The Baroness Grey-Thompson DBE, DL
The House of Lords
London
SW1A 0PW

Dear Baroness Grey-Thompson,

Thank you for your response. I note that you did not request evidence regarding the unlawful sale of children and have yet to explain the persistent use of a fraudulent affidavit, which has continuously tainted these family court proceedings as to why they persistently are using violence against me and my family. This statement addresses the unlawful relocation of my daughter, Emily, 500 miles from her home, in violation of the Children Act 1989 and the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. Authorities have acted negligently, selectively applying legal rights, and breaching statutory duties. East Sussex County Council has caused my name to be wrongly associated with another individual in Google search results. This has led to serious reputational damage, which is entirely unacceptable. The matter has already been reported to Google under reference [4-8882000038386], but the Council’s failure to ensure data accuracy under Article 5(1)(d) of UK GDPR. And lack of use of DNA profiling or screening I have provided disappointing LAC meetings and disappointing complaint meeting recordings on YouTube:

https://youtu.be/c2VpxRmBTPE?si=ZaRiNpb-I6BZFXDo

 

https://youtu.be/c2VpxRmBTPE?si=ZaRiNpb-I6BZFXDo and  I am happy to expand on this further. It could be said: Did Judge Hollis “got carried away” in his ruling & “behaved unfairly”.

Authorities have acted negligently, selectively applied legal rights, and breached statutory duties. I can provide evidence linking this foul play to three continents, one IBAC investigation, and a person with a gong evading justice that was the cause of the core problem in my community.

Furthermore, East Sussex County Council has caused my name to be wrongly associated with another individual in Google search results, resulting in serious reputational damage. Despite my report to Google under reference [4-8882000038386], the Council has failed to ensure data accuracy, violating Article 5(1)(d) of the UK GDPR:

Additionally, they have neglected to use DNA profiling, which could have prevented this error.

• Children Act 1989 – https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/contents
• Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 – https://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisi/1995/755/contents
• UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) – https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2016/679/article/5

2016 Interview by Sue Read when she was with Daily Mail of Maggy Tuttle. In 2016, when this video was filmed, my daughter Emily went missing from her social media feeds. Which discussed the concept of children for sale, which can be provided should you need clear evidence that this has happened. I am happy to expand on this further.

My initial contact with the HL Information Team was made in that capacity, and I was already aware of the livestream issues. Like others, I expected that the event would be recorded and available as evidence. Given these circumstances, my inquiry regarding the event evolved into a formal request for the security footage from the room.

On November 18, 2024, I submitted a legal Data Protection request for access to the security footage and any associated records for the Children and Families Truth Commission Report Launch held in the House of Lords on November 15, 2024. Your references FOI 4445 and FOI 4463 

While there appears to be no official record of a House of Lords meeting chaired by you on this date in Hansard, your response implies that the event did not take place.

I therefore request confirmation of the event’s occurrence and the following:

1. Full references to any records relating to the event.
2. The complete security recording of the meeting.
3. A full transcript of the event or a clear explanation as to why such a public record is unavailable.
4. A direct response if the security footage does not exist, including an explanation of the potential security risk posed to members of the Lords.
5. Technical details regarding why the livestream was cut inside the House of Lords.

This request is made under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which obligates you to provide a timely and appropriate response.

Additionally, I have submitted this matter to the European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, under Human Rights Application 4943, served via WRIT on November 18, 2024, at 10:55.

I look forward to your prompt response.

Kind Regards
Mr. Martin Newbold

Visit my author website

patreon.com/MartinNewbold

Crowdfunding to support social welfare on JustGiving