Found Deceased UK - Nicola Bulley Last Seen Walking Dog Near River - St Michaels on Wyre (Lancashire) #15

[Rusty Braincells]

Absolutely, I've also been wondering on what basis any newspapers could have published the information, as would they not have been in breach of GDPR in doing so - there is little argument to say such sensitive health and medical data is in the public interests to be revealed?

It is an interesting one, I’ve just read this on BBC about the GDPR point and the Information Commissioner looking into it.

Police to face questions over Nicola Bulley disclosures

Edited to add: as said before, I don’t think Nicola should feel ashamed about alcohol or menopause issues, but it is a good question whether the disclosure was “necessary” in this case. Just to stop some speculation is probably not enough. I said earlier I don’t think the police have messed up too much because there is so little to go on, but maybe they have indeed messed this part up.

 

[jackal67]

Very good points. So in fact, any story that might (or might not) have come out may not have directly concerned the information about NB's drinking/hormone levels at all...

That makes a lot of sense, both because I can't see how anyone outside the family would've had access to such intimate medical information, and because it appears the press would not have been allowed to publish it anyway.

I agree about the Perimenopause although quite possibly NB may have discussed it with female friends. But the significant problems with alcohol could have been known about by many people depending on how it may have presented . I believe the wording 're Jan 10th was a call out to NBs HOUSE due to concerns for welfare. It does not state that is was NB s welfare though. It could have been PA s welfare or the children's.

 

[GeorgeFormby]

Would they immediately take the children if they didn't think there was evidence of mistreatment, or if they decided to keep an eye on the situation and conduct regular checks? I'm genuinely asking because I don't know.

My limited experience tells me that social services will only take children when they are at serious risk, its not something that happens based on suspicion, or a couple of events where parents might be struggling. Its absolutely a last resort, if there are no other options (i.e. family members who could temporarily look after the children and/or its a very severe case (think serious physical abuse, or sexual abuse, that can be proven)). Social Services will typically keep an eye on things, if there are problems, and that might involve phone calls, monthly or weekly visits. Families struggle all the time (a parent loses job, gets stressed, kids are being hard work, so things flare up, child calls police, police visit, refer to services who then look at putting support in place, or monitoring the situation). Its not uncommon for services to get involved, and as I say, only in extreme cases will children be removed (an example might be a both parents in the throws of serious addiction, unable to look after children, or serious abuse).

 

[Nancy Drew 21]

UK newspapers do not report on medical issues without permission. See my previous answer if interested on why. This is from the IPSO Press code of conduct and covers medical information.

Clause 2 (Privacy)*​

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home, physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital communications.
ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. In considering an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information and the extent to which the material complained about is already in the public domain or will become so.
iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

So if the papers were unable to

Thanks for sharing, very interesting.

I work in crisis and emergency management education in the UK.

Under 'Duty of Care', and Data Protection law, personal information can be shared if it is deemed to protect an individual from harm.

"Under the GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018 you may share information without consent if, in your judgement, there is a lawful basis to do so, such as where safety may be at risk." (Source: attached)

Somewhat unrelated, but for context, under the Civil Contingencies Act, Category 1 responders (which includes police) have a legal obligation to safeguard members of the public (physiological and psychological) and keep them safe from harm.

Duty of Care in Policing

Presumably, if the police are following due process, they have made the decision to release the information to prevent further harm to NB or her family, or indeed others living locally, rather than to 'save face' or play media tennis ie try to trump them. One would hope.

Intrigued to hear more on this.

Do we have any lawyers here who can clarify?

Under GDPR and the DP Act there is a principle of vital interests - basically releasing personal data to save a life - also health and medical data is sensitive personal data and has additional special rules. So it would of course be permissable to say someone has a medical condition/allergy etc to a first responder or emergency services as this information could be life changing.

IMO to release information about the menopause struggles and "significant problems with alchohol" to prevent harm to her family/others locally - absolutely no justification for that one - I can't see how a court would rule that would be appropriate and proportionate at all when it would be sufficient to give general information eg: - ongoing health/mental health/medication issues that mean someone is vulnerable to harm either themself or others.

And if that information was necessary to be released, it should have been released on DAY ONE - not 3 weeks later.

My own opinion - the details were released to justify the police handling of the case.

 

[Luxee]

I sometimes wonder why NB didn't confide in her sister or Mum & Dad more. They seem reasonably close from the photos on Facebook (although who really knows). If she were having problems at home, could she not have gone to live with them temporarily?

I also find it a bit strange that NB's sister has moved into NB's house almost straight away "to look after the children" (although PA himself claims he is doing most of that) and the kids are at school for 6 hours a day.

That just seemed odd. To me anyway.

Yes, do help look after the kids, but to move in full-time 24/7...?!?

BBM
Are you assuming this statement, or do you have a factual source that NB didn't confide in her sister or Mum & Dad more.

 

[Sandyuk]

I thought the woman tied up the dog, as she had to go to an appointment??

Or is that another earlier woman?

Same woman. That’s what I thought. That’s what was said in earlier reports.

 

[JennieM]

All the focus is being placed on this rather than on Nicola herself. It's getting ridiculous now.

They wanted to re-direct the focus and unfortunately it's backfired.

 

[Rusty Braincells]

So if the papers were unable to


Under GDPR and the DP Act there is a principle of vital interests - basically releasing personal data to save a life - also health and medical data is sensitive personal data and has additional special rules. So it would of course be permissable to say someone has a medical condition/allergy etc to a first responder or emergency services as this information could be life changing.

IMO to release information about the menopause struggles and "significant problems with alchohol" to prevent harm to her family/others locally - absolutely no justification for that one - I can't see how a court would rule that would be appropriate and proportionate at all when it would be sufficient to give general information eg: - ongoing health/mental health/medication issues that mean someone is vulnerable to harm either themself or others.

And if that information was necessary to be released, it should have been released on DAY ONE - not 3 weeks later.

My own opinion - the details were released to justify the police handling of the case.

The more I think about it, what I don’t understand is why the police didn’t say from the start that Nicola had private health issues that made them think an accidental fall into the river might be more likely than a typical 45 year old woman — if that’s what they were thinking because of drinking and menopause problems.

They may have also thought suicide more likely than for the average mother-of-two too, but they didn’t need to get into that level of detail. They just needed to say, we understand the public’s concern but there’s a reason we think she might have had an accident by the river.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

A Police Constable has the legal right to remove a child from accommodation or prevent removal, where they have reasonable cause to believe the child would otherwise be likely to suffer significant harm.

So if a member of the public reported concerns, and the police and some kind of social/health worker visited, they might decide there was no immediate threat or evidence of harm and no reason to take the children, but that regular checks might be warranted?

That could explain LP saying there was still an ongoing investigation into Jan 10.

 

[Sandyuk]

I wonder why friends are not lining the road with the placards asking for info today like they have done?

 

[Cuko]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned: what if the Jan 10 visit was about the welfare of the children if people who knew about NBs drinking had reported their concerns?

I guess that’s quite possible. JMO

 

[Beginnersleuth]

My limited experience tells me that social services will only take children when they are at serious risk, its not something that happens based on suspicion, or a couple of events where parents might be struggling. Its absolutely a last resort, if there are no other options (i.e. family members who could temporarily look after the children and/or its a very severe case (think serious physical abuse, or sexual abuse, that can be proven)). Social Services will typically keep an eye on things, if there are problems, and that might involve phone calls, monthly or weekly visits. Families struggle all the time (a parent loses job, gets stressed, kids are being hard work, so things flare up, child calls police, police visit, refer to services who then look at putting support in place, or monitoring the situation). Its not uncommon for services to get involved, and as I say, only in extreme cases will children be removed (an example might be a both parents in the throws of serious addiction, unable to look after children, or serious abuse).

There’s things like early help which is via social services but not an actual social services referral, which parents or families who are struggling would be encouraged to agree to voluntarily - is help with parenting basically. So low level. Because kids live in the house there would have been an assessment of child safeguarding. In hospitals it’s the SAFER form.
Having worked in MH some patients having breakdowns and in need of crisis type support have their children cared for by family. It’s often not so much as specific harm to the children but if not able to meet the kids needs.
If suspecting harm to the children then children affected and their siblings are removed until the safeguarding assessment is done by someone qualified which is usually around 24h in foster/other family care.

Early help and early intervention | NSPCC Learning

Explains what early help is and early intervention is, how to identify a child or family who may need early help and how to provide appropriate support.

learning.nspcc.org.uk

Police - Child Protection Guidelines

The main role of the police is to uphold the law, prevent crime and disorder and protect citizens. Children, like all citizens, have the right to the full protection offered by the criminal law.

iscp.gg

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

My limited experience tells me that social services will only take children when they are at serious risk, its not something that happens based on suspicion, or a couple of events where parents might be struggling. Its absolutely a last resort, if there are no other options (i.e. family members who could temporarily look after the children and/or its a very severe case (think serious physical abuse, or sexual abuse, that can be proven)). Social Services will typically keep an eye on things, if there are problems, and that might involve phone calls, monthly or weekly visits. Families struggle all the time (a parent loses job, gets stressed, kids are being hard work, so things flare up, child calls police, police visit, refer to services who then look at putting support in place, or monitoring the situation). Its not uncommon for services to get involved, and as I say, only in extreme cases will children be removed (an example might be a both parents in the throws of serious addiction, unable to look after children, or serious abuse).

Thank you, that's really helpful information. And though we might never know for sure, it does appear to be something that would fit the information that has been released so far. Potentially losing your children would also be a big red flag for someone possibly harming themself.

 

[Davieson]

I thought the woman tied up the dog, as she had to go to an appointment??

Or is that another earlier woman?

Maybe just media make believe

 

[Nancy Drew 21]

You know what, I think you're exactly right. The welfare check is a much more likely subject for a story than private medical issues which the press may well not have been legally allowed to publish anyway.

And that opens a whole other can of worms, because it would mean NB's private health information was released not because it was about to be made public, but in order to protect her partner from further speculation. And of course he absolutely should be protected from speculation, but the question is whether such an extreme invasion of NB's privacy was a proportionate way to do it. Can't help thinking a simple statement at the outset of the investigation that NB was vulnerable due to mental health issues, followed by a firm refusal to elaborate further out of respect for her and the family, could have avoided all of this (I bet Lancs Police are thinking the same thing now!).

Indeed there was no need to go into specifics about the health issues and I'm sure there would be more appropriate ways to release a specific statement to end further speculation about family members?

 

[Penny68]

If NB has walked away, it would have had to have been planned in advance, so you would think there would be texts, calls, emails to someone to make arrangements for the day, as I highly doubt she just walked off on her own and got on a bus/taxi. So how much weight does that theory hold do we think, as it would have needed to have been someone she trusted.

If that was the case, and for sure would be expected in arrangements. Then possibly NB had another mobile phone with her.

By now the police would have checked out the mobile phone that was left on the bench.

Also checked her online activity via the phone or of course laptop of any conversations that could have been of planning ahead if she had decided to leave.

 

[Allabouttrial]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned: what if the Jan 10 visit was about the welfare of the children if people who knew about NBs drinking had reported their concerns?

Could be except the statement does mention a response car. Also the last paragraph seems to indicate there was an "incident".

---

Sadly, it is clear from speaking to Paul and the family that Nicola had in the past suffered with some significant issues with alcohol which were brought on by her ongoing struggles with the menopause and that these struggles had resurfaced over recent months. This caused some real challenges for Paul and the family.

As a result of those issues, a response car staffed by both police and health professionals attended a report of concern for welfare at Nicola’s home address on January 10th. No one has been arrested in relation to this incident, but it is being investigated.

Source

---

 

[GeorgeFormby]

Thank you, that's really helpful information. And though we might never know for sure, it does appear to be something that would fit the information that has been released so far. Potentially losing your children would also be a big red flag for someone possibly harming themself.

Again, its my limited experience, coupled with having a friend who is senior in services. The last thing Social Services want to do, is to split up families, they do their best to support the families and will only remove children when there is clear and obvious danger to the child/children. These things almost always start with a phone call, either from the children, the neighbours, a partner, a worried friend, school or doctor etc. and the police and ambulance are the ones who turn up as first response. Things will then be referred if no immediate danger was found, and from there, the services will perhaps talk with the children, parents etc. and support will be put in place.

Edited to add - there are some 'secret' flags that the services will look out for, and sometimes that can induce a more serious and rapid course of action, this would almost certainly not be the case here.

 

[ginnyw]

I have watched the Sky News clip of Kay Burley doing NB's final walk and I am confused - Kay referred to there being two visits by authorities to the family home on both 10th and 17th January. Does anybody know if this is correct? I thought that there was only one. She said 'and a medical team went to the home on 17th January.'

Bulley investigation: Kay Burley retraces Nicola's last known dog walk

Kay Burley retraces Nicola Bulley's last known dog walk live from St. Michael's on Wyre, Lancashire, with all the latest from the investigation into the disappearance three weeks ago.

news.sky.com

 

[Cuko]

Does anyone recall that when NB’s former partner was tracked down by media and asked to comment on her disappearance, he declined “out of respect for her parents”. Respecting her parents is obviously admirable but it did strike me as a slightly strange answer and caused me to wonder if NB had actually gone missing before - perhaps while in the relationship with him. Just my speculation. MOO