We’ve seen some pretty uninspiring performances from our boys-in-blue over the years. But this one takes the proverbial cake.
Seems that on 2010-09-03 at around 01:15 UTC, two officers from the Manchester force stopped and arrested a suspected drunk driver and confiscated his sports car. Whilst waiting for the tow truck to collect the vehicle, these clowns-in-uniform then decided to take it for a joyride. Shortly after climbing into the vehicle, a powerful Mitsubishi Evo 8, they slammed it into a garden wall in a quiet residential district called Trafford.
The street in which the incident took place has a 30 mph | 50 kmh speed limit – not that there is much evidence of this when you study the video of the wrecked car! Apparently, Chief Supt Mark Roberts, divisional commander for Trafford, told the Manchester Evening News, “I can assure the local community that this incident will be rigorously investigated.”
Now, after the matter has been rigorously covered up investigated, I wonder what Mr Roberts’ report will look like? Something like this perhaps…
The brave and conscientious officers were proceeding with great care along Hale Road at 29 mph when a delightful fluffy little kitten suddenly ran into the road. This caused the officer to swerve and clip the curb at just the wrong angle.
By a strange freak of nature, this caused the vehicle to leap into the air and spin round several times, mid-air. This resulted in a rapid increase in velocity, thus providing sufficient kinetic energy to completely demolish the brick wall on impact. Also, the wall was very badly built.
The vehicle was a Mitsubishi Evo. This is a Japanese vehicle. This means it was designed for little slitty-eyed people. Therefore, it was inadequately sized for a pair of well-built British police officers. These are men who have diligently endured a lifetime of stuffing their faces with double portions of fish & chips with sausages-in-batter, mushy peas and gravy, whilst on duty.
However, the colour of the vehicle may have contributed towards the accident. The yellow street-lights may have dangerously reflected off the yellow paintwork, which may have temporarily blinded the officer driving the vehicle, possibly.
We also note that the car was poorly maintained and had not been washed for almost a week. There were also traces of ash in the ashtray and a sweet wrapper on the floor.
Most importantly, the utterly wrecked state of the vehicle does not constitute evidence that my officers were doing 140 mph in a 30 mph zone. The vehicle is made of very thin metal and therefore it dents very easily. Besides, considering the combined weight of the two officers, it is unlikely the vehicle could ever have reached its top speed anyway.
Unfortunately, the enquiry has been unable to determine exactly which officer was driving because they both suffered a loss of memory due to the accident. Therefore neither of the officers concerned can be prosecuted.
Consequently, the vehicle’s owner will not be entitled to compensation. Moreover, the owner may face the very serious charge of “failure to provide a police officer with a decent vehicle to go joyriding in.”
Meantime, the home-owner, upon whose property the vehicle finally came to rest, and whose garden wall was demolished in the incident, has also made a claim for compensation. However his claim has also been dismissed and he now faces charges of “having a very untidy garden, in a fairly posh area” and “wasting police time“.
Honk! Honk! 😉