Internet abuse hotline (1)

I am writing with reference to the article Child Abuse Hotline Stopped (July 16).

Despite the headline, the article focused on various issues highlighted in the Annual Report 2008 of the Office of the Commissioner for Children. The article itself focused on various topics, and reported these issues in a haphazard and incoherent manner, such that some items were inaccurately reported by The Times. Other points, though true at the time of printing, have since become outdated.

I wish to clarify such points here:

• The hotline mentioned in the article is a hotline which specifically focuses on reporting child internet abuse, rather than child abuse in general. Referring to the hotline as a Child Abuse Hotline gives the false impression that other services such as Supportline 179 have been stopped, which is not the current situation. It is true that the funds for a hotline to fight child abuse over the internet were discontinued in February 2008, and that no alternative funds have been found to maintain a service.

The service is currently minimally maintained through the efforts of a few volunteers (as already reported by Claudia Calleja on February 10, 2009, in the article Internet Reporting Service Hanging On By A Thread).

• The article goes on to outline complaints received by the Office of the Commissioner for Children, making a very limited distinction between the reports received by the Office of the Commissioner for Children and the hotline on internet child abuse as mentioned in the previous paragraph. While the former receives general complaints on the violation of children's rights, the latter is solely focused on child abuse over the internet, and is currently overseen by Agenzija Appogg.

• With regards to the "skating park located within the roundabout of a busy motorway", I was pleased to note that the situation has since improved to some degree, with more precautionary measures having been taken.

• The article later outlines the work undertaken to create a mascot for the Office of the Commissioner for Children, following which the article directly moves to a press release which the Office had issued on the teleseries Five06, there being no link between the two issues whatsoever. With regards to the latter, I wish to note that the Broadcasting Authority did take steps to address this issue.

The article omits this fact, however the annual report itself stated that "A number of meetings were held with the Broadcasting Authority in order to discuss how these concerns may be addressed most effectively. To this end, the Authority shall be reviewing current legislation and proposing amendments accordingly, in order for present broadcasting legislation to better respond to cases such as these" (p. 34).

The insufficient attention given to the reporting content in this article was unexpected, given the consistently high level of reporting The Times is generally known for.

I hope that these clarifications will be given their deserved prominence immediately, to rectify any misconceptions which may have arisen from this article.