85 replies to this topic

[dr thrust]

Yes from the doc, as long as we can actually use the the chems once we've bought them lol

[SNAP CRACKLE BANG!]

Yes from me depending on Price.

[maxman]

This is like pulling teeth at the moment! This thread has been up for 24 hrs now with only the usual suspects so far replying. I wonder if because of inactivity generally on the forum if members are not logging in regularly and will therefore not see this. Would a bulk email / private message to all members or subscribers not be a better option for polls of this nature? It wont look good to say 14 people would pay for a licence. We are so near now I would hate to see this slip away!

 

Rod

[Sam Miller]

A yes from me if the price isn't too high. Greatly interested in anything to make our hobby more legal!

[digger]

I have spoken to Oliver Brown Chemicals.

 

The upshot was, he has around 3000 - 4000 sales of oxidisers per annum. In this lot there are a large number of single orders. He estimates that the serious repeat customers account for 10% - 15% of these sales and hence if push came to shove 350 - 450 of these would get a licence, the rest would either go underground and get chemicals sent into the country or stop experimenting. 

 

Hope this helps.

 

G

[Bob Twells]

Yes from me

[phildunford]

This is a useful thread and the numbers from suppliers are encouraging.

 

However, I would suggest we avoid being too keen on getting into licensing,as there is still the option of 'no change'.

 

I will email the membership when I get a moment, but regrettably, this is far from being in the thousands...

Edited by phildunford, 17 January 2014 - 02:42 PM.

[Arthur Brown]

the trouble will be that responsible society members and forum regulars will likely be outnumbered by totally unknowns from the wider world, Forum opinion only represents the top few hobbyists. No doubt there will continue to be unthinking experimenters -with or without licence.

[fruitfulsteve]

Yes. Would it be possible for the suppiers to email their customers explain the situation and possibly give a link to this conservation ?

[pyromaniac303]

I would say that the cost of any licence must be compared against the price that certain individuals may pay to overseas suppliers that don't have to abide by UK laws.

 

For instance someone who only purchases 1 or 2kg of potassium perchlorate a year may find it cheaper and therefore be tempted to buy illegally from overseas suppliers if the licence is greater than the additional cost of shipping, plus the over inflated prices from certain dodgy sellers.

 

Someone who purchases in large quantities may find the licence cost is offset by the cheaper shipping and prices from within the UK. This should be used to set the benchmark for the licence cost, or risk driving the purchase of chemicals further underground.

 

I would be willing to pay for a licence if it was at sensible cost - ideally < £50.

[Mortartube]

I would begrudgingly buy a licence if it was of reasonable cost. I can't see the reason for needing one. It is naive to believe that a licence system to obtain chemicals will keep them out of the hands of terrorists and Ne'er do wells.

 

The only people who suffer are licence holders who do things properly in the event of a high profile incident. As an illustration I can say sarcastically that luckily there is never any gun crime in the UK because handguns were made illegal after Dunblane,.

[crystal palace fireworks]

Reasonable cost, what does that mean? £50 £100, £250 per year????? = no way, My personal opinion ;- To obtain chemicals legally for pyrotechnic experimental or manufacturing use in the UK, I believe perspective buyers should be subject to a criminal records bureau check, or licenses be issued by the police with fees costing around the same as a Pedlars License (index linked to inflation).

[Steve]

10 years ago this may have worked, but the world has changed a lot since then. There are too many 'eBay chemical suppliers' who will get hold of anything through their business and sell indiscriminately, it would be too easy to buy from one of the dodgy sellers.

Besides, it's a very unusual thing to license the buyers, think of most restricted goods, alcohol, drugs etc, it's the sellers that are licensed, and this would be a lot easier to regulate and administrate. The sellers would then have duty of care built more strongly into the licensing requirements.

You've got to ask what you're hoping to achieve with this? Are you trying to stop terrorist getting hold of dangerous chemicals? Because they'll find a way. Are you trying to reduce the number of accidents from novice experimenters? Because they'll just get eBay chemicals. It just strikes me that this would make more trouble and expense for the only people that don't deserve it. The amount of public funding required to enforce this to a level where it would actual be of national benefit would be prohibitive.

 

Sorry to be so negative :/ it's just my opinion.

[Bob Twells]

10 years ago this may have worked, but the world has changed a lot since then. There are too many 'eBay chemical suppliers' who will get hold of anything through their business and sell indiscriminately, it would be too easy to buy from one of the dodgy sellers.

Besides, it's a very unusual thing to license the buyers, think of most restricted goods, alcohol, drugs etc, it's the sellers that are licensed, and this would be a lot easier to regulate and administrate. The sellers would then have duty of care built more strongly into the licensing requirements.

You've got to ask what you're hoping to achieve with this? Are you trying to stop terrorist getting hold of dangerous chemicals? Because they'll find a way. Are you trying to reduce the number of accidents from novice experimenters? Because they'll just get eBay chemicals. It just strikes me that this would make more trouble and expense for the only people that don't deserve it. The amount of public funding required to enforce this to a level where it would actual be of national benefit would be prohibitive.

 

Sorry to be so negative :/ it's just my opinion.

I think you're completely right, but the reality is that the Home Office are unlikely to take the 'do nothing' option, so it is important that as many people responded to their survey as possible to vote for the least intrusive options. We'll just have to wait and see the outcome and how much it will affect the amateur enthusiast.

[phildunford]

I'm afraid Bob is right, but we should still push for the do-nothing option.

 

We are worried about the financial/ supply effect on us, but the authorities must realize such a system will not fulfill their requirement of keeping bad stuff off the streets. As tax payers we should not encourage another pointless piece of bureaucracy from a government which came into power saying they would increase freedom and reduce bureaucracy!