The Assad regime supports IS, and is also responsible for the murder of thousands of civilians. Is it churlish to point out that it has also avoided punishment for chemical weapons attacks and other savageries and actions of calculated callousness?
Without wishing to get all psychoanalytical, there does seem to be a parallel between Cameron's reluctance to stand up and surf and his apparent inability to stand up as a respected world leader.
What we see today - the radicalisation of young British Muslims, the alienation and marginalisation from mainstream society and joining ISIL / Islamic State - has not happened overnight. It has been a slow and painful slide into the abyss.
When people steal from the state through benefit fraud (usually out of desperation), there's public outcry. But when the state steals from the people by failing to provide even a basic standard of living, whilst corruption and tax evasion runs unchecked, we're told it's all part of a necessary strategy for economic recovery.
The number of political prisoners in Burma has more than doubled since the start of 2014, according to figures from the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners Burma.
As a music video director, I'm accutely aware that there are currently no age ratings and that videos can be seen by almost anyone anywhere in the world. I have a lot of respect for directors like the Daniels who produce smart, funny videos that push boundaries but still cater for a general audience.
Usually nothing David Cameron says affects the music industry. This week he's shaken the whole UK scene up by announcing that from October, music videos will go through the same classification system as films and other video content, in an attempt to give parents more information to protect children from "graphic content".
Psychological abuse and coercive control are just as damaging as physical abuse and even though our laws don't yet reflect this, they now have a chance to catch up to the common morality. Moreover, our government is now aware of the fact that our laws are leaving victims of a domestic violence vulnerable at the hands of their abusers.
Summer 2014 has been for me a succession of attempts to overcome my fear of heights, ably assisted by my kind, patient 13-year-old son. It has also been the UK's most fabulous staycation summer for years, and I don't blame David Cameron for taking a late break under such inviting English skies.
The charges against David Cameron over his Iraq policy are well founded. But there are extenuating circumstances... It is time for a root-and-branch review of the principles of British foreign policy, so that they reflect two essential things: the world as it is and not as we would wish it to be; and the British national interest. Or, to put it another way, don't do nation-building and don't intervene in other people's civil wars - we usually make things worse, as in Iraq, and the waste of blood and treasure is unforgivable. If this means hobnobbing with dictators, so be it. Only genocide and threats to world order merit military intervention, as with IS.
Baroness Boothroyd spoke out after it was revealed that the current Speaker wants inexperienced Australian Carol Mills to be his £200,000 a year Commons Clerk, despite little obvious affinity for the job.
Cameron's new relationship support army might be a huge opportunity to break into the fortress of coercive control and start to free its thousands of victims. This will only happen if the government takes a strong and highly visible stand against domestic violence.
The prime minister yesterday pledged to introduce a new "family test" to ensure that every domestic policy is examined for its impact on the family. If David Cameron was to implement the policy retrospectively, how would the coalition government fare?
It's hard to argue against the basic idea, that all policies will have to pass a 'family test'. Cameron has said that from October every new domestic policy "will be examined for its impact on the family". The sound-bite accompanying this initiative is "nothing matters more than family."
With just months to go before the general election, all mainstream parties need to understand that having policy is only the first step on the path to victory. It then falls into the hands of party spinners to decide how policy is communicated, articulated and portrayed through the party ranks and into the media that will determine how the public perceives it.
Given his undoubted charisma and his way with words, he has the potential to be a big vote winner for the Tories. But, and it is in important but, voters who regard humour and a cavalier style as an asset in a city mayor with few real powers might seek different qualities in a national leader. Last week, in an interview with the Sunday Times, he talked about how his six years as mayor had given him the administrative experience that would stand him in good stead in national politics. He has a point. But if he is to be a real vote-winner for his party on the national stage, he needs more. He needs to get serious.