#matt-dunkley — Public Fediverse posts

Kiers Starmers abuse of Children and Parents a legacy

There is a clear policy timeline in which family-court contact reforms and DfE safeguarding reforms altered the framework for parent-child contact and child protection reporting. My concern is that these powers can be misused where social care reports are exaggerated, selectively drafted, or ‘sexed up’, resulting in children being isolated from a parent without proper evidential scrutiny.

Family court/contact reform — removal/repeal of the presumption that parental involvement is automatically in the child’s best interests. The public justification is child safety/domestic abuse, but your argument is that it can also be used to stop children speaking to a parent.

“In October 2025, the Government announced its intention to repeal the statutory presumption of parental involvement. The stated justification was child safety and domestic abuse. My concern is that, without strong evidential safeguards, the same change may also be used to justify preventing children from speaking to a parent on the basis of contested or exaggerated social care material.”

Cite

1. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-action-to-protect-children-from-abusive-parents and
2. https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-10-22/hlws976

DfE social care reforms — DfE is responsible for child protection policy and statutory guidance, and 2026 changes strengthen multi-agency safeguarding, information sharing, family help, and child protection teams. Your allegation — that those mechanisms create the conditions for “sexed-up” social care reports: risk language, safeguarding labels, and professional assertions being used to justify separation or non-contact.

DfE’s note on multi-agency child protection teams says the Bill requires those teams to support local authorities in discharging child protection duties under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, while local authorities remain responsible for enquiries and decisions about action to protect a child.

Cite

1. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/working-together-to-safeguard-children–2
2. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/multi-agency-child-protection-teams-regulation-making-powers/multi-agency-child-protection-teams-regulation-making-powers

Government immigration and public health policies should ensure appropriate health screening and disease control measures to minimise the risk of importing infectious diseases and protect the wider population.

1. Communications were sent to the Prime Minister’s office / Cabinet Office and were not answered.

2. At the same time, the oversight route you were expected to use — the LGSO/LGSCO — had been weakened by lack of funding or investigation capacity.

The state cannot lawfully ignore safeguarding communications while also leaving the oversight body under-resourced or unable to investigate. That creates an accountability gap.

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. Approximately 640 MPs were contacted regarding a safeguarding concern relating to Emily Newbold and wider child traceability issues. This generated approximately 3,200 email responses, acknowledgements, referrals, constituency notices and office replies. None of those responses addressed the core safeguarding question or provided confirmation of Emily Newbold’s location, safeguarding status, education status, NHS status, or traceability through public systems.

Previous Communication Evidence.

1. https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_mps.php
2. https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_mps_missing_emily.php
3. https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_mps_shadowban_video.php
4. https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_mps_missing_emily_please_contact%20DFE.php
5. https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_parliamentary_mp_safeguarding_epstein_bbc.php
6. https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_surrey_police_non_safe_guarding_of_mps.php

Mail sent out to MP’s today

• formal notice of safeguarding concerns
• asking whether Emily Newbold is alive, safe, or deceased
• asking for police/professional standards reference numbers
• arguing that failure to act may enable continuing risk asking MPs and police to preserve audit trails and routing decisions
• reference to mandamus / mandatory order language

Related Posts

• Kiers Starmers abuse of Children and Parents a legacy
• Mistakes in Child Protection: An Open Letter to Social Work England
• Prime minister Apologized to Epstein Victims
• Fabian Society Members in the Labour Party (2026)
• Well, you view the optics and answer the question is this case of body snatchers?

Mistakes in Child Protection: An Open Letter to Social Work England

Prime minister Apologized to Epstein Victims

Fabian Society Members in the Labour Party (2026)

Sir Keir Starmer knows the figure – so why can he not locate them?

At the end of PMQ on Wednesday, 3 June 2026 [11:39], he’s very proud that 500,000 of your children are missing. Does this not prove this beyond doubt? They exist, and everything we know about Gary Daniel’s ePEP eGov Limited , he cannot track their locations?

Official page: PMQs / Engagements — 3 June 2026. Hansard notes it is from the uncorrected rolling version, last updated that evening. https://hansard.parliament.uk/…/OralAnswersToQuestions

Exact line:

“That is on top of free school meals, free breakfast clubs and free childcare—and, of course, we are lifting half a million children out of poverty. I am very proud of the work of this Labour Government.”

He repeats it shortly after:

“We have lifted half a million children out of poverty.” https://hansard.parliament.uk/…/051DBB77…/Engagements…

HANSARD.PARLIAMENT.UK

Oral Answers to Questions – Hansard – UK Parliament Parliamentlive.tv — House of Commons, Wednesday 3 June 2026, 11:33am https://www.parliamentlive.tv/…/7ff68591-776a-49c8-ba3b…

Our Own Research

Well I know for a fact under FOI OIA Case 2025-1058-F Clinton Library :

According to the Clinton Museum On September 1, 2025 (05:20 AM), you, Dana Simmons, Archivist of the Clinton Museum, informed me of the following search results that they held documents under FOIA 2025-1058-F: https://www.clintonlibrary.gov/…/freedom-information…

1. Blair and (“visit” or “trip” or “schedule” or “itinerary” or “agenda”) — 28 hits / 155 pages
2. Blair and (“program” or “meeting” or “bilat” or “bilateral”) — 50 hits / 250 pages
3. Prime Minister — 383 hits / 1,915 pages
4. “No. 10” or “Downing Street” — 1 hit / 5 pages
5. “UK” and (“visit” or “itinerary”) — 141 hits / 705 pages
6. “social provision” and Blair — 1 hit / 5 pagesAustralia and Blair — 0 hits
7. New York and Blair — 5 hits / 25 pages
8. Dunkley and Blair — 1 hit / 5 pages

Blair and UK and visit or Blair and UK and itinerary — 10 hits / ~50 pages

The records appear to concern a 1997 policy-related meeting or communication involving President Clinton, Tony Blair, and Matt Dunkley CBE ( Children’s Director for East Sussex, Norfolk, Kent) alleged embezzling funds in Victoria Aus as Reginal Education Manager . Given that these Meeting materials are held within the Clinton Presidential Library/NARA records, I reasonably infer that they formed part of U.S. governmental records and may concern matters of public policy.

1. Application of 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) (The Espionage Act)

The Clinton Presidential Library has confirmed the existence of records under FOIA 2025-1058-F (e.g., “Dunkley and Blair — 1 hit / 5 pages” and “Social Provision and Blair — 1 hit / 5 pages”). However, the Library’s refusal to provide citation identifiers for these records constitutes a strategic obstruction.

In plain English, Title 18, U.S. Code Section 793(e) establishes that a crime is committed when an individual or entity has:

• Unauthorized Possession of information;
• Relating to the National Defense;
• And engages in Willful Retention.

The critical element here is Willful Retention: “It means you were asked to give it back and you said no or you lied about having it”. By confirming the documents exist but refusing the citations necessary for lawful progression, the Library is engaging in a form of institutional “Willful Retention” that prevents independent verification and obstructs the legal FOIA process.

2. The “Crime-Fraud” Threshold of Evasion

In the UK, the Department for Education and the PHSO have failed to answer eleven separate letters and have withheld the final response from Pam Kearns (Reference C-2058682).

This is a “Forensic Zero”—a data point proving the institution has reached its “Threshold of Evasion.” Just as a judge may invoke the “Crime-Fraud Exception” to strip away legal privilege when a system is being used to hide evidence, I am asserting that the continued suppression of the Kearns correspondence has no lawful justification and serves only to protect the institution from the “lethal” truth of the 1997 service-merger model.

3. Statistical Proof of Systemic Failure

The figure of 758,000 unclaimed funds is not an incidental byproduct of regulation. It is a “Badge of Fraud”—a documented timeline of disappearance that suggests a deliberate cover-up. A system does not lose track of children at this scale unless the records and fiduciary controls were intentionally decoupled to avoid auditability.

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 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 30/06/2006 – 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 kidnap of children.

No misunderstanding can now exist that these matters have been formally raised.

Related Post

• Sir Keir Starmer knows the figure – so why can he not locate them?
• One Blair Reference? Really? – Was Blair Only Associated With Mandelson Once?
• Obfuscation of the Humble address
• BLINK — HAS GARY DANIELS DONE A DIGITAL MOONLIGHT FLIT?
• 640 MPs Served: Silence Is Not Protection

One Blair Reference? Really? – Was Blair Only Associated With Mandelson Once?

Obfuscation of the Humble address

BLINK — HAS GARY DANIELS DONE A DIGITAL MOONLIGHT FLIT?