What really grabs me here is the whole business with Morgan McSweeney’s phones. I’m looking at a situation where the police are said to have reopened their investigation into the reported theft, and straight away that raises questions for me. I’m told there are doubts about what was said over where the phone was stolen, even down to the street involved, and that CCTV is now part of the picture. That immediately makes this feel less like a simple lost-phone story and more like something politically serious and deeply unclear.

What makes it even more striking to me is the claim that McSweeney had two other phones, and that the Cabinet Office then asked him to hand over details from his private devices. That is where the whole thing starts to look really murky. On the one hand, there is an apparent effort to get access to potentially relevant information, but on the other hand, even in this discussion, there is uncertainty over whether he is actually obliged to provide it. I also find it politically awkward that the Cabinet Office is being described as stepping in while a police investigation is still active. That only adds to the sense that this is a mess.

Then I come to the Mandelson connection, and that is where I think the story becomes bigger than just a phone dispute. McSweeney is described here as a protégé of Peter Mandelson and connected like a brother or cling on to Tony Blair, and that brings in the wider question of how Mandelson himself was handled and vetted. Did the Blair deeper state has a green traffic light with this. Well we already know that Tony Blair is not clean he won’t explain his conversation with children’s Director Matt Dunkley CBE 1997 in New York as documented in the Clinton Library five pages who was caught up in Operation Dunham and somehow got away with what he was suspended for in Operation Dunham and others alleged embezzlement of Education funding I hear the defense that process was followed, but the account in this transcript pushes back hard against that. It says the people involved in vetting Mandelson were McSweeney and Matthew Doyle and argues that neither of them would normally be the right people to carry out that kind of ambassadorial vetting. So from my point of view, the issue is no longer just about missing phones. It becomes a question about whether proper procedures were followed at all.

So the way I see it, this is a story about suspicion, process, and power. I’m not just hearing about a stolen phone. I’m hearing about police interest, private devices, conflicting details, and a chain of political relationships that leads back to Mandelson. That is why this feels like a potentially damaging controversy rather than an isolated incident. IS this all mixed up with Operation Ironside?

• Kiers Starmers abuse of Children and Parents a legacy
• Mistakes in Child Protection: An Open Letter to Social Work England
• Prime minister Apologized to Epstein Victims
• Fabian Society Members in the Labour Party (2026)
• Well, you view the optics and answer the question is this case of body snatchers?

In The NewsMarch 26, 2024Martin Newbold

Fabian Society Members in the Labour Party (2026)June 14, 2026Martin Newbold

Privacy PolicyApril 8, 2025Martin Newbold

1. 

   The Labour Party are still covering up the Epstein ring. Check my pin @Shyreman, Mandelson was just the tip of…

2. 

   So, this accounts for 141 of them. What excuse do the rest have? An MP who isn’t Fabian could say:…

3. 

   Office of Judith Cummins MP Member of Parliament for Bradford South Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons Constituency Office:…

4. 

   Thank you for your email. Please can you provide Judith with the following details:- Your full name Your house number…

5. 

   No wonder