We haven't been able to take payment
You must update your payment details via My Account or by clicking update payment details to keep your subscription.
Act now to keep your subscription
We've tried to contact you several times as we haven't been able to take payment. You must update your payment details via My Account or by clicking update payment details to keep your subscription.
Your subscription is due to terminate
We've tried to contact you several times as we haven't been able to take payment. You must update your payment details via My Account, otherwise your subscription will terminate.

Points

AFRICAN AID: The anti-Geldof bandwagon seems to be gathering steam, fuelled by its usual dollop of lamentable ignorance (Letters, last week). To attack Geldof for slating eBay while apparently failing to condemn the misappropriation of aid money is not just unfair, it totally misses the point. The most pervasive and cynical form of corruption is the bribery (disguised as “aid”) of corrupt rulers in return for “free trade”. Alas, the more relevant issue of trade justice rears its ugly head again. Perhaps we should pay that the attention it deserves and confine any clumsy commentary about the problem of actual and moral corruption to the pub lunch. — Gbenga Abosede, London E17.

Advertisement

STUDENT FEES: The article Fees give students a gap-year dilemma (Money, last week) may have confused students. If an English student who is eligible to go to an English university in September 2005 decides to take a gap year before starting in 2006, then as long as they receive confirmation of their deferred place by August 1, 2005, they will be eligible for the same fee system as a student who started in 2005. Students should not wait until after they have received their exam results before they apply for deferred entry, as they will not qualify for the arrangements if they miss the August 1, 2005 deadline. — Diana Warwick, chief executive of Universities UK.

Advertisement

MASSACRED: I should like to thank Andrew Roberts for praising my book so generously, while yet managing to misunderstand it (Books, last week). If he believes that I blame only “the aristos” for the Terror, it is no wonder that he thinks I am completely wrong. In the passages he quotes concerning the September Massacres, I make the point, with perhaps too delicate an irony for him, that the killings were both horrible and not a practical response to the threat posed. However, many honest people at the time saw things differently — and because it was that viewpoint which produced the killings, it is the one I am trying to explain, not claim as my own, with “sarcastic chippiness” or Spartspeak. — David Andress, Portsmouth University.