2026_uk_mps_emails_all_clean_updated.csv.
change-this-password-now.
Gmail password field requires a Gmail App Password, not your normal Google password.
aaron.callan@parliament.uk abena.oppongasare.mp@parliament.uk abrahamsd@parliament.uk abtisam.mohamed.mp@parliament.uk adam.dance.mp@parliament.uk adam.jogee.mp@parliament.uk adam.thompson.mp@parliament.uk adnan.hussain.mp@parliament.uk adrian.ramsay.mp@parliament.uk afzal.khan.mp@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
**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:
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
Log file: /home/steaouun/public_html/mailout/sent_log_mps_smtp_emily_every_mp_standards_not_met.csv
Attachment folder: /home/steaouun/public_html/mailout/mail_mps_uploads
Evidence folder: /home/steaouun/public_html/mailout/mail_mps_evidence
Delete sent_log_mps_smtp.csv to restart from the first MP.
Use batch size 1 for the first Gmail SMTP test.