Vic: many thanks for finding and posting that. Without any knowledge of the dispute beyond what appears in Derek Schofield's note, I'd say he has given a masterly reply to those who approve of freedom of expression only when the the sentiments expressed praise their work or match their own views.

I do not accept that deep specialist knowledge is always required to make someone a readable, even compelling reviewer but there are circumstances, such as those implied, where it helps a great deal.

This may also have been covered - it is a while since I read this thread - but I would admit to being less than keen on anonymous reviews. I understand the journalistic reasons that probably prompt Ian Anderson to run them in the fRoots section of brief reviews, but feel it offers too much ammunition to those ready to pounce on any excuse to put down the reviewer. Oh, and reviewers should by definition be thick-skinned