The ambition to serve

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 18/10/2018 - 11:28pm in



I love this opening paragraph from George Monbiot in The Guardian today:

It is hard to believe today, but the prevailing ethos among the educated elite was once public service. As the historian Tony Judt documented in Ill Fares the Land, the foremost ambition among graduates in the 1950s and 60s was, through government or the liberal professions, to serve their country. Their approach might have been patrician and often blinkered, but their intentions were mostly public and civic, not private and pecuniary.

Great book from Tony Judt.

The sentiment is correct.

George's writing is good.

I have enormous sympathy with what he says in the rest of the article.

And he's right: it all went wrong due to economist promoted greed, at cost to us all.

MIT Launches Billion Dollar Ethics-Oriented AI Initiative

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 18/10/2018 - 1:42am in

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is establishing a new college focused on the development and “ethical application” artificial intelligence.

The Stephen A. Schwarzman College of Computing will be the centerpiece of MIT’s $1 billion initiative “to address the global opportunities and challenges presented by the prevalence of computing and the rise of artificial intelligence.”

A press release from the university states that, among other things, the new college will strengthen MIT’s role in “the responsible and ethical evolution of technologies that are poised to fundamentally transform society” and be “a place for teaching and research on relevant policy and ethics to better ensure that the groundbreaking technologies of the future are responsibly implemented in support of the greater good.”

Stephen Schwarzman, the chairman and CEO of Blackstone, an investment firm, made a $350 million donation that led to the establishment of the new college that bears his name. He says, “The College’s attention to ethics matters enormously to me, because we will never realize the full potential of these advancements unless they are guided by a shared understanding of their moral implications for society.”

The new college will include existing MIT faculty from a variety of disciplines as well as 50 new faculty positions, graduate fellowships in ethics and AI, forums to bring together academics, government officials, business leaders, and media to discuss AI-related policy matters, and a curriculum that brings computer science together with other areas of inquiry. In an email, Alex Byrne, head of the Department of Philosophy at MIT, said that he expects the department to be significantly involved in the new college.

You can read more about it at MIT’s site.

Elias Sime, “Tightrope: Internalized”

Related: “Computer Science Ethics: A Growth Area for Philosophy?“, “Nearly $15m For Philosopher-Led Artificial Intelligence Center“, “Patent Pending for Philosopher and Astrophysicist-Designed Artificial Consciousness Test“, “Philosophers Appointed To High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence“, “Will Computers Do Philosophy?” “Philanthropy for Philosophy: Fleeting Fad or Fertile Future?“, “Philosophy in 10 Years

The post MIT Launches Billion Dollar Ethics-Oriented AI Initiative appeared first on Daily Nous.

Red Lines

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 09/10/2018 - 5:37am in


Ethics, Pinochet

One of the most important ethical practices is to know where your red lines are.

What won’t you do? What won’t you accept or let go?

If you don’t think about this in advance you risk doing abominable things and then realizing you have gone too far.

This is true in personal life, and it’s true in political life.

Two simple personal lines I have are that I won’t rape, I won’t torture, and I don’t approve of those who do.

Those don’t seem, to me, to be lines that should be all that controversial, but if often seems like they are. A lot of people, especially, are willing to excuse torture, and a lot of people rape.

Heck, a lot of people excuse rape. I recently saw a picture of the “Proud Boys” wearing shirts proclaiming that Pinochet did nothing wrong. Pinochet had dogs trained to rape women.

If you support Pinochet, you’re unutterable scum. No exceptions.

One of the simple rules for living in a good world is taking certain actions off the board. There are some things, which if you do, you lose the right to call yourself a good person, or the right to the good will and opinion of other people.

In geopolitics, aggressive war, like Iraq or Libya or the current Saudi attack in Yemen, mark a country as beyond the pale, because war always includes a myriad of evils, and should be engaged in only, truly, as a last resort.

If you violate hard, red lines you morally destroy yourself, and it’s a hard thing to come back from. Part of it is the human need to justify ourselves: If we do something bad, we like to pretend it wasn’t “so bad.” Part of it is that we normalize whatever we do.

Doing evil, to put it poetically, stains our souls, and getting them clean again isn’t easy. Most people never really manage it, not if they’ve done true evil.

Then there is the issue of hypocrisy. When our people do it, somehow it isn’t as bad as when their people do this.

I see this with a lot of the opposition to Trump. Oh, Trump’s evil. He was always clearly evil, as when he endorsed torture. But Obama engaged in the Libyan war, which, of course, led to mass rapes, murder, torture and open air slave markets.

The same people screaming about Trump’s evils, which are certainly real, somehow said little about Obama’s evils.

Because Obama was their guy.

Nor, of course, is it only Democratic partisans who are hypocrites this way.

We all have our tribes: The groups and beliefs and symbols we identify with. And when they do evil, well, somehow we just don’t find the outrage in ourselves that we find for our enemy’s evils.

Trump may yet cause a war. He’s sure trying with Iran. If he does, he’ll wind up worse than Obama, odds are (since a war with Iran will do even more harm than the Libyan war). But he hasn’t yet.

Domestically, of course, he’s been worse, and is due criticism. But absent an aggressive war, well…

Be careful who and what you justify. Think about your own red lines. Do it for your soul, and do it so the actions of your tribe, your country, don’t cost you your soul.

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Share on WhatsApp

The age of empathy

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 08/10/2018 - 6:58pm in


Ethics, Politics

I found this weekend depressing.

Partly that was the result of having a ferocious cold.

Partly it was lowish mood in anticipation of my father’s funeral this week (it has taken an age to happen).

Then the result in Brazil was bad.

And, of course, there was the approval of Brett Kavanaugh. Even if he never committed a crime, that a person so deeply misogynist could be confirmed as a member of the US Supreme Court on the basis of a strictly partisan vote shows a break down in all the norms of decency that underpin representative democracy as the price of loyalty to a party that has lost touch with the most basic of respect for large parts of the population, and women in particular.

What is depressing is that this does not even seem like an accident. It appears very deliberate. And that to me stinks.

But it also suggests something else: it suggests that breakdowns such as this, grim as they are, can and, I think will, be the catalyst for the changes that are coming closer.

Of course I can misread mood, and I am under no illusion about the fact that the Republicans and populists in general have significant support, but what I think will happen is that a moment will arrive when anger will spillover and people will simply declare that they have had enough of being abused.

There is a chance that will be brutally suppressed. That has happened before, of course. But when I look at young people I see too many who think that equality is implicit in all their values and cannot now be abused by anyone, even if they are not oppressed. They are from an age of empathy. And although it feels like we are a long way from that this weekend I think the dinosaurs are dying. I remain optimistic that there will be change.

But it requires an act of considerable faith on occasion.

Murphy – Laffer Tax Co-op Debate

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 04/10/2018 - 12:28am in

I mentioned this morning that I was debating the faults of tax competition with Arthur Laffer in the appropriate environment of the OECD today.

That debate has now taken place and I am pleased to say that I won the vote, 58% agreeing with me that tax competition was harmful, 31% agreeing with Arthur that it was beneficial and the rest being undecided.

This is, pretty much, what I said:

1 Be it resolved that: Tax competition is harmful

  • Good morning.
  • I am here to put to you the idea that tax competition is harmful. I do so with conviction. I am utterly convinced that it is.
  • But when saying that please do not think I am saying that all competition is harmful: it is not. As a chartered accountant, a serial entrepreneur, a user of venture capital, and someone who has unashamedly made profit, I have no difficulty with the concept of competition. In the right place, at the right time, and subject to the right regulation so that all can partake on a level playing field that works for the benefit of all in society competition motivates genuine business activity and can enhance our mutual well being.
  • I’ll return to those conditions. But I really want to stress another one. That is that this all competition is predicated on the idea that failure is acceptable.
  • And we know that failure is acceptable in business. That said, because of the scale of modern business, we have also accepted that it is so risky that we developed the concept of limited liability to socialise its consequences. The state puts us all at risk from competition amongst those in the business community because we think that a price worth paying. And that’s the case because we assume that there will always be plenty of other entities to take the failed one’s place when a corporation goes bankrupt.
  • That assumption is usually fair if there are effective markets. It means we can afford competition.
  • But there is no such protection in the case of states. The state that fails does so completely.
  • And there is no alternative or parallel state that replaces the failed state: there is just economic, social and humanitarian disaster.
  • And the risk of tax competition is that states will fail. Indeed, in its rawest form, that is almost exactly what tax competition is designed to induce by denying to the state the tax that is the lifeblood of its existence.
  • Tax competition does not then come in harmful and benign forms as might have been implied by the OECD’s 1998 report on this issue: it comes in just one harmful variety.
  • But it’s worse than that. Tax competition also undermines free, fair and competitive markets. Such markets requires that all companies compete on a level playing field and have equal access to capital. Tax competition is explicitly designed to undermine these conditions by providing some companies with an unfair and wholly artificial competitive advantage by reducing their tax rate by arbitraging tax legislation and regulation. Doing so lets them pay a higher return to capital, so distorting their access to funds, which creates an outcome where abuse of legislation can result in the determination of winners and losers in the marketplace rather than such matters being decided on the basis of who can serve the best interests of customers. Tax competition is, then, the enemy of effective market economics.
  • In that case tax competition is necessarily harmful. It:
    • Undermines the state;
    • Undermines democracy by denying electorates the right to determine what taxes shall be paid and by whom;
    • Undermines the rule of law by encouraging some to exempt themselves from that laws reach;
    • And undermines free markets;
  • Put those factors together and tax competition is always, and necessarily, harmful. Nothing can redeem it.

2 Be it resolved that: The cost of controlling tax competition is justified by the benefits it delivers

  • There is, of course, a cost to controlling tax competition. It is, however, modest. What is more it is a price we have paid since almost time immemorial. If in doubt just read about the workings of the Temple in ancient Jerusalem. It was the regulator of markets as well as a centre for devotion. We have always known that both markets and tax can be abused. And we have thought it a price worth paying to prevent both.
  • The costs of controlling tax competition relate to:
    • The cost of securing international agreement to do so.
    • The cost of monitoring the agreement to do so.
    • The cost of exchanging information to evidence the process of doing so.
    • The cost of enforcing regulation, both domestically and internationally, against those who persist in anti-democratic, anti-social, anti-market and anti-state behaviour.
  • Whilst these costs are not insignificant I suggest that whatever they might be they are much lower than the gains to be made from regulating tax competition.
    • The gains from regulating tax competition are based on the fact that doing so:
      • Means that markets that can more effectively allocate capital to those best able to use it to meet end users need. Effective markets are, therefore, reinforced and most believe that this is a proper basis for organising large parts of most economies;
      • The rule of law is upheld, with the example set reinforcing behaviour throughout society both nationally and internationally, which is why this issue has come to have such significance when much of the abuse from tax competition that has been witnessed has been by those in the public eye;
      • The ability of states to deliver services to those who need them is maintained – and for the avoidance of doubt, we all need the services of states;
      • Market failure – including in the mispricing of externalities – is prevented;
      • Income and wealth can be redistributed, which we know leads to better societies;
      • Fiscal policy becomes an option for governments, which is vital when zero rates are going to stay at or near the zero bound;
      • The value of local currencies – which are always supported by the requirement that taxes be paid in them - are upheld;
      • Democracy is supported.
    • To put it another way, defeating tax competition is a necessary condition for effective economic management.
      • To misquote Oliver Wendell Holmes:
        • The cost of defeating tax competition is the price that we pay the living in a civilised and prosperous society.

3 Be it resolved that: It is possible to develop a framework to control tax competition

  • The question has to be asked: can we defeat tax competition?
  • My answer is yes, but we have not succeeded as yet.
  • There is good reason for the fact that we have not done so: we have not as yet really comprehended the scale of the problem that we face or thought about it holistically.
  • Tax competition is both created and suffered by many jurisdictions, because it comes in many forms:
    • It is international;
    • And as importantly, it is domestic;
    • But perhaps just as significantly, it is not just about corporation tax or taxes on mobile capital. We have made the particular mistake of thinking it is mainly about corporate tax competition;
    • The reality is, however, that all taxes can undermine each other and that tax systems do not suffer bilateral risk, but instead suffer multilateral failures as a result of tax competition, both domestically and internationally.
    • What is more, it is not just the taxes themselves that are a threat to each other. The way in which they are operated also creates risk. So, we need to take into account:
      • Political attitudes towards tax in jurisdictions.
      • And the way in which tax administrations are resourced and cooperate;
      • As well as the risks created by company and trust administrations
      • And the effectiveness of the international agreements, so many of which are rooted in the OECD.
    • In other words, to really beat tax competition we need effective multilateral, domestic and international qualitative as well as quantitative measures of tax spillovers. As yet such a system does not exist, although with my colleague Andrew Baker I am working on this issue.
  • And we are doing is for good reason. It was in February this year that the United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF and the OECD all jointly committed to tackle tax spillovers. That can only be because they all perceive the threat of tax competition. We believe that a framework of the type we are creating can address this issue when as yet there is no system in place for doing so.
    • It is my belief that if we increased the ambition of governments who do believe in democracy, the rule of law, effective markets and the rights of the states that they govern then we could create and deliver these tax spillover assessments that would truly reveal where the threats to international taxation stability really are.
    • And it is my belief that this would transform the stability of the world markets; focus international business on their true goal of meeting customer need to generate long-term sustainable profit for the benefit of all in society, including their owners; and it would generate the secure basis of financing that so many countries, particularly in the developing world are in desperate need of.
    • That is why the cost of beating tax competition is worth paying.

Nationalism comes in a variety of forms

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 01/10/2018 - 4:38pm in


Ethics, Europe

Sean Danaher published one of his typically thoughtful pieces on Northern Ireland on Progressive Pulse yesterday. It is well worth reading in full, but I want to pull out one thought from it. Sean defines nationalism within the post, as follows:

There are many forms of nationalism, but two of the most widely recognised are civic and ethnic nationalism. Civic nationalism is characterised by blindness to ethnicity, race, colour, religion, gender or language and belief in equal rights for all citizens. Ethnic nationalism is characterised by language, religion, customs and traditions.

The pillars of civic nationalism are sometimes given as: unity by consent, democratic pluralism, liberty and the belief that the individual creates the nation. Those of ethnic nationalism are: unity by ascription, ethnic majority rule, fraternity and the belief that the nation creates the individual.

For many in England - me included - nationalism is a difficult term to embrace. The consequences are too hard to contemplate when what is projected as nationalism is of the type defined by Sean as ethnic nationalism. But that, Sean argues, is an English problem, although it has consequences. There are, of course, ethnic nationalists in other UK member nations. But the fact is that Scottish nationalism is profoundly civic by this definition, as is much Welsh nationalism. And so too is most Irish nationalism now, although maybe less so in the North where it faces ethnic nationalism from Loyalists for a state that few elsewhere think exists.

What is the point for noting this? Firstly to show how rethinking a word can be so useful. Few words have singular meaning.

Second, to highlight a divide in society that is intense and real, but which few probably comprehend sufficiently.

Third, to permit those who are proud to have their nationality to say so without fear of alienating others, which civic nationalism makes possible.

Fourth, to make it clear, as Sean does, that Brexit exploited this divide and there is no way it can be reconciled in weeks.

Fifth, to give hope that there is a trajectory for nationalism that is not alienating.

Sixth, to remind the English that this is an issue we have ignored.

Seventh, to confirm my suspicion that we cannot do so for much longer.

How an American Anthropologist Tied to US Regime-Change Proxies Became the MSM’s Man in Nicaragua

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 27/09/2018 - 8:42pm in

by Max Blumenthal, September 26, 2018, via MintPress The Guardian, The Washington Post, the BBC and NPR have assigned an American anthropologist with no previous journalistic experience to cover the crisis in Nicaragua. The novice reporter, named Carl David Goette-Luciak, has published pieces littered with falsehoods that reinforce the opposition’s narrative promoting regime change while relying almost entirely on anti-Sandinista sources. An investigation for MintPress reveals that Goette-Luciak has forged intimate ties to the opposition, and has essentially functioned as its publicist under journalistic cover. Having claimed to work in the past as an anthropologist and “human rights defender,” Goette-Luciak operated side-by-side with activists from a U.S.-backed opposition party known as the Sandinista Renovation Movement, or MRS. As we will see in this investigation, U.S. government-funded organizations have supplied the MRS with millions of dollars worth of election assistance, and continue to fund its activists by funding their NGO’s and social media training. Goette-Luciak now lists himself as “director of investigations” for an obscure outlet called Radio Ciudadana that was founded a month before the …

SYNDICATED COLUMN: Why Christine Ford vs. Brett Kavanaugh is a Train Wreck You Can’t Look Away From

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 20/09/2018 - 3:23am in

Image result for christine blaisey ford

Christine Blasey Ford accuses Brett Kavanaugh of trying to rape her during a party while they were in prep school. The political stakes are high: if Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote fails in the Senate and Democrats win the body back in November, conservatives will watch their dream of a solidly reliable 5-4 majority go up in smoke.

What makes the research psychologist’s charge culturally interesting — why people can’t talk about much else this week — are its many layers of debatability.

Is it right to derail a man’s career, or anyone’s anything, over a charge that can’t be verified? Is “innocent until proven guilty” still a thing?

Assuming Ford is truthful (and no new victims of Kavanaugh’s alleged piggery step forward), is a single disgraceful act by a 17-year-old (she was 15) a dealbreaker? 17-year-olds are more aggressive and impulsive than adults. It’s not their fault. It’s their brains’. Out-of-control teens don’t necessarily become crazy adults. That’s why we have a separate justice system for children. On the other hand, most of the people I knew as kids haven’t changed that much.

If Kavanaugh’s school buddy hadn’t busted up the scene, would he have raped Ford? Maybe, maybe not. But what she alleges, pinning her down and covering her mouth, would be unlawful restraint — a serious criminal offense.

I don’t know what happened. If this were a jury instructed to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, I’d have to let Kavanaugh walk.

My gut tells me Ford is telling the truth. She told her own shrink in 2012. She passed a polygraph. Her account describes an encounter that, though terrifying, could have gone worse. If she wanted to destroy Kavanaugh’s bid for the high court, she could claim that he’d raped her. Kavanaugh was a prep boy. He’s still a douche. Ford’s description sounds like vintage late-1970s/early-1980s douchbaggery. Douches gonna douche.

Again, I don’t know.

But here’s the thing: we can’t know. He said-she said is a cliché for a reason. This took place, or didn’t, in an age before smartphones and security cameras. People had privacy. Which they sometimes abused.

Republicans want the he and the she to testify under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 24th. Anita Hill 2.0! Ford’s lawyer says that’s too soon because her client wouldn’t have enough time to prepare. For what it’s worth, Ford’s lawyer is right; Kavanaugh had months to prepare for his cakewalk; she deserves the same before getting grilled.

If and when America gets its spectacle — Monday, Monday, Monday! Ford vs. Kavanaugh! Visit the concession stand! — we will know nothing more than we do today. She says it happened. He says it didn’t. She can’t prove it did. He can’t prove it didn’t.

What’s really on trial here is #MeToo.

Some dude, a pompous, angry “white knight,” tweeted the semi-official motto of #MeToo the other day: “BELIEVE ALL WOMEN! DISCUSSION OVER.” Nice try, but fascism isn’t the law yet. Discussion continues. Discussion will continue for the foreseeable future.

Because this discussion is inherently unresolveable.

It will not be resolved. But it will end.

#MeToo will end with a whimper. Give us a few more Aziz Ansaris and we’ll be too exhausted to continue. Yet #MeToo will have accomplished a lot. Its “Believe All Women” battle cry will be dismissed as the ridiculous attempted overcorrection it obviously is. No one deserves to be believed, not at face value, not without evidence, just because they’re a woman (or a man).

What people need and deserve, accuser and accused alike, is to be respected, taken seriously, and listened to. Pre-#MeToo, too many female accusers were dismissed out of hand, even mocked, frequently disrespected and revictimized. Too many male offenders were believed simply for belonging to the half of the population privileged under patriarchy.

Society needs to arrive at a place where people of underprivileged status are heard as much and as intelligently as those with wealth and power. Well, society really needs to eliminate differences in social and economic status. But until then, equal respect and dignity will have to suffice. #MeToo will help us get there.

In the meantime, we’ll have Ford vs. Kavanaugh.

(Ted Rall (Twitter: @tedrall), the political cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, is the author of “Francis: The People’s Pope.” You can support Ted’s hard-hitting political cartoons and columns and see his work first by sponsoring his work on Patreon.)


Beating the tax gap

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 19/09/2018 - 5:19pm in

I am on my way to Brussels this morning to speak at an EU Parliament event organised by the Socialist and Democrats Group of MEPs (of which Labour MEPs are members) on ‘Who stole our future?’. It seems that the tour has resumed despite recent events in my life. That is because I feel that it’s appropriate to do so. I will be talking about the tax gap in the context of the reshaping of society that we need. And if we are to have a future that includes the sense of public duty that my father undoubtedly embraced throughout his life then beating the tax gap is a key issue.

Several years ago I worked with the late Michael Meacher MP on this issue. Michael proposed legislation I had written to address the tax gap in the Commons as a private members bill. I well remember Jacob Rees-Mogg opposing it because he said, firstly, that Michael was a ‘socialist in tooth and claw’ and ‘this Bill would result in more tax being paid, and we do not want that’. I stress; I paraphrase.

Not for the first or last time Rees-Mogg angered me. He was right to describe Michael as a socialist. But the issue of beating the tax gap is at least in part about upholding the rule of law. Why the Right can in any way tolerate tax abuse when it threatens one of the foundations of Conservatism is very hard to understand, unless and until you comprehend that they are not Conservatives at all.

And that they are not pro-business either. There is nothing remotely pro-business about tolerating tax abuse when the consequence is that cheating businesses obtain an unfair competitive advantage over those businesses that act in the long term interest of all their stakeholders.

Rees-Mogg’s attitude was about only one interest, which was and is the selfishness that puts the interest of individuals who are willing to abuse above that of all others, including honest competitors, the law, the state and by extension all others in society. It does not require a socialist to point out the moral bankruptcy of such a position, although it seems that it helps, and makes the Left the best friends honest businesses have on the political spectrum, in my opinion.

Second Rees-Mogg was wrong to say that beating the tax gap meant more tax had to be paid. It might, of course. But I strongly suggest that since tax is primarily a tool of fiscal policy designed to beat inflation above all other goals then revenue maximisation is not the goal of any government. Rather the aim should always be to raise the required amount of tax as equitably as possible to achieve that fiscal goal in ways that achieve the secondary (but vital) goals of redistribution, repricing market failure, reorganising the economy and reinforcing the relationship between the citizen and the state. I doubt Rees-Mogg would recognise any of these.

My message today is that this is what we have to do. If we are to reclaim our future proper understanding of the role of tax is vital.

However, as my research is now showing in work I hope to publish soon, this is not the case, and there are massive impediments to doing so.

Astonishingly, official and other research data on tax is frequently inaccurate.

So too often is GDP data, which makes tax gap estimation hard.

And even the number of taxpayers is frequently subject to misreporting between data sources.

At its most basic level understanding tax is hard because official statistics seem to be perversely dedicated to ensuring that we cannot know the truth.

And when it comes to tax gaps, there is too little research and even too much denial that the issue is of consequence.

Tax cheats, both domestically and internationally, are stealing tax revenues. That is beyond dispute. But the absence of data to identify the true scale of the issue and to target resources to addressing the issue is the surest indication that they have far too many partners in politics and officialdom who are far too close to the Rees-Mogg view for comfort.

There is, I suggest, official complicity in the maintenance of the tax gap. Ed Balls was once said to have commented that he would not like to live in a country that sought to collect all the tax owing to it. I disagree: I want a state to seek to collect all the tax owing to it, but no more (of course). And that’s because to do so is the foundation of economic and social justice. We are too far from both.

The BBC and transgender children

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 19/09/2018 - 4:00am in

by Sarah Cooksley, via Liverpool Resisters, August 16, 2018 Over the past few years, many parents have begun to take note that the BBC is becoming ever more blatant with publicising and encouraging the transgender ideology amongst children. Where has this come from, and why? In January 2012, the BBC funded a Trans Camp, directed by All About Trans. There was considerable input from the CEO of Mermaids, Susie Green. In 2013, All About Trans met with the BBC Editorial Policy Department.  These meetings were described as “interactions” and the result has been several programmes specifically geared towards young people. All About Trans has several aims as a professional media organisation, but the first and foremost is to increase the public’s awareness of the existence of trans children. A year after these “interactions”, CBBC produced a TV series entitled “My Life: I am Leo”. Leo, aged 13, “always knew I was really a boy” because girls wear dresses and have long hair, whereas boys wear different things and have short hair. CBBC is a BBC …