Detective Inspector 11143 Andy Wright of GMP Adult Safeguarding Unit lies to rape victim

Detective Inspector 11143 Andy Wright of the Greater Manchester Police Adult Safeguarding Unit has lied to a victim of rape (who I will call Anita to protect her identity).  DI Wright also completely ignored another adult victim (a friend of Anita’s) in a linked crime.

DI Wright visited Anita after Anita reported a vexatious phone call which was made to Social Services by an anonymous caller, suggesting that Anita was putting her children at risk.

Social Services contacted Anita telling her of the anonymous call, and stated that the caller had also referred to a friend of Anita’s, saying he has been arrested for having indecent images of teenage girls on his phone and that he was a ‘dangerous man’. These malicious allegations, suggesting Anita’s friend was a paedophile, are grossly offensive and untrue.  The intention of the malicious phone call was clearly to cause Anita and her friend alarm and distress, which it most certainly has.

The call was traced to the anonymous, malicious caller; however, DI Wright then told Anita that the call was not anonymous after all. This was AFTER GMP had to trace the caller using the phone number used to make the malicious call. Surely there would have been no need to trace the call if the caller had left their name. It seems that only after being traced and caught out, the caller has tried to pretend they weren’t trying to hide their identity.

DI Wright ACCEPTED what the ‘anonymous’ caller told him, then sent Anita a message saying:

“I believe she would have a plausible reason for submitting the report’

There is never a plausible reason for reporting a good mother to Social Services by making malicious allegations about the mother and her friend by making false, malicious allegations out of spite, intending to cause harm. How can maliciously and intentionally calling innocent people paedophiles EVER be plausible? It isn’t, and this will be heard in a court of law.

For DI Wrights’s comment to have any weight, he would have to assess whether the malicious (grossly offensive) comments against Anita’s friend had any credibility or whether the spiteful act by the malicious caller was, in fact, just that…malicious and spiteful. False, malicious allegations fall under the Malicious Communications Act. DI Wright should know this! How many other people has this spiteful person called a paedophile out of malice? How many more lies have they told?

Despite telling Anita that the caller’s malicious call was ‘plausible’, he told Anita he intended to give them a harassment warning. So what is it then? Is it plausible, or is it harassment? (It’s actually Malicious Communications too).

DI Wright is an Inspector in Greater Manchester Police, he has failed two victims of a malicious caller in one shot.  How can GMP get it so wrong so often?

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*