Powers given to the police after the 9/11 attacks on America to stop and search people without reasonable suspicion had to be scaled back after widespread misuse. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, while not confined to anti-terrorism, has been used by the police to investigate the sources for newspaper “whistle-blower” stories. Now the Government is planning a new legal crackdown on “extremist” ideology and there are calls for its remit to be extended far beyond what was thought to be its purpose. The measure will introduce Extremism Disruption Orders (EDOs) to bear down on preachers and teachers extolling the virtues of jihad and fomenting anti-Western attitudes among young Muslims.

But rather than focus on where the problem clearly lies, the Government has already blurred the edges by saying it will apply to “all extremist views”. But how are these to be defined? Mark Spencer, a Conservative MP, has proposed that a potential target for these orders could be teachers who tell children that gay marriage is “wrong”. In other words, what was until recently an orthodox, traditionalist view would be criminalised.

Mr Spencer made his remarks in a letter to a constituent in which he expressed his support for freedom of expression. In doing so, he flagged up a clear risk that this legislation could be used to shut it down. This Bill is due to come before Parliament in the autumn. Ministers have plenty of time, therefore, to ensure it is framed in such a way that such a pernicious outcome is avoided.

The latest interview was with Melissa Farrell, of Planned Parenthood of the Gulf Coast, one of the biggest Planned Parenthood affiliates in the country. When asked by the investigators about purchasing parts, and whether they could be obtained intact, she explains, “If we alter our process, and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, we can make it part of the budget that any dissections are this, and splitting the specimens into different shipments is this. It’s all just a matter of line items.”

Troy Newman, of the abortion-fighting Operation Rescue and who is on the board for CMP, said, “The admission that Planned Parenthood abortionists manipulate procedures in order to better harvest organs or even intact late-term fetal cadavers for human experimentation purposes conjures images of HG Wells’ Dr Moreau. It is all clearly illegal.”

CMP spokesman David Daleiden said, "This is now the fifth member of Planned Parenthood leadership discussing payments for aborted baby parts without any connection to actual costs of so-called tissue 'donation.' Planned Parenthood's system-wide conspiracy to evade the law and make money off of aborted fetal tissue is now undeniable."

He continued, "Anyone who watches these videos knows that Planned Parenthood is engaged in barbaric practices and human rights abuses that must end. There is no reason for an organization that uses illegal abortion methods to sell baby parts and commit such atrocities against humanity to still receive over $500 million each year from taxpayers."

The teachers are starring in BBC Two's “Are Our Kids Tough Enough Chinese School” as part of a three-part documentary that begins Tuesday. Wei Zhao, who teaches Mandarin and spent 14 years working in communist Chinese, said cuts in the welfare system will mean students will be more motivated to learn. She said: “Even if they don’t work, they can get money, they don’t worry about it. But in China they can’t get these things so they know, 'I need to study hard, I need to work hard to get money to support my family'”.

"If the British Government really cut benefits down to force people to go to work they might see things in a different way." Yang Jun, a science teacher who taught in schools in Xian before moving to the UK, said: “In China we don't need classroom management skills because everyone is disciplined by nature, by families, by society. Whereas here that is the most challenging part of teaching.” She was also confused by a teenage girl who left the classroom in tears after reading reports that singer Zayn Malik had quit the boy band One Direction.

She said: “I found it difficult to understand such emotional behaviour over a pop band.” She also challenged an individualised approach to pupil learning. She said: “You have different syllabuses to suit different students' ability. We don't. We have one syllabus, one standard; you survive or you die. It's up to you.”

The resource pack, titled “My Name is Saleh”, and a video were launched at the NUT annual conference in April. Writing in the pack’s foreword, Christine Blower, the NUT general secretary, explains the project was “inspired by a union delegation visit [to the Palestinian territories] in 2013”. However, concerns have been raised that the resource pack gives a “one sided” and “divisive” view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Images in the pack’s appendix feature a Palestinian child who has been “assaulted by settlers” and the video contains a reference to “Jews” as opposed to “Israelis”. Tom Wilson, from the Henry Jackson Society, a think-tank, called the project “overtly agenda driven” and warned: "We need to be more vigilant about the politicisation of British classrooms”. “It is a particularly shameless example of political activism masquerading as a legitimate form of education,” he said.

First, it was assumed that (at least from March 2016), the Internatonal Monetary Fund (IMF) would participate. The exact amount of any further IMF loans to Greece would have to be agreed in due course, but if previous bail-outs were any guide, one might have expected the IMF involvement to be of order of 10 percent to 20 percent of the total. So the IMF would provide some €8 billion to €15 billion, with the eurozone states providing the other €70 billion or more.

Subsequently, the IMF has said it will not participate unless Greek debts are written down and unless Greece can prove itself more committed than in previous bail-out programmes to actually carrying through with reforms. That effectively means the IMF will not take part at all. There is little to no chance of the main eurozone creditors such as Germany agreeing to further write-downs of Greek debt – especially not in a context in which they are supposed to agree to provide it with a lot more.

My guess remains that the third Greek bail-out will never happen. The detailed terms will probably be rejected by both Greece and key eurozone members. Then we shall discover if Grexit really holds the terrors many claim.

According to this plan, Athens would try to bring German companies to court - who have not or have only partially been subjected to bribery investigations - to have them pay at least part of the restitution for damages caused by the alleged corruption, officially estimated in the billions. Siemens is the most famous example. A Greek parliamentary investigating committee estimated that, through systematic bribery, this Munich-based company has caused damages of two billion Euros in Greece.

However, Siemens got off cheap in an out-of-court settlement and had to pay only 270 million Euros - hardly one fifth of its current quarterly profit. A court in Munich gave a Siemens manager a suspended sentence - significantly less than what he could have expected from a trial in Athens. Already in the fall of 2014, new legal proceedings had been opened in Athens to comprehensively investigate this systematic corruption.

I find persuasive the arguments of many analysts that the proposal fails because it lifts sanctions before Iran has over time proven that it is committed to abandoning its nuclear weapons program. Perhaps even more importantly, I oppose the agreement because it does not require Iran to stop its funding of Hezbollah and other extremist hoodlums around the world.

But more fundamentally, I oppose the proposal because, while addressing strategic issues, the deal ignores a moral issue, among the most profound of our time. Put simply: Iran sponsors terrorism. I am convinced I could prove that proposition in a court of law, and indeed some Americans have done so. Survivors of terrorist attacks have sued the Iranian government in American courts, and won significant judgments.

But the Iranian government has refused to pay those judgments, and the proposed agreement does nothing to challenge that intransigence. In fact, the agreement would release up to 150 billion dollars of frozen assets to Iran, without requiring that a dime go to paying off the survivors of Iran-sponsored terror.

The sanctions must remain in place until Tehran renounces terrorism, stops funding Hezbollah, and honors judgments awarding compensation to those whose loved ones have been killed in past attacks. Can we get such a deal? In urging the nation to support the end of sanctions, the president has said that the deal he presented to Congress is the best one that could be negotiated. Others disagree. But whoever is right, one thing is certain: no agreement is worth supporting if it undermines the most basic principles that must govern relations among civilized nations.

“There is no meaningful verification,” Stein elaborated, in an opinion piece in The American Spectator. “The sanctions are already basically gone. The President is paying Iran over $100 billion to go forward with making a nuclear bomb and having the rockets to deliver it. We have basically been swindled into allowing the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism to have nuclear weapons without any penalty – indeed, with cash and prizes. Iran has sworn to use these weapons to obliterate not only Israel but every Jew on earth.

“Again, this could not have been an accident. It has to have been the working out of some deep unconscious rage at Israel, Jews, and at America by the top players in this administration… many of them Jewish or, like Kerry, partly Jewish. Mr Obama has – as I have said before – now signed Israel’s death warrant.”

Only Israel can figure out some way out of it. Perhaps a miraculous anti-missile defense. Perhaps a genuine Doomsday Device which will end all life on earth if Israel is nuked. "We shall see,” Stein wound up. “In the meantime, Mr Obama is in tears that he has been criticized so harshly for an agreement that basically cries out for 'a Holocaust in an afternoon,' as Iranians smilingly call it.”

Recent disclosures by Iran indicate that the recently inked nuclear accord includes a series of side deals on critical inspections regimes that are neither public nor subject to review by the United States. Reza Najafi, Iran’s ambassador and permanent envoy to the IAEA , stated over the weekend that no country is permitted to know the details of future inspections conducted by the IAEA. In addition, no US inspectors will be permitted to enter Iran’s nuclear sites.

“The provisions of a deal to which the IAEA and a second country are parties are confidential and should not be divulged to any third country, and as Mr Kerry discussed it in the Congress, even the US government had not been informed about the deal between IAEA and Iran,” Najafi was quoted as saying by Iran’s Mehr News Agency. Due to the secretive nature of these agreements, IAEA officials advising with lawmakers are barred from revealing to them the details of future inspections.

The revelation has rattled lawmakers on Capitol Hill, several of whom are now rallying colleagues to sign a letter to President Barack Obama protesting these so-called side deals.

History has shown that when a government wants to solidify its power, it has to turn its subjects into taxpayers. The Roman Empire demanded high tribute payments from every tribe it had newly conquered. And the United States developed from a commonwealth to a federal state when, in the 18th century, Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton achieved uniform duties and taxes for the entire union, initially on whisky, because it was so lucrative.

Politicians in the euro zone are now seeking to emulate the historic model from the early years of the United States. The unnerving bargaining over the latest Greece bailout program has led the leaders of the monetary union to conclude that the euro zone has to become more tightly joined together politically. European Central Bank (ECB) President Mario Draghi wants stricter rules for the banking union. French President François Hollande is calling for a separate economic government for the monetary union. And in Brussels and Berlin alike, financial experts are devising plans to provide the Euro Group with the same tool that has proven to be so successful throughout history: its own tax.

If the plans were implemented, it would constitute the breaking of a taboo for the Continent. The people are used to the fact that some powers are shifted to Brussels as part of European unification. But there is one thing even the most devoted proponents of Europe had shied away from until now: giving the EU the right to impose taxes, a power many felt the member states should retain. It had long been a given that this was something the European people would never accept.

The plans are still in their early stages, but it is already clear who could lose out if they became reality: German Chancellor Angela Merkel, supposedly the most powerful woman on the Continent.

For years, she has wanted to strengthen the monetary union with more intergovernmental agreements. But now her new rival, Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble, who also advocates a financial government for the euro zone under the auspices of the EU, could have his way. The only question is: Are the member states willing to relinquish their national sovereignty rights to Brussels, at least in part, in such important areas as budgets and taxation? And how will this sit with citizens, who already feel that EU technocrats are controlling their lives?

The hurdles are high, and yet there is a growing recognition that a new principle will probably have to be added to the principles of Chancellor Merkel's crisis policy soon. If the economic government fails, so will the euro.

“Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Jehovah, Allah. These are all names employed to describe an entity that is distinctly the same across the world. For centuries, blood has been needlessly shed because of the desire to segregate our faiths. This, however, should be the very concept which unites us as people, as nations, and as a world bound by faith.

Together, we can bring about an unprecedented age of peace, all we need to achieve such a state is respect for each others beliefs, for we are all children of God regardless of the name we choose to address him by. We can accomplish miraculous things in the world by merging our faiths, and the time for such a movement is now. No longer shall we slaughter our neighbors over differences in reference to their God.”

According to Yahoo News, that hasn’t stopped angry animal rights and anti-hunting activists from ruining the life of Dr Palmer, with some calling for his arrest, extradition and even death for hunting the lion with a bow and arrow and finishing it off with a gun. But most people in Zimbabwe don’t care about the dead lion, as they have much greater problems to deal with, such as an 80 percent unemployment rate, insane monetary inflation and a hugely corrupt government.

“Are you saying that all this noise is about a dead lion? Lions are killed all the time in this country,” said Tryphina Kaseke, a used-clothes hawker on the streets of Harare. “What is so special about this one?” The truth is, most locals in Zimbabwe actually look forward to the big game hunts that Westerners engage in, as the high price tag for the hunts means money pumped into the local economy, not to mention the meat from such hunts is required by law to be given to local tribes and villages.

“Why are the Americans more concerned than us?” said Joseph Mabuwa, a 33-year-old father of two. “We never hear them speak out when villagers are killed by lions and elephants in Hwange.” Lions and other large animals are typically viewed as dangerous by the local population, and if these animals are not hunted, their populations will explode and bring about all sorts of other issues, like rampant disease and increased attacks on people.

If only as much outrage over a dead and dismembered lion were directed at those who kill and dismember hundreds of thousands of babies per year, our society might have a moral leg to stand on.

The development of so-called “gene drive” technology promises to revolutionise medicine and agriculture because it can in theory stop the spread of mosquito-borne illnesses, such as malaria and yellow fever, as well as eliminate crop pests and invasive species such as rats and cane toads.

However, scientists at the forefront of the development believe that in the wrong hands gene-drive technology poses a serious threat to the environment and human health if accidentally or deliberately released from a laboratory without adequate safeguards. Some believe it could even be used as a terrorist bio-weapon directed against people or livestock because gene drives – which enable GM genes to spread rapidly like a viral infection within a population – will eventually be easy and cheap to generate.

“Just as gene drives can make mosquitoes unfit for hosting and spreading the malaria parasite, they could conceivably be designed with gene drives carrying cargo for delivering lethal bacterial toxins to humans,” said David Gurwitz, a geneticist at Tel Aviv University in Israel.