LGSCO’s Transparency Issues: A Grievance Explained

Subject: Re: Information Request – Reference 24/365

24th February 2025

Dear Ms. Cashmore,

Thank you for your response. However, I do not need to go through the ICO as you have already provided me with a communication from Keith Nevols in my printout of the summary of the complaint—which you have not provided in your response. This clearly states that the LGSCO will investigate, not your cobbled-together retraction and non-investigation.

It is evident that the LGSO investigating officer could not be bothered to investigate as directed by Kieth Nevols and was merely present to collect their pay. This failure to conduct a proper investigation aligns with the repeated obfuscation of facts that has characterized this case.

Furthermore, you should note that this case was opened when my daughter was a minor and a child. Any investigation must be based on the facts and circumstances at that time, not covered up with improper or misleading information introduced later.

Regarding the so-called need for “clarification”:

The office I am referring to is the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), as evidenced in prior correspondence, including communications from Keith Nevols. There is no justification for claiming confusion.
The inaccuracies in the information you hold are already documented. Rather than asking me to provide details you already have, you should be addressing the clear failures in record-keeping and transparency.
On paternity arrangements, my request refers to records within LGSCO’s case files—whether directly arranged or referenced during the investigation. If you claim no such records exist, you must explicitly confirm that.

You neglect to acknowledge that on paternity grounds, this complaint was issued when my daughter was a minor and a child; therefore, the initial date and information at that time must stand.

This continued obfuscation of the truth is unacceptable. I expect a full and proper response that does not attempt to rewrite history or manipulate the facts.

Additionally, please forward me the email you sent on 20th February 2025 with Part 3 attached.

I have attached 32 unique copies of your complaint summary. I have been forced to record this as your system cuts off the tail end of the information being sent to it, preventing a complete and accurate record of complaint recording.

As part of this request, I expect you to process all messages separately, ensuring they are available for review by the First Tribunal in a professional manner. To date, this level of processing has not occurred, and I have not received the complete documentation from your Data Protection Officer.Please confirm that my request will be processed in full and that all messages will be reviewed and made available in their entirety.

Best regards,

Martin Newbold

“Trump is trying to get rid of government agencies that do nothing but traffic lights. This is a good thing we need here; social services is a mess, with the abduction of children rife because of the commercialization of children’s services, which demands more children at any cost—legal or otherwise. This system incentivizes removals, often without genuine justification, tearing families apart and operating under secrecy to avoid scrutiny. This uses powers similar to those of the Court of Protection, which are being used against so-called ‘difficult’ children—those who are not compliant and who maintain attachment to their families. It is extremely cruel, prioritizing control over care, and urgent reform is needed to restore accountability, prioritize children’s actual well-being, and prevent the state from acting as a business profiting from broken families.”

Subscribe to get access

Read more of this content when you subscribe today.

thestealingofemily.co.uk