I love the idea that licence-fee payers want a more neutral (read: cowed) BBC. No. We want our government held to account. We know individuals have preferences. We can live with that. But we must allow criticism of the government. And that includes online. Let journalists speak.

It is not "public service" to function as a supine mouthpiece of the government. Nor should it be the duty of a BBC journalist to pretend they have no opinions - when we all know that they do, and pretty much what those opinions are - in the online world.

The BBC should be big enough and brave enough to house a range of "takes", and to tell the government of the day, if it wants more sympathetic coverage, to go screw itself. We pay our journalists to know stuff and report it with attitude and verve. Or we should. Let them do it.

I'm fine if Nick Robinson, with whom I am certain I share precious little politics, spouts off. He's still kinda brilliant and I might learn something. I'm equally fine if Emily Maitlis takes a pop at the government. I'm a big boy and can form my own view out of a pool of ideas.

In a Britain almost entirely devoid of left-wing media, you could even argue that the market has failed and it would be a public service deliberately to bias the BBC to the left. I don't expect to win that one anytime soon. But for heaven's sake, let's not put the BBC to sleep.

Let's revive our BBC. Let's empower it. Let the journalists free. Let's hear them. A strong government doesn't need client journalism. A decent government shouldn't even want it. This is the real free speech debate, and we need to have it.