Right, I thought it would have been a joke if Kate had said it. It's a throwaway that people recognise and chuckle at in that sort of context, because the term is bandied about a good deal, and sensible people don't take it too seriously; in practice it's generally used light-heartedly, but sometimes with a degree of venom. It's a cop-out, though (pardon the expression); an attempt to avoid addressing the real issues, I think.

Nobody on the Radio 3 programme said that people "shouldn't learn folk songs from CDs, and shouldn't sing a traditional song themselves until they have studied how it has been sung by a traditional singer". What was said (I paraphrase) was that simply learning songs from records made by other revival performers is not, in the end, enough; the best way to a full and mature understanding of traditional song is to find out how the real traditional singers dealt with it. That takes time, and nobody can be expected to do it all first; but if they're serious about the music for its own sake (rather than just seeing it as a handy pool of material that may not be in copyright, and onto which they can impose their own personalities), they will, in time.

Bear in mind, too, that this wasn't meant to include folk who do a bit of casual singing in their bedrooms, or the odd floor-spot (though a bit of self-education would do no harm in many cases), but those who aspire to pursue the music to some degree professionally. It's about showing some respect for the music and for those who have passed it on to us, and understanding (as was also pointed out) that we are not, in the end, very important as individuals; it will probably still be there when we are gone. Ego should have no part in the way we approach it. Ego is what leads to all that "Folk Police" foolishness.