Advice on Teeth Whitening Discussion Thread

Teethwhiteninguk

The EU are investigating a law infringement against the the UK government in regards to tooth whitening.

A new legal team are on the case and Ms Jamous has not been prosecuted at this time.

A GDC investigation into the company who trained Lorna was dropped!
Very interesting!

A dignified silence by all is appropriate right now.

brook2jack

Ms Jamous has been prosecuted, as I understand it leave to appeal to the supreme court was denied. As I understand it sentencing has been delayed but has been remitted back to the magistrates court. Tooth whitening is illegal if not by or prescribed by a dentist.

She was trained by fuss which then turned into IACTW and has now gone bust. The person who owned it Gary Knight/Burgess/Gold is currently in prison and has a long history of defrauding people http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2012/11/producer-to-the-stars-in-his-d.html

So as the business is out of business and the owner in jail there's not alot to investigate is there?

Silence would continue to let fraudsters like this continue to sell tooth whitening courses to people unaware that they are paying alot of money for a useless certificate , insurance based offshore which is useless and an activity (tooth whitening) which is illegal for them to do .

brook2jack

Teethwhiteninguk wrote: »

The EU are investigating a law infringement against the the UK government in regards to tooth whitening.

A new legal team are on the case and Ms Jamous has not been prosecuted at this time.

A GDC investigation into the company who trained Lorna was dropped!
Very interesting!

A dignified silence by all is appropriate right now.

Fortunately the BBC , national newspapers etc are publicising this story , if you look on I player you can hear on Jeremy Vines show on radio two on Tuesday, I think, the Jamous case discussed and the illegality of non dentists whitening teeth and the dangers inherent.

Teethwhiteninguk

brook2jack wrote: »

Fortunately the BBC , national newspapers etc are publicising this story , if you look on I player you can hear on Jeremy Vines show on radio two on Tuesday, I think, the Jamous case discussed and the illegality of non dentists whitening teeth and the dangers inherent.

This does not mean the correct legal position has been determined. I look forward to reading the findings of a full investigation by the EU.

The EU would not be conducting an investigation if there was insufficient evidence.

I never believe everything I read in the press or hear on the radio!

brook2jack

I think you'll find case law has been established by the two high court judges, magistrates now have case law to follow , tooth whitening by non dentists is illegal. That's also the interpretation of many, many law firms e.g http://www.mablaw.com/2013/05/high-court-rules-that-teeth-whitening-can-only-be-performed-by-dental-professionals-general-dental-council-jamous/ http://www.mondaq.com/x/241748/Healthcare/Latest+Tooth+Whitening+News. http://www.gotelee.co.uk/about-us/news/tooth-whitening-a-criminal-offence

Is a small selection.

There is no wiggle room here , and people selling whitening courses or advising non dentists to carry on tooth whitening are throwing people to the lions knowing that they are making false promises .

Teethwhiteninguk

brook2jack wrote: »

I think you'll find case law has been established by the two high court judges, magistrates now have case law to follow , tooth whitening by non dentists is illegal. That's also the interpretation of many, many law firms e.g http://www.mablaw.com/2013/05/high-court-rules-that-teeth-whitening-can-only-be-performed-by-dental-professionals-general-dental-council-jamous/ http://www.mondaq.com/x/241748/Healthcare/Latest+Tooth+Whitening+News. http://www.gotelee.co.uk/about-us/news/tooth-whitening-a-criminal-offence

Is a small selection.

EU law overrides UK law I am afraid.

DOES EUROPEAN LAW OVERRIDE NATIONAL LAW?
Yes it does.
Is this stated in the Lisbon Treaty? Yes
Is this anything new? No.

The principle of European law overriding national law has actually been around since 1963, when it was decided that European law could not be applied in different ways in the Member States, without fundamentally undermining any chance of acheiving the Treaty objectives.

Treaty objectives are agreed by the member governments when a new Treaty is being drafted. The EU can only propose new laws to fulfill the completion of those Treaty objectives, and should not come out with measures outside of that framework.

Basically, the governments agree a 10 year plan, which is then put into Treaty form. They then tell the Commission to implement these policies by coming out with legislative proposals to fulfill the agreed Treaty objectives. Once a law has been passed, the different countries agree to implement it, and allow it to override national law.

Does the UK accept this principle?
Yes, and it has done since 1972, when Parliament passed the European Communities Act. Since then, if there has been a conflict between national law and European law, the UK courts have to give priority to European law.

What happens if they don´t?
If you join the EU, then part of that package means you are fundamentally obliged to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfillment of the obligations arising out of a Treaty.

Equally, member states are fundamentally obliged to implement any laws agreed in Brussels, which means that it is up to governments and businesses to get the best deal they can when new acts are proposed by the Commission.

Finally, any government must abstain from doing anything which could jeopardize the completion of the agreed Treaty objectives.

If a government does break this fundamental obligation, then they can be taken to court and fined (sometimes very heavily!)

To finish up, and just to show you that nothing actually changes in politics, here is a quote made by Lord Denning in 1979.

"If the time should come when Parliament deliberately passes an Act with the intention of repudiating the Treaty, or any provision in it, or intentionally of acting inconsistently with it and says so in express terms then I should have thought that it would be the duty of our courts to follow the statute of our Parliament. I do not however envisage any such situation… Unless there is such an intentional and express repudiation of the Treaty, it is our duty to give priority to the Treaty."

The adoption by Parliament of a law repudiating a Treaty would, of course, put the UK in breach of its fundamental obligations under European law.

Furthermore, every case is different.

brook2jack

The EU banned the use of hydrogen peroxide for tooth whitening above 0.1% by non dentists because of safety concerns when used in the wrong hands.

Sodium perborate the chemical most commonly used by illegal whiteners is about to be banned by the EU because of reproductive safety concerns http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_031.pdf&sa=U&ei=ZnLMUYC9D4ak0QW6goGYAQ&ved=0CBsQFjAA&sig2=fpXNVF7ew00dwbK3klNEOw&usg=AFQjCNHOa_cn0fR4qGzGX_2fQka6-O5mEw

All of these moves have been prompted by safety concerns for the public.

Where are the over riding safety concerns for allowing people with no health training to put chemicals strong enough to change the colour of teeth inside one of the most delicate parts of the body? The current laws are about protecting the public from harm.

Until this "EU committee" has forced the British government to change case law and amend the dentists act and dismantle the legislative devices which set up the GDC the High Court case law stands.

Teethwhiteninguk

brook2jack wrote: »

The EU banned the use of hydrogen peroxide for tooth whitening above 0.1% by non dentists because of safety concerns when used in the wrong hands.

Sodium perborate the chemical most commonly used by illegal whiteners is about to be banned by the EU because of reproductive safety concerns http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_031.pdf&sa=U&ei=ZnLMUYC9D4ak0QW6goGYAQ&ved=0CBsQFjAA&sig2=fpXNVF7ew00dwbK3klNEOw&usg=AFQjCNHOa_cn0fR4qGzGX_2fQka6-O5mEw

All of these moves have been prompted by safety concerns for the public.

Where are the over riding safety concerns for allowing people with no health training to put chemicals strong enough to change the colour of teeth inside one of the most delicate parts of the body? The current laws are about protecting the public from harm.

Until this "EU committee" has forced the British government to change case law and amend the dentists act and dismantle the legislative devices which set up the GDC the High Court case law stands.

Oh, please!

The majority of businesses have switched to legal non-peroxide products. Perbroate is permitted in EU law at this time.

Many big businesses do not use perborate, do not touch the client, do not prescribe etc. etc.!

Uk dentists say the products are as safe as tooth paste!

The EU does not need to change UK case law, EU law overrides UK law, full stop.

Why was the Pearly's case dropped?

brook2jack

You think the Pearlys case has been dropped , how interesting.

I think you'll find the furore caused by the false report that the prime minister endorsed the business http://dentistry.co.uk/news/5137-GDC-investigating-tooth-whitening-clinic stirred up a hornets nest and , as you know , cases take a long time to prosecute.

The person who was damaged by Lorna Jamous had treatment in 2011 and the case was finally settled in May this year.

rageagainstessays

Can I just say, I saw one of these 'Saturday morning bleachers' performing their trade at a shopping centre and I wouldn't have let her anywhere near my teeth.
She was shaking with the scaler tool in her hand. Actually Shaking. No-onewho is shakey should be allowed to use sharp metal instruments in or anywhere near anyone's mouth.

I'll take the dentist and the pain in my wallet for doing so.