The number 1 petition there was for Gordon Brown to resign [1],[2]
Despite getting more than 72,000 signatures, the response [3] was more like a boilerplate reply.
[1] http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/please-go/
[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/27/downing-stree...
The best thing a UK citizen can do is write to their MP, in their own words. You can do that on http://www.writetothem.com/
So they disconnect you on government orders, that's a commercial case between you and the ISP. So you have to find a lawyer to take a civil case against a huge multinational.
Or the ISP could take the government to court to test the law. Then the multinational has to prove to it's shareholders that taking the government to court is good for the business!
It is much more "efficient" to have police issue on-the-spot fines for minor offences, without troubling busy magistrates with trivia like providing evidence or allowing the accused to explain themselves.
Road traffic laws are enforced by cameras and Fixed Penalty Notices, allow you to go from driving along to having points on your licence and paying a fine with almost no human involvement in between.
In most cases, you can still refuse summary justice and have your day in court. Of course, in doing so, you typically risk a much greater penalty if the court finds against you, and in any case, even successful defendants do not receive compensation. It is not uncommon for someone to plead guilty by post to a speeding ticket (you can't enter a plea of not-guilty this way) and send an explanation to the court saying that in fact they did not speed, but it would cost them more in lost earnings to attend court to defend themselves than to pay the fine.
The idea we're talking about here will be one more step in the same wrong direction: summary, guilty-until-proven-innocent justice administered by remote control, and with no adequate means of getting mistakes fixed quickly and with fair compensation for any damage caused.
I don't know about you, but I rely on my Internet connection for work, and I don't illegally swap files on-line. I find the idea that my personal livelihood could be jeopardised just because a computer system run by Big Media got confused to be abhorrent. Knowing that in the end some European human rights case might find in your favour is little comfort if you've been unable to work for months and can't pay the mortgage/rent...
To answer the second part of your question, I think the proposed Bill includes a provision for you to appeal a disconnection. There's also the interesting possibility of a business suing an ISP for damages after a wrongful disconnection (which, given the way this Bill is so poorly structured, I would expect will happen)... what would the ISP then do? TalkTalk, who started this petition, isn't happy (but doesn't mention this reason in the petition description)
Frightening to think how easily a rival could have any YC business based in the UK disconnected, through weak Wifi security or any other means of making it looks like that business is infringing this new proposed law.
Yes, vote Lib Dem on the next election. Not only they have come out against this, but they also defended the drug expert that was fired.