Talk:Fort Halstead

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Neutrality

"Vital?". Can't see how a fortification that was constructed to meet an obsolete threat of invasion by Napolean could be "vital". It was built for ammunition storage between 1895 and 1897 and disposed of by Government auction in 1921: that's how important it was. It was reacquired by the War Office in 1937 for armament research, but again, it is hard to quantify how important it was to winning or preventing any conflicts. A local newspaper states that the land the establishment is on has now been sold and might be developed in to housing, which suggests it isn't needed now, either. --81.174.151.35 19:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully the changes I made last night have gone some way to improving the neutrality and accuracy of the article. I agree that references to "vitality" etc. were neither of the above. The link you provide appears to be speculation, given that the last paragraph explicitly states that Dstl have no plans to scale down operations at the Fort. DJR (T) 13:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Official Secrets Act

Reference to the Act in the context it was makes no sense, since all civil servents are required to sign in. Even I had to do that when I worked for the Department of Transport! Nick Cooper 22:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that now you've told us all - does that get you locked up in the Tower? :) Lynbarn 23:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Bah! I forgot about that! Nick Cooper 23:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)