Basically he seems to think that money buys elections. It helps, BUT YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH IT.

Both parties do know what to do with it. Massive spending on advertising gives you the edge to establish your narrative on issues (all other things being equal). Take an issue like abortion. It's an emotive issue and a politicians position will decide, or heavily influence, a lot of votes. If you have media dominance then you can influence the perspective of voters either way:
Anti-Abortion: Put on adds about how developed fetuses are at the abortion age limit, horrow stories about parents who regret the decision, graphic images etc
Pro-Choice: Put on adds about women who's lives were saved, who suffered mental anguish due to being forced to have a child as a result of rape, put out stats informing about how undeveloped most fetuses are at abortion.

Money in politics gives those with more money more influence. I think there are arguments for and against and I honestly don't know which is right; though I am in no rush to reform British rules that heavily restrict both funding in politics and lobbying.

Sadly this is one of the give aways of the so called "social justice warrior", blatant hypocrisy

And a sure give away of a blinkered fool is using "social justice warrior" to try and pigeon hole those they oppose.

Proctor and gamble needs to advertise 24/7/365. Politicians don't.

Orly? Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that politicians that don't advertise or have people advertise on their behalf, in a country that allows it, aren't at a disadvantage vs those that do? Frankly I doubt it, and if you're going to suggest that a large group of people are spending billions for no benefit then I think most people are going to require something approaching a logical argument to back it up.

Can I get the address etc of this guy under the same laws? Surely, records of who asked for information are kept... Then I can 'pray' for him.

I agree, which is why I said I could see why in principle allowing this makes sense but in practice it should be opposed because we're crap at controlling abuses of laws like this. That said, I doubt it matters at this point. If they couldn't admit to doing it, they'd still do it and just find a way to keep it secret instead.

What's your point? Could you show me the abundance of doctors who are or should they be excepted from spying as well? Serial killer bankers or should we except them? I can't think of many terrorist fish farmers, we can probably protect them as well right?

The issue has fuck all to do with whether lawyers are terrorists or not. I've already said that although I can see why, in theory, there's reason to allow spying on lawyers that I think we should oppose it anyway, but you like most /. posters it seems stop thinking the moment you think you see a point you disagree with and go into attack mode.

I had a feeling that the majority of responses to this would come from people who wouldn't bother understanding my post first. You'd have noticed, had you bothered to comprehend my post before replying that I said, in that post that you and others are responding to, that measures like this should be opposed because in practice we don't put sufficient safeguards in place.

All this BS about rubber stamp courts etc as a reason to oppose this is naive at best. You think conversations between lawyers and clients aren't picking hoovered up by some of the drag net data capture already being done? You think in the world of Gitmo what the laws 'say' is what matters? Even our most abusive laws are nothing in comparison to the abuses that happen outside them or in secret outright ignoring them.

There can be no defense of this. This is the government engaging in totalitarianism as standard practice. There cannot possibly be a moral or ethical defense of this practice.

I'm conflicted. On the one hand my initial response was like yours. Yet on the other I don't see why, if you were trying to stop a serious threat, spies shouldn't be able to monitor these communications in principle, with some clear restrictions:
1/ If the information gathered by spying was specifically barred from being used in court
2/ If additional authority had to be granted by the judiciary for the act
3/ If there were clear checks and balances in place to deal with abuse.

Obviously, the issue in practice is that we don't put restrictions in place, allow abuses to go unpunished etc so any expansion of powers is to be opposed. The sad truth is that the only thing that's news here is that we now know they are doing it. I wouldn't have been shocked to here that they've been doing it for years already.

"Have a nice evening" is not harassment. It's good manners.

It's good manners when you say it to everyone, not just to the women you think are hot. I know I wouldn't appreciate it if people who ignored everyone else walking down the street kept going out of their way to speak to me because they were attracted to me. It isn't 'good manners' to treat someone in a way you could reasonably expect to make them uncomfortable because you think they're pretty.

Wow... I bet you're a blast at parties.

Yeah. I bet he'd really ruin things by being against people threatening to kill others; the kind of losers who do that are the life of the party!

f every online death threat were investigated we'd run out of police in about 10seconds

If most were investigated, then very quickly the amount of threats would be decimated. Idiots and cowards make the threats because they think it's funny and they won't get caught. As soon as they realise they might get caught they'll stop.

Oh, there's a way to put an end to these death-threat "pranks". Have the cops arrest and prosecute whoever makes them.

Absolutely this. If even 20% of the people who harassed people online with death threats got a $2,000 dollar fine (no record etc) then the phenomena would virtually vanish overnight. People are more likely to be cunts online because it's faceless and they think they won't get caught. By all means throw the book at the 0.001% who when they are investigated turn out to actually planning to kill the person, but for the rest even a small penalty is more than enough to discourage others.

If people feel threatened and don't feel the State can protect them then the next time this happens a "victim" will offer a cash reward to whoever helps to assault or kill their perceived attacker..

Bollocks. People have offered rewards for information leading to arrests pretty much since state justice came into existence. Her attacker will get the same legal due process as they would otherwise. You have created an imaginary issue, with an imagined slippery slope.

Stop trying to equate trolling with doxxing+death threats.

The mainstream press, and thus the wider public, have redefined trolling to be harassing people online. Dislike it all you want, but from now on if you mention trolling it will be taken by most people to mean things like rape threats etc. Making up a strawman about the 'right to offend' because you haven't got anything to say about the original posters point isn't going to persuade anyone.

Just be glad that you're so unimportant, and have done so little of worth, that no one cares enough to harass you.

Semi-rational people appreciate that it isn't them knowing your address that is the issue, but using it. I'm sure if you, your boss, your parents etc were getting abusive phonecalls in the middle of the night. People were putting all sorts of crap in your letter box. Sending doctored pictures of you, false stories about being a child abuser etc to your neighbours. SWATing you. Your internet tough girl persona doesn't impress anyone.