Naming the judges seems to be the only feasible way of rescuing the reputation of the competition from the effects of last year' rolling low level fiasco. John Leonard, for example, issued a statement saying that only one judge had any financial interest in Seth Lakeman's succeeding in the votes(he avoids mentioned how said person voted, of course). It is a pity that he was forced to make this statement about one person's position, as if Seth Lakeman was somehow the problem. He wasn't, ansd it is very invidious to have him and his associates picked out like that. It would be infinitely better to name the panel, so that we could judge for ourselves on the people concerned. fRoots Critic's Poll seems quite acceptable, a broad range of knowledgable people tthat are identified in the published results.
    In view of the BBC's current preoccupation on where and when it has been deceiving people, obviously the topic of last year's competition is being revisited. I think we are a bit overdue for a statement on when and if the next competition is going to happen, run by who, and with what rules. I still find the whole sorry business last year extremely puzzling, and SmoothOps various statements on the subject in no way clarified things, quite the reverse. It still puzzles me who these people can have been who are meant to have voted in that very inexplicable way.