News of the World Whistleblower Found Dead

Link

For those of you not familiar with the story, the News of the World was a tabloid magazine operating out of the UK. It recently went out of business due to 'suspicious business practices.' These business practices included (but may not have been limited to) tapping the phone calls of celebrities in order to get "exclusive" news stories. For more information, click here.

Now it seems that the man who blew the whistle on this abhorrent practice, Sean Hoare (a man in his mid-40s), has been found dead in his apartment. No details have currently been released about the cause of death and the police are being mum about their suspicions, although they are quoted as 'not treating it as suspicious.'

Any thoughts on this matter?

Why is your thread title green?

Why do I ask this every fucking green thread when it's probably been explained to me four times?

What would anyone at the defunct tabloid have to gain from killing him NOW?

Maybe it's not about gaining anything. Maybe it's just about revenge. I imagine a lot of people were pissed off about losing their job.

Or maybe... just maybe... It's a guy with a long history of drug and alcohol abuse whose finally taken a few too many pills with a bit too much booze at a time when interest over a field he's extremely involved in has exploded beyond a level he can cope with.

WD40 wrote:

Or maybe... just maybe... It's a guy with a long history of drug and alcohol abuse whose finally taken a few too many pills with a bit too much booze at a time when interest over a field he's extremely involved in has exploded beyond a level he can cope with.

My arse it is...

Yeah, death by suicide I bet. Rupert Murdoch had nothing to do with this. One of the richest, most powerful men in the world would never DREAM of abusing his power when as a result of this scandal his bid to gain more money and more power by running BSKYB was dropped and all this power is under question...

He'd never DREAM of doing something like this.

It's a terrible and unfortunate accident that will be passed over within a few days.

Wasn't the entire affair sordid and GA even before the guy died/committed suicide/was suicided? I'm all for disclosing tapped conversation, when they regard criminal activity and there's a trial going on. Here we have everyone's laundry hung out to dry, and it's not even dirty. A baby with cistic fibrosis is a non-story, is no news, is something that people with a decent mindset about other people's business do not actively investigate, especially in England (here in Italy you'll be informed of your neighbour's child's health, straight from the primary source and whether you want it or not, usually on the staircase landing when you're in a hurry to get your kids from the kindergarten).
I don't know whether Murdock was aware of what his editors were doing. My personal opinion is that if he was able to pick up one of his newspaper and read it cover-to-cover without thinking, "Do I really want to be remembered for THIS?", he's a complete piece of shit. The same goes for whoever ran the Sun before him, etc. etc.
I know the purpose of newspapers is to be sold, not to enlighten the masses. Still, I'm sure someone smart enough to build an economic empire can think of ways other than catering to the lowest common denominator.

The Unoriginal wrote:

I don't know whether Murdock was aware of what his editors were doing. My personal opinion is that if he was able to pick up one of his newspaper and read it cover-to-cover without thinking, "Do I really want to be remembered for THIS?", he's a complete piece of shit. The same goes for whoever ran the Sun before him, etc. etc.
I know the purpose of newspapers is to be sold, not to enlighten the masses. Still, I'm sure someone smart enough to build an economic empire can think of ways other than catering to the lowest common denominator.

You just reminded me of this Fry&Laurie bit: If Rupert Murdoch hadn't been born...

Hm...the only disappointing thing I see in this case is the potential he had for further commentary on the case, or providing more evidence. As to whether or not it's suspicious, meh...I can believe the line that he was a drug user and maybe accidentally (or purposely) offed himself, given that a big part of his career was illegally invading people's privacy. Then again, he did work for Rupert Murdoch. But he was only one whistleblower, not even the first, and this case has snowballed beyond his or anyone's control now. Murdering this guy wouldn't help anything and would actually make things far worse for Murdoch and co. if it were revealed that they were involved. I tend toward thinking that Murdoch is an abominable asshole, not a moron.

The Unoriginal wrote:

Wasn't the entire affair sordid and GA even before the guy died/committed suicide/was suicided? I'm all for disclosing tapped conversation, when they regard criminal activity and there's a trial going on. Here we have everyone's laundry hung out to dry, and it's not even dirty. A baby with cistic fibrosis is a non-story, is no news, is something that people with a decent mindset about other people's business do not actively investigate, especially in England (here in Italy you'll be informed of your neighbour's child's health, straight from the primary source and whether you want it or not, usually on the staircase landing when you're in a hurry to get your kids from the kindergarten).
I don't know whether Murdock was aware of what his editors were doing. My personal opinion is that if he was able to pick up one of his newspaper and read it cover-to-cover without thinking, "Do I really want to be remembered for THIS?", he's a complete piece of shit. The same goes for whoever ran the Sun before him, etc. etc.
I know the purpose of newspapers is to be sold, not to enlighten the masses. Still, I'm sure someone smart enough to build an economic empire can think of ways other than catering to the lowest common denominator.

I honestly think he must have. It's plausible that the very top leadership of any corporation aren't aware of the day-to-day goings on of their employees, but this is far from the first time it's been revealed. I would think after the first two or three situations, anyone else would have thought it prudent to take a look at their employees' techniques. Given that his son James Murdoch himself is accused of paying off hacking victims to avoid lawsuits, there's no possible way that Rupert was completely oblivious.

Stupid fecker tries to pie Murdock during hearing. Thanks for playing into the "old man victimized" narrative the Abominable Antipodean's allies had going and for distracting us from what he had been telling Parliament, you nitwit.

There's a time and a place for that sort of thing, and this wasn't it.

I suppose I'm a horrible person for finding that funny more than anything else?

Aggie wrote:

I suppose I'm a horrible person for finding that funny more than anything else?

Oh, it's funny, but did he have to do it right then?

Yeah, his people are SO going to play up the "Rupert Murdoch; what a poor old man."

I doubt the News Of The World was the only paper hacking phones.

Don't we get any privacy? See, now I'm glad I don't have a mobile phone.

Aggie wrote:

For those of you not familiar with the story,

it's because Fox News has desperately been trying to cover it up.

Owlish wrote:

It's plausible that the very top leadership of any corporation aren't aware of the day-to-day goings on of their employees,

It's plausible, but also irrelevant. One of the reasons people in these positions are paid their massive, sickening, salaries is because they have to take responsibility for the actions of the people who work for them. They are assumed to know what's happening on their watch - "I didn't know, it wasn't me" should never wash.

Crap. I knew it.

Lexin wrote:

Owlish wrote:

It's plausible that the very top leadership of any corporation aren't aware of the day-to-day goings on of their employees,

It's plausible, but also irrelevant. One of the reasons people in these positions are paid their massive, sickening, salaries is because they have to take responsibility for the actions of the people who work for them. They are assumed to know what's happening on their watch - "I didn't know, it wasn't me" should never wash.

People in Rupert Murdoch's position are paid "massive, sickening salaries" because of short-sighted, get-rich-quick business practices. I'm not disagreeing with you in principle, that they should be responsible, but executive pay hasn't been tied to actual job performance or responsibility for a long time now...

^ IAWTC. I was going to say something like it but I rage-choked and had to stop myself from rambling on about fair-weather capitalist and bailouts and such.

You know, those people at the top are pretty smart. I expect they were freaking delighted when Rupert got hit with pie.

Pie was possibly the worst possible choice for a projectile - the most sympathised projectile.

Something that actually reminded people that he is a sneaky liar and spy, like throwing a mobile phone, would have been better. But they used pie. Now he looks like a normal human being instead of one of the richest men in the world and that newspaper that reported the spike damn well knew it.

Lexin wrote:

Owlish wrote:

It's plausible that the very top leadership of any corporation aren't aware of the day-to-day goings on of their employees,

It's plausible, but also irrelevant. One of the reasons people in these positions are paid their massive, sickening, salaries is because they have to take responsibility for the actions of the people who work for them. They are assumed to know what's happening on their watch - "I didn't know, it wasn't me" should never wash.

That's a bit disproportionate to the scale of Murdoch's businesses. Not even the Navy is that ridiculous, and they'll sack a ship's commander if the officer of the deck runs the boat aground while the captain's off duty and asleep.

He's still handling this very badly, though. "I didn't know then, but goddammit here's what I'm doing about it now" is a start.

Penguin wrote:

Lexin wrote:

Owlish wrote:

It's plausible that the very top leadership of any corporation aren't aware of the day-to-day goings on of their employees,

It's plausible, but also irrelevant. One of the reasons people in these positions are paid their massive, sickening, salaries is because they have to take responsibility for the actions of the people who work for them. They are assumed to know what's happening on their watch - "I didn't know, it wasn't me" should never wash.

That's a bit disproportionate to the scale of Murdoch's businesses. Not even the Navy is that ridiculous,

I don't know about other organisations, but the UK civil service is that ridiculous. A boss (previously of mine, but at the time I wasn't working for him) got the sack because some information was lost by his staff. No question that he knew nothing about it and would have been horrified had he known, but the final responsibility was his and he accepted that. And lost his job.

There's no excuse when you're at the top.

Of course one pie to the face and Murdoch is a human being again.

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

^ IAWTC. I was going to say something like it but I rage-choked and had to stop myself from rambling on about fair-weather capitalist and bailouts and such.

Go ahead and ramble on anyway, I'd probably enjoy it.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

You know, those people at the top are pretty smart. I expect they were freaking delighted when Rupert got hit with pie.

Pie was possibly the worst possible choice for a projectile - the most sympathised projectile.

Something that actually reminded people that he is a sneaky liar and spy, like throwing a mobile phone, would have been better. But they used pie. Now he looks like a normal human being instead of one of the richest men in the world and that newspaper that reported the spike damn well knew it.

Owlish wrote:

Go ahead and ramble on anyway, I'd probably enjoy it.

The end result would likely be as coherent as a Harley post. I have some dignity left, so I think I will pass.

Lexin wrote:

I don't know about other organisations, but the UK civil service is that ridiculous. A boss (previously of mine, but at the time I wasn't working for him) got the sack because some information was lost by his staff. No question that he knew nothing about it and would have been horrified had he known, but the final responsibility was his and he accepted that. And lost his job.

Actually, that sounds about on par with the Navy example: Someone on his staff fucked up, so it was his responsibility. That's still well below the level of the guy running a multinational megacorporation when one of his subsidiaries does something as FUBAR as this.

For all Rupert Murdoch deserves to be hung out to dry for, this is something that shouldn't, and let's face it, probably won't stick.