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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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
03_DFE_notice_Newry_NHS_safeguarding_failure_no_paper.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.
Log file: /home/steaouun/public_html/mailout/sent_log_mps_smtp-emily_locate_referal_to_surrey_police.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.