Found Deceased UK - Nicola Bulley Last Seen Walking Dog Near River - St Michaels on Wyre (Lancashire), Jan 2023 #18

Status
Not open for further replies.
<modsnip - quoted post was removed>
There was mention in one of the interviews Kay Burley did at the time on Sky ,of a follow-up visit on 17th January to NB's house and that on that occasion there had been a 'health professional' present.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It specifically says in a police update: "...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 10 th."

 
… 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.
 
I've seen these types of posts in almost every thread I've followed. In one thread, it was claimed the person in the video was a body double for the victim.
Some come right out and say the police/witnesses/ME must be involved in a cover-up, someone powerful is pulling strings, etc. Others say "somethings not right" after the case is "concluded" and they disagree with the outcome.
What intrigues me the most is that they don't stop and think of what a production it would involve to get a bunch of people go along with it, to set something like that up. For what purpose? To unalive a complete stranger or to cover-up for a complete stranger? We're not supposed to discuss conspiracy theories but having an opinion is allowed.

I still feel like I don't understand what the point would be for all that. I like WS because of its limitations so I choose not to seek out discussion about NB (or most MP/cases I follow) elsewhere and I just... don't get it. I don't think I've yet seen a MP case where the person is so clearly on camera, yet (a tiny amount of people) have claimed it's someone else for some unknown, unclear-to-me reason.
 
It specifically says in a police update: "...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 10 th."

I'm really uncomfortable with how they worded this.

NB's issues "caused some real challenges for Paul and the family"

Therefore:

"a response car staffed by both police and health professionals attended a report of concern for welfare..."

I struggle with a variety of issues, and I know this can be challenging for my family sometimes, but I would be mortified if the police came right out and said that because of the difficulties I cause my family, a police/health response car was sent out one night when I needed acute help.

It wasn't sent out because she caused her family challenges, it was sent out for her. The statement has an ableist, judgmental tone to it, where the "family" are prioritised in the eyes of the authorities over the acutely life-affecting needs of the patient themselves.

JMO.
 
I've not seen that in any media reports. All I've seen in various media is that a check was carried out/visit made etc and with no comment about mental health. I've trawled the web today for something more specific and nothing. However there was speculation here and elsewhere that it might be something to do with mental health and maybe there was an incident and they were called out.
Lancashire Police said it had referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) over contact it had had with Ms Bulley before she vanished.

It said it had been called to a report of "concern for welfare" on 10 January when officers and health professionals visited her home. No arrests were made.

The force said the referral only related to the force's interaction with the family on that date and not the wider missing person investigation.

The IOPC said it was assessing the available information to determine whether an investigation was required.





Officers attended the family home in Inskip, Lancashire, on January 10, police said later this afternoon, but added this was purely a welfare visit and did not involve any arrests.

A force spokesperson said: "We have described how Nicola had some vulnerabilities at the time she went missing and we just wanted to expand on that a little.

"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.

"It is an unusual step for us to take to go into this level of detail about someone’s private life, but we felt it was important to clarify what we meant when we talked about vulnerabilities to avoid any further speculation or misinterpretation.

"We have explained to Nicola’s family why we have released this further information and we would ask that their privacy is respected at this difficult time."

 
I still feel like I don't understand what the point would be for all that. I like WS because of its limitations so I choose not to seek out discussion about NB (or most MP/cases I follow) elsewhere and I just... don't get it. I don't think I've yet seen a MP case where the person is so clearly on camera, yet (a tiny amount of people) have claimed it's someone else for some unknown, unclear-to-me reason.
There are a number of articles on the internet about the psychological reasons people engage in and entertain themselves with conspiracies but I'm not going to say what I think the motivation is of anyone posting on WS.
We know it is stated as a fact by LE, the family, witnesses at school and the park, etc., that it was NB who took the children to school and walked the dog. For it not to be NB means all of those people are lying and an imposter took her place, which would be a conspiracy.
 
I'm not sure what use it is to list the various conspiracies on WS. Or whether it is even ethical. To me it feels almost like discussing them by the back door. Maybe it's just that we have reached a bit of an impasse now that NB has been found and it's a bit of an information blackout while we wait for the experts to reach their conclusions.
 
I'm really uncomfortable with how they worded this.

NB's issues "caused some real challenges for Paul and the family"

Therefore:

"a response car staffed by both police and health professionals attended a report of concern for welfare..."

I struggle with a variety of issues, and I know this can be challenging for my family sometimes, but I would be mortified if the police came right out and said that because of the difficulties I cause my family, a police/health response car was sent out one night when I needed acute help.

It wasn't sent out because she caused her family challenges, it was sent out for her. The statement has an ableist, judgmental tone to it, where the "family" are prioritised in the eyes of the authorities over the acutely life-affecting needs of the patient themselves.

JMO.
I completely agree with you and have always found that line about NB's struggles causing challenges for her family, disturbing, almost with an air of blame attached to NB herself. Odd wording, as if it had been said in some sort of protesting or defensive or explanatory way by somebody in her family who was trying to justify some action of their own. MOO.
 
*snipped and bolded by me*

I struggle with a variety of issues, and I know this can be challenging for my family sometimes, but I would be mortified if the police came right out and said that because of the difficulties I cause my family, a police/health response car was sent out one night when I needed acute help.

It wasn't sent out because she caused her family challenges, it was sent out for her. The statement has an ableist, judgmental tone to it, where the "family" are prioritised in the eyes of the authorities over the acutely life-affecting needs of the patient themselves.


JMO.

Couldn't agree with you more, the tone of it all was so disrespectful and unnecessary IMO.
 
I completely agree with you and have always found that line about NB's struggles causing challenges for her family, disturbing, almost with an air of blame attached to NB herself. Odd wording, as if it had been said in some sort of protesting or defensive or explanatory way by somebody in her family who was trying to justify some action of their own. MOO.
Yes I think it is unacceptable and an error to have used those words. There is too much implication…
 
Out of curiosity and in other people's experiences, why would someone get a visit from the police alongside a health professional?
 
Out of curiosity and in other people's experiences, why would someone get a visit from the police alongside a health professional?
During a safe and well check, police are not trained or equipped to provide a health (medical, physical, mental) assessment.

What a police welfare check is, and why Lancashire Police is being probed over Nicola Bulley

“Police officers are neither trained nor equipped to carry out clinical assessments on the mental health or well-being of an individual (no matter how urgent the issue is) and it is not appropriate for them to fulfil the role of a healthcare professional.”

After the welfare check the police may choose to call an urgent ambulance, or call the community mental health team and request arrangement of an urgent mental health assessment.
 
During a safe and well check, police are not trained or equipped to provide a health (medical, physical, mental) assessment.

What a police welfare check is, and why Lancashire Police is being probed over Nicola Bulley

“Police officers are neither trained nor equipped to carry out clinical assessments on the mental health or well-being of an individual (no matter how urgent the issue is) and it is not appropriate for them to fulfil the role of a healthcare professional.”

After the welfare check the police may choose to call an urgent ambulance, or call the community mental health team and request arrangement of an urgent mental health assessment.

Thank you! Exactly what I wanted to know. I've only interacted with the police when they come with a mental health professional, rather than another health professional, hence the curiosity.
 
I'm not sure what use it is to list the various conspiracies on WS. Or whether it is even ethical. To me it feels almost like discussing them by the back door. Maybe it's just that we have reached a bit of an impasse now that NB has been found and it's a bit of an information blackout while we wait for the experts to reach their conclusions.
Just to clarify, I gave examples of posts that, in my opinion, imply and would require that there exist a conspiracy involving multiple people, which is extremely unlikely, if not impossible, in the NB case. There is nothing unethical in pointing this out and showing it's not unique to this thread as I was discussing this with another member.
I'm confident that nothing is afoot and LE has done a thorough investigation. I've not reached "a bit of an impasse" nor am I bored or reaching for something to talk about "while waiting" for experts' conclusions.
 
It specifically says in a police update: "...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 10 th."


@Miss_French, I'm sorry it was unclear that I did not reply to anything authored by OP but only quoted the link by OP citing the accurate information that "both police and health professionals" responded to the welfare call.

To be clear, not directed at OP, sad to revisit here.
 
This is sad - this guy went missing around the same time as NB and like her, his phone has been found by water.

We do have a thread for him here, though it's not as... lively as Nicola's has been --

 
During a safe and well check, police are not trained or equipped to provide a health (medical, physical, mental) assessment.

What a police welfare check is, and why Lancashire Police is being probed over Nicola Bulley

“Police officers are neither trained nor equipped to carry out clinical assessments on the mental health or well-being of an individual (no matter how urgent the issue is) and it is not appropriate for them to fulfil the role of a healthcare professional.”

After the welfare check the police may choose to call an urgent ambulance, or call the community mental health team and request arrangement of an urgent mental health assessment.

Also vice versa, an attending medic for example a paramedic first responder who may be working solo, or an ambulance crew, can request for police assistance for a variety of reasons - if they have reasonable grounds to think a crime has taken place, if they think a crime is about to take place, if they feel at any type of risk or threat in the environment where the person needs urgent medical attention, or if they need to break and enter a premises to get to a person... many reasons.

There are also situations where attending police are legally obliged to remove a person 'to a place of safety' and this may involve the need for an emergency section under the Mental Health Act if the person is unwilling or unable to comply voluntarily. The laws on who can 'section' a person have been changed in the recent past - since temporary amendments under the Coronavirus Emergency Legislation Act March 2020 and this can now be conducted differently but does require the opinion on at least one health professional sufficiently qualified to comment.

I am speaking in general terms, not relating to the case of NB in any way whatsoever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
156
Guests online
4,393
Total visitors
4,549

Forum statistics

Threads
592,610
Messages
17,971,668
Members
228,843
Latest member
Lilhuda
Back
Top