Found Deceased UK - Nicola Bulley Last Seen Walking Dog Near River - St Michaels on Wyre (Lancashire) #17

[Wakefield6042]

I am so very sorry Nicola has been found in such tragic circumstances.

 

[Nikynoo]

What did it add to the search and how was it justified? They didn't stop at menopause. They went into mental health, alcohol issues and an ongoing investigation into an incident that required police and mental health officer intervention. In what way did disclosing private and confidential information about the menopause, alcohol or possible mental health issues change the investigation into her as a missing person, other than to shift the public narrative? Absolutely awful and I'm getting more and more angry every time I see it trying to be justified.

The police are allowed to release personal information under common law. The press conference last week mentioned 'specific vulnerabilities' and initially the police were clear that they were not going to release further clarification because the information was 'private' and to 'protect Nicola's family'.

If you watch the video of the press conference (taken from Lancs Police FB Page -

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=528436422711183

) the final question from a reporter (Sunday Times) again brought up the vulnerabilities and she wanted to know what they were as she had 'received 3 texts in the last 5 minutes' about them. This to me, means that the reporter either knew what they were or was contacted by someone who knew. I am speculating that there was a conversation between the reporter and the police post the conference and it was decided (with the family being made aware) to beat the press to it. This to me is justified because it protects the family from the press. Another poster mentioned 'controlling the narrative' by releasing the information and I agree.

By releasing this information, the police have not broken any legislation (DPA) and have acted in accordance with common law (Information sharing | College of Policing).

As other posters have mentioned, the release has highlighted the struggles many women face when reaching middle age, IMO, it was not released to demean women in any way. People drew their own inferences from the statement.

It seems to me that regardless of what stance the police took on this case, they were never going to win.

 

[poirotoupierrot]

I was appalled they divulged her personal health issues. It's like if you're going through something, people will look for you for a bit but then then they'll say you committed suicide. Everyone deserves to be considered as potentially vulnerable, but also vulnerable to others. The more complacent we become about either mental health or women's safety the less we know how to avoid such disasters. I very much hope it was an accident and she didn't suffer. My involvement on this site since her disappearance has been entirely because the police's first conclusion jsut seemed too easy. I admire the searchers, the relentless work of this investigation, but to have let people know personal stuff was weird and unprofessional.

 

[Nikynoo]

Oh! Excuse my ignorance but do you mean in the UK? I thought it did breach her rights.

Yes, in the UK. It does not breach DPA - there are exemptions. The police are also allowed to release information under common law - Information sharing | College of Policing.

AND - whilst I'm at it, different topic, but also misunderstood - freedom of speech is not an absolute right, its a qualified right to protect the rights of others.

 

[Rusty Braincells]

The police are allowed to release personal information under common law. The press conference last week mentioned 'specific vulnerabilities' and initially the police were clear that they were not going to release further clarification because the information was 'private' and to 'protect Nicola's family'.

If you watch the video of the press conference (taken from Lancs Police FB Page -

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=528436422711183

) the final question from a reporter (Sunday Times) again brought up the vulnerabilities and she wanted to know what they were as she had 'received 3 texts in the last 5 minutes' about them. This to me, means that the reporter either knew what they were or was contacted by someone who knew. I am speculating that there was a conversation between the reporter and the police post the conference and it was decided (with the family being made aware) to beat the press to it. This to me is justified because it protects the family from the press. Another poster mentioned 'controlling the narrative' by releasing the information and I agree.

By releasing this information, the police have not broken any legislation (DPA) and have acted in accordance with common law (Information sharing | College of Policing).

As other posters have mentioned, the release has highlighted the struggles many women face when reaching middle age, IMO, it was not released to demean women in any way. People drew their own inferences from the statement.

It seems to me that regardless of what stance the police took on this case, they were never going to win.

Because of the huge publicity I’m sure they will investigate the data release, but I agree that (from what I know of data protection laws, I’m a solicitor and work with them a bit but not specialising in that area), it will probably have technically been within the rules in the circumstances.

I think there will be some recommendations made for future information disclosures of this type but formally, the police will not have broken data protection law.

 

[brownbeef1975]

intimidation and harassment of witnesses was fuelled by speculation too

Yes it was. Which is wrong.

However, the releasing of private, confidential medical information that portrayed NB as a struggling, menopausal 45 year old with serious alcohol issues, who had recently been visited by the police and mental health services and which was still subject to ongoing investigation, wasn't the way to quell it.

 

[Penny68]

I appreciate what you wrote, it's very important insight.

I can remember in acute detail when the man came to tell my mum and me (I was five) that my dad had died. That was 35 years ago. Like I said, I remember it acutely well, and I always will. I can only slightly imagine what those girls feel right now and my heart goes out to them.

Thank you NextSprint.

I am so sorry you too lost your precious dad, at such a very young age you were then. Life does and has to carry on, but we never forget our truly saddening loss.

 

[Firstsnow4]

My heart goes out to Paul Ansell and all the family of course. So very hard to even think of the right words to say to children - (or any aged children in the family) - that their mummy will no longer be with them in their life. More so of course PA and the family are in the deepest of grief themselves at this time.

I personally have been put into that position, as I can imagine some on WS have sadly lost a loved one. My children were 10 and 12 years old at the time their daddy sadly lost his life in a car crash.

I did my best to choose the best way I could to tell my children, they of course were devastated. I can still remember to this day, now 15 years ago, the look on their faces of utter disbelief and a look from them both that I had never seen before on anyone's face.

But I never had all what Paul and his family were put through (the 3 weeks of waiting to find out where NB was) also all what went on via the media, wicked online messages etc.

All I can hope for, and sure all who care will feel the same, is every possible support can be given to Paul, their two young girls and all their families to see them through each day the best that can be.

So sorry to hear or your loss

 

[MsBetsy]

Thanks. I know why they said they released it, I am pointing out that not only did it breach her private, medical and confidential rights, it also did nothing to support their overall number 1 stated aim - to find NB.

So yes, my scathing assessment of their actions is premised on my understanding that their number 1 aim was to find NB.

In a missing persons case it is not a breach for LE to release medical or personal information when it's pertinent to the case.

I think it did support their hypothesis that Nicola had fallen in the river. We don't know what information they recieved from her family and friends or exactly how it played a role, though.

 

[Nikynoo]

She was apparently found in the reeds. Therefore, it's said, not IN the river. I'm still wary of speculating as the family's had enough of that. I just don't remember bad weather that day so I'm thinking it was a fall. I don't want to think anyone who stayed camp site has anything to do with it - which is very near by. It's all so sad.

and where do reeds live?

 

[brownbeef1975]

One of the justifications for when police may step out of the usual boundaries re privacy or similar is when it is deemed necessary in order to protect individuals from harm. For instance (not specifically in this case) it might be that individuals, or certain individuals, might be receiving threats of harm from people who have misplaced beliefs that they have committed a crime. I expect that the reason behind that release of personal information will be disclosed at some point. I think we should be patient, and judge whether the decision was right or wrong when the facts are known.

So point to her being a 45 year old, menopausal woman experiencing significant challenges, serious alcohol issues in order to satiate the lunatic fringe. Oh dear me.

 

[Penny68]

So sorry to hear or your loss

Thank you so much for caring.

 

[Nikynoo]

Because of the huge publicity I’m sure they will investigate the data release, but I agree that (from what I know of data protection laws, I’m a solicitor and work with them a bit but not specialising in that area), it will probably have technically been within the rules in the circumstances.

I think there will be some recommendations made for future information disclosures of this type but formally, the police will not have broken data protection law.

Not my area either, but I understand that they can release information at common law. This is not the only MP case where medical information has been released.

Mackenzie Crook's SIL has been receiving chemo, so is the release of that information ok but not menopause?

 

[Knitty]

Thread is closed. Please continue at Thread #18