Is this because they seem to run care comes?

You have been asked to identify the parliamentary rule that supposedly prevents you from addressing the safeguarding concerns raised about my daughter, Emily.

Despite 640 MPs being contacted, I have not received a substantive response providing:

1. The exact wording of the claimed rule;
2. Its formal title and parliamentary reference;
3. Its legal or procedural authority;
4. An explanation of whether it is a binding rule or merely parliamentary convention or etiquette;
5. A substantive answer to the safeguarding question:
   

Where is Emily?
Failure to answer an email does not itself prove criminal conduct. However, the repeated refusal or inability of MPs to identify the rule being relied upon is a matter of legitimate public concern, particularly where safeguarding issues have been raised.

Please either provide the precise rule and its authoritative source or confirm clearly that no such binding parliamentary rule has been identified.

Please also state what action, if any, your office has taken to ensure that the safeguarding concerns regarding Emily have been referred to a body capable of investigating and responding.

Previous Parliamentary Communications

Approximately 640 MPs were contacted regarding safeguarding concerns relating to Emily Newbold and wider concerns about the traceability of children through public systems.

Those communications generated approximately 3,200 responses, including automatic acknowledgements, referrals, constituency restrictions, administrative notices and replies from parliamentary offices.

Despite the volume of correspondence, none of those responses addressed the central safeguarding question or provided confirmation of:

• Emily Newbold’s current location;
• her safeguarding status;
• her education status;
• her NHS registration or healthcare status;
• whether she remains traceable through relevant public systems; or
• which public authority currently accepts responsibility for confirming her welfare.

The correspondence also asked MPs to identify the parliamentary rule, legal provision or formal procedure they claimed prevented them from assisting. No MP supplied the wording, title, source or binding authority of such a rule.

The previous communications and supporting evidence are available at:

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

The evidence therefore records not merely a lack of assistance, but a repeated failure to answer the fundamental safeguarding question:

Where is Emily Newbold, which authority has verified her welfare, and through which public systems is she currently traceable?

---

• Failure to identify the claimed parliamentary rule
• A legacy of child abuse is passed to Andy Burnham
• Apology not accepted Sir Kier Starmer for a shameful government.
• Kiers Starmers abuse of Children and Parents a legacy
• Mistakes in Child Protection: An Open Letter to Social Work England