Going back to the first post, the author wasn't concerned about being instructed to change course - they were bothered about being cleared to do something they intended to do anyway, and had every right to do without clearance.
It's this routine claim on uncontrolled airspace which is objectionable; not the (hopefully) exceptional situation where a controller is trying to avoid a worrisome conflict.
Or to put in another way, the controller used a term which, strictly speaking, he should not have used in the case of BS traffic - unless, of course, he was implying that the aircraft could transit the ATZ if required? The implication might well have been, I suggest, that there was no traffic problem in directly overflying the airport, whether through the ATZ or just above it, and that no co-ordinated specific level or route was required to avoid confliction with circuit or PS/DS traffic. Also, the OP knew the procedures and his rights - good for him - so what was the practical problem?
How does this then deteriorate into accusations of "airspace grabs"? - a ridiculous term that does not exactly suggest reasoned argument or promote the case for the opposition!
2 s