This FOI request was just a fishing expedition. There's no serious suggestion, let alone evidence, that there's anything fishy about the way acts are nominated. If the final list always seems to contain the usual suspects its because 1) the usual suspects are by definition among the best acts currently around and 2) normal bell-curve distribution.

The BBC has strict rules in place for awards, following some embarrassing fiascos. SmoothOps have stated that they follow the BBC's rules. The BBC's compliance officer has confirmed this. So what's the problem?

Emma seems to believe that because one of her favourite bands didn't get a mention that's evidence of a conspiracy. However an act which barely counts as folk and doesn't performs on the folk circuit is not likely to get onto the radar. It's quite possible that some of the judges may have heard of them, may even have nominated them, but unless the band has established a wide enough profile they're not going to get enough votes.

This of course is what Emma wants. She has made it clear that she wants to publish the names of judges so that bands can lobby them. This means that instead of nominations being based on an act's achievements they will depend on who has the best publicist.   I can't see how this benefits anyone, except perhaps publicists. And of course journalists.