To quote part of Mike Hardings blog

I don't particularly care whether the names of the judges become public knowledge or not – they weren't kept secret they just weren't published.I suspect that both Smooth Operations and the BBC thought nobody would be much interested in knowing who they were – I would however point out that…

1 - Judges might not want their names known because they could possibly become the subjects of either lobbying or abuse.
The lobbying I doubt simply because there ain't that much money in folk that a big record company are going to start flying Fred Bloggs the organiser of WIlberswick Folk Festival to Cannes. Also I suspect that the folk world – because of its very roots – is fundamentally anti big business and is still at base a world in which honesty and being rooted is very important– you couldn't find more rooted and honest people for example than Chris Wood and Martin Simpson two of this years nominees.
Abuse (as from the evidence of this "transparency" campaign) is much more likely.

You can follow the link to read the rest if you wish. Once again the mudcat knee-jerk reactions set in. Even if you read Emma's blog there is a statement from Kellie While that they have no objection to judges saying who they are but it's their choice not someone else's.

As Silas states above would you put up with the pestering. Fotunately most people realise that mudcat is, despite many of it's own contributors views of it's own importance, pretty irrelevant to most people who just get on with playing, singing, organising, listening and enjoying this great music.