|
12 Dec 11 - 08:47 AM (#3272494) Subject: Folk awards FoI request denied From: EmmaHartley http://theglamourcave.blogspot.com/2011/12/freedom-of-information-request-for.html It's all becoming very curious. If you know who the last person to submit this request was, I'd be interested to hear from them. |
|
12 Dec 11 - 08:49 AM (#3272496) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Silas Good. Why don't you do us all a favour and just drop it? |
|
12 Dec 11 - 09:08 AM (#3272503) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: GUEST,Shining Wit Agreed. Leave it. Please. |
|
12 Dec 11 - 09:25 AM (#3272507) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Silas Impossible to take this person seriously anyway after the 'Gemma Kidney' blog |
|
12 Dec 11 - 09:48 AM (#3272514) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Richard Bridge Seems a perfectly proper request to me - the awards carry commercial significance and if they are bent we should know. |
|
12 Dec 11 - 09:53 AM (#3272515) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Silas Oh God, not again. |
|
12 Dec 11 - 09:54 AM (#3272516) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: GUEST,OldNicKilby Could not agree more Richard. I have always had my suspicions |
|
12 Dec 11 - 10:09 AM (#3272522) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: GUEST,999 And that's the crux, Richard. However, a quick read of that document provided by the op says it will likely be easier to get the list of judges AFTER the awards. If the same FoI request were then submitted by the op or anyone else, I'd find that request to be more than reasonable. Before the event, no! |
|
12 Dec 11 - 10:16 AM (#3272526) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Silas And just what good will having a list of the judges do? |
|
12 Dec 11 - 10:36 AM (#3272539) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: GUEST,999 If you're addressing me, I didn't suggest having a list of the judges would do any good; equally, after the event, I can't see that having the list of judges would do any bad, either. |
|
12 Dec 11 - 10:40 AM (#3272541) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Silas I am not addressing you in particular, just a general enquiry. Why do we need to know who the judges are? |
|
12 Dec 11 - 10:57 AM (#3272548) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: GUEST,999 Thanks for the clarification, Silas. |
|
12 Dec 11 - 11:58 AM (#3272589) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Morris-ey Emma why not appeal to the Information Commissioner as suggested? And why do you care anyway? |
|
12 Dec 11 - 12:12 PM (#3272598) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Jack Campin FoI requests are supposed to be directed at agencies of the state, aren't they? This whole award scheme is run by private companies, so how does FoI come into it? |
|
12 Dec 11 - 12:12 PM (#3272599) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: GUEST,Shining Wit Time to get some perspective. Pick up your instrument, get down the local session, play some tunes, have a few ales and laugh and then it all becomes clear: just take it for what it is. Far more productive to make a fuss about the Tories royally effing up local radio and the problems that will cause - we don't need to alienate the only national folk show*. No doubt the money will go to the cowin' olympics coverage instead. *I'm not an apologist for Smooth Ops (who produce some great programmes) or Mike Harding (whom I like but can't abide the show). |
|
12 Dec 11 - 01:17 PM (#3272626) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Richard Bridge Surely the BBC although a separate corporation incorporated by Royal Charter is an emanation of the state for FoI purposes isn't it? |
|
12 Dec 11 - 01:51 PM (#3272644) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Vic Smith Why the secrecy? What have they got to hide? By refusing the request they are making people smell a rat when there may be nothing amiss. What could be revealed? Only that some judges could have vested interests. It is small beer compared with other calls for FOI. Surely openness in government, broadcasting channels and the companies that supply programmes is to be admired. |
|
12 Dec 11 - 02:02 PM (#3272649) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Vic Smith An article by Colin Irwin in the current ... and I can't help feeling that he has been reading my widespead objections to the whole process when he writes:- This wasn't right, said the dissenters. In whichever strange way you choose to define it, they said, folk music shouldn't be about judgement and trophies and music industry garlands, it was about real people making real music in an honest, heartfelt fashion with no relevance to prizegiving ceremonies. |
|
12 Dec 11 - 02:05 PM (#3272651) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Vic Smith Whoops! "An article by Colin Irwin the the current fRoots..... |
|
12 Dec 11 - 02:20 PM (#3272659) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Howard Jones 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. |
|
12 Dec 11 - 04:35 PM (#3272748) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: GUEST,999 I can and do understand the want to know who judged what after the event. However, asking to know beforehand is a bit much. It reeks of "I suspect people I don't know of doing something I don't know about at an unspecified time under conditions of which I'm unaware and since no one has had the smarts to keep me informed all along, well, I'd like to see their bank statements for the last year because I have a right to know because I am me." Yeah, right! |
|
12 Dec 11 - 06:01 PM (#3272802) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Spleen Cringe Emma, you say in your blog: "The thirty per cent correlation - I got around to counting - between Alan Bearman's client list and this year's nominees doesn't look good. Have you any evidence to substantiate your not-too-subtle insinuations or is this just semi-libellous tittle-tattle designed to stoke up more manufactured controversy? I rather suspect the latter. |
|
12 Dec 11 - 07:41 PM (#3272847) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Bert If you are really interested in folk music why the F*** are you bothering with the BBC? |
|
12 Dec 11 - 07:53 PM (#3272854) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Big Al Whittle Does anybody else find this difficult to understand? What is the glamourcave? Who is or was Gemma Kidney? Confused of Dorchester. |
|
13 Dec 11 - 03:58 AM (#3272971) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Les in Chorlton Gemma Kidney can explain herself here L in C# Who swears he will not get involved in this nonsense again |
|
13 Dec 11 - 04:30 AM (#3272979) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: treewind "folk music shouldn't be about judgement and trophies and music industry garlands, it was about real people making real music in an honest, heartfelt fashion with no relevance to prizegiving ceremonies." Hear, hear! Thanks for putting my own thoughts about this into words. (both to Colin Irwin for writing it for a large audience, and to Vic for apparently saying it first and giving Colin the idea, and for being a fine example of exactly what's described above) |
|
13 Dec 11 - 06:40 AM (#3273020) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Geoff the Duck I sometimes wonder about Mudcat... Every day Emma Hartley starts a new thread which consists of "Tabloid Headline - come and click on the Blicky to my blog...". We then hear no more from her on the thread. In the meanwhile, a bunch of mudcat regulars (are caught in the net and hauled up on deck flapping about like wet fish) spend hours arguing about whatever irrelevance was on the blog. Personally I think the original daily posts should just be deleted as spam. Quack! GtD. |
|
13 Dec 11 - 06:45 AM (#3273022) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: GUEST If the judges were named - they would be open to all sorts of pressure for them to change their votes. Just drop the subject and stop moaning |
|
13 Dec 11 - 06:59 AM (#3273026) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Nigel Parsons I sometimes wonder about Mudcat... Every day Emma Hartley starts a new thread which consists of "Tabloid Headline - come and click on the Blicky to my blog...". We then hear no more from her on the thread. In the meanwhile, a bunch of mudcat regulars (are caught in the net and hauled up on deck flapping about like wet fish) spend hours arguing about whatever irrelevance was on the blog. Personally I think the original daily posts should just be deleted as spam. Of course, Mudcat features quite well on Google. Finding excuses to put links from the 'Cat to ones own website may just be a form of self-publicity. |
|
13 Dec 11 - 08:26 AM (#3273065) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: peregrina And why shouldn't someone, anyone, post a link to well-written and thoughtful folk blog? Or is this community that supposedly values free dialogue and inclusiveness merely another spot where the division between us and them, those in the club and out, results in a culture where posts from those perceived as outsiders are not given a civil welcome? Where is the Mudcat welcome mat? The original posts are certainly not spam, nor is the blog. |
|
13 Dec 11 - 08:29 AM (#3273066) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: John MacKenzie Every post on any, and all, public web sites, is an ego trip. |
|
13 Dec 11 - 08:37 AM (#3273069) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: peregrina what if the ego is in the eye of the beholder? What strikes one person as the poster's ego trip might be just what another was looking for. Or... getting philosophical, maybe all self expression is an assertion of ego? |
|
13 Dec 11 - 08:44 AM (#3273073) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Vic Smith "Every post on any, and all, public web sites, is an ego trip." Nonsense. |
|
13 Dec 11 - 09:02 AM (#3273082) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Vic Smith Roy Greenslade at Guardian On-Line - Why won't the BBC reveal the names of its folk awards judges? |
|
13 Dec 11 - 09:19 AM (#3273087) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Silas No, I agree, some blogs are not just an ego trip, some are just shit stirring self promoting ego trips |
|
13 Dec 11 - 10:18 AM (#3273108) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: GUEST,999 Well, Ms Hartley is entitled to appeal to the information commissioner's office which I expect she will do. Problem solved. |
|
13 Dec 11 - 10:46 AM (#3273120) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Big Al Whittle So have I got it right? The BBC gives awards. The judges names are not revealed. Some people want the judges names to be revealed. Some don't. Emma Hartley (is she famous?) has said the names should be available under the freedom of information act. Some people think that the judges would be pressurised and terrorised and bullied, if their names were revealed. Very sad if that's true, but have I got the gist of it? |
|
13 Dec 11 - 10:53 AM (#3273128) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Silas Yep. |
|
13 Dec 11 - 10:57 AM (#3273133) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: GUEST,Emberto Uco In the spirit of open transparent freedom of information I hereby declare that I am a very important secret Folk Awards Judge. Give me a short while to set up temporary offshore money receiving accounts then I'll give full details how artists agents and managers may contact me prior to any final awards decisions. Thank you in anticipation of a very merry xmas.. |
|
13 Dec 11 - 11:04 AM (#3273138) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: GUEST,Emberto Uco oh, btw,.. any new young artists without formal representation; free CDs, DVDs, Tee Shirts would be a nice gesture. Or maybe if you are a fit attractive female singer, a dinner date and weekend at a nice little B&B just convenient for Kings Cross Station ??? |
|
13 Dec 11 - 11:27 AM (#3273147) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: GUEST,Folknacious Peregrina wrote And why shouldn't someone, anyone, post a link to well-written and thoughtful folk blog? Hi Emma |
|
13 Dec 11 - 11:31 AM (#3273148) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: peregrina Folknacious, I am not Emma. I am a member here who is sometimes dismayed by cliquishness and an insider-outside attitude to those who are not regulars. Folk Music is a small world-it's sad if people with common interests can't agree, disagree, and welcome newcomers without creating this sort of in group out group dynamic. I note that you are posting as a guest--I would have preferred to send this by PM if you had been logged in. |
|
13 Dec 11 - 01:08 PM (#3273195) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: TheSnail I think for most of us at the grass roots level of folk music, things like the BBC Radio 2 Folk Awards are mildly diverting but largely irrelevant to life as we know it. We at the Lewes Saturday Folk Club have booked quite a few of the nominees and winners but long before they appeared there. Some since they were teenagers. Some we gave their first folk club bookings to. |
|
13 Dec 11 - 02:37 PM (#3273259) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Les in Chorlton "things like the BBC Radio 2 Folk Awards are mildly diverting but largely irrelevant to life as we know it. " Spot Ms/Mr Snail. Folk Life what ever that is goes on. As do the BBC Awards. I think we can get along and trust each other L in C# |
|
13 Dec 11 - 02:54 PM (#3273269) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Howard Jones I rather like Emma's blog as a rule, and most of the time I think she writes entertainingly about folk. But as I've said on other threads, I think she's wrong about this, and it's starting to look self-publicising. I'm not entirely clear how knowing the identity of the judges will make the voting process more transparent. Let's consider some of the issues: 1) The BBC's head of compliance - who is the one in the firing line if there's another scandal - is satisfied that the Folk Awards comply with the Beeb's rules. 2) Smoothops have given a justifiable reason for not releasing the names. You may not agree with it, you may put forward alternative arguments, but the reason they give is plausible. And the names aren't secret - Smoothops won't release them but there's no gagging order on the judges to silence them. 3) It's a small world, and it's possible to make a guess at the sort of people who might be judges. I find it hard to believe that any performer who is sufficiently active and prominent on the folk scene to be in the running isn't already in contact with, or at least on the radar of, the majority of judges. 4) There are only a few folk agents. If one of them has a high proportion of the best-known and most active performers on his books, it seems unsurprising that a large number of them will be represented at the awards 5) the same goes for record labels 6) whilst we could all suggest alternative names, no one has suggested that any of the performers on the shortlist don't deserve to be there 7) The BBC has stated that the information sought by Emma's FOI request is outside the scope of the Act. The Information Commissione apparently agrees with this view. Is the Commissioner part of a conspiracy too? The whole thing seems to be founded on the (mistaken) belief by a friend of Emma that he was not allowed to reveal that he was a judge, and that a band she likes may not have been considered, although they don't perform on the folk scene. It's starting to look like a journalist in search of a story. It might be raising Emma's profile as a journalist (now she's the subject of a Guardian article, not bad for someone no one had heard of a few months ago) but she's in danger of losing credibility in the world she writes about. But maybe she just sees this a stepping stone to bigger things. We'll see. |
|
13 Dec 11 - 03:24 PM (#3273278) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: GUEST,someone somewhere with a big nose who knows Further to what Howard writes (and which I agree with), I'd suggest that the names of judges aren't 'secret' so much as they don't want to hand them over to someone who has proved that a) she enjoys pestering people who have a different viewpoint to her own, b) has an amazing knack for getting the wrong end of the stick (and making howling errors) and c) will use any moment as a 'victory' to publicise her blog. If she really wants to be an influential figure - and lets face it, this is what this is all about one way or another - then she could apply to be a judge. But somehow I suspect she may have burnt any bridges there. This is not the right way to affect change, unless the change she wants is to destroy the awards once and for all. And, whatever faults they have, that's surely not helpful. Seemingly, you can take the writer out of the horrible-bullying-end-of-fleet-street, but you can't take the horrible-bullying-end-of-fleet-street out of the writer... |
|
13 Dec 11 - 08:07 PM (#3273378) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Bounty Hound Again to follow on from Howard's post above, most of which makes perfect sense, but to pick up on a couple of points, Smooth Operations reason for not making the judges public is to protect them from canvassing, however, in many other awards, including other music genres the judges are public knowledge, and presumably deal successfully with canvassing in other ways, so this does not seem to me to be a valid argument. On the statement about folk Agents, a quick search of the AFO membership list reveals 22 AFO members listed as Agents, and this does not include Alan Bearman or Adastra, and a google search brings up many others, so there may be more than you think Howard. Overall, anything that raises the profile of folk music must surely be something we all support, but the problem I see with the Folk Awards is that the public perception is that it is a select few judging the select few, and therefore not representative. The reality is that this is probably the case with most awards. The real shame of it is that the media, festival organisers etc, put so much store by awards, but I guess that is merely symptomatic of our celebrity obsessed culture. One other thing I did note in the BBC's reply to Emma Hartley is the statement that none of the 'Voting panel' are performers themselves, I'm fairly confident that this is not a true statement, but I have absolutely no reason to question the judgement or integrity of anyone on that panel. John |
|
14 Dec 11 - 04:05 AM (#3273471) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Howard Jones Bounty Hound, I disagree - I think Smoothops' justification is a valid argument. You may disagree with it, you may put forward equally valid counter-arguments (as you have), perhaps better ones, but that doesn't make it any less valid. My point is that their position is not in itself unreasonable. I hadn't checked the number of folk agents, so there may well be more than I'd realised. However my point stands - when you look at Alan Bearman's client list, it's unsurprising that a good number of them are in the running. I doubt the general public gives a second thought to who is judging whom. And with the exception of some the lifetime awards which have clearly been made for PR purposes, is it true that the nominations are not representative? Awards are good publicity and a huge confidence boost to performers and I don't begrudge them (perhaps I'm biased as my good friends Pilgrims' Way are up for an award this year). The nominees will get festival bookings anyway because they're good, not necessarily because they've won awards. Festival programmes are full of names who haven't won awards so you can hardly say they're preventing others from getting work. I agree the final statement is surprising, however that's because of the nature of the folk world where so many people perform at one level or another. Perhaps what they mean is that none of the panel are primarily performers - Ian Anderson for example (assuming he is one) would be there because he is editor of fRoots, not because he is a performer. |
|
14 Dec 11 - 04:26 AM (#3273478) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Banjiman I can confirm that I have had correspondence with one of the judges...... and as well as being a manager of one of the nominated acts he is also a performer himself (arguably primarily). No, I'm not naming names but it does make you stop and think. ......... I do think the awards are a good thing but I would like to see more transparency. |
|
14 Dec 11 - 04:28 AM (#3273479) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Richard Bridge I think there may be something more sinister - the suspicion surely is that judges are skewed towards some types of performers - and possibly towards some performers who may have certain connections. That is an issue that ought to be investigated and disposed of, one way or another. It is important, not only that justice is done but also that justice is seen to be done, and at present we cannot be clear that the judges are not SmoothiChops cronies with an agenda. This is more important given that there have been some strange awards in the past - for example giving the "traditional" award to a composed song - indeed a song the melody for which and most of the words for which were written within the previous year. It was a good song, and it was a good performance (if you like that type of very electric drum and bass driven performance) but it was not "traditional". Some light needs to be shone into this murky corner. |
|
14 Dec 11 - 04:41 AM (#3273482) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Silas Sorry Richard, I normally agree with much of what you say, but I don't on this occcasion. It is far too easy to see these conspiracy theories everyware you look. Its true that some awards have been a bit odd, best duo award to a trio and as you say, best new song wasn't. Donovan??????????????? However, I am happy to trust the integrity of the BBC and smooth ops. |
|
14 Dec 11 - 04:48 AM (#3273487) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Kevin Sheils Has anyone read Mike Hardings blog dated 24th November at http://mikeharding.blogspot.com/ Worth reading all the way through and a reasoned thought with some good points. Of course the usual suspects will just claim he's a tool of the system and probably not read it in full anyway. |
|
14 Dec 11 - 05:30 AM (#3273498) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Big Al Whittle Something sinister afoot! Never fear! Hercule Breedge and I with our leetle grey cells will figure this out. Personally I go for the sinster Reverend Martin Carthy in the library with the lead pipe. But has the sinister Professeur Ralph Mactell got a motive for being een the seeneester west wing with a rope and gun...? Ma Foi! 'Astings! i have eet.....! |
|
14 Dec 11 - 05:31 AM (#3273499) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Big Al Whittle By the way, have any of you buggers voted for me? |
|
14 Dec 11 - 05:42 AM (#3273503) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: MGM·Lion "best duo award to a trio and as you say, best new song wasn't. Donovan??????????????? However, I am happy to trust the integrity of the BBC and smooth ops." .,,.,. Anyone spot a maybe bit of inconsistency here? ♔♛♚M·Rex♚♛♔ |
|
14 Dec 11 - 05:56 AM (#3273512) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Vic Smith Page 3 of this thread |
|
14 Dec 11 - 06:10 AM (#3273515) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Big Al Whittle A-ah! M'sieur VeeK, you 'ave zee answer, I think! (Gallic shrug!) |
|
14 Dec 11 - 08:49 AM (#3273576) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: greg stephens Smooth Ops and the BBC have claimed repeatedly said that there are no performers on the panel. This is completely untrue. So naturally they don't wabnt to publish the list, as everybody could see the dishonesty for themsaelves. Why they are being so dishonest is the question that intrigues me. They are bound to be found out. Certainly they will say "oh we didnt actually mean to say there aren't any performers, we meant to say something a bit different", and their supporters will accept that. Others won't. |
|
14 Dec 11 - 09:18 AM (#3273597) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Silas OK Greg. Would you rather there be no Folk Award programme on national BBC? No one is saying it is perfect, what is for heavens sake? But it is a great showcase for the genre and should be supported by us instead of griping and whinging about it. |
|
14 Dec 11 - 09:20 AM (#3273598) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Richard Bridge From what I remember of previous awards the suggestion over there on the Froots board that the 150 are "folk central" seems unlikely. If that were so I'd have expected a less middle-of-the-road-to-modern-music tendency (as I remember it) in the awards. |
|
14 Dec 11 - 09:42 AM (#3273617) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Howard Jones Why should it matter if there are performers on the panel? Presumably they would not be allowed to vote for themselves. I am baffled why they thought it necessary to make such a statement, since it appears to be misleading. However I suspect that the BBC finds the folk world's blurred distinction between musicians and civilians hard to understand. It's unlikely that out of 150 judges a significant majority could be "cronies". However with this number the laws of probability favour the well-known, high-profile performers - who are the ones you'd expect to get nominated. The Folk Awards aren't really aimed at us. Where they have an impact is with the non-folk media and general audience. Once a year, folk music gets a bit of attention. That should be a good thing. Instead we complain about details, and then spend the rest of the year bemoaning the fact that our music is ignored. Why should we expect the BBC to continue to broadcast folk music when the response is this? |
|
14 Dec 11 - 09:45 AM (#3273620) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: GUEST,Jon A few years ago when an original song made the finals in a traditional category one of the questions asked was how can (say) 150 "experts" manage to make this mistake. The answer that came back was something like categories typically get dozens of different nominations at the initial stage and that it may only take (say - my figures here) 10 or so nominations at this stage for an "entry" to make it to the finals. |
|
14 Dec 11 - 09:56 AM (#3273625) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: GUEST You're talking sense Howard. And your last sentence is in much the same vein as Mike Hardings in the blog I linked to. Yes with some 150 or so experts I'd be surprised if there were no performers, but where is the evidence that the BBC or Smooth OPs actually made that statement. I'm not claiming they didn't but this is the internet and just because someone states something was said soesn't make it so. I'd like to see the actual statement rather than someone's suggestion of what was said. |
|
14 Dec 11 - 09:57 AM (#3273627) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: GUEST,Kevin Sheils Sorry that above was a cookieless Kevin Sheils forgetting he's on a different computer |
|
14 Dec 11 - 10:02 AM (#3273628) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Dave Hanson The reason for the secrecy about the judges has been given as ' so they can't be influenced by record companies ' this must indicate that they can't be trusted to use their integrity, in whom they vote for. This argument will go on as long as everything is not open to public scrutiny. Dave H |
|
14 Dec 11 - 10:08 AM (#3273631) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Silas OK Dave - if you were a judge would you want it to be known? I certainly wouldn't. I can imagine the pestering from 'folkies' wanting to know all the processes, who I am voting for, being swamped with demo CDs, facing critisism from people who have a different opinion on who should have won. No, leave it as it is. |
|
14 Dec 11 - 10:15 AM (#3273634) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Kevin Sheils To quote part of Mike Hardings blog I don't particularly care whether the names of the judges become public knowledge or not – they weren't kept secret they just weren't published.I suspect that both Smooth Operations and the BBC thought nobody would be much interested in knowing who they were – I would however point out that… 1 - Judges might not want their names known because they could possibly become the subjects of either lobbying or abuse. The lobbying I doubt simply because there ain't that much money in folk that a big record company are going to start flying Fred Bloggs the organiser of WIlberswick Folk Festival to Cannes. Also I suspect that the folk world – because of its very roots – is fundamentally anti big business and is still at base a world in which honesty and being rooted is very important– you couldn't find more rooted and honest people for example than Chris Wood and Martin Simpson two of this years nominees. Abuse (as from the evidence of this "transparency" campaign) is much more likely. You can follow the link to read the rest if you wish. Once again the mudcat knee-jerk reactions set in. Even if you read Emma's blog there is a statement from Kellie While that they have no objection to judges saying who they are but it's their choice not someone else's. As Silas states above would you put up with the pestering. Fotunately most people realise that mudcat is, despite many of it's own contributors views of it's own importance, pretty irrelevant to most people who just get on with playing, singing, organising, listening and enjoying this great music. |
|
14 Dec 11 - 11:12 AM (#3273664) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Silas "And why shouldn't someone, anyone, post a link to well-written and thoughtful folk blog?" Just seen this, it made me spurtle coffee all over my keyboard! Haa Haaaaaaaaaa! Well written - thoughtful? Yea - right! |
|
14 Dec 11 - 11:17 AM (#3273666) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: greg stephens Silas: I have noobjection to the BBC running Folk Awards. I do have an objection to their issuing statements that are not true. That is plain daft. |
|
14 Dec 11 - 11:20 AM (#3273670) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Kevin Sheils Again a pointer to the actual statement would be useful statement rather than a allusion to it |
|
14 Dec 11 - 11:20 AM (#3273671) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Silas Well Greg, it depends on wether there was a deliberate intention to mislead or not, I am not certain that they actually made that statement as I have seen nothing to confirm it, but even if they did I think it was probably an honest mistake. |
|
14 Dec 11 - 11:37 AM (#3273681) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: TheSnail Emma Hartley's blog, 3rd page of attachment to email from Rachel Hallett, just over half way down. Signed Chris Burns Group Manager Audio & Music |
|
14 Dec 11 - 11:50 AM (#3273689) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Silas Thanks Mr Snail - trouble is it means going on the poisonus blog again - ah well. |
|
14 Dec 11 - 12:00 PM (#3273692) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Kevin Sheils OK that's all we asked for a pointer to the statement. I would guess that the particular BBC person may not be aware that there is a very blurred distinction in Folk music between performers and those who fill other roles, probably more so than in mainstream music. I would guess, to give an example, the BBC would consider Kellie While to be acting in her role as senior producer for smooth ops and not even be aware of her as a performer. There may well be other similar scenarios where the judge is chosen for their non performing roles. Of course all these statements that the BBC are misleading us only hold water if we know who the judges are. Bit of a chicken and egg here. People complain about the lack of a list of judges and then claim that the BBC are lying because we know who the list contains. Maybe people should try to get their objections straight. Anyway it's all an irrelevence really, except of course to the small few who may feel really left out by not being recognised, either as winners or judges. Which I think is far more the underlying reason for the complaints than transparency. |
|
14 Dec 11 - 12:00 PM (#3273693) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Bounty Hound Silas, the statement was made by the BBC in their response to Emma Hartley, and she has published that reply on her blog, and reads: 'The 'Voting panel' for the Folk Awards is made up of people who are making judgments and decisions about folk music as part of their job, but are not performers themselves' I would imagine the reality is that as Howard has already rightly pointed out, that many of the judges are probably performers to some degree, and like Howard, I personally don't have a problem with that, but if you read the earlier post from banjiman, you will see that at least one of the judges is a well established and respected top flight performer, and also manages one of the nominees. the inference of the BBC statement is that the judges are likely to be agents, promoters, managers etc, which does of course beg the question of a vested interest in the nominees. 'honest mistake'? I don't know, but would have my doubts. It is precisely because there are only snippets of unclear information that we get the conspiracy theories you refer to in your earlier post and I would echo the earlier call that transparency is what's needed. John |
|
14 Dec 11 - 12:01 PM (#3273694) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Vic Smith Silas asked:- "Would you rather there be no Folk Award programme on national BBC?" No Folk Award programme? Hmmm - there's an interesting idea! |
|
14 Dec 11 - 12:05 PM (#3273696) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Silas Hi John. I would imagine that some of the judges MUST be performers, either ones who take no part inthe actual awards or performers who no loner perform all that much. I would imagine that MH is one of the judges for instance, and I am sure Genevive Tudor is, and she does occasionally perform. I think he is referring to mainstream performers like well, Bob Fox, Steve Knightly, Jon Boden etc. |
|
14 Dec 11 - 12:34 PM (#3273700) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: GUEST,Emberto Uco Of course every aspect of the Music Industry is corrupt to some extent. What's the point of being an awards judge if you can't at least get a few bottles of rare old Malt Whisky or an occasional blowjob out of it ???? |
|
14 Dec 11 - 12:43 PM (#3273703) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Silas Get yer coat! |
|
14 Dec 11 - 01:04 PM (#3273715) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: The Sandman Yes, Folk awards have become meaningless, and particularly these ones, it smacks of the pop world and tin pan alley, in my opinion what is needed is a revival of the home made music phenomenon The BBC did better when they had programmes like hold down a chord, might I suggest they do a programme on open tuning on guitar and or banjo, or even styles of unaccompanied singing, using traditional singers to illustrate different styles and ornamentation. or even songwriting the BBC AWARDS are a bad joke, yours disgusted a long way from tipperary |
|
14 Dec 11 - 01:37 PM (#3273737) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Les in Chorlton If I didn't know any better I would suspect that "Good Soldier Schweik " was in fact "the home made music phenomenon" who is publically involved in "styles of unaccompanied singing" and probably that modern opportunistic development "accomanied singing" also. And to enter this discussion without being totally, utterly and completely honest about his/her relationship to the BBC, Smooth Opps, Mike Harding and pints of free mild beer sums up what is bringing our beloved tradition to its erm ......, why Oh why, and am I the only one .............. and stuff like that. Yours outraged of Chorlton cum Hardy |
|
14 Dec 11 - 02:13 PM (#3273760) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: GUEST,999 "What's the point of being an awards judge if you can't at least get a few bottles of rare old Malt Whisky or an occasional blowjob out of it ????" I think Bill Clinton would best be able to answer that. |
|
14 Dec 11 - 02:20 PM (#3273766) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Howard Jones I'm trying to think how anyone sufficiently involved with the folk world on a professional basis to be asked to be a judge might not, one way or another, have a vested interest in some of the nominees. If you have the qualifications to be a judge, you can't be entirely disinterested. However I take comfort from knowing that, in my experience, people in the folk world are almost invariably open, honest and trustworthy. I also know that most people feel passionately about the music, and I'm quite sure the majority of judges do their best to perform their duties conscientiously. I also take comfort from the fact that with a pool of 150 judges any cronyism, favouritism, bias or outright corruption by a few of them is likely to be cancelled out by the majority. Of course, if you believe in conspiracy theories you'll believe they're all involved... |
|
14 Dec 11 - 02:55 PM (#3273789) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: The Sandman Jim Carroll would make an excellent judge |
|
14 Dec 11 - 03:18 PM (#3273801) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: GUEST,Folknacious However I take comfort from knowing that, in my experience, people in the folk world are almost invariably open, honest and trustworthy. I also know that most people feel passionately about the music, and I'm quite sure the majority of judges do their best to perform their duties conscientiously. Exactly. So I think that people shouting about conspiracies and cheating and bias and cronyism say a lot more about their own likely tendencies were they in the position of being a judge than anything else: takes one to know one and so forth. Furthermore, any argument based on variations on "the people I like never get nominated" is completely spurious, like complaining about a record getting a review saying something other than your opinion. Because that's all it is: opinion based on people's tastes. Many people have been nominated and won over the years who aren't to my taste, and many people I admire have never been nominated, but that's how democracy goes folks, when it's your taste versus 150 others. For all that, I certainly don't want to play dog in the manger and tear it down because I can see the viewpoints of those who say that it generates publicity for folk music and any publicity is good publicity. Certainly better than hiding it away in the back room of a seedy pub and charging 1970s prices to restrict it to 1970s people. |
|
14 Dec 11 - 03:24 PM (#3273805) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: The Sandman From: GUEST,Folknacious - PM Date: 14 Dec 11 - 03:18 PM However I take comfort from knowing that, in my experience, people in the folk world are almost invariably open, honest and trustworthy. I also know that most people feel passionately about the music, and I'm quite sure the majority of judges do their best to perform their duties conscientiously. Exactly. So I think that people shouting about conspiracies and cheating and bias and cronyism say a lot more about their own likely tendencies were they in the position of being a judge than anything else: takes one to know one and so forth. Furthermore, any argument based on variations on "the people I like never get nominated" is completely spurious, like complaining about a record getting a review saying something other than your opinion. Because that's all it is: opinion based on people's tastes. Many people have been nominated and won over the years who aren't to my taste, and many people I admire have never been nominated, but that's how democracy goes folks, when it's your taste versus 150 others. For all that, I certainly don't want to play dog in the manger and tear it down because I can see the viewpoints of those who say that it generates publicity for folk music and any publicity is good publicity. Certainly better than hiding it away in the back room of a seedy pub and charging 1970s prices to restrict it to 1970s people who is this idiot? .this is an insult to folk clubs and folk club organisers. |
|
14 Dec 11 - 03:36 PM (#3273811) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Vic Smith Why is Folknacious an idiot? Why be rude? Like you, I don't think that the Folk Awards show the folk scene at its best. Folknacious argues - perfectly validly - that they "generate publicity for folk music and any publicity is good publicity." This is a perfectly valid point and one that I would find undeniable. It is called a debate. Because people have different opinions from us, we don't have to be rude to them. |
|
14 Dec 11 - 04:22 PM (#3273826) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: GUEST,Jon I also take comfort from the fact that with a pool of 150 judges any cronyism, favouritism, bias or outright corruption by a few of them is likely to be cancelled out by the majority. Of course, if you believe in conspiracy theories you'll believe they're all involved... Hmm, I would have thought that if the reply as I remember it concerning an original song getting to the finals in a traditional category is correct and the nominations are commonly that scattered, it would follow that only a small number would need to be in collusion to give an "entry" a very good chance of making the finals. Winning the final would be a different matter though. |
|
14 Dec 11 - 04:22 PM (#3273827) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: The Sandman well he has described all folk clubs in a rude way: Certainly better than hiding it away in the back room of a seedy pub and charging 1970s prices to restrict it to 1970s people." Vic, it is idotic to describe people like you as seventies peple who hide away in seedy back rooms, if people like folknacious make idiotic statements they deserve to be called idiots |
|
14 Dec 11 - 04:22 PM (#3273828) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: GUEST,999 You folks take yourselves much too seriously. I don't think I'm related to the old lady who wrote the letter, but I could be. |
|
14 Dec 11 - 06:30 PM (#3273887) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Spleen Cringe That link is brilliant. Thanks, 999! |
|
15 Dec 11 - 06:26 AM (#3274097) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: The Sandman Icannot stand people who make sweeping generalisations[particularly about folk clubs and folk music]. the seventies was a time when many folk clubs were heaving with young people in 1974 I saw Alex Campbell, play to a full house at dartford folk club, whose room was not a seedy back room.in the seventies i remember doing a floor spot at vic smiths[upstairs and not seedy] club the guest were strawhead, the club was well attended. i was involved as a resident at a folk club called the three blackbirds, the guest was derek brimstone ,packed house, he got 3 encores, dereks words were this is a great club, circa 1977. just 3 examples of many i could mention, what is this crap about seventies people, what is this crap about seventies prices, whatis this myth that all folk clubs are in seedy back rooms. this kind of genarilising rubbish only harms folk clubs and folk music either folknacious is a fantasist or he has some other problem |
|
15 Dec 11 - 06:48 AM (#3274107) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Vic Smith ... what is this crap....he has some other problem ... and so those - including myself - who just want an insult-free discussion are driven away... |
|
15 Dec 11 - 08:05 AM (#3274134) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Howard Jones GSS, the remark you're complaining about was a throw-away comment as part of a discussion on an entirely different topic. It is clearly not meant as a generalisation about all folk clubs but even you must recognise that it applies to some. It is clearly intended as the opposite end of a spectrum to the Folk Awards. Even if you disagree with the comment, please drop it. It is not relevant to the topic under discussion, and personal abuse is inimical to rational debate. |
|
15 Dec 11 - 08:35 AM (#3274145) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: GUEST,Folknacious Howard Jones said: rational debate. On Mudcat? With bewildered of Ballydehob? Yes it was, as you say, a throwaway remark, but unexpectedly too close to the bone for those who may have fitting caps. Always consult mirror before reacting. |
|
15 Dec 11 - 08:35 AM (#3274146) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: The Sandman no,I will not drop it . it was yet another attempt to damage the reputation of folk clubs and folk music, a remark that is not close to reality, it read like a remark about all folk clubs, therfefore it needs to be corrected it is a tiny minority of folk clubs that are held in seedy back rooms, and those that are held there, are held there, because there is nowhere else available, finding rooms for folk clubs is not easy. rational debate cannot be achieved if people such as Folknacious make irrational comments. |
|
15 Dec 11 - 09:01 AM (#3274155) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: GUEST,Seedy Guy It is the reference to "seediness" or the "backness" of the room that so offends? "Seventies prices for seventies people". I'd wear that on a t-shirt. |
|
15 Dec 11 - 09:16 AM (#3274161) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Vic Smith bewildered of Ballydehob It is a great temptation to descend to his level - but surely it is a sign of strength not to? |
|
15 Dec 11 - 10:53 AM (#3274191) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: The Sandman no Vic, I have a right to refute idiotic statements, that insult the hard work many organisers do. Folknacious has not backed up his silly comment with any kind of rational comment. what the f### are seventies people, and which clubs are charging seventies prices, he is just talking nonsense, and which clubs are in seedy back rooms, it is just another attempt by someone to make ill informed negative comments about folk clubs. |
|
15 Dec 11 - 11:02 AM (#3274196) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Nigel Parsons EmmaHartley has now provided just 1% (and only 2 lines) of the postings on this subject. Maybe we should just let the thread die, as she seems uninterested! 100 |
|
15 Dec 11 - 11:39 AM (#3274212) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: The Sandman 100 |
|
15 Dec 11 - 06:33 PM (#3274456) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: the lemonade lady Hear, hear... Who is Emma anyway? Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Geoff the Duck - PM Date: 13 Dec 11 - 06:40 AM I sometimes wonder about Mudcat... Every day Emma Hartley starts a new thread which consists of "Tabloid Headline - come and click on the Blicky to my blog...". We then hear no more from her on the thread. In the meanwhile, a bunch of mudcat regulars (are caught in the net and hauled up on deck flapping about like wet fish) spend hours arguing about whatever irrelevance was on the blog. Personally I think the original daily posts should just be deleted as spam. Quack! GtD. |
|
15 Dec 11 - 06:41 PM (#3274462) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: the lemonade lady Is this She |
|
15 Dec 11 - 07:08 PM (#3274484) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Spleen Cringe ... climate change denier? |
|
16 Dec 11 - 02:55 AM (#3274626) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Dave Hanson What climate change ? Dave H |
|
16 Dec 11 - 05:31 AM (#3274665) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: glueman Seventies prices for seventies people! Where do I sign? |
|
16 Dec 11 - 07:13 AM (#3274697) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Big Al Whittle well I've only just understood what the thread is about - seems a pity to close it down. Still not totally sure why you're so worried about it. I may be getting it wrong - but it seems to me that some people think that folk on radio should reflect the clubs, whereas in actual fact - its sort of adjunct of the recording industry/ entertainment industry/ agents of artists who gig small theatres. In actual fact GSS (I respect you a lot) I think we just have to render unto Caesar what is Caesars. Nowadays things aren't too bad - we have the internet. Its no use craving what isn't up for grabs. I know the BBC's charter makes all sorts of promises, but look how far off the mark they are in lots of ways - its bound to be very contolled by middle and upper class English people who think that culture is just something that posh folk know about. |
|
16 Dec 11 - 07:18 AM (#3274700) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: GUEST, Knit-Picker ... climate change denier? That's a thickness of wool, right? |
|
16 Dec 11 - 07:27 AM (#3274702) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Nigel Parsons ... climate change denier? That's a thickness of wool, right? Or should that be "wooly-headed & thick"? |
|
16 Dec 11 - 09:52 AM (#3274769) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe I should add that my post of 15 Dec 11 07:08pm above makes no sense at all now the one it was a response to has been removed. Just fer the rekkid. Not that it made a great deal of sense before. |
|
16 Dec 11 - 10:11 AM (#3274780) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: GUEST,John Bullshite yep some of the mudcat mods have gone delete power crazy again just recently. They are particularly targeting British cultural humour, harmless trifling little jokes and ironic wordplays that they just don't seem to understand.. |
|
16 Dec 11 - 01:24 PM (#3274931) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Les in Chorlton "British cultural humour, harmless trifling little jokes and ironic wordplays" Very funny, yes very funny L in C# |
|
16 Dec 11 - 01:27 PM (#3274934) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: GUEST,999 There was nowt funny about the deleted post. If indeed that is what passes for Brit humour these days your country is surely in trouble. |
|
16 Dec 11 - 01:36 PM (#3274946) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: GUEST,John Bullshite I wasn't referring specifically to only that most recent deleted post. Which incidentally I didn't write. |
|
16 Dec 11 - 02:15 PM (#3274973) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Paul Davenport I tried to read this thread from the start…it doesn't make sense. |
|
16 Dec 11 - 02:43 PM (#3274989) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Big Al Whittle no you're right Paul it doesn't mke sense. But this award thing has been upsetting folks for years. I don't really see a solution. The whole folk thing - well some folk try and say its all about some traditional baloney - but in actual fact, its about British people expressing themselves with great individualism. And you are never going to reconcile that level of individualism, with all the compromises and and marketing concerns of a music industry - probably the most competitive game in the world outside English League Football. There may be confluences of interest - but they are always going to be very shallow tributaries of folk music in England. |
|
16 Dec 11 - 03:36 PM (#3275026) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Peter K (Fionn) The judges must be grateful that they are protected from lobbying. Most of them will be known to Alan Bearman of course, but I'm sure he doesn't lobby them at all. Like Peregrina, a Mudcatter of two years' standing with 700-plus posts racked up, I quite like Emma's blog. Does that mean that I too am Emma, Folknacious? Anyway, I hope Emma follows up, because there is no justification for the BBC playing its "journalism art or literature" card. And its claim that the judges are not performers is a straightforward lie. |
|
17 Dec 11 - 04:21 AM (#3275308) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Silas Well Peter K, I don't think it's the number of times you post that is important, its the number of posts you read that makes the difference. |
|
17 Dec 11 - 05:59 PM (#3275648) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Peter K (Fionn) Silas, that doesn't explain why Folknacious should accuse a long-established member of being an alias for someone else. |
|
17 Dec 11 - 06:10 PM (#3275656) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: The Sandman folknacious, what can one say about him? he makes irrational comments, and he accuses a long established member of being an alias for someone else. |
|
18 Dec 11 - 02:40 PM (#3276116) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Big Al Whittle I wish I had an alias. An alter ego. I'd call him something sexy, but full of Celtic charm like .......Clint MacWhanger. |
|
18 Dec 11 - 03:22 PM (#3276145) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Bonnie Shaljean Or maybe something musical, like Reel Goat (anagram for Alter Ego)? Dunno about charming, but it's Celticky… Well, that's what bodhrans are made out of, and they can accompany reels, and… and… y'know… |
|
18 Dec 11 - 04:29 PM (#3276186) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Big Al Whittle no Bonnie, goats are randy.. I can do that as I am. I see Clint as sexually desirable,,,, you know the sort of thing.....essentially a babe magnet, but sort of unattainable and aloof. Like Greta Garbo, I vont to be alone...... You know how it drives you women wild. |
|
18 Dec 11 - 09:11 PM (#3276287) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Big Al Whittle I don't actually want wild, more sort of panting with sexual desire....that's the effect I feel Clint should aim for. I'm sure a sophisticated American lady, with a wild celtic streak knows all about that stuff....... Merry Christmas, by the way! |
|
19 Dec 11 - 09:10 PM (#3276901) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request denied From: Big Al Whittle These awards ....did you and Packie ever get one? |
|
25 Jan 12 - 06:28 PM (#3296283) Subject: Folk awards FoI request gets Orwellian From: EmmaHartley http://theglamourcave.blogspot.com/2012/01/freedom-of-information-act-redefines.html Curiously UBC Media Group, which owns Smooth Operations, has lost more than 20 per cent off its share price since the furore about the folk awards blew up. No idea whether the two things are connected... |
|
25 Jan 12 - 07:09 PM (#3296299) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request gets Orwellian From: Stilly River Sage Emma, why don't you post your new blog entry links to the original blog announcement instead of starting a new thread each time? You post one remark then never come back, so you might as well post it by adding on to the one place. It lends more continuity to your work, for one thing. Makes you less of a target, for another. IMHO. SRS |
|
26 Jan 12 - 05:39 AM (#3296478) Subject: RE: Folk awards FoI request gets Orwellian From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe Would that be the "furore" that was started by a journalist hoping to stir up a bit of controversy to get people to visit her blog? Just askin'... |