Introduction
This is my full public record of submission to the Department for Education’s Independent Review of Social Work Regulation, submitted on 6 November 2025 (Response ID ANON-8TXP-MMPB-Z).
I am publishing it here in the public interest. The submission exposes the failure of Social Work England and associated authorities to uphold proper professional standards, prevent discrimination, and protect the public. It also documents evidence of falsified family records, international misconduct, and the disappearance of children linked to missing Child Trust Funds — including my own daughter, whose case remains unresolved.
All content below reproduces my official consultation responses exactly as submitted.
This is what I sent them
Official Submission to the Independent Review for Social Work Regulation (Department for Education, November 2025)
Response ID: ANON-8TXP-MMPB-Z
Date Submitted: 6 November 2025 – 12:14:50
Submitted to: Independent Review for Social Work Regulation – Call for Evidence
Section 1 – About Me
Capacity: Other
Description: I am an author and media producer who has written a 10-scene drama based on lived experiences with the social care and judicial systems.
Section 2 – Social Work England
Question 3
To what extent do you think Social Work England is achieving its core objective to protect, promote and maintain the health, safety and well-being of the public?
Answer: Not at all.
If you mean the objective involving Blair, Dunkley, Clinton, and Andrew—set in place in 1997 in New York—to abduct children, then yes, the fact that 430,000 children from a ten-year period have not received their Child Trust Funds because they are missing would suggest that the objective you refer to has, in effect, been achieved.
I don’t know if she’s alive; they said she was in Northern Ireland, but the police said she was never there. There are 430,000 children including her who have not received their Child Trust Fund. This is consistent with data in the 2015 NSPCC briefing document.
Why are you withholding information from the Clinton Library when you have already informed me these documents exist? Why is the genogram submitted by the social worker Christine S. E. Stirling not correct, with the wrong parental data on it for the children? Why has the GRO record been altered? They removed her from her mother’s care. I was trying to get a residence order in court so I could deal with the issues in the house. The social worker Christine Elizabeth Stirling, if that’s even her real name, illegally took over my private case and then fabricated documents for the children in the wrong father’s names.
Now, when I google myself, someone else is wrongly associated with my name and location.
I can prove Blair, Clinton, and Dunkley were all in discussions in New York in 1997 when this was planned. The Clinton Museum is withholding documents from me. No, her birth certificate has no adoption status on the certificate record.
According to the Clinton Museum (1 September 2025, 05:20 AM), Dana Simmons, Archivist, confirmed the following search results under FOIA 2025-1058-F:
- Blair and (“visit” or “trip” or “schedule” or “itinerary” or “agenda”) — 28 hits / 155 pages
- Blair and (“program” or “meeting” or “bilat” or “bilateral”) — 50 hits / 250 pages
- Prime Minister — 383 hits / 1,915 pages
- “No. 10” or “Downing Street” — 1 hit / 5 pages
- “UK” and (“visit” or “itinerary”) — 141 hits / 705 pages
- “social provision” and Blair — 1 hit / 5 pages
- Australia and Blair — 0 hits
- New York and Blair — 5 hits / 25 pages
- Dunkley and Blair — 1 hit / 5 pages
- Blair and UK and visit or Blair and UK and itinerary — 10 hits / ≈50 pages
Does the Clinton Library not abide by GDPR?
👉 www.clintonlibrary.gov
Question 5
To what extent do you think Social Work England is achieving its core objective to promote and maintain public confidence in the social work profession?
Answer: Not at all.
It lies; it defrauds GRO and certificate information illegally when it is clearly on the BMD, then does nothing. It confuses people of the same name, joining their name to someone else on Google who is not the same person or offender.
It uses criminals as children’s directors — Dunkley in three Local Authorities: East Sussex, Norfolk, and Kent — when this person was to be convicted in Victoria, Australia after his term in East Sussex, only escaping on a visa. He was recorded in Operation Dunham, an inquiry into embezzling education funds, as having said in a recorded mobile call that he deleted complaints in his previous employment, presumably so Ofsted could not investigate.
This is criminal action, let alone instigating the abduction of 430,000 children — a UK Government figure that the UK Government cannot locate.
👉 thestealingofemily.co.uk
👉 martinnewbold.co.uk
👉 MySmash Project
Question 7
To what extent do you think Social Work England is achieving its core objective to promote and maintain proper professional standards?
Answer: Not at all.
Social Work England has failed to uphold any meaningful professional standards or public accountability. It has ignored evidence of forged and falsified records, including incorrect parental data and fabricated genograms entered into court proceedings. Such misconduct undermines both the rule of law and the integrity of social work practice.
Instead of correcting false documentation and mis-recorded paternity, Social Work England appears to protect individuals involved in misconduct. No transparent mechanisms exist to rectify data breaches or to hold senior figures such as Christine Elizabeth Stirling or Matthew Dunkley to account, despite well-documented failures.
This lack of regulation enables systemic abuse: the unlawful alteration of GRO and certificate data; confusion of personal identities on public databases such as Google; and the continued employment of individuals previously linked to corruption investigations (for example, Mr Dunkley’s involvement in Operation Dunham in Victoria, Australia). These actions contradict the regulator’s statutory duty to promote proper conduct and to safeguard the public.
If professional standards were truly being maintained, there would be immediate intervention to correct falsified family records, to investigate historical child-protection abuses, and to ensure that no further harm occurs through concealment or mismanagement.
At present, Social Work England does none of these things.
Section 3 – Equalities Act
Question 9
How well do you think Social Work England delivers its responsibilities under the Equalities Act to ensure no one is discriminated against based on their protected characteristics?
Answer: Poorly.
Social Work England fails to apply the Equalities Act consistently or transparently. Its systems of investigation and oversight show clear institutional bias, particularly against parents who challenge unlawful actions or data inaccuracies.
In my own case, when falsified family and birth-record data were presented by the social worker Christine Elizabeth Stirling, Social Work England failed to intervene, investigate, or even acknowledge the breach. This inaction discriminates against individuals from non-institutional backgrounds who cannot afford legal representation or who fall outside the regulator’s internal networks.
I have written about this in my book The Stealing of Emily – Institutional Fraud and Toxic Judicial Procedures (available on Amazon and Google Books) and will be following up further in 2026.
By contrast, senior officials such as Matthew Dunkley have retained positions of authority in multiple local authorities (East Sussex, Norfolk, Kent) despite evidence linking them to corruption inquiries abroad (Operation Dunham, Victoria, Australia).
In addition, my daughter has a writ of abduction served in her name through the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) as a direct result of official incompetence and deliberate obfuscation by public authorities. I am aware of continuing reports of child trafficking cases registered with the ECHR under references A9Q5LNHR and 2J7B8IQU, and these numbers continue to grow, with more individuals seeking registration daily.
This situation was further documented in my article “Who Are the Liars? Revealing Documented Truths” published at thestealingofemily.co.uk, which details how systemic failures, falsified records, and cross-jurisdictional negligence have allowed these abuses to persist unchecked.
Additional Comments
I do not know if my daughter is alive. Authorities claimed she was in Northern Ireland, but police confirmed she was never there. If she had been sent there, as the court stated, it would have breached key sections of the Children Act, since Northern Ireland is over 550 miles away — far beyond any lawful placement distance permitted for a child’s care or safeguarding.
There is also a European Warrant of Arrest in place for my daughter, which outweighs all lower-court decisions within the United Kingdom.
Her disappearance appears connected to a wider national issue. There are approximately 430,000 children, including her, who have not received their Child Trust Fund payments — a matter consistent with data referenced in the 2015 NSPCC briefing document.
The scale of this missing-funds issue suggests possible systemic failures affecting children’s welfare, records, and identity protection.
Evidence points to falsification or duplication of birth and care documentation, lack of inter-agency accountability, and suppression of DNA or parental information that could have resolved her case.
Several official bodies have acknowledged irregularities but taken no corrective action.
I am providing this statement to ensure these matters are fully investigated, the European warrant is respected, and the truth about my daughter’s location and wellbeing is finally established.
To contribute to this Review
Government launches independent review into social work regulation | Social Work News
thestealingofemily.co.uk 
Leave a comment