I had to look up the term "fly-tipping", having never heard it before. (At first I thought it must be some wussy British version of cow-tipping, but apparently that's not the case.)

Anyway, it seems to me that idiotic prosecutions such as this are why tar and feathers were invented. A few judicious applications and the problem would mysteriously disappear.

Is it the usual practice to name only institutions, ie. "the council" rather than "Ms. so-and-so, and Mr. Lah-di-dah,
of the (ie) hoity-toity council, who initiated this action as their reasoning was (fill in the blank). Their actual tax payers will be assessed (UK wad) of otherwise useful cash that now lines the pockets of assorted encouraging lawyers (oops, solicitors) named (fill in the blank) hired to TRY to defend their demonstrable idiocracy "

With perhaps subsequent " ...as the court found the actions, of the above named, asinine, the entire "council" will repay the fiduciary onus out-of-pocket, and personally replace missing street light bulbs as a "community activism" bit of atonement "
or some such.

For others (like myself) that are Brit challenged,

From Wikipedia (itals/edit mine)
Fly-tipping is a British term for dumping waste illegally instead of in an authorised rubbish dump. It is the illegal deposit of any waste onto land, i.e., waste dumped or tipped on a site with no license (and I ASSUME no intent) to accept waste.

The term is derived from the verb tip, meaning "to throw out of a vehicle" and on the fly, meaning "on the wing" — to throw away carelessly or casually.

Is a discarded cardboard otherwise worth cash to "the council" as mandatory recycled material, like...say...
Al-u-min-i-um?

The problem is that it's not the council members who would pay, but the taxpayers.

That having been said, I would love to see councillors or perpetrators of police brutality forcibly removed from their houses as the houses go on the auction block to pay for any judgments against them.

Oh, about sixty years of being removed from traditional brakes on power is what it looks like to get to that level of insanity.

Natalie, this is wussy British tickety-boo stuff. For real predation, check out the EPA:

http://volokh.com/2011/10/10/district-court-awards-malicious-1-7-million-for-malicious-prosecutio-after-epa-agent-manufactured-evidence-against-suspect-with-the-apparent-goal-of-spending-more-time-with-his-mistress/

Oh good grief. No Dom, you don't understand at all... there have also been vastly more serious iniquitous prosecutions by councils than this in the UK.

The point here is not the seriousness, it is the sheer triviality of the imagined 'offence' and how it turned Linda Bracey's life upside down.

Perry is right - it is that such trivial things are now enough excuse to persecute use that is the problem.

Most people simply accept a fine or plead guilty - the legal process itself is an effective punishment, so people are deterred from protesting abuses like this.

Well done to Linda Bracey for fighting the case.

To answer the question: The average time is zero. Most new governments are instituted already in that state.

New Rule of the day.
Never GIVE your cardboard box away.
SELL you cardboard box to the requester.
Pity the farthing is now longer in use...Maybe a peppercorn?
IIRC that Her Majesty (or maybe the Duchy of Cornwall) have a couple of properties which are on 999 year leases, for a peppercorn rent per annum.
Selling your output is not an 'illegal disposal'.

What Perry hints at is what I have long described as Fenceposts. They are laws placed all around that most of the time we can avoid or, more likely, not even realise they are there. At any time the Council can slide in the fence panels and imprison us. The posts need to be uprooted.

I have come to the conclusion that we are living in the age of a new form of Enclosure, the Enclosures of The Individual. The State is happy to privatise industry, because now it is nationalising the individual.

P.s. : The council lost this month, and was condemned by a judge for causing "a monumental waste of public time and money".

Yesyesyes, but what about the court case?

In the old Swiss Cantons (hardly any now) the annual gathering made the government choices (in the case of invasion there would be an automatic gathering).

In the New Hampshire townships an annual gathering also decided government matters - before the "select men" (councilors by another name) started to take over.

If government needs more than an annual gathering (with criminal prosecutions and civil disputes being a matter of a real victim complaining - or someone complaining for a dead victim) then government is too big (period).

"But Paul - surely elected representatives (if they really want to) can prevent government (local and national) acting in a bad way".

I am such an elected representative - and, normally, NO WE CAN NOT.

As for written Constitutions.....

Yes they can have a good effect - but only if they are very strict (no room for "interpretation").

As for "how long does it take" - it is almost instant.

For example, the elected Manchester Council (under the Act of 1835) was supposed to reduce "the rates" (the local property tax) historically imposed by the old Manchester Corporation (unelected - in any general sense), it OF COURSE increased the property tax.

The United States government imposed internal excise taxes (which even the British had not tried to do) almost at once - hence the Whiskey revolt (which was crushed).

Although, yes, Jefferson (after 1801) did get rid of such internal excise taxes.

If one goes for the elected representative idea....

Make sure the person in charge is known - and make sure that they are up for reelection at short periods of time.

Four years is much too long - someone elected to cut taxes may well increase them (counting on everyone forgetting about it in four years - other issues come up).

And, above all, AVOID AN INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE.

Remember no councillor decided that this women be persecuted - nor did the appioint the staff that persecuted her.

The elected people were "in charge" is the same way that a plastic fairy on top of cake is "in charge" of the cake.

If you get a civil service structure (which was created in the United States in the 1880s) democracy (which is never very real in the first place) tends to fall apart, as the politicians lose real control over day to day actions of government.

This was made even more the case (in the American case), by the unionization of government after Jack Kennedy's Executive Order.

After that a Republican President could be elected - but they were not really "in charge" of the machine (although Ronald Reagan made an effort - for example striking back against the Air Traffic Controllers who had treated his orders with contempt - thus making a mockery of the idea that elected people are "in charge" of government).

As for Britain......

I try not to think about the political system in this country too much - it depresses me.