Those who want power without responsibility never respond well to scrutiny.
Religious sorts who want to use public policy to restrict the rights of others will often complain of persecution.
Police sorts who want to casually use coercive powers against anyone they choose will usually become mock-offended and verbally offensive.
But there is a special kind of reaction adopted by those whose obstructions and evasions mean that only a deliberate and sustained method of inquiry could ever work.
The tactic is to characterise that inquiry as a "witch-hunt".
And so the Guardian reports today that News International fears that is facing a "witch-hunt" by victims of their immoral and unlawful intrusions.
This, of course, is pathetic.
It is the bleating of the caught-out playground bully.
One almost expects News International to say "it's not fair", "we were only joking", and "they started it".
Such are the responses of the challenged bully, just as "lessons learned" and "draw a line" are the invariable excuses of the exposed incompetent.
Being unwillingly held to public account within a lawful process is not a witch-hunt.
One hesitates to posit a general law as to this kind of reaction.
However, as the original "Jack of Kent" was a medieval wizard, and so presumably had a view on witch-hunts, I would like to to offer the following adaptation of Godwin's Law:
The longer any person or entity is placed under any deliberate and sustained scrutiny, the probability of someone complaining of it being a "witch-hunt" approaches 1.
I wonder how well this "law" works in practice...
No purely anonymous comments will be published; always use a name for ease of reference by other commenters.