NEWS

Before we proceed, let me shed some light on certain concepts related to the World Wide Web, often best illustrated through a familiar lens, perhaps reminiscent of Professor Xavier’s extraordinary abilities in the Marvel films. Just as Professor Xavier had a special room to delve into the minds of mutants, the World Wide Web can be likened to a meticulously organized catalog of numbers in a grid. Each time a computer is accessed, it leaves a digital footprint in the form of an IP address within this vast web.

Advancements in technology have enabled us to visualize these IP addresses with remarkable precision, often pinpointing locations within a 5-meter radius using GPS coordinates. While the outcomes of such visualizations can occasionally be unexpected, they remain both meaningful and genuine. For instance, I distinctly recall encountering IP addresses situated in unconventional locations, such as a car park in Germany or even amidst the tranquility of a lake within the same country.

The implications of such discoveries are profound, sparking speculation ranging from covert military installations beneath the lake’s surface to something as mundane as a laptop nestled within the confines of a vehicle. It’s in these connections that we begin to unravel the intricate tapestry of the digital world, where every IP address represents a potential story waiting to be uncovered.

Do you perceive the fascinating correlations that emerge from these technological revelations?

It was then with a single email from SWE they had unwittingly revealed their operator Nancy’s location:

Consider the journey of an email as it traverses the intricate web we’ve just described. At every step of this global network, from sender to recipient, lies a series of mail servers, each identified by its unique IP address. These servers serve as gateways, facilitating the exchange of information as the email makes its way across the vast expanse of the internet.

When we send emails over public networks, we inadvertently expose much more than we might realize. The email headers, often overlooked, contain not only the location of the mail server but also crucial information about the sender and recipient, such as their IP addresses. This means that, in essence, every email carries within it a trail of digital breadcrumbs, revealing the geographical locations associated with both sender and recipient.

Let’s consider Nancy as an example. When she sends an email, not only does her message pass through various mail servers, but the email headers also disclose her IP address along with the server locations. Thus, the simple act of sending an email can inadvertently disclose Nancy’s whereabouts, highlighting the far-reaching implications of digital communication in our modern age.

In the context of privacy and security, this revelation underscores the importance of understanding the implications of our digital footprint. Whether consciously or not, each email we send leaves behind a traceable path, highlighting the need for vigilance and awareness in an increasingly interconnected world.

It was then that this was revealed the personal habits of Nancy, who in fact is Nancy Henwood Senior Information Governance Officer on Aug 13, 2023. When I wrote to her 10:27 AM:

Dear Nancy Henwood(Information Officer )

I presume you like artesian food and the Pontcanna. Ground Bakery 15, Pontcanna Street, Pontcanna, Cardiff, Wales, CF11 9HQ is 4 mins away from your data retention center you are alleged to have visited according to the digital bread crumb trail which was left.

The digital fingerprints show the information subject access request was maybe sourced from the Social Services National Information data Centre in Cardiff: The Child Protection Sports Unit (CPSU). This is supposed to have a retention policy^[1] I suspect the CPSU is 4 minutes away from the address of this Pontcanna. Ground Bakery and also known as NSPCC’s Child Protection in Sport Unit (CSPU) The CPSU was founded in 2001 at its postal address here in Cardiff. NSPCC Child Protection in Sport Unit Wales, Sport Wales National Centre, Sophia Gardens, Cardiff, CF11 9SW.  

Perhaps in your reply to this email you might describe to me what data resource server farm is there on this site ?

To date I have been unable to do anything meaningful with your files despite trying to repair for 24 hours what was sent to me of an extremely secure nature through an OPEN PUBLIC NETWORK (23.103.134.143), which presumably is the reason as to why they were corrupted. I am endeavoring to repair these files currently in respect to IRR-1517.

The first data protection principle states that personal data must be “Processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner”.

I also asked you in IRR-1521 to provide me in your meaningful evidence for why you were claiming section 40 personal data without providing any evidence of a living person? This is certainly of public interest see below :

In fact, your own response is odd and maybe something else in regard to your statements that you had seen no complaints in regard to this social worker, Christine Elizabeth Stirling. When SWE is aware I have one and am aware of others. As you have not demonstrated to me that this claim of section 40 can be evidenced as personal data you leave me no option but to complain to the ICO. My reason for the obscure request of the supply of a birth Certificate was the only object that i could find that you could provide in the public domain. Therefore, you are not at liberty to use section 40 until this is person proven alive. I also point you to a request with OSTED in regard to the deletion of data by Childrens services director. This is presumably why there is no complaints of a person with a pedigree of fabricating documents.

In exercising its functions, SWE has statutory duties and an overarching objective to protect the public. In the pursuit of its overarching objective, this involves a statutory duty to protect, promote and maintain the health, safety and well-being of the public; to promote and maintain public confidence in social workers, and to promote and maintain proper professional standards for social workers (s.37 of the 2017 Act). In 2019, SWE published Professional Standards which stated that a social worker is not to “abuse, neglect, discriminate, exploit or harm anyone, or condone this by others” (5.1) and not to “behave in a way that would bring into question my suitability to work as a social worker while at work, or outside of work”. Social workers are also obliged to “declare to the appropriate authority and Social Work England anything that might affect my ability to do my job competently or may affect my fitness to practise, or if I am subject to criminal proceedings or a regulatory finding is made against me, anywhere in the world” (6.6). Those Standards are underpinned by guidance, published in 2020, which states that: “The professional standards are the threshold standards necessary for safe and effective practice. They set out what a social worker in England must know, understand and be able to do after completing their social work education or training. Social workers must continue to meet the professional standards to maintain their registration. The standards apply to all registered social workers in all roles and in all settings…” 36. SWE can make arrangements for taking regulatory action against social workers and, must make arrangements for protecting the public from social workers whose fitness to practise is impaired (s.44 of the 2017 Act). The provisions and rules in relation to fitness to practise proceedings, from triage through to adjudication, are set out in regulation 25 of the 2018 Regulations, Schedule 2 of the 2018 Regulations and SWE’s Fitness to Practise Rules 2019 (as amended) (“the 2019 Rules”). The 2019 Rules were made in accordance with regulation 3 of the 2018 Regulations, in the exercise of the powers conferred by regulation 25(3) of the 2018 Regulations. 37. Where a question arises as to a social worker’s fitness to practise, SWE must – as the regulator – determine whether there are reasonable grounds for investigating whether the social worker’s fitness to practise is impaired (2018 Regulations, Schedule 2, para 1). Where SWE determines that there are reasonable grounds for investigating whether a social worker’s fitness to practise is impaired, an investigation must be carried out and the concerns considered by case examiners to determine whether there is a realistic prospect that adjudicators would determine the social worker’s fitness to practise was impaired (2018 Regulations, Schedule 2, para 3). Before referral to case examiners, SWE investigators may require any person who, in their opinion is able to supply information or produce any document which appears relevant to the discharge of their functions or to those of case examiners or adjudicators, to produce documents in the fitness to practise proceedings (2018 Regulations, Schedule 2, para 5). Case examiners must consider the information and any written submissions referred to them by the investigators and determine whether there is a realistic prospect that adjudicators would determine that the social worker’s fitness to practise is impaired (2018 Regulations, Schedule 2, para 6). At any time before the case examiners determine that a case is to Approved Judgment Re Z (Disclosure to Social Work England) proceed to a fitness to practise hearing, they may require investigators to obtain and supply to them further information relevant to the investigation. Where case examiners determine that there is a realistic prospect of adjudicators determining that a social worker’s fitness to practise is impaired, they must refer the case to a fitness to practise hearing if, in their opinion, it would be in the public interest to do so (2018 Regulations, Schedule 2, para 7(2)). 38. SWE has clear policies on both the management and publication of information relating to fitness to practise proceedings as set out in SWE’s Fitness to Practise Publications Policy and Fitness to Practise Hearings Guidance for Social Workers. These include for the whole or for parts of the hearing to be in private, for redactions and anonymisations to be made to published decisions; and for information discussed during private sessions not to be published. 39. If case examiners do not consider that a fitness to practise hearing would be in the public interest, they may notify the social worker of the terms on which the social worker can elect to have the matter disposed of without a hearing (2018 Regulations, Schedule 2, para 7(3)). Case examiners can propose that the matter be disposed of without further investigation by either taking no further action, giving advice to the social worker on any matter related to the case, or making a final order (2018 Regulations, Schedule 2, para 9). 

---

^[1] CPSU Retention Policy  https://www.slsgb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CPSU-records-retention-storage-apr2013.pdf

So then what are we looking at here a location e Pontcanna. Ground Bakery 15, Pontcanna Street, Pontcanna, Cardiff, Wales, CF11 9HQ is 4 mins away. Where could this be possibly hidden where it could be accessed quickly

I wrote further to Social Work England 2023-07-22

The local authority is not seeking to inform some individual or some association unfamiliar with the receipt of such details. They wish to inform one that is well familiar with it and for which a proper statutory procedure for the protection of vulnerable adults is clearly established. I am satisfied that this case falls more closely in line with those decided by Kirkwood J, Hogg J and Bodey J to which I have referred. In balancing the various interests and exercising all due caution, nevertheless the decision comes down clearly on the side of disclosure for which there is a clear and potent argument. cite Re Z (Disclosure to Social Work England: Findings of Domestic Abuse)

I am now asking you on two separate occasions to provide the birth Certificate you hold at SWE for this social worker entity Christine Elizabeth Stirling which allows you to claim this is personal Information being requested. As you have not provided this it seems you have invoked privilege in respect to Section 20 which you should not be claiming without clear evidence.  This information is clearly of public interest, which outweighs all other concerns.

I therefore expect you to conduct an internal view and provide this data or this social worker’s birth certificate which you must have held to have made this assertion in this request. failure to provide either will place this burden on the ICO to fight your corner.

By this point, I had received an intriguing file that proved to be more than just password protected

It was completely inaccessible.

Determined to uncover its contents, I embarked on a two-week-long brute force attack, yet despite my efforts, the file remained stubbornly closed. The challenge only deepened my curiosity, leaving me to ponder the secrets concealed within its encrypted depths. Day after day, I poured over lines of code, each keystroke fueled by a relentless pursuit of discovery. Yet, despite my tireless efforts, the file remained resolutely closed, its encrypted facade impenetrable. Frustration mingled with fascination as I grappled with the mystery that lay before me.

During those weeks of relentless pursuit, I couldn’t help but wonder about the origins of this cryptic file. What secrets did it safeguard so fiercely? Was it a remnant of clandestine operations or a repository of invaluable knowledge? The uncertainty only fueled my determination, spurring me to explore every avenue in pursuit of a breakthrough.

By the second week it was apparent that it file was something very special it had clearly been taken from a server room with its own specific algorithms to protect its data from attack or investigation. As the second week unfolded, the realization dawned upon me that the file I wrestled with was no ordinary digital artifact—it exuded an aura of exceptional significance. Its impregnable defenses hinted at a meticulous origin, suggesting that it had been plucked from the heart of a secure server room, shielded by bespoke algorithms crafted to fortify its data against any form of intrusion or scrutiny.

Every failed attempt to breach its defenses only served to underscore the sophistication of its protective measures. It was as if the file itself possessed a consciousness, defiantly guarding its secrets with unwavering resolve. Yet, amidst the frustration and setbacks, a sense of reverence began to take root within me—a recognition of the unparalleled craftsmanship that went into its design.

In my mind’s eye, I envisioned the server room from which this enigmatic file had been extracted

A fortress of data,

its inner workings shrouded in layers of encryption and obfuscation. Each algorithm, meticulously crafted to withstand the relentless onslaught of would-be intruders, stood as a testament to the ingenuity of its creators.

I then wrote to Julie Hadler and Laura Wappam 2023-08-26 under Ofsted reference for this is CAS-495924-7Y996B and the ICO Reference : ICO IC-252038-S6S0 I had identified the Data Fortress in the Sport Unit Wales:

Child Protection in Sport Senior Consultant at NSPCC CPSU Wales

NSPCC Child Protection in Sport Unit Wales, Sport Wales National Centre, Sophia Gardens, Cardiff, CF11 9SW

2023-08-26

Internal Review SWE and complaint to OFSTED

On the 23^rd August 2023 I made a complaint to the ICO IC-252038-S6S0 concerning Social Work England and its handling of my Subject Access Request and FOIR 2023-07-20 at 1406 their references CON-6235, IR1517, IRR-1521. I received an auto-response from this dated Wed 2023-08-23 08:11. 

On the 25th of August 2023, Social Work England delivered a response under Subject Access IR1517. There appears no evidence of any investigation within its contents, just an excuse that the social worker she did not register with when she was registered on the website site and my last correspondence was missing from this response despite asking to be transferred to their legal team. After five days this did not occur. This documentation did not include all correspondence and has no evidence of an Internal Review. Furthermore, it was stated that the information response comprises third-party personal data that do not have already been redacted it was not evident there was any inclusion of any redacted third-party documents provided in accordance with Paragraph 16 of Part 3 Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018. I expected to see documents from a third third-party investigation unit which was not evident. There is also no formal response concerning the complaint that had been raised CON-6235 Misuse of Title I had expected a skilled judge would have made findings. Currently, I’m writing in my next publication that Social Work England is unfit to practice as a Regulator. I presume you would want to rectify this label immediately. It is clear from documentary evidence at the time of my complaints and three books heading to the Court Of Appeal that the Social worker was instrumental in the forgery of documents I have already asked for “I therefore expect you to conduct an internal view” this has not been evident in forthcoming for the reasons which currently believe you are trying to cover up and you will not succeed. My team already has a wealth of fraudulent documents.   I expected you to act in accordance with special investigations unit in relation to 

If it was not at the hand of this social worker, can you inform me who defrauded these documents? 

1.    ‘Can you then inform me if you have noted any cases of evidence destroyed by any Local Authority in your investigatory role as Inspectorate?

2.      If you have noted there has been destruction of evidence, how many times has this been noted?

3.     Can you then inform me if you have noted any cases of evidence destroyed by any Local Authority in your investigatory role as Inspectorate?

4.    If you have noted there has been destruction of evidence, how many times has this been noted?’

Should there be any problems or difficulties in processing your request, we will be in touch with you again shortly. Otherwise, we will respond to your request within 20 working days from the date we received it, as required by the Act.

If you cannot answer these questions, how have you conducted an investigation ?

I wrote 2023-07-22 Under request IRR-1399 I am satisfied that this case falls more closely in line with those decided by Kirkwood J, Hogg J and Bodey J to which I have referred. In balancing the various interests and exercising all due caution, nevertheless the decision comes down clearly on the side of disclosure for which there is a clear and potent argument. cite Re Z (Disclosure to Social Work England: Findings of Domestic Abuse)  I wrote I therefore expect you to conduct an internal view and provide this data or this social worker’s birth certificate which you must have held to have made this assertion in this request. failure to provide either will place this burden on the ICO to fight your corner. you have not to date conducted an Internal Review.

Realization of the cover-up

I RECIEVED A RESPONSE FROM Joseph Matthews Head of Data Protection and Information Governance Data Protection Officer on the Wednesday, August 30, 2023

As you are not satisfied with the response that you have now received for your subject access request ref IRR-1517, I will conduct an internal review. To be clear, this would be a review of whether you have been provided with the correct documents that you are entitled to receive under your right of access in the UK GDPR. It would not be a review of how any concerns or complaints you have raised with any other part of the organization have been handled. The timescale for providing a response for the review of your subject access request will be one calendar month from the date of your email below. The internal review response you received on 11 August 2023, reference IRR-1521, included a review of your freedom of information request reference IRR-1399. I have attached that response.

I immediately wrote back Sep 2, 2023, 7:09 AM Please conduct an internal review as currently I am publishing that Social Work England does not investigate or hold hearings in relation to social workers as it is clear in this case this has not been done and excuses given instead.

So, what did the ICO report back ?

Case Reference: IC-252038-S6S0 

Dear Martin Newbold

Thank you for your complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office regarding your subject access request to Social Work England.

Part of our role is to consider complaints from individuals who believe there has been an infringement of data protection law.

We deal with complaints like this under section 165 of the Data Protection Act 2018 which requires us to take steps to respond to complaints including investigating to the extent that we feel is appropriate. It also requires us to inform the complainant of the outcome of their complaint.

We use complaints to build up a picture of an organisation’s information rights practices so that we can identify and target poor performing organisations.

Having read the supporting documents that you have provided we do not appear to hold any clear evidence of an infringement of the legislation that we oversee in this case.

In order to provide you with further advice we would require clarification and copies of further relevant supporting documents.

From the supporting documents provided to us on this case it is not clear which specific request your correspondence refers to. We would need to know the details of the original request for information as well as a copy of the original request.

We need to know specifically which personal data was requested from Social Work England, we would expect this to be contained within the original request.

It would appear from your correspondence that you are dissatisfied with the response that you received from Social Work England. However your supporting documents do not make it clear specifically which personal data you believe is missing or has not been provided.

Our guidance states that if you are dissatisfied with the response that you receive to your request then you should write to the data controller and set out exactly which personal data you believe is still outstanding.

We cannot see from the supporting documents that you have cited any specific personal data that was included in your original request that is still outstanding, you would need to clarify this directly with Social Work England in order for them to be obliged to perform further searches for any relevant personal data.

As there does not appear to be any clear scope for further regulatory action on the part of our office in this case it has now been closed.

Yours sincerely

Richard Battersby 
Lead Case Officer 
Information Commissioner’s Office

This ended when I wrote back to Richard Batterby Nov 18, 2023, 10:32 AM “Please indicate what you required as I sent you a complaint with attachments. Are you incapable of reading these ? It seems that you’re part of this conspiracy. “

Distance	Directions	Total
Start:	Sophia Gardens Cricket Ground, Sophia Walk, Pontcanna, Cardiff, UK
0.0	Head southeast	0.0	Show map
0.1	At the roundabout, take the 3rd exit onto Sophia Cl	0.1	Show map
0.1	Continue onto Talbot St	0.2	Show map
0.2	Turn right onto Kings Rd	0.4	Show map
0.2	Slight right onto Pontcanna StDestination will be on the left	0.7	Show map
0.0	Arrive: 15 Pontcanna Street, Pontcanna, Cardiff CF11 9HQ, Wales, UK	0.7
	Section time: 4 mins 10 s, Total time: 4 mins 10 s

SWE have the top half of the building on google maps it looks like a server farm there. At the back I was given contact details laura.whaphan@nspcc.org.uk which sounds familiar to me . Oddly I can find no building planning permission maps or planning for this site which is still under development I was informed by reception Laura no longer works there but works from home since covid.

SWE Server Farm at Sports England Wales

I wrote finally Aug 18, 2023, To Sarah Wappam:

Re IRR-1521, RR-1517,CON-6235 SWE inability act in regard the law.

You are quote aware this is not the case you have provided me with NSPCC Non-compliant data response which has been provided in a non-transparent manner. Perhaps you can explain how else you could have obtained it in an Artisan bakery in Cardiff where it was sent from through an OPEN PUBLIC NETWORK (23.103.134.143)? You should note that an NSPCC secure data resource is less than 4 minutes away from this physical location.  Do they now serve NSPCC protected data at this Artisan Bakery in Cardiff?

Quite frankly your social worker has perverted the public GRO record . I explained to you that data has been removed from Ofsted returns. My daughter and her sister were not born to a father in Northern Ireland her sister born in Liverpool like her mother of good family and are not Irish and are not born of the loins of an Irish male or female and I do not want them part of the IRA new or otherwise. 

The evil criminal web that surrounds this situation is already detailed in two of my books and will soon be joined by a third which to date has not been refuted or provided any reasonable investigation to state. This scandal is larger than the John Profumo affair , the Secretary of State for War in Harold Macmillan’s Conservative government, had an extramarital affair with the 19-year-old model. This case encompasses someone connected to crime on the OFAC SDN List for terrorism offences. 

Your telephone support is ineffectual . You have informed me you have started any investigation this was required in 14 days from the original complaint and then a response was due after every telephone call in four days, clearly you are not complying with this remit or any in accordance with SWE’s Fitness to Practice Rules 2019 (as amended) (“the 2019 Rules”) 

 QUITE CLEARLY YOUR ORGANSTION ‘SWE’ WHICH SEEMS UNFIT FOR PURPOSE. 

The only reason I can think of is that you are evil and must be allegedly the spawn of Lamashtu.  You seem unable to comprehend a complaint when you receive it !

If you have this data, why have you not provided it to my postal address?