I've been reading this thread with a mixture of disbelief and sadness as it has developed over the weeks, but I think Albert Driver makes a vital point. I'm not sad anymore, I am angry, and have communicated my thoughts to the powers that be at BA and Cosford.
But I think what we need to have is a longer look at what we want to store and what we should sacrifice. Do we really need three Vulcans? Do we need four Concordes? Or a dozen Spitfires? If resources are scarce, and space is limited, then surely it makes more sense to keep the last remaining, or single significant example, of a type. I would gladly lose all but one of the Concordes if the remaining one is properly preserved, and the remainder of the money and space was used to look after a VC10 (for example).
The motor industry does this way better IMHO. If you take a trip to the excellent motor industry heritage museum in Gaydon, you'll see the first Mini and the last Mini - not every colour and variation under the sun. They are clearly working to a (perhaps at first glance ruthless) policy that keeps the costs under control whilst maintaining things of significance. It's obviously a tough call, but the museum does give the impression of telling a clear story, rather than being, as sadly most aviation museums seem, to be a kleptomaniac's scrapyard. No strategy, just "if it has wings, grab it and park it in a field".
The old Department of National Heritage, long since wound up into Prescott's former megalithic department of Culture, Media and Sport, should be called to account as well. It cannot be right for items of such significance to be turned into coke tins and razor blades like this; if the National Gallery decided it was going to bin a Turner because maintaining it was getting to be a drag, fuses would blow (or at least I hope they would) in the Ministry. Why should our technological heritage be any different?
TA