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 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.
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.
Log file: /home/steaouun/public_html/mailout/sent_log_mps_smtp_emily_every_mp_challenged.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.