Alfred Binet and the Birth of IQ (Early 20th Century). One of the most significant milestones in the history of IQ was the work of French psychologist Alfred Binet. In 1904, he was commissioned by the French government to create a test that could identify children who needed special education. The resulting test, known as the Binet-Simon Scale, measured cognitive abilities such as memory, attention, and reasoning. This test introduced the concept of a mental age – the level of cognitive functioning typical for a certain age group. The field of cognitive psychology has provided insights into different types of intelligence, including emotional intelligence, social intelligence, and creative intelligence, which go beyond what traditional IQ tests assess. IQ scores are typically distributed on a bell curve, with the average set at 100 and a standard deviation of 15. This means that the majority of the population falls within the range of IQ scores from about 85 to 115.

Many employers use personality tests in the workplace. They test what candidates will do, rather than what they say they’ve done.  For example, those who score high in empathy may do well at jobs in customer service. When coupled with a good interview, personality-tests can help gain more insight into candidates’ abilities.

The portrayal of police officers as clumsy, stupid, and inefficient in movies and television series could be attributed to ‘Satire and Critique’ or ‘Cultural and Social Context’. However, some films and shows use satire to critique real-world issues or institutions. By portraying police officers as bumbling or ineffective, creators may be commenting on perceived flaws within the criminal justice system or highlighting instances of abuse of power. Throughout history, there have been instances of police abuse of power and corruption. Media often draws from real-life events, and negative portrayals could be influenced by historical incidents that have eroded public trust in law enforcement.

Following my letter [https://vicious-ealing-council.co.uk/?p=215] to the Complaint resolution unit, I have received the reply below

Good morning,

Your case has been completed, and will not allocated to another officer.  As advised in my previous correspondence, if you are unhappy with the explanation provide by PC Bulmer it will be necessary for you to contact MOPAC.  The officer has completed the actions required by MOPAC as a result of the review.

Kind regards

Sergeant

Claudine

Claudine | Police Sergeant | Complaints Resolution Unit| Directorate of Professional Standards|

Metropolitan Police Service | Newlands Park Sydenham SE26 5NF

Tel: 07775 61

Email: feedback@met.police.uk

This case has been completed using the most disgraceful and inappropriate conduct exhibited by a member of the Complaints Resolution Unit.

The words chosen in the title of “Directorate of Professional Standards,” might prompt the public into thinking that this is some ‘bona fide’ and competent organization. Far from it, it seems. Any reasonable institution would have taken my letter seriously, but the ‘comatose’ members of the Complaints Resolution Unit seem happy to take home taxpayers’ salary whilst not seeing the need to actually address issues or complaints in any satisfactory way.

The Police receive and is paid directly to collecting authorities by local taxpayers.

Police officers are generally considered public servants. Their primary role is to serve and protect the public, uphold the law, maintain order, prevent and investigate crimes, and ensure the safety and well-being of the communities they serve. Police officers are entrusted with a significant responsibility to enforce laws impartially, protect individual rights, and respond to emergencies and incidents that require their attention.

The idea of police officers as public servants highlights their duty to act in the best interests of the public and to uphold the principles of fairness, justice, and accountability. However, it’s worth noting that the perception and reality of police officers’ role and behaviour can vary depending on the specific context and jurisdiction.

• Council tax for GLA services (Ealing)

The GLA’s share of the council tax for a typical Band D property has been increased by £38.55 (or 74p per week) to £434.14. The additional income from this increase in council tax will fund the Metropolitan Police and the London Fire Brigade, and will also go towards ensuring existing public transport services in London can be maintained, meeting requirements set by the government in funding agreements. Council taxpayers in the City of London, which has its own police force, will pay £142.01.

For the financial year ending 31 March 2024:

• up to £17,613 million in funding for policing in England and Wales has been agreed
• overall funding will increase by up to £556 million (3.3%) compared with the previous financial year, in nominal terms
• when considering total funding for Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) (including Government funding and Council Tax precept), funding will increase in nominal terms by up to £810 million (5.5%) in the year ending 31 March 2024, when compared with the previous financial year
• overall funding will increase by up to 0.7% in real terms
• funding has grown in real terms for the last 9 consecutive years, following a decline between the financial years ending March 2011 and 2015

It is in my opinion that the letter (below) sent to the police Complaint Resolution Unit, clearly outline that there is still a lot of incompetence within the Metropolitan police services. There is dishonesty and obstruction.

Ms. Sophie Linden is Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime, has worked with the Home Secretary and Ministers on policy development and strategy, including, police reform, crime and antisocial behaviour reduction, neighbourhood policing, and reducing the harm caused by illegal drugs.

She has also been a member of the Local Government Association (LGA) Safer Communities Board, a peer reviewer for the LGA on community safety, and a member of the HMIC advisory board on PEEL (the police effectiveness, efficiency, and legitimacy programme) inspections.

Commander Jon Savell DPS, has been involved, in 2022, with an MPS-MOPAC joint audit panel with the view to address the HMICFRS Report on Counter Corruption.

My complaint has been addressed to a number of senior figures. It will be interesting to see who takes the time to respond.

[Calls to the Met’s dedicated internal hotline raising concerns about officers’ integrity and behaviour have more than doubled in the past six months, with 14 reports a week compared with an average of six previously. Source = Met. Police NEWS – 6 APRIL 2023]

Following the Grenfell Tower fire play at the National Gallery, I learned that, while escaping death, residents of Grenfell Tower were greeted by the Metropolitan Police’s SCO-19 (formerly SO19) Specialist Firearms Command unit (riot police), when exiting the building. YouTube has short videos of the play.

Mr. C...

Complaint Resolution Unit

40-42 Newlands Park                                                                                                                                        

London SE26 5NF

  Your reference: PC/07

                                                                                                                                            [MOPAC  reference: PC/07]

Dear Mr. C…,

Further to your letter of 25/07/2023 you haven’t failed my expectations; once again you have refused to take my case seriously.

MOPAC has presented a very comprehensive and skilful report comprising 16 pages of documentation. Your presumptuous attitude ignores MOPAC’s professionalism and recommendations by favouring only the section of the report that fits your particular perspective of dismissing my concerns. Having the opportunity to obstruct my case again, you appeared to breathe a sigh of relief and egotism when you wrote – “don’t give you any further right”.

Crime is an unfortunate reality in societies worldwide, and the fundamental role of law enforcement and justice systems, is to efficiently address and punish criminal activities to maintain social order and protect citizens. It was clear from your first email that you did not grasp and address this issue.

When instances of police misconduct come to light, the public’s trust in the police force is irreparably damaged. Each case, however large or small, creates a ripple effect among friends, family and the community, leading to a widespread perception that officers cannot be trusted to act in the best interest of the public. This lack of trust hinders cooperation and vital communication between the community and law enforcement, reducing the ability of the police force to prevent and solve crimes, thus increasing the area’s crime rate.

Negative police conduct not only tarnishes the reputation of individual officers but also raises questions about the overall integrity and accountability of the entire police force. Your careless conduct has severe implications for society as a whole, allowing unpunished crimes to thrive. This breeds fear and insecurity among citizens, eroding public trust in the justice system and authorities. Such impunity fosters a culture of lawlessness, emboldening criminals, like Mr. S…, to commit offences without repercussions, further perpetuating crime.

Why has my case taken such a sloppy turn? Since the very first email you sent, you have hampered any investigation and prosecution. Throughout all of your correspondence, there is a constant contentious element; it is unclear whether this is directed at me or the case.

There should be no reason for your hostile behaviour as I am seeking help from the police, as the victim of crime. However, there is no doubt that your communication with me is hostile. Moreover, I wonder if your unprofessional behaviour is motivated by racism against me.

In your very first email of 17/08/2022, you wrote: “If no reply is received within 7 days your complaint may be closed pending further contact”. On this occasion you wrote: “This further response does not give you a further right to review with the complaint now finalised”. Your eagerness to set aside my case has given me very limited chances to pursue it. You also wrote: “You will be updated by an investigating officers every 28 days”. This has NOT happened and the issue of missing correspondence to West London police stations with no replies has never been addressed.

The MOPAC report raised important points: “I’m not satisfied that the outcome and handling of your complaint was both reasonable and proportionate”. The ‘reasonable’ and ‘proportionate’ have been conveniently ignored by you.

In response to this, you wrote: “I will address each of the points MOPAC have raised”. And with this you took the sluggish opportunity to write: “the matter has been accepted and that further clarification should be given to you regarding your complaint”.  You should have been a politician, one of those that never answer questions asked and do not address points raised. And: “clarify them to help ensure that you are able to contextualise and better understand”. It is clear that you are patronizing me and ignoring my complaint at your inefficiency to act in accordance with your job responsibilities.

I would like to address MOPAC statement: “his matter should be remedied under paragraph 28ZA of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002”. Instead of addressing the full meaning of the Act, you offered two negligible clarifications, both of which were mere terse paragraphs. Part of the Act states: “… to continue to take the steps from time to time appearing to him to be appropriate for the purposes of Part 2 of this Act for obtaining and preserving evidence relating to the conduct complained of”.

I’ve requested, via the Metropolitan Police website “Update us/Ask for an update”. I’ve also requested, again, the full crime report dossier from the Acton Police station. We will have to see if even this letter has been discarded.

Which brings me to your point: “Your crime report 2515977/22 was regarding malicious communications which was being considered by the CPS”.

Presenting the charges solely as “malicious communication” displays ignorance, arrogance, and indifference to the case. Crimes committed by Mr. S… come under:

• Crime and Disorder Act 1998 
• Communications Act 2003
• Public Order Act 1986 (many sections)
• Protection from Harassment Act 1997

….and more; which they could carry a six months jail sentence.

You are insulting my intelligence with your “clarification”, not everyone is a dimwit. Nothing concrete has been done on a case that has been a clear cut and unambiguous from the start and for over a year. Rather than considering facts and the bigger picture, you and PC F… have taken persistent ease of action to address minor and negligible offences without clarifying anything that we didn’t know already.

In this case the Metropolitan Police has shown obstruction to justice, incompetence and inappropriate conduct. The caring and professionalism displayed by your colleagues every day is certainly not reflected by your stance.

It shows sheer arrogance and conceit when you refused, in past correspondence, to provide me with names of your superiors. I am confident that a professional approach would have made a big difference in my case. The actions of Mr S…, combined with your inaction, continue to impact me professionally and personally today. My case should have been proficiently addressed from the beginning, so that many hours would have not have been wasted by so many professionals over the course of the last 12 months. Not to mention precious resources!

Sincerely

A B M Procaccini

cc –  –     Social Media via Blogs and private website. -/ V. Drago, Solicitors /

The Rt Hon Chris Philp MP

Claire Penney, Chief Inspector, Professionalism – DPS, DPS Reviews Team, 40- 42 Newlands Park, London SE26 5NF

Rebecca Lawrence, Chief Executive. CPS, Petty France, London SW1H 9EA

Commander Jon Savell DPS, New Scotland Yard, London SW1A 2JL

Sophie Linden, Deputy Mayor, Policing and Crime – Sophie.Linden@london.gov.uk

Station House Officer, Acton Police Station, 250 High St, London W3 9BH

ComplaintReviews@mopac.london.gov.uk -/ ReviewsTeam@met.police.uk / enquiries@policeconduct.gov.uk -/

https://pam.ealing.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=neighbourComments&keyVal=R2PZ23JMLG500

My Objection

I object to this proposal that is unnecessary, it will detract to the life of the residents, it is out of keeping with the character of the area and it is on over development.

Allow me to specify: as per 2018, there were 22,480 empty homes in London. Figures have gone much higher in recent years due to almost 2 million workers having left London, back to continental Europe and having moved to the countryside. It is an “empty market” worth £15 billion.

The Borough of Ealing cannot fix the many potholes on most of the Borough roads. It cannot fix problems with drains, as many areas are left with swimming pools when it rains. It cannot look after the parks as most of the rangers have been fired. It cannot clear leaves in most areas or fix uneven pavements where elderly can easily fall. It cannot keep roads clean or empty the few rubbish bins left (plenty of strategic areas are now empty of bins). It cannot look after the elderly with Social care, because there is no money, staff, proper supervision or professional management. Most libraries have been closed or remain open thanks to volunteers. Yet, they have money for developments, other unwelcome policies and they are considering the sale of Victoria Hall which is not even theirs to sell. (Awful management and bad policies have been created to push for the sale).

The last Census on London flats goes back to 2011. At that time, there were 1.75 million flats in London. On average 40,000 new homes are build every year. A sector that is registering a 9% increase per annum.

That is good for the economy if it wasn’t for the empty homes and a hole in the pocket worth £15 billion. Someone, of course is making money, cashing in on the misery of others.

In a meeting at Ealing Council, some three years ago, all proposals were passed by the Committee and the Councillors. This reminds me of a recent article about Chiswick “£1 billion car tech site “narrowly” gets green light”. When they say “narrowly” it means that all agreements took place before the meeting and a theatrical performance was staged. A poor performance if one pays attention, I must add.

Such performance took place when the Council decided to demolish the Art Deco Woolworth building in West Ealing to build flats and to build blocks of flats in Perivale. Despite signatures and petitions signed by thousands against such proposals, both cases “narrowly” passed and were won by the building companies. The flats in Perivale had hardly any parking provision, so the Councillors proposal was to introduce CPZs in the area for the residents already there before the building work started. Don’t we just love  – democracy!

There are currently hundreds of flats been built in Ealing, West Ealing, Southall and I am including Brentford too as it is “in the area”.

Questions come to mind. If residents have left London and many “homes” are empty where are the tenants coming from? If the future is for electric cars, how many electric charging points will we need and where will they be placed in a block of, say, 60 flats?

The previous Council leader, Julian Bell, was notorious for the monstrous malfeasance of his administration. He has turned the Uxbridge Road in a veritable canyon and money was wasted on installing and removing speed bumps and LTNs, some really stupid traffic regulations (too long to list them), social care, housing and cycle lanes. One has to wonder why so much of our money is wasted and why the Queen of suburbs is being cemented over and turned into an inhospitable overbuilt sun less neighbourhood.

Hounslow and Ealing are together in crime by assuring that asinine projects are approved. They have no interest on what residents think (the building monstrosity inside Gunnersbury Park comes to mind, not to mention the £1.3 million cycle lane in Boston Manor Road).

Corruption, greed, selfishness or simple stupidity is what drives these awesome public workers to continue, interrupted, with mercenary projects like this one. I object strongly to it.

Re: Construction single storey, part two storey building comprising 9 new self-contained apartments (Class C3 Use)  | Garages /  Rear Of 10-24 Byron Court Boston Road Hanwell London W7 2AY

[Statistics published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) put the number of empty homes in England in October 2019 at 648,114. This represents a 2.2% increase on the previous year’s total. These figures are still going up]

I think it is important to understand who we are dealing with in Ealing.

An ‘inspirational’ quote states: “Tell a lie once and all your truths become questionable”. I am certainly questioning Ealing Council’s not so impartial intents in their decision making.

Sir Gerard Cowper-Coles [Group Head of Government Affairs at HSBC Bank and Director of HSBC Bank Egypt] is also Chair of the Trustees of Pitzhanger Manor and Gallery Trust (PMGT) in Walpole Park in the London Borough of Ealing, as is Julian Bell, Leader of Ealing Council. PMGT, a charity, banks with HSBC. In Walpole Park there was a cafe’, Spencer’s Cafe’, run by Alan Dillon and his partner Sarah. Alan had run the cafe’ successfully for 10 years, and had built up the business to become a very popular local amenity. However, Ealing Council decided to put the running of the cafe’ and another restaurant within the park out to tender. Alan submitted his tender, but without being told of the result, discovered that he had been unsuccessful when a second tender process took place. Thousands of people signed a petition to save Spencer’s Cafe’. The winner of the tender was Social Pantry. Social Pantry is bankrolled by Cowper-Coles’s bank HSBC, who have a fixed and floating charge over all assets of Social Pantry. There are also questions surrounding the social/family relationships of Alexandra Head, owner of The Social Pantry, and the Chair of the PMGT and family. (Despite the Trust’s denials, there is plenty of interaction on social media).

On another note – Responses to Freedom of Information requests reveal that in May 2012 Cllr Bell sent an urgent email to officers asking them to make out a cheque for £10k to A&H Events Ltd. The money was said to be for a community Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Party in Southall Park. Oddly, Ealing Council did just that and Bell arranged for A&H Events Ltd to come to Ealing Town Hall the next day to collect the cheque. A&H events Ltd (now dissolved) was run by Harry Randhawa, otherwise known as Harry, a mate of Bell’s boss, Ealing Southall MP Virendra Sharma.

In March 2020, MP Virendra Sharma and Ealing Council leader Julian Bell were named as co-defendants in a court claim by a local restaurant for a dinner that the Ealing Southall CLP (constituency Labour party) new treasurer and new auditors had refused to pay as organized without proper consultation. Legal costs and interest increased the amount claimed from £5600 to £6877. The Labour Party, at the end, paid for all costs.

About LTNs – In September 2020 Julian Bell reassured the residents that all emergency services had been consulted before the road shake-up began. Cllr Bell and transport boss Mik Sabiers apologized on Friday, September 25, admitting that, in fact, the London Ambulance Service had not been involved in talks just like they had not the Metropolitan Police and the London Fire Brigade.

Worth noting that Julian Bell bought a five bedroom property in West London several years ago while staying on as a housing association tenant in another property despite the purchase. Apparently he is keeping the property for a family member. Five bedrooms houses are not so big after all.

In 2017, around £4.2bn of suspicious money is believed to have be laundered through the London property market. In the same year Ealing Council approved the award of a large contract to Rydon, the main contractor of the Grenfell Tower development, weeks before the fire broke out.

A couple of years back there was a petition that received 10,000 signatures to keep the Art Deco Woolworth facade in place on the Uxbridge Road but it was rejected by Ealing Council.

Only the persistence of a group that wanted to save Warren Farm made it possible to keep it for the use of local people. Ealing Council wanted to give it to QPR on a 200 years lease for… free (free they say).

I objected to the above planning application. Why raise a “containers” style residence in the backyard of Byron Court? Byron Court does not need those flats in such close proximity. Those flats will not fit in with the area and they would be an over development. A clear example of over development can be seen at No. 94 Boston Road corner with Osterley Park View Road, where there used to be a small garden in front of a little block of flats at such address, now there is a cube that is a flat or flats. Allowing these unsightly over developments creates dangerous precedents. Why is Ealing Council allowing such monstrosities? There is no parking on site and servicing the flats will be a problem. What would happen in case of fire? Also I don’t see any foundation slabs in the plans and there could very well be an increased risk of flood and subsidence.

What else is there that we don’t know about? Many planning applications approvals by Ealing Council are very questionable, with no apparent benefits for the existing residents nor for the overall amenities of the borough.

I sincerely hope we will be able to instigate change at this coming next local elections.

One of the most hideous, contested and out of character building in the whole of Hanwell District, has been given approval to raise the high of the office building by two extra floors. On the same proposal, the owners are also allowed to construct an extra building in the existing car park.

All residents are very upset on such an approval to this unsightly construction, understandably so, as per images enclosed. No privacy, no sunlight, imposing ugliness in one’s own back garden.

While Boundary House can be seen as far as Wembley, M4 flyover and Northolt, the office building, next to Boundary House, in the Borough of Hounslow, blends well within the height of residential homes.

The theatrical performance held during the meeting by the Chair (Councillor Shital Manro, North Greenford) and all Councillors, was carefully rehearsed and prepared prior to the meeting.

Readers must understand that during these meetings any objections are futile as decisions have already been taken. This is all part, maybe to the untrained eye, of a theatrical performance that the Committee has been performing for many years and during many similar meetings.

Worth observing that the demolition of an Art Deco building at West Ealing and new large block of flats (with no underground car parking but with CPZ implementation) in Perivale, were also approved.

While guarantees by Ealing Planning office have been given that the new extra floors will not affect the structural integrity of the building, we certainly don’t know for sure if subsidence, and the building being shaken by passing trains, will tolerate the weight of the extra floors. No comments were raised on the possible ‘asbestos fumes’ that construction might release.

Just a small reminder to readers.  All Borough residents pay yearly Council tax and Councillors should look after the interests and concerns of all residents. On the basis of “Divide et Impera” (and that goes for many other Council policies too), keeping residents divided serve the purpose of the Council and those that wish to speculate and not, on the long run, looking after the residents’ best  interests.

I am enclosing here a link to a blog of mine. I am questioning, and that is not only me but I share my thoughts with many doctors and specialists, medicine in general. How much are physicians really looking after us? You can come up with your own conclusions.

Ignorance – Main stream or…?