If you've worked your way through the Guide to Stamping Out Junk Mail you know that stopping unsolicited advertisements is complicated and time-consuming. This manifesto argues that stopping junk mail could be easy and effective.

If I could do just one thing to make stopping unsolicited mail easier it would be this: give people a say in the matter. At the moment, you have no influence whatsoever on the self-regulatory framework set up by the junk mail industry. Opt-out schemes such as the Mailing Preference Service and the Door-to-Door Opt-Out exist to allow you to prevent unwanted junk mail, but they've been set up without asking the public what they actually want, and people are not allowed to vote for changes that would improve the schemes.

Allowing people to have a say would also make the industry's opt-out regimes more transparent. While I'm writing this the Direct Marketing Association and Defra are discussing the renewal of a 'voluntary producer responsibility agreement'. Amongst the things being discussed are the question whether or not there should be targets for opt-out schemes (a suggestion by Defra that has been rejected by the Direct Marketing Association); whether there should be a single opt-out scheme for unaddressed junk mail and paper directories (another suggestion by Defra rejected by the industry); a review of PAS 2020 (the industry's voluntary environmental standard for junk mail); and a some major changes to the Mailing Preference Service (which the industry would like to be an opt-in / opt-out scheme). These are important discussions, yet it's all happening behind closed doors. The public is not allowed to know exactly what's being discussed and, more importantly, which issues are overlooked or ignored.

In short, my argument is that stopping junk mail would be much more effective and far less time-consuming if people would have a say in how reducing unsolicited mail is organised. This manifesto, then, is not a blueprint for how stopping junk mail should be organised. Recipients of junk mail no doubt have lots of good ideas worth exploring - ideas that are currently flatly ignored by the industry.

As for my own views, I reckon there are three areas where things could be improved:

• Opt-out schemes should be made customer-friendly
• Opt-out schemes for unaddressed mail should be replaced by a sticker scheme
• Opt-out boxes should be replaced by opt-in boxes

Opt-out schemes

If you want to reduce both addressed and unaddressed junk mail there are no less than three opt-out schemes you should register with. If you're also not interested in the Yellow Pages, Thomson Local directory and BT Phone Book you can also register with the opt-out services run by these companies. There's no shortage of opt-out schemes…

All opt-out schemes are run by the junk mail industry, without any involvement from the public. This largely explains why none of the existing opt-out schemes is really effective. The Mailing Preference Service only covers addressed junk mail from organisations that are members of the Direct Marketing Association, and the schemes makes a bizarre exception for junk mail addressed 'To the Occupier'. The Door-to-Door Opt-Out and Your Choice - the industry's opt-out schemes for unaddressed junk mail - are hardly being advertised and don't allow householders to register online. And the opt-out schemes for paper directories simply don't work. I've highlighted some of the issues in detail on the page about opt-out schemes.

Sticker scheme

Opt-out schemes for unaddressed junk mail are problematic for another reason; the Door-to-Door Opt-Out and Your Choice cover about half of all unaddressed junk mail, and the schemes don't give householders the option to stop free newspapers. The industry has invented the schemes because they don't want people to stop junk mail by placing a 'No Junk Mail' notice on their door. Yet, replacing the opt-out schemes for unaddressed junk mail with a sticker scheme would be a great improvement; all unaddressed junk mail - including free newspapers - would be covered by one set of rules, and the scheme could be enforced by an Ombudsman. I've set out my stall on the page about sticker schemes.

Opt-in boxes

It's no secret that marketeers see it as their job to hide opt-out boxes that can prevent your personal details are used for 'marketing' purposes. The Data Protection Act states that organisations can't just assume they may do with your name, address, and other information as they please - they have to have your prior permission. Hiding opt-out boxes is a common tactic that allows them to comply with the letter of the law. Of course it goes against the spirit of the Data Protection Act, and so it makes sense to strengthen the Act. How? My suggestion is to ban the opt-out box. Instead, marketeers could present people with (no doubt not hidden) opt-in boxes.