Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

'Nicola Bulley's reputation 'destroyed' by police'

922 replies

MyrtIe · 16/02/2023 10:37

Article here

The points made about victim blaming and the police disclosing this information to cover themselves are spot on imo.

The usual gutter press are having a field day with this today.

What exactly was the point of it? What's it achieved, apart from compounding the heartache of her loved ones?

YABU - the police were right to divulge this sensitive information as it was relevant to the investigation

YANBU - there was absolutely no need to do so

OP posts:
noblegiraffe · 21/02/2023 20:55

Fuck all the people who are blaming the bereaved family for the absolutely batshit actions of a minority of people who are now pissed off to find out that they actually didn't know what they were talking about all along and really should have left it to the experts.

limitedperiodonly · 21/02/2023 21:15

@new2mn. I'm sure you were and it was your prerogative not to accept it and not to describe what you saw or knew about the accident. I'm sure you had your reasons and the journalist swiftly moved on to someone less principled/more helpful than you. But there are a lot of things between you talking to a journalist for money or for nothing and your comments being printed or broadcast that you don't seem to realise.

Say if you did accept the £20 and your quotes about the accident were informative and not legally contentious they would probably go in with or without your name and you would keep the £20 to spend on yourself or give to charity.

If they were not usable because they didn't add anything you'd be thanked, would get the money you were promised and the journalist would hope someone else was there because you were of no help.

If they were true but legally contentious like for instance you knew or suspected someone involved in the accident was drunk and that's all you had to talk about, again they wouldn't be used but you'd still get to keep the £20.

If it was all a load of old bollocks you decided to make up for £20 the journalist would probably know and probably wouldn't use it - definitely if it was legally contentious - but again you'd get to keep the money.

The same principle applies to all stories but something else comes into play when more than £20 is involved. Journalists will pay for tips and pay more for stories but it has to be interesting and to stand up in the sense that it is convincing and legally uncontentious.

If someone had a tale to tell about Nicola Bulley having problems with alcohol, which as I've explained earlier would be highly legally contentious what with her being a mother in charge of young children and at the time still presumed alive, it would not make it.

You'll be happy to know that the person who told the story would not get paid whether it was true or not. Newspapers pay on publication and they can be quite slow about it. This story, if it ever existed, did not make it. And if you were contributing to anything more than a tip you'd have to sign a contract with your name on it. Journalists can be as unscrupulous as anyone else but they are generally not stupid. Someone here had the fantasy that journalists pay £££. You think it's "loose change" for corporations. Sadly no, and they do want their money's worth.

Is there anything else you'd like to tell me about your experience of journalists.

daisychain01 · 21/02/2023 21:15

Hawkins003 · 21/02/2023 12:47

It's the same as the past but with the internet, it's global

Show quote history

Im amazed that people, including you obviously, dont get that the scale of the intrusion and interference in this family's circumstances makes it completely 100% NOT the same as the past. That's ludicrous and delusional.

in any case, two wrongs never make a right, so excusing the behaviour on the basis that it was like that in the past, is what has allowed this to escalate. If everyone had kept their bonkers ignorant speculation and discussions to themselves, the family wouldn't have been so utterly pissed off by it all that they needed to do a press release to say "enough!!!" How utterly disgraceful that they were forced to do that. As I said before, people who've been utterly consumed by this situation clearly don't have enough going on in their own lives, that's very sad.

LemonTT · 21/02/2023 21:18

limitedperiodonly · 21/02/2023 17:05

No official media outlet ran the story before the police revealed that Nicola had problems with the menopause and alcohol. If someone had a story all ready to run that just needed official confirmation for the legal reasons I've outlined, then the police did it for them. But they still didn't do it which is odd because it's the perfect excuse for an editor to say: "We can run all those quotes from curtain-twitchers now the police have said it's true."

I have no idea why the police chose to do that.

There is no “official” media. Not even the BBC. You mean MSM. Which includes tabloids and TV journalists already subject to complaints from the family.

Telling the truth is not libellous. The journalists just need reliable sources that means it is reasonable for them to think the story is true. It doesn’t have to be on the record. They will harass people to get comments if they have a reliable source. That includes family and friends.

It’s perfectly normal for the police to release family statements or for the police to release information with the knowledge of the family.

Hawkins003 · 21/02/2023 21:21

daisychain01 · 21/02/2023 21:15

Im amazed that people, including you obviously, dont get that the scale of the intrusion and interference in this family's circumstances makes it completely 100% NOT the same as the past. That's ludicrous and delusional.

in any case, two wrongs never make a right, so excusing the behaviour on the basis that it was like that in the past, is what has allowed this to escalate. If everyone had kept their bonkers ignorant speculation and discussions to themselves, the family wouldn't have been so utterly pissed off by it all that they needed to do a press release to say "enough!!!" How utterly disgraceful that they were forced to do that. As I said before, people who've been utterly consumed by this situation clearly don't have enough going on in their own lives, that's very sad.

Show quote history

Ok, on the flip side, person disappears, no media coverage, no news papers discussing all their theories day by day, only the relevant officials that are needed , various surveillance systems being used that's needed. All this could of been achieved without any of the public knowing a single thing.

News media outlets could of been issued with D notices to make sure all the in for is suppressed.

pigsinoodies · 21/02/2023 21:23

ScentOfAMemory · 21/02/2023 16:51

Their raison d'être is to run with stories.
Like the Mumsnetters on their 10 obsessive threads made it theirs.

Show quote history

And yet here you are posting on this thread.

Is it only obsessive if threads are numbered then?

pigsinoodies · 21/02/2023 21:27

Hawkins003 · 21/02/2023 21:21

Ok, on the flip side, person disappears, no media coverage, no news papers discussing all their theories day by day, only the relevant officials that are needed , various surveillance systems being used that's needed. All this could of been achieved without any of the public knowing a single thing.

News media outlets could of been issued with D notices to make sure all the in for is suppressed.

Show quote history

No, a 'D notice' could not have been issued. They relate to national security issues only.

Hawkins003 · 21/02/2023 21:28

pigsinoodies · 21/02/2023 21:27

No, a 'D notice' could not have been issued. They relate to national security issues only.

Show quote history

My error, got my information mixed up, so appreciate the correction

new2mn · 21/02/2023 21:32

limitedperiodonly · 21/02/2023 21:15

@new2mn. I'm sure you were and it was your prerogative not to accept it and not to describe what you saw or knew about the accident. I'm sure you had your reasons and the journalist swiftly moved on to someone less principled/more helpful than you. But there are a lot of things between you talking to a journalist for money or for nothing and your comments being printed or broadcast that you don't seem to realise.

Say if you did accept the £20 and your quotes about the accident were informative and not legally contentious they would probably go in with or without your name and you would keep the £20 to spend on yourself or give to charity.

If they were not usable because they didn't add anything you'd be thanked, would get the money you were promised and the journalist would hope someone else was there because you were of no help.

If they were true but legally contentious like for instance you knew or suspected someone involved in the accident was drunk and that's all you had to talk about, again they wouldn't be used but you'd still get to keep the £20.

If it was all a load of old bollocks you decided to make up for £20 the journalist would probably know and probably wouldn't use it - definitely if it was legally contentious - but again you'd get to keep the money.

The same principle applies to all stories but something else comes into play when more than £20 is involved. Journalists will pay for tips and pay more for stories but it has to be interesting and to stand up in the sense that it is convincing and legally uncontentious.

If someone had a tale to tell about Nicola Bulley having problems with alcohol, which as I've explained earlier would be highly legally contentious what with her being a mother in charge of young children and at the time still presumed alive, it would not make it.

You'll be happy to know that the person who told the story would not get paid whether it was true or not. Newspapers pay on publication and they can be quite slow about it. This story, if it ever existed, did not make it. And if you were contributing to anything more than a tip you'd have to sign a contract with your name on it. Journalists can be as unscrupulous as anyone else but they are generally not stupid. Someone here had the fantasy that journalists pay £££. You think it's "loose change" for corporations. Sadly no, and they do want their money's worth.

Is there anything else you'd like to tell me about your experience of journalists.

Your last sentence is beautifully condescending! I admit I don't have tabloid experience per se, but re broadsheets – I actually find it so ironic and funny and sad (for me) that someone is trying to explain media law to me. In house legal counsel for media are flush but very busy for a reason!

A bit off topic, and I promise I'm not trying to further prove the point: I bet many on MN have quit / burnt out / stepped back from their careers to become mums, and then have got their very own careers mansplained or speculated about in front of them, or by the public in general. This may well be your own experience too. Again, this isn't an attack on you or even really related to the news topic at hand. But it is a sad irony many mothers face that I don't think fathers really. There could even be forensic experts on here shaking their heads at all the inane river depth posts (that're long gone thankfully)!

limitedperiodonly · 21/02/2023 21:42

@LemonTT Thank you but I know what I mean. I don't like the term MSM which is why I used the term official media. If you want to use the term MSM instead that's up to you. You are quite right. There is no such thing as official media and I think what are called "citizen journalists" as long as they are responsible and truthful are totally legitimate.

I don't know why you are explaining libel law or journalistic ethics to me and believe my definition of the word harassment differs from yours.

As you say it is normal for the police to release statements on behalf of the family. However I have questioned the decision of Lancashire police to release a statement confirming the truth of a story (Nicola's problems with the menopause and alcohol) that were previously a rumour that probably wouldn't have been carried in the official/mainstream media/whatever you want to call it unless they had stood it up by releasing an official statement.

That was a big mistake. I have no idea why they did that.

limitedperiodonly · 21/02/2023 21:45

Your last sentence is beautifully condescending!

@new2mn thank you. I do try but so often people miss the point.

limitedperiodonly · 21/02/2023 21:54

Media law is the same whether it's a tabloid or a broadsheet @new2mn. And it's not mansplaining to say if you can't stand it up it would be risky to run it unless the police did you a really big favour by releasing an official statement confirming the story.

Isn't that what any media lawyer would say? I'm not a man, btw.

RafaistheKingofClay · 21/02/2023 22:02

I think you are assuming that the tabloid media give a fuck about whether what they print is true. I can assure you having been on the other side they don’t.
I’m sure that if they had the story they would have run it because it would generate an awful lot of sales and traffic for them.
The press regulator is toothless and taking them to court is expensive even if you win. That’s if you have the headspace to do it while in the middle of a huge personal tragedy.

limitedperiodonly · 21/02/2023 22:10

@RafaistheKingofClay and I have explained why no media outlet would have run that particular story until the police confirmed it. That's what happened. It has nothing to do with how nice or not journalists are.

noblegiraffe · 21/02/2023 22:16

And yet we see the tabloid media running bullshit stories about people every day, so why should we believe you?

Untitledsquatboulder · 21/02/2023 22:51

So full of shit I'm amazed you don't squeak when cornering.

pigsinoodies · 21/02/2023 22:52

limitedperiodonly · 21/02/2023 22:10

@RafaistheKingofClay and I have explained why no media outlet would have run that particular story until the police confirmed it. That's what happened. It has nothing to do with how nice or not journalists are.

You've 'explained' that, but you're just an anonymous nobody.

There's a whole dialogue at the moment about the press not behaving as expected in their relationship with the police in this case. We've all seen what's happened.

But you expect people to Belgium as a random poster that the press were observing previously accepted boundaries? Really?

You're full of it.

pigsinoodies · 21/02/2023 22:54

pigsinoodies · 21/02/2023 22:52

You've 'explained' that, but you're just an anonymous nobody.

There's a whole dialogue at the moment about the press not behaving as expected in their relationship with the police in this case. We've all seen what's happened.

But you expect people to Belgium as a random poster that the press were observing previously accepted boundaries? Really?

You're full of it.

Show quote history

@Untitledsquatboulder said it much more succinctly.

new2mn · 21/02/2023 23:00

limitedperiodonly · 21/02/2023 21:54

Media law is the same whether it's a tabloid or a broadsheet @new2mn. And it's not mansplaining to say if you can't stand it up it would be risky to run it unless the police did you a really big favour by releasing an official statement confirming the story.

Isn't that what any media lawyer would say? I'm not a man, btw.

No, it's not. It's absolutely not. It's so, so, not.

PrincessPeach92 · 21/02/2023 23:19

Sirzy · 16/02/2023 10:42

I think the way people kept trying to undermine the police investigation and say they where wrong when they didn’t know all the details is what lead to them having to release more information than they otherwise wanted to. I think the media/social media pressure is what led to them having to disclose.

I'm inclined to think something similar. People would have been going nuts if they deemed the police to be withholding information.

limitedperiodonly · 22/02/2023 14:41

No, it's not. It's absolutely not. It's so, so not

@new2mn What part of it? I've never heard of a media lawyer saying to someone at the Sunday Times: "Don't worry about that libel/contempt of court/data protection thing. You're on a broadsheet and that just applies to The Sun." Or: "I know the police have confirmed it in an official statement but you still can't run it."

Have you? What would the media lawyers you know advise in those situations?

dawngreen · 23/02/2023 10:20

The inquest is on the 26th of June, which is the normal format they follow. She can finally be released to her family to rest in peace.

Now a sick guy has decided to release a book about her Mark J. Donald (Author. This guy a local or not? Surely he is risking a come back from her family doing this.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page