Jump to content


Photo

Marketing and Use of Explosive Precursors


  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#31 martyn

martyn

    Pyro Forum Regular

  • UKPS Members
  • 470 posts

Posted 24 September 2010 - 12:01 AM

Phil Dunford is applying for a certificate to acquire and keep BP for use in manufacturing pyrotechnic articles under 100gr in accordance with MSER 2005.


Now I'm really confused, not unusual :mellow:.

My understanding was that the act of manufacture is illegal, and the 100g bit was for the purpose of testing and experimentation (of the loose composition?)

Would be great if Phill's application was approved with the legitimate reason for aquisition being for the purpose of small article manufacture.

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick? Perhaps you are going along the lines that Phill can legally experiment and, mix and roll 100g of, say, perchlorate stars and the BP is required to 'test' them by firing them from a star gun which arguably is a testing device and not a pyrotechnic article.

15Kg should last a while then! :D

#32 rr22

rr22

    Member

  • General Public Members
  • PipPip
  • 74 posts

Posted 24 September 2010 - 12:55 AM

Be careful chaps, this is what they admit to ,

http://www.telegraph...-behaviour.html

God knows what's really going on.

I stopped my small scale and innocuous experimentation,because make no mistake anyone with "Explosives" outside of a very limited and vetted
group is a criminal and faces draconion penalties.

Your experimental gerb is a terror weapon or "precursor" of such depending on the whim of the investigating authority.

Of course no one wants a dynamite factory in next doors shed but this is the situation we ARE in and ongoing legislation will / does outlaw even the mildest of
amateur chemists.

I only have the nerve to post this because I disposed of my "precursors" for fear of the consequences should the authorities decide to take an interest.

As things stand all of the forums practical experimenters face prosecution for their inventory notwithstanding the 100's of years of safe practice of the art.

I do not advocate a free-for-all,but the reason the terrorists fail is not down to legislation but the fact that,

1; they are stupid,and
2: they are vanishingly few.

We as a nation faced off 66,000,000 pissed of Germans*and carried on as normal,but now we are supposed to panic and surrender our freedoms to a shadowy army of "Terrorists" ** as the the Roman bloke said "cui bono".

*inc.Werhmacht + Romania, Italy,Hungary,Finland,Japan,et cetera

**
–noun1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 2.the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3.a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Edited by rr22, 24 September 2010 - 01:11 AM.


#33 Potassium chlorate

Potassium chlorate

    Pyro Forum Regular

  • General Public Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 596 posts

Posted 24 September 2010 - 07:36 AM

Speaking of Nazi Germany: do you know that the nazis had a more liberal gun law 1938-45 than any "democratic" EU country of today?

So Adolf trusted the majority of the German people (not Jews or oppositionals of course, but still the majority of the people) more than any government of today trusts it citizens.

Shame on the EU. :angry:
"This salt, formerly called hyperoxymuriate of potassa, is
used for sundry preparations, and especially for experimental
fire-works."

Dr. James Cutbush

#34 crystal palace fireworks

crystal palace fireworks

    Keith

  • General Public Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts

Posted 24 September 2010 - 09:12 AM

Here is another look at the options/proposals.

http://ec.europa.eu/...xplosives_en.pd

Edited by crystal palace fireworks, 24 September 2010 - 10:25 AM.


#35 phildunford

phildunford

    Member

  • UKPS Staff Members
  • 2,299 posts

Posted 24 September 2010 - 10:35 AM

Keiths Link
Teaching moft plainly, and withall moft exactly, the composing of all manner of fire-works for tryumph and recreation (John Bate 1635)
Posted Imagethegreenman

#36 Potassium chlorate

Potassium chlorate

    Pyro Forum Regular

  • General Public Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 596 posts

Posted 24 September 2010 - 11:25 AM

Welcome to STASI-land.

Though my conscience is clean; I voted No to the EU crap.

Edited by Pyroswede, 24 September 2010 - 11:25 AM.

"This salt, formerly called hyperoxymuriate of potassa, is
used for sundry preparations, and especially for experimental
fire-works."

Dr. James Cutbush

#37 BrightStar

BrightStar

    Pyro Forum Regular

  • General Public Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 900 posts

Posted 24 September 2010 - 12:09 PM

Whilst this seems an unwelcome development on first reading and would certainly inconvenience the smaller pyro suppliers, in some ways it might actually be helpful in legitimising our hobby.

As I understand it at present, many chemical vendors in the UK liaise voluntarily with the police to report any suspicious purchases. This leads to constant doubts when placing orders and doesn't always work as we would hope (see the article linked below).

Assuming that the licenses would be made readily available to amateur home scientists (and that is a big assumption) it might actually increase the range of supplies available to us.

The system at present isn't great:

PhD student's experiments spark police raid

#38 crystal palace fireworks

crystal palace fireworks

    Keith

  • General Public Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts

Posted 24 September 2010 - 01:16 PM

Keiths Link


Cheers Phil, for some reason it would`nt upload to that particular page.

#39 portfire

portfire

    Pyro Forum Top Trump

  • General Public Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts

Posted 24 September 2010 - 01:41 PM

I feel it's coming to the point....Wait....It has, where members of the forum(UK) cant, or are in fear of posting pics/vids of their hard work making something as simple as a fountain, that took time and effort and just want to show people what is possible and to prove we are not a bunch of idiots........Where has that "Spark" gone?

I'm off to paste the last few layers on a 16" I just made.....JOKE BTW!!!!!! It's only a 6" LOL

Edited by portfire, 24 September 2010 - 01:47 PM.

"I reject your reality and substitute my own" Adam Savage

#40 exat808

exat808

    Pyro Forum Regular

  • General Public Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 414 posts

Posted 24 September 2010 - 02:04 PM

The proposed list of licensable precursors will affect a range of hobbies and other non-work activities. For example - Nitromethane as used in high strength in vehcle engines ( scale models and full size), amateur horticulturalists who make their own fertiliser compounds, any amateur chemists, those who choose to lawfully home educate their children, etc etc.
It will be interesting to see who will be the licencing authority for these regs here in the UK. The EU draft at present suggests that it will be the national notified body in each state, which in the UK is the HSE. As the legislation is more consumer focussed there is a possibility that the HSE may seek to derogate their power to Trading Standards officers!

#41 crystal palace fireworks

crystal palace fireworks

    Keith

  • General Public Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts

Posted 24 September 2010 - 02:12 PM

Whilst this seems an unwelcome development on first reading and would certainly inconvenience the smaller pyro suppliers, in some ways it might actually be helpful in legitimising our hobby.

As I understand it at present, many chemical vendors in the UK liaise voluntarily with the police to report any suspicious purchases. This leads to constant doubts when placing orders and doesn't always work as we would hope (see the article linked below).

Assuming that the licenses would be made readily available to amateur home scientists (and that is a big assumption) it might actually increase the range of supplies available to us.

The system at present isn't great:

PhD student's experiments spark police raid


This is worrying, this stinks of a police PR excercise gone wrong, the powers that be need to engage there brains and evaluate the situation before using over the top tactics on a innocent Phd student, yes we know the victim is originally from Ireland, and that will alert some in the surveillance services, but this is crazy and ruinous to his reputation.

I would advocate a open disscussion/debate to see what ways we can promote our honorable intentions with respect to the security services.

#42 phildunford

phildunford

    Member

  • UKPS Staff Members
  • 2,299 posts

Posted 24 September 2010 - 02:34 PM

Of course, being a press story, we can't actually take anything that was said as true.

If however on the evidence in the story the police considered this a 'proportionate response' something is seriously wrong.

It is not an offence to possess most chemicals. A proportionate response would be a friendly visit from a (knowledgeable) plain clothes officer to find out the facts.

Very worrying.

As this was a year ago, does anyone know the outcome? A public apology perhaps?


Teaching moft plainly, and withall moft exactly, the composing of all manner of fire-works for tryumph and recreation (John Bate 1635)
Posted Imagethegreenman

#43 darkfang77

darkfang77

    Member

  • General Public Members
  • PipPip
  • 102 posts

Posted 24 September 2010 - 04:44 PM

Of course, being a press story, we can't actually take anything that was said as true.

If however on the evidence in the story the police considered this a 'proportionate response' something is seriously wrong.

It is not an offence to possess most chemicals. A proportionate response would be a friendly visit from a (knowledgeable) plain clothes officer to find out the facts.

Very worrying.

As this was a year ago, does anyone know the outcome? A public apology perhaps?



that is very worrying, i wonder what chemicals he bought?
And does that mean that I can no longer trust any chemical supplier if I buy some KNO3 or KClO4?
I still can't believe that. I think this is why a few of us are buying chemicals from people who have no licenses or businesses whatsoever in order to evade the Army trashing their homes.

#44 exat808

exat808

    Pyro Forum Regular

  • General Public Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 414 posts

Posted 24 September 2010 - 05:02 PM

that is very worrying, i wonder what chemicals he bought?
And does that mean that I can no longer trust any chemical supplier if I buy some KNO3 or KClO4?
I still can't believe that. I think this is why a few of us are buying chemicals from people who have no licenses or businesses whatsoever in order to evade the Army trashing their homes.



There is a strong possibility that the suspicion was not of bomb making but of drug precursors.

This link will take you the SOCA site page that has a further link to a spreadsheet of precursor chemicals related to drug making -

http://www.soca.gov....icals-wallchart

This link also to the SOCA site gives a further link to a guidance flow chart that advises when the authorities should be informed -

http://www.soca.gov....-cct-flow-chart

#45 digger

digger

    Pyro Forum Top Trump!

  • UKPS Members
  • 1,960 posts

Posted 24 September 2010 - 05:14 PM

Interesting and emotive thread.

In reply to darkfang. There is no requirement for a supplier to have any licence as far as I am aware for the chemicals that we require. I guess this will not change with this regulation as it would appear to apply to the end user. However I would hope that all suppliers do their due diligence regardless of their status, lets face it we don't want unsupervised children and idiots getting hold of certain items let alone terrorists.

Regarding the proposed legislation, mmmmmmm. I am not against regulation if it is sensible. However I feel in this particular case it would unfairly prohibit many from a number of hobbies. Not because they would not be able to get a licence, but because currently most of the items on the list are relatively cheap due to market forces. The cost of the licence and policing it I guess would be reassuringly expensive for those who only have a few pounds to spend on a little experimentation due to the cost of government bodies.

I am of the opinion that the regulation would have absolutely no effect on the ability of a determined terrorist to manufacture improvised explosives. It may make it a little more difficult for the old style IRA huge ANFO devices to be quickly put together. But lets face it the Palestinians manage to build thousands of rockets to fire at Israel and I would guess that prohibition of chemicals in the Gaza strip is far far more extreme than this legislation would be able to produce.

The current terrorist trend is for small devices to be deployed to maximum effect in busy places. Lets face it a great many people who frequent this forum would be able able to produce the chemicals for one of these from foodstuffs given a bit of thought and manufacture of some basic equipment!!!!

So in my opinion this legislation would do nothing to stop a terrorist. Lets face it if you were going to mount an attack then would you buy your stocks from chemicals R us?

The only course of action against these types is good intelligence, and even then that may not stop the determined individual with a cause.
Phew that was close.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users