The victim of the homophobic act (The Sunday Times, August 23) should not show fear. Otherwise, if the paint-spraying act was more than a prank, but intended as a personal threat, the perpetrator will have succeeded in his aim.

It would seem that discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people has increased in recent years as they have become more visible in society. As a contributor to the free online journal which seeks to promote respect for citizens' rights (www.statecareandmore.eu), I oppose any intolerance towards those who are different in some way or other to the mainstream. It takes time and education to foster an attitude of tolerance in people, but I hope that this will happen in Malta.

The victim of the graffiti attack clearly expected a better service from the police, but there is a difference between expectations and entitlements. Should the police not have gone to the victim's house to investigate?

Can they confirm whether the report was handled correctly or not, and whether the victim was asked all the relevant questions? Did the police really treat the incident as a prank (without investigating what is essentially a case of breaking and entering into private property) or did the into individual concerned merely form this impression? Can they comment on the 'indifference' in attitude referred to in your report?