60 replies to this topic

[helix]

I have made a FOI request and hope to have some info on the poisons statistic cited.  I really find it hard to believe that the many of the 88 cases cited in the consultation paper relate to items listed on the poisons list - hopefully we will find out.

 

I think it is important that the consultation paper's existence be broadcast to as many affected groups as possible via the various forums to enable as many people as possible to reply.

[Vic]

Am I getting this right, we are going to need a licence to experiment also one to buy chemicals?

[dave]

these proposals would seem to completely negate all the excellent work wayne and co. has achieved so far.

is it a case of the left hand not talking to the right hand

[Vic]

I would assume that Wayne is fully aware of all this, and there is workable solution. he has been advised by Danny who in turn told us about precursor restrictions coming into force some time back.

I will give you a quote from the police to me and I think serves well here “It would be good for everyone to know how this matter is to be resolved. ”

Edited by Vic, 07 December 2013 - 06:16 PM.

[phildunford]

Guys - have a proper read of documents cited...

 

This does not negate Waynes work - it is totally unrelated. This will affect all sorts of people. People who do chemical experiments, people who do metal treatment and etching - a long list.

 

It could however screw us!

 

If there was no change to regulations (theoretically a possible outcome) great. Also a workable licencing system would be OK, but this could be prohibitively expensive for low volume users, and they still need to decide who is allowed a licence I guess.

 

Download the questionaires and work though all the questions putting in your own answers and you will begin to get an idea of what it's all about. Do both explosives and poisons - as they both apply to our hobby.

Edited by phildunford, 08 December 2013 - 09:16 PM.

[Vic]

Printed out, can’t stand PDF anyway. will fill out and pass on to wayne.

[digger]

I was a bit surprised to see oxalic acid on the P1 list

 

It has always been there.

 

The authorities seem to ignore oxalic acid dihydrate and see this as a different chemical from their perspective (also all current legislation is void if the end use of the chemical is for art or pottery).

 

Yes we should all fill in the forms for ourselves and send the response in.

 

I still feel that this should be on the open forum for comment.

 

Phil can this thread be moved?

 

Or a new one started?

[phildunford]

I've just moved this thread from the members area at Diggers suggestion, as I think it's important that it has a wider readership.

[wayne]

Wow!  What a lot of cynical comments!

 

Yes, its yet more restrictions on our freedoms and yes it may not be effective in its objectives, but remember, this is a consultation that we have been asked to respond to so to ensure that, "it creates as little impact on us as possible".  Things would be massively different if we wasn't even considered in the matter!

 

We have managed to get ourselves into a position of respect and the home office value our feedback.  Lets not have any childish gut reactions of, "they're just wanting to ban everything".  Accept its a modern way of life that the authorities will want to control and to be seen to control any means of terrorism.  As long as we are considered (which we obviously are) in any new regulations with a view to limiting any impact to us, lets just do what we can to minimise the impact.  There's no point us replying saying "option 1 - no change" as realistically this won't be an option without a significant reason.

 

As for licensing, I see no issue with this as long as it is at a "reasonable" cost.  The consultation document provides a question for you to enter what is a reasonable maximum license value ranging from £0 to £80+.  Realistically, the cost cannot be extortionate otherwise no one will apply and the whole point will be lost.  That said, I see no issue with a "reasonable" cost license being a requirement as it goes all the more towards demonstrating competence in pyrotechnics.  Furthermore, it will allow us to source chemicals from professional suppliers without issue - how many of you can say that at the moment?  An official license will allow you to go to any chemical supplier and purchase chemicals with pride rather than trepidation and worry!  As for the "reasonable" cost of the license, I see our hobby the same as any other, it costs money to do it!  If you expect that legitimate pyrotechnic experimentation should be free of all costs, then find another hobby!  If you want to go fishing, do you just go to the river and cast your line in?  No, you must obtain a rod license, a river license and anything else governing the particular river that you wish to fish.  Its no different with pyrotechnics except there a whole lot more at stake than ensuring that rivers aren't fished when the fish are in spawn!

 

Please feel free to respond personally to the consultation but please do not detail it as a representative view of the society.  By all means state that you are a member of the society, but do not state that you are represent group opinion.

 

Lets not waste time grumbling to ourselves how unfair the world is to our hobby, lets just get on with the business of ensuring that any new regulations are workable for what we want to do.  We're not going to be able to stop change, but we can certainly steer it in the right direction.  After all, can you imagine what position we would all be in now if we were never a part of the ELR?

 

Cheers,

 

Wayne.

[Sparky]

Hi Wayne,

 

I admire your positive attitude and your point is well made. Do we all agree that replying individually is the better option or as a cohesive entity? We won't get anywhere being negative about this, what will be, will be but if we get our acts together we get a favourable outcome.

 

Regards

 

Sparky

[scjb]

I appreciate I'm an outsider here, but I should have thought it was very important for the Society to be the primary respondent. It has become recognised by the establishment, and by speaking for many it will continue to be so.

 

The whole can be greater than the sum of its parts...

[wayne]

I appreciate I'm an outsider here, but I should have thought it was very important for the Society to be the primary respondent. It has become recognised by the establishment, and by speaking for many it will continue to be so.

 

The whole can be greater than the sum of its parts...

 

Yes, this is exactly correct.  Regardless of whether people individually respond, its imperative that there is a collective response from the society. 

[digger]

Yes, I agree that a well balanced society response is extremely important.

 

I also believe that there needs to be a great number of individual responses also. Of course they need to be well balanced with reasonable well thought out responses.

 

Ultimately if there is not a great deal of interest from the public then then the impression given will be that there is no great interest. Hence why would they employ people to issue licences that no one is going to apply for?

 

Please don't forget that these pieces of legislation affect a large number of people, in fact we are a tiny proportion of the total that this affects. The poisons legislation is important to a great number of people from artists to potters and people making their own boat cleaner.

 

Anything that goes into legislation needs to be accessible and low cost. The maximum number mentioned for a licence is over £600, that is effectively a ban. So think carefully upon your response.

 

My position which some may not expect is that the explosives precursors legislation will not meet the brief as set out, there is no way that it will achieve its intention (ammonium nitrate has been watched for years and it has not stopped any terrorist who wants it from acquiring it). However for the record here is my order of preference for both bits of legislation

 

1.) No Change

2.) Register to sign

3.) Licence

4.) Ban, not an option

[phildunford]

Agree with Digger. Collated Society response essential - many, many individual responses essential.

 

Also lets not assume that more control is inevitable, lets remember that we (The People) are supposed to be the bosses of the Whitehall Manderins - not the other way around. They don't know what is good for us, they arn't better than us and the more stuff like this we let them get away with, the further we move away from being a free society.

 

Rant over - for now

[starseeker]

I for one would not have any problem with a licence,if it was valid for 5 years and cost £40 as my shot gun/firearms certificates do then that would be fine.

 

It could join my collection of other licences,the two above,explosive certificate (acquire and keep) and my explosive storage licence, one more won't hurt!