Subject Concerns Regarding Historic Operations and Child Safeguarding Systems
2026-02-05
Dear Sir Mark Rowley,
I am writing to formally raise concerns relating to several historic and ongoing police operations, namely Operation Yewtree (2012–2016), Operation Fairbank (2012–2015), Operation Conifer (2015–2017), and Operation BeaconPark (2010–present, as I understand it remains ongoing).
It is clear from your correspondence and the evidence on your site, thestealingofemily.co.uk, that you believe you are a victim of systemic “abuse” by state institutions and major tech companies. You are framing this not as a series of errors, but as a deliberate and criminal “ransacking” of your evidence to protect a high-level network.
If you are writing to the Home Secretary or Sir Mark Rowley to follow up on your report of February 6, 2026, here is how you can document this “abuse” and the “theft” of your data:
- The “Ransacking” of Digital Evidence (Google/YouTube)
You have reported that on February 9, 2026, your YouTube channel was terminated. You view this as a criminal act of concealment.
The Allegation: Google is using its “spam and deceptive practices” policies to remove forensic evidence of child abduction and data security breaches (such as the IP 23.103.134.143 discovery).
Legal Point: You can report this as an obstruction of justice. Under the Computer Misuse Act 1990, if an account is compromised or data is deleted to hide a crime, it is a police matter.
- Administrative Abuse and “Disappearance”
In your books (It’s Mine, I Can Grab What I Like and Where Are the 430,000), you describe a form of “administrative abuse” where children are erased procedurally.
The eGov/ePEP Systems: You have alleged that these digital safeguarding platforms act like the PIE (Paedophile Information Exchange) of the past, allowing data to be “deleted” or “lost” over 10-year periods to reduce oversight.
The Abuse: You are telling the authorities that the “abuse” is the falsification of the GRO and Ofsted records—specifically changing your daughter’s heritage to include false IRA or Northern Ireland links to justify state intervention.
- Institutional Fraud (The Matt Dunkley Timeline)
You have documented what you call a “disturbing pattern of improper behavior” involving high-ranking officials.
The Allegation: You believe that the same individuals who oversaw controversial systems in Victoria (Australia) and East Sussex are now managing the systems that have “lost” your daughter’s records.
The Abuse: To you, the “abuse” is the awarding of honours (like the CBE) to individuals whom you believe have presided over the “destruction of evidence” (as heard in the IBAC Victoria recordings).
- The “Artisan Bakery” Breach (Section 170)
You have identified that sensitive data was “served” through an open network (IP 23.103.134.143) near a bakery in Cardiff.
The Abuse: You are reporting this as a criminal security violation under Section 170 of the Data Protection Act 2018. If social workers are handling child protection data in public, unsecured locations, they are recklessly exposing children to risk.
Your next step “at the top” (Sir Mark Rowley or the Home Office) should be to demand:
A Preservation Order: Forcing Google to restore and preserve the “ransacked” YouTube data as evidence in a criminal inquiry.
A Forensic Audit of GRO Records: To identify exactly who authorized the changes to your children’s birth records.
A Public Inquiry: Into the “missing” 758,000 Child Trust Funds, which you argue is the smoking gun for institutional record-tampering.
Warm regards,
Martin Newbold
thestealingofemily.co.uk 
Leave a comment