It is not bad enough that MP do not safeguard Children. cite Podcast Episode: Copilot, Powermate and safeguarding. – thestealingofemily.co.uk
One thing is already striking: in August 2026, SPOA first said East Sussex does have safeguarding responsibilities for all children, but four days later the same SPOA told you “there is not a role for SPOA” and asked to be removed from the email trail. I’m checking whether that kind of contradiction appears earlier as well.
No. Based on the East Sussex emails I have now checked, I do not think the correspondence demonstrates 19 years of safeguarding. What it demonstrates much more clearly is that East Sussex has repeatedly received, acknowledged, redirected and administratively processed information concerning Emily, without the email record showing the corresponding continuous safeguarding chain: assessment → responsible safeguarding professional → decision → protective action → outcome.
Then the 2026 evidence becomes particularly difficult to reconcile. On 14 August 2026, SPOA told you that East Sussex “have safeguarding responsibilities for all children”.
00-19 SPOA <0-19spoa@eastsussex.gov.uk>For example, East Sussex formally acknowledged a SAR specifically for “Emily Newbold Smith dob 30 October 2006” in December 2023. So by that point there is no question that Emily was identifiable in its systems. Our reference: 16576525
Yet on 18 August 2026, the same SPOA told you “there is not a role for SPOA” and asked to be removed from the email trail.
So, from the emails I have actually examined, I can evidence receipt and administrative handling; I cannot presently evidence a sustained safeguarding response to Emily’s situation.
You already wrote to him on 27 August 2026 about PHSO references C-2058682, C-2059461 and C-2059421, so he is a logical person to include in the next escalation. On 24 August 2026, you told him about PHSO references C-2058682, C-2059461 and C-2059421. You said that during your complaint concerning Emily’s education, Department for Education material had appeared concerning a grammar-school annexe in Tonbridge, which did not appear to concern Emily, whereas you identified Frewen College, Northiam as Emily’s school. You specifically said you were not claiming the recovered search summaries alone proved the original record, but that they showed a serious documentary discrepancy requiring comparison against the original PHSO/DfE records.
You asked Moore to establish whether the three complete PHSO files still existed; why C-2059421 had initially not been located; whether any references had been merged, renumbered, closed or associated with another person’s records; what organisations PHSO had disclosed your complaint/evidence to; what information DfE supplied about Emily’s education; why Tonbridge grammar-school documents appeared in your case; and whether anybody had recorded that Emily attended or was associated with a school in Tonbridge.
23 January 2025: you were already recording that the LGSO had said its funding was insufficient to support its investigation budget. 23 January 2025: you were already recording that the LGSO had said its funding was insufficient to support its investigation budget.18 February: Mandy Cashmore then issued FOI response 24/357, repeatedly saying “There is no budgetary shortfall.”19 February: you sent that response and the issue directly to the Prime Minister’s Private Office at No. 10.It is LGSCO Information Access Request 24/357, dated 18 February 2025, responding to your request of 24 January 2025. Your request specifically asked LGSCO to explain the “budgetary constraints that are affecting the LGSO’s ability to handle complaints”, how many complaints had been affected by the “funding shortfall,” how investigation quality had been compromised, and what was being done about that shortfall. 25 02 18 LTR Response to Information Access Request 24-357
In 2021 there was complaint to C-2058682 — complaint about the Department for Education C-2059461 — the linked children’s/social-care complaint And by 31 December 2021 you were expressly writing using both references C-2058682 and C-2059461, copying PHSO Enquiries and PHSO Information Rights, alongside the other bodies involved.
The earlier search reaches 2021 and shows that by September–October 2021 you were already escalating Emily’s case as “FAST TRACK” to the Children’s Commissioner, Department for Education, police and regulators because you said you were getting no response.
One qualification matters: your Gmail search does not contain a continuous 19-year email record back to 2007. The relevant email trail I found becomes substantial from roughly 2022–2023 onward, although it contains attachments and references to events and records from 2010 and 2011. Therefore I wouldn’t say the Gmail alone proves 19 years with absolutely no safeguarding. I would say:
East Sussex has not demonstrated in the correspondence we have examined that it safeguarded Emily over those 19 years, despite repeatedly receiving information concerning her and despite its own SPOA expressly acknowledging that East Sussex has safeguarding responsibilities for children.
I’ve now reached 2011, which is materially different. There is a court email dated 13 June 2011 acknowledging a document titled “recorded letter from LA SW – Emily” — “LA SW” appears to mean a local-authority social worker. I’m tracing that document and the surrounding 2010–2011 correspondence to establish which local authority it was.
The oldest direct East Sussex domain material I can presently see is April–May 2011, not 2023. More importantly, the 2011 mailbox also contains a letter addressed to Fiona Lewis as “IRO and CPC” and the court’s June acknowledgement of the local-authority social-worker Emily note. That places safeguarding/care-process material in the record about 15 years ago. I’m checking 2006–2010 now rather than stopping at 2011.
Your Library inventory shows material going back much earlier:
- 2004 — East Sussex Social Services material concerning Emily’s mother and a Social Services report.
- 2009 — letters, an Ofsted inspection document, correspondence concerning police involvement, the November 2009 MP letter recording injury to Emily, and the November 2009 East Sussex LAC review.
- 20 January 2010 — complaints-meeting notes explicitly described in your archive as “full disclosure to SS and AREA MANAGER of events around situation.”
- 18 February 2010 — a preserved email concerning “Emily Contact bruising on face.”
- August 2010 — Emily’s genogram and a formal note about changes to contact following a court hearing.
- 2011 — appeal and court-hearing material continues.
And the preserved 2009 LAC transcript itself identifies a child-protection conference and Fiona Lewis, while the archive describes it as the 3 November 2009 East Sussex LAC Review
And separately, another 2026 record says the Head of Safeguarding and Children in Care checked the system but could not see a child listed as Emily Newbold, despite the historical record containing an East Sussex LAC review and other Children’s Services material concerning Emily.
“The UK remains geographically part of Europe. The distinction is jurisdictional only. A child moved from the UK to another European country may leave one national care-recording system and enter another, but they have not somehow left Europe.” E16 is the key!
Of the approximately UK 758,000 children recorded without their Child Trust Fund 2025 as being in alternative care in EU Member States, how many have an E16 ‘Child moved abroad’ record, or an equivalent UK care-record entry, showing that they previously left the UK care system because they were moved to another country?”
In this video, I examine serious concerns about evidence given during court proceedings before Judge Hollis and ask why apparent contradictions and allegations of perjury were not properly addressed. Whether Emilys court case was safe in custody and control to take my daughter Judge Holliis did not statute did not control this under Christines Elizabeth Stirling having perjured herself on the stand cite: Oral Evidence https://stealingofemily.world/Youtoob/yt_play/index.php?id=v507
The video looks at what was said in court, the documentary record available, and the responsibility of the court when evidence appears to conflict with established facts.
This is not an allegation that any individual has been convicted of perjury. It is a public-interest examination of why evidence that I believe required further scrutiny was apparently allowed to pass without investigation or determination.
The central question is simple:
If evidence given before the court was materially false or misleading, why was it not dealt with at the time?
The video forms part of my continuing examination of the legal and administrative decisions surrounding my daughter Emilys case and the wider issues documented in The Stealing of Emily.
Conclusion
The evidence examined points to four deeply troubling, systemic failures that go far beyond isolated administrative error:
1. Technology is replacing human judgment — with no safeguards
Automated systems are being deployed to route, categorise, and process constituents’ emails — including safeguarding disclosures — before any elected representative or trained human sees them. Machines can classify and file; they cannot judge risk, urgency, or vulnerability. Worse, the systems are known to contain inaccurate data, yet there is no documented policy ensuring safeguarding correspondence reaches a human first. The word “safeguarding” did not even appear in relevant parliamentary evidence — revealing a dangerous gap between capability and accountability.
2. Responsibility is acknowledged — then immediately disclaimed
East Sussex SPOA confirmed on 14 August 2026 that the Council “have safeguarding responsibilities for all children”. Just four days later, the same body claimed “there is not a role for SPOA” and sought to remove itself from the correspondence trail. This is not ambiguity — it is contradiction by design.
3. Receipt ≠ Protection. Filing ≠ Safeguarding
For at least 15–19 years, East Sussex received, acknowledged, and administratively processed repeated concerns about Emily. The archive contains injury reports, child-protection conferences, LAC reviews, social-worker correspondence, court records, and formal complaints. Yet nowhere in the examined trail is there evidence of the continuous safeguarding chain that law and duty require:
Assessment → Responsible professional → Decision → Protective action → Outcome
Documents exist. Names exist. Dates exist. Action and accountability appear to be missing. By 2026, the Head of Safeguarding could not even find Emily’s record on the system — despite the Council itself having acknowledged her explicitly by name and date of birth in 2023.
4. Oversight itself appears broken
- DfE records placed Emily at the wrong school — suggesting nobody verifies what is filed.
- LGSCO first cited funding shortages, then formally denied any shortfall.
- PHSO complaints remain unresolved and unreconciled.
- Court proceedings appear to have accepted materially conflicting evidence without investigation — raising the most serious question of all: when false or misleading evidence is presented under oath, who is accountable if no one checks?
Final Summary
It is not merely that children are not being safeguarded. It is that the entire architecture of protection — from the MP’s inbox to the council filing system, to oversight bodies, to the courts — is increasingly built to receive, log, redirect, and bury concerns, rather than to hear them and act.
A system that records everything but protects nothing is not a safeguarding system. It is a concealment system.
Leave a Reply