That you've started fights on multiple threads should tell you something about yourself.

#10 the seesaw zone - where the seesaws only tip one way and the staff swear that there's nothing unbalanced as far as they can see and if you conplain they've got a saw and will cut you out of the debate altogether.

Tiny CO2. We've been down his path before. The government palmed off licence fee collection to the BBC to avoid getting the blame for what was increasingly being perceived as an unpopular tax. They later compounded this by reclassifying the fee as a tax. The BBC wisely separated the tax generating operation into a totally autonomous entity. This was unsuccessful in that it had to retain the BBC logo.

Think of the licence fee as a government tax to watch TV programmes (not just those from the BBC). The tax doesn't go to the BBC and isn't even hypothecated. Its all a big con job by successive governments with the BBC acting as a patsy.

The government is now going further down the same path, shifting costs for social policy (provision of licence fee costs for the over 75s) to the BBC. Guess who will get blamed if the BBC is forced to cut costs and stops free licence fee provision in order to protect its programming?

Wiki has full coverage of this, so you don't have to take my word for it.

Lots of positivity here I think

Salutations

Tiny CO2. Your take that I start fights (but then you are hardly unbiassed). My take is that as a percieved near-Trotskyist my interventions (usually when I can no longer let slurs and falseboods promulgated here go without some comment) are considered challenges to the rightist status quo.

You probably recall how Slumgulliangreen deliberately set me up with a thread using my name and falsifying my words written elsewhere. In defending myself, battle was enjoined by all sorts of nice folks, and I was almost driven from BH. That, no doubt, you count as me starting a fight.

Take it that I will always comment here if I can. And my comments may irritate because they are not from your hymn-book. Live with it.

Even more salutations

"near-Trotskyist"

But I don't care about your politcs, seriously don't care. I even understand some of the appeal of the Labour party
and don't love much about the Conservatives. I care that you are repeatedly rude, albeit you think you wrap it up. I care that you try very hard to stop people discussing things you don't like. Like getting rid of the BBC. I care that when called on it you do the outraged aunty act.

Why should any colour of government get the public bad feeling for the licence tax when it's mostly the BBC spending it? Too right they 'palmed it off' onto those who should get the flack. If the minitster in charge of the new contract hadn't been caught with his pants down, the BBC might have got the whipping, rather than him. Here's hoping the BBC succeed in becoming unpopular with all ages between now and the next review.

#11 the staff all complain that the place woud be far better if the public just paid up but didn't come in and expect to be entertained. They should sit at home with a book on why they shouldn't be allowed an opinion.

Dear Tiny. I did challange you to demonstrate where in this thread I have tried to stop anybody from talking about the BBC.

I believe only once before I was accused of doing the same (by you?, I really can't be arsed to go and find out). I had the temerity to point out that, when Bish instituted a BBC- related thread, there was already a thriving discussion thread on more or less the same subject. This I quickly realized was presumptuous of me because it's Bish's site and he can do what he likes with it. If you look, you will find that I very quickly shut up. I only defended myself from incorrect assertions that I was trying to curtail discussion. I wasn't, I was suggesting the topic could be continued on the thread already dedicated to it. I even later explained why I would have preferred Bish threads to cover more interesting topics, but that was a stated desire, never a demand. Surely I have the right to express my preferences, or do you consider you have the responsibility of trampling all over them?

So provide the evidence for your claim. Put up or shut up.

I have repeated ended my posts, directed to you, with pleasantries and have recieved only insults in return. I have not insulted you in return. Do you have manners?

Tiny CO2. So, as I knew, you can't point to anything I wrote, just to your highly subjective view that I was intimidating other contributors from participating. That's not what you claim I did - tell people what to do. I have never met a group less likely to be intimidated by me than anti-BBC BH contributors wanting to admonish the BBC on a taylor-made discussion thread. You last post was so laughable that I almost spilt my coffee. What a pitiful excuse of a defense.

Drama queening, I'm an absolute novice compared with you on this thread. At least when I commented I tried to use some humour, unlike yourself who launched into a full blown and over the top insult.

Please do get on, with SW, fleshing out this thread. I genuinely enjoy the wit both of you have employed on occasion, even if I do not agree with all your sentiments.

Tiny CO2. My sincere apologies. I thought (12.02pm) I was responding to you when I should have directed my comments at SW.

SW please consider my comments redirected at you. I didn't think I was sneering, my intention was to mock. To think that you would be intimidated by me is so outrageously funny that, if had realized it was you, I definitely would have had wet pants - with coffee.

Please do continue.

Stewgreen. I think the point you make in your last sentence (11.07am) has real merit.

Tiny CO2 Alan Kendall & stewgreen,

If you are in agreement about Alice's wondrous reflective experiences, how about a Mad Hotters Tea Party?

In the US, the Mad Hotters and the Tea Party seem locked into Mutually Assured Decapitation, and the DramaQueens of Heartless indifference to humanity are not doing very well.

The BBC/Guardian Climate experts would love to talk about an area of their genuine expertise, drinking tea, and coffee.

Could an American TV Channel do a live Mad Hotters versus Tea Party Debate on TV?

Alan Kendall
The Bishop doesn't post Discussions, although he sometimes suggests that comments on one of his posts are taken there.. Discussions are created by readers who want to pursue an interesting byway.

I would have thought that your Fantasyland would lack any realistic foundations.

I trust you will accept any comments like this one in the spirit that they are intended - definitely not sneering. Even Fantasyland needs to be consistent and I may have spotted an inconsistency.

Might I suggest you make some reference to Banksy's Western Super Mare temporary theme park which seems to have some similarities. Perhaps you might offer 2for1 tickets if DismalLand ever reopens.

I hate encouraging you, but how about working up an unattraction based upon the Great Summer Desert of new content (with old travelators passing through it that endlessly repeat their route?).

Or perhaps the theatre of Nordic Noir showing films with subtitles that always flash on and off so quickly they can't be read (or are infuriatingly white on white backgrounds). Films shown should be long and designed so that when patrons temporarily have to leave for necessary refreshment or rest breaks, critical parts of the storyline are always shown.

It showed, but like the foundations of CAGW, so much effort......

Why do the echo chambers have to be the foundations? You could have the whole edifice supported by myths (or what you perceive to be myths). I'm sure to regret this.

put the caverns deeper than the foundations then Large caverns above ground - space launch facilities, airship hangers, sound stages, film studios.... The larger the openings the greater the need for climate control (oh dear!)