Lagamorph wrote:I always assumed they were controlled substances.
They used to be more regulated:
Changes made in the Deregulation Act 2015 scrapped an obligation on sellers of dangerous substances, including acids, to be registered with their local council. The move was opposed by medical experts, who warned that it could make it easier for criminals to get their hands on highly toxic substances, and by the Government’s own advisory board on the regulation of hazardous chemicals.
Under previous legislation, namely the 1972 Poisons Act, any business selling dangerous substances was required to register annually with their local council, ensuring there was a record of companies selling hazardous chemicals. Those selling the most lethal chemicals also needed a licence from the Home Office.
However, the 2015 changes scrapped this requirement and now mean there is no longer any registration or licence needed to sell many dangerous chemicals. Only the most potent toxins, including those used to make explosives, are deemed “regulated substances” and require a licence to sell. Sulphuric acid and hydrochloric acid are included on a separate list of “reportable substances” that do not require a licence.
Instead of having to register with their local council, sellers of “reportable substances” are merely required to tell authorities about anyone buying a substance “if the supplier has reasonable grounds for believing the transaction to be suspicious”, such as if there is a suspicion the chemical is “intended for the illicit manufacture of explosives” or “any illicit use”.
The law says reasons for such suspicions could be if the customer is vague or uncertain about how they will use the substance, wants to buy large quantities, is unwilling to provide proof of ID or insists on “unusual methods of payment”.
If none of these take place, people are free to buy and sell powerful acids without any regulation, licensing or registration.
The changes made in 2015 were against the recommendations of the Poisons Board, a panel of experts established to advise ministers on regulating the trade in dangerous substances, who favoured tightening, rather than weakening, regulations so that high concentrations of acid could be sold only by licensed pharmacists.
However, ministers ignored the advice and used the Deregulation Act to completely abolish the Poisons Board.
Doctors were also opposed to relaxing regulations on the sale of poisons. In its response to the Home Office consultation on the proposals, the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh wrote: “The college disagrees with the proposals... Experts consulted by the college would prefer for at least the status quo to be maintained or more rigorous controls put in place.
“If the intention is to restrict the access [to highly toxic chemicals], then [the proposed change] does not work since they appear to be no longer controlled.
Meep wrote:I know the Conservatives stopped publishing their membership stats a while ago due to them perpetually dropping.
Yeah, I posted an article recently in this thread where John Strafford, chairman of the Campaign for Conservative Democracy, said that the membership is down to around 100K now (about Lib Dem levels).
I also think it's interesting that the age tipping point of when people are more likely to vote Conservative is now 47 according to YouGov, when previously it was said to be 34.
I think Corbyn was right when he said the centre ground of UK politics is beginning to shift to the left, and I think Conservatives will need to adapt their policies as we move into future elections so they can appeal more to the increasingly important millennial voters. Campaigning again on bringing back fox hunting for instance would make them look completely out of touch.
Match those shifting age demographics against likelihood of home ownership or secure employment. It's not perfect fit but it explains the change. There are entire generations, including mine, who have spent most of their adult lives being treated as disposable labour and denied any opportunity to gain a real stake in the country they call home. I'm over thirty and the idea of a contract that might not just expire next year is still an alien concept to me. Tories talking up the market is not going to do it. The market economy in the UK is dysfunctional, both in work and housing. I'm sure it seems to work fine if you are an ageing MP with buy-to-let portfolio under you belt though...
DML wrote:I'd rather be an unmarried man than Iain Duncan Smith.
I am looking forward to the inevitable scandal when IDS is exposed as having an affair and/or soliciting prostitutes. The type of arsehole that bangs on about marriage and morality is almost always soon caught out as being a cheater.
I have no evidence that IDS pays prostitutes to piss on him. I am not making any kind of formal, libellous claim that that's how he spends his free time. But... it would kind of fit, wouldn't it? Makes you think.