59 replies to this topic

[exat808]

Just clarifying the HSW Act for anyone who is interested ( legislation at tea time!!).
The Act as some posts have identified is primarily about the protection of employees and those outside the workplace who may be affected by the actions of employers and employees. The Act in itself is not the only piece of legislation and enacted under it is a raft of Statutory Instruments ( Regulations - as we know them better). These Regulations are defined as Relevant Statutory Provisions in the Act and these RSP's deal with specific areas such as Explosives, Dangerous Atmospheres, Nuclear Installations, Chemicals etc etc.
Enforcement of the RSP's is empowered through the Act itself and whereas the Act does not capture domestic dwellings some of the RSP's do. MSER is an example. The use of the "etc" in the full title of the 1974 Act is a catchall to encompass occasions outside of work where the Act and its RSP'swould be applicable.
Section 25 of the Act permits an Inspector to seize and render harmless articles and substances that he has reasonable cause to believe would cause imminent danger provided that he has entered the premises lawfully.
Who was the appointed H&S Inspector in your scenario - The Police officer or the Fire Officer?
The challenge might be - which piece of legislation gave the Inspector the power of entry? If you have permitted entry without the excercise of an Inspectors power there may be an inferred right to excercise other powers( such as that in Section 25), having been given entry.

I've been playing devils advocate with this scenario but it has to be examined from all sides.

[corona]

Very sorry indeed to hear about that bad fortune you seem to be experiencing with authorities:
If you want to know how corrupt the system is, if you do not already -then please watch this film [ZIETGEIST.....]
then you will realise that we are all conditioned by our Surroundings, Education and Advertising etc
they do not wish to have free thinkers just SHEEP! so by Practising what you enjoy is messing with their plans :-)

[pyrotechnist]

To be honest I dont know who was the inspector the police admitted they didnt know out about it and they where at first ok with it but wanted to draft in HSE but to cut matters short they drafted in fire officer and relied on his decision. No report was given to me on why they did it as of yet nor did I have to sign anything accept to say the warrant wasnt put into force.

[Karl Mitchell-Shead]

at first ok with it but wanted to draft in HSE but to cut matters short they drafted in fire officer and relied on his decision.

That's exactly what they did though, there is a very small team within HSE that deals in this area, as such they rely on members of other services / authorities to act on their behalf as an inspecting officer. This was mentioned in a previous post.

[pyrotechnist]

The fire officer made an ill informed decision, for anyone to say potassium nitrate is an imminent danger and explosive hazard is stupid and to claim calcium nitrate and sodium bicarb are in the same league is again incompetent in my eyes. To be honest I aint sure who was appointed authority as the police seemed to be the authority originally though in the end the fire officer was the authority so how can authority change from one person to the next like that. I dont want this to mean that I cannot handle or use chemicals again cause thats just pathetic, you can potentially make far worse with household ingredients.

[starseeker]

No they did not arrest me, maxman I had always been open with the police, HSE and fire service of my testing of comps within the realms of the 100g exemption of MSER 2005 though my buying of 25kg sacks of potassium nitrate raised bells which they told me about on a different occasion though they stated clearly that they where not worried.

You state that on a different occasion you were told that after buying sacks of kno3 alarm bells were raised,what was this previous occasion concerning?

[pyrotechnist]

The police came around about my ex as we where having trouble with her and they informed me of it then, I cant delve to much into that situation but they where fine at the time with my set up and they also knew I made test batches as I have always been open with them.

[CCH Concepts]

have you spoke with these guys?

http://www.ipcc.gov....es/default.aspx

they are very good. I have alot of family in the police and when i have had problems with the police before they have advised me to speak to these guys and if there is any wrong doing they will know and take action.

[Altus]

I'm surprised the ukps hasn't started offering assistance on this matter. They already are in the process of trying to help shape legislation and had Danny do a talk on legal issues at the last AGM why not use these contacts to get assistance for CCH in the form of letters of support from the explosives officer that attended the AGM. The Independant Police Complaint Commission is probably a good idea.

[phildunford]

I'm surprised the ukps hasn't started offering assistance on this matter. They already are in the process of trying to help shape legislation and had Danny do a talk on legal issues at the last AGM why not use these contacts to get assistance for CCH in the form of letters of support from the explosives officer that attended the AGM. The Independant Police Complaint Commission is probably a good idea.

We are looking into the matter to see how it may affect experimentors, but of course the police (quite rightly) will not give any information about individual cases to a third party such as UKPS. We can only look at these things in a general way.

It may often appear that we do not react to something that happens, but there is a very active (invisible) staff forum where discussion & policy making takes place away from the public eye.

Pyrotechnist is a forum contributor but not a UKPS member - none the less, we will do what we can.

[Arthur Brown]

At the present it is important to deal with this discretely. Some things may NOT be best discussed in a public and very watched forum. The advice of Exat808 and some of the better qualified (in law and compliance) members should be taken very carefully.

[Altus]

Thanks for clarifying Phil.

[Richard H]

I've replied to Justin's points off the board - but to set the record straight:

We are raising this matter with the relevant parties, and as others have rightly said, this process is not taking place in public. As and when there is any outcome or information to relay to the membership - we will make sure we do so. On the subject of offering assistance and advice - we have to be careful what we say. There is the possibility that advice or policy given by UKPS could be used against us.

Much is happening behind the scenes, but sometimes when dealing with public bodies (most of the time) progress can be painfully slow.

We seek to represent the interests of our members - granted Pyrotechnist is not one of them, but we will still be following this up as a matter of course.

[pyrotechnist]

Thanks for all information and help up to now guys, very grateful, will look into IPCC thanks for link.

[pyrotrev]

Thanks for all information and help up to now guys, very grateful, will look into IPCC thanks for link.

Given that the enforcement was done by a Fire officer, it's possible the police might pass the buck and hence the IPCC might be the wrong people - however the Fire Service do have their own complaints procedure. Good luck anyway.