BBc defends folk awards

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: Commander Crabbe
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 05:32 PM

Try "Fly Fishing" by J R Hartley. It's nothing to do with folk however its probably more interesting than a journo's blog.

Chris C

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: The Sandman
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 04:55 PM

Anyone who writes blogs about other people, or who encourages others to do so should be ashamed of themselves.
I agree with Dave Hanson, a lot of puerile nonsense.

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 02:58 PM

Guest at 12:09 PM

I've never heard such puerile chidish nonsense, do your parent's know what you are doing ?

Dave H [ real name ]

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 12:33 PM

Yes that is very funny leveller, and I'm so pleased I'm not the only one who finds Mr Gervais totally unfunny.

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: GUEST,Ken Folknacious
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 12:10 PM

That was me above. No cookie a twork

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 12:09 PM

If you were a judge would you want some of the people above 'communicating' with you?

Absolutely not! Stock up the safe room now. What the stupid, publicity seeking person is demanding is actually freedom to invade some innocent people's privacy. Just imagine if you were a revealed Folk Awards judge and woke up in the morning to find some of those scary scary people above drooling through your letterbox. Though to be fair, they probably don't go out much. Christ, imagine if Emma Hartley knew where you lived . . . she'd be camping out on your doorstep demanding to know how much Mike Harding had bribed you to vote for somebody whose music you liked. Shudder . . .

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: theleveller
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 11:46 AM

Just been watching this. Now this is funny (but nothing to do with folk awards).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtS2Ikk7A9I

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: Silas
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 11:42 AM

Yes thats the one. Gay morris as well.

Ah well, we all have different senses of humour I suppose, I can't stand Ricky Gervase or that slimey wanker Carr.

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: theleveller
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 11:38 AM

What, the one about female morris dancers?

No, sorry, definitely a Red Arrows scenario.

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: Silas
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 11:35 AM

Hi leveller

Are you looking at the right thing? The one that Joan pointed to was Gemma Kidney a spoof of Emma Heartly's blog. I can't believe you don't find it even slightly amusing?

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: theleveller
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 11:32 AM

Well there's certainly no humour in it, that's for sure. Errr...how is it ironic? Is there some in-joke that I'm not getting? Sorry, I'm not one of the self-styled folk intelligensia inner circle.

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 11:31 AM

If you were a judge would you want some of the people above 'communicating' with you?

Criteria for awards? In the opinion of the judges Bellowhead are the best live band. They may not be judged so by a different collection of people.


Criteria for awards? In the opinion of the judges 'Any category' you like is in the opinion of the judges the best whatever. That's it folk

L in C#

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: GUEST,David Owen
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 11:26 AM

the leveller.....

it's meant to be puerile crap - that's the whole point....... Irony is lost on some people......

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: theleveller
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 11:19 AM

"Thanks for the heads up Joan - it's bloody hilarious!"

Really? Personally I thought it was puerile crap. Am I missing something?

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: Howard Jones
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 10:49 AM

Emma, read my post at 25 Nov 11 - 09:09 AM

It doesn't say that transparency is for the benefit of the audience. Perhaps it should, but that's a different matter.

But what is the issue here that justifies this level of agitation? Even if we know who the judges are, how does that help? And why have you encouraged people to pester the compliance manager at the BBC, rather than making an FOI request in the first place?

I don't suppose that this alone will cause the BBC to stop funding the awards. But it might raise questions next time awards in general are reviewed, as I'm sure they must be from time to time.

If there were a real problem with the awards, as opposed to the usual carping, then what you are doing might be justified. In the circumstances, it appears self-serving. Others have expressed that view rather more strongly.

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: Silas
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 10:19 AM

Just found this;

http://gemmakidneysgloryhole.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/is-morris-dancing-homophobic-i-dont-know/

Thanks for the heads up Joan - it's bloody hilarious!

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: Silas
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 10:06 AM

Well Bonzo, when it comes to wankers, you have better qualifications than most.

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 10:03 AM

Awards can only be judged fairly, either by the public or a panel, if clear criteria are established at the outset and approved by a number of wankers on Mudcat. These must be outlined in the terms and conditions so that entrants, nominators, Mudcat wankers, and judges are all clear as to the purpose of the award and how it is to be decided.

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 09:56 AM

was about to post that, as a friend of Joan's, I know she's at work.
Leave her out of this.

But I wholeheartedly agree with this -
Silas, you assume Ms Hartley ever had the plot to begin with. Her blog has been a poorly researched series of non-stories from the off, with no real purpose other than fuelling Ms Hartley's self-sought reputation as a folk "insider". Its bare-faced cheek and hilarious inaccuracies, not to mention "stories" that no one else really much cares about ( a whole blog about a musician's cuddly toy? Really? And her attempts to unmask the FLK, something no one else in the world even gave a stuff about, were just laughable), could only have been shat out of the bowels of Fleet Street. With the old "something is rotten in the state of the Folk Awards" chestnut, she's finally got what she wanted, as an earlier contributor pointed out: traffic for her website and causing a bit of a shit-storm. No matter if damage is ultimately done to folk music, Emma Hartley won't be handled in this way. Pathetic. I prefer the much more serious musings of Gemma Kidney anyway.

whoever wrote it.

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: johncharles
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 09:33 AM

The Gemma Kidney blog. Excellent!
john

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 09:16 AM

Emma, I am very happy to tell people the story of how you rang me up earlier this year demanding to know who was writing the Gemma Kidney blog. When i admitted that I knew who the authors are (as do a number of other people) but refused to disclose their names to you, you said you would tell everyone that it was me unless I told you what you wanted to know. Are these the investigative practices you learned at the Telegraph?

I'll give you a hint: there are two of them. They are male. Neither of them is in the KLF. Nor are they Simon Emmerson. I realise that doesn't give you many contacts left to pursue, but given your journalistic background and skills, I'm sure you'll get there eventually.

By the way, this is my first post to this thread - I don't really post to Mudcat any more. It's too prone to cranks and nutters, their weird conspiracy theories and unprovoked public attacks. Nice to know you've found your level.


Joan Crump

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: Silas
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 09:15 AM

Well Emma, in my case it was found that as soon as I posted with my real name a number of other members would log on and attempt to start a flame war, possibly my fault due to some previous provocative posts I had made, so to keep the peace and sanity of other catters I now use this alias. Other people will have their reasons too.

I would have thought this pretty obvious really, but then....

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: EmmaHartley
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 09:13 AM

Howard.

"Criteria for judging or nominations must be transparent, clear, fair and consistent."

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 09:12 AM

"Oh but I'm running this campaign for the good of Folkies everywhere. Oh the huge manatees! Think of the children! Did I mention my blog? Here's a link to it. I'm earning a piss poor amount from clickthrough and could do with some traffic. If you could just click on an advert on your way out? Ta. I'd see you out, really, I would, but all of this one handed surfing whilst I gorge on the folky schadenfreude I've orchestrated unfolding in front of me makes it somewhat difficult for me to leave my chair. Nnneah"

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: Howard Jones
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 09:09 AM

It says the rules must be clear and transparent. Specifically, it says:

Awards can only be judged fairly, either by the public or a panel, if clear criteria are established at the outset. These must be outlined in the terms and conditions so that entrants, nominators and judges are all clear as to the purpose of the award and how it is to be decided.

My emphasis. Transparency is for the benefit of those involved, not the audience, unless it's a public vote. Now you may think the public has a right to be involved too, but that's not what the guidelines appear to say.

There's nothing that says the panel of judges must be made public. What is the supposed problem that identifying the judges is meant to solve? Your persistence in pursuing this is starting to look self-serving.

I agree that an FOI request is of no great consequence, and the BBC probably receives a considerable number of these. Encouraging an email campaign addressed to a senior manager is a bit more provocative. Funding a folk award isn't one of the things the BBC are "supposed to be doing anyway". It's a bonus. If I were a senior manager in the BBC looking for areas to save money, an award which does not appear to be appreciated by its (presumably) intended audience might be an obvious target to cut.

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: EmmaHartley
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 09:08 AM

Dear Silas,

What reasons?

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 09:03 AM

So, having failed to show any dark secret plot at the heart of the Awards the OP turns on people on here who don't use theie own names - clearly we would all know everybody else then

L in C#

Les Jones in Chorlton as if anybody knows or cares who this is. But I offer the content as it appears

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: Silas
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 08:59 AM

Well Emma dear, some of use an alias here for very good reasons. This is the only forum that I do use one.

Anyway, time for you to get off the high horse now and realise that you need to dump this silly little campaign.

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: theleveller
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 08:55 AM

Blimey - the thot plickens.

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 08:46 AM

I agree that the use of psuedonyms does tend to invalidate comments, whether they are pro or anti.
While many of the aliases used here are those that particular person usually uses, there are others which have been invented for the purpose of stirring the pot.
I was always under the impression that this practice wasn't encouraged on Mudcat, but then Mudcat rules are as elastic as the definition of folk music.
Remember this, WE fund the BBC, and they pay Smoothiechops, so by extension we fund them too. They should be fully accountable for actions carried out on our behalf.
Inform, educate, entertain!

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: EmmaHartley
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 08:41 AM

Joanie. Why don't you log in as yourself and tell everyone what impulse it is that leads to write the spoof of my blog and the history of it...

I'm afraid you're still not my type.

E
x

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 08:39 AM

Transparency. Transparency...

The ironically beautiful transparency here is exposure of Ms Hartley's selfish and cavalier self serving, thinly and poorly disguised as investigative 'blogging'.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, putting said foot in your mouth and hoisting yourself up on a massive petard. Hilarious.

The biggest non story there ever was.

Fin.

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: EmmaHartley
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 08:27 AM

Hi Joanie ;-)

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: johncharles
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 08:20 AM

I wonder if mike harding still has the same feelings about Emma Hartley's blog now?
""A blog unlike all others on folkie stuff - well worth a gander" Mike Harding, BBC Radio Two
john

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 08:18 AM

Silas, you assume Ms Hartley ever had the plot to begin with. Her blog has been a poorly researched series of non-stories from the off, with no real purpose other than fuelling Ms Hartley's self-sought reputation as a folk "insider". Its bare-faced cheek and hilarious inaccuracies, not to mention "stories" that no one else really much cares about ( a whole blog about a musician's cuddly toy? Really? And her attempts to unmask the FLK, something no one else in the world even gave a stuff about, were just laughable), could only have been shat out of the bowels of Fleet Street. With the old "something is rotten in the state of the Folk Awards" chestnut, she's finally got what she wanted, as an earlier contributor pointed out: traffic for her website and causing a bit of a shit-storm. No matter if damage is ultimately done to folk music, Emma Hartley won't be handled in this way. Pathetic. I prefer the much more serious musings of Gemma Kidney anyway.

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: EmmaHartley
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 08:15 AM

Howard. The guidelines about transparency in awards ceremonies organised by the BBC are here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/page/guidance-interactivity-awards

There's lot in there about transparency.

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 08:12 AM

Let purity be the concern of dairymaids

Now there's an album title if I ever heard one...

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: EmmaHartley
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 08:10 AM

It would be nice if you used your whole, real names on here, since the discussion is about transparency.

Why do you think that knowing who the judges are would kill the awards?

A freedom of info request is a routine matter, intended for use on bodies receiving public funding to force them to do the thing they are supposed to be doing anyway.

Isn't it more likely that greater transparency will enhance the standing of the awards and inject new life into them? That's the way these things usually work...

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: Howard Jones
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 08:08 AM

Emma's conveniently given a link on her blog to the BBC's own guidelines for awards. It's here.

I'm struggling to understand what Smooth Ops are supposed to have done, or not done, to fail to meet these. In particular, I can see nothing to say that the panel of judges must be made public. Am I missing something?

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 08:08 AM

The thing is- if Twitter's anything to go by - there's basically one blogger/journo, one podcaster and one hospital radio presenter up in arms about this. I wish they'd just let it lie.

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 08:08 AM

the smaller they become the more they seek 'purity' and the more they purge or seek to purge the impure.

Is that what's at the bottom of this? The very idea of 'purity' brings me out on hives, let alone this notion of 'authenticity' and 'correctness' that many folkies get off on. Folk (in common with every other genre) is the music of What Happens, not what Ought to Happen. My mantra for years now: let 'authenticity' be the reserve of the model railway enthusiast, who would, one hopes, at least have the nous to recognise a REAL train should ever they see one - and for the sake of our collective humanity let 'purity' be the concern of the dairymaids. In music (as in culture, as in people, as in language, as in life) Contaminants are Very Good Things - and, Glory Be, we're all post-revival now, peeps - so do what thou wilt with Unfailing Joy, Unimpeachable Sincerity and f*ck the detractors. As Stan Laurel said, life just isn't short enough... too short by far.

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: GUEST,guest
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 08:02 AM

Well, Ms Hartley possibly just killed the Awards. The Beeb won't bother if it's hassle.
Shall we start the thread about how terrible it is that there are no Folk Awards now?

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: Howard Jones
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 07:57 AM

this time there's a freedom of information request. But that really shouldn't have been necessary.

It wasn't necessary.

The interest in who the judges might be is no more than curiosity. Anyone who knows the folk scene can make a guess as to who might at least be on the list. There's no serious suggestion of any skullduggery, or evidence that the nominations have been rigged. With apparently around 170 judges involved, that would be quite hard to do.

If Bellowhead hadn't been nominated for anything, then that might have been cause for an investigation, but this seems to be stirring for the sake of it. It's one thing doing that on Mudcat, that's within the family, but quite another taking it outside.

When we do see the list, so what? Some of them will be well-known names, others may be known only within a certain region or field of activity, but that doesn't mean they don't have the knowledge to act as judges. I suppose it will create another pointless discussion about who should or should not be on it. What it could well do is discourage some well-informed and knowledgeable people from being judges.

What I was more interested in was how acts are put forward for consideration and what criteria are used for judging. That has largely been answered, partly by John Leonard and mostly by Mike Harding. As I've said before, their PR could be better but like most things in the folk world it's due to cock-up rather than conspiracy.

If you don't like the Folk Awards, then ignore them. They do some good and little harm. On the whole, we're lucky that the BBC pays for them.

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: EmmaHartley
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 07:56 AM

FoI requests are not a big deal. They're a tool in the box for getting info from people. If you have a look at the piece you'll see that the BBC has an internal department for handling them.

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: Silas
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 07:47 AM

Ken, you are SO right.

Methins ms hartley has lost the plot.

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: GUEST,Ken
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 07:43 AM

this time there's a freedom of information request. But that really shouldn't have been necessary.

Nor is it wise. Or proportionate. If you manage to p*** the BBC suits off so much that they wonder "is it worth it?" and drop the whole thing, you will have single handedly cost one of the few things which gets the folk world some badly needed attention in the mainstream once a year. How stupid, idiotic and self important would that have been? You right-wing newspaper journalists . . . you're all the same.

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: Vic Smith
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 07:40 AM

or even "that was the form it was to take."

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: Vic Smith
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 07:37 AM

Mind you, I used to enjoy The Alternative Miss World contests that were on Channel 4 quite a few years ago now. Who remembers "Miss Aldershot" - a cross dressed soldier marching as part of a well drilled squad of military men? It was a really effective piss-take of the original. I would support an Alternative Folk Awards if that were form it was to take.

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: EmmaHartley
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 07:33 AM

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

Round three... and this time there's a freedom of information request. But that really shouldn't have been necessary.

Subject: RE: BBc defends folk awards
From: Pete Jennings
Date: 25 Nov 11 - 07:32 AM

After reading Mike Harding's blog, it strikes me that this thread is now totally redundant. I'm off to play some folk music.
Pete