Democratic Alternative Acts 2006

I am trying to stop the government using unethical means to monitor our every moves, in the name of 'security'. As Britain is turning into an outdoor prison,with its ever growing surveillance devices(CCTV? databases,NIR,verichips,RFID,data collection,bio ID cards etc..)and controversial laws (Terrorism Act,Anti-social Behaviour Act, Data Protection Act), more and more people are concerned about the future of democracy and civil liberties.

Thursday, August 31, 2006



This site is divided into two related issues , one on privacy and data protection the other on reforming the House of Commons. They both aim at preserving our democracy and civil liberties by trying to stop the government using unethical means to monitor our every moves in the name of 'security'. As Britain is turning into an outdoor prison, with its ever-growing surveillance devices ( CCTV, Databases, NIR, Verichip, RFID, Data collection, etc...), its controversial and ineffective laws ( Terrorism Act, Anti-Social Behaviour Act, Data Protection Act etc...) more and more people are concerned about the future of democracy and civil liberties.

The recent misuse of new policies ( Terrorism Act, Anti-Social Behaviour Act , etc...) has shown how easy it is for the government and the police to use laws on everyone they do not like. This represents a major threat to our civil liberties and does little to resolve the problems.
it is plain to see that the government is using fear of terrorism, organised crime, illegal immigration to impose the laws that it wants .This is why the following two Acts could prove real solutions to these problems.

The aim of the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2006 ( P&DPA06) is to :
  • bring awareness of the danger of data collection and other monitoring devices

- It seems that for unexplained reasons the government want to record our every moves and transactions even when they are legal.

  • bring an alternative to data collection and the monitoring of people that can strike a balance between national security and civil liberties. It will:
    a) protect privacy and data.
    b) enable professional to do their jobs.
    c) enable the sale and flow of data ( anonymous reports).
    d) end organised crime, abuse and malpractice.
    e) end the surveillance state.
    f) enable data to be kept indefinitely (see:online 'anonymous reports').

The aim of the House of Commons Reforms Act 2006 ( HoCRA06) is to:

  • bring awareness of the danger of state interferences into people private lives
    - Security has become the government weapon against opposition and a means of controlling the entire population. As if we had to justified ourselves to the state.
  • force politicians to seek alternative to controversial and unworkable policies.
    stop the government imposing undemocratic laws.
  • enable people to vote on policies and not necessarily for a particular party, unless, of course, they agree with all of its policies.
    - A single individual ( Prime Minister) should never be given the power to control all the political aspects of a country. It is undemocratic, oppressive and dangerous. It is like having an ' absolute monarch' in power all over again.

Please sign these two pledges to help me combat the surveillance state and protect our democracy and civil liberties.

Thursday, April 13, 2006



The British political system is too centralised to be efficient. A single individual (Prime Minister) should never be given the power to control all the political aspects of a country. It is undemocratic, oppressive and dangerous. It is like having an "absolute monarch" in power all over again. Even more when that individual's actions are associated with god's will.

There are two major problems with the current system. Firstly, there is no room for choice as most manifestoes offer the same policies. Political parties do not deliver on all issues individually but only on the ones they believe will have them elected. Secondly, very few people agree with all the policies of a party. In fact, we are more likely to only agree with 2 or 3 than them all. So why should we be compelled to accept policies we disagree with? This is undemocratic and unrepresentative of public opinion. We should vote for policies and not necessarily for a particular party, unless, of course, we agree with all of its policies.


Instead of having a single party government controlling and running the whole country in a dictatorial way, a more democratic and representative alternative would be to have several independent governments elected by issues. This is how the new system will work:

Each voter will be given an Election vote form to fill with their names and signatures. To promote transparency and avoid a repeat of the last general election "postal fraud" fiasco, voters will have to keep a carbon copy of their votes.


________________CONS_____LIB DEM____ LAB___ GREEN___ ______________________________________________________
Human rights&
Civil liberties.............................................X
Education.................................................. X
Health............................. X
Pensioners................................................ X
Environment........................................................................................... X
Transport................................................................................................ X
Economy.......................................................................... X
Defence&security.................................... X
Europe........................... X



On these forms they will find a list of issues and row of candidates. All voters will have to do is choose the party which best represent their views on each issues by putting a " X " under the name of the chosen party (only one cross by issue). The party with the more votes on an issue (i.e: Transport) will be elected for Transport. Some parties will probably be in charge of more than one issue at a time.

Each government will be completely independent and in control of its own issues. The party with the most issues to govern will be the main government, the second party with the most issues, or more votes, will be the shadow government. the others will be referred to as the 3rd and 4th governments.

Considering that the job will be shared by at least 2 governments, it is only fair that the salaries should be proportionately shared too. Under the current system the Prime Minister&cabinet are paid a certain amount of money to deal with all issues. Under the new system this amount of money will be divided among the issues , therefore, the new system will cost exactly the same as the old one.Furthermore, to ensure fairness and consistency governments will be bound by their manifestoes.

The fact that each government will be completely independent is sure to create conflicts, you may say. But what is the point of having a parliament, if we cannot challenge policies and decisions to promote efficiency and transparency.

For examples:

Let's say, a bill on transport, which does not respect the environment, is put before parliament by the Labour (elected for transport). In that case, the Conservative (elected for the environment) will have the right to stop the bill going through until it is conform to environmental standards.

Now, let's say, bills on national security, which do not respect our civil liberties, are put before parliament by the Labour (elected for defence&security). In that case, the Liberal Democrates (elected for human rights&civil liberties) will have the right to stop the bill going through until it is conform to human rights&civil liberties standards.

As each government will be independent and in charge of their own issues, a government will not have the right to stop another implementing new laws. On the contrary, governments will only be allowed to ensure that what one government is proposing does not go against what they have been elected to do.

This new system will give the 3 main parties the chance to be elected at each election, which is more representative of public opinion than a single government elected by a tiny minority of the population. In addition, this will also give voters the chance to tell their governments exactly what they want. As for M.Ps, there is no point in having them if they do not represent our voices. Therefore, whichever party they belong to, they will be under a duty to vote like their constituents and not like their party leaders.

Following the recent scandal on "cash for peerages", it is likely that from now on taxpayers would have to finance political parties. Considering that they are 60 millions people in UK, it would be easy for us to give £1, every 4 years, to be equally shared between all parties. However, we should not do so unless the House of Commons is reformed so as to give peole choice and power to promote democracy. It is high time this government understood the meaning of the words it uses. Democracy means " power to the people" and not to the government.

These reforms should be found in a free-standing The House of Commons Reforms Act 2006.

I need you do sign my pledge to promote democracy. The pledge:

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Privacy and Data Protection Act 2006
(to end organised crime, malpractice, abuse and the surveillance state)

To read the full Privacy and Data Protection Act 2006 visit :

This is the 21st century, and although, modern technology has made the access to individuals' private affairs alarmingly easy ( CCTV, NIR, verichip, RFID, Databases etc...), there is still not a single law on privacy. Apart form article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, there is no other way to protect privacy than to rely on mere codes of practice. Controversial attempts have been made through the protection of personal data ( Data Protection Act 1984,1998) to protect privacy. However, such attempts have only succeeded in legalising even more intrusion in people's private lives with the help of data collection and processing. Data collection is by far the must dangerous and intrusive device without which no monitoring and/or abuse would be made possible. The ID card & database scheme, if introduced, will be a dangerous additional means of monitoring individuals that would change the relationship between citizens and their governments forever.

The Data Protection Act 1998 has made a mockery of the principles of fairness and security. It is biased, misleading, unreliable and there are far too many exemptions for safety. The aim of this act was not to protect data, but to legalise data collection regardless of whether such a collection of data is justified at all and as we all know it is not. What is more, its 8 principles are inconsistent and incompatible with our fundamental right to privacy, which make this act unreliable and counter-productive.

This act is biased as it only safeguards the interests of data controllers/users whatever the consequences (economic loss, ID theft, abuse etc...). It allows them to collect and process an unnecessary amount of personal data, even though they could easily be substituted. This is not only intrusive, it is giving a right to private and public bodies over our entire life and a means to fraudsters to steal it.
Consequently, data subjects are left with almost no protections. They are compelled to reveal, that they like it or not, unnecessary personal informations which are later processed ( filed, used, copied, disclosed etc...). Furthermore, they have no idea as to the amount of their personal data being processed, what kind of informations are being held about them, the number of people accessing them, or even with whom such data are shared in the UK and abroad ( Brussels, India etc...). Appallingly, trying to find this out or seek redress, it is both time-consuming and expensive. And as if this was not bad enough, there is not a single section on ID theft or on how to prevent it.
Many would argue that data are needed for the well-being of modern societies. But so far, they have done more harm than good, and as we know data do not have to be collected to achieve this goal.
By failing to ask itself the right questions, the government has failed to realise that data collection and processing are responsible for the problems faced by most modern societies today. The facts remains that data are being used to commit organised crime (terrorism, ID theft, benefit fraud, forgery, sell of data, blackmail etc..), malpractice (discrimination, exclusion etc...) and abuse ( undue control, manipulation etc...), and this is not surprising considering the excessive amount of data being collected and processed everywhere.
Now a new threat has emerged, the threat of a 'surveillance state' where people live in fear of their government and police force. The profiling and monitoring of each and every individual are turning our democratic society into a police state in which the entire population is under, what could be called, a “country arrest order” for being potential criminals. Such practices, frighteningly enough, were only used by dictators ( Stalin, Hitler etc...), and therefore, have no place in our democratic societies.
What the government ought to have done was to – (a) determine the exact purposes of data collection ( accuracy of informations etc...), and (b) determine the exact set of data needed for a fully functional society ( income, properties, dependants, health, education).

The Data Protection Act 1998 uses painful and ineffective methods of protecting data, preserving privacy, and of preventing organised crime, abuse, malpractice, problems which it has caused. Have we not be compelled to reveal irrelevant personal informations they could not be used against us, and we would all be treated equally.

There is a easier, fairer and more reliable alternative to data collection. It is simply to use technology (ultraviolet lights, x-rays), handwriting, data substitutes, confidential registers, pseudo-names and anonymous reports to ensure privacy.

All professionals will have to do is check all required documents,compare data subjects ' handwritings and signatures with the ones on their documents, give a pseudo-name to each of their patients, clients or customers, and keep online anonymous reports on each of them. This will preserve data subjects' privacy and civil liberties without prejudicing other professionals ' need to access information for research, studies, statistical or administrative purposes.

It is clear that the disadvantages of data collection far outweigh the alleged benefits. A system like ours lacks adequate safeguards for the protection of data and civil liberties. What is even more worrying, is that such a system is turning our democratic society into a dictatorship, in which oppression and control are its norms and values. We are in an urgent need of a new unbiased Privacy and Data Protection Act 2006, to end the evils of the 21st century, and the resurgence of the evils of the past.

The recommendations are straightforward and can be put into use within months. They are as follows:

1 ) To ban the use of monitoring devices such as:
- Verichip
- Biometric ID card
- Databases ( replaced by online “anonymous reports” )
- Data collection/processing ( replaced by substitutes, pseudo-names etc...)

2) To abolish the collection of such data as :
- Marital status
- Date of birth/age
- Place of birth
- Health records
- Educational records
- Place of study
- Parents' names/ Mother's maiden name
- Sibling ( names, age, sex, number of )
- Children ( names, age, sex, number of)
- Bank details/records
- sex life
- etc......

3) To introduce data substitutes.

(a) To use 'colour categorisation' on identify documents to avoid unfair age discrimination.The colour of a passport, driving licence, application forms etc... will be:

- PINK : for adults (18 upwards).
- GREEN : for minors (15 up to majority).
- BLUE : for children (from birth to 14).

(b) Marital status : replaced by 'Mr' and 'Ms' to avoid discrimination.
(c) Health records : replaced by 'medical note' stating if the patient is fit or not.
(d) Educational records : replaced by 'diploma, certificate' to promote meritocracy.
(e) Familial situation : replaced by family & dependants records book.

4) To allow data subjects to keep and store their own data, files and official records (birth/marriage certificates, educational records, health records etc...).

- Identity documents are very important to confirm a person identity, therefore, they should only be kept by their holders, and should only be shown when necessary to authenticate identity.

- Professionals should only be allowed to access files/records which should be, immediately, returned to data holders after professionals have added/obtained the informations they were looking for.

5) To prohibit the right to process personal data (collect, copy, file, store, disclose etc..) by public and private bodies.

- As long as data controllers/users will collect, copy, disclose and store data, they will always be forged, tampered with, sold, or cloned and be used to manipulate, discriminate and exclude. The only option is not to collect them, as one cannot forge, sell, steal or unlawfully use informations one does not have.

6) To introduce the use of technology (x-ray, ultraviolet lights, handwriting) in order to check the authenticity of identity documents.

- It will ensure identity documents authenticity, and therefore, the accuracy of information.

7) To introduce “pseudo-names” and “anonymous reports”

- It will ensure confidentiality, ascertain data subjects' privacy and safeguards professionals interests.

8) To impose a duty of confidentiality on professionals.

- It will guarantee the confidentiality of data subjects private affairs.

9) To introduce online “passport numbers” registers.

- To ensure privacy,security and verify claims.

As data will no longer be collected, the chances of organised crime, malpractice, abuse and threat of a surveillance state will be made almost impossible. This will ensure a balance between national security and respect for civil liberties.

These reforms should be found in a free-standing Privacy and Data Protection Act 2006.

I need you do sign my pledge to protect our civil liberties:
Visit My Website