MP Gmail SMTP Sender
uk_mps_emails_only_clean.csv.
Page password default:
change-this-password-now.
Gmail password field requires a Gmail App Password, not your normal Google password.
Batch preview
jack.abbott.mp@parliament.uk diane.abbott.office@parliament.uk abrahamsd@parliament.uk shockat.adam.mp@parliament.uk zubir.ahmed.mp@parliament.uk luke.akehurst.mp@parliament.uk daniel.aldridge.mp@parliament.uk heidi.alexander.mp@parliament.uk douglas.alexander.mp@parliament.uk sadik.alhassan.mp@parliament.uk
Email body preview, plain text
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.
Email body preview, HTML send version
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
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.
Log file: /home/steaouun/public_html/mailout/sent_log_mps_smtp-emily_locate_referal_to_all_non_safegurading_mp.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.