11 replies to this topic

[Richard H]

An article written by the BPS moderating team features in the brand new edition of John Bennett's excellent Fireworks magazine.

Please support this excellent publication and order a subscription today.

For a full run down of the contents see:
http://www.fireworks...org/issue47.htm

[alany]

Please support this excellent publication and order a subscription today.

Excellent, they take PayPal now!

Well I just subscribed, I've been meaning to do so for a while, compared to that bloody AFN rag Fireworks Mag is great. I'd consider not renewing AFN, but I like getting pyro mail, and it is interesting to get the Yank view of things.

[wayne]

An article written by the BPS moderating team features in the brand new edition of John Bennett's excellent Fireworks magazine.

Please support this excellent publication and order a subscription today.

For a full run down of the contents see:
http://www.fireworks...org/issue47.htm

Hi Richard,

Just read the article and it raises some very interesting proposals. The 100g/500g experimental limit seems perfectly adiquate for the vast majority of enthuiast pyros. If these proposals we're to be agreed and sanctioned by the HSE what a fanstastic result that would be.

If theres is anything I can do to help with these proposals, then please don't hesitate to ask.

Lets hope the BPS can make the big difference!

Kind regards,

Wayne.

[PyroKid]

Hey guys,

Im an avid reader of "fireworks magazine" and have got to aggree that it is indead an excelent publication.
I read in one of your earlier posts that you were going to place an article in the magazine.

Upon recieving issue 47 of the magazine, a look at the contents page revealed that this has indead happened.

I look forward to reading the article and fully support you in your endeavour.

All the best!

[Creepin_pyro]

Thanks for the link, Richard. This article is definately a step in the right direction for the BPS

I'm just about to subscribe.

[Richard H]

Cheers for the support guys! We certainly think the proposals in the article are a step in the right direction, as they do not require any changes to the law.

The next step is discussions with the HSE after the Soc is registered and officals are elected.

[Phoenix]

Just the reason I needed to subscribe (been meaning too for a while). I look forward to reading your article (and everything else, of course).

[richard2]

Richard H,

I have just read your article in Fireworks and found it very interesting. After reading MSER (2005) I was thinking along similar lines to you regarding experimentation and trial. An experiment investigating the properties of different fountain compositions will obviously need to be conducted under the pressures that they burn at within a fountain. In my opinion this would justify the construction of a fountain for this experiment. Under the new legislation (or indeed the old) neither 'experimental' or 'laboratory' has been defined. I would be happy to let a jury decide on whether anything that I have done is illegal under the proposed legislation and agree with you that it should be flexible enough to accommodate the hobbyist in future. On the opposite page to you article Mr Lancaster mentions a case of someone defending using the 'experimental' defence. I have searched for cases in which this defence has been used however have been unable to find any. I realise that the case mentioned is likely not specific to any current experimentation but it would still be of interest if you know details.

Regards



Rich

[BigG]

Richard H,

I have just read your article in Fireworks and found it very interesting. After reading MSER (2005) I was thinking along similar lines to you regarding experimentation and trial. An experiment investigating the properties of different fountain compositions will obviously need to be conducted under the pressures that they burn at within a fountain. In my opinion this would justify the construction of a fountain for this experiment. Under the new legislation (or indeed the old) neither 'experimental' or 'laboratory' has been defined. I would be happy to let a jury decide on whether anything that I have done is illegal under the proposed legislation and agree with you that it should be flexible enough to accommodate the hobbyist in future. On the opposite page to you article Mr Lancaster mentions a case of someone defending using the  'experimental' defence. I have searched for cases in which this defence has been used however have been unable to find any. I realise that the case mentioned is likely not specific to any current experimentation but it would still be of interest if you know details.

Regards
Rich

Rich - in the case mention the HSE took someone to court to argue it's explanatory notes regarding the construction of a device. The reason for the defeat it that the explanatory notes are NOT a part of the law - but the HSE own view of what experiment is - and the court disagree with the HSE on that point, excepting that the construction of a device CAN be a part of an experiment IN THAT SPECIFIC CASE.

It must say that in a similar case the HSE won ? where the difference in the cases had to do with the quantity involved. The cases have never been published in the newspaper and as such are not in the public domain ? but I?ll see if we can try and get the records.

It is important to note that one of the reasons I am not eager on discussing this cases are that some members might see them as a license to manufacture (and this is for good reasons ? the cases has been used by a company to abuse the law). One must note that the cases were very borderline and could have gone both ways ? and are also the reason for some of the clarifications presented in the new regulations.

I was surprised to see the good reverent mentioning them ? as far as I?m aware, they do not bring back good memories for him.

[adamw]

Yes a good article. Well done. What can we write next?!

As for 'unlicensed' manufacture, there is a line between 'hobby' and 'commercial'. I hope the law is more forgiving on the side of 'hobby'. If a company wants to manufacture devices, they should invest money in it and then are able to do it in line with the law. Unfortunately hobbyists cannot really do this, so I hope exceptions can be made.

[BigG]

Yes a good article. Well done. What can we write next?!

As for 'unlicensed' manufacture, there is a line between 'hobby' and 'commercial'. I hope the law is more forgiving on the side of 'hobby'. If a company wants to manufacture devices, they should invest money in it and then are able to do it in line with the law. Unfortunately hobbyists cannot really do this, so I hope exceptions can be made.

Not to worry Adam - next article already on its way We are Covered with martial for the next six issues or so

[Old1953]

Good luck on getting the regulations changed. And good luck on the magazine venture as well - its always good to see the information about the hobby become more widespread.