On 15/8/05, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed: > I know the catherdal does have a very aggressive (in the best sense) >preservation policy. If too many people have been ignoring a ban on >flash, it's possible that the cathedral decided to give up any possible >income from photography except for those wil ing to pay a commercial price.
This is a valid reason for banning photography, but for charging extra? Points all taken :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
