Cards on the table, when I first read a story heavily suggesting the theft of Morgan McSweeney’s mobile phone was somehow connected to requests for messages about Lord Mandelson, I thought to myself: that is an absurd conspiracy theory.
After all, what are those “raising an eyebrow” at this affair saying happened?
Was Number 10’s chief-of-staff running around central London at 10pm waving his phone about, willing a bike-riding burglar to pinch it (as some AI generated images depict)?
Did he fake the whole thing by chucking the phone into a dumper truck and spinning a yarn to the police to create a paper trail?
Both scenarios – even now – seem incredibly unlikely.
All of that said, I’ve since been asked by some within government whether these mad scenarios are what I’m suggesting by pointing out that – contrary to what the prime minister said in an interview this week – it did not seem “far-fetched” at all for anyone to think in October 2025 that a formal request for Mandelson-related messages could have come along.
For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not – and Sky News is not – saying either of these zany theories are true.
So, why cover the story at all?
For a start, it is simply not correct to say that making enquiries and running limited coverage equates to endorsing the most extreme and partisan iteration of a story.
Journalism at its core involves going down metaphorical dark alleys only to find that they don’t lead you to the place you were expecting or, in many cases, they don’t lead you anywhere at all.
The process is the point.
