These criteria are fairly exacting and designed to keep things out rather than include, adapt, amend and change with time, thus retaining a status quo.

OK. I don't agree with that.

Firstly I do recognise that there are different "what is folk" feelings, that some "folk" can in one way or other, even to listen to, be more or less accessible to an individual and that somehow the needs of the broadest definitions of folk need accommodating (and yes, even if it may not all be folk to me...).

I think changing with time happens anyway. It's just a question of the time scale. The repertoires in the Irish sessions I go to are traditional (including tunes that just sound traditional) but I don't think anyone seriously believes that the tenor banjo (c 1915) or the tenor mandola (1970s Irish Bazouki movement) are traditional instruments or that what we play in terms of style would be a carbon copy of say what was played in Clare in 1850. We know it moves on but at its own natural pace.

I also have difficulties with some "inclusion" arguments. Apart from my own specific interests (and perhaps selfishness), I feel we would dilute and limit the folk scene rather than enhance it if every event was to include everything. Diversity and opportunities for specialities (as well as for anything goes mixes) IMO are strengths, not weaknesses,