I have been reading this debate here and on other web sites with interest.

John Leonard says the Awards were set up as:

"an opportunity to get artists and folk industry pundits together and say thank you for their work over the previous twelve months. It was also seen as a chance to showcase to the mainstream media just some of the artists and albums that we, the people who work in folk music, have been particularly proud of during the year"

So. The Awards were never intended to represent what's happening in the wide world of folk, or to reward what the majority of folk followers might want to see rewarded.

They are in fact an opportunity for the Industry to promote a few faces who they feel stand a half-decent chance of selling units in reasonable numbers.

For a commercial organisation, with normal business objectives, that is a perfectly acceptable mission.

If this was a fee-earning promotion, sponsored by the business sector, there would be no issue. Anyone who didn't like it could only make his point and hope for change, or start up a rival title.

But it is not. It is sponsored by the BBC.

And the problems all arise in the gaps between this purely commercial venture, and the BBC guidelines - set alongside the wishes of genuine folk lovers who not only make it all possible in the first place with their pound notes and shiny bums, but who are also, mostly, licence fee payers and therefore the owners of the BBC.

From the information I've been able to glean I surmise the following.

The panel is selected to make Smooth Operations' task easier, to include people who are likely to offer appropriate nominations. It is not selected to represent "the people who work in folk music." There is no attempt at balance or regional diversity, and the names of the panellists are kept secret as much to disguise this fact as to protect them from pressure.

The list of albums is also designed to assist in the task.

It is not "a list of a selection of albums which have been released during the past 12 months and featured on The Mike Harding Show" it is in fact "compiled by the Radio 2 folk team with help from leading distributors of folk music and production teams from elsewhere in the BBC" (quote from a Smooth Operations Employee).

In other words: We put down the names we want to.

We cannot even be 100% certain that the panel has any real influence because Smooth Operations will not confirm that the votes are actually counted and the majority respected.

They use the noun 'vote' but we have no way of knowing if they define that word the way the rest of us do.

The verb they use is 'collate.' "votes are collated and the top four artists in each category declared." This may mean "votes are counted and the most popular four artists in each category identified" or it may mean "votes are read through and the four artists we like the most in each category are announced." We don't know - and they don't clarify, even when asked.

There is no independent verification process - or if there is, we have no way of communicating with it.

So. The team approach the Awards as producers approach a production - using the panel, and other folk industry colleagues as research organs, but no more.

This would explain the White Hare debacle better than any of the other explanations.

I know a few of the panellists, and if the rest are as well informed and have as much integrity as them, then a majority could simply not have nominated the song as traditional - regardless of what the singer may have put on one or more album sleeves.

But that's irrelevant anyway. With 150 nominators, there are always so many nominated tracks and acts that Smooth Operations always need to provide a 'casting vote.'

So it's not an issue whether the track received just a handful of votes or was promoted by the office. They wanted the song on the show, so they put it in. Then they glanced at the sleeve, and said, 'oh good it's trad. We can put it in the trad category, so there will be room for one more original.'

That is why John Leonard feels he's within his rights to reply as he did when objections were raised.

NONE of this is a problem if you see the Awards as being only what Leonard states on his web page - a commercial junket.

But. The awards are funded by the BBC.

Now. Here are some quotes from the BBC site:

The BBC's "is a unique institution. It is funded by the licence fee and therefore owned by the British people and is independent of political and commercial interests.

It's aims are "to inform, educate and entertain", "to serve everyone and enrich people's lives", "to be the most creative, trusted organisation in the world"

Amongst its statements of policy are "promoting education and learning; stimulating creativity and cultural excellence; representing the UK, its nations and regions"

"The BBC strives to be fair to all - fair to those we're making programmes about, fair to contributors, and fair to our audiences."

"Under the terms of the BBC's Charter and Agreement, no licence fee or grant-in-aid funded BBC service can broadcast sponsored programmes or advertising."

"We strive to be fair and open minded and reflect all significant strands of opinion"

"We will never promote a particular view on controversial matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy"

"The BBC is independent of both state and partisan interests. Our audiences can be confident that our decisions are influenced neither by political or commercial pressures, nor by any personal interests."

"Our output will be based on fairness, openness and straight dealing. Contributors will be treated honestly and with respect."

"We are accountable to our audiences and will deal fairly and openly with them. Their continuing trust in the BBC is a crucial part of our contract with them. We will be open in admitting mistakes and encourage a culture of willingness to learn from them."

The Governors exist to "hold the BBC to the terms of its agreement with the Secretary of State, its fair trading commitments and the highest standards of probity, propriety and value for money" and to "ensure that comments, proposals and complaints are properly handled"

Enough.

Does the voting process pass muster against these statements?

That's all I want to know.