The Grubs: Dealing with information - a compromise

Gerry, I can understand why you do not want the public to contact you with information or suggestions; although as I mentioned in an earlier post, the way you handled the matter was a Public Relations disaster. But once again I find myself a bit puzzled by your inconsistencies.

If you don't want people to contact you with information - why is there an email option on your website's menu? Is it there just for people to say, "Hi Gerry"?

It can not be there for business reasons because even you would be cluey enough to have separate email addresses for business contacts, family, friends and agencies directly involved in the search. Do you just want sympathisers and well wishers - and everyone else can go to buggery? The coven of witches as they are known to your family.

Is it there to make you look "approachable," because if it is, you can kiss that notion goodbye as it sails down the Swanee river.

But there is a compromise solution.

Set up a separate email address on your website for those wishing to send you information.

You do not have to handle incoming emails yourself - you could hire at least one person to do so. Maybe your nanny perhaps? After all she has a bit less work on her hands now thanks to your negligence. Where is she by the way? You haven't left her in a hotel bedroom somewhere have you?

Surely to goodness, if you can afford a team of media consultants and PR gurus - who have achieved absolutely nothing except to make you look a complete prat - then you could allocate funds towards such a team. Lets face it Gerry, your campaigns and schemes for finding a missing child, are what Las Vegas is to romantic weddings.

The skills of retired police personnel could be utilised - especially those with a proven and demonstrated track record in missing child cases. Your recruitment options are not limited to the UK either. You can tap into the skills market of the US, Australia, Canada, Germany France etc.

If you adopted this idea, it would have a number of benefits.

* The team would be able to sort the wheat from the chaff. They would have the skills to identify information that is worth further investigation.

* They would have the experience to be able to prioritise.

* The public would still feel they are contacting you directly - even if they were aware emails were being handled by others. At least it would be a form of direct access to you and Kate.

* The public have concerns about the purpose of the fund and how it is being administered. That issue would be partly addressed because I doubt too many people would object if funds were channelled towards something that is seen to be directly related to the search.

* Police forces are undermanned and overworked. Your team would focus on one thing only.

* You would have an additional option for those with information

Many members of the public are reluctant to contact the police, Crime Stoppers or International Crime Stoppers directly. Trust me, I have been there done that. I had to keep banging my head against a brick wall until I managed to convince them I had valid information - information that when finally acted upon produced a result.

I can just picture myself popping down to my local nick and telling them I had information on Madeleine McCann. Their first response would be "Who?" which just goes to show how effective your campaign has been so far.

If anyone involved in the alleged abduction, (we always use the word "alleged" here until something is proven in court) has information, it is more than likely they would be afraid to go to the police. That's why some people would prefer to contact you directly.

Oh before I got to bed - I find it rather amusing that you now officially advise the public to pass information to their local police, then when they do, you immediately pour scorn on those reports.

Public Relations - doing it the McCann way.