Owners of viral lagoon that got ruined by Instagrammers during the Covid pandemic are warning people to stay away 67%

By PATRICK HARRINGTON84% UK NEWS REPORTER84%

7/21/2026, 9:52:41 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Self-Serving Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Optimism Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 12.7% saturation with 92 hits. Analysis detected 746 faulty-reasoning hits from 723 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 61% and a BS Rank of 67% (6,838 of 20,518 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 66.70% of the article peer group.

Day trippers have been warned to stay away from a lagoon that was ruined by Instagrammers when it went viral during the pandemic. 
The owners of the 'Blue Lagoon' near Port Talbot, South Wales, installed barriers and an entry fee to ward off crowds, who have caused problems with litter and traffic. 
But visitors have kept flocking to the scenic spot, with vandals bashing down the barriers and continuing to walk along the dam face. 
Leisure Estate Investments Ltd, which bought the reservoir for £20,000 at auction in 2024, said it has now 'strictly banned' anyone from the site. 
It has long-term ambitions to open up the water as a public attraction, but said 'significant private funding' is needed first - and wants people to stay away in the meantime. 
The 30m-deep turquoise pool, real name Brombil Reservoir, is accessible only by a steep 900m public footpath. 
Villagers in neighbouring Margam pushed back during the pandemic when the area was blighted by mass crowds travelling up to 200 miles. 
They complained of illegal parking on the side of the road, traffic jams, and disgusting accumulations of litter. 
Leisure Estate purchased the popular site with a view to creating a 'public-private' space that visitors could enjoy. 
But the process appears to have been more complicated than the company bargained for. 
At the start of the month, it imposed a £2 entry fee - which must be paid online - and threatened a £100 penalty or legal action against anyone who dodged it. 
Anyone caught littering would face a £1,000 fine, it warned, with surveillance cameras letting them keep an eye on the area. 
It banned all activities at the lagoon without prior consent from the company, including swimming, hiking, motorbiking, filming, and camping. 
In its latest statement this week, Leisure Estate said: 'We have strictly banned [people] from going there and walking on the face of the dam. 
'Our long-term vision has always been to build a sustainable public-private framework so the community can safely enjoy this asset. 
'However, managing a critical piece of infrastructure presents immense structural, environmental, and financial challenges that cannot be indefinitely sustained by a private entity alone.' 
The reservoir plays a vital role in flood protection, helping shield downstream residential areas, and has a 'unique aquatic ecosystem' that has faced 'severe environmental degradation caused by fly-tipping and littering', the company said. 
It added that requirements from Natural Resources Wales (NRW) for high-risk dams had increased significantly, and tens of thousands of pounds are required to make it compliant. 
Speaking in 2021, at the height of the lagoon's popularity, local Catherine Morris, 54, said: 'It's been really chaotic. 
It's dangerous and we are just afraid that something is going to happen. 
'Last summer it all started. 
Somebody put pictures on Facebook and put the postcode up. 
Before lockdown we never had any trouble and it would only be local people going up. 
'It's not like we don't want people to have a good time. 
We want people to have fun but be respectful of locals.' 
Police, councillors and local residents were forced to hold a series of meetings amid concerns over illegal parking, abandoned rubbish and dog fouling. 
Leisure Estate has since claimed to have repeatedly asked for support from Neath Port Talbot Council and local politicians to help fund and preserve the reservoir, but had received no response. 
It added: 'We genuinely want to work constructively with Neath Port Talbot Council, NRW, and our political representatives to deliver a safe, biodiverse, and secure site.' 
The company has warned it may be forced to 'decommission the reservoir' without public sector support. 
It added: 'This would unfortunately eliminate the area's primary flood defence and destroy a vital ecological habitat. 
'We sincerely hope local authorities will join us at the table to find a sustainable, shared way forward.' 
Neath Port Talbot Council said it had 'offered advice where appropriate' to the reservoir owners. 
A spokesperson said: 'As the site is privately owned, decisions regarding its operation and investment are a matter for the owner. 
'Any future arrangements should ensure that visitor activity is managed responsibly and does not place undue pressure on local communities. 
'We remain open to constructive dialogue with the owner.' 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.0%Daily Mail: 3.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.0%Daily Mail: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 3.6%Daily Mail: 3.5%Availability Heuristic5.7%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.6%Daily Mail: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.0%Daily Mail: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 5.0%Daily Mail: 9.2%Framing Effect5.9%This article: 2.2%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 2.3%Daily Mail: 0.3%Loss Aversion2.2%This article: 2.2%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.7%Daily Mail: 0.4%Status Quo Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.5%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 3.1%Daily Mail: 2.3%Optimism Bias6.5%This article: 1.8%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 1.2%Daily Mail: 1.2%Pessimism Bias1.8%This article: 12.7%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 16.6%Daily Mail: 12.8%Negativity Bias12.7%This article: 10.4%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 8.1%Daily Mail: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias10.4%This article: 1.9%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.6%Daily Mail: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error1.9%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.0%Daily Mail: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 2.4%Daily Mail: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.0%Daily Mail: 4.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.7%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 1.0%Daily Mail: 1.6%Recency Bias0.7%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.0%Daily Mail: 1.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.8%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 3.3%Daily Mail: 4.0%Appeal to Authority9.8%This article: 2.8%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 1.7%Daily Mail: 1.2%False Dilemma2.8%This article: 4.6%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 1.5%Daily Mail: 0.8%Slippery Slope4.6%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.3%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 5.2%Daily Mail: 4.3%Hasty Generalization5.3%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 1.0%Daily Mail: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 1.8%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 6.0%Daily Mail: 7.5%Appeal to Emotion1.8%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 6.1%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 2.5%Daily Mail: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.1%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.3%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 1.4%Daily Mail: 0.5%Burden of Proof4.3%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.6%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 2.0%Daily Mail: 3.2%Anecdotal2.6%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.4%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 1.5%Daily Mail: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.4%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 3.3%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 1.1%Daily Mail: 0.1%Special Pleading3.3%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.0%Daily Mail: 3.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 3.5%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 1.2%Daily Mail: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection3.5%This article: 3.2%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 1.9%Daily Mail: 9.3%Biased Writer Voice3.2%This article: 1.5%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 5.0%Daily Mail: 0.8%Indoctrination1.5%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PATRICK HARRINGTON: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

723 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers61%attributed speech279writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageLeisure Estate Investments Ltd • 24 words • 0.0% coverageLeisure Estate Investments Ltd • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageLeisure Estate Investments Ltd • 25 words • 100.0% coverageLeisure Estate Investments Ltd • 20 words • 0.0% coverageLeisure Estate Investments Ltd • 24 words • 0.0% coverageLeisure Estate Investments Ltd • 34 words • 0.0% coverageLeisure Estate Investments Ltd • 27 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Morris • 19 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Morris • 13 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Morris • 5 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Morris • 10 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Morris • 16 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Morris • 12 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Morris • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageLeisure Estate Investments Ltd • 31 words • 0.0% coverageLeisure Estate Investments Ltd • 26 words • 0.0% coverageLeisure Estate Investments Ltd • 16 words • 0.0% coverageLeisure Estate Investments Ltd • 17 words • 0.0% coverageLeisure Estate Investments Ltd • 18 words • 0.0% coverageNeath Port Talbot Council • 15 words • 0.0% coverageNeath Port Talbot Council • 21 words • 0.0% coverageNeath Port Talbot Council • 20 words • 0.0% coverageNeath Port Talbot Council • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Catherine Morris

86%flagged-word coverage
86 attributed words19% of attributed speech69% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Indoctrination+12.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Catherine Morris: 12.8%12.8%Biased Writer Voice-8.2 ptsWriter: 8.2%Catherine Morris: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.