Paedophiles should not be allowed freedom of movement. We talk a lot about moral values in this country, and a lot of hype is made about the rights of the unborn child, but what about the children growing up in our society?

We owe them protection from abuse. And that is just one instance where we are failing our children. On Wednesday, a letter in The Times attracted our attention to a man given a two-year suspended jail term for defiling a 13-year-old girl on various occasions in various parts of the island.

"The man is, therefore, scot-free unless he relapses... The victim and the family have been issued a protection order for three years."

The writer asked the judge whether "a protection order was issued for all the minors in our society?" since if the offender relapses he would be "ruining another child's life".

And maybe more children's lives, which don't come to light. Labour MP Adrian Vassallo is right in making a noise in Parliament about the issue, however, he is not correct in stating that the media ignore it.

If anything, it is the majority of his colleagues on both sides of the House who seem "comatose" on the issue. I do not remember Dr Vassallo, or indeed any other politician, except one PN backbencher, rallying round Minister Dolores Cristina when she said the MFA executive board should ask for the resignation of the president of the MFA, Joe Mifsud, over remarks he made at the time a football ground worker had been found guilty of abusing a child. The Times had an editorial and a poll on the issue at the time. Although this did not refer to sentencing, it was still a very relevant issue given a lot of prominence in the media, including this page.

The Times also carried a poll in February 2006 asking the following question: "Should the government give priority to the enactment of a Children Act?" to which 1,434 said Yes and 273 said No. And in May 2006 The Times poll ran: "Should the law bar convicted paedophiles from working in places frequented by children?" This was another relevant issue, to which 3,141 respondents said Yes, 69 said No, and 173 said "depending on expert advice". This also demonstrates that public opinion is not "comatose" either.

Maybe more people in the media could give the issue of sentencing on child abuse cases more prominence, but Dr Vassallo's statement that "media opinion seems to be comatose on this sensitive issue" does not hold up to scrutiny.

And all these issues mobilise public opinion on zero tolerance to child abuse.

I have also read opinion pieces and letters in several newspapers decrying the state of affairs with regard to the sentencing of paedophiles, besides frequent references on this page. Here are some examples:

"Judge Galea Debono jailed a man for 15 years for badly injuring another driver in a road rage situation... It is a shame that the courts are not being as effective with pornographers and child abusers," appeared last November in "Zero tolerance to violence".

The previous month, in "Sleaze and dosh" I wrote:

"What interests us, as much as how much money we are going to save from taxes, is the improbity of other people's lives.

"Of course it is right that the media uncover hypocrisy. Child abusers need to be exposed and punished and the children protected. But we do have to stick to what is relevant and veer away from the sensational."

I referred to a story carried in It-Torca that month, which rightly brought to light the fact that an alleged victim and her family had not been kept informed of the outcome of the investigations into the allegations of abuse by a catechism teacher, despite having been promised that information by the Curia's response team.

Again, this was not a direct reference to sentencing, but still very relevant. I expanded at the time: "An ongoing court case, with no Church connections, reported widely, should act as an eye-opener to all parents and relatives on whom to trust with the care of one's children. It also should alert us all to watch children, even if they are not related to us, and report anything suspicious to relevant authorities."

I added that I was not suggesting any witch-hunts of any bachelor who happens to befriend a child. I am just saying that we should all be watchful, alert and, above all, unprejudiced.

Dr Vassallo is of the opinion that "in this somnolent island, public and media opinion seems to be comatose on this sensitive issue. The issue is moral, social and legal - not political."

I am assuming he meant "not partisan", because moral, social and legal issues all fall within the political sphere. Besides, he did give a partisan twist when he said, "the government seemed content with what was happening since there was total silence on its part".

I am afraid the silence, when it comes to politicians, is not restricted to one party. Just because the media do not pick on every parliamentary question by the honourable gentleman, it does not mean that the issue is ignored, as I have extensively documented.

Dealing with vehicle emissions

On the way to work on Friday, I was reminded, as I am almost every day, that despite the Transport Authority's (ADT) hype on vehicle fume control, many buses still spew a hell of a lot of black smoke.

I probably would have forgotten about it again had I not received a very interesting e-mail from a lady in Zebbug.Two wardens, who told her that they wanted to test her van for exhaust emissions, stopped her on the road to Hal Far.

They explained that this test was ordered by the ADT and it was done via satellite. If the rate of the exhaust emissions were over the limit, she would have to get it fixed, she was told. If she failed to do this and was stopped again she would be fined Lm100.

The test result showed that the rate of the exhaust emissions was three times higher than the accepted rate. The woman pointed out that the van is regularly VRT-tested. However, one of the wardens told her that not all the VRT testers "do it right!"

But she was still fined Lm20. She is now in a quandary as to which garage she can trust to carry out the VRT on her van. She quite rightly is saying, "if a warden tells me that the VRT test is not done properly, then what on earth am I paying them for? To be stopped and have to pay yet more fines? After all we are paying them good money to get our vehicles supposedly roadworthy. Are the VRT garages checked?"

When she phoned the ADT she was told that "they will look into the matter if they get a lot of complaints".

There are several issues here. It is, of course, a good idea to randomly test vehicles for exhaust emissions. But the ADT should investigate all complaints. It is also unfair to spring on a public used to 'lenient' enforcement such a measure, with no warning.

Besides, if the ADT (or is it the wardens who collect the fines?) are going to penalise drivers, they have to ensure that the licensed VRT garages are reliable.

And, of course, we cannot just enforce the law with private vehicles and ignore public transport. Tackling air pollution is admirable, but it has to be administered justly and efficiently for it to work.