Ninja 2: The Burka ban is good idea but impossible to enforce

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

To this, I will say yes, a thousand times yes! And I strongly believe that this sentence is true in pretty much every situation: when you go to a foreign country, learn the language; when you choose to go and live away from home, respect the laws of the country you reside in. For the purpose of this post, I will only develop on the issue of women wearing the burkha and headscarves in France and the law that forbids it.

First of all, let me tell you that I agree with the fact that Muslim women should not wear the burkha in a secular country like France, just like I would not expect a Catholic girl to drag around an massive cross behind her. You will then understand that my motivations are not of racist nature. France, like most secular countries, guarantees the freedom of religion to everyone. I should hope so! Doing otherwise would just be blind intolerance and ignorance. So people are allowed to practice the religion they want, whenever they want. Yes. Just as long as it does not go against any fundamental French value, like women freedom and secularism. It is just like how France does not allow polygamy really, just respect the laws and customs! Easy. I wouldn’t expect people to adapt to me if I were to go live in a culturally different country!

Second of all and weirdly enough, to handle this issue, I don’t think that enforcing the law, or even the law itself is the best of methods. First because France might have to face nasty comments from the International Court of Law on the racist or sexist nature of the law. Ouch, we might want to avoid that. But also because I don’t think it is going to solve anything, it is just going to create more and more tensions. I would suggest (don’t get me wrong, I don’t know much about laws, governments and politics in general…) a stronger socialisation process when entering the country, to make sure that people adapt themselves to the customs. Not through force, but through education. I think it would be smoother than a law, fines and the police escorting you to the station.

Now to conclude on this point, I do understand that the law is there to make a point as it has not been enforced since it got through, but I still don’t think it is enough.


Ninja 2: Squatters rights definitely should be abolished

I have two things to say about this. First, when did someone or a group of people breaking into unoccupied houses and living there illegally become a perfectly normal thing? And where are the limits then? Should I open my front door to anyone, should we all have a spare bed and give out spare keys of our apartments? I really don’t think so.

I obviously don’t want to come across as heartless person who doesn’t care about the world’s misery, but come on! Squatters are a problem, and still seeing homeless people in the streets in 2011 is a disgrace. Yes. But I highly doubt that the solution is to watch them occupy one house in November, another one in December and so on, without saying anything. There should be special places  (or more of them) where they could go, more transitional homes, but accepting that anyone could break into my flat when I’m on holidays and coming back only to face a family of 6 happily resting on my couch is a step too far.

Now concerning the fine and jail sentence, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me and I don’t see how this is going to stop squatters from breaking into properties. Ask someone with no income who lives in the street to give the government £5000 because they’ve been naughty: sure, that’s gonna happen!

Squatters’ rights should be abolished, or at least, measures should be enforced, because I don’t see why I should go through months of legal procedures and spend hundreds or thousands of pounds to be able to get MY house back.

It has become ridiculous, every “offender” is being protected by some sort of laws: the tenant who does not pay rent, the stalker who wants to kill you, and now the squatters who want to use your house as their own. No, I really don’t buy that.

Ninja 2: What do my social media profiles say about me?


I use Facebook only as a personal form of social media. My privacy settings allow my friends to access all my information and I always make sure that I personally know the people who I add as friends. This is why I feel comfortable sharing my pictures, updates and general information with them. However, for obvious reasons, I still keep some information private and would never put it on Facebook, such as my address, phone number and so on. Seeing as everything, once put on facebook, is out in the open for everyone to see, I always try to be careful.

The only thing that everyone can access is my profile picture. But what does my current one say about me?

This picture was taken last Wednesday on a PR social event. Claire (ninja 3) and me are posing in front of a camera looking at each other. Although it seems to me that it is a perfectly acceptable picture for Facebook, it clearly shows that I am in a club, pretending to blow a kiss at my friend.


If you ever go on my Twitter page or start following me, you will soon realise how little I use it. Since the creation of my account, I have posted 5 tweets, none of them in relation to PR. My Twitter name is not even my full name but a nickname that my friends give me.

My profile picture shows me, again, at night, with a cigarette in my hand and Christmas streamers around my neck. This was taken during our house Christmas dinner last December.

Just like my Facebook profile picture, it shows me in a social/party environment but with no professional content.

What do these two pictures say about me then? Both times I am clearly not in a professional environment and information or content related to PR cannot really be found on neither of the social networks. Does this spread a very negative image of a lazy student who enjoys nights out more than she enjoys her course or does it show that between lectures I still manage to find time to relax and enjoy spending some time with my friends?

How would this influence you to decide whether to hire me or not? Can you draw conclusions on my personality from these two pictures?

Thanks for taking the time to read my blog, I’d love to hear from you so do comment and vote for which Ninja you would hire on the basis of our social media pictures!


Ninja 2: Drug Legalisation Will Not Work!

Legalising drugs as a solution for organised crime? Yeah right!

Legalising drugs has been an ongoing debate for years. Will it help reducing the number of users, will it demystify hard drugs or will it lead a country to total chaos, filled with addicts?

First of all, what drugs are we talking about? I truly believe that some drugs must not, in any case, be legalised. What would the world become if you could buy heroin in Tesco, together with your daily milk and vegetables? Some people think that it works exactly like that in Holland and Portugal, that drugs are everywhere, accessible to everyone. Not quite.

In Holland, cannabis is tolerated but you will rarely see someone take a stash of cocaine out of their pocket in a coffee shop.

In Portugal, and since 2000, if you are found in possession of drugs, you just get fined. You don’t go to prison, but the police doesn’t hand you a medal and give you a standing ovation. Drug dealers are still put behind bars, drug users get fined. They are tolerated, not available in every grocery store. Also, people would argue that Portugal has seen a decrease of heroin users and would link it to this law. Actually, if you look at the dates, the statistics were made before the law came through. No correlation there, or a really small one.

I also believe that legalising drugs would definitely not help decreasing the number of organised crimes and gangs. Would it, really? If drugs are legalised, the government is going to put a set price on them. Do you really think that users will not want them cheaper and that dealers will just be sad they were put out of a job?

Because drugs will never be fully legalised or even approved (that would be dangerous) considering all the other aspects that result from them, they will remain a forbidden fruit. Even on display for sale in shops, it is common knowledge that drugs are bad and harmful. People will still try to take advantage of users and it will still be at the origin of gang wars and organised crime.

Legalising drugs to some extent might be feasible to some extent in theory but practice will show that it would not fit in our culture and that the disadvantages will still outnumber the advantages.

Thank you for taking the time to hear me out. Please feel free to add your thoughts in the comments section below. If you agree with my views then please vote for me in the poll on the right hand side of this page.

A License to Kill: Ninja 2

As far as I am concerned, there shouldn’t even be a question to ask. When is it acceptable to kill someone should always come with never. Whether we are dealing with the death penalty – how can that still exist in 2011 – or euthanasia, or even the execution of Bin Laden, and recently Gaddafi.

In America, 34 states out of 50 still use the death penalty. In China, you can get killed for trying to escape the country or corruption. If Men are to decide who gets what in terms of punishment, where are the limits? How is it possible that in the 21st century, over a hundred people die in America and thousands in China? And most importantly, what happens in case of a miscarriage of justice? Too late, he’s dead.

Euthanasia is a very controversial case. If a person is in pain, wishing to die but is unable to do it themselves, is it acceptable to free them from their misery? So many other aspects have to be taken into consideration to regulate euthanasia. What level of pain, what illness would allow the ultimate sacrifice/action? Should there be a universal law to draw the limits? How will it be possible to differentiate euthanasia from plain murder? Killing as a gateway from pain seems to me like a step too far.

Even Bin Laden and Gaddafi, who are world tyrants and killers should have been exposed and convicted, punished for their crimes rather than shot down like they never existed.

I don’t think that it is down to Men to decide who and when to kill. Isn’t why we created institutions such as the UN or the international court of justice? So that the “baddies” can be judged and get the right punishment for their actions and the “goodies” don’t turn into cold blooded murderers, just like the criminals they have in front of them.

(N.B: These viewpoints expressed are not necessarily my own)

Thank you for taking the time to hear me out. Please feel free to add your thoughts in the comments section below. If you agree with my views then please vote for me in the poll on the right hand side of this page.