Mail to standardscommissioner@parliament.uk was rejected by Parliament’s email system

On 31 July 2026, 9:17:00 after my email to standardscommissioner@parliament.uk was rejected by Parliament’s email system, I telephoned Parliament on 020 7219 4772.

[ 0.00 – 3.00] Thank you for calling the House of Commons Inquiry Service.
[ 3.00 – 5.00] The inquiry line has closed.
[ 5.00 – 10.00] You can email your inquiry to hcinquiries at parliament.uk
[ 10.00 – 18.00] or write to House of Commons Inquiry Service, House of Commons, London, SW1A0AA.
[ 18.00 – 22.00] We aim to answer most email inquiries within one working day.
[ 43.00 – 53.44] Thank you for calling the House of Commons Inquiry Service.
[ 53.44 – 55.44] The Inquiry Line has closed.
[ 55.44 – 61.64] You can email your inquiry to hcinquiries at parliament.uk or write to House of Commons
[ 61.64 – 68.48] Inquiry Service, House of Commons, London, SW1A0AA.
[ 68.48 – 72.68] We aim to answer most email inquiries within one working day and all written inquiries within
[ 72.68 – 79.68] If you know the name of your member of parliament or person you would like to speak to, please
[ 79.68 – 82.68] hold for the switchboard.
[ 82.68 – 84.68] Thank you for calling the Parliamentary Contract Centre.
[ 84.68 – 87.68] Please note, our calls will be recorded.
[ 86.00 – 90.00] Our calls will be recorded for training and monitoring purposes.
[ 102.00 – 106.00] Good morning, you’re through to the Parliamentary Contact Centre. This is Arthur speaking, how can I help?
[ 106.00 – 112.54] I’m yes, I wonder if you’d be so kind to help me. I’ve been trying to contact the standards commissioner
[ 113.46 – 116.56] standards commissioner at Parliament dot UK and
[ 116.98 – 122.90] I’m having that email bounce back stating that it’s not a correct email
[ 129.00 – 132.40] Well I have tried. You’re trying to get through to another?
[ 132.40 – 134.40] I have tried but there’s nobody there.
[ 134.40 – 142.40] OK, well, all right then. Commissioner for Standards.
[ 142.40 – 147.90] Yeah, this is standardscommissioneratparliament.uk.
[ 147.90 – 149.90] I have been using it, it works fine.
[ 149.90 – 157.00] But today it’s bounced back my message this morning saying that it’s 404 and couldn’t find it.
[ 157.00 – 161.00] The standards commissioner at parliament.uk?
[ 161.00 – 162.00] Yeah.
[ 162.00 – 167.00] That’s strange because that isn’t the correct email.
[ 167.00 – 169.00] Well it’s not working madam.
[ 169.00 – 174.00] Do you perhaps have an alternate email address you could send one from?
[ 172.00 – 174.00] Well, why would I need that?
[ 174.00 – 177.00] Well, it could be that they’re just not accepting emails from your email address.
[ 177.00 – 180.00] Well, if that’s the case then I will send the police to their office.
[ 180.00 – 181.00] Okay.
[ 181.00 – 182.00] Because that’s ridiculous.
[ 182.00 – 185.00] Why would my email be restricted from sending to them?
[ 185.00 – 190.00] I don’t know, have you sent a lot of emails?
[ 190.00 – 191.00] Probably 60,000 emails.
[ 191.00 – 192.00] Okay.
[ 192.00 – 200.64] my email be restricted from sending to them? I don’t know have you sent a lot of emails?
[ 200.64 – 212.04] Probably 640 as they require evidence via it. Yeah that would probably be why. Well
[ 212.04 – 214.04] So they don’t accept evidence then?
[ 215.00 – 220.00] Well, it’s probably if you send 640 emails.
[ 220.00 – 228.00] Well, how am I going to report 640 MPs if I don’t send 640 emails, madam?
[ 228.00 – 231.00] Yeah, you’re reporting every MP?
[ 231.00 – 233.00] Yep, that’s correct.
[ 233.00 – 237.00] Um, yeah, that probably would be right then.
[ 237.00 – 242.00] So basically the system doesn’t work and the Commissioner is useless then?
[ 242.00 – 244.00] Because you can’t be contacted?
[ 244.00 – 245.28] I wouldn’t know, I’m not…
[ 245.28 – 248.48] Well, he can’t be contacted, can he? So what is going on?
[ 251.28 – 254.28] I wouldn’t know, I’m not part of it. That would just be my best guess.
[ 255.00 – 259.48] Well, why is this email address and this commissioner not contactable?
[ 258.00 – 260.00] commissioner not contactable?
[ 263.00 – 265.00] I wouldn’t know, I’m not part of…
[ 265.00 – 269.00] Well you are because you’re part of Parliament and this is part of the MPs
[ 269.00 – 273.00] and you’re part of these MPs that are actually not abiding by the law
[ 273.00 – 276.00] and effectively you’re not doing anything to solve it.
[ 278.00 – 281.00] I mean we’re here at the Parliamentary Switchboard to transfer people…
[ 281.00 – 287.00] Yeah, no I appreciate that but nobody is there because you’re on a belated holiday
[ 287.00 – 294.00] and quite frankly your MPs are running muck because nobody is governing them
[ 296.00 – 299.00] Well I’m afraid that’s just not something I can help with
[ 299.00 – 303.00] Well it should be because you’re supposed to have a standards commissioner
[ 301.00 – 305.32] to have a standards commissioner email that works and you don’t?
[ 307.68 – 313.64] The email is still functioning, it is still working but it could be that they’re just not allowing you to send any more emails.
[ 314.08 – 318.76] I wouldn’t know but I would perhaps try and send an email from a different address just to check a certain address.
[ 318.76 – 322.84] Well I’ll ring the police and ask the police why they’re not accepting it then shall I?
[ 323.72 – 328.12] Because I’m not the one committing a crime here, your departments are.
[ 328.12 – 336.72] I mean at the end of the day all I’m expecting from your standards commissioner at this stage
[ 336.72 – 342.52] is a reference number to indicate that it took my complaint, an allegation.
[ 342.52 – 345.04] If it can’t even do that it’s not functioning is it?
[ 344.00 – 351.96] functioning is it? I mean I wouldn’t be able to comment on that. Well I would because basically
[ 351.96 – 358.60] I’ve sent an email and I’ve sent it an email which is an addition to this well I sent it
[ 358.60 – 369.84] yesterday and it sent me back a bounce saying that this email address is not correct. I mean I would
[ 369.84 – 371.84] then try sending one for a different address.
[ 372.48 – 374.48] Well no, I’m going to call the police
[ 374.76 – 375.56] on you all
[ 375.56 – 377.92] because quite frankly this is unbelievable.
[ 378.76 – 382.60] You can’t block email addresses from the public who pays your salaries.
[ 387.20 – 389.20] I mean, I’m not saying that…
[ 387.00 – 396.00] I’m not saying that I know that they have. I’m saying I would check whether it’s an email address problem or if it’s your email because that email is…
[ 396.00 – 401.00] Well I’ve got AI looking at this at the moment and it tells me it’s your email address.
[ 404.00 – 407.00] The Standards Commissioner at Parliament.uk
[ 407.00 – 411.48] It says it’s delivered me 550 undeliverable email
[ 411.48 – 425.28] f77 nfyau pkiudmwmcu0va.uk403
[ 427.00 – 431.96] My email was sent at 904 on the 31st of July 2016
[ 430.00 – 440.54] July 2006 26 and basically this has been sent back to me from your generic
[ 440.54 – 445.16] standards commissioner at Parliament email address which is not functioning
[ 445.16 – 448.60] when are you going to do something about it?
[ 450.60 – 455.84] Well I can assure it isn’t and I’ll put it online that it’s not functioning if
[ 455.84 – 462.16] if you don’t do something about it and I have over 64,000 people look at the pages I post to
[ 462.16 – 466.16] and one of them is 4.5 million so do you want me to do that or do you want to resolve this?
[ 468.24 – 470.32] um yeah you see why I should post it online
[ 472.96 – 474.80] well you’re not resolving it are you
[ 473.00 – 480.76] Well, you’re not resolving it are you? At the end of the day I’m reporting that your standards at parliament.co.uk is not functional.
[ 483.32 – 491.56] I have the error messages and I can prove what I’m saying. I will put it online to 4.5 million people if you do not resolve this.
[ 493.40 – 495.72] Okay, well I think I might have to end the call.
[ 496.04 – 497.88] Well how is that going to help?
[ 497.88 – 504.88] I can’t, the email is operational, I suggested trying to summon from a different email, and
[ 504.88 – 508.88] that’s probably because you sent over 600 at one time, it automatically blocked your
[ 508.88 – 509.88] email.
[ 509.88 – 513.88] Well that would be ridiculous wouldn’t it, because sending 640 emails, how are you going
[ 513.88 – 516.88] to report every MP if you can’t do that?
[ 516.00 – 518.60] can’t do that.
[ 528.60 – 535.88] Well my only options are to put it on half a million people’s Facebook pages
[ 535.88 – 542.28] as that you are not receiving standards complaints or I get the police and I get
[ 542.28 – 549.00] the police come round to you. Because quite frankly this is not correct you
[ 549.00 – 554.40] should be acting in accordance with your mandate and investigating why this
[ 554.40 – 557.08] doesn’t work.
[ 559.00 – 561.76] I’m going to have to end the call, but I hope you have a wonderful day. Bye bye.
[ 561.76 – 565.92] Well that isn’t investigating why it’s not working is it?

I asked for assistance and requested that Parliament investigate why the official email address was not accepting my correspondence. The receptionist informed me that she would simply end the call.

I was therefore left unable to obtain assistance, report the failed official email address, or establish how my formal submission could be delivered to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

They have decided to reject my email and have not currently provided a complaint reference number, in accordance with their complaints procedure.

The Procedural Protocol provides that complaints that MPs have breached rules in the Code of Conduct must be submitted in writing and OPCS’s telephone line therefore operates through recorded message only. That message advises callers that complaints must be submitted in writing, and provides the requisite information to support callers in doing so.

Callers who leave a voice message providing the information required under the Procedural Protocol to make a complaint (as set out in the recorded message), and who tell us that they need a reasonable adjustment to access the complaints system, will receive a call back.

Can you please advise that you have received my allegation?

Correspondence that triggered this:

Email: standardscommissioner@parliament.uk

Postal Address:

Daniel Greenberg CB
Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA

Telephone number: 020 7219 3738

Can you please advise that you have received my allegation?

Warm regards,

Martin Newbold
http://www.martinnewbold.co.uk www.thestealingofemily.co.uk stealingofemily.world

Initial Email

On Thu, Jul 30, 2026 at 9:36 PM Martin Newbold <martinnewbold.mn@gmail.com> wrote:

Attachment: 2026-07-30 - MP Sent Email Log.pdf

Dear Mr Greenberg,

Formal request for preliminary assessment

I attach my consolidated MP correspondence and transmission report concerning the unresolved safeguarding and traceability of my daughter, Emily Newbold.

I am not asking the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards merely to compel individual MPs to undertake constituency casework or to investigate ordinary dissatisfaction with the service provided by an MP’s office.

I am asking you to assess a wider and systemic pattern of conduct: MPs and parliamentary offices repeatedly relying upon expressions such as “parliamentary privilege,” “strict parliamentary protocol,” “parliamentary rules,” or “constituency convention” instead of addressing, referring or properly signposting an unresolved safeguarding concern.

The safeguarding issue remains unanswered

The safeguarding concern began while Emily was a child and remains unresolved.

Emily has been described as being in education. However, the Department for Education and the other public bodies contacted have not provided me with verifiable confirmation of:

her current educational establishment or placement;

her present location;

her safeguarding status;

the authority currently responsible for her welfare;

whether she can be traced through the education, health or social-care systems; or

the lawful basis upon which anyone states that she is in education.

If Emily is now treated as an adult, that does not remove the safeguarding concern. It changes the applicable safeguarding route, but the fundamental questions remain:

Where is Emily? Who is responsible for her welfare? Which public authority can verify that she is safe and genuinely registered in education?

No public authority has provided me with a substantive and verifiable answer to those questions. In those circumstances, it cannot responsibly be assumed that Emily is safe merely because parliamentary offices have sent procedural responses.

Evidence attached

The attached report was generated on 30 July 2026 and contains 6,356 logged transmission records, each carrying its recorded date, time and delivery status.2026-07-30 – MP Sent Email Log.pdf

For each correspondence campaign, the report includes:

the original online sending page;

the relevant sent-log CSV;

one copy of the correspondence that was sent;

the names and email addresses of the MPs contacted;

constituency information where available;

the physical CSV log-line number;

the precise date and time recorded by the relevant log; and

whether the transmission was recorded as sent or failed.

The report therefore provides an auditable record rather than a generalised allegation. For example, the Parliamentary safeguarding campaign records Jack Abbott MP at CSV log line 2 as sent on 2 June 2026 at 10:52:23.

Parliamentary privilege has been wrongly relied upon

Parliament’s own procedural guidance states that parliamentary privilege protects Members when engaged in proceedings in Parliament and that it does not apply to correspondence with constituents or ministers. https://guidetoprocedure.parliament.uk/collections/WnpbIESe

Therefore, parliamentary privilege cannot properly be presented as a rule preventing an MP’s office from:

receiving safeguarding information;

acknowledging that information;

passing it to a responsible minister, department or authority;

identifying the correct safeguarding route; or

explaining the precise legal or procedural basis for declining to act.

Constituency etiquette is not legislation

The separate practice under which MPs usually deal with the personal cases of their own constituents is a parliamentary convention.

The House of Commons Library expressly states that the conventions concerning constituency etiquette “are not the subject of formal parliamentary rules.” Parliament also defines a convention as an unwritten understanding which is not legally enforceable. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02028/

Accordingly, where an MP or parliamentary office describes this convention as:

a law;

a statutory prohibition;

strict parliamentary protocol;

parliamentary privilege; or

a rule that prevents even referral or safeguarding signposting,

I ask that they be required to identify the exact:

Act of Parliament;

Standing Order;

resolution of the House;

paragraph of the Code of Conduct; or

other formal parliamentary authority

upon which that statement is based.

Despite repeated requests, no precise provision has been identified to me.

Why this falls beyond an ordinary casework complaint

I recognise that the Commissioner does not ordinarily investigate an MP’s handling of correspondence or decision not to pursue an individual case.

However, Parliament’s published guidance identifies an exception where an MP’s conduct may significantly damage the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members generally. https://guidetoprocedure.parliament.uk/articles/pol7yruY/code-of-conduct-and-parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards

This submission does not concern one isolated refusal. It concerns a documented pattern across a substantial number of parliamentary offices in response to a safeguarding matter involving a person whose location, educational establishment and welfare status have not been verified to her father.

The repeated presentation of a non-statutory convention as though it were a legal prohibition—and the apparent use of parliamentary privilege outside parliamentary proceedings—risks misleading members of the public about both Parliament’s rules and the scope of parliamentary privilege.

Action requested

I respectfully ask the Commissioner to:

Conduct a preliminary assessment of whether the documented pattern engages any provision of the House of Commons Code of Conduct, including the provisions concerned with maintaining public confidence and the reputation and integrity of the House.

Determine whether repeatedly presenting constituency convention or parliamentary privilege as a legal prohibition may amount to conduct requiring investigation, correction or formal guidance.

Consider whether the scale and consistency of the responses demonstrate an issue of wider concern extending beyond ordinary constituency casework.

Where a formal investigation is not opened, consider using the Commissioner’s powers under Standing Order No. 150(5) to indicate concern or provide words of advice concerning the inaccurate use of parliamentary privilege and constituency convention. The Commissioner’s published guidance confirms that these powers may be used even where a formal investigation is not commenced. https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/explanatory-notes/words-of-advice/

Identify the correct parliamentary or governmental body responsible for examining the safeguarding failure if any part of this submission is outside your jurisdiction.

Confirm whether the attached evidence will be retained as part of the formal parliamentary record of this complaint.

State clearly when I can expect a substantive response.

Please acknowledge receipt within five working days and provide the complaint reference number and the anticipated date of your substantive response.

This matter has already generated thousands of recorded communications. What remains absent is a direct answer to the safeguarding question.

Where is Emily Newbold, and which public authority can verify that she is safe?

Warm regards,

Martin Newbold
http://www.martinnewbold.co.uk www.thestealingofemily.co.uk stealingofemily.world

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.

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

https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_parliamentary_mp_safeguarding_epstein_bbc.php

https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_surrey_police_non_safe_guarding_of_mps.php

https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_640_mps_regarding_statements_inibility_to_help.php

July 31, 2026