WSWS asks the right question: "Why did UK police declare death of News of the World whistleblower 'not suspicious?'"

To which of course there is no answer.

Yet.

The story thus far:

When the former News of the World reporter Sean Hoare was found dead Monday at his home in Watford, north of London, the immediate response of the Hertfordshire police was to issue a public statement declaring his death to be “unexplained but not thought to be suspicious.”

The statement is at the very least extraordinary, and at worst sinister in its implications. Hoare is the man who broke silence on the corrupt practices at the News of the World and, most specifically, alleged that former editor Andy Coulson, who later became Prime Minister David Cameron’s director of communications, was fully aware of phone hacking that took place on an “industrial scale.”

Under these circumstances, before either a post-mortem or any investigation had been mounted, how could such a claim be made by the police?

The morning after Hoare’s body was found, former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson and his former deputy, John Yates, were to give evidence before a home affairs select committee. Stephenson had tendered his resignation Sunday and Yates Monday. They were to be quizzed by MPs on their failure to pursue any serious investigation into phone hacking or on the bribing of police officers. This was to be followed by the quizzing of News Corporation head Rupert Murdoch, his son James, chairman of News International, and former News of the World editor Rebekah Brooks.

The death of Hoare means that his testimony will never be heard by any such inquiry or, more importantly, by any criminal investigation that may arise.

That's your key, right there. Hoare cannot testify. Will not. Has been prevented by events from...

Hm. Convenient, no?

Well, coinky-dinks like this are common in Britain, aren't they? And in the USofA?

Hm.
----------------------------------------------------
UPDATE: From the Telegraph (UK)

The Prime Minister David Cameron said [In reference to Mr. Hoare's unsuspicious demise]: “The death of anyone is a tragedy for that person."

Yes. Well. Isn't that the truth.

Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along.

Various Matters

The Murdoch Thing -- I watched a bit of the to and fro between the Murdochs, père et fils, and the Parliamentary Committee today (as well as a bit of the tomfoolery with Herself, Rebeccah Brooks [neé Wade -- for some reason, a number of reports include that little detail about her] and the #2 at Scotland Yard) and I have to say that it was quite a performance of bluster, lies, and deception. Haven't seen anything quite like it since Tony Blair was hauled before the Committee of Parliament that exonerated his lies and deceptions over the Iraq Thing.

And I got to thinking... this is such a true picture of Our High and Our Mighty. Their whole world, indeed, their reason for being, is to put one over on the Rubes to be sure, but to put one over on one another perhaps more importantly. Basically, they are "creating reality" for one and all as they go; they are the ones who manufacture and market beliefs through their propaganda agencies (in the case of the Murdochs, their media empire; in the case of governments, their complicit media). It gets to the point where there is no truth any more, which is the whole point of the Post-Modern news media, largely based on the Murdoch model. Those who own and control it create the Reality Soup in which we swim. It's a neat trick.

The Ivins Anthrax Matter -- This morning brought news in my local paper that the Department of Justice and the FBI are at some odds regarding the story of the culpability of Dr. Bruce Ivins as The Anthrax Mailer. In fact, the DoJ is arguing in court that Ivins did not have access to the material and equipment he needed in order to create the anthrax material found in the letters sent to politicians and the media shortly after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001. This is, of course, a very interesting revelation, though no conclusions can be drawn from it. The story grows out of an investigation being conducted by Frontline, McClatchy News, and ProPublica for a Frontline documentary to be aired sometime later this year.

Frontline, as we know, has been denounced in no uncertain terms by the Civil Liberties Community for "smearing" Bradley Manning in its profile of him several weeks ago. Apparently, any mention of Manning's behavior, his private life, his family or his emotional turmoil in connection with his (apparent) leak of hundreds of thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks is by definition a "smear" according to Manning's supporters. And once a "smear" has been perpetrated, the "smearing" entity must then forever be anathema. The same sort of denunciations happened when New York Magazine published a profile of Manning that brought up his complicated sexual issues and kind of horrifying family life. These denunciations are permanent until the denounced media outlets produce something its denunciators agree with, in which case all is forgiven as if it had never happened.

It's bizarre, but that's the way it goes. At any rate, the Ivins story has never scanned properly in any case. The whole Anthrax Episode is one of the more compelling and disturbing in our history. The anthrax had to come from a domestic, military lab. And thus, the suspicion is that the mailings and deaths that resulted were designed and perpetrated from within the Government, perhaps by the military, for the specific purpose of terrorizing media and public figures to accept the restrictions on their liberties by passing the PATRIOT Act. The Congress promptly did so. The media has, ever since, pretty much celebrated it.

But the "investigation" has been going on for nearly ten years without a proper resolution, and could easily go on for another ten or twenty or more and still not come up with the Truth. What we are bound to find, as is the case with the Murdoch Thing, is that the Truth will be created, invented as we go.

Frustrating, but there you are.

Hysteria Redux

Jeebus.

The entire left-o-sphere is in a hysterical frenzy about AARP based on a story in the Wall Street Journal that implies the venerable old-folks insurance and lobbying outfit is now OK with cutting Social Security benefits -- as long as the AARP gets a seat at the table and helps in the decision making process about who gets cut, how and when.

Somehow, everyone has forgotten that the Wall Street Journal is a Murdoch paper now, and its "news" is more and more inclined -- shall we say -- toward what's favorable to Murdoch's interests in taking over the world.

In fact, AARP has not said, and apparently has not agreed to, what the WSJ article implies.

But that doesn't matter. What matter are perceptions, and in this case, Murdoch and his tools have come up with a doozy of a perception: AARP is OK with cutting Social Security benefits, and with that domino falling, cuts are inevitable. Hahahahah.

Murdoch and his tools have been fiercely attacking AARP from the right for years; now, apparently they have decided it's time to go after AARP from the left. And it is working beautifully. There hasn't been this much unholy hollering on the left since the last time some libertarian or rightist tool stirred that pot.

AARP's statement is that its position on SS has not changed, and apart from the implied change in the WSJ piece, there is no evidence that it has.

Take issue with AARP's position, by all means, but don't do it based on the kinds of innuendo and misdirection that all Murdoch rags (including the WSJ) are notorious for.

Please.

Breitbart is laughing at you.