Traveling to London in February

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:47:57 -0700,
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:



a.spencer3 wrote:

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:27:15 -0800 (PST), wrote:


I'm bringing my 11-year old to Europe (from US) to see London, Paris,
and Normandy. Any advice on where to stay or where to avoid? I've
never been to the UK but greatly looking forward to it. Any advice is
appreciated.


London in February! :-))

Well, it depends upon where in the U.S. the OP is from, but
I found London in January far warmer than much of the U.S.
is at that time of year! (Even coming from Southern
California, I haven't found winter in Europe nearly so cold
as similar lattitudes in the U.S., and NEVER as bad as the
Minnesota winters I was raised with.)

Perhaps. But in Minnesota one can stay inside and warm on crappy
days, while the whole point in travelling is to get outside and
around.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"a.spencer3" wrote in message
...


On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:27:15 -0800 (PST), wrote:

I'm bringing my 11-year old to Europe (from US) to see London, Paris,
and Normandy. Any advice on where to stay or where to avoid? I've
never been to the UK but greatly looking forward to it. Any advice is
appreciated.


London in February! :-))

London is full of tourists every month.

There's always things to do

tim

"Hatunen" kirjoitti
om...
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:47:57 -0700,

Perhaps. But in Minnesota one can stay inside and warm on crappy
days, while the whole point in travelling is to get outside and
around.

Can't see one reason why a tourist could not do just that in London. Get
your umbrella along.

Make credence recognised that on Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:43:02 -0700,
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" has scripted:

This may be off-topic, but perhaps not - in the U.S., quite
a few restaurants offer lower prices at noon than for the
evening meal. If that is true in London, too, your
suggestion of a light supper in one's room makes even better
sense. (Provides more chance to work off the calories, too,
if one's heaviest meal is at noon.)

I don't recall their being many lunchtime bargains around.

In London the prices are always high, but your choice of dining will
determine to what extent. Going for an Angus Steakhouse will guarantee
a set level of service and quality of food, that's for sure, but
instead it's better to opt for the places with high turnover.

M&S have good takeaway food (think sandwiches) at reasonable prices.
Pret is not bad tastewise, and Wagamama offers unexciting but decent
'Asian' food.

That said, most food in London is crap though. For decent stuff (which
does exist), you will pay.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Doesn't Frequently Mop wrote:
Make credence recognised that on Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:43:02 -0700,
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" has scripted:

This may be off-topic, but perhaps not - in the U.S., quite
a few restaurants offer lower prices at noon than for the
evening meal. If that is true in London, too, your
suggestion of a light supper in one's room makes even better
sense. (Provides more chance to work off the calories, too,
if one's heaviest meal is at noon.)

I don't recall their being many lunchtime bargains around.

In London the prices are always high, but your choice of dining will
determine to what extent. Going for an Angus Steakhouse will guarantee
a set level of service and quality of food, that's for sure, but
instead it's better to opt for the places with high turnover.



I know that Angus steakhouses should have improved after the extremely bad
press they got for their hygiene standards,
but I still can't face eating in one!!

Jan



M&S have good takeaway food (think sandwiches) at reasonable prices.
Pret is not bad tastewise, and Wagamama offers unexciting but decent
'Asian' food.

That said, most food in London is crap though. For decent stuff (which
does exist), you will pay.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---

Hatunen wrote:

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:47:57 -0700,
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:
[]
Well, it depends upon where in the U.S. the OP is from, but
I found London in January far warmer than much of the U.S.
is at that time of year! (Even coming from Southern
California, I haven't found winter in Europe nearly so cold
as similar lattitudes in the U.S., and NEVER as bad as the
Minnesota winters I was raised with.)

Perhaps. But in Minnesota one can stay inside and warm on crappy
days, while the whole point in travelling is to get outside and
around.

London is generally not that cold, even in February, and rain, contrary
to popular belief, doesn't persist in that city.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"He can't be as stupid as he looks, but nevertheless he probably
is quite a stupid man." Richard Dawkins on Pres. Bush"

Jan wrote:

Doesn't Frequently Mop wrote:
Make credence recognised that on Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:43:02 -0700,
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" has scripted:

This may be off-topic, but perhaps not - in the U.S., quite
a few restaurants offer lower prices at noon than for the
evening meal. If that is true in London, too, your
suggestion of a light supper in one's room makes even better
sense. (Provides more chance to work off the calories, too,
if one's heaviest meal is at noon.)

I don't recall their being many lunchtime bargains around.

In London the prices are always high, but your choice of dining will
determine to what extent. Going for an Angus Steakhouse will guarantee
a set level of service and quality of food, that's for sure, but
instead it's better to opt for the places with high turnover.



I know that Angus steakhouses should have improved after the extremely bad
press they got for their hygiene standards,
but I still can't face eating in one!!

Good choice IMO- I would never go to an Angus Steakhouse. There are lots
of excellent restaurants in central London, but try not to eat in the
busiest touristy areas- as the restaurants there are often of low
quality. If you like Chinese, for example, go to chinatown- it's easy to
spot the ones with lots of people of chinese appearance dining inside-
choose any of those. Soho also has a wealth of good restaurants, despite
the tourists there, it's also popular with locals, and plenty to choose
from.

London prices are high however- they will seem even worse to an American
given current exchange rates.

As I mentioned before, many restaurants do early evening specials, and
lunchtime specials too.

Check out congokid.com for reliable reviews. His site doesn't
specifically cater to lower budgets, but plenty of cheaper places are
reviewed there.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"He can't be as stupid as he looks, but nevertheless he probably
is quite a stupid man." Richard Dawkins on Pres. Bush"

Make credence recognised that on Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:14:11 +0000,
(David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) has scripted:

Hatunen wrote:

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:47:57 -0700,
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:
[]
Well, it depends upon where in the U.S. the OP is from, but
I found London in January far warmer than much of the U.S.
is at that time of year! (Even coming from Southern
California, I haven't found winter in Europe nearly so cold
as similar lattitudes in the U.S., and NEVER as bad as the
Minnesota winters I was raised with.)

Perhaps. But in Minnesota one can stay inside and warm on crappy
days, while the whole point in travelling is to get outside and
around.

London is generally not that cold, even in February, and rain, contrary
to popular belief, doesn't persist in that city.

No, but it's usually depressingly grey and wet.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On Nov 15, 3:14 pm, (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
(*)) wrote:
Hatunen wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:47:57 -0700,
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:
[]
Well, it depends upon where in the U.S. the OP is from, but
I found London in January far warmer than much of the U.S.
is at that time of year! (Even coming from Southern
California, I haven't found winter in Europe nearly so cold
as similar lattitudes in the U.S., and NEVER as bad as the
Minnesota winters I was raised with.)

Perhaps. But in Minnesota one can stay inside and warm on crappy
days, while the whole point in travelling is to get outside and
around.

London is generally not that cold, even in February, and rain, contrary
to popular belief, doesn't persist in that city.


Compared to most other major cities in Europe and cities in the US,
London actually does not get more rain than average. However, it has
a lot more cloudy days than most cities, so that's where the
perception for rain comes from.

On Nov 15, 7:00 am, wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:27:15 -0800 (PST), wrote:
I'm bringing my 11-year old to Europe (from US) to see London, Paris,
and Normandy. Any advice on where to stay or where to avoid?


Don't miss Mont St. Michel in Normandy.

Tesco (grocery store), Marks and Spencers and other places have
wonderful sandwiches, fruit in small packages, and yogart, etc. I would
take something like that back to my hotel room at night rather than
eating at an expensive restaurant.


London has lot of inexpensive "ethnic" restaurants that are a much
better option for most budget travelers than eating a packaged
sandwich in your hotel room. London has many excellent Indian
restaurants in particular, and you can easily find very good Thai,
Vietnamese, Greek, Italian and Turkish food.