Are you a BBC folk awards judge who is proud to be associated with the awards? Why not out yourself?

I've moved caves.

The previous one was in Bethnal Green and I've made the long, arduous trek of a mile and a half to Mile End, where my new cave is, to be perfectly honest, much less cave-like while also containing far fewer fairy lights (so far). But the glamour is - obviously - eternal. I'm renting from some friends who've moved abroad and their place is blinking marvellous: I'd love to invite you all round but there's building work going on...

I mention this by way of an apology for recent quietness. There was an issue with wifi and a general sense of upheaval but I'm back.

And I have an idea.

A few days ago I fell to wondering why I hadn't heard anything about the folk awards this year, which made me slightly nervous as I'm perfectly well aware that if, for any reason, the BBC decides not to hold them a minority will inevitably point in my direction, on the grounds that rocking the boat is the worst sin of all. It wouldn't be fair but - hey - what is?

However, it turns out that the awards will be held in April 2015 instead of the usual February, which explains it.

So yes: the judging process.

You'll probably be aware that I've been waging a long and highly educational - for me - campaign to get the BBC to name its folk awards judges, who are currently anonymous while also enjoying strong links, many of them financial, to the folk music scene in the UK. Read about it again here.

What started as mere curiosity led to the realisation that the BBC is contravening its own transparency guidelines and then astonishment at its imperviousness to having this pointed out, publicly and repeatedly. In addition to a failed freedom of information request, pressure from national newspapers and magazines and three MPs wading in, including the chairman of the culture, media and sport committee, John Whittingdale, the BBC press office sent me an email this year saying that it intends to continue in its opaque ways. They seem not to mind that it undermines the credibility of the thing. Perhaps someone at the Beeb feels that the folk awards don't need any credibility?

Their line is that naming the judges would mean that people would be able to get in touch with them and lobby them - by which I can only assume they mean "play them some music" - and that this would be a bad thing. So from my point of view there are only two possible courses of action this year.

(1) I call on the BBC to anonymise every other judging panel they have, including Strictly Come Dancing. This would immunise them from the charge of hypocrisy, make it clear that they've publicly reversed their transparency guidelines and simultaneously prove that it is not laziness, corruption or just giving folkies the shitty end of the stick.

I touched on some of these issues in a blog about morris dancing the other day. I think the corporation's intransigence is, at least partly, a class issue. Don't let the BBC treat you like a second class citizen – for be in no doubt that if you are a folky this is what's happening. They are sending the message that you don't deserve the same levels of integrity that are commonly applied to public life: folkies are not worth it. Email Bob Shennan, the controller of Radio 2 on bob.shennan@bbc.co.uk if you think this matters. If you don't: that's why it's happening in the first place.

(2) On the other hand, if you are a folk awards judge and would like to go on the record - and I suspect there are some because they've been in touch - please email me (again) and let me know. There are probably around 200 judges in total by now: I wonder how many will come forward?

So if you are a folk awards judge and would like to "out" yourself please email me here. If you are a folk awards judge who thinks this is a storm in a teacup then you can prove it by emailing me here. However, if you think it's important that the status quo be maintained I'd just bitch and moan about me on a web forum if I were you.

You could also email me if you know someone who is a folk awards judge, who you think may not have seen this post and I'll happily forward it to them without letting on who tipped me off.

This is going to get interesting.

* If you'd like to receive posts from this blog directly into your Facebook newsfeed, you could *like* its Facebook page and then use the drop-down menu to indicate that it's one of your "interests". This will enhance the possibility that you'll get them. You could also follow me on Twitter at @emma1hartley

Freedom of Information request for names of folk awards judges denied

I received a letter from Rachel Hallett in the BBC's Freedom of Information department late on Friday. This attachment came with it (it's in four pieces).

In reply I sent this.

A few minutes later I received this from Rachel Hallett.

So, in essence, the list of the names of the judges is a secret and this is not the first attempt that has been made to retrieve it from the BBC, Smooth Operations and UBC Media. Also someone somewhere believes (1) that the way Smooth Operations organises the awards legally qualifies as "art" and (2) that not releasing the names of the judges serves the best interests of someone.

I would like to know who that is please?

This secrecy does nothing to enhance confidence in either the process or the outcome of the BBC Radio Two Folk Awards. In fact, it does the opposite. It also appears to be the opposite of how the BBC's own rules say an awards ceremony paid for by the licence fee and taxpayers' money should be conducted.

What on earth is going on?

I ask John Leonard at Smooth Operations, Fergus Dudley, whose responsibility it is to make sure that the awards are properly conducted, and the Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, whether this is the correct use of the Freedom of Information act?

So far John Leonard has said that releasing the names of the judges may result in the judges wrongly using their positions to get free CDs. To which I ask: how does marketing usually work in his experience? Is he saying that Mike Harding pays for every CD he plays on his Radio Two folk show, which is produced by Smooth Operations? And has no one at Smooth Operations heard of Sound Cloud?

His second point was that releasing the names of the judges would make them subject to lobbying by "big business".

The two companies he went on to mention in this context were Topic and Proper. But nine out of thirteen of last year's winners work for one or the other, so how's that working out?

When I originally asked for a list of the judges of the BBC Radio Two Folk Awards it was because I thought it might make an interesting blog post and that lovers of folk music might be curious to see something from backstage at the most powerful marketing tool on the folk scene at the moment.

However, the intransigence of all concerned is making me wonder whether there may, after all, be more here than meets the eye? It always struck me that there's a lot of moaning about them by people you'd expect to be enthusiastic about a folk fest. And now I begin to understand why...

After all, the thirty per cent correlation - I got around to counting - between Alan Bearman's client list and this year's nominees doesn't look good.

I would have thought that for the integrity of his awards ceremony John Leonard would like to prove that it's all above board by giving us more clues about how these decisions are made and perhaps opening it up to people who don't know any of the judges personally by publishing their names? This would allow bands who don't have a manager or PR with friends among the folk awards judges - and let's face it, since the judges' identities are a secret, knowing who they are would properly make you an insider - to send a free download to someone who might be interested? The awards would almost certainly become of wider interest as a result.

Releasing the names of the folk awards judges would be doing folk music a service.

I will, of course, submit the request to the information commissioner.

But in the mean time, over to you John Leonard.

* Previous blogs on this subject, with the first one at the top

http://theglamourcave.blogspot.com/2011/11/bbc-folk-awards-raising-blood-pressure.html

http://theglamourcave.blogspot.com/2011/11/smooth-operations-and-bbc-compliance-on.html

http://theglamourcave.blogspot.com/2011/11/folk-awards-couple-of-things.html

http://theglamourcave.blogspot.com/2011/11/bbc-folk-awards-and-freedom-of.html

* Read the next post about the folk awards

* If you are interested in receiving posts from this blog directly into your Facebook news feed you could *like* its Facebook page.

The BBC folk awards and a freedom of information request

The story so far...

After the announcement of the nominees for next year's folk awards, I was wondering why the identities of the judges are not publicly known and wrote a blog post about it.

I thought there might be some interest in this - everyone loves a mystery - but wasn't really prepared for how much.

The level of curiosity from folkies was especially thought-provoking because everyone involved in running the awards said that the names of the judges are not in any way intended to be a secret.

So I asked for a list.

In particular I asked for a list from John Leonard at Smooth Operations and from Fergus Dudley at the BBC, whose job it is to oversee the contracted-in services of Smooth Operations, which is part of UBC Media. And I was surprised at how complicated the request appeared to be to those most directly concerned. The implication was that instead of shining a light on the awards it would open a can of worms.

Interesting, eh?

So I wrote something else, inviting folkies - or anyone really - to make a practical contribution to the inquiry if they wanted to, reasoning that it would be useful to demonstrate to the BBC and Smooth Operations that I wasn't some lone online lunatic hell-bent on, you know, finding stuff out. Thanks to everyone who bothered to email Fergus Dudley, among others, to let him know you were watching and interested. He's at fergus.dudley@bbc.co.uk if you'd still like to get in touch.

So far I haven't managed to find the whole list of names, although there's been a steady trickle of people ringing and emailing to say that they're judges, wondering whether I'd like to talk to them about it and being encouraging.

In fact, it's been a brilliant week from that point of view. The 15-20 people who got in touch directly all suggested that there were a great many more who'd be interested in the outcome. Phil Widdows over at Folkcast wrote a great open email on the subject to Mike Harding, who presents Smooth Operations' folk show, which I urge you to read. And in response Harding started his own blog, which can only be a good thing.

So, what to do next?

I know, I know... If only there were some way of getting hold of information that everyone says is intended to be in the public domain but isn't. Some mechanism intended to hold institutions paid for by public money to account.

Oh.

Fortunately, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 exists exactly for situations like this. So this morning I asked the Freedom of Information department at the BBC whether it would be able to tell me who the judges of the BBC Radio Two Folk Awards are by supplying a list.

While I was writing this post about it I received a formulaic reply from the BBC

So there you go. With any luck there'll be an answer within 20 working days, which is four weeks. It's no big deal, the world will not end: the BBC actually has a department for this.

So I ask Fergus Dudley, John Leonard and everyone else who's been weirdly fearful about what happens next: what's the big deal?

This is how it's supposed to work.

* Next post about the folk awards

* If you'd be interested in receiving posts from this blog directly into your Facebook news feed,  you could *like* its Facebook page.