…… creative work of the singers is overlooked in defining them merely as song carriers, who are part of The Tradition, the mechanism of which is The Folk Process."
The creative work of the singers is certainly not being overlooked by the definition, on the contrary, the whole folk process acknowledges the creativity of the singers in making, taking and reshaping the songs. The creativity lies in the re-fashioning and interpreting. It just acknowledges the fact that the original creators are unknown.
The term 'song carriers' was used by MacColl to describe singers who may not have been part of a living tradition, but rather had remembered the songs when they were collected.

"Defining a song as Anon or Traditional isn't just saying we don't who the songwriter was,"
That is exactly what it is saying – the author is unknown and the song has passed through an extensive process of recreation and change over distance and time.
Most songs started life as specific creations of individual singers or poets, though there is evidence that some were created by more than one composer.
We don't know whether singers consciously adapted and changed the songs, whether they misheard them, or whether they automatically fitted them in to the style they were used to; we simply don't have that information.
Walter Pardon's tunes have been described as unique (see Mike Yates article in Musical Traditions) yet Walter was not sure whether he was singing them the way he had learned them (he thought he was) or whether he had unconsciously adapted them from standard tunes. One suggestion was that, because he had used a melodeon to memorise the tunes, (he was a fairly rudimentary player) the key he had chosen may have influenced their outcome.

"It is my increasing conviction that many of the songs we now think of as Traditional are the specific creations of the individual singers who have taken the songs from other individual singers and purposefully adapted them to their own purposes".
Can a song taken from another singer be "specific creations of individual singers"? Re-creations yes, that's what the folk process is. Whether the changes are accidental or deliberate are unknown and totally irrelevant to this argument.

"in the patronising eyes of Folklorist for whom such a Grubby Rustic couldn't possibly be responsible having created his own song".
Loaded language such as this from somebody who appears to have not spent a great deal of time talking to traditional singers really doesn't help your case'. Of course country singers have been patronised by some collectors, but no more so than by revival singers who refuse to acknowledge definitions because "traditional singers didn't recognise the difference between the different types of song in their repertoire, so why should we".

"John England be consigned to the status of song carrier……"
Was he; I've always heard him referred to as a traditional singer. Acknowledging as singer as being 'traditional' is not to devalue their role or ability. It might be worth your while biting the bullet and having a closer look at the 'academic' writings of collectors like Lomax, Randolph, Goldstein, Mike Yates and some of the people who stepped out of the rarified atmosphere of the clubs to take a look at the singing traditions first hand.

"Heavens, they couldn't possibly have written them….."
Nobody has ever said that the songs materialised out of thin air; only that we have no idea of their origins.

"The Folk Process - which is something else they couldn't possibly understand."
Again, Walter Pardon understood the folk process quite well; far better than most revivalists I have met see Pat and my article on him entitled 'A Simple Countryman?'
I'm afraid much of what you have said here appears to be an exercise in tearing apart straw men of your own creation. Collecting and scholarship has changed a great deal since Sharp's day – read a book.
Jim Carroll