The Nicola Bulley case is one of the biggest disasters in British policing

If the public cannot trust how the police handle the release of information, why on earth should they trust their investigations?

Like it or not, policing is all about control. The police control demonstrations, football fans, crime scenes, witnesses, suspects, even each other (supposedly). And, as we now know, some of their very worst former officers brutally control women who become victims of their vile criminality.

They also control information – billions of pieces of information – and whenever there is a notable, newsworthy case that garners enormous public interest, they control what information is released to us: the great, unworthy, unwashed British public. The information that is deemed suitable for us is often decided by senior officers, in consultation with their press offices.

With public trust in the police plummeting, you would be excused for thinking that the disappearance of mum-of-two, Nicola Bulley, would have provided Lancashire Constabulary with an opportunity to get their messaging right, engage with the public in a positive way, and regain some friends. But, no. They have somehow, instead, managed to turn a missing person enquiry into arguably the biggest communications disaster ever cobbled together by a British police service.

In the first two major press conferences following Nicola’s disappearance, they put forward Superintendent Sally Riley, who told us all, in no uncertain terms, to stop speculating about what might have happened to Nicola. It was hurtful, and unhelpful, she said.

Part of me thought the force might like to form a “Speculation Squad”, who would be armed with the powers and equipment to smash our front doors off their hinges and place us all into handcuffs, simply because we had the temerity to discuss with our loved ones over dinner what might have happened to Nicola. Isn’t it perfectly natural to discuss the sobering disappearance of the woman who’s captured the imagination of a nation?

Riley told us a bit about the police investigation. Officers had developed a “working hypothesis” that Nicola had gone into the river, and that there was no evidence of criminality or third-party involvement. Riley went on to tell us that many experts in their field were assisting with this enquiry. Clearly, many people chose not to accept this working hypothesis, and a stream of amateur sleuths and social media personalities joined the media throng already camped out in St Michael’s on Wyre.

Speculation has continued to run rampant throughout the nation; and so, on Wednesday, Lancashire Constabulary decided it was time for their biggest hitters. Assistant Chief Constable Peter Lawson took his seat at the eagerly awaited press conference. Alongside him sat Detective Superintendent Rebecca Smith, who was keen to tell us that she had been an officer for 29 years.

They both spoke of “vulnerabilities” that applied to Nicola, which had led to her being categorised as a “high risk” missing person soon after she had disappeared. Lawson expanded on these vulnerabilities, revealing that they were “personal and private”. Having opened the floodgates for further speculation about what those vulnerabilties might be, he asked us (you guessed it) not to speculate.

Within six short hours, the police performed a hugely embarrassing U-turn, and revealed that Nicola had issues around alcohol, connected to the perimenopause. This calamitously timed revelation has prompted a media frenzy, which – with further revelations coming thick and fast from the family and the police – clearly shows that Lancashire Police have lost any control of the information flow they once had.

This case will go down in policing history as the finest example of how not to handle the release of information to the media and the public. Damagingly, and worryingly, if the public cannot trust how the police handle the release of information, why on earth should they trust their investigations?

Peter Bleksley is a former police detective