Emily Barbaro Sant (Deafening Music, June 11) mentions that it has been asked of "the competent authorities up till what time and to what level music should be allowed to be played during the night".

I am not aware that this question has been addressed but, given that the question still stands, one does have to caution that continued silence and inaction will do nothing to stem the steady encroachment of the law of the jungle as unscrupulous operators will then, to all practical effect, thereby continue to be allowed to indulge their self interest.

As far as I am aware, we do in fact have laws (as well as indeed licensing practices thus far) that protect the average citizen against invasion of privacy and, no doubt accordingly, my experience to date as to the police's responsiveness on such issues has, in fact, been much more positive than imputed in that letter. Indeed we have found the police fully supportive whenever my wife and I have had personal occasion to seek to avail ourselves of that protection.

It is nevertheless always with regret that we do call on them because they have much more onerous duties to worry about. However, it is only the police who can deliver the strongest message to noise abusers who may not otherwise realise that there are criminal charges that fall to be answered when they transgress by causing a nuisance to neighbours, at any time.

This is quite apart from the civil law actions that such abusers also expose themselves to. Because, again as far as I am aware, there is, of course, also a civil remedy. This being so, it would indeed be a society- enriching initiative if some citizen protection agency or organisation could take this under its wing.

The benefits to society of doing so would be at least four, because such an entity would/could:

(1) be able to guide the average citizen as to when and how police intervention can be sought;

(2) create a focal point whereby critical mass can develop so as to better ensure that the current protections are not eroded by our legislators/licensing authorities in response to the often sung siren calls to spurious progress;

(3) help render the prospect of undertaking civil actions less daunting to the average citizen, and

(4) especially over time, be in a better position than any layman to explain to Ms Barbaro Sant and other similarly injured parties the local jurisprudence affecting civil actions that (having due regard to countervailing property rights considerations and the nuances that degrade use into abuse) does, as I understand it, give one confidence that the jungle will not be allowed to take over irremediably, if only one does act to invoke the available protections.

Meanwhile, it bears stressing that one cannot, for example, expect the police to agree to intervene if one is not prepared to lodge a formal complaint and then be further appropriately prepared to follow through by giving due supportive evidence in the legal proceedings that ensue.

It would, in the case cited by Ms Barbaro Sant, certainly appear to be quite ludicrous if a remote noise polluter can escape the buon vicinato constraints that impact on the relationships between individual condominium owners just because the noise polluter happens to be remote rather than viċin.

But, at the end of the day, it remains that society is what we make it, or sadly default to allow it to become.