On 18 May 2026, Google/Gmail locked down my account while I was attempting to contact approximately 640 Members of Parliament about my missing daughter, Emily. Google may describe this as “unusual usage”. I describe it as the blocking of a father’s lawful appeal to Parliament.
In simple terms, the evidence shows this:
“Repeal” is the polite legal word. In plain English, they are removing the starting presumption that children should normally have both parents involved in their lives.
By 2005–2006, the Department for Education and Skills had required councils to move children’s social-care records into electronic systems, including the Integrated Children’s System and Electronic Social Care Records.
By December 2011, whistleblower evidence was in the public record saying social workers were being pressured by council managers to make reports more negative before those reports were used in care proceedings.
Parliament discussed this on 13 December 2011, when the Education Committee raised the issue of social workers “sexing up dossiers” to remove children into care.
The question in Emily’s case is therefore direct: once DfES forced children’s records into electronic systems, who controlled the reports, who edited them, who approved them, and where is the audit trail showing whether the reports were changed before being used against parents?
The later family-court issue is separate but connected. The Children and Families Act 2014 created a presumption of parental involvement. The current Government then announced in October 2025, and advanced through the Courts and Tribunals Bill in March 2026, the repeal of that presumption. That means courts will no longer start from the position that parental involvement is normally in the child’s best interests and may restrict involvement to supervised contact, written contact, or no involvement at all.
That is why the audit trail matters. If social-services reports were hardened, rewritten, or made more negative, then any law allowing parents to be removed from a child’s life becomes extremely dangerous unless the original drafts, edits, manager instructions, metadata, and court-bundle history are disclosed.
The Evidence
On 13 December 2006, Leicester City Council recorded that the Department of Health and Department for Education and Skills had set policy requirements for councils to introduce Electronic Social Care Records, and that DfES had set the requirement for the Integrated Children’s System. The milestones started in October 2005 and December 2005, with all new information on all cases to be stored electronically by October 2006, and completion expected by December 2006 / March 2007. Failure risked loss of DfES capital funding. https://cabinet.leicester.gov.uk/documents/s9962/Integrated%20Childrend%20System%20ESCR%2013%20Dec%2006%20new.pdf
The “sexed-up reports” evidence entered the public record in December 2011.
Ted Jeory’s Sunday Express material, reproduced on 11 December 2011, reported whistleblower evidence that council managers were pressuring social workers to rewrite reports that were too positive and to make them more negative for court. https://trialbyjeory.com/2011/12/11/corruption-in-the-family-court-and-child-protection-system/
Parliament discussed that evidence on 13 December 2011.
At the Education Committee, the Chair referred to the Daily Express article saying social workers were “sexing up dossiers” to remove children into care. John Hemming MP referred to Ted Jeory’s work and whistleblower evidence. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmeduc/uc1514iv/uc1514iv.html
The parent-contact law point needs separating.
The Children and Families Act 2014 inserted the presumption of parental involvement. That law did not stop parents having contact; it created a starting presumption that parental involvement would further the child’s welfare unless evidence showed otherwise. The MoJ review says this was inserted by the 2014 Act into the Children Act 1989.https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68f5f5c206e6515f7914c7e3/Review_of_the_Presumption_of_Parental_Involvement_Final_Report_.pdf
The Starmer/Lammy government’s change is the repeal.
On 22 October 2025, the Government announced plans to repeal the presumption of parental involvement. On 7 March 2026, the Ministry of Justice said the Courts and Tribunals Bill would abolish that presumption, meaning courts would no longer start from the assumption that parental involvement is in the child’s best interests and could order supervised contact, written-only involvement, or no involvement at all.5. The Starmer/Lammy government’s change is the repeal. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-action-to-protect-children-from-abusive-parents
Breaching contract regulations
On 18 May 2026, Google/Gmail restricted my account while I was attempting to communicate with approximately 640 Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom about my missing daughter, Emily.
Google’s own published guidance says Gmail may limit sending where it detects high-volume activity, including large numbers of messages or recipients. It also says Gmail limits sending “to help prevent spam and keep accounts safe.”
However, in this case, the communication was not spam. It was correspondence to elected representatives concerning a missing child, alleged failures by public authorities, and the need for democratic scrutiny.
The effect of Google/Gmail’s restriction was to prevent or disrupt lawful political and safeguarding communications with MPs. Where a paid communications service is used for such correspondence, this raises serious questions about interference with public-interest communication, contractual reliability, and whether automated abuse systems are being applied in a way that shields public bodies from scrutiny.
I am not asking Google to agree with my complaint. I am asking Google to explain why communications to elected Members of Parliament about a missing child were blocked, restricted, or delayed.
For the sharper public line:
Google may call this “unusual usage”. I call it the obstruction of communications to 640 elected MPs about a missing child.
I would not write “Google is protecting paedophiles” as a direct fact unless you have evidence of Google’s intention. The stronger legally safer wording is:
**The effect of Google’s action is to protect those being complained about from scrutiny
thestealingofemily.co.uk 
Leave a comment