Scenic areas in England

[Shawn Hirn]

Hi everyone;

I will be visiting England on a very brief stay. I will have two days in
London, two days in Norwich, and two days in Liverpool early next month.
I am an avid amateur photographer. I am wondering if anyone on this
newsgroup can suggest areas of those three cities where I can go to
shoot some interesting photographs, but that are not like the ones
everyone else who visits those areas is likely to shoot. For example, is
there any tall buildings where I can get access to the roof legally
where I can shoot some interesting photos, or some unique parks, etc.?
Note that I will be relying 100% on public transportation.

[Deep Reset]

"Shawn Hirn" <srhi@************> wrote in message
news:srhi-95B8DA.07124604052009@news.newsguy.com...
> Hi everyone;
>
> I will be visiting England on a very brief stay. I will have two days in
> London, two days in Norwich, and two days in Liverpool early next month.
> I am an avid amateur photographer. I am wondering if anyone on this
> newsgroup can suggest areas of those three cities where I can go to
> shoot some interesting photographs, but that are not like the ones
> everyone else who visits those areas is likely to shoot. For example, is
> there any tall buildings where I can get access to the roof legally
> where I can shoot some interesting photos, or some unique parks, etc.?
> Note that I will be relying 100% on public transportation.

I think you should still be able to ascend St Paul's Cathedral in the City
of London. (stairs only)
Not far away is the somewhat shorter Monument (to the Great Fire of London),
near London Bridge.
Tate Modern Gallery on the South Bank opposite St Paul's has pretty good
views over the City and towards Westminster, though probably behind glass.

[ask before sending e-mail]

On 2009-05-04, boris spider <boris1066@**********> wrote:
>
> "Shawn Hirn" <srhi@************> wrote in message
> news:srhi-95B8DA.07124604052009@news.newsguy.com...
>> Hi everyone;
>>
>> I will be visiting England on a very brief stay. I will have two days in
>> London, two days in Norwich, and two days in Liverpool early next month.
>
> The viewing galley at the top of the tower of Westminster Cathedral
> (a 20th century Byzantine style redbrick Catholic Cathedral in Victoria not

there is also an observation deck at St. Paul's Cathedral. good views of
that part of London. it's a bit of a hike to get up there, but if you're
in decent shape, you should fine.

[Chris Malcolm]

In rec.photo.digital Shawn Hirn <srhi@************> wrote:
> Hi everyone;

> I will be visiting England on a very brief stay. I will have two days in
> London, two days in Norwich, and two days in Liverpool early next month.
> I am an avid amateur photographer. I am wondering if anyone on this
> newsgroup can suggest areas of those three cities where I can go to
> shoot some interesting photographs, but that are not like the ones
> everyone else who visits those areas is likely to shoot. For example, is
> there any tall buildings where I can get access to the roof legally
> where I can shoot some interesting photos, or some unique parks, etc.?
> Note that I will be relying 100% on public transportation.

Most people go to high places to shoot views. If you want something
different walk along the shores of the sea/rivers, or take boat
trips. Both scenic plus lots of interesting close detail, old dying
buildings alongside some of the most modern architecture.

--
Chris Malcolm

[barnaby]

On May 4, 12:12*pm, Shawn Hirn <s...@************> wrote:
> Hi everyone;
>
> I will be visiting England on a very brief stay. I will have two days in
> London, two days in Norwich, and two days in Liverpool early next month.
> I am an avid amateur photographer. I am wondering if anyone on this
> newsgroup can suggest areas of those three cities where I can go to
> shoot some interesting photographs, but that are not like the ones
> everyone else who visits those areas is likely to shoot. For example, is
> there any tall buildings where I can get access to the roof legally
> where I can shoot some interesting photos, or some unique parks, etc.?
> Note that I will be relying 100% on public transportation.

I'm not sure what the highest point open to the public is in Norwich
but you can get pretty good views from around the castle. I don't know
offhand if you can go on the roof, which probably is the highest point
in the city. There are also very good streetscape/roofscape views over
the market place - try the bike racks next to St. Peter Mancroft or
maybe the steps of City Hall as a vantage point.

Check out Heigham Park and the wilder Mousehold Heath.

The University of East Anglia, as someone else has mentioned, has an
eclectic array of interesting buildings from the 60s onwards. You can
roam the campus freely.

If you're into interiors, you must visit the Edwardian Norwich Union
building on Surrey Street with its "marble hall", one of the best-kept
secrets of Norwich. They welcome visitors and I imagine photography is
okay if you ask.

For industrial dereliction mixed with medieval remnants, wander along
King Street away from the city centre. The river in the other
direction (the other side of Prince of Wales Road) is also photogenic
in a much prettier way.

You won't really need much in the way of public transport in Norwich -
the centre is entirely walkable. The university is a bit of a trek out
but there's a regular bus service.

[Mike Lane]

Chris Malcolm wrote on May 7, 2009:

> In rec.photo.digital John McWilliams <jpmcw@************> wrote:
>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>> In rec.photo.digital John McWilliams <jpmcw@************> wrote:
>>>> I am curious as to what might constitute founded paranoia! Can you give
>>>> an example or two?
>>>
>>> Martin Luther King thinking assassins were plotting to kill him.
>
>> I submit, then, that that's not paranoia.
>
> Ah! So like most psychiatrists, your diagnosis of paranoia can change
> when the state of mind does not change but the world changes. I find
> that a very unsatisfactory definition, despite its popularity. It
> means that a secure diagnosis requires not only a psychiatrist but a
> detective.
>
Surely the term 'paranoia' implies that the belief is irrational and has no
foundation in reality. A totally rational belief based on evidence, that
people are trying to kill you, cannot be regarded as paranoia. Can it?

--
Mike Lane
UK North Yorkshire

[Chris Malcolm]

In rec.photo.digital Mike Lane <invalid@mac.com> wrote:
> Chris Malcolm wrote on May 7, 2009:

>> In rec.photo.digital John McWilliams <jpmcw@************> wrote:
>>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>>> In rec.photo.digital John McWilliams <jpmcw@************> wrote:
>>>>> I am curious as to what might constitute founded paranoia! Can you give
>>>>> an example or two?
>>>>
>>>> Martin Luther King thinking assassins were plotting to kill him.
>>
>>> I submit, then, that that's not paranoia.
>>
>> Ah! So like most psychiatrists, your diagnosis of paranoia can change
>> when the state of mind does not change but the world changes. I find
>> that a very unsatisfactory definition, despite its popularity. It
>> means that a secure diagnosis requires not only a psychiatrist but a
>> detective.

> Surely the term 'paranoia' implies that the belief is irrational and has no
> foundation in reality. A totally rational belief based on evidence, that
> people are trying to kill you, cannot be regarded as paranoia. Can it?

There's no problem distinguishing between people who are totally
rational and people who are completely deluded. The problem is that
most cases arise in an uncertain world of which we have imperfect
information, in which everyone is partly rational and partly deluded.

--
Chris Malcolm

[Bob Larter]

Stormin Mormon wrote:
> Please remember that England is socialist. You don't have
> rights there, unless they decide you do. Please ask the
> local folks what is permitted, so you don't get in trouble
> with the law.

Are you kidding? I can tell that you've never been to England!

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
--^--^--

[Chris H]

In message <gu11dc$dgp$1@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
<william.black@***********.uk> writes
>
>"Jack Campin - bogus address" <bogus@purr.*************> wrote in message
>news:bogus-F1EE70.10523408052009@news.albasani.net...
>
>> Very little of the IRA's funding came from North America - about 10%,
>> of which only a fraction would have had anything to do with NORAID
>> (being a charity, they were audited). Most of their funds were raised
>> in Northern Ireland itself by protection racketeering.
>
>Almost all the guns came from the USA.

Not all.

>Almost all the explosives came from Libya.

Again not all.... but then again Libya was even handed and trained both
sides PIRA and UDA

>Talk about an unholy alliance...

The US trained the Taliban and AL-Qeada (despite being told at the time
by SIS it was a bad idea) Now that was an unholy alliance. It has since
backfired.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[J. Clarke]

William Black wrote:
> "Jack Campin - bogus address" <bogus@purr.*************> wrote in
> message news:bogus-F1EE70.10523408052009@news.albasani.net...
>
>> Very little of the IRA's funding came from North America - about 10%,
>> of which only a fraction would have had anything to do with NORAID
>> (being a charity, they were audited). Most of their funds were
>> raised in Northern Ireland itself by protection racketeering.
>
> Almost all the guns came from the USA.

It's my understanding that most of the firearms owned by the IRA were
Kalashnikovs, which were not made in the US until after the "assault weapon"
ban prohibited imports in 1986. The American made versions are quite
expensive when compared to the Russian and Chinese versions (you used to be
able to get a Chinese AK for under a hundred bucks, retail--buying a case
lot from the wholesaler would be a lot cheaper). While there might have
been some US involvement, to say that almost all the guns originated in the
US requires more evidence than I've seen.

> Almost all the explosives came from Libya.
>
> Talk about an unholy alliance...