Found Deceased UK - Nicola Bulley Last Seen Walking Dog Near River - St Michaels on Wyre (Lancashire) #12

[PNW]

Not sure you will understand this if you’re a male. As you hear in the news, females get attacked from time to time. I find it really unnerving to meet a male whilst out walking in the countryside or any dog walk which is not in a busy setting. It just is… makes you feel vulnerable. If the male has a dog then it gives him a reason to be there.. so it feels better. Without a dog you wonder why they are there. It’s irrational .. why shouldn’t males be out walking without a dog. You’ve every right to!! Of course.
But that’s how it feels if you are a female… scary at times. Not all females feel this way, I’m sure.

I’m a female. I do not own a dog. I like to walk. I do not automatically think every man who is out walking without a dog is nefarious. Just as I don't think every man walking a dog is a saint.

 

[EyeSpyU]

Is the bench area on Private property? I thought I read somewhere it maybe was part of the caravan park site?

That part can’t be private property as besides having easy access to it and lots of dog walkers using it daily, it has a river running through - and rivers aren’t privately owned.

 

[Mr X]

That part can’t be private property as besides having easy access to it and lots of dog walkers using it daily, it has a river running through - and rivers aren’t privately owned.

It is highly likely IMO that the footpath has a defined width and access to the river is not public.

I'm not sure why you think rivers are not privately owned. The land over which a river flows is privately owned.

This is an interesting subject. It's called Riparian ownership.

 

[EyeSpyU]

That is correct. The onus is on the dog owner to keep their dog under control. The landowner can take such last resort action to protect livestock. That has happened on occasion near my village. Most farmers I know are dog lovers so it's never something they would do lightly.

But that part isn’t privately owned farmland and there’s no livestock on it. It’s a public area.Without getting into the legalities, it’s quite possible the caravan site leases the land from the council.

It’s definitely for public use as it has a river flowing through it and rivers aren’t privately owned.

As for livestock, I’m not sure there’s a livestock farm on there? I believe the owner of the caravan site has some chickens, but I haven’t seen any mention of any other animals. Regardless, farm animals are fenced in from public areas, so any signs on trees would be put up either by the council or the people running the fishing club - which too would be publicly owned.

I see they have a danger sign warning of deep water, so I presume the depth changes according to the weather and tide. The damn is just 100yards upstream and the force of that water on livestream is immense. It also has dangerous undercurrents.

 

[Mr X]

What is the minimum footpath widths UK?


If the width of a path or way is not proven or is not defined in the definitive statement, the following minimum widths, as set out in the Highways Act, could be used: Cross field footpath, 1m. Field edge footpath, 1.5m.


------

iMO this is a 1.5m wide field-edge footpath which does NOT allow access to the river other than to anglers who have paid a fee to the local club. This, IMO, is the legal status unless otherwise written down or agreed by land owner.

It is very interesting to note that the CROW act specifically refers to non tidal rivers. This part of the River is impounded by a Weir. IMO that Weir was constructed there by the owner of the Old House in order to claim the river as part of their property.

tidal rivers have a different ownership status.

 

[Mr X]

From the CROW act


(2)In section 1 of the M8Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 (duty of occupier to persons other than his visitors), after subsection (6) there is inserted—

“(6A)At any time when the right conferred by section 2(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 is exercisable in relation to land which is access land for the purposes of Part I of that Act, an occupier of the land owes (subject to subsection (6C) below) no duty by virtue of this section to any person in respect of—

(a)a risk resulting from the existence of any natural feature of the landscape, or any river, stream, ditch or pond whether or not a natural feature, or

(b)a risk of that person suffering injury when passing over, under or through any wall, fence or gate, except by proper use of the gate or of a stile.

 

[TooMuchGun]

Cleared of what? No crime has been declared

so when people vanish LE doesn't investigate spouses and partners? Thats news to me

 

[EyeSpyU]

Was the local business woman who found willow and tied her up the caravan park owner? I thought she was.

Yes, it was.

I believe she’d taken her own dog for a quick walk as she had an appointment very soon. That’s when she obviously spotted Willow agitated and alone, so tied her to the bench. That’s also when she noticed NB’s phone on the bench. IMO, and as a fellow dog walker, I’d have assumed the owner had gone off for a very short time (maybe to fetch their other dog/anything), and would have done the same that she did: tied the dog safely to the bench and then made enquiries when I got home - which to her was just minutes away.

You would never take the dog with you having just spotted it alone, nor the phone as you’d no idea if the owner would return in just a couple of minutes.

 

[EyeSpyU]

PF said it was only 2 foot deep at the edges by the bench. NB wouldn't need to swim, just stand up.

I’ve read conflicting reports to his. Actually, I believe he said it was 3ft deep at the side, but it obviously goes deeper otherwise they wouldn’t have signs warning of deep water. Depths also vary according to the time/day and weather - plus it’s a tidal river. Even if it’s only 3ft deep at the very edge there’s gagged ricks there which could knock you out if you crashed into one headfirst, plus it probably deepens suddenly, hence the danger sign.

Besides that, a professional marine instructor said even if you were to suddenly fall into just a few feet of water, when it’s as cold as the river was that day, the shock to the body would cause an involuntary gasp and you’d inhale water…people have drowned in just inches of water. Accidents happen.

 

[Mr X]

It’s a public area.Without getting into the legalities, it’s quite possible the caravan site leases the land from the council.

It is highly unlikely to be owned by the council. The Hornby Estate owns 360 acres around the Old House. This is landed gentry country. The caravan parks will be tenants of the Squire IMO and the land all private property other than any surfaced roads.

 

[EyeSpyU]

Its a little bit rude to ignore the sign right above where they was meant to have been ( if they actually was in that area i guess)

That isn’t an official Council sign - it’s been handwritten by someone. Whoever pinned it to the tree probably meant it for owners who had unruly dogs who don’t obey, or dogs that have been known to bite.

 

[Mr X]

The danger deep water sign is related to the fact there is what anglers call a "deep hole" there. This IMO is where the missing person's body is located. Nobody seems to know how deep it is. It is possible the bottom of it is full of random vegetation due to the underwater currents.

If I had to choose who to believe about depth of water in a river I would go with the local anglers. They know their water. They would not put a sign with red writing if the water was not deep there.

I reckon it could be very deep and full of a buildup of material until it gets flushed out by the next flood.

 

[Mr X]

. The damn is just 100yards upstream and the force of that water on livestream is immense. It also has dangerous undercurrents.

The Weir is downstream of the bench not upstream of it.

 

[EyeSpyU]

Regardless of the non official looking sign, that bench area is on private property then?

The land is owned by the government, the Borough of Wyre.

Regardless of the non official looking sign, that bench area is on private property

 

[Andreee]

It was the harness that was apparently on the slope not the leash.

omg, how many times will this particular subject come up?! I feel like I'm in a Monty Python sketch lol!

 

[kittythehare]

Well it’s not just my opinion is it.

It is though.

 

[Mr X]

I imagine they probably mean the footpath. As in "Public Footpath".

 

[Andreee]

That is using the Public Right of Navigation (PRN). Also arriving from the tidal part, by water, is allowed. This is exactly why the stone Weir is there. It was put there for a very good reason.

Wealthy landowners did a lot of interesting things with their surroundings. After all they have a lot of money.

Interesting history.

 

[Mr X]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

The river is not tidal in this location. The construction of the stone Weir has caused it to become partly tidal which is not the same as it being tidal.

That is the whole point of the Weir.

 

[EyeSpyU]

That is using the Public Right of Navigation (PRN). Also arriving from the tidal part, by water, is allowed. This is exactly why the stone Weir is there. It was put there for a very good reason.

Wealthy landowners did a lot of interesting things with their surroundings. After all they have a lot of money.

The stone weir was not put there for the reason you’re saying - weirs are built to control water levels.