JANET STREET-PORTER: How dare the police reveal intimate details of Nicola Bulley’s personal life?

Women’s groups are rightly upset – and I’m furious – that once again insensitive police officers have decided to release intimate personal information about a missing woman to divert attention from her failure.

Yesterday, officials leading the investigation into the disappearance of Nicola Bulley – who disappeared on January 27 – held a highly unusual press conference in which they revealed Nicola was a high profile suspect from the start because of “vulnerabilities” they were told Risk had been classified via her partner shortly after her disappearance.

They didn’t explain what these “vulnerabilities” were and – after she dropped a bombshell – Detective Superintendent “Becky” Smith asked us to respect the family’s privacy.

The extraordinary statement that Nicola was “vulnerable” in some unspecified way was not only blunt and insistent, but inevitably led to even more questions from the press and the public.

The extraordinary statement that Nicola was “vulnerable” in some unspecified way was not only blunt and insistent, but inevitably led to even more questions from the press and the public

Yesterday, officials leading the investigation into the disappearance of Nicola Bulley – who disappeared on January 27 – held a highly unusual press conference revealing this from the start

In response, Lancashire Police later issued a stunning “clarification” statement.

In it, they revealed that Nicola had “significant problems with alcohol…caused by her ongoing battle with menopause” and that “these had resurfaced in recent months.” They also revealed that officials conducted a welfare check at her home on Jan. 10, and no one was arrested and the incident is being investigated.

At this point, after listening to all the evidence presented by the police in their detailed briefing yesterday, you might conclude that there is absolutely no evidence that Nicola was under the influence of alcohol on the day of her disappearance or was upset or distressed in any way. So why were we told she was “vulnerable” in the first place?

By opting for this outrageous tactic, Lancashire Police have made the situation for Nicola’s family that much worse. Far from eliminating false rumors and speculation, the police have managed to feed all those amateur detectives and TikTok detectives they whined about during their press conference with a ton of new footage. Material twisted and manipulated by influencers and amateur journalists to tickle their dimwitted followers.

Because Lancashire Police are clearly unable to deal with criticism and public attention, Nicola’s reputation and her right to privacy have been sacrificed. To achieve what?

JANET STREET-PORTER: We have no evidence whatsoever that Nicola’s mental condition would lead to her taking her own life

We have no evidence whatsoever that Nicola’s mental state could lead to her taking her own life, something Detective Becky Smith seemed to throw into her crucible of “hypotheses” by revealing that the missing woman was “vulnerable”.

Nicola spoke to other dog walkers that morning. She spoke to people at school. She texted a friend about a play date. She attended an office meeting.

On March 18, 2009, Claudia disappeared on her way to work in York after leaving home at 5am and has never been seen since. We don’t know if she’s dead or alive. Live in the UK under a different identity or work abroad.

She vanished into thin air.

For weeks, months, and then years, dozens of detectives scoured the attractive 35-year-old chef’s personal life, and when they couldn’t find a reason why she might have disappeared off the face of the earth, they began drip-feeding stories about her “complex relationships with men” to the Media. Faced with criticism of her lack of progress, police turned attention back to the victim, implying that Claudia Lawrence was quite a slag. That her social lifestyle could be a reason for her disappearance or death. That she was in the pub every night. Bla bla bla.

Detective Ray Galloway described Claudia’s lifestyle as “complex and mysterious”. In fact, she was dating different men at the same time and most of them didn’t know about each other. In other words, she was a modern woman who seemed to enjoy an active sex life.

I don’t think that’s a punishable offense. (Still).

As for the menopause and alcohol that somehow contributed to Nicola Bulley’s disappearance, one can’t help feeling that the revelation of these intimate details demeans the missing woman and (for years to come) something for her family and young daughters his will resent.

And why did Detective Superintendent Rebecca Smith feel the need to don a sleeveless black cocktail dress to hold a press conference? Given the seriousness of the occasion, wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to wear a dark suit, blouse, clothes that signal restraint and seriousness? This was not a consequence of the fall. As I watched Ms Smith run through her theories and list the work done so far, I felt that the line between police work and entertainment was crossed again: the whole event seemed like a shabby exercise in self-justification. And now the self-proclaimed other “expert” on the case, Peter Faulding, babbles on to anyone who will listen, saying he was never given the “facts” about Nicola’s “problems” by the police and – if he had known them – he would have looked elsewhere.

The whole investigation quickly turns into a circus.

Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is right to demand an explanation from the Lancashire Police Chief about her highly controversial victim-shaming strategy.

If a woman is missing, we don’t need to know anything about her menstrual cycle or the number of units she consumed before tea time. Or, as in the case of Claudia Lawrence, the names of the men she might have spent the night with.

Your job, Detective Superintendent Becky, is to get Nicola back, not offer arbitrary “reasons” for her disappearance that you can’t prove or justify.