[DAVID]: Welcome to The Stealing of Emily. I’m David, and my co-host is Anna.
We hope we have something of interest for you today: some little-known facts about a former Prime Minister and the strange anti-family legislation that followed during his time in office.
[ANNA]: Now, here’s where we need your help. If you’re watching from Bodmin, Lanlivery or anywhere around Cornwall, we’d particularly like to hear from you.
[DAVID]: And we’re not asking you to solve a forty-five-year-old mystery over your morning cornflakes. Although, knowing Cornwall, somebody probably remembers the entire village history, right down to who borrowed whose lawnmower in 1981!
[ANNA]: We’re looking for people who remember Churchtown Farm Field Studies Centre. Did you work there? Volunteer there? Visit as a child? Did a friend or relative work there?
[DAVID]: And do you remember Keir Starmer working there around 1980 to 1982? Who were the staff? Who managed the centre? Was a six-month house-parent placement normal? And does anyone know why his placement reportedly ended after six months?
[ANNA]: We’re also interested in memories of the Diamond Inn, the local social scene, and the reported incident in which Starmer and his friends intervened when Graham was attacked.
[DAVID]: Were you there? Did you witness anything firsthand? Or have you kept photographs, programmes, letters, newspaper cuttings or old staff newsletters?
[ANNA]: Please don’t send us rumours about somebody’s private life. We’re looking for genuine recollections and documents that can help establish what happened.
[DAVID]: And if you remember something that contradicts the published accounts, we’d like to hear that too. A proper investigation has to welcome evidence that challenges its theories.
[ANNA]: You can get in touch through The Stealing of Emily website:
[DAVID]: Even one small detail could help complete a much bigger picture. And if you’re in a local Cornwall history group, please share this appeal with people who might remember Churchtown.
[ANNA]: And that brings us to the bigger question. Why does a story about a residential centre in Cornwall more than forty years ago matter today?
[DAVID]: Well, Anna, because this isn’t just a story about Churchtown. Martin Newbold has published four earlier articles and podcasts that explain why he is asking these questions. And the common thread is child protection, institutional accountability and a father’s nineteen-year search for answers about his daughter Emily.
[ANNA]: Let’s start with the article published on 29 September: The Truth They Don’t Want You to See — 19 Years and Counting.
[DAVID]: Nineteen years. Think about that. Governments have changed, ministers have come and gone, entire departments have been reorganised, and Martin is still asking where his daughter is and whether her welfare can be independently confirmed.
[ANNA]: His investigation centres on court documents, including Forms C1, C13 and C102A. He alleges that fundamental information about family identities and parental responsibility was misrepresented.
[DAVID]: And the questions are remarkably straightforward. Who supplied the information? Who checked it? Which records were relied upon? And what happened when the discrepancies were challenged?
[ANNA]: One example discussed in the earlier podcast concerns documents transmitted on 2 February 2010. Martin identifies an apparent contradiction between a C13 form saying little was known about Mr Keenan and a C1 form containing identifying information about him.
[DAVID]: Now, an apparent contradiction doesn’t by itself prove deliberate falsification. But it certainly gives you something specific to investigate. The obvious next question is whether the two documents were referring to the same information and what their authors knew.
[ANNA]: And Martin says he has spent years trying to get the relevant authorities to answer precisely those kinds of questions.
DAVID: Which brings us to the second earlier podcast, Child Protection and Accountability, published on 1 October.
[ANNA]: At the centre of that discussion is Section 47 of the Children Act 1989. When a local authority has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm, it has a duty to make or arrange appropriate enquiries.
[DAVID]: Not a duty to write a cheerful leaflet, pass the letter to the next department and hope everybody forgets about it?
[ANNA]: No, David. A duty to make enquiries sufficient to decide what action is needed to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare.
[DAVID]: So here’s the question. When a father repeatedly reports concerns about a child’s whereabouts and welfare, which authority has responsibility for assessing those concerns? What checks have been undertaken? And how is the outcome communicated lawfully to the person raising them?
[ANNA]: There may be legal restrictions on disclosing a child’s location or private records. But those restrictions should not be confused with an explanation of whether a safeguarding concern has actually been assessed.
[DAVID]: Precisely. An authority might have good reasons not to disclose sensitive information. That still leaves questions about accountability, lawful decision-making and whether appropriate welfare checks occurred.
[ANNA]: Now let’s turn to the 6 October article, Institutional Protection and Concealment of Child Sexual Abuse Linked to Westminster.
[DAVID]: A much wider historical subject, and one where the official investigations themselves make uncomfortable reading.
[ANNA]: The article discusses Operation Fairbank, which followed allegations raised publicly in 2012, and Operation Fernbridge, which investigated allegations connected with Elm Guest House.
[DAVID]: Then there’s Operation Midland, which investigated allegations involving prominent individuals but ended without charges. Some of its central allegations were subsequently discredited.
[ANNA]: That’s why it’s important to distinguish between allegations that were investigated, abuse that was established, and claims that were not substantiated.
[DAVID]: But the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse also examined serious institutional failures concerning abuse associated with Westminster. Its findings show why scrutiny of powerful institutions cannot simply be dismissed.
[ANNA]: And that takes us to the fourth earlier post, Podcast Episode: Child Protection and Institutional Abuse, also published on 6 October.
[DAVID]: In that programme, Pip and Mara brought the Westminster background together with Martin’s allegations about his family’s court documents and the Section 47 questions.
[ANNA]: They were examining a common problem: what happens when institutions are asked to investigate allegations involving their own records, decisions or reputations?
[DAVID]: Who checks the original evidence? Who investigates a disputed document? Who has authority to correct an error? And when one organisation says the matter belongs to another, who makes sure it doesn’t simply disappear between them?
[ANNA]: Those are questions of public administration and safeguarding. They apply whether the original allegation is ultimately substantiated or not.
[DAVID]: And now, on 9 October, we have Churchtown was a hotbed.
[ANNA]: The Churchtown article adds a historical dimension. It brings together the centre’s establishment in 1975, named staff, contemporary publications, parliamentary references, Keir Starmer’s reported work there, and archive material that may still contain information from the relevant period.
[DAVID]: Including the UCL archive file ABB/E/47, which contains historical press material concerning Churchtown among other establishments.
[ANNA]: Martin has contacted the archive to ask about the newspaper cuttings, their dates and whether copies can be obtained.
[DAVID]: And here’s an interesting detail. Starmer’s father’s account describes six months working as a house parent at Churchtown, followed by six months in the family factory.
[ANNA]: Whereas a former volunteer’s published employment history records a ten-month placement at Churchtown in 1988–1989. That doesn’t establish what the standard placement length was in Starmer’s time, but it raises a question worth checking.
[DAVID]: Why six months? Was that always the arrangement? Did staff routinely work shorter placements? Was the move to the factory planned from the beginning?
[ANNA]: And the article discusses the reported incident involving Starmer, Graham and Mark, when they intervened after Graham was attacked.
[DAVID]: Which brings us back to our appeal to Cornwall. Are there people who remember these events? People who knew the staff, visited the centre or lived nearby?
[ANNA]: We should also explain what the Churchtown material does not establish. It does not prove that events at Churchtown caused Starmer’s later views on family law, or that the centre was connected to the allegations investigated in Westminster.
[DAVID]: But it does identify historical questions that might be answered by original records and firsthand witnesses. And that is why Martin wants people to come forward.
[ANNA]: The article also examines later changes proposed to the statutory presumption of parental involvement in family proceedings.
[DAVID]:: The government’s stated reason was to protect children from abusive parents. Critics raised concerns about how safe parents would be protected against false allegations or unreliable evidence.
ANNA: Which brings us to a fundamental question: how should the law protect children from genuine abuse while ensuring that decisions separating families are based on accurate evidence and fair procedures?
[DAVID]:Because getting that balance wrong can have devastating consequences. And safeguarding doesn’t become less important just because a case is difficult, old or politically uncomfortable.
[ANNA]: There is another important point. Martin has approached hundreds of MPs about Emily. He has asked not only about government policy but whether anyone could identify an appropriate route for establishing her welfare.
DAVID: And that includes a very simple question for representatives around the country: is there any information relevant to Emily in your constituency or local services that can lawfully be checked and referred to the appropriate safeguarding authority?
ANNA: An MP cannot simply search confidential children’s records. But a representative can consider correspondence, explain the limits of their powers and identify the appropriate authority where possible.
DAVID: So we return to the central question running through these five publications: who is responsible for making sure a serious safeguarding concern receives a proper, documented response?
[ANNA]: And we need help from the public. If you worked at Churchtown Farm Field Studies Centre, visited it, knew its staff or have original records from the late 1970s or early 1980s, please contact The Stealing of Emily.
[DAVID]: Particularly anyone in Bodmin, Lanlivery or the surrounding Cornwall communities. Old photographs, local newspaper cuttings, programmes, letters and genuine recollections could all be useful.
[ANNA]: If you have information relevant to the wider safeguarding questions, please distinguish what you personally witnessed from what somebody else told you. Dates, documents and original sources are especially helpful.
[DAVID]: And if you know someone who was around Churchtown in those years, share the appeal. We aren’t asking for rumours. We’re asking for information that can be checked.
[ANNA]: Five publications, several decades of history, and a continuing search for answers.
[DAVID]:And at the heart of it all, a father asking a question that has not gone away.
[ANNA]: Where is Emily, and can her welfare be independently confirmed?
[DAVID]:If you can contribute genuine information, please get in touch through:
[ANNA]: I’m Anna.
[DAVID]: And I’m David. Thank you for listening — and to everyone in Cornwall, we would particularly welcome your help.
