If that's the deal, it's crazy that some of those places are getting away with then discouraging the public from actually going there. Book your visit in advance! Present ID! Photography forbidden! This grumpy security guard will be hovering nearby <3
It's like Nathan For You S03E01 where a store advertises a $1 TV, then tells the drawn in would-be customers to please respect the black tie dress code, crawl through a tiny door, and squeeze past the alligator.
It's a fantastic idea, but enforcement sucks on intangible things like this. In a few years time I'm sure it will be 'closed for maintenance' then never reopen to the public or a nice restaurant will go up there and suddenly you'll need a restaurant booking to use the lift.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_Fenchurch_Street#Sky_garden
But it doesn't explain the ridiculous security (scanning gates, had to take off my hat and belt, insulin pump was inspected), the prohibition of "professional" photography equipment, prohibition of own food and drinks (again, diabetes, I want to carry some lemonade and a bar for emergency), etc etc.
Is it to counter terrorism? To boost consuming at the establishments? Or is it a lame excuse thats in reality just a higher bar to entry?
They’re worried that if there was an incident they might get sued for having inadequate security.
I’ve spent a lot of time going to places with security like this (airports, museums etc) and getting a belt with plastic buckles (you can get them at outdoor clothing stores) saves a lot of hassle.
"Certain items cannot be brought into The View from The Shard including large bags and backpacks, over the size of 22 x 15 x 8 inches (55 x 38 x 20 cm) or other large equipment."
"We ask guests to walk through metal detectors, which use a low-frequency electromagnetic field to look for metal items."
https://www.theviewfromtheshard.com/frequently-asked-questio...
Next door you need to go through a scanner to get up to the restaurants on the 31st and 32nd floor of the Shard.
Security in these buildings is very arbitrary. I can get that some of the more high profile places feel more of a need for security, and assume that anyone up to no good will perhaps not be the brightest of the bunch and/or will go for more symbolic targets, but still.
Incentives align among all three.
I was thinking more about his experience with e.g. the last one on the page, Roof Garden at The Post Building:
> I still don't understand why it's here nor why it's open daily, nor why they insist on Photo ID "and a full written name" before they'll let you up. However I didn't get the chance to test this out yesterday because when I arrived the roof terrace was "closed due to essential maintenance work", inconveniencing probably nobody but myself.
You might need to queue for a little while on a weekend or at prime lunchtime.
The others you need to book weeks ahead, so agree with the previous post that they do make it hard. Sky Garden is not one of them.
To be fair it's not just that, you won't find many actual londoners in central full stop unless they're going to work
I’ll often meet and hang out with friends in central London.
> actual londoners
So which is it? Lots of expats in London. They aren’t tourist but they aren’t born-and-bred londoners, are they?
My experience living in the UK was that we’d go off as a family to visit Arundel Castle or one of the hundred other amazing things nearby, and the Brits I worked with would say “oh yeah, I went there on a school trip…” or “oh I’ve heard it’s nice.”
Denizens of a place don’t always appreciate what their location offers. That doesn’t make them cool or better than tourists.
That said, I agree that central London is not somewhere I desperately want to go every day. But there’s a lot of great stuff there.
I think I'm just jaded from trying to wade through waddling masses of tourists whenever I make the mistake of going anywhere remotely central on a Saturday or Sunday, but I get why if you're a tourist that stuff probably seems cool
London's vibe is: 'privately owned, and you're lucky to be here'
Edit: I'm British btw (and currently sat in a pub in London) in case people downvote me thinking I'm a yank lol. There are many people who dislike London and the UK who aren't yanks
Protesting is a legal right but the authorities do have the right to restrict it for public order reasons. For example they often will insist on separate routes to keep conflicting groups apart. It makes sense too.
You have to notify the police not get approval. They can "impose conditions and restrictions" for safety or to limit the rights of others to travel freely, after which they'll also be somewhat liable to protect you from counter-protesters, or lunatics trying to drive their car at you.
Just about every country requires some kind of advance notice if its not just a few people walking along the pavement/sidewalk and your going to obstruct traffic or block others movement
https://groups.friendsoftheearth.uk/resources/your-rights-an...
Reform's manifesto includes[2]: "Stop the Boats with our 4 Point Plan. Leave the European Convention on Human Rights."
[1] https://fra.europa.eu/en/law-reference/european-convention-h...
[2] Page 5 of https://reformuk.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Reform_UK...
Saw many non-Arsenal fans cheering for PSG yesterday.
edit: responding to your edit, of course many British people hate London and for many valid reasons, but your reasoning is very American. Very few British people share that American view of freedom and would describe London as “privately owned”.
and the city of London is literally a private corporation.
For god's sake how ridiculous. Give over
What's your basis for commenting on us Brits? You can't even spell UK correctly (we don't use full stops. That's an Americanism / hypercorrection). You spell with a z, so not a Brit
The irony is that the beliefs you’re espousing are an infection caused by U.S. cultural dominance of politics on the Internet. Anti-woke right wing people are heavily influenced by American political attitudes. Do you also believe in Birmingham’s no-go zones?
British people are miserable and cynical and hate everything about our godforsaken country but London being “privately owned” is not one of those things. Civilized protest is not one of those things.
oh the delicious irony of the GP being anti-americanisation while regurgitating US right wing talking points
side note: the fact that right wing politicians in the UK (tories/reform) are literally copy pasting US stuff is frankly a fucking national embarrassment. literally importing their views, rhetoric and policies from another country, oh the irony.
"Auditing" videos are antagonists causing trouble and videoing it, often either deceptively editing or outright fabricating interactions. People, of course, have strong views, regardless of race or religion, and antagonising them is going to bring out the most extreme of those views. Going to an area with many muslims and trying to antagonise muslims does not make a no-go zone. You can go to whitechapel any time day or night and the only risk is a pissed up local, which, ironically, won't be a Muslim because they don't drink. Alcohol is the main cause of danger in London.
Wow what an amazing coincidence. I bet you've lived in Dewsbury, Oldham, Bradford and Oldham too
> won't be a Muslim because they don't drink.
Lol straight up lies. I went to uni with a few Muslims, and live in an area with many, and they definitely like a drink. They /say/ they don't drink. There's a difference. This again shows you're ignorant of British (British Muslim) culture
Just like not all Jewish people are orthodox and not all Christian’s are catholic.
The GP was correct when they rebutted the ridiculous “no-go” claim.
And yes, someone who lived in London for most of their adult life will have spent a lot of time in major parts of the city, that is not very surprising. I ate at the Whitechapel McDonalds hundreds of times.
In case you're interested, the most dangerous part of London I've lived was Mile End because of that weird, creepy, hideous hotel, next to the bus stop, that turned out to be the one used by the Russian poisoners that came to London on their way to wherever it was they killed those people. I was metres away from Novichok! Far scarier than any Muslim.
https://nypost.com/2024/02/29/business/california-hoa-with-f...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/02/california-w...
https://www.hcn.org/articles/public-lands-a-battle-over-beac...
Bit of an aside, but although the area around Greenwich is lovely, I've always preferred walking the Thames Path out west, eg Putney to Richmond. Very peaceful and green, and IIRC all pretty accessible (apart from a stretch of the path near Barnes that is completely underwater when the tide is high).
My experience is that it works well in general, but some landowners are better than others, and some highway authorities (which enforce the laws) are more zealous than others. Most of the issues I see around me is farmers allowing crops to grow through low use footpaths such that they become impassable.
The other tricky bit of PRoWs is that any path used by the public for 20 years continuously, without force, secrecy, or the landowner's permission, is legally presumed to be a public right of way, even if it isn't shown on the definitive map kept by the local authority. That can lead to legal fights e.g. [1] and [2]. There are also 'permissive footpaths' where landowners have agreed to allow the public to pass, but not become a PRoW. There are also s106 agreements (planning obligations) where developers must allow the public to use land as a footpath. The Thames Path has a mix of these.
In Scotland, there is a more general 'right to roam' which allows anybody to access most land (excepting buildings and their curtilages, military sites, and other obvious exceptions), but there are affirmative duties to maintain PRoWs that don't apply to open access land making them still relevant. England and Wales have some limited open access land as well, but much much less of it. NI has no open access land and (subjectively) fewer public footpaths.
[1] https://www.ramblers.org.uk/news/ramblers-win-court-appeal-1... [2] https://www.ube.ac.uk/whats-happening/articles/pippa-middlet...
>City Hall sits entirely on a private estate owned by a Kuwaiti investment company. Protesters are not allowed to gather without corporate permission.
Which this?
They apparently moved the location, but protesting at the new location is still heavily restricted [0] with a dystopian narrative.
> In order to achieve the balance between the rights of those holding a rally and the rights and freedoms of others to go about their business we have put together this guidance and simple application process.
[0] https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/city-halls-buildings-an...
City Hall is no longer on a private estate, no Kuwaiti investment company is involved, and the application process involves no "corporate permission" - you submit a form to the city government, and it sounds like the point is to make sure each rally is allocated a separate area, and they don't deny permission outright.
> Every single thing in the text you (inaccurately) quoted.
Your first sentence makes no sense. It's quoted directly from the Guardian article, not from me.
> it sounds like the point is to make sure each rally is allocated a separate area, and they don't deny permission outright.
FWIW, look at the next article I linked. You're really understating the restrictions for a public, outdoor venue. This is on brand with restrictive public use.
- No noise directed outwards
- no noise after 6PM
- confined to two lawns (that can't fit more than 3k people)
- no sound speakers
- no overnight rallies even if quiet
- leave no trash
- no food for others
- you're strongly advised to fill out a notification form if your group is larger than a dozen people
Most of those restrictions sound pretty standard and reasonable! No amplification is the only one that I’d be upset about as an organizer.
I didn't remove anything.
It seems you're reading and responding to different discussions.
> London’s seat of democratic governance now sits entirely on a private estate owned by a Kuwaiti investment outfit. John Biggs, the London Assembly member, tells me he has been prevented from doing television interviews outside the building by private security guards who insist he needs a special permit; protesters are not allowed to gather without corporate permission. “I think that as active citizens we’ve got a reasonable responsibility to test and push at these public/private borders,” he tells me. “It’s clear we’ve got the balance wrong at the moment.”
You “quoted”:
> City Hall sits entirely on a private estate owned by a Kuwaiti investment company. Protesters are not allowed to gather without corporate permission.
That’s a summary! But not a quote.
Or closed for years at a time due to construction.
but yes there is very sparse information and instead of examples i get "NetworkError when attempting to fetch resource." and it says "free" here and there but free forever, free until?
Otherwise there are plenty of other roof terraces which are bars/restaurants. Typically more enjoyable as you don't have to book tickets and you get to enjoy a drink.
Though while the bar is reasonable, Aqua Shard is overpriced if you're going their to eat (the food is good, but you can get better food for the same/similar price elsewhere, including at Hutong, one floor up).
But if you're going to a bar in the Shard, Gong (52nd floor), Ting (35th) and Hutong (32nd) are all higher up. Gong and Ting also has the advantage that you don't have to pass through that ridiculous security scanner (entrance is via the Shangri La hotel)
bummer
If you've got friends/fam with you it is definitely worth paying for the observation deck at the shard.
I was curious about what type of arguments you could make to win a case like this.
"The Supreme Court commented that the degree of overlooking from visitors to the Tate gallery was so extreme it subjected the residents to being “much like being on display in a zoo” and held that there is no reason why constant visual intrusion cannot give rise to liability for nuisance."
https://www.tlt.com/insights-and-events/insight/supreme-cour...
Really strange take, that applies to so many situations where tourists gather
The apartment building was built years before the Tate Modern opened their viewing floor. After the Tate Modern viewing floor opened, visitors to the Tate Modern began photographing and videoing and watching people in the neighbouring apartment building.
The judge reasonably determined that there is some sacrifice of privacy made when choosing to live in a glass apartment building, but the Tate Modern's viewing floor's compromise of privacy was so egregious that it should not be allowed regardless of planning permission.
There are many buildings all over London that look over one another, many of those occupied by very very rich people, it was not corruption.
>Isn’t it just you have a window to look in or not? And every building has windows to look in if you choose to not draw the blinds?
For example, there would be a pretty big difference between my neighbour being able to see into my apartment and my neighbour organising tour groups to look into my apartment.
I don't mind my neighbour, it is reasonable to expect that my neighbours will be able to see into my apartment. I however could not reasonably expect that my neighbours would host some sort of organised viewing activity on a regular basis.
In a tall apartment / skyscraper I bet not more than 10% ever have or close their curtain. Also they paid those prices to look at that view so they want to do that. (A flat there is £1-5M)
Only if you have a license, right?
A busy viewing terrace is not an ordinary use of space, building one looking right into private homes isn't cool regardless of how wealthy the residents of those homes are.
That's simply not what the court case was about. I pasted a bit from the ruling in a sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48345234
Do you have 20+ people looking into your home all day long, taking photos and posting them on instagram?
Visitors in the viewing gallery frequently look into the claimants' flats and take
photographs, and less frequently view the claimants and their flats with binoculars.
Photographs of the flats are posted on social media by visitors. On the platform
Instagram there were 124 posts in the period between June 2016 and April 2018. It has
been estimated that those posts reached an audience of 38,600. Mann J found that
there was a significant number of people using the viewing gallery who demonstrated
a visual interest in the interiors of the flats, including by looking, peering in, taking
photographs and waving to the occupants. He accepted that their numbers and the
level of interest were such that a homeowner would reasonably regard this as intrusive
so far as the use of the south side of the viewing gallery was concerned (by contrast,
the western side of the viewing gallery is at an oblique angle to the flats, offering only
a limited view into them).
Knife crime is generally an order of magnatude lower than many US cities I'd also be happy to visit.
It's higher than the rest of the UK but then it is a big city.
(I live in a very rural and crime free part of the UK but love visiting London).
https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/the-image-of-la...