The question of the opaque accusation of "inappropriate" has reach a court. The lawyer of the person thus criticized, Mr Rush, asks how one can defend oneself from such an accusation. Do you say, "I don’t know what it was, but I didn't do it"?

Or do you say, "I don’t know what it was, but it wasn't wrong"?

This case illustrates the point that it is never legitimate to punish or rebuke someone on the grounds of "inappropriateness". For an accusation to be valid, it has to be concrete.

If we knew what Mr Rush was accused of doing, we might say it was wrong. Or we might not. At least we would have a question to think about.

But when the accusation says only "inappropriate", we have to reject it.

The Burmese government is reportedly bulldozing mass graves of Rohingya to cover up the massacres.

Provoking violent opposition won the Nazi Party more support, which enabled it to take over Germany. This is because the establishment, and the principal media, always gave the left more of its share of the blame. Even if the left did not engage in violence, it was blamed for any real or imaginary violence.

The bully's advisors appear to be following the same approach.

The article recommends expressing disagreement with Nazis by holding an event far enough away that it will avoid direct confrontation.

The UK eagerly sells arms to many tyrannical regimes, and the Tory plan for exiting the EU is to sell even more.

US citizens: tell Congress to reject the bully's privatization of infrastructure plan.