News of the World Whistleblower Found Dead

[M.Dancer]

Yet the CEO is like the top-dog and often reaps the greatest rewards for a business. What bothers me is how someone like a CEO can hold every advantage when things are going right, but then claim they are at arms lenght if things have gone wrongly. Even if not aware of what could be a sytematic abuse or crime carried out by the corporation they represent, they should be held responsible and fall on the sword. To me it's fair, part of the price they pay for the position.

And sometimes that is indeed the case. Ultimately in the case of a public company, it is the shareholders who will decide. They have to weigh whether they want a CEO who leads the company with great vision, or one that micro manages.

In the case of Newscorp, the biggest single shareholder I believe is Mr Murdoch himself.

Given they are a very profitable company, and that, is the first and foremost responsibility of a CEO...I can't imagine Murdoch will punish himself for not being involved in the day to day goings on of what is a very small part of the company.

[Guest American Woman]

Article says that the police are not treating it as suspicious.

Actually, the article said the police are treating it as unexplained but the death isn't considered suspicious. The wording, I believe, makes a difference. The way you worded it to me implies that they aren't going to look any further into it, but since they are treating it as "unexplained," they will be looking further into it. They are looking for the explanation.

Which either means the police are lying, or they are stupid.

I'll ask again. Why would the police either be lying or stupid for not considering it suspicious? If there was nothing suspicious in evidence at the death scene, why would they be either lying or stupid not to consider it suspicious? They know what evidence - or lack thereof - is involved so who's to say they didn't make a very sound judgement based on what they had available to them?

Even if appeared to be suicide or an accident, you would have to be truly moronic to persue it as being suspicious in a situation like this.

They were pursuing it as unexplained, which means they are looking for the cause of death - the reason for the death.

Reckless self-endangerment, suicide, or foul play? Because it sure as Hell is not a coincidence.

I'll ask again. Why couldn't it be a coincidence? Why do you feel you have the knowledge to declare that it in no way was a coincidence? If his death is attributed to "reckless self-endangerment," his drinking and using drugs, of course it would be a "coincidence" that he died after he blew the whistle, and there would be nothing any more "suspicious" about his death than the deaths of others who partook of his life style - and died. So yes. His death very well could be nothing more than a "coincidence."

[Remiel]

Actually, the article said the police are treating it as unexplained but the death isn't considered suspicious. The wording, I believe, makes a difference. The way you worded it to me implies that they aren't going to look any further into it, but since they are treating it as "unexplained," they will be looking further into it. They are looking for the explanation.

Perhaps, but since " unexplained " pretty much means " we do not know " , then it seems odd to suggest with any degree of confidence that it is not suspicious, since an explanation of death is a large determining factor in where something really is suspicious or not.

I'll ask again. Why would the police either be lying or stupid for not considering it suspicious? If there was nothing suspicious in evidence at the death scene, why would they be either lying or stupid not to consider it suspicious? They know what evidence - or lack thereof - is involved so who's to say they didn't make a very sound judgement based on what they had available to them?

They were pursuing it as unexplained, which means they are looking for the cause of death - the reason for the death.

See above. But furthmore, what makes a crime suspicious is not limited to the physical location of a crime. A substantial life insure policy, for instance, has absolutely nothing to do with he physical scene of death. Yet it can have everything to do with that death being suspicious.

I'll ask again. Why couldn't it be a coincidence? Why do you feel you have the knowledge to declare that it in no way was a coincidence? If his death is attributed to "reckless self-endangerment," his drinking and using drugs, of course it would be a "coincidence" that he died after he blew the whistle, and there would be nothing any more "suspicious" about his death than the deaths of others who partook of his life style - and died. So yes. His death very well could be nothing more than a "coincidence."

Maybe I was engaging in a little hyperbole. But there is such a thing as being justified in not taking what appears to be a coincidence at face value. If you look through this thread for my clarification on what I mean by " coincidence " , then my justification for believe this is not a coincidence should be readily apparent.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Remiel

[Oleg Bach]

Had a good look at Murdock's concubine - a lush and firey Asian woman ---and what's with that burning hot red hed that he promoted to editor? Murdock seems to have quite the operation going on for an old guy- but when you are that rich and powerful you can have what you want - including your own exclusive moral code...What is the most striking about the tone of the scene is in the fact that Murdock and the gang have created their own world of exceptable villianry...and are actually surprised when someone says "that's wrong" - I don't beleive that Murdock and his henchpersons actally know the difference between right and wrong.

They are like BP oil - nothing wrong with dumping a billion gallons of toxins in the ocean..what the heck - we were just making money.