101 replies to this topic

[wayne]

Absolutely, this is just one proposal, if you can prove competency in others ways, brilliant...

[maxman]

Thanks for letting us know Wayne. Lets hope this gets resolved soon for all party's involved, and appreciate all your efforts.

 

Rod

[wayne]

Just to let you know, I've not heard anything back from the ELO as yet.  I will send an email next week requesting an update and see if I get any response.

 

I'm not expecting things to come back quickly but as long as I can get hear things are progressing in a positive direction, I suppose that's all we can ask for.

[dave]

the proof of competency as I understand it currently, is not a legal requirement of the application,

 

so I have to say this will inevitably create a precedent for other forces to adopt, which is in my opinion

 

is not going to help, but further hinder future applications.

 

just my view

[maxman]

So we do need to prove competence now?? I'm confused

 

Rod

[cooperman435]

Dave you are fully correct, there is in no way a legal requirement to produce competence, it is the GMP ELO requiring it to provide AaK within that area. And we agree that it would be better to not set a precedent proving competence.

But if not those in the GMP are simply cannot progress so we are trying to help as its our best option

Maxman, nope we don't but if those in the GMP area want their certificates it's this or nothing as it currently stands

[martyn]

Let's get real, competency is going to be a requirement in the future, at the moment it's catch-all.

Why do you think that?

I think we are 'real', the regs are in force now and I don't think they stipulate or quantify competence?

Even if you are correct, and I hope you're not, we are currently in the present, not the future.

My view is that competence is not required for an acquire and keep, 'good character' and basic security are.

I accept that I may be wrong, does anyone know what Danny's view on competence is, he is probably our most informed opinion.

If the ukps has any money in the coffers why don't we challenge this aberrant elo?

(Presumably we don't need any more gazebos for music festivals :-) )

It seems from the dealings with locals and now with Wayne, that he is not really interested in dialogue.

[cooperman435]

Martyn, agree with you on the matter of it being "now" and that I see no reason why the requirements should change in future

But please read back (in this thread I believe) as to the reasons we as a society cannot challenge this ELO as to the right he has through his position to impose his own requirements before he will grant a licence (rightfully or wrongfully)

We are therefore trying the best option we see we have to help get those individuals aplications granted

We're essentially (and against our preferences too I'll add) trying to establish a cheap and easy way to satisfy his competency requirements

[martyn]

Fair enough Phil, point taken, but it boils my piss!

Hopefully the competence point might be something as simple as signing to say that you have read and understand the UKPS guidelines for home amateur pyro experimentation.

[cooperman435]

I'm with you fully Martyn, I think it's poor form an individual can simply decide he wishes to enforce something that isn't required for an already quite rigorous application process and it not be very simple to have that decision over ruled. However there is a significant chance by trying to do so that the repercussions would be an overall disadvantage to us all so we go with the honey altos just over vinagar.

It's likley to require a bit more than that alone but we are going for the lowest and easiest options available already

[David G]

My last thought and comment on this. If the law does not require proof of competence,then this one ELO is acting outside of the law,is he not? If that is the case then we have the legal right to challenge him.

[dave]

phil,

 

I accept what you say.

but this is purely related to the gm elo from what I have read.

 

I have to re iterate, once another precedent is set, it is a slippery slope.

whats to stop another reason for not granting "appearing" out of nowhere?

 

unless you have in mind a proof of competence that is extremely easy to show, and personally I cannot envisage such an easy process,.............a sound mind and character should be all that is (currently)required.

[cooperman435]

David G your correct that you have the option to challenge him but I have said that before in this thread remember? I'd not say however he is acting unlawfully simply asking for more than is legally required which there is no law to say he cannot do. His position grants him that ability. We as a society cannot challenge him and suggest that trying to work with the authorities to satisfy the competence issue will be recurred better than a challenge but you are free to do so if you choose obviously.


Dave, yes I fully share your fears but it's this or nothing and we don't think that nothing is really a good stance for us as a society to take, we are though as you say aiming for the most reasonable and accessable route to do so yes

[maxman]

I don't really have a problem with the issue of proving competence if so requested but if the ELO wants to stipulate this he should be coming back to say what WILL satisfy this criteria not just saying it's up to YOU to prove your competence and leaving it at that. By all means ask but then tell us what you want please and how to obtain it.

 

Rod

Edited by maxman, 11 July 2016 - 07:58 PM.

[cooperman435]

And again I fully agree with you but unfortunately we can't make him but it does seem odd that he is asking for something but has no way to say what it is that he actually wants.