Talk:BT Tower

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

London High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Skyscrapers Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Architecture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"When the GPO telecommunications services were privatised in 1981 the tower was renamed the London Telecom Tower " -- wasn't that just the split of the BT from the post office? AFAIK, privatization didn't occur till the 90s. -- Tarquin 17:48 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

MMmm. Dunno, but it must be possible to find out ... a couple more thoughts to mull over: the thing about a "stab" of aerial - is that poetic, or just a mistake?? Also I didn't understand the "of its time" sentence and added "typically": I hope this helps. Also I hate to nitpick but I wondered where the 0.17km/h came from - is it the speed at the outside? Oh well. Nevilley 18:20 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

I've been in it when it was rotating -- that's just about right: you can walk over the seam in the floor between the core and the restuarant without being in any danger of falling over. Nice food, too. The Anome 09:47 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out the speed - I found the 0.17km/h a bit meaningless unless qualifed by where it was ... once in 22 mins is clear enough. Oh and can you also tell us who we have to be nice to to get invited in ??? :) Nevilley 19:41 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Clarified current uses a bit. The Anome [ BT was separated from the Post Office in 1981, and privatised in three stages - the most famous being the first 50.2% of the shares in November 1984. The other two tranches were sold in 1991 and 1993 [1]. So the date of privatisation is 1984 for most purposes. --rbrwr

The Guardian's article on the listing [2] says that "unknown to the public, the tower was secretly designed to withstand a nuclear attack on London". Does anyone know any more? --rbrwr

Why has this been moved to "BT Tower (London)"? How many other "BT Tower"s are there in the world? To my knowledge, this is the only one. -- Anon.

• BT Towers in Birmingham and on Cannock Chase,, as I noted on the page. Andy Mabbett 13:19, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There are other large telecommunications towers in the UK, but as far as I know the London one is the only one called 'BT Tower'. There is an office block in Swansea called 'BT Tower', however. Secretlondon 13:20, Nov 1, 2003 (UTC)

There is a whole chain of hill top towers in the UK. Look at Subterranea Britannica for their article on the so-called 'Backbone' Secretlondon 13:23, Nov 1, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, BT has towers (with various names) all over the place, but there is only one famous structure whose official name is "BT Tower". I suggest the page goes back to BT tower, with disambiguation header

For information on other towers owned by BT see ...; this article is about the BT Tower in London

-- Anon.

• Official name of the tower in Birmingham, which is famous, is "BT Tower". Andy Mabbett 13:42, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

When was it ever correctly known as the "Thames TV Tower"? Indeed how could it be? I would have thought the correct progression would be: GPO Tower, Post Office Tower, Telecom Tower, BT Tower. 194.75.3.217 (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't verified this yet but it is commonly said that the BT Tower (London) was originally on the Official Secrets Act which meant it was not marked on maps (landmark or otherwise) and there would technically be a penalty for taking a photography of it (almost definitely never enforced) - Presumably, the Tower was recently taken off the Official Secrets Act.

Yes, it was. I've added a link to the Hansard report from http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199293/cmhansrd/1993-02-19/Debate-5.html Mnbf9rca 00:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have also read that the towers inner core (not the glass bits) is rounded to aid the survivability of a nuclear explosion. However, I would guess that by the time the structure was finished, the science of nukes had overtaken the science of buildings.

And I've also read of one of BT Towers' uses being an element of 'backbone'; the Cold-War defense network.

So, the question is, who really knows enough about these elements of the Tower to write on them? - A good start might be a wikipedia writer who happens to have a late '60s or '70s Ordanence Survey map of London ;)

Cold war use you say?I remember a BT worker telling me back in 2001 that there is a bomb shelter underneath the tower. He had to go in every six months and replace all the stocks of food held there. No references available of course.. --Anonymous Coward

I've done some original research into these matters, and therefore can't put it on Wikipedia! But a few comments: (1) The idea that taking a photo of the tower was an offence under the OSA was comprehensively thrown out in 1978 in the ABC Secrets case. (2) A cylindrical structure makes for low wind resistance, which minimises the tower's deflection in a gale. It would also reduce its vulnerability to bomb blast, but I've not seen any evidence that it was designed for that reason. (3) The tower was not part of the "Backbone" chain, which circumvented the big cities in order to avoid bomb damage. It did however handle links for air defence radar. (4) The tower is connected to the BT deep level tunnel network under London. There is even a 1965 Pathe newsreel showing the connection between the two. Harumphy 21:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly taking a photo of the tower can't have been considered a threat - otherwise the makers of Bedazzled (as actually mentioned in the article) would have been in big trouble. -88.109.255.229 20:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

most of these points are fact, referenced in the article. It's also in Hansard. Obviously some elements are not always enforced. That law applies to many different things and obviously has no exception for the tower. OS maps didn't show the tower, neither does the deed for the land. Almost all civil buildings had stocked bunkers during the cold war - plenty of public evidence. Artlondon 22:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find this "secret" aspect to be very strange. The 1966 Doctor Who serial "The War Machines" showed the tower, even people working inside the tower (although I'm sure the actors were actually in a sound studio). If the state-owned BBC could show the tower, how could there have possibly been a law against doing so? 70.20.211.100 (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. In 1976, commercial television even filmed "The New Avengers" there (presumably with permission!).

All the Backbone microwave towers were excluded from maps at one time. This is clearly preposterous in the case of a very tall building in the middle of London, especially one with a high profile public restaurant on top of it, but the official mind likes to be consistent. The cover story for the tower was the need to distribute the new 625 line colour TV service coming into use, and indeed Backbone did carry some of this traffic along with air defence radar data and other military stuff. When the network was being planned the defence thinking was based on an attack by fission weapons delivered by bombers, and it was thought that central London underground bunkers would survive such an attack, and the PO Tower would too, though the microwave horns would probably all be destroyed. By the time it had actually been built the world was in the H-bomb age and nothing in central London was expected to survive an all out attack. --Ef80 (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hitchens states that he was involved in a trial whereby reference to the existence of the Tower in an open court breached the OSA and thus was referred to as 'Location 1'. He stated this on two separate occassions, broadcast on C-SPAN in 1988[3] and 1990[4] (notably, before the parliamentary debate of 1993). Additionally, he appears to refer to it in writing in 2010[5] although does not explicitly name it here.

All telephone exchanges and facilities operated by the Crown were deemed "prohibited places" under the Official Secrets Act 1911, and this was extended to those operated by BT by the Telecommunications Act 1984.

It is totally false to claim that the Post Office Tower had any particular special status. It was only an offence to gather information on a prohibited place if that was done to "aid the enemy", but it is a bit of a stretch to say that any court would ever have been convinced that revealing the location of the tower or photographing it in a general sense would be giving such aid.

Mauls (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here -- TinucherianBot (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just who was the "Doctor Bennett MP" who raised a question in parliament about the crane on the tower when it was being built? Did he have a first name, or was it "Doctor"? Wikipedia's list of British MPs past and present - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_MPs:_B - has two Bennetts, neither of them doctors or in parliament in 1963. Earldelawarr (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Bennett is probably who you are looking for. Baldwin Clere (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's 36 floors, not 34. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU7_AerIdY0 82.2.49.195 (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Microwave links have been replaced by subterranean fibre optic links for most mainstream purposes, but the former is still in use at the tower."

It's my understanding that the microwave links have now been removed (thereby rendering the tower's high-rise structure redundant), but I don't have a citation. Lee M (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article says, "The outside broadcast control is located about the former revolving restaurant, with the kitchens on floor 35". What does "about" mean? Is it located outside where the former revolving restaurant was? Does it occupy the actual space, i.e. INSIDE the former revolving restaurant??? Does "about" simply mean that it occupies that floor? What does "about" mean? Strange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.235.121 (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a common belief that the BT Tower was for a long time an official secret, and did not appear on Ordnance Survey maps; as recently discussed on Jimbo Wales' talk page, this is actually an urban legend. However it was claimed in Parliament by Kate Hoey MP in 1993, and so many people assume it is true as a result - I know I did.

The claim was recently removed from this article by User:Scott:[6] Here's the problem: this is really an issue of original research. I can easily find plenty of reliable sources repeating the false claim about OS maps, but I can't immediately find any reliable source debunking that claim and noting it's an urban legend. But to remove it ourselves based on primary sources seems like original research. What do we do when the reliable sources repeat a claim which is provably wrong, but we can't say so?

As this 'factoid' is widely known, it seems like it should be mentioned in the article, if only to debunk it; but we can't do that without a reliable source specifically stating that it's false. Can anyone resolve this dilemma by providing one? Robofish (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does it appear on Ordnance Survey maps during the period in which it is alleged to have not done so? I imagine it should be relatively easy to check. If it does appear, then of course the claim should either be removed or noted as being false. This is not original research, it's simple fact-checking. There is certainly no requirement for us to parrot sources we believe to be erroneous. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This map, published in I think 1970 (my edit summary comment was slightly off), although old-maps.co.uk doesn't provide precise publication details. If the claim must appear in the article - I would say it shouldn't, unless it can be shown to have been repeated somewhere notable - it should be clearly indicated as being wrong.  — Scott • talk 16:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original (if incorrect) claim was made in Parliament (notable in and of itself)- the reference linked was to Hansard which is the official record, that she made it is easily proven, and it's been oft-repeated, just googling the phrase "post office tower secret" produces plenty of results to indicate how frequently. I'd also agree with noting that's it was an incorrect claim, but recording that it was made - because it was and notably so. Something along the lines of

An urban legend persists that the building was officially a secret, and did not appear on official maps. The issue of existence was raised in Parliament by Kate Hoey, MP, on 19 February 1993: "Hon. Members have given examples of seemingly trivial information that remains officially secret. An example that has not been mentioned, but which is so trivial that it is worth mentioning, is the absence of the British Telecom tower from Ordnance Survey maps. I hope that I am covered by parliamentary privilege when I reveal that the British Telecom tower does exist and that its address is 60 Cleveland Street, London."^[1]. At that time the existence of the tower was in fact officially in the public domain, and it had appeared on published maps as early as *INSERT DATE & MAP LINK HERE*.

with an appropriate date and a link to a relevant map (like the one Scott found) should do the trick I think.--RedHillian | Talk 01:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit more like it, but I'm not sure that we should be the ones describing it as an urban legend. It would be okay for us to say "a mistake subsequently repeated in/by..." and so on, but anything stronger than that would need a reference of its own.  — Scott • talk 14:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A caption saying "Telecom Tower" appears at the appropriate position on an OS Landranger sheet 176 marked as Crown Copyright 1986.Harumphy (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BT themselves say that the the tower was covered by the Official Secrets Act, and that it was not shown on maps. From what I have seen of maps of the time, the circle of the tower itself was not shown, just a general rectangle. [7] Baldwin Clere (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of certain defence-related installations from OS maps did not occur until the mid-1980s under Mrs Thatcher, prompted by the demonstrations then going on at places such as RAF Greenham Common, and was intended to make finding such places more difficult for protesters, rather than a likely enemy, whom, it was presumed, already knew the locations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.141 (talk) 10:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added in sources showing it on the 1968-1970 OS map, these were removed by KJP1 while I was in the middle of editing. The address also appears on the certificate issued by Butlins to diners at the restaurant so have added this and a link to a copy as reference. Robidy (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As they have been 'not present' for some time, should there not be a current image? Jackiespeel (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Connected Earth: Learning Centre"' link no longer works - and should there be a link to [8]? Jackiespeel (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on BT Tower. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080206202534/http://www.btplc.com:80/Innovation/News/tower.html to http://www.btplc.com/Innovation/News/tower.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In doing a little bit on the Eric Bedford (architect) article, I created a discrepancy between the information on the 1971 bombing in that article and the information here. Clive Aslet (2005) states it was "an IRA bomb". This article says it was actually planted by The Angry Brigade. The sources for this are the Guardian and the Bangor Evening News. I can't actually see a mention of the BT bombing in the Guardian article, though I may have missed it. The Bangor article reports a claim by the Angry Brigade but is a long way from a definitive statement that it was the AB. The AB article on Wiki doesn't mention the BT Tower. Are there any up-to-date sources that are definitive on this? KJP1 (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As KJP1 said, the Guardian article is about the Angry Brigade, but I didn't see any mentioned of the Post Office (BT) Tower bomb; the Bangor Daily News article says that they claimed it, but there's no evidence of it (unless it came up in the Angry Brigade trial, in which case can someone link to a reference)? The common consensus is that this was in fact an IRA bomb (they claimed it as such within a few hours), whereas the AB didn't claim it until more than a day after the event. I am going to amend the article to say that the AB also claimed it as their acts. 198.102.219.141 (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This [9] gives a different winner: clarification anyone? Jackiespeel (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, have found teh British Pathe news report from the time that confirms it's not the chap mentioned. There are references for the chap that did it the year before the first race but no name. Whilst I left it in I think another editor (KJP1) got confused and thought I'd added it...he has removed it. Robidy (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Twinkle climbing the Tower appears in the WP article on The Goodies episode Kitten Kong some mention here perhaps? Jackiespeel (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- The Anome (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the mention of the BT Tower having a "Post Office code" of YTOW as unreferenced/unverifiable. There are plenty of mentions of this on the web, but they're all from mirrors of this article. I presume this is something like a GPO exchange code, but searching those for YTOW finds nothing, either. -- The Anome (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What if we included this photo on this page? File:HM the Queen visiting the Post Office Tower on 17 May 1966.jpg But I need someone to verify that it actually happened. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rotating retaurant, though only open for five years, is one reason for its notability and should go in the lead. Jontel (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]