After ten days had passed without response to my letter addressed to Sir Keir Starmer, it became evident that this situation would require more serious steps. On 13th May 2025, I sent a follow-up message to what was listed as the official contact — the Public Correspondence Mailbox.

The result?

A curt and unhelpful automated reply:
“This mailbox is no longer in use.”

This response, or lack thereof, exemplifies the evasive and obstructive behavior I have repeatedly encountered while trying to raise legitimate and serious concerns. When official channels close without notice or redirection, one must ask: What are they trying to avoid?

The silence grows louder — and so does the need for public scrutiny.

#TheStealingOfEmily #JusticeDenied #AccountabilityNow #ChildProtection #ClosedMaterialProcedures

FORMAL COMPLAINT: Oblique Conduct, Suppression of Oversight & Breach of Ministerial Code – Prime Minister’s Office

To: standardscommissioner@parliament.uk
CC: publiccorrespondence@cabinetoffice.gov.uk
Subject: Formal Complaint – Oblique Behaviour and Breach of Ministerial Code by the Prime Minister’s Office

---

13th May 2025

Dear Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards,

I am writing to submit a formal complaint regarding the conduct of the Prime Minister and his Office, specifically in relation to oblique and obstructive behaviour that I believe constitutes a breach of the Ministerial Code and a serious failure of duty in public office.

On 3rd of May 2025 , I sent a recorded delivery letter DS340986029GB to the Prime Minister Sir Keir Starrmer MP MP at 10 Downing Street concerning  “Suspected unlawful concealment of a minor by Newry Social Services, in breach of safeguarding duties and jurisdictional authority. Oblique behaviour and conduct amounting to administrative prorogation of public accountability.”   — a matter of legitimate public interest that demands formal engagement by the UK Government.

Despite confirmation of delivery on Wednesday 07 May 2025 by collection, there has been:

• No acknowledgment
• No reply
• No indication that the matter has been addressed at any level

The decision to ignore this communication entirely constitutes more than a bureaucratic delay — it reflects a deliberate obstruction of scrutiny. This behaviour:

• Violates the spirit and letter of the Ministerial Code, notably Sections 1.2, 1.3, and 1.5, which require Ministers to be honest, transparent, and accountable
• Represents maladministration, whereby the Prime Minister’s Office fails to engage with lawful correspondence on serious matters
• Mirrors the intent and effect of unlawful prorogation, in that it seeks to suppress public scrutiny, evade ministerial accountability, and silence legitimate oversight

Attached is a detailed list of emails and documents sent over recent months to No.10. These reflect not only persistence but also the diversity of subject matter – from judicial misconduct and departmental failures to public interest research. It is clear from this record that I have made consistent efforts in good faith to seek proper engagement from your office.  

The 2019 Supreme Court judgment on prorogation confirmed that executive conduct which frustrates constitutional accountability is unlawful. Although no formal proroguing has occurred in this case, the oblique behaviour of the Prime Minister’s Office functions similarly in its impact — by preventing fair and necessary democratic engagement.

This is unacceptable conduct for the highest office in the United Kingdom and requires urgent review.

I therefore request that you:

1. Investigate the failure of the Prime Minister and/or his Office to respond appropriately to the submitted correspondence
2. Consider whether such failure amounts to a breach of the Ministerial Code, or possibly misconduct in public office
3. Ensure steps are taken to prevent the systematic silencing of public interest communications through administrative evasion

I attach:

• A copy of the letter sent to the Prime Minister
• Proof of delivery (Royal Mail signed-for tracking)
• [Any relevant documentation or exhibits]

Please acknowledge this complaint and confirm how it will be investigated. If you are not the appropriate authority, I request that you refer the matter immediately to the correct statutory body and inform me of the referral.

Included are two published academic papers, one titled Getting Away With Murder 2025, which explores legal and ethical failure in government procedures, and another, Paper on Hybrid Fusion Reactor NENERGY-25051542, evidencing my broader contributions to public and scientific discourse. This is to clarify that my engagement with government is not single-issue nor obsessive, but rooted in civic responsibility and academic inquiry.

Given the absence of acknowledgment and reply, I am now considering reporting your office for maladministration under appropriate public standards frameworks

Yours faithfully,
Mr Martin Newbold
martinnewbold.mn@gmail.com
13th May 2025

 Formatted List of Attachments (for clarity in your email or as a separate attachment):

 Key Correspondence to No.10 (by date & subject):

• 2025-02-17 – Re: Your message to No10 (131K)
• 2025-02-25 – Gmail – Re: Your message to No10 (131K)
• 2025-02-26@03:21PM – Email[OUT] – Re: Easy Listening Music from Stealing of Emily Drama (135K)
• 2025-03-04 – Re: Your message to No10 (134K)
• 2025-03-23 – Re: Your message to No10 (132K)
• 2025-03-24 – Re: Your message to No10 (130K)
• 2025-03-29@08:08AM – Re: MOJ Mailbox 404 Error (132K)
• 2025-03-31@03:46PM – [IN] Subject passed to relevant department (48K)
• 2025-04-01 – Re: Your message to No10 (131K)
• 2025-04-01@05:09PM – Email[OUT] – Subject: Misconduct of Judge Hollis & IBAC (132K)
• 2025-04-02 – Re: Your message to No10 (130K)
• 2025-04-02@10:33PM – Subject: Lack of FOS Investigation (131K)
• 2025-04-02@11:59AM – [IN] Passed to relevant department (47K)
• 2025-04-04@06:25AM – Fwd: Your message to No10 (138K)
• 2025-04-04@06:38AM – Gmail [IN] – Passed to relevant department (55K)
• 2025-04-04@06:38PM – OUT – Subject: DfE ‘Not about education’ (131K)
• 2025-04-13 – Re: Your message to No10 (131K)
• 2025-04-16 – Re: Your message to No10 (144K)
• 2025-04-20 – Complaint to DfE (+ attachments) (1,077K)
• 2025-04-23 – Re: Your message to No10 (148K)
• 2025-04-24 – Re: Letter from Prime Minister’s Office (212K)
• 2025-05-01 – Re: Your message to No10 (133K)
• 2025-05-02 – Re: Your message to No10 (132K)
• 2025-05-03 – Letter to Prime Minister – Getting Away With Murder 2025
• 2025-05-04 – The Right Honourable Prime Minister (70K)
• 2025-05-13 – Follow-Up Letter on Maladministration

 Published Research:

• Getting Away With Murder 2025 – DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare
• Hybrid Fusion Reactor NENERGY-25051542 – Martin Newbold, 2025

 Oversight Bodies:

• 2025-01-25@07:51AM – LGSO – Case Messages (5,083K)
• 2025-02-01 – LGSO All Case Messages (5,055K)
• 2023-04-08 – Letter to ICO – Ref: SF801289170GB (4,055K)

—

Kind Regards
Mr. Martin Newbold

It should be evident from this reply without steer to a new procedure at this point this proves oblique behavior and “Suspected unlawful concealment of a minor by Newry Social Services, in breach of safeguarding duties and jurisdictional authority. Oblique behaviour and conduct amounting to administrative prorogation of public accountability.”

This matter concerns Emily Newbold Smith, who is now 18 years old. It is unclear whether she was ever placed in Newry, as ordered by the court, with the Department for Education (DfE) indicating that they believe she may have been in Tonbridge, Kent instead.

• Request for Information on Epstein-Linked Victims
• Understanding the Complexity of Peerage Revocation and NCA
• Corruption Investigations: IBAC’s Limitations Explained
• Child Trafficking Concerns and the EHCR
• Guide Series How to Report Child Abduction a complete Procedure