Re: Purpose of the list (was Re: [BPARK] Shugborough)

All...

Apologies for entering the discussion rather late but I was on one of
my semi-annual pilgrimages to the UK - BP/IWM/GCHQ/etc. - and unable
to access the newsgroups.

I believe that Geoff's comments - perhaps arising from frustration as
J.V. Field suggests in her comment below - were spawned by the fact that,
as often happens in this forum, the serious but necessarily muted cry
for help [or a least a few words of moral support] from Tony Sale that
began the thread was quickly submerged in a series of OT comments on
the rather amusing but not very relevant Shugborough 'project'. It was
to the  first of these postings that Geoff, quite reasonably, cried "off
topic".

I tend to agree with J.V. Field that any publicity is good as far as BP
is concerned and keeping the Park in the forefront of the news [even in
tabloids such as The Times :-)) ] is on the plus side of matters. Also I
feel that if this forum were to restrict its content within the limits of
its avowed charter [as posted by Geoff] that there would be even less
activity here we have currently - and that would be a bad thing!. What
we need to do however is to stay 'on topic' within a thread once it is
established. If someone must put in his/her "ten cent's worth" on some
subject outside of a current thread he/she should begin a new one...as
long as it has some relevance to things historically or currently
associated with Bletchley Park.

Currently BP [or at least it museum and archive components] seems to be
on a slide into the abyss and anything that can be done to stop such a
descent must be tried.

David Hamer

At 18:38 11/26/04, J. V. Field wrote:
>As the fairly sensible item on Radio 4 at 2200 made clear, the degree
>of Press and TV interest in the Shepherds' Monument inscription was
>probably due to its having connections with the myths about the Holy
>Grail.  This kind of story seems to sell.
>
>     I share Geoffrey Sullivan's frustration that the much more
>significant story about planned development at BP and the Colossus
>rebuild do not sell in the same way.  However, I reckon that all
>publicity that reminds the public of the existence of Bletchley Park
>and the activity there in WW2 is good for our cause.
>
>    It had not occurred to me to interpret the message Mr Sullivan
>cites in quite so restrictive a way as he seems to do, but I suppose
>one does need to keep some discipline about items.  Are we really
>never allowed a frivolous one that sheds light on the public image of
>BP?
>
>
>                                   J. V. Field

***************************************************
David Hamer                   [email protected]
***************************************************