Harold Evans, the former editor of the Sunday Times, when, as health minister, Powell received a delegation of parents whose children had been affected by the drug, he rejected every request. No to a public inquiry. No to setting up a drug-testing centre: ‘Anyone who takes an aspirin puts himself at risk.’ No to issuing a warning against using any thalidomide pills that remained in medicine cabinets. No to meeting a thalidomide child himself, and no to issuing a statement after the meeting: ‘No need to bring the press into this.’

Rosie Brocklehurst
St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex

Ferdinand Mount mentions the Toxteth riots and the death of a man ‘who was struck accidentally by a police vehicle’. The man was David Moore, a disabled young man who was run down by a police Land Rover, which was being used as part of a dispersal technique – in which vans and Land Rovers were driven at high speed towards crowds – on the orders of Liverpool chief constable Kenneth Oxford. The technique was borrowed from the Royal Ulster Constabulary, as was the use of CS gas grenades (this was the first time they had been used in the UK outside Northern Ireland). Witnesses said it was impossible for the police driver not to have seen Moore.

Oxford had been a vigorous advocate of stop and search, and it was the constant harassment of local youths, and the violence deployed by Merseyside police that led to the riots. Margaret Simey, then the chair of the Merseyside Police Committee, said that the people of Toxteth would have been ‘apathetic fools’ had they not fought back.

Nick Moss
London NW10

Ferdinand Mount, in referring to Enoch Powell’s sinister version of the ‘loveable Brummie accent’, misses a key point in the Powell enigma. Powell was not a Brummie; he was Black Country, a ‘yam yam’. The contiguous townlands of Birmingham and the Black Country are quite distinct, and have enjoyed a healthy animosity since at least the English Civil War. To the Brummie, yam yams are stupid country bumpkins; to the yam yam, Brummies are untrustworthy, liars and thieves. Both points of view are essentially correct. It was maybe a factor in Powell’s move to Northern Ireland that he wouldn’t have to face his constituents in the ruins left by Thatcherism. And in the loyalist community, he would have found a homely simplicity that reminded him of his roots.

David Crook
Birmingham

Justice eBay Style

Frederick Wilmot-Smith draws much needed attention to what is going on in the court modernisation programme (LRB, 26 September). He notes that there has been a shift in the language used to describe the courts – where once they were a ‘place’, now they are a ‘service’ – on the part of those who advocate court closures: it is the process of adjudication that matters, they argue, not the place in which it occurs. It’s worth thinking carefully about what will be lost when the courts are no longer a place: local staff and local knowledge for a start. It is of critical importance, particularly to those without representation, that informed local staff be available to assist them, for example, in gaining access to local services and advice centres.

As Wilmot-Smith says, the proposed changes will exclude those with all but the largest claims from personal access to hearings. But the association between ‘legal importance’ and financial value is long-standing (Jeremy Bentham was complaining about it in the 1790s). Those who have less are more likely to be considered frivolous or litigious for bringing claims at all, the presumption being that even if the claim is important to them, it is not important enough to justify taking up the court’s time. As things stand, anyone who doesn’t show evidence of trying to ‘conciliate’ can be financially punished, should they wind up in court and lose, by having costs awarded against them. This is to further dissuade people from bringing claims at all (as if the cost of making a claim weren’t reason enough even for those with a legitimate grievance).

Wilmot-Smith sees that technology is affecting criminal proceedings, but its implementation is further along than he suggests. The Single Justice Procedure currently in operation allows individuals to plead guilty online to traffic offences. This may be convenient for many, but it isn’t clear whether people who do so fully understand the consequences of their decision, especially since the ease of making a plea online means that people may be less likely to seek legal advice before doing so. Once a guilty plea is entered, the proceedings to determine the penalty are closed. Why bother with a hearing, the argument goes, if everything has been set down on paper? As Wilmot-Smith puts it, ‘The more rhetorical that question sounds, the less sanguine I feel.’

Kate Leader
University of York

One Summer in America

Eliot Weinberger’s record of America’s descent into madness brought to mind the week I spent in Providence, Rhode Island in December 1987 as a would-be employee of Key Programs, a private social work organisation now involved in the incarceration of migrant children (LRB, 26 September). I had responded to an ad in the Guardian looking for social workers to work with vulnerable and homeless teenagers in a residential setting. On arrival, I was met by a member of staff, a qualified child psychologist, who began to tell me about the kinds of problem the young people had experienced and the therapeutic treatment available. Nearly all the young people referred to Key Programs had been living rough on the streets following family breakdown. Drug and alcohol problems as well as violence had characterised their lives so far. Now it turned out that handcuffs, leg irons and hosing down with cold water were the primary therapeutic tools in use. It was explained to me that this quickly brought about regime compliance, from where trusting relationships could be developed.

Martin Daly
Longniddry, East Lothian

At the Ponds

I found Alice Spawls’s article on the Hampstead bathing ponds bad news for two reasons (LRB, 12 September). When I first discovered the Ladies’ Pond, it was a peaceful place. The bathers were mostly either women’s liberationists or members of a group of older women who had fled from the Nazis in Central Europe in the 1930s and found in the women’s pond some compensation for the loss of the lakes they had known earlier in their lives. They also had other haunts, now vanished, among them Louis Patisserie and the Cosmo Bar on the Finchley Road.

It was also disturbing to discover that ‘water snakes’ inhabit the women’s pond. (Or are they actually eels? If so, perhaps irrationally, I wouldn’t mind them.) And it was the final straw to hear about the python. In these circumstances it seems better to retreat to the antiseptic calm and lane-discipline of the magnificent Kentish Town baths, though it would be wonderful if the Corporation of London were to consider opening up more of its ponds for swimming.

Elizabeth Wilson
London N6

Bernal’s Legacy

Steven Rose recalls that after attending the first meeting of the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science in 1969, J.D. Bernal ‘came back to a party at our house … To the younger generation of radical scientists gathered in the room the visit felt significant, as if a legacy was being handed down’ (LRB, 18 July). But what was that legacy? Rose discusses the Lysenko affair, surely the most egregious example of state interference in science during the Cold War, costing thousands of geneticists in the Soviet Union their jobs, and some of them their lives. J.B.S. Haldane left the Communist Party after that. Not so Bernal, who, virtually alone among Western scientists, aggressively defended Lysenkoism. On Stalin’s death in 1953, Bernal published a lengthy hagiographical tribute: ‘Stalin as Scientist’. What’s more, he promoted the idea that there was a socialist way of doing science, employing dialectical materialism, that was distinct from, and superior to, science as practised in capitalist societies.

In the end, Bernal’s commitment to Marxism-Leninism as exemplified in the Soviet Union trumped his commitment to science, blinding him to the persecution of his fellow scientists. For that reason I’m not sure he was such a good role model for the younger generation of radical scientists who emerged in the late 1960s, whose task was to see through the obfuscations and manipulations of state power on both sides of the Cold War divide.

Craig McFarlane
Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire

Memories of Leavis

Robert Fothergill refers to F.R. Leavis’s ‘very imitable sardonic drawl’ (LRB, 12 September). As a first-year student I asked him: ‘Which novels should we read that have been written since the death of D.H. Lawrence?’ ‘If you’re capable of asking that question,’ he responded, ‘you wouldn’t understand the answer even if I were to give it.’ This statement gave considerable pleasure to my fellow students, and reiterations of it, in versions of the sardonic drawl, greeted me on the streets of Cambridge for the rest of the term.

Peter Faulkner
Exeter, Devon

St Giles Cripplegate

Seamus Perry mentions Geoffrey Hill’s interest in ‘St Giles Cripplegate, destroyed in the war and rebuilt with City money, and which “now stands as icon to the Barbican Estate"’ (LRB, 12 September). It surely also had another significance for Hill, as the last resting place of John Milton.

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.