Is it just me or did yesterday's list of BAFTA nominees have a fair few glaring omissions, and rather more glaring inclusions? The 'British Oscars' have long been more than a touch eccentric - this is the awards body that decided The Fifth Element had better effects than Titanic and that Atonement was the best film of 2007, yet not the best British film, despite being, well, British -but this year's list risks pushing the awards towards irrelevance. Unless you can be viewed as a reasonable barometer of Oscar success - which are, let's face it, still the only awards anybody really cares about - then you are just an also ran, and BAFTA may be missing some vital Oscar contenders.

Let's leave aside the Best Film and Best Director categories, which seem largely on the money - although the middling The Reader doesn't deserve its place, which should have gone to either The Wrestler or Revolutionary Road - and instead focus on the acting awards, which is where some very odd choices have been made.

BAFTA famously likes to recognise British talent - or talent from British films - over all other countries (film awards shows are NOT the Olympics; we're not trying to beat other nations!), which has pushed out some more deserving contenders. Now, I count Slumdog Millionaire as my favourite film among all nominees, and my favourite of the year so far, but I do not see how Dev Patel or Freida Pinto can be considered to have given among the best performances of the past twelve months. They were good, certainly, but those were not roles that really demanded a huge amount from the actors. Slumdog wasn't a film for great performances, it was one about a great story and a director finding brilliant ways to tell and control that story. Compare those performances to the likes of Leonardo Dicaprio in Revolutionary Road, Viola Davis in Doubt or even Colin Farrell in In Bruges and it starts to make their selection look a bit silly and giddy over the fact that a British film is the (rightful) frontrunner in all the major awards ceremonies. Viola Davis is still a very much possible winner of the Best Supporting Actress Oscar, so leaving her out is just daft.

Then there's the Best Actress category, which is just plain screwy. Yes, Kate Winslet won two Golden Globes, but before that win she was not a frontrunner for Oscar success, at least as Best Actress. The frontrunners were, and quite possibly still are, Anne Hathaway in Rachel Getting Married and Sally Hawkins in Happy Go Lucky. Where are they on this list? If the Oscar nominations come out next week and include both those women then the BAFTAs will again look irrelevant and quaintly out of touch.  It's a strong category, but pushing Winslet to supporting for The Reader, despite it technically being a lead role, would have been more sensible. Supporting Actor is also a tad weird (Brad Pitt in Burn After Reading? Really?), but Heath Ledger has that sewn up, so the rest of the nominees are really just making up the numbers.

There is, of course, the argument to be made that the BAFTAs are trying to be a bit different and separate themselves from the Oscar race, but that's not really the way to make an awards show important. A few years ago the BAFTAs became a real event on the road to the Oscars, when Harvey Weinstein decided that they might have some influence on at least the British band of Academy Awards voters and brought over any talent nominated for his films, causing others to follow suit, but it's slipping back into fustiness with its most recent nominees. Come on BAFTA, forget the whole British part and just focus on the films.

Olly Richards