Author: Rich

Cosy chats with friendly desk sergeants. Daily calls to the duty inspector from the newsroom of the local paper. Off the record briefings for the gentlemen of the press. A more symbiotic and trusting relationship between the media and the police…

All of these things and much much more have been said by the media commentariat over the past few weeks. Largely by retired journalists (and here I must declare an interest) recalling the good old days and conveniently ignoring the one thing that has changed both policing and reporting on policing out of all recognition since they dictated their copy from a red phone box: social media.

Nature, they say, abhors a vacuum. Facebook, Twitter and, especially it seems, TikTok love one. In the absence or scarcity of official information in rushes a tidal wave of bilge. So-called amateur sleuths (I’m inclined to call them idiots) broadcasting breathlessly that they’re convinced – without a shred of either evidence or decency – that Bulley was being held against her will by shadowy figures. A private underwater search company stating unequivocally that the poor woman’s body could not have been in the river, as if the sonar equipment they were using was somehow any less fallible than the humans operating it.

And all of this, of course, making the agony suffered by the Bulley family even harder to bear and the job of the police investigating her disappearance even harder to do.

Much of the criticism levelled at Lancashire Police has been ill informed and unfair. Particularly the condemnation of their decision to go public with highly personal information about Bulley’s private life. They didn’t do so lightly, I would have thought. Nor without the family’s consent. Details of her struggles with alcohol were about to be made public anyway, after they were leaked to the media as an exclusive – possibly in return for money. So they decided to reveal the information themselves to lessen the value and impact of the leak. Better to keep ahead of the narrative as police press officers might put it. What else were we to do, they might reasonably ask of all those questioning their approach including the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, the home secretary, Suella Braverman, and the leader of the commons, Penny Morduant.

To this point specifically, I believe the police were right to reveal at least some of this information but wrong in the way and to the extent they went about it. They knew, presumably from day one, that Bulley was vulnerable. So they should also have known from the outset that at some point this information would be made public, warned the family accordingly and together drawn up a plan to manage it. They may have done this to be fair; I have no special insight. But if they did, the public part of the plan could have been handled better.

The police initially said at a news conference Nicola had “a number of specific vulnerabilities” which meant she was “graded as high risk.” This crucial issue was rather lost in the remaining 30 minutes or so of the conference which seemed to be more of a point by point rebuttal of criticism of the inquiry than an update on a missing person. I’ve watched the conference in its entirety twice. It certainly wasn’t the “utter disaster” as some of the more colourful coverage suggests. It certainly was a thorough and detailed description of the inquiry to date. It also nailed some of the more outlandish, to use the words of assistant chief constable, Peter Lawson, “ill informed speculation and conjecture.” (And, by the way, it was good to see the conference chaired by Mr Lawson, not by the senior investigating officer, Rebecca Smith. Sometimes the messenger is as important as – or even a part of – the message).

But what that conference also did – ironically perhaps most successfully of all – was get every journalist wondering exactly what those specific vulnerabilities were. Indeed, this was the very first and last question asked by reporters – almost inaudibly, off microphone – at the conference. This line of questioning was only going to louder and more persistent. To not have anticipated this and dealt with it there and then was problematic. All Mr Lawson said at the time was “I feel we’ve said as much as we can about that. It is personal, private information known to the investigation but foremost in our thoughts, in addition to the integrity of the investigation, is the privacy of Nicola’s family…”

So what changed in just a few hours? Because later that day, in a follow up statement, the police added that those vulnerabilities included alcohol misuse connected to the menopause. This smacked of being bounced into saying more by events, rather than being in control of events. I’d have been inclined to release the two statements simultaneously at the news conference. I’d have advised omitting the menopause point entirely. It’s too personal and, on the face of it, much less pertinent than the alcohol issue. I’d also have explained the background to the release and attempted to reassure the public – and women in particular – that this was a highly unusual move in response to irresponsible coverage and wouldn’t become a routine part of missing persons inquiries. To avoid losing the focus on these really important points I’d have shortened the conference and left out anything that sounded defensive. There’s a time and a place for that. And it isn’t when a person is still missing.

In their defence most police press officers are way down the command chain, have no rank and I’m sure are regularly ignored when asked for advice. But that doesn’t make the advice wrong. They should be speaking truth to power and asking the SIO or ACC:

Be absolutely clear: what is the purpose of this news conference or release?

Is it to give the public an important update on progress or to seek further public help – an appeal for witnesses for example?

It it to protect the family from potentially hurtful information – true or otherwise – being put into the public domain by unscrupulous and insensitive media coverage or social media commentary?

Or is it to defend the force and more to do with reputation management?

The first two, sir or ma’am, are justified. The third is not. Until well after a missing person is found. Alive, or as it would now seem in this desperately sad case, dead.