This question is asked quite a lot. The answer is yes of course it does! But only on certain skin types. For example laser hair removal works best on people with light skin and dark hair. So if you have ginger hair, or dark skin it wont be as effective and may not even work at all. For people with dark hair and light skin results of course vary, but it WILL work, you just need a few treatments and enough time to get it to work. Your hair follicles will be damages after a treatment so they should start to produce less hair, and lighter hair after a few months, then no hair at all over the next few months. You just need to be patient!

Ive been reading up on at home laser hair removal, and clinic based laser hair removal. Was looking at some of the side effects since im thinking of getting it and don't want to end up with something horrible happening to me!

Longer Term Laser Hair Removal Unwanted Effects

The fact is that there is sometimes a danger of long term laser hair removal side effects, though rare, they are possible and you ought to be informed of the risks just before treatment. Your skin could possibly marginally change coloring on the vicinity you have had treatment, this happens because the laser locates melanin, naturally this might mean some of the color of your skin could be lightened when it's destroyed.. The severeness of the therapy necessary for this to materialize will be really big, it is not likely it would abruptly take place after your very first appointment. The bulk of laser hair removal systems may be reduced with regards to their power output as well, so if this begins to come about you can actually merely turn the strength down, you will be more vulnerable to the treatment if your skin happens to be dark as well as your hair, or you have blonde or ginger hair.

The whole process of laser hair removal - eradicating your hair follicles, may seem really harmful, nonetheless it actually just isn't. The only really serious risk posed from laser hair removal is infection coming from broken skin, this could be prevented by being confident that you are entirely clean just before each session. Try a sterilising solution if you are concerned concerning an infection In person (and im confident you will agree). I think the laser hair removal side effects are not outweighed by the substantial benefits that laser hair removal delivers. 

So as you can see the side effects are not too bad. Ive also been looking at laser hair removal costs, which dont seem to expensive either. 

Hey everyone, this is going to be a space on two things that interest me - legal theory, and laser hair removal. Yes they couldn't be further apart could they? I chose two things so I had more stuff to write about. Above you can see a video on laser hair removal which explains the basics.

This is an exctract from the end of an essay im currently writing. It is to do with whether in this day in age the Parliament of the UK is still sovereign... 

The problems for Dicecy’s definition come from international law, especially the

EU and European Convention on Human Rights. The EU was well established

when the UK joined. Van Gend en Loos had established that “The Community

constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states

have limited their sovereign rights”, when dealing with direct effect. This means

that the UK could not claim that they were somehow scammed into joining the EU

and having their sovereignty limited without due knowledge. There was no risk of

the UK thinking the EU was similar to the UN being able to choose to get involved

or not at will. This suggests that Parliamentary sovereignty has indeed suffered

a large blow. Parliament could choose to leave at any time but the discussion

should be focused on the current state of affairs rather than hypothetical situations.

The Factortame case is perhaps the most important case when considering

Parliamentary sovereignty in regards to the EU. The case highlighted the supremacy

of EU law over national law where the EU has competence since the ECJ held that

national courts could strike down laws which went against the EU. The House of

Lords in effect struck down Merchant Fishing Act 1988 which would mean that there

is indeed body which can “override or set aside the legislation of Parliament”. Even

if the UK did choose to leave the EU the damage would have already been done,

Parliament would at one stage have had its sovereignty limited. Also, looking at the

facts of the case, it would seem that the notion of the latter act of Parliament taking

priority over the former was in jeopardy. As Wade explains:

“The established rule about conflicting Acts of Parliament, namely that the later Act

must prevail, was evidently violated, since the later Act in this case was the Merchant

Shipping Act 1988, yet it was disapplied under the European Communities Act

Parliament can’t be described as being sovereign if it is limited by previous

Parliaments. Paul Craig takes a different view which Wade calls the construction

view. This view involves assuming that Parliament does not intend to override ECC

law and ECC law will prevail unless another act of Parliament says differently.

This seems to be taking a counterintuitive view of the situation in an attempt to

preserve Parliamentary sovereignty. Judges and academics may be too loyal to

the traditional notion of Parliamentary sovereignty and may attempt to twist various

events in EU thought to protect Parliamentary sovereignty; this could result in an

unnatural twist on events which would otherwise be quite simple to someone who

approaches the situation with a more cold and logical frame of mind. To help show

this, Wade, in paraphrasing Craig says that Craig’s “construction view is more likely

to commend itself to judges because it is based upon the will of Parliament”. Of

course Parliamentary sovereignty is necessary to an extent, without it there would

be confusion as to the hierarchy of law, but it is dangerous to give Parliamentary

sovereignty the status of an eternal objective truth. Parliament can give up a certain

amount of power and still fulfil the important role of providing clarity and structure.

The European Convention on Human Rights has a similar effect on Parliamentary

sovereignty as compared to the EU. Individuals can make appeals to the European

Court of Human Rights and Domestic (Human Rights Act 1998) courts if they feel

that their Human Rights have been breached. In R v Secretary of State for the Home

Department Lord Hoffman made some important points about the current status of

Human Rights in regards to Parliamentary sovereignty.

“Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate

contrary to fundamental principles of human rights…but the principle of legality

means that Parliament must squarely confront what its doing and accept the political

The reoccurring theme of Parliament being able to do something, but probably not

actually doing it again comes up. This type of argument in favour of Parliamentary

sovereignty is a weak one. For example I could, if I wanted, go outside and murder

someone, or I could take up acting lessons and become a big Hollywood actor. Just

because these things are feasible doesn’t mean I can use them as strong evidence

in an argument for myself becoming a killer or an actor. That is why, as I mentioned

before, it is best to look at the current state of events rather than speculate too much

Overall Parliamentary sovereignty seems to retain its orthodox meaning in regards

to non international matters due to the history of cases decided for Parliamentary

sovereignty. Any issues of devolution or giving power to overseas territories does

not impede on Dicey’s definition. However in regards to the EU and Human rights

Dicey’s definition is violated. Arguments defending Dicey’s definition against the EU

and Human Rights revolve around hypothetical situations which are not able to be

proven for the very simple matter of us not knowing what the future will hold.