60 replies to this topic

[Vic]

Explosives

1.a -2.c -3.a- 4a.c- 4b.a ?

[Vic]

Am I right in thinking that ukps membership runs at around just less than 100?

Surely we are a drop in the ocean as far as restricting legitimate use goes.

I am amazed that they are inviting a response from such a small group - so well done Wayne and all.

                                                        

 

I would say we are the tip of a large iceberg, we are the only ones that stick our heads above the parapet and are transparent about what we do. The size of the market can only be confirmed by the chemical retailers that supply us. I doubt very much if our membership make up more than 1% of chemical sales sold for firework construction and experimentation. I suspect that we will be the only ones that will trouble to reply to this consultation, but I hope I am wrong.

Edited by Vic, 15 December 2013 - 05:46 PM.

[Sparky]

is anyone else having trouble providing the feedback via the website. When I click on the link in the PDF I get an error.

 

https://www.gov.uk/g...ile/260127/null

[Vic]

is anyone else having trouble providing the feedback via the website. When I click on the link in the PDF I get an error.

 

https://www.gov.uk/g...ile/260127/null

 

Were are you getting the link from.

[Sparky]

I've sorted it. For some reason in Chrome when I clicked the link from the PDF it screwed up.

[dave]

Our stance should be to propose they do nothing. The whole idea of licensing idea is a slippery slope toward further controls via the HSE.

 

Of course that is unlikely to be the option that gets selected so we should also respond to the idea of licensing. We must make sure this is as minimal as possible, almost just a basic registration scheme. At the end of the day all they are trying to do is ensure they can track possible terrorists so what info do they need?

They need to know who you are, what you are buying and possibly some info to do more in depth background checks. We do not need this to becomes a licenses that decides if you are a valid user. It would be very easy for this license to be used to restrict who can buy chemicals based on location, storage etc. We need to make our case that the requirement is to track people who might use the chemicals for the purpose of a terrorist attack.

 I tend to agree with Sparky re the points he has made above.

 

wayne,     has the society drafted a response yet ?

[wayne]

Hi All,

 

Please can I have any feedback to these consultation documents as soon as possible.  The home office has extended the closing date for submission to the 9th, so we don't have a lot of time.  I would like any responses by tomorrow evening at the latest.

 

I have generalised the responses but if you have any concerns over any of them or would like to suggest a better response to one of the questions, then please feel free.

 

Explosive precursors:

https://drive.google...dit?usp=sharing

 

Poisons:

https://drive.google...dit?usp=sharing

 

Cheers,

 

Wayne.

Edited by wayne, 07 January 2014 - 09:52 PM.

[wayne]

question 11 in the poisions act it asks

 

Q11. Could you use alternatives for the part 1 poisons you put no

 

Q12  If yes, what alternatives could you use? which you have suggested some so id assume you meant yes above.

 

but a good response to both overall, thanks wayne for taking the time to do this.

 

Hi Paul,

 

I've checked and Q12 has been left empty.  I think you may have seen text in the box but this is default text from the Home Office.

 

Cheers,

 

Wayne.

[Bob Twells]

Really minor suggestions, but they might be sticklers for detail:

 

Explosives

p8 The organisation name should be "UK Pyrotechnics Society" (missing 's').

p14 Q16: 'understandable' should be 'understandably'.

 

Poisons

p7  The organisation name should be "UK Pyrotechnics Society" (missing 's').

p10 Q8, does it not need something adding here, as Other is selected for Q7?

 

Otherwise it all looks good, thanks for the effort Wayne.

[wayne]

Really minor suggestions, but they might be sticklers for detail:

 

Explosives

p8 The organisation name should be "UK Pyrotechnics Society" (missing 's').

p14 Q16: 'understandable' should be 'understandably'.

 

Poisons

p7  The organisation name should be "UK Pyrotechnics Society" (missing 's').

p10 Q8, does it not need something adding here, as Other is selected for Q7?

 

Otherwise it all looks good, thanks for the effort Wayne.

 

Well spotted, cheers Bob.

 

I've updated my offline version...I will update google docs (and the above posting) once I've had all feedback.

[starseeker]

looks good Wayne,

 

Lets hope that there is a favourable outcome.

[bangkokpyro]

Isn't this whole discussion academic anyway?

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I thought UK law prohibits all hobby manufacture of fireworks period.

The only thing a hobby firework maker is allowed to do is make 100 gms of B.P then burn it.

Putting that B.P into any kind of device. tube etc is illegal is it not.

If this is the case, legislation regarding the purchasing of chemicals is somewhat irrelevant isn't it?

[Bob Twells]

Isn't this whole discussion academic anyway?

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I thought UK law prohibits all hobby manufacture of fireworks period.

The only thing a hobby firework maker is allowed to do is make 100 gms of B.P then burn it.

Putting that B.P into any kind of device. tube etc is illegal is it not.

If this is the case, legislation regarding the purchasing of chemicals is somewhat irrelevant isn't it?

 

Yes, that is the current state of affairs in the UK, but that legislation is under review at the moment, and due to the very hard work of Wayne and others, the UKPS has been a part of the government's review committee for the last four years or so. After all that time it's finally getting close to the point where new legislation should allow experimental devices to be legitimately made (under safe conditions and criteria etc). See Wayne's latest update here: http://www.pyrosocie...nts/#entry80821

 

Any changes to the supply of chemicals or poisons to the public will therefore probably impact UKPS members more so than it currently would. No one wants to see us finally able to legitimately make fireworks for research and experimentation, only for it to then become prohibitively difficult or expensive to get the chemicals needed!

[bangkokpyro]

I see. I sure hope things do change for you guys over there but I doubt it very much.

Seems all avenues of fun and excitement are slowly being outlawed and restricted now in  the UK; one reason I will never return  to live there

Edited by bangkokpyro, 10 January 2014 - 01:22 PM.