Thanks for the input, folks. Let me just mention the BBC point I raised, since I was not entirely happy when I wrote it. Their charter calls for a fair and balanced position. The extent they achieve it is another point. But imagine a case where some view - let's say climate change - has almost everyone in the country on one side but (making the figure up) 5% on the other. There are perhaps 3 people in the panel. In order to get any debate they will have at least one denier, so that is a 33% representation, well in above of the 5%. I don't see an easy way out of that one. So the end result is over-representation, not not equality.

But actually, that leads me onto another important aspect of this. I tried, perhaps unsuccessfully, to write my remarks on the BBC in terms of fairness. The comments above - which, let me repeat I am grateful for - talked about equal air time, so are expressed in terms of equality. I make a distinction. It could be argued that the air time for each point of view would be fair if it was in proportion to the adherents of each view, which would be a long way from equal. But that is only one interpretation of 'fair', and as I suggested , it would mean that some ideas which are just starting off so have perhaps 100 adherents out of 60 million would never get a mention.

I am grateful to all for how the thread has gone so far.