If there is something that Cameron should correct is the hate speech law as it is written by the Labour. There are too many people under trial for such things as "person with special need" referred to an autistic child or "you fat australian" referred to a neighbour. Apart from the fuss for the "people of colour" instead of "coloured" or vice versa, I can't even remember any more which is the "politically correct" version: I like "black", it's got personality. As the Daily Mail on line exactly points out in this article, the real problem is that the hate speech "crime" is not absolute anymore, the wicked genius of the Labour stated that if a person states they "feel" uncomfortable with a word, even if this word is not on an official list, even if other people find it neutral, it's hate crime the same and this is a mental trip. Too much marijuana, Tony? A superior level philosopher like Giordano Bruno, in his work "The end of the triumphant beast" stated that
1) The citizens have to obey the Law. But
2) The Law must be easy to obey for the average citizen.
Which means the Law has got to be clear and if the law is ambiguous or changes every five seconds or actually implies, like in these cases, that you have to "guess" what can make a person feel uncomfortable, so it becomes a crimethe very moment a person feels uncomfortable: it's the State that's wrong, not the citizens. Everybody cried "Je suis Charlie" now it's time to prove the commitment to free speech: it is crime only the instigation to commit a crime.