Over the last week, we have seen the biggest issue to divide the nation since Brexit. I am not referring to Rishi Sunak's common-sense speech on net zero, I am of course referring to the controversy surrounding Russell Brand.
Like leaving the EU, it has divided families and strained relationships. After all, who will ever forget the TV gold between GB News favourites Andrew Pierce and Beverley Turner.
For some Russell Brand is a hero who can do no wrong, irrespective of the evidence provided by Dispatches and the Sunday Times, and the testimony of people who claimed they were sexually assaulted by him.
To others, he is a despicable pervert, convicted in the court of the media, even though he denies all the allegations against him, and even though he hasn't been even charged with an offence, let alone convicted.
If you don't have an opinion on the Russell Brand situation, you are in an exclusive club.
WATCH NOW: Timeline of the allegations against Russell Brand so far
Given the nature of the allegations, the high profile of Russell Brand, and his long-standing employment with a wide range of media companies - including the state-owned pair of the BBC and Channel 4 - it is inevitable and completely right that the DCMS Select Committee in Parliament should want to take an interest.
I spent over 10 years on the DCMS Select Committee and, in my day, we would often involve ourselves in similar controversies which were not only of interest to the public but also in the public interest.
Given YouTube have taken pre-emptive action against Russell Brand, stopping him from making money on their platform, it would have been perfectly reasonable for the Select Committee to ask other platforms what stance they were taking.
However, it was a clear and misguided overreach for the Select Committee to express concern that Russell Brand - without being charged or convicted of an offence - was still being allowed by Rumble to make a living.
We simply cannot have a situation where whenever anyone has allegations made about them, they instantly have their livelihood removed from them by a self-appointed lynch mob.
We believe in the rule of law in this country for good reason, and everyone - including select committee members (perhaps especially select committee members) - should remember that.
We now have calls for Caroline Dinenage to resign as Chairman of the Select Committee on the back of this ill-advised letter. Those calls are being led by my GB News colleague Laurence Fox.
Laurence is a great champion of free speech and is one of the most effective opponents of cancel culture. I am therefore surprised that Laurence of all people thinks Caroline should be cancelled for doing something with which he disagrees.
Surely we can all stress our disagreement with someone without demanding they are sacked for making a mistake - however outraged we might be by it.
I should also point out that whilst the letter has Caroline's name at the bottom of it as Chairman, normal protocol requires that all letters from select committees are agreed upon by the whole committee before being sent, so all members - unless any were outvoted - should take equal responsibility for the sending of the letter.
The DCMS Select Committee has clearly overstepped the mark - and the backlash will hopefully make all parliamentarians think twice about acting as prosecutor, jury and judge when serious allegations are made about people.
Russell Brand has denied all allegations against him
Caroline Dinenage should apologise on behalf of the committee for the wording of the letter, and acknowledge that expressing concern at Russell Brand's continued employment was inappropriate.
But come on Laurence, Caroline Dinenage doesn't need to resign, nor should she, for simply doing something which you vehemently disagree with. Let's not turn the sensible assertion of "innocent until proven guilty" into creating a new victim of cancel culture from the most unlikely source.