This page reads the same live URL pages and URL log files, then stores one processed cache for five minutes.
Live URLs refreshed and the processed cache was updated. Cache built: 20 October 2026, 23:11:09.
Archive apps menu:
loaded from /home/steaouun/public_html/google_apps.php
All sent-log records6,356
Filtered records3
Correspondence pages11
Parliament members matched source650
Safeguarding correspondence — search summary
Search: Andy Burnham · 3 matching sent-log records across 3 correspondence campaigns.
This page shows correspondence recorded as sent and passages from the original posts. It does not independently establish receipt, reading, a reply, or deliberate failure to respond. A missing reply must be checked against your separate incoming correspondence records.
MP statements claiming inability to help
1 matching sending record(s). MP / office: Andy Burnham
Logged dates: 2026-07-23 19:14:58
Safeguarding and accountability passages from the post
View all 36 extracted safeguarding and accountability passages
inadequate security measures, including shared credentials, absence of multi-factor authentication, and no independent audits; apparent breaches of UK GDPR Articles 5, 28, 32 and 35; non-compliance with the Children’s Code and NHS DSPT requirements; misleading ISO 27001 claims made on the G-Cloud framework; historic trading activity through dormant companies while handling children’s data; and systemic safeguarding failures affecting vulnerable children.
FORMAL NOTICE: Failure of Statutory Safeguarding Duties and Request for Immediate Professional Standards Assessment
Dear MP, Re : FORMAL NOTICE: Failure of Statutory Safeguarding Duties and Request for Immediate Professional Standards Assessment
Urgent County Enquiry Emily Newbold DOB 30/10/2006 - Urgent Intervention
About Emily - https://stealingofemily.world/about/
Helena Dollimore for Hastings and Rye stated in an open letter on social media "It is the most basic duty of any administration to protect society’s most vulnerable children.
" Please explain why this principle is not being reflected in your response and why, rather than addressing the safeguarding matter raised, you have chosen to rely on procedural excuses for not dealing with it..Please explain why my correspondence has not been registered and referred to the appropriate Department for Education complaints or safeguarding team, and identify who made the decision not to do so.
The official description says you are responsible for contacting the the Department for Education’s, including children’s social care.
I contacted you in your national ministerial capacity as Secretary of State for Education and submitted a formal complaint concerning the Department for Education.
If your response concerns only your capacity as MP for Manchester Central, please confirm that my correspondence has nevertheless been registered and referred to the Department for Education’s Ministerial and Public Communications Division under its published complaints procedure.
I did not approach you for representation as my constituency MP; I contacted you in your national capacity as Secretary of State for Education.
Please therefore refer my correspondence to the appropriate Department for Education complaints or safeguarding team and provide a reference number.
In the absence of any clear welfare confirmation, safeguarding record, lawful disclosure, or accountable explanation, I require Social Work England to treat this as an urgent safeguarding and professional-regulation matter.
I'm calling and writing about the welfare of my daughter Emily , but you have refused to provide information and say that you're not reading my emails and that you can't answer a matter of safeguarding due to parliamentary privilege when I have not contacted you as an MP.
That's forced me to call you and to note that you don't answer your phone calls either.You are supposed to be the...You are supposed to be the current Secretary of State for Education.
The Department of Education is telling me that I'm not there yet when I asked them for information about my daughter Who was supposed to be in Northern Ireland, which she's not according to social workers andEffectively according to a video I have on my website is supposed to be there until she's 25There clearly someone needs to tell me where my daughter is and her correct location of where she actually is.
As you are now the Department of Education Secretary of State, I expect a proper I expect a proper answer from you.
Can you please make sure that doesn't happen and can you please make sure that you provide me a proper answer and one that would actually help the rest of my family have some dialogue with my daughter.
As she is supposed to be part of a safeguarding situation, social workers should have known where she is.
As you are the Department of Education and you empower social workers, you should be able to actually inform me where she is. able to actually inform me where she is.
As she is in education, you should be able to inform me where she is.
As the Department of Health tells me she no longer has a NHS record, I am deeply concerned and this has been reported to the Surrey Police in regard to Andrew and disappearing children.
Now clearly I expect some answers so can you please give me some indication of when you can get those answers to me can you tell me what you mean by the Department of Education saying "I haven't got there yet" and can you please provide an answer you can email me at You can email me at martinnewbold.mn at gmail.com You can go on my website and you can send a message on those as well.
I hope this is a meaningful conversation I'm going to have with you and will result in the location of my daughter Emily thank you very much for your time I appreciate it.
Newbold is seeking the immediate return of his child, Emily, who he believes is in imminent danger due to the failure of social services and the courts to ensure her safety.
He has requested the issuance of a Writ of Attachment and Writ of Habeas Corpus to compel the return of his child and to ensure her medical, forensic, and safeguarding needs are addressed.
It incorrectly identifies Emily's sister Lauren’s father, when in reality, her father is David Cunningham, and her full name is Lauren Anne Cunningham.
I previously telephoned your office as a victim of the actions of Gary Daniels and East Sussex County Council, who have been unable to inform me of the whereabouts of my daughter, Emily Newbold-Smith, date of birth 30/10/206.
Emily, has been missing for 19 years after being removed by East Sussex Social services from her mother at age 4.
The NHS and my GP surgery have both confirmed in writing that they cannot locate her on their systems.
When the Department for Education responded via the Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman, C-205-8682 and C-205 -9461 they relied on data from Gary Daniels’ ePEP system and stated that Emily was attending a boys’ school in Tunbridge Wells — which is clearly impossible.
I allege that Gary Paul Daniels and related companies — E-Care Solutions Limited, E-Gov Digital Limited, and E-Gov Solutions Limited — obtained council money through false representations, while operating an education/care database used for vulnerable children.
I said the database, described as EPEP / electronic personal education plan, held sensitive data on looked-after and disabled children, but lacked proper accreditation, due diligence, and oversight.
An adequacy decision does not give a free pass to transfer or process data about vulnerable children.
It does not remove the need for a lawful basis, an Article 9 condition for special category data, transparency, necessity, proportionality, security, and child-specific safeguards under the UK GDPR and the ICO’s children’s guidance.
The matter will proceed on the basis of documentary contradictions, witness material, procurement records, Companies House history, and the absence of adequate GDPR/safeguarding scrutiny.
Answer status: Not established by the sending logs.
1 matching sending record(s). MP / office: Andy Burnham
Logged dates: 2026-07-26 20:57:09
Safeguarding and accountability passages from the post
View all 2 extracted safeguarding and accountability passages
Dear Aaron Callan (Member of Parliament), Sussex Police, Surrey Police and Paul Arnold (The Information Commissioner), Re: FORMAL NOTICE: Failure of Statutory Safeguarding Duties and Request for Immediate Professional Standards Assessment, Data Subject Access Request – Article 15 UK GDPR.
Urgent County Enquiry Emily Newbold DOB 30/10/2006 - Urgent Intervention - Data Subject Access Request – Article 15 UK GDPR.
Answer status: Not established by the sending logs.
640 MP reported to Parliamentary Standards — 30 July 2026
1 matching sending record(s). MP / office: Andy Burnham
Logged dates: 2026-07-28 17:00:56
Safeguarding and accountability passages from the post
View all 12 extracted safeguarding and accountability passages
Dear Daniel Greenberg CB(Comissioner for Standards), Aaron Callan (Member of Parliament), Sussex Police, Surrey Police and Paul Arnold (The Information Commissioner), Re: Formal Standards Complaint: Misrepresentation of the Constituency Protocol by MPs, Failure of Statutory Safeguarding Duties and Request for Immediate Professional Standards Assessment, Data Subject Access Request – Article 15 UK GDPR.
reading safeguarding information received from a non-constituent; recording that information; referring it to the appropriate MP, Minister or safeguarding authority; acknowledging a matter of wider national concern; or ensuring that serious safeguarding information reaches an appropriate person.
the names of the MPs and parliamentary offices contacted; the dates on which correspondence was sent; delivery and transmission records; the replies received; the precise wording used in each reply; requests made for the alleged rule or protocol; responses to those requests; and examples showing whether safeguarding information was referred elsewhere.
Urgent County Enquiry Emily Newbold DOB 30/10/2006 - Urgent Intervention - Data Subject Access Request – Article 15 UK GDPR.
This statement has been used in responses to safeguarding correspondence sent to approximately 640 MPs concerning my daughter, Emily Newbold.
The repeated use of this claim has prevented proper scrutiny of how serious safeguarding correspondence was handled.
Whether the safeguarding information was read and considered.
Whether any safeguarding assessment was undertaken.
Whether it was forwarded to my constituency MP, a relevant Minister, the Department for Education, the police, a local authority or another safeguarding body.
I ask the Commissioner to consider whether the repeated and widespread presentation of a non-binding convention as a strict parliamentary rule is capable of engaging Rule 11, particularly where the statement has been used to close safeguarding correspondence without transparent assessment or referral.
Confirm whether there is any formal parliamentary rule prohibiting an MP from receiving, considering, recording or referring safeguarding information received from a non-constituent.
Consider whether its widespread use to dispose of safeguarding correspondence is capable of breaching Rule 11 of the Code of Conduct.
Answer status: Not established by the sending logs.
From this post: I would like to know when we will have a government that will break the trend and stop thieving and taking money (Corruption children)?
From this post: Video: https://www.stealingofemily.world/Youtoob/yt_play/index.php?id=v309&group=1&list=The+Stealing+of+Emily&playlist=The+Stealing+of+Emily
From this post: MP Evidence Pack Images - numbered sequence I am in communication with Surrey Police who is deciding if my daughters mising status is connected to Epstein as this a Police investigation.
From this post: the police reference number for this matter; whether Emily Newbold has been recorded as a missing/vulnerable person or safeguarding concern; which officer, team, or department is responsible for assessment; whether any THRIVE/THRIVE+ or vulnerability assessment has been completed; whether the matter has been referred to Professional Standards; the reason for any decision not to investigate, refer, or take safeguarding action.
From this post: inadequate security measures, including shared credentials, absence of multi-factor authentication, and no independent audits; apparent breaches of UK GDPR Articles 5, 28, 32 and 35; non-compliance with the Children’s Code and NHS DSPT requirements; misleading ISO 27001 claims made on the G-Cloud framework; historic trading activity through dormant companies while handling children’s data; and systemic safeguarding failures affecting vulnerable children.
From this post: Dear Aaron Callan (Member of Parliament), Sussex Police, Surrey Police and Paul Arnold (The Information Commissioner), Re: FORMAL NOTICE: Failure of Statutory Safeguarding Duties and Request for Immediate Professional Standards Assessment, Data Subject Access Request – Article 15 UK GDPR.
640 MP reported to Parliamentary Standards — 30 July 2026
750 recipient log records
From this post: Dear Daniel Greenberg CB(Comissioner for Standards), Aaron Callan (Member of Parliament), Sussex Police, Surrey Police and Paul Arnold (The Information Commissioner), Re: Formal Standards Complaint: Misrepresentation of the Constituency Protocol by MPs, Failure of Statutory Safeguarding Duties and Request for Immediate Professional Standards Assessment, Data Subject Access Request – Article 15 UK GDPR.
From this post: Dear Daniel Greenberg CB(Commissioner for Standards), Aaron Callan (Member of Parliament), Sussex Police, Surrey Police and Paul Arnold (The Information Commissioner), Re: Formal Standards Complaint: Misrepresentation of the Constituency Protocol by MPs, Failure of Statutory Safeguarding Duties and Request for Immediate Professional Standards Assessment, Data Subject Access Request – Article 15 UK GDPR.
The recipient records below are sourced from the nine configured CSV logs. Correspondence tiles 10 and 11 are linked above but their recipient log URLs have not been established. A zero record count does not prove no emails were sent: check the page/log fetch status and refresh if needed.
The correspondence records responses in which MPs or their offices relied on parliamentary privilege, constituency convention or parliamentary procedure instead of answering the safeguarding question.
The correspondence states that Emily Newbold has been described as being in education, while the Department for Education has not identified her educational establishment, current placement, safeguarding status or location to Martin Newbold. Whether Emily is treated as a child or an adult, the unresolved questions remain: where is she, who is responsible for her welfare, and which public authority can confirm that she is safe and genuinely registered in education?
UK Parliament’s own procedure guide states that parliamentary privilege does not apply to correspondence with constituents or ministers. For a child, section 47 of the Children Act 1989 provides the safeguarding-enquiry route where its legal test is met. For an adult, section 42 of the Care Act 2014 provides the safeguarding-enquiry route where its legal conditions are met. These are national safeguarding questions and cannot be answered merely by citing privilege or constituency convention.
One copy of the letter extracted from the sending page
Dear Member of Parliament,
I am forwarding this email to you
Where is Emily Newbold
I am writing to receive the information that all roads in this country have problems and political issues end with the ineptness of our government. I would like to know when we will have a government that will break the trend and stop thieving and taking money (Corruption children)?
Yours sincerely,
Martin Newbold
On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 12:45 PM Contact The PM <contact.the.pm@notifications.service.gov.uk> wrote:
GOV.UK
Thank you for your message.
Please note that the Prime Minister’s Office is a part of the Cabinet Office, a Government Department.
Please confirm the message by clicking on the following link: https://contact.no10.gov.uk/VerifyMessage.aspx?id=47998e05-1ac5-4661-b728-461fd42f95f0
By confirming this email, you give permission for this office to forward your email to the appropriate Government Department.
Please note – this is an automated email. Please do not reply to this email address as your message will not be read.
Yours sincerely,
Martin Newbold
MPs sent this correspondence — 0 log records
The date/time is taken directly from the sent-log CSV. “SMTP accepted” records sending acceptance; it is not a read receipt.
The correspondence records responses in which MPs or their offices relied on parliamentary privilege, constituency convention or parliamentary procedure instead of answering the safeguarding question.
The correspondence states that Emily Newbold has been described as being in education, while the Department for Education has not identified her educational establishment, current placement, safeguarding status or location to Martin Newbold. Whether Emily is treated as a child or an adult, the unresolved questions remain: where is she, who is responsible for her welfare, and which public authority can confirm that she is safe and genuinely registered in education?
UK Parliament’s own procedure guide states that parliamentary privilege does not apply to correspondence with constituents or ministers. For a child, section 47 of the Children Act 1989 provides the safeguarding-enquiry route where its legal test is met. For an adult, section 42 of the Care Act 2014 provides the safeguarding-enquiry route where its legal conditions are met. These are national safeguarding questions and cannot be answered merely by citing privilege or constituency convention.
One copy of the letter extracted from the sending page
Dear Member of Parliament,
Urgent County Enquiry Emily Newbold DOB 30/06/2006 - Urgent Intervention
About Emily - https://stealingofemily.world/about/
Please note that if no response is received within 20 working days, I will record this as a failure to confirm whether Emily Newbold DOB 30/06/2006 is known, recorded, represented, safeguarded, placed, educated, treated, registered, or otherwise traceable within your relevant county systems.
Any refusal, non-response, partial response, or internal forwarding record may be disclosed to police and other statutory bodies as part of the wider missing-person, safeguarding, and records-tracing enquiry.
Please note there is a current Sussex Epstein investigation into her disappearance for 19 years ago at age four. Police call record — 20 May 2026
On 20 May 2026 at 9:45am, I received/spoke on a call from a private number connected to the police. The call lasted 30 minutes and 14 seconds.
I spoke to Elen, badge number 18592. She informed me that the information I had provided would be placed before Inspector 40550.
This should now be treated as a formal record of disclosure made to the police and should be referenced in any follow-up correspondence.
Uk Government figures show that 753,000 children in 2025 did not receive their child trust fund and are not at the same location. In 2020 the NSPCC Briefing Guide denotes that half a million vulnerable and disabled children are in care. Does this signal that Social services care is fundamentally flawed as neither the Government nor Social services know where this cohort that includes my daughter Emily is?
Images
https://stealingofemily.world/FILES/2026-03-17%20-%20Email%20%20Re%20Emily%20missing%20from%20the%20records.png
Yours Faithfully
Martin Newbold
📧 www.martinnewbold.co.uk
🌐 www.thestealingofemily.co.uk 🌐stealingofemily.world
MPs sent this correspondence — 0 log records
The date/time is taken directly from the sent-log CSV. “SMTP accepted” records sending acceptance; it is not a read receipt.
Log line
MP name
Email
Constituency
Date/time from log
Status
CSV detail
No sent-log records were found for this campaign.
Shadow-ban video correspondence — 658 sent records
The correspondence records responses in which MPs or their offices relied on parliamentary privilege, constituency convention or parliamentary procedure instead of answering the safeguarding question.
The correspondence states that Emily Newbold has been described as being in education, while the Department for Education has not identified her educational establishment, current placement, safeguarding status or location to Martin Newbold. Whether Emily is treated as a child or an adult, the unresolved questions remain: where is she, who is responsible for her welfare, and which public authority can confirm that she is safe and genuinely registered in education?
UK Parliament’s own procedure guide states that parliamentary privilege does not apply to correspondence with constituents or ministers. For a child, section 47 of the Children Act 1989 provides the safeguarding-enquiry route where its legal test is met. For an adult, section 42 of the Care Act 2014 provides the safeguarding-enquiry route where its legal conditions are met. These are national safeguarding questions and cannot be answered merely by citing privilege or constituency convention.
One copy of the letter extracted from the sending page
Dear Member of Parliament,
Urgent County Enquiry Emily Newbold DOB 30/06/2006 - Urgent Intervention
About Emily - https://stealingofemily.world/about/
Dear MP,
Immediate explanation required: shadow-banning of MP correspondence
I require an immediate explanation as to why my correspondence appears to be being shadow-banned.
My video, Run Children Run Run Run by Martin Newbold, concerns my missing daughter, Emily, and wider safeguarding, Department for Education, police disclosure, and inter-agency record issues.
https://www.stealingofemily.world/Youtoob/yt_play/index.php?id=v309&group=1&list=The+Stealing+of+Emily&playlist=The+Stealing+of+Emily
For the record: I have contacted 640 MPs regarding my missing daughter, Emily, and I have received a reply from each MP. This matter is now also part of my complaint to the Department for Education.
Images
https://stealingofemily.world/FILES/2026-05-24_01_GEELONG_ADVERTISER_DUNKLEY_SUSPENDED.png
https://thestealingofemily.co.uk/2025/02/13/request-for-ovic-investigation-issues-with-ibacs-foi-process/
Images
https://stealingofemily.world//FILES/2026-05-24_02_DAILY_EXPRESS_PARENTAL_INVOLVEMENT_WARNING.png
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-moves-to-protect-children-from-abusive-parents-through-new-courts-and-tribunals-bill
Images
https://stealingofemily.world/FILES/2026-05-24_03_PEOPLES_POST_500000_VULNERABLE_CHILDREN.jpg
https://thestealingofemily.co.uk/2026/05/24/640-mps-served-silence-is-not-protection/
Images
https://stealingofemily.world/FILES/2026-05-24_04_DAILY_EXPRESS_SOUTH_EAST_REPORTS_OUTRAGE.png
https://thestealingofemily.co.uk/2026/05/24/640-mps-served-silence-is-not-protection/
Main article:
https://thestealingofemily.co.uk/2026/05/24/640-mps-served-silence-is-not-protection/
Video:
https://www.stealingofemily.world/Youtoob/yt_play/index.php?id=v309&group=1&list=The+Stealing+of+Emily&playlist=The+Stealing+of+Emily
Yours Faithfully
Martin Newbold
📧 www.martinnewbold.co.uk
🌐 www.thestealingofemily.co.uk 🌐stealingofemily.world
Disclaimer: The attached newspaper-style images are AI-generated illustrative campaign graphics intended to represent referenced public-source issues and commentary. They are not genuine newspaper publications or reproductions of actual front pages.
MPs sent this correspondence — 0 log records
The date/time is taken directly from the sent-log CSV. “SMTP accepted” records sending acceptance; it is not a read receipt.
Log line
MP name
Email
Constituency
Date/time from log
Status
CSV detail
No sent-log records were found for this campaign.
Request for referral to the DFE — 640 sent records
The correspondence records responses in which MPs or their offices relied on parliamentary privilege, constituency convention or parliamentary procedure instead of answering the safeguarding question.
The correspondence states that Emily Newbold has been described as being in education, while the Department for Education has not identified her educational establishment, current placement, safeguarding status or location to Martin Newbold. Whether Emily is treated as a child or an adult, the unresolved questions remain: where is she, who is responsible for her welfare, and which public authority can confirm that she is safe and genuinely registered in education?
UK Parliament’s own procedure guide states that parliamentary privilege does not apply to correspondence with constituents or ministers. For a child, section 47 of the Children Act 1989 provides the safeguarding-enquiry route where its legal test is met. For an adult, section 42 of the Care Act 2014 provides the safeguarding-enquiry route where its legal conditions are met. These are national safeguarding questions and cannot be answered merely by citing privilege or constituency convention.
One copy of the letter extracted from the sending page
Dear Member of Parliament,
Urgent County Enquiry Emily Newbold DOB 30/06/2006 - Urgent Intervention
About Emily - https://stealingofemily.world/about/
Dear Memeber of Parliament,
Immediate explanation required: shadow-banning of MP correspondence
Department for Education communications have informed me that my daughter Emily is in care until the age of 25, and have also indicated that she is connected to a school in Tonbridge, Kent.
At the same time, previous NHS correspondence indicates that Emily is not locatable on the NHS system through normal reasonable searches.
This creates an urgent safeguarding and records contradiction: one public authority appears to indicate that Emily is known within education/care arrangements, while NHS records appear unable to locate her.
I am asking Members of Parliament to intervene with the Department for Education and require a clear written answer confirming where Emily Newbold is recorded, which authority is responsible, and what safeguarding action has been taken to verify her location and welfare.
• whether Emily Newbold is currently known to any education, care, safeguarding, looked-after-child, virtual school, SEND, post-18, or care-leaver system;
• whether any record links her to Tonbridge, Kent;
• which authority currently holds responsibility for her welfare, records, or safeguarding status;
• why NHS systems appear unable to locate her; and
• what immediate safeguarding verification has been undertaken.
MP Evidence Pack Images - numbered sequence
I am in communication with Surrey Police who is deciding if my daughters mising status is connected to Epstein as this a Police investigation. I expect you to comply.
Images
https://www.stealingofemily.world/FILES/01_DFE_LGSO_No10_Government_Loop_Where_Is_Emily.png
Images
https://www.stealingofemily.world/FILES/02_Documented_Chain_of_Events_DFE_Tonbridge_Affidavit.png
Images
https://www.stealingofemily.world/FILES/03_PHSO_82_Page_Evidence_Saw_Nothing_Wrong.png
Images
https://www.stealingofemily.world/FILES/04_PHSO_Multiple_Signed_For_Evidence_Not_Investigated.png
Images
https://www.stealingofemily.world/FILES/05_Tonbridge_Kent_Official_Documentary_Evidence_Timeline.png
Images
https://www.stealingofemily.world/FILES/06_Frewen_College_vs_Tonbridge_School_Misdirection_Non_Answer.png
Images
https://www.stealingofemily.world/FILES/07_PHSO_Received_Evidence_Signed_For_Acknowledged_Then_Sided_With_DFE.png
Images
https://www.stealingofemily.world/FILES/08_PHSO_82_Pages_Received_Documented_Ignored.png
Images
https://www.stealingofemily.world/FILES/09_DFE_Knew_Years_of_Correspondence_Still_No_Answer.png
Images
https://www.stealingofemily.world/FILES/10_Tonbridge_First_Documentary_Confirmation_DOH_2025.png
Images
https://www.stealingofemily.world/FILES/11_PHSO_Signed_For_Bundles_Acknowledged_Still_Saw_Nothing_Wrong.png
Images
https://www.stealingofemily.world/FILES/12_Julie_Odams_LGSO_HR_Complaint_Three_Page_Collage.png
Before I refer the full correspondence trail to police, I am giving you this final opportunity to acknowledge receipt and confirm whether you will make representations to the Department for Education.
Yours Faithfully
Martin Newbold
📧 www.martinnewbold.co.uk
🌐 www.thestealingofemily.co.uk 🌐stealingofemily.world
Disclaimer: The attached newspaper-style images are AI-generated illustrative campaign graphics intended to represent referenced public-source issues and commentary. They are not genuine newspaper publications or reproductions of actual front pages.
MPs sent this correspondence — 0 log records
The date/time is taken directly from the sent-log CSV. “SMTP accepted” records sending acceptance; it is not a read receipt.
Log line
MP name
Email
Constituency
Date/time from log
Status
CSV detail
No sent-log records were found for this campaign.
Parliamentary safeguarding / Epstein / BBC correspondence — 642 sent records
The correspondence records responses in which MPs or their offices relied on parliamentary privilege, constituency convention or parliamentary procedure instead of answering the safeguarding question.
The correspondence states that Emily Newbold has been described as being in education, while the Department for Education has not identified her educational establishment, current placement, safeguarding status or location to Martin Newbold. Whether Emily is treated as a child or an adult, the unresolved questions remain: where is she, who is responsible for her welfare, and which public authority can confirm that she is safe and genuinely registered in education?
UK Parliament’s own procedure guide states that parliamentary privilege does not apply to correspondence with constituents or ministers. For a child, section 47 of the Children Act 1989 provides the safeguarding-enquiry route where its legal test is met. For an adult, section 42 of the Care Act 2014 provides the safeguarding-enquiry route where its legal conditions are met. These are national safeguarding questions and cannot be answered merely by citing privilege or constituency convention.
One copy of the letter extracted from the sending page
FORMAL NOTICE: Failure of Statutory Safeguarding Duties and Request for Immediate Professional Standards Assessment
Triage keywords: safeguarding concern; missing person; missing vulnerable person; child protection; vulnerable adult; risk of harm; public protection; duty of care; police professional standards; formal complaint; NHS records unable to locate; MP safeguarding disclosure; urgent manager review required; reference number requested safeguarding concern; missing vulnerable person; child protection; risk of harm; police professional standards; formal complaint; NHS records unable to locate; MP safeguarding disclosure; urgent manager review required; reference number requested.
* Correspondence Triage Framework.
* Ministerial Correspondence Guidance.
* Safeguarding Escalation Workflow.
* AI Classification Policy.
* Case Management Configuration.
* Keyword, routing, escalation or manager-review rules.
* Any automated triage, NLP, AI, sentiment-analysis or workflow rules applied to this email.
If this correspondence is processed by any automated correspondence-triage, case-management, workflow, AI-classification, NLP, sentiment-analysis, or routing system, I request preservation of the audit trail, classification results, routing decisions, escalation actions, safeguarding flags, manager-review actions, and all associated case notes.
For the attention of {{MP_NAME}} Member of Parliament (United Kingdom), I request preservation of the audit trail, classification results, routing decisions, escalation actions, safeguarding flags, manager-review actions, case notes, internal referrals, workflow history, and user-access logs associated with this correspondence.
Urgent County Enquiry Emily Newbold DOB 30/06/2006 - Urgent Intervention
About Emily - https://stealingofemily.world/about/
Triage keywords: safeguarding concern; missing vulnerable person; child protection; risk of harm; police professional standards; formal complaint; NHS records unable to locate; MP safeguarding disclosure; urgent manager review required; reference number requested.
Dear Memeber Of Parliament
I write with reference to communication with Surre Police Ellen Badge 18592 and innformation placed beore Inspector Badge No 40550.
This correspondence constitutes formal notice of serious safeguarding concerns and a documented failure to act upon information already placed before your force.
A comprehensive documentary dossier has now been distributed to Members of Parliament to ensure independent oversight, preservation of chronology, and public accountability concerning these safeguarding matters.
Statutory Safeguarding Duties
The concerns raised engage statutory safeguarding obligations under, including but not limited to:
• Children Act 2004
• Care Act 2014
• Working Together to Safeguard Children guidance
Where is Emily? You seem sycophantic towards my child Emily causing much family discrimination and duress. Where is the dignity in such statements which you provided? I demand higher handling of the entire case, given the deplorable and deeply far-reaching error / mistakes being made complicated out of feasible proportions.
This is now a case of human misery and baseless removal of inherited rights needing to be heard by the proper authorities and also needing accurate forensic recording/ detailing the readiness for review by the UK Government new Home Secretary. Your two letters do not address or answer points of concern. I hope you will resolve these concerns at your earliest opportunity. I also point out there is no empathy in your two letters or any indication that you are impartial. Quite clearly your process and procedures has alienated my daughter from her blood inheritance family when you are supposed to have provided court awarded contact. You have not provided a care plan then coercing my child Emily not to write to her biological pure blood family.
Further to your referral to the DFE does not have denominators and comparability, and does not appear to safeguard children, and my child or any child with meaningful data. When I asked, "If understanding the statistic requires population denominators that are not shown alongside the headline figures, how is the public supposed to interpret the data correctly?" The ONS reply didn't engage with that. It simply told you who owns the care statistics and nobody addresses the underlying point. I asked a question that was essentially: "How can the public understand these care statistics without the population data?" you replied "We don't hold the care statistics. Contact DfE."
The DFE data presentation is misleading because it reports increases in headline numbers without giving equal prominence to the child-population denominator used as the index. Without showing the starting population base and rate calculation, the reader cannot tell whether the change reflects more children being affected, population growth, a recording change, or a real change in risk.
From my perspective, the pattern becomes:
ONS -> Contact DfE
DfE -> Different team
Statistics -> Methodology document
Methodology -> Different dataset
Dataset -> Different release
Release -> Updated URL
and nobody addresses the underlying point.
I found that the 590,920 / half a million figure was not a recent invention.
I pushed it back to a September 2022 letter.
I found that you were already arguing with ONS in June 2023 about denominators and population bases.
I found that the NSPCC URL now points to a later version than the one you originally cited.
The DFE does not have denominators and comparability, and does not appear to safeguard children?
That's not a complete answer, but it is progress. Before today, the trail looked lost. Now I * know the trail existed in 2022 and was still being discussed in 2023.
Looking just at the material I've shown over the last hour, there is a recurring pattern:
You find a statistic.
You trace it back to a source.
The source URL now points somewhere else.
The filename is the same.
The organisation that has the numerator tells you to speak to the organisation with the denominator.
The organisation with the denominator tells you to speak to the organisation with the numerator.
Years later you're trying to reconstruct exactly what document you were looking at in 2022 or 2023.
From my perspective, that feels like running in circles.
If regulations require children's behavioural and emotional needs to be met, positive relationships to be maintained, and relevant plans to be followed, how is compliance measured when court-ordered family contact is absent?
What is actually being counted?
What is the denominator?
Has the definition changed?
Are the categories overlapping?
Can the same source be verified years later?
For the record: I have contacted 640 MPs regarding my missing daughter, Emily, and I have received a reply from each MP. This matter is now also part of my complaint to the Department for Education.
"748,000 × 79% = 590,920 — approximately half a million children."
This has sadly resulted in children been compromised with mental heath conditions and placed in Northern Ireland in a stigma of what is in England called CDC. In Northern Ireland they are called SEN of which in 2019 from this NSPCC briefing it was released information in relation to children in Northern Ireland of 748,000 children under the age of 18 were in care 40% had been diagnosed with behavioral problems and 35% with emotional problems a 21% with depression and anxiety. It is stated that this measure is important because it highlights the need for mental health support for looked after children. If mental health needs are unmet, it can increase the child’s risk of a variety of poor outcomes, including placement instability and poor educational attained (Bazalgette, Rahilly, Trevelyan 2015.). Of these 748,000 then 79% were reported as being in Kinship care. which is a staggering figure of 590,920 approximately half a million children!
NSPCC briefing → Northern Ireland under-18 figure / care-related statistics → 79% kinship care → your derived 590,920 figure → “approximately half a million children.”
That explains why searching 500,000 failed. The actual figure in the text is 590,920, and “half a million” is written as prose at the end of the paragraph.
Page | 98 social services, who operated this clandestine abduction of children from their families many who had done nothing more than fight for custody. But what these families did not know was an over zealous social services system was in place where social worker s could routinely lie in court without any redress of the matter in complaints put in place by the then Lord Chief Justice Mathew Alexander Thorpe to block any examination of nom de plume evidence. This has sadly resulted in children been compromised with mental heath conditions and placed in Northern Ireland in a stigma of what is in England called CDC. In Northern Ireland they are called SEN of which in 2019 from this NSPCC briefing it was released information in relation to children in Northern Ireland o f 748,000 children under the age of 18 were in care 40% had been diagnosed with behavioral problems and 35% with emotional problems a 21% with depression and anxiety. It is stated that this measure is important because it highlights the need for mental he alth support for looked after children. If mental health needs are unmet, it can increase the child’s risk of a variety of poor outcomes, including placement instability and poor educational attained (Bazalgette, Rahilly, Trevelyan 2015.). Of these 748,000 then 79% were reported as being in Kinship care. which is a staggering figure of 590,920 approximately half a million children! CHILD LAUNDERING LEGALLY is institutionally happening and is notarized in a document by bpress dated 2005 who produced a legal paper number 749 called ‘Child Laundering: How the Intercountry Adoption System Legitimizes and Incentivizes the abduction and kindanp of children.
No misunderstanding can now exist that these matters have been formally raised.
I look forward to your urgent response.
Attachments
https://www.stealingofemily.world/FILES/2022-05-04 - DFE - Complaint All Form.pdf
https://www.stealingofemily.world/2022-09-08 - Anita Dennison.pdf
https://www.stealingofemily.world/2026-05-25_ABDUCTION MECHANISM_ePEP_eGOV_eGovCloud_WORLDWIDE_COVERAGE_REDACTION_SUMMARY #3.pdf
Images
https://stealingofemily.world/FILES/2026-03-17%20-%20Email%20%20Re%20Emily%20missing%20from%20the%20records.png
Images
https://www.stealingofemily.world/FILES/01_DFE_poster_640_MPs_logged_as_criminal.png
Previous Communication Evidence.
https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_mps.php
https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_mps_missing_emily.php
https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_mps_shadowban_video.php
https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_mps_missing_emily_please_contact%20DFE.php
Yours Faithfully
Martin Newbold
📧 www.martinnewbold.co.uk
🌐 www.thestealingofemily.co.uk 🌐stealingofemily.world
Disclaimer: The attached newspaper-style images are AI-generated illustrative campaign graphics intended to represent referenced public-source issues and commentary. They are not genuine newspaper publications or reproductions of actual front pages.
MPs sent this correspondence — 0 log records
The date/time is taken directly from the sent-log CSV. “SMTP accepted” records sending acceptance; it is not a read receipt.
Log line
MP name
Email
Constituency
Date/time from log
Status
CSV detail
No sent-log records were found for this campaign.
Surrey Police safeguarding correspondence — 689 sent records
The correspondence records responses in which MPs or their offices relied on parliamentary privilege, constituency convention or parliamentary procedure instead of answering the safeguarding question.
The correspondence states that Emily Newbold has been described as being in education, while the Department for Education has not identified her educational establishment, current placement, safeguarding status or location to Martin Newbold. Whether Emily is treated as a child or an adult, the unresolved questions remain: where is she, who is responsible for her welfare, and which public authority can confirm that she is safe and genuinely registered in education?
UK Parliament’s own procedure guide states that parliamentary privilege does not apply to correspondence with constituents or ministers. For a child, section 47 of the Children Act 1989 provides the safeguarding-enquiry route where its legal test is met. For an adult, section 42 of the Care Act 2014 provides the safeguarding-enquiry route where its legal conditions are met. These are national safeguarding questions and cannot be answered merely by citing privilege or constituency convention.
One copy of the letter extracted from the sending page
FORMAL NOTICE: Failure of Statutory Safeguarding Duties and Request for Immediate Professional Standards Assessment
Triage keywords: safeguarding concern; missing person; missing vulnerable person; child protection; vulnerable adult; risk of harm; public protection; duty of care; police professional standards; formal complaint; NHS records unable to locate; MP safeguarding disclosure; urgent manager review required; reference number requested safeguarding concern; missing vulnerable person; child protection; risk of harm; police professional standards; formal complaint; NHS records unable to locate; MP safeguarding disclosure; urgent manager review required; reference number requested.
* Correspondence Triage Framework.
* Ministerial Correspondence Guidance.
* Safeguarding Escalation Workflow.
* AI Classification Policy.
* Case Management Configuration.
* Keyword, routing, escalation or manager-review rules.
* Any automated triage, NLP, AI, sentiment-analysis or workflow rules applied to this email.
If this correspondence is processed by any automated correspondence-triage, case-management, workflow, AI-classification, NLP, sentiment-analysis, or routing system, I request preservation of the audit trail, classification results, routing decisions, escalation actions, safeguarding flags, manager-review actions, and all associated case notes.
For the Attention of:
Chief Constable / Professional Standards Department
Sussex Police and Surrey Police
For the attention of {{MP_NAME}} Member of Parliament (United Kingdom), I request preservation of the audit trail, classification results, routing decisions, escalation actions, safeguarding flags, manager-review actions, case notes, internal referrals, workflow history, and user-access logs associated with this correspondence.
Urgent County Enquiry Emily Newbold DOB 30/06/2006 - Urgent Intervention
About Emily - https://stealingofemily.world/about/
Dear Chief Constable,
I write with reference to communication with Surrey Police Ellen Badge No 18592 and information placed before Inspector Badge No 40550.
This correspondence constitutes formal notice of serious safeguarding concerns and a documented failure to act upon information already placed before your force.
This correspondence is intentionally labelled for safeguarding, formal complaint, manager review, and audit-trail preservation purposes. It is not an attempt to bypass any system, but to ensure the nature of the concern is accurately recorded and routed.
A comprehensive documentary dossier has now been distributed to Members of Parliament to ensure independent oversight, preservation of chronology, and public accountability concerning these safeguarding matters.
Statutory Safeguarding Duties
The concerns raised engage statutory safeguarding obligations under, including but not limited to:
• Children Act 2004
• Care Act 2014
• Working Together to Safeguard Children guidance
Your force holds a clear public duty to assess, investigate, record, and appropriately respond where safeguarding concerns involving vulnerable individuals are raised.
The evidence already provided demonstrates repeated notifications, documented chronology, and continued failures to properly engage with the substance of those concerns.
Professional Standards and Potential Misconduct
The repeated failure to meaningfully act upon safeguarding disclosures, despite sustained notice and supporting documentation, now requires immediate Professional Standards assessment.
I require the Professional Standards Department to determine whether the conduct, omissions, delays, or failures by relevant officers amount to misconduct in public office and/or breaches of safeguarding obligations expected of public officers exercising police powers and responsibilities.
For clarity, this notice specifically concerns:
"Parliamentary protocol may limit individual representation, but it does not justify ignoring or failing to refer a safeguarding concern."
Parliament’s own safeguarding page says: “Safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility.” cite: https://www.parliament.uk/visiting/access/safeguarding-on-the-parliamentary-estate/
Parliamentary protocol may limit direct constituency representation, but Parliament’s own safeguarding position is that safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility. A safeguarding disclosure should therefore be recorded, referred, or passed to the appropriate authority, not simply dismissed as ordinary non-constituency casework.
• failure to appropriately engage with safeguarding disclosures;
• failure to adequately assess documentary evidence;
• failure to provide proportionate safeguarding responses; and
• failure to properly address matters repeatedly brought to the attention of the force.
Images
https://www.stealingofemily.world/FILES/2026-06-04%20-%20Screen%20Capture%20PMQ%20Sir%20Kier%20Starmer%20addressing%20Kemi%20Badenoch.png
I require DfE to provide a reconciliation table showing whether the 500,000 cohort, the 758,000 cohort, and the children recorded as “moved on” are identical, overlapping, or separate cohorts, and to name the system and officer responsible for confirming each child’s current traceability status.
This is no longer capable of being treated as bureaucratic failure. Where children remain untraced after repeated safeguarding notice, and authorities refuse to name responsibility or provide a traceability route, the matter must be investigated as suspected child sexual exploitation, institutional concealment, and criminal safeguarding failure.
“If people with power were repeatedly warned about child safeguarding and traceability concerns and chose not to act, then the failure is so serious that it cannot be brushed aside as mere incompetence.”
If 640 MPs were notified of a child traceability and safeguarding concern and none provided a substantive safeguarding route, named officer, referral, or protective action, then Parliament has collectively failed its safeguarding function. That failure must be treated as potential institutional complicity, concealment, or gross neglect until properly investigated.
Their failure to answer a child traceability and safeguarding question after notice is now evidence of obstruction, concealment, or institutional non-compliance, and must be investigated.
I allege a direct cause-and-effect safeguarding concern: Epstein-linked access networks entered UK political institutions through Mandelson and Blair-era Labour channels, continued into later Labour/Treasury access, and coincided with unresolved mass child traceability failures. The state must now disclose the records and prove there is no connection.
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-probe-into-charles-brother-andrew-mandelson-likely-take-over-year-top-2026-06-04/
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/peter-mandelson-files-meetings-global-counsel-treasury-b0rbnvk8p
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-releases-second-batch-files-mandelsons-appointment-us-ambassador-2026-06-01/
What did Starmer/Labour know, when did they know it, what checks were done on Lord Alli, and has anyone independently reviewed the risk?
“Where a major political donor is reportedly named in Epstein-related material, the issue is not automatic guilt. The issue is whether that donor relationship created influence, access, or dependency — and whether proper due diligence was carried out before money, access, appointments, honours, or political proximity were accepted.”
Sexed-up reports are not imaginary. Parliament recorded a Daily Express report alleging social workers were “sexing up dossiers” to get care orders. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmeduc/uc1514iv/uc1514iv.htm
DfE is a responsible department for children’s social care reform. Its own memorandum says government was reforming social work through the Child Protection Implementation Taskforce. https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/Education/Department-for-Education-memorandum-on-social-work-reform.pdf
The law around parental contact has changed/been challenged. The government announced repeal of the presumption that contact with both parents is automatically in a child’s best interests, following concerns about harm in family courts. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/21/family-law-shift-hailed-as-victory-for-children-facing-domestic-abuse
Does this not sound like state sanctioned abduction of children?
“Given known concerns about sexed-up reports, family-court secrecy, DfE responsibility, and disputed child-contact law, I require the responsible public authority to explain Emily’s traceability status and whether these cohorts overlap.”
Required Action
If Emily Newbold is within any MP’s constituency, homeless, vulnerable, missing, displaced, or otherwise at risk, that MP cannot safely assume this is “someone else’s case.” Safeguarding is location-sensitive as well as constituency-sensitive. A disclosure concerning a vulnerable person potentially present in an MP’s constituency should be recorded or referred, not dismissed.
As Surrey Police are assessing whether Emily Newbold’s missing status is connected to Epstein-related safeguarding concerns, then every recipient has been notified of a potentially serious child/vulnerable-person safeguarding matter. Parliamentary constituency protocol cannot override the need to record, refer, or pass on a safeguarding disclosure to the proper authority.
Where Surrey Police are assessing whether Emily Newbold’s missing status engages Epstein-related safeguarding concerns, every recipient has now been notified of a potentially serious safeguarding matter. Parliamentary constituency protocol cannot override the need to record, refer, or pass on a safeguarding disclosure to the proper authority.
Where a missing/vulnerable person may be present in any constituency, or may fall within a wider police safeguarding assessment, no MP office can safely dismiss the disclosure as “not my constituent” without first considering referral.
This is the result of my local constituency enquiry.
Local Constituency Enquiry Result
After years of correspondence, the position remains that NHS records could not locate Emily Newbold through the normal route available to them.This NHS correspondence is the result of my local constituency enquiry. It shows that the ordinary constituency route has already been used and did not resolve the safeguarding/records issue concerning Emily Newbold.
That is why this matter is now being placed before police, MPs, Parliament, and relevant oversight bodies as a safeguarding disclosure rather than ordinary constituency casework.
Images
https://stealingofemily.world/FILES/2026-03-17%20-%20Email%20%20Re%20Emily%20missing%20from%20the%20records.png
I require:
• Immediate acknowledgement of receipt;
• A Professional Standards reference number;
• Identification of the officer or department assigned to this matter;
• Confirmation that safeguarding concerns have been formally logged; and
• A timeline for initial assessment and response.
Please confirm:
the police reference number for this matter;
whether Emily Newbold has been recorded as a missing/vulnerable person or safeguarding concern;
which officer, team, or department is responsible for assessment;
whether any THRIVE/THRIVE+ or vulnerability assessment has been completed;
whether the matter has been referred to Professional Standards;
the reason for any decision not to investigate, refer, or take safeguarding action.
This is a formal safeguarding and audit-trail preservation request. Please preserve all notes, routing decisions, risk assessments, supervisory reviews, case-management entries, and reasons for any no-further-action decision.
Members of Parliament have now been formally notified of these safeguarding concerns and the chronology surrounding them. The documentary trail, correspondence history, and evidence record are preserved.
No misunderstanding can now exist that these matters have been formally raised.
Police Risk Assessment and Safeguarding Triage
I request confirmation that this correspondence has been assessed under any applicable police vulnerability, safeguarding, missing-person, and THRIVE / THRIVE+ assessment frameworks.
For the avoidance of doubt, I request preservation of:
• Any THRIVE / THRIVE+ assessment;
• Threat, Harm, Risk, Investigation, Vulnerability and Engagement considerations;
• Vulnerability assessments;
• Safeguarding referrals;
• Missing-person assessments;
• Risk-grading decisions;
• Incident grading decisions;
• Professional Standards referrals;
• Supervisory reviews; and
• The rationale for any decision not to investigate, refer, record, or take safeguarding action.
If any assessment has determined that no further action is required, I request that the decision-making rationale, reviewing officer, and date of review are recorded and preserved.
I look forward to your urgent response.
Images
https://www.stealingofemily.world/FILES/01_DFE_poster_640_MPs_logged_as_criminal.png
Images
https://www.stealingofemily.world/FILES/02_DFE_poster_Newry_NHS_safeguarding_failure.png
Images
03_DFE_notice_Newry_NHS_safeguarding_failure_no_paper.png
Images
https://www.stealingofemily.world/FILES/04_DFE_poster_NHS_DFE_cannot_locate_Emily.png
Images
https://www.stealingofemily.world/FILES/05_DFE_poster_Emily_not_boys_school_Tonbridge.png
Images
https://www.stealingofemily.world/FILES/06_DFE_poster_SEND_families_waited_years_Martin_Newbold.png
Previous Communication Evidence.
https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_mps.php
https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_mps_missing_emily.php
https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_mps_shadowban_video.php
https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_mps_missing_emily_please_contact%20DFE.php
Yours Faithfully
Martin Newbold
📧 www.martinnewbold.co.uk
🌐 www.thestealingofemily.co.uk 🌐stealingofemily.world
Disclaimer: The attached newspaper-style images are AI-generated illustrative campaign graphics intended to represent referenced public-source issues and commentary. They are not genuine newspaper publications or reproductions of actual front pages.
MPs sent this correspondence — 0 log records
The date/time is taken directly from the sent-log CSV. “SMTP accepted” records sending acceptance; it is not a read receipt.
Log line
MP name
Email
Constituency
Date/time from log
Status
CSV detail
No sent-log records were found for this campaign.
MP statements claiming inability to help — 713 sent records
The correspondence records responses in which MPs or their offices relied on parliamentary privilege, constituency convention or parliamentary procedure instead of answering the safeguarding question.
The correspondence states that Emily Newbold has been described as being in education, while the Department for Education has not identified her educational establishment, current placement, safeguarding status or location to Martin Newbold. Whether Emily is treated as a child or an adult, the unresolved questions remain: where is she, who is responsible for her welfare, and which public authority can confirm that she is safe and genuinely registered in education?
UK Parliament’s own procedure guide states that parliamentary privilege does not apply to correspondence with constituents or ministers. For a child, section 47 of the Children Act 1989 provides the safeguarding-enquiry route where its legal test is met. For an adult, section 42 of the Care Act 2014 provides the safeguarding-enquiry route where its legal conditions are met. These are national safeguarding questions and cannot be answered merely by citing privilege or constituency convention.
One copy of the letter extracted from the sending page
FORMAL NOTICE: Failure of Statutory Safeguarding Duties and Request for Immediate Professional Standards Assessment
Triage keywords: safeguarding concern; missing person; missing vulnerable person; child protection; vulnerable adult; risk of harm; public protection; duty of care; police professional standards; formal complaint; NHS records unable to locate; MP safeguarding disclosure; urgent manager review required; reference number requested safeguarding concern; missing vulnerable person; child protection; risk of harm; police professional standards; formal complaint; NHS records unable to locate; MP safeguarding disclosure; urgent manager review required; reference number requested.
* Correspondence Triage Framework.
* Ministerial Correspondence Guidance.
* Safeguarding Escalation Workflow.
* AI Classification Policy.
* Case Management Configuration.
* Keyword, routing, escalation or manager-review rules.
* Any automated triage, NLP, AI, sentiment-analysis or workflow rules applied to this email.
If this correspondence is processed by any automated correspondence-triage, case-management, workflow, AI-classification, NLP, sentiment-analysis, or routing system, I request preservation of the audit trail, classification results, routing decisions, escalation actions, safeguarding flags, manager-review actions, and all associated case notes.
For the Attention of:
Chief Constable / Professional Standards Department
Sussex Police and Surrey Police
For the attention of every Member of Parliament (United Kingdom), I request preservation of the audit trail, classification results, routing decisions, escalation actions, safeguarding flags, manager-review actions, case notes, internal referrals, workflow history, and user-access logs associated with this correspondence.
Urgent County Enquiry Emily Newbold DOB 30/10/2006 - Urgent Intervention
About Emily - https://stealingofemily.world/about/
Dear MP,
Re : FORMAL NOTICE: Failure of Statutory Safeguarding Duties and Request for Immediate Professional Standards Assessment
Triage keywords: safeguarding concern; missing person; missing vulnerable person; child protection; vulnerable adult; risk of harm; public protection; duty of care; police professional standards; formal complaint; NHS records unable to locate; MP safeguarding disclosure; urgent manager review required; reference number requested safeguarding concern; missing vulnerable person; child protection; risk of harm; police professional standards; formal complaint; NHS records unable to locate; MP safeguarding disclosure; urgent manager review required; reference number requested.
* Correspondence Triage Framework.
* Ministerial Correspondence Guidance.
* Safeguarding Escalation Workflow.
* AI Classification Policy.
* Case Management Configuration.
* Keyword, routing, escalation or manager-review rules.
* Any automated triage, NLP, AI, sentiment-analysis or workflow rules applied to this email.
If this correspondence is processed by any automated correspondence-triage, case-management, workflow, AI-classification, NLP, sentiment-analysis, or routing system, I request preservation of the audit trail, classification results, routing decisions, escalation actions, safeguarding flags, manager-review actions, and all associated case notes.
**On The Public Record **
References:
NFRC241207046189
NFRC220205037307.
NCA: CCG0000122359,
SDR-026-0161
DSIT SAR 26-240,
IR2025/16000
National Crime Agency Professional standards IX.8.26
National Crime Agency CCG0000122359, CAD 153 / CAD 1619
Action Fraud NFRC241207046189, SDR-026-0161
Information Commissioner Case Reference IC-461437-H0W6
PHSO C-2058682
Metropolitan Police FoIA Request - 47533
Local Government Social Care Ombudsman FOI2025/08198
IBAC (CASE-20246844)
HMCTS Complaint (ref: 79534040)
PALS Ref 2602-0072
Ref: NIC-803189-J4G8C
PHSO: Ref C-2195214
Clinton Library FOIA case 2025-1058-F
FOIA 2026-0609-F /
FOIA 2026-0609-F / 2025-1058-F
I have asked you for your personal indemnity insurance which is presumably with Zurich plese provide correct indemnity insurance.
Helena Dollimore for Hastings and Rye stated in an open letter on social media "It is the most basic duty of any administration to protect society’s most vulnerable children. " Please explain why this principle is not being reflected in your response and why, rather than addressing the safeguarding matter raised, you have chosen to rely on procedural excuses for not dealing with it..Please explain why my correspondence has not been registered and referred to the appropriate Department for Education complaints or safeguarding team, and identify who made the decision not to do so.
I identified that when you actas the MP for your specific constiuency, parliamentary convention normally prevents you from taking over another MP’s individual constituency casework. The House of Commons Library describes this as a convention of constituency etiquette, under which constituents ordinarily approach their own MP. It is not a general Act of Parliament prohibiting all contact from people outside her constituency.
However, I contacted you in your separate capacity as MP and minister. That is a national ministerial office. The official description says you are responsible for contacting the the Department for Education’s, including children’s social care. A constituency boundary does not prevent the Department from receiving a complaint from a member of the public elsewhere in England.
The DfE publishes a national complaints procedure. It says complaints about the Department are referred to an appropriate staff member for investigation and should normally receive a response within 15 working days. It also expressly says that a complaint about government policy may be directed to the minister responsible for that policy.
I acknowledge the parliamentary convention that an MP ordinarily undertakes individual constituency casework only for their own constituents. However, I did not approach you for constituency representation. I contacted you in your national ministerial capacity as Secretary of State for Education and submitted a formal complaint concerning the Department for Education.
Please identify the precise parliamentary rule or statutory provision upon which you rely. If your response concerns only your capacity as MP for Manchester Central, please confirm that my correspondence has nevertheless been registered and referred to the Department for Education’s Ministerial and Public Communications Division under its published complaints procedure.
Please provide the complaint reference number, the name or position of the official responsible for considering it, and the date by which I will receive a substantive response.
“Convention of constituency etiquette” means an accepted parliamentary custom or courtesy, rather than an Act of Parliament or a formally enforceable parliamentary rule.
You describe this as “strict Parliamentary protocol.” Please identify the exact Standing Order, statutory provision or formal rule upon which you rely. The House of Commons Library states that constituency etiquette is a convention and is not the subject of formal parliamentary rules. I did not approach you for representation as my constituency MP; I contacted you in your national capacity as Secretary of State for Education. Please therefore refer my correspondence to the appropriate Department for Education complaints or safeguarding team and provide a reference number.
**The Right Hon Lucy Powell secretary of State for Education you have failed to provide evidence that my daughter, Emily Newbold, is alive, safe, and not deceased. In the absence of any clear welfare confirmation, safeguarding record, lawful disclosure, or accountable explanation, I require Social Work England to treat this as an urgent safeguarding and professional-regulation matter. Answer me straight, is she dead, ended or alive?
The breaches engaged include, but are not limited to:
Article 12 UK GDPR – failure to act transparently and within statutory time limits
Article 15 UK GDPR – failure to provide access to personal data
Article 5(1)(a) UK GDPR – lack of lawfulness, fairness, and transparency **
About Emily - https://stealingofemily.world/about/
Hello, yes, this is Martin Newbold. I'm calling and writing about the welfare of my daughter Emily , but you have refused to provide information and say that you're not reading my emails and that you can't answer a matter of safeguarding due to parliamentary privilege when I have not contacted you as an MP.
That's forced me to call you and to note that you don't answer your phone calls either.You are supposed to be the...You are supposed to be the current Secretary of State for Education. Can you also tell me why? The Department of Education is telling me that I'm not there yet when I asked them for information about my daughter Who was supposed to be in Northern Ireland, which she's not according to social workers andEffectively according to a video I have on my website is supposed to be there until she's 25There clearly someone needs to tell me where my daughter is and her correct location of where she actually is. As you are now the Department of Education Secretary of State, I expect a proper I expect a proper answer from you. Otherwise I shall conclude that you're no better than the person that was in your previous seat and publicly humiliate you. Can you please make sure that doesn't happen and can you please make sure that you provide me a proper answer and one that would actually help the rest of my family have some dialogue with my daughter. As she is supposed to be part of a safeguarding situation, social workers should have known where she is. As you are the Department of Education and you empower social workers, you should be able to actually inform me where she is. able to actually inform me where she is. As she is in education, you should be able to inform me where she is. As the Department of Health tells me she no longer has a NHS record, I am deeply concerned and this has been reported to the Surrey Police in regard to Andrew and disappearing children. Now clearly I expect some answers so can you please give me some indication of when you can get those answers to me can you tell me what you mean by the Department of Education saying "I haven't got there yet" and can you please provide an answer you can email me at You can email me at martinnewbold.mn at gmail.com You can go on my website and you can send a message on those as well. I look forward to hearing from you. I hope this is a meaningful conversation I'm going to have with you and will result in the location of my daughter Emily thank you very much for your time I appreciate it.
I Martin Newbold of sound mind and I identify as a victim of Gary Paul Daniels.
The applicant, Mr. Martin Peter Newbold, has filed an urgent appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) alleging violations of Articles 6, 8, and 14 of the Human Rights Act, as well as breaches of Estoppel. His request stems from a long-standing legal battle involving East Sussex County Council and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), where the family contends that their rights and agreements have been ignored by local authorities. Mr. Newbold is seeking the immediate return of his child, Emily, who he believes is in imminent danger due to the failure of social services and the courts to ensure her safety. He has requested the issuance of a Writ of Attachment and Writ of Habeas Corpus to compel the return of his child and to ensure her medical, forensic, and safeguarding needs are addressed.
False Genogram Submitted to the Court
I also draw the Court’s attention to the submission of a genogram that was materially inaccurate, and which did not correctly represent the family relationships concerned.
That genogram was relied upon within proceedings and affected at least three families, including my own. The inaccuracies were not peripheral; they went to the core depiction of familial relationships and therefore had the potential to influence assessments, recommendations, and judicial decision-making.
Three families have suffered immeasurably due to the actions of Judge Hollis, whose decisions remain uninvestigated despite clear indications of criminal misconduct. During the Hastings court proceedings, social worker Christine Elizabeth Stirling presented genealogical information that was not only inaccurate but appeared deliberately constructed to mislead the court and support her own agenda.
The key issue lies in the genogram itself. The document titled “Genogram_re_Lauren’s_family_19_08_10”, prepared by Charlotte Bell for East Sussex County Council, contains fundamentally incorrect information. It incorrectly identifies Emily's sister Lauren’s father, when in reality, her father is David Cunningham, and her full name is Lauren Anne Cunningham. Despite this clear and crucial error, the same misleading information was presented during court proceedings. This raises serious questions: why was this false narrative allowed to stand, and who was accountable for presenting this incorrect data in such a critical legal setting?
I previously telephoned your office as a victim of the actions of Gary Daniels and East Sussex County Council, who have been unable to inform me of the whereabouts of my daughter, Emily Newbold-Smith, date of birth 30/10/206. I have repeatedly asked for DNA evidence and supporting records from those who have, in my view, misled me.
Emily, has been missing for 19 years after being removed by East Sussex Social services from her mother at age 4. The NHS and my GP surgery have both confirmed in writing that they cannot locate her on their systems. When the Department for Education responded via the Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman, C-205-8682 and C-205 -9461 they relied on data from Gary Daniels’ ePEP system and stated that Emily was attending a boys’ school in Tunbridge Wells — which is clearly impossible.
I allege that Gary Paul Daniels and related companies — E-Care Solutions Limited, E-Gov Digital Limited, and E-Gov Solutions Limited — obtained council money through false representations, while operating an education/care database used for vulnerable children.
I said the database, described as EPEP / electronic personal education plan, held sensitive data on looked-after and disabled children, but lacked proper accreditation, due diligence, and oversight.
I also alleged councils, the ICO, and other bodies were failing to act, and described that as a wider cover-up / corruption issue.
My ICO complaint concerns eGov Digital Ltd and was received on 26.02.2026 under reference number IC-485683-M0X9.
The documents I rely upon indicate a wider pattern of serious concern, including:
inadequate security measures, including shared credentials, absence of multi-factor authentication, and no independent audits;
apparent breaches of UK GDPR Articles 5, 28, 32 and 35;
non-compliance with the Children’s Code and NHS DSPT requirements;
misleading ISO 27001 claims made on the G-Cloud framework;
historic trading activity through dormant companies while handling children’s data; and
systemic safeguarding failures affecting vulnerable children.
The cross-border arrangement I am referring to is the UK GDPR international transfer regime, not a “shared GDPR compliance agreement” by that name.
“the UK GDPR international data transfer arrangements with other countries”
The mechanism more exactly:
For transfers to EEA countries such as Finland: the transfer is usually allowed under UK adequacy regulations, so there is not normally a separate special agreement to name as breached just because the data is in Finland. The ICO says the UK has adequacy regulations covering transfers to EEA countries, so data can flow without extra safeguards like SCCs or an IDTA.
For transfers to non-EEA countries: the relevant transfer instrument would usually be the International Data Transfer Agreement (IDTA) or the UK Addendum to Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs).
My own document supports the same point: UK → Finland hosting is described there as lawful in principle, and the real issue is alleged failure of safeguards, transparency, and response to access requests, not the mere fact of Finland hosting.
An adequacy decision does not give a free pass to transfer or process data about vulnerable children. It only addresses one part of the analysis: whether the destination country is recognised as providing an adequate level of protection for transfer purposes under Article 45. It does not remove the need for a lawful basis, an Article 9 condition for special category data, transparency, necessity, proportionality, security, and child-specific safeguards under the UK GDPR and the ICO’s children’s guidance.
“I allege a breach of the UK GDPR rules governing international transfers of personal data to other countries, together with failures of
Companies House records show a pattern of multiple eGOV-branded companies, including one dissolved by voluntary strike-off, one currently showing overdue accounts and an active strike-off proposal, and another using two variants of the same officer name within the company record.
EGOV SYSTEMS LIMITED (04915551) was struck off.
Its Companies House filing history shows:
20 Dec 2012 — application to strike the company off the register,
08 Jan 2013 — first Gazette notice for voluntary strike-off,
23 Apr 2013 — final Gazette dissolved via voluntary strike-off.
So you now have three separate points you can state factually:
EGOV SOLUTIONS LTD (11651414) is active and files accounts.
EGOV LIMITED (11289853) is active, has an active proposal to strike off, and shows accounts overdue for accounts due 31 Jan 2026.
EGOV SYSTEMS LIMITED (04915551) was voluntarily struck off and dissolved in 2013.
And for EGOV DIGITAL LIMITED (08945929), the officers page does show Gary Daniels as Secretary and Gary Paul Daniels as Director, both appointed on 19 March 2014, using the same correspondence address, which is why it reads like the same individual under two name variants.
If the £38,000 per authority figure is in FOI responses, then that is the figure to use, and it is stronger than brochures or generic marketplace pricing. In the searches I ran just now, I found WhatDoTheyKnow material referring to eGov/ePEP contracts in that rough range, including a request that cites an approximately £77,000 eGov Solutions contract around 2024 and another that cites an approximately £113,959 over an initial two-year term ePEP-related contract. I also found a successful Sheffield FOI where the council disclosed a current ePEP/attendance contract worth £75,114 ex VAT in total, although that one names a different supplier.
Direct engagement with Gary Daniels has now been exhausted. The matter will proceed on the basis of documentary contradictions, witness material, procurement records, Companies House history, and the absence of adequate GDPR/safeguarding scrutiny. Any continued failure by the ICO or public bodies to engage will itself be relied upon in further submissions.
Previous Communication Evidence.
https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_mps.php
https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_mps_missing_emily.php
https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_mps_shadowban_video.php
https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_mps_missing_emily_please_contact%20DFE.php
https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_parliamentary_mp_safeguarding_epstein_bbc.php
https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_surrey_police_non_safe_guarding_of_mps.php
Yours Faithfully
Martin Newbold
📧 www.martinnewbold.co.uk
🌐 www.thestealingofemily.co.uk 🌐stealingofemily.world
Disclaimer: The attached newspaper-style images are AI-generated illustrative campaign graphics intended to represent referenced public-source issues and commentary. They are not genuine newspaper publications or reproductions of actual front pages.
MPs sent this correspondence — 1 log records
The date/time is taken directly from the sent-log CSV. “SMTP accepted” records sending acceptance; it is not a read receipt.
Log line
MP name
Email
Constituency
Date/time from log
Status
CSV detail
73
Andy Burnham
andy.burnham.mp@parliament.uk
Makerfield
2026-07-23 19:14:58
sent
MP GDPR correspondence — 28 July 2026 — 720 sent records
The correspondence records responses in which MPs or their offices relied on parliamentary privilege, constituency convention or parliamentary procedure instead of answering the safeguarding question.
The correspondence states that Emily Newbold has been described as being in education, while the Department for Education has not identified her educational establishment, current placement, safeguarding status or location to Martin Newbold. Whether Emily is treated as a child or an adult, the unresolved questions remain: where is she, who is responsible for her welfare, and which public authority can confirm that she is safe and genuinely registered in education?
UK Parliament’s own procedure guide states that parliamentary privilege does not apply to correspondence with constituents or ministers. For a child, section 47 of the Children Act 1989 provides the safeguarding-enquiry route where its legal test is met. For an adult, section 42 of the Care Act 2014 provides the safeguarding-enquiry route where its legal conditions are met. These are national safeguarding questions and cannot be answered merely by citing privilege or constituency convention.
Subject / what was sent: Urgent Intervention - Data Subject Access Request – Article 15 UK GDPR
One copy of the letter extracted from the sending page
Personalized for: Aaron Callan (aaron.callan@parliament.uk)
**FORMAL NOTICE: Failure of Statutory Safeguarding Duties and Request for Immediate Professional Standards Assessment**
**Subject: Data Subject Access Request – Article 15 UK GDPR.**
Triage keywords: safeguarding concern; missing person; missing vulnerable person; child protection; vulnerable adult; risk of harm; public protection; duty of care; police professional standards; formal complaint; NHS records unable to locate; MP safeguarding disclosure; urgent manager review required; reference number requested safeguarding concern; missing vulnerable person; child protection; risk of harm; police professional standards; formal complaint; NHS records unable to locate; MP safeguarding disclosure; urgent manager review required; reference number requested.
* Correspondence Triage Framework.
* Ministerial Correspondence Guidance.
* Safeguarding Escalation Workflow.
* AI Classification Policy.
* Case Management Configuration.
* Keyword, routing, escalation or manager-review rules.
* Any automated triage, NLP, AI, sentiment-analysis or workflow rules applied to this email.
If this correspondence is processed by any automated correspondence-triage, case-management, workflow, AI-classification, NLP, sentiment-analysis, or routing system, I request preservation of the audit trail, classification results, routing decisions, escalation actions, safeguarding flags, manager-review actions, and all associated case notes.
**On The Public Record**
For the Attention of:
Chief Constable / Professional Standards Department, Chief Constable of Sussex Police, Chief Constable of Surrey Police and Paul Arnold (The Information Commissioner)
Aaron Callan (Member of Parliament)
Every Member of Parliament (United Kingdom), I request preservation of the audit trail, classification results, routing decisions, escalation actions, safeguarding flags, manager-review actions, case notes, internal referrals, workflow history, and user-access logs associated with this correspondence.
Urgent County Enquiry Emily Newbold DOB 30/10/2006 - Urgent Intervention - Data Subject Access Request – Article 15 UK GDPR.
**About Emily - https://stealingofemily.world/about/**
Dear Aaron Callan (Member of Parliament), Sussex Police, Surrey Police and Paul Arnold (The Information Commissioner),
Re: FORMAL NOTICE: Failure of Statutory Safeguarding Duties and Request for Immediate Professional Standards Assessment, Data Subject Access Request – Article 15 UK GDPR.
**References:**
NFRC241207046189, NFRC220205037307, NCA: CCG0000122359, SDR-026-0161, DSIT SAR 26-240, IR2025/16000, National Crime Agency Professional standards IX.8.26, National Crime Agency: CCG0000122359, Surrey and Sussex Police: CAD 153 / CAD 1619, Action Fraud NFRC241207046189, SDR-026-0161, Information Commissioner Case Reference IC-461437-H0W6, PHSO C-2058682, Metropolitan Police FoIA Request - 47533, Local Government Social Care Ombudsman FOI2025/08198, IBAC (CASE-20246844), HMCTS Complaint (ref: 79534040), PALS Ref 2602-0072, Ref: NIC-803189-J4G8C, PHSO: Ref C-2195214, Clinton Library FOIA case 2025-1058-F, FOIA 2026-0609-F / FOIA 2026-0609-F / 2025-1058-F
**Full name: Martin Newbold.**
Email address(es) : martinnewbold.mn@gmail.com.
Website: https://www.martinnewbold.co.uk
Other website(s):
1) https://www.stealingofemily.world
2) https://www.stealingofemily.co.uk
Approximate dates or date ranges of your correspondence from January 2026 to the date of this email.
"This Data Subject Access Request includes any personal data relating to me held within correspondence-triage systems, case-management systems, workflow systems, AI-assisted correspondence processing, audit logs, routing records, classification records, escalation histories, and associated metadata."
I am making a formal Data Subject Access Request under Article 15 of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018.
Please provide copies of all personal data that you, your office, or any processors acting on your behalf hold relating to me in any format, including but not limited to:
All emails (sent, received, archived, deleted where retained, and draft emails).
Correspondence relating to me.
Case management and CRM records.
Telephone logs, call notes and message records.
Meeting notes, diary entries and appointment records.
Internal memoranda, file notes and handwritten notes.
Attachments containing my personal data.
Records held within document management systems, databases and electronic filing systems.
Metadata associated with my personal data where it forms part of my personal data.
Records shared with, or received from, third parties concerning me.
Any records held by staff acting on your behalf.
In addition, pursuant to Article 15 UK GDPR, please provide:
Confirmation as to whether my personal data is being processed.
The purposes of the processing.
The categories of personal data concerned.
The recipients or categories of recipients to whom my personal data has been disclosed or will be disclosed.
Where possible, the envisaged retention period for the personal data, or the criteria used to determine that period.
The source of the personal data where it was not obtained directly from me.
Information concerning any automated decision-making or profiling relating to my personal data.
I request that the information be provided electronically.
If you require any additional information to identify my records, please let me know as soon as possible. Otherwise, I expect the request to be processed within the statutory time limits prescribed by the UK GDPR.
My identity can be verified using the attached copy of my driving licence. If further verification is required, I also have a verified identity through the Persona identity verification service associated with my LinkedIn profile:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/martin-newbold-author-39364612b/
I am willing to complete any reasonable identity verification process you require. I can also authenticate using Google Authenticator, which is already registered with EHCR and Stripe.
Please acknowledge receipt of this request.
**Previous Communication Evidence.**
https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_mps.php
https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_mps_missing_emily.php
https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_mps_shadowban_video.php
https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_mps_missing_emily_please_contact%20DFE.php
https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_parliamentary_mp_safeguarding_epstein_bbc.php
https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_surrey_police_non_safe_guarding_of_mps.php
https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_640_mps_regarding_statements_inibility_to_help.php
Yours Faithfully
Martin Newbold
📧 www.martinnewbold.co.uk
🌐 www.thestealingofemily.co.uk 🌐stealingofemily.world
MPs sent this correspondence — 1 log records
The date/time is taken directly from the sent-log CSV. “SMTP accepted” records sending acceptance; it is not a read receipt.
Log line
MP name
Email
Constituency
Date/time from log
Status
CSV detail
53
Andy Burnham
andy.burnham.mp@parliament.uk
Makerfield
2026-07-26 20:57:09
sent
640 MP reported to Parliamentary Standards — 30 July 2026 — 750 sent records
The correspondence records responses in which MPs or their offices relied on parliamentary privilege, constituency convention or parliamentary procedure instead of answering the safeguarding question.
The correspondence states that Emily Newbold has been described as being in education, while the Department for Education has not identified her educational establishment, current placement, safeguarding status or location to Martin Newbold. Whether Emily is treated as a child or an adult, the unresolved questions remain: where is she, who is responsible for her welfare, and which public authority can confirm that she is safe and genuinely registered in education?
UK Parliament’s own procedure guide states that parliamentary privilege does not apply to correspondence with constituents or ministers. For a child, section 47 of the Children Act 1989 provides the safeguarding-enquiry route where its legal test is met. For an adult, section 42 of the Care Act 2014 provides the safeguarding-enquiry route where its legal conditions are met. These are national safeguarding questions and cannot be answered merely by citing privilege or constituency convention.
Subject / what was sent: Urgent Intervention - Data Subject Access Request – Article 15 UK GDPR
One copy of the letter extracted from the sending page
Personalized for: Aaron Callan (aaron.callan@parliament.uk)
**Formal Standards Complaint: Misrepresentation of the Constituency Protocol by MPs**
**Subject: Data Subject Access Request – Article 15 UK GDPR.**
Triage keywords: safeguarding concern; missing person; missing vulnerable person; child protection; vulnerable adult; risk of harm; public protection; duty of care; police professional standards; formal complaint; NHS records unable to locate; MP safeguarding disclosure; urgent manager review required; reference number requested safeguarding concern; missing vulnerable person; child protection; risk of harm; police professional standards; formal complaint; NHS records unable to locate; MP safeguarding disclosure; urgent manager review required; reference number requested.
* Correspondence Triage Framework.
* Ministerial Correspondence Guidance.
* Safeguarding Escalation Workflow.
* AI Classification Policy.
* Case Management Configuration.
* Keyword, routing, escalation or manager-review rules.
* Any automated triage, NLP, AI, sentiment-analysis or workflow rules applied to this email.
If this correspondence is processed by any automated correspondence-triage, case-management, workflow, AI-classification, NLP, sentiment-analysis, or routing system, I request preservation of the audit trail, classification results, routing decisions, escalation actions, safeguarding flags, manager-review actions, and all associated case notes.
**On The Public Record**
For the Attention of:
Daniel Greenberg CB (Comissioner for Standards), Chief Constable / Professional Standards Department, Chief Constable of Sussex Police, Chief Constable of Surrey Police and Paul Arnold (The Information Commissioner)
Aaron Callan (Member of Parliament)
Every Member of Parliament (United Kingdom), I request preservation of the audit trail, classification results, routing decisions, escalation actions, safeguarding flags, manager-review actions, case notes, internal referrals, workflow history, and user-access logs associated with this correspondence.
Urgent County Enquiry Emily Newbold DOB 30/10/2006 - Urgent Intervention - Data Subject Access Request – Article 15 UK GDPR.
**About Emily - https://stealingofemily.world/about/**
Dear Daniel Greenberg CB(Comissioner for Standards), Aaron Callan (Member of Parliament), Sussex Police, Surrey Police and Paul Arnold (The Information Commissioner),
Re: Formal Standards Complaint: Misrepresentation of the Constituency Protocol by MPs, Failure of Statutory Safeguarding Duties and Request for Immediate Professional Standards Assessment, Data Subject Access Request – Article 15 UK GDPR.
**References:**
NFRC241207046189, NFRC220205037307, NCA: CCG0000122359, SDR-026-0161, DSIT SAR 26-240, IR2025/16000, National Crime Agency Professional standards IX.8.26, National Crime Agency: CCG0000122359, Surrey and Sussex Police: CAD 153 / CAD 1619, Action Fraud NFRC241207046189, SDR-026-0161, Information Commissioner Case Reference IC-461437-H0W6, PHSO C-2058682, Metropolitan Police FoIA Request - 47533, Local Government Social Care Ombudsman FOI2025/08198, IBAC (CASE-20246844), HMCTS Complaint (ref: 79534040), PALS Ref 2602-0072, Ref: NIC-803189-J4G8C, PHSO: Ref C-2195214, Clinton Library FOIA case 2025-1058-F, FOIA 2026-0609-F / FOIA 2026-0609-F / 2025-1058-F
**Full name: Martin Newbold.**
Email address(es) : martinnewbold.mn@gmail.com.
Website: https://www.martinnewbold.co.uk
Other website(s):
1) https://www.stealingofemily.world
2) https://www.stealingofemily.co.uk
I am submitting a formal complaint concerning the repeated use by Members of Parliament and their offices of the following statement:
“There is a strict protocol that Members of Parliament only provide assistance to their own constituents.”
This statement has been used in responses to safeguarding correspondence sent to approximately 640 MPs concerning my daughter, Emily Newbold.
This complaint is not based merely upon dissatisfaction with individual MPs declining to undertake constituency casework. It concerns the widespread representation of a parliamentary convention as though it were a strict, binding and formally established parliamentary rule.
Despite requests for the authority behind the statement, I have not been provided with any Standing Order, statutory provision, rule within the House of Commons Code of Conduct or other formal parliamentary rule establishing the claimed prohibition.
The House of Commons Library briefing entitled “MPs and constituency etiquette” states:
“The conventions dealing with these matters are not the subject of formal parliamentary rules.”
The briefing is available at:
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02028/
The briefing describes a convention under which MPs generally deal with personal enquiries from their own constituents. It does not identify a formal rule absolutely prohibiting an MP from:
reading safeguarding information received from a non-constituent;
recording that information;
referring it to the appropriate MP, Minister or safeguarding authority;
acknowledging a matter of wider national concern; or
ensuring that serious safeguarding information reaches an appropriate person.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards’ own frequently asked questions state:
“Most MPs observe the protocol which says they will not take up issues on behalf of people who are not their constituents.”
That guidance is available at:
https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/faqs/
The words “most MPs observe” describe a convention or customary practice. They do not establish a strict rule applying without exception to every MP.
The concern is therefore that MPs and their staff have repeatedly presented this convention as a binding parliamentary prohibition, without identifying its source, status, wording or limitations.
The substantially similar responses received from numerous parliamentary offices indicate that this may be a systemic practice or the result of commonly circulated guidance or template wording.
The repeated use of this claim has prevented proper scrutiny of how serious safeguarding correspondence was handled. The responses generally do not establish:
Whether the safeguarding information was read and considered.
Whether any safeguarding assessment was undertaken.
Whether the information was recorded within the MP’s case-management system.
Whether it was forwarded to my constituency MP, a relevant Minister, the Department for Education, the police, a local authority or another safeguarding body.
Whether any action was taken to ensure continuity of responsibility after the MP declined to undertake the matter personally.
Whether the phrase “strict protocol” originated from official parliamentary guidance, a political party, an individual MP or an independently produced office template.
Rule 11 of the current House of Commons Code of Conduct states:
“Members shall never undertake any action which would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members generally.”
The Code is available at:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmcode/1083/1083.pdf
I ask the Commissioner to consider whether the repeated and widespread presentation of a non-binding convention as a strict parliamentary rule is capable of engaging Rule 11, particularly where the statement has been used to close safeguarding correspondence without transparent assessment or referral.
A practice in which a substantial number of MPs rely upon the same unsupported assertion risks damaging public confidence in the honesty, openness and accountability of the House of Commons and its Members generally.
I therefore request that the Commissioner:
Confirm the precise status and source of the constituency protocol relied upon by MPs.
Confirm whether there is any formal parliamentary rule prohibiting an MP from receiving, considering, recording or referring safeguarding information received from a non-constituent.
Examine whether describing the convention as a “strict protocol” materially misrepresents its parliamentary status.
Establish whether this wording originates from official parliamentary guidance, political-party guidance or a commonly distributed response template.
Consider whether its widespread use to dispose of safeguarding correspondence is capable of breaching Rule 11 of the Code of Conduct.
Confirm whether the matter may be considered as a systemic complaint supported by a schedule of responses or whether a separate allegation must be submitted in respect of each named MP.
Identify the appropriate parliamentary body or procedure if the systemic element of this complaint falls outside the Commissioner’s investigative jurisdiction.
I understand that the Commissioner does not ordinarily investigate complaints solely about how an MP has handled an individual case. However, this complaint concerns the alleged widespread misrepresentation of parliamentary rules and its potential effect upon the reputation and integrity of the House as a whole.
I can provide a numbered evidence schedule containing:
the names of the MPs and parliamentary offices contacted;
the dates on which correspondence was sent;
delivery and transmission records;
the replies received;
the precise wording used in each reply;
requests made for the alleged rule or protocol;
responses to those requests; and
examples showing whether safeguarding information was referred elsewhere.
Please treat this correspondence as a formal allegation under Rule 11 and as a request for a written determination of the appropriate route through which this systemic matter should be examined.
Yours sincerely,
Martin Newbold
15 Valleyside Road
Hastings TN355AD
**Previous Communication Evidence.**
https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_mps.php
https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_mps_missing_emily.php
https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_mps_shadowban_video.php
https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_mps_missing_emily_please_contact%20DFE.php
https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_parliamentary_mp_safeguarding_epstein_bbc.php
https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_surrey_police_non_safe_guarding_of_mps.php
https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_640_mps_regarding_statements_inibility_to_help.php
https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_640_mps_regarding_GDPR.php
Yours Faithfully
Martin Newbold
📧 www.martinnewbold.co.uk
🌐 www.thestealingofemily.co.uk 🌐stealingofemily.world
MPs sent this correspondence — 1 log records
The date/time is taken directly from the sent-log CSV. “SMTP accepted” records sending acceptance; it is not a read receipt.
Help us improve Emily mail. Describe what happened or suggest an improvement.
Donation Policy
Donations are voluntary contributions to support the Stealing of Emily project. Donations are non-refundable unless made in error, in which case please contact us within 30 days for a full refund.
Donations are not tax-deductible at this time. The team is pending approval for 501(c)(3) nonprofit status, which will make future donations tax-deductible.
What Your Support Covers
Hosting & Infrastructure — Servers, CDN, and database costs to keep the archive fast and reliable
Document Processing — Converting thousands of PDFs into searchable, structured data
AI Features — Powering Gemini, our AI assistant that can answer questions about the files
Ongoing Development — Adding new features and processing new document releases
Archive Support
Contributions help maintain the servers and keep this archive public.
