Chris Bryant calls for Sun editor to be sacked over text message hacking

Shadow immigration minister says Dominic Mohan should be "sacked" after hacking of Labour MP Siobhain McDonagh's phone occurred on his watch.

With rather unfortunate timing, the Sun has been forced to apologise for illegally accessing text messages on Labour MP Siobhain McDonagh's stolen phone. The paper, which is not accused of the theft of the phone itself, also paid damages of £50,000. The Sun's QC Dinah Rose QC told the judge: "Through me [the Sun] offer their unreserved apology to the claimant for what has happened.

"Furthermore they have undertaken to the court not to use any information so obtained nor to access or attempt to access by unlawful means the claimant's private information."

What makes the story particularly significant is that the phone was stolen in October 2010 after Dominic Mohan, the current editor, took up his post. In response, Labour MP and shadow immigration minister Chris Bryant has called for Mohan to be sacked. 

Tom Watson was also quick to question Mohan's position. 

Bryant and Watson will be dismissed as the usual suspects by News International but it is likely that at some point Mohan will be forced to account for what he knew when.

Depending on your perspective, the case can be cited as evidence either for or against tougher press regulation. There are already laws against hacking and, on this occasion, they have been appropriately applied. But this latest incident does undermine the claim that the industry is self-correcting itself. Only state-backed regulation, some will argue, can enable the necessary culture change. 

Dominic Mohan, editor of the Sun newspaper, arrives to give evidence at to the Leveson inquiry at the Royal Courts of Justice in London on February 7, 2012. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

GETTY
Show Hide image

Why Prince Charles and Princess Anne are both wrong on GM foods

The latest tiff between toffs gives plenty of food for thought.

I don’t have siblings, so I was weirdly curious as a kid about friends who did, especially when they argued (which was often). One thing I noticed was the importance of superlatives: of being the best child, the most right, and the first to have been wronged. And it turns out things are no different for the Royals.

You might think selective breeding would be a subject on which Prince Charles and Princess Anne would share common ground, but when it comes to genetically modified crops they have very different opinions.

According to Princess Anne, the UK should ditch its concerns about GM and give the technology the green light. In an interview to be broadcast on Radio 4’s Farming Today, she said would be keen to raise both modified crops and livestock on her own land.

“Most of us would argue we have been genetically modifying food since man started to be agrarian,” she said (rallying the old first-is-best argument to her cause). She also argued that the practice can help reduce the price of our food and improve the lives of animals - and “suspects” that there are not many downsides.

Unfortunately for Princess Anne, her Royal “us” does not include her brother Charles, who thinks that GM is The Worst.

In 2008, he warned that genetically engineered food “will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time.”  Supporting such a path would risk handing control of our food-chain to giant corporations, he warned -  leading to “absolute disaster” and “unmentionable awfulness” and “the absolute destruction of everything”.

Normally such a spat could be written off as a toff-tiff. But with Brexit looming, a change to our present ban on growing GM crops commercially looks ever more likely.

In this light, the need to swap rhetoric for reason is urgent. And the most useful anti-GM argument might instead be that offered by the United Nations’ cold, hard data on crop yields.

Analysis by the New York Times shows that, in comparison to Europe, the United States and Canada have “gained no discernible advantages” from their use of GM (in terms of food per acre). Not only this, but herbicide use in the US has increased rather than fallen.

In sum: let's swap superlatives and speculation for sense.

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.