> more likely to get planning permission if their new skyscraper included a free public roof terrace

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.

▲

fontain an hour ago | parent | next [-]

You must book in advance because they’re incredibly popular, huge queues, long waits, and capacity limits. The Sky Garden (Fenchurch Building) is huge, beautiful and absolutely packed with people. Many people consider it a London must visit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_Fenchurch_Street#Sky_garden

	▲	flotzam an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Ok that one looks legit :) 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.

▲

gib444 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

This is the country where organised marches must have police approval and follow an approved route (and most acute in London). Hardly a surprise!

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

	▲	wolvoleo 40 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		In most countries in Europe organized marches and protests must be run by authorities. It's pretty normal here. 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.
	▲	deaux an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Its not as if things are any better in the country that boasts the most about its freedoms regarding access to supposedly public spaces: https://www.instagram.com/780_lord_of_bench
	▲	baxtr 27 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Even within London people dislike each other! Saw many non-Arsenal fans cheering for PSG yesterday.
	▲	basisword 25 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		There are thousands of protests per year in central London. The larger ones (tens of thousands of people) are going to be disrupting public transport routes than people rely on. There's an approved route so that disruption can be managed. Nothing to do with being 'privately owned'. It also doesn't help that for a large number of people 'protesting' means travelling into London, getting drunk, and fighting.
	▲	fontain an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		How many protestors did the U.K. police kill in the last few years, compared to, say, a very free country… like the U.S? 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”.