Comments on: London; not so bad as a tourist…

By: ian

ian — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:42:00 +0000

surely in the pic of St Pauls there is something wrong………..
how is the sky so blue??? it must be photoshop

By: Anna

Anna — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:22:30 +0000

Ooooh you provincials, you!

St Paul’s is fab actually but I would not pay that much to go in. About 12 years ago it cost £8 to go into the Tower – so I didn’t (but I had been as a child). If we still had proper British passports we could perhaps produce them for free entry. Of course Pete would still have to pay

I’d recommend the National Gallery and NPG rather than Tate modern. For that stuff you can try the baltic at Newcastle; it’s closer. Good bridges there too!

By: Paul T

Paul T — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:53:52 +0000

Hello
Technically, I believe churches can’t charge for entry. If you say you are going to worship, they must let you in. I suspect the maths are based on the fact that, with charging £10 entrance, they won’t get 1.5 M visitors in future!
Paul T

By: Laetitia

Laetitia — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 08:55:43 +0000

That’s what we did. Such a shame it’s so expensive. I wonder if you have to pay if you go to a service – assuming they still do those!

We didn’t see much of the Tate Modern – actually, we only went in at first to use their facilities. Philistines!!! I hadn’t realised it was free so I’d always avoided it previously. Will have to go back and take a proper look one day.

By: Rachel White

Rachel White — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 05:49:51 +0000

The Turbine Hall was empty when I went to the Tate Modern in September. Out of all the other gallerys, my favourite was the one with 4 or 5 big screens and the busy, almost epileptic array of videos that were being shown. Did you see that one?

St Pauls is a big shame. We went in the door and walked back out again.