Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote: > > My understanding was the government weren’t pulling the plug, but that > Bletchley Park wasn’t funded by the government in the first place and > the government had refused to provide funding. >
A friend of mine is an archaeolgist who has specialised in WWII archaeology in this country of late, and often laments the almost total loss of many valuable sites. I suspect it was a consequence of winning the war and losing the peace - times were pretty hard after the war from what I have read, and I wonder if there was little by way of resources for preserving the past when the future was, at the time, so insecure? It's still a shame when you think of the effort and sacrifice that was involved that we have so little to show from that period. > A shame, certainly, but I don’t think it’s quite on the same level > (especially bearing in mind that Turing wasn’t the only person to be > treated in such a manner). Agreed, and once you start down that path I would imagine it goes on forever, although that's not to say the sentiment is unworthy of consideration. Perhaps by honouring his massive contribution to the war effort and modern computer science, while at the same time acknowledging his sexuality, and the fact that it was (a) not his choice, and (b) entirely his own business, we also acknowledge those otherless prominent folk who suffered similarly? Sean -- Next meeting: Dorchester, Tuesday 2009-09-01 20:00 Dorset LUG: http://dorset.lug.org.uk/ Chat: http://www.mibbit.com/?server=irc.blitzed.org&channel=%23dorset List info: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dorset
