Sutton Coldfield
2010 Results:
Conservative: 27303 (53.97%)
Labour: 10298 (20.36%)
Liberal Democrat: 9117 (18.02%)
BNP: 1749 (3.46%)
UKIP: 1587 (3.14%)
Green: 535 (1.06%)
Majority: 17005 (33.61%)
Notional 2005 Results:
Conservative: 24308 (52.5%)
Labour: 12025 (26%)
Liberal Democrat: 7710 (16.6%)
Other: 2275 (4.9%)
Majority: 12283 (26.5%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 24308 (52.5%)
Labour: 12025 (26%)
Liberal Democrat: 7710 (16.6%)
UKIP: 2275 (4.9%)
Majority: 12283 (26.5%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 21909 (50.4%)
Labour: 11805 (27.2%)
Liberal Democrat: 8268 (19%)
UKIP: 1186 (2.7%)
Other: 284 (0.7%)
Majority: 10104 (23.3%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 27373 (52.2%)
Labour: 12488 (23.8%)
Liberal Democrat: 10139 (19.3%)
Referendum: 2401 (4.6%)
Majority: 14885 (28.4%)
Boundary changes: as usual only minor changes – the boundaries of Sutton Coldfield has been pretty much unchanged since 1974. A few hundred voters in Erdington move into Birmingham Erdington, as does an unpopulated area of Tyburn. Sutton Coldfield gains 28 voters in Sutton Vesey ward from Birmingham Erdington.
Profile: A solidly middle class and Conservative seat in the North of Birmingham. Prestigious, leafly and affluent, it covers the most desirable residential areas in Birmingham. Sutton Coldfield was a separate municipal borough until 1974 and has retained its grammar schools. Contains Sutton Park, at 2,500 acres the largest urban park in Britain.
Current MP: Andrew Mitchell(Conservative) born 1956. Educated at Rugby and Cambridge University. Merchant banker. Contested Sunderland South 1983. MP for Gedling 1987-1997. Served as a whip under the Major government. First elected for Sutton Coldfield in 2001. A key lieutenant of David Davis in his leadership bid, Mitchell was appointed shadow secretary of state for international development after the election (more information at They work for you)
Andrew Mitchell(Conservative) born 1956. Educated at Rugby and Cambridge University. Merchant banker. Contested Sunderland South 1983. MP for Gedling 1987-1997. Served as a whip under the Major government. First elected for Sutton Coldfield in 2001. A key lieutenant of David Davis in his leadership bid, Mitchell was appointed shadow secretary of state for international development after the election (more information at They work for you)
Rob Pocock (Labour) Contested Sutton Coldfield 2001, 2005.
Richard Brighton (Liberal Democrat) Doctor. Contested Birmingham Selly Oak 2005.
Joe Rooney (Green) Educated at Birmingham University. Studying for a masters degree.
Edward Siddall-Jones (UKIP)
Robert Grierson (BNP) Educated at Cambridge University. Barrister.2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 89152
Male: 48.2%
Female: 51.8%
Under 18: 21.6%
Over 60: 24.3%
Born outside UK: 5.7%
White: 94.3%
Black: 1.2%
Asian: 2.9%
Mixed: 1.1%
Other: 0.5%
Christian: 78.4%
Hindu: 0.8%
Muslim: 1%
Sikh: 1%
Full time students: 2.8%
Graduates 16-74: 25.6%
No Qualifications 16-74: 22.5%
Owner-Occupied: 84.3%
Social Housing: 9.1% (Council: 5.6%, Housing Ass.: 3.5%)
Privately Rented: 4.3%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 7.8%
Can’t see this seat ever being other than Tory. But I think Labour could establish a solid second place
Thought I’d post this here, as it relates to the government’s problems shaking off its toffs against the plebs image.
It seems some bright spark minister at the department of transport thinks it would be a good idea to solve railway overcrowding by bringing back third class cattle carriages for the plebs.
I can’t think of a better way for Cameron and Osborne to show that they really aren’t a couple of arrogant posh boys, to quote one of this year’s I’m A Celebrity contestants.
Unbelievable.
Well there might be an argument in favour of having more than two classes of carriages on trains to ease overcrowding, but I agree that it has the potential to turn into another public relations disaster for the Tories.
For me Cameron’s never going to shake this ‘posh boy who doesn’t care about the poor’ image until he responds far more forcefully to such accusations
Whenever it’s brought up – as with Dorries’s comments – he just says it’s “nonsense”, and stops there – creating the impression that of all the way out and whacky ideas Dorries has come up with, on this she’s 100% right
Whilst I personally think Dorries has summed up George Osbourne to perfection, I don’t think it’s quite right about Mr Cameron – and he has to explain why – and quickly too if he is to ever to make any headeway against the impression that the Tories is a party run by the rich for the rich., surely their biggest barrier to getting elected
Policy iniatives like this hardly help
Bringing back third class would lead to even more people deserting the party. It will bring back class war, which Thatcher spent so long getting rid of, and it will give more gravitas to the view of Cameron and Osbourne being posh.
Following on from Richard, I don’t think people are bothered about Cameron’s poshness as such but his policies are what winds people up. Things like giving money to the EU, foreign aid, raising tuition fees, immigration and a soft judicial system makes it seem that he is not on the side of the ordinary person. He is giving money away to the rest of the world to make it easier for them while cutting finances at home making it harder for the majority of us. It’s a logic that the majority of people just cannot understand.
I also think he should have attacked Labour much stronger on the 10p tax rate and out his point across much better, something they introduced just before they knew they were going to lose the GE.
LB
Are you able to see my comment after that of Tim Jones?
It says ‘YOUR COMMENT IS AWAITING MODERATION’ on my screen.
Though I don’t see why it needs to.
It often does that if you include a hyperlink Richard. I can’t see it
There’s no link in the comment, let me try and post it again.
This Cristina Odone comment in the Telegraph is related to gay marriage but I think she raises relevant points about Cameron’s mentality:
” There are two conclusions one might draw from the PM’s apparent scheming. The first is that the PM is so self-righteous that he genuinely cannot see that the majority of Britons do not believe he is right about gay marriage; the second is that the PM feels such contempt for people who do not support his liberal social agenda that he cannot take their views seriously – and feels free to rewrite them to suit his pet project. I don’t know which is worse. ”
Cameron I think lacks interest in and empathy with people who aren’t like him and often cannot be bothered either to pretend otherwise or even hide his dislike of those who are different.
That’s quite true that last comment. He is openly contemptuous of some backbenchers on his own side as well as making some remarks at certain Labour MPs which are unnecessarily disrespectful.
Dispatches looks good tonight (implying the police officer might have lied)
2015 most likely
Con 54.1 (+0.1)
Lab 27.2 (+6.8)
LD 10 (-8)
BNP 2 (-1.5)
UKIP 5 (+1.9)
Others 1.7
I’m 24, live in the real world and am one step ahead of everyone on the constituency section.
Well being angry and disrespectful is marginally better than being angry disrepectful and and a snob, but only marginally. Probably caused a sacking rather than just a dressing down though. This may well open the door for a return.
You are 24? I know of someone who is 24 and who is an A Cairns, wonder if you are one and the same…
Why are you one step ahead of everyone else?
He admitted to swearing at the police and I think that would have been enough – he does appear to be both unpopular and generally incompetent
Going back to the 3rd class travel -> I would be absolutely for this idea. Rail is so expensive and it will help the poorest to have cheaper travel not the richest.
I for one would be getting 3rd class ticket most times.
Having seen the Indian version, where benches are shared with cows and goats, I’m not convinced
I am not sure about the other parts of the country but a London commuter train from the edge of South London/Home Counties, how would another class ease congestion? On the crowded Southern trains I get, the 1st Class areas tend to be empty and you cant even stnd in there so you have the ridiculous spectacle of people packed in like a tin of sardines looking at a section of a carriage which is almost empty. The ticket inspector comes around and if he/she sees anyone without a 1st Class ticket, evn standing there, unsympathetically dolls out a £20 penalty.
With the ridiculous train fares, you’ll ultimately end up with more people buying 3rd Class anyway so evn more sections of unused train space.
“The ticket inspector comes around and if he/she sees anyone without a 1st Class ticket, evn standing there, unsympathetically dolls out a £20 penalty.”
I travel by train in South East London several times a week and have done for most of the past 15 years….and without a word of a lie I can say I have never ever seen a ticket inspector on the train.
South Eastern Trains are the UK leaders in tolerance of fare evasion. Zero ticket inspectors and zero ticket barriers at all stations except at Victoria, Waterloo, Charing Cross, London Bridge and Bromley South. Huge numbers of people travelling to London don’t buy a ticket and get off at Brixton where there are no barriers. From daily observation I would say at least 50% of passengers, at least outside of peak hours, have no ticket.
So on our line nobody cares about the 1st class compartment and they are as crammed full as the rest of the train.
I do not like Andrew Mitchell much but I was disturbed at the time of his departure by the manner of it – his alleged comments seemed to fit too conveniently into an established political ‘narrative’ and there was more than a whiff of the kind of police fit up/rank closing that we have seen on numerous occasions in recent years.
It now appears that my concerns were at least in part justified. I was sickened by the police cover up of the De Menezes incident, which for me meant that we now had a situation where the police could summarily execute people on the streets – and without apparent risk of comeback in case of an error.
This incident may be almost as bad – some members of the police now apparently believe they are sufficiently untouchable that they can fabricate evidence against a senior minister of the crown. Perhaps this is no great surprise given that they were happy to arrest a shadow minister on the flimsiest of pretexts a few years ago – but it should send shivers down the spine of any ordinary person.
One issue remains unresolved here – if the police did invent these allegations, did they do so on their own, or were they prompted?
‘I do not like Andrew Mitchell much but I was disturbed at the time of his departure by the manner of it’
If he said what was alleged he should have been sacked by Cameron himself, but now it seems like a less of an exaggerated account but more a complete fit up
And this is hardly an isolated incident. Let’s bear in mind this is the same police force who illegally investigated people for the vile News of the World, shot dead an innocent man through their own sheer incompetence, made up a story that was an utter lie to cover themselves and then perjured themselves in court
For the last 20-30 years the UK’s police force have always had a well deserved repuation for incompetence. It now seems like they are corrupt with it
I’ve only just read this thread and caught up with the comments over the last couple of months – I was interested in the comments made re Cameron’s attitude and dismissive manner.
Obviously I can’t offer any personal insight – but I briefly dated a girl earlier this year who had previously worked closely with some senior members of the Tory party at one point (it wouldn’t be fair on her to say anymore than that). I didn’t get to know her that well but she seemed like a person of integrity and never let any more confidential information slip out.
During her time with the Tories, she did meet both Cameron and Osborne. Her observation was, rather in common with Richard’s, that he was rather arrogant and furthermore had a reputation for being rather rude to his staff at times. She was broadly sympathetic to the Tories but felt that Cameron was somewhat opportunistic and perhaps lacked a true ‘driving’ ideology.
Interestingly, she had also met Osborne a couple of times. Contrary to what is perhaps the broad public perception (e.g Osborne cold and uncaring, Cameron somewhat warmer) she said that Osborne had seemed warm, relaxed and genuine when she spoke to him at the end of a meeting. She felt that he was rather misrepresented in public.
As I say, it’s just one person’s observation – but she seemed like someone of genuine integrity and I felt her views were without prejudice, and based on personal experience.
Was this particular girl privy to ‘The Thick Of It’ style interrogations of the staff?
It is richly ironic that Andrew Mitchell should be the victim of a police fit-up,cover-up or misinformation, as he now appears to have been. For generations it’s been the likes of striking miners and figures on the political left who have been far more likely to suffer in this way (though of course many figures outside politics have done so too, not least the victims of the Hillsborough disaster). Of course, for these generations the Conservatives have been seen as the party which, if you like, supports our boys & girls in the police, but since Blair came to power this has been much less clear & now they have clearly made some enemies within the force. Naturally if Mr Mitchell has been the victim of an injustice I condemn it; he may not have behaved himself all that brilliantly, but he does have a right to have his words reported correctly and not be subject to the sort of thing which appears to have occurred here.
That’s a fair comment.
The police have always decided which side their bread is buttered on and attached themselves with admirable dedication to that side.
In the 70s and 80s their financial interest was well rewarded by siding with Tory governments against striking miners, hippy CND protesters and football hooligans.
In the different environment of today, the police have deduced that their best interests lie in defending those who believe in high public spending and sweeping reform of the police bureauocracy under the carpet.
Like Runnymede I am no fan of Andrew Mitchell and his abrasive character obviously made him an easy target to stitch up. But what has happened here seems pretty outrageous.
@The Results
Lol no it wasn’t quite contact of that type! (It would have been fun if she was)
Actually, her contact was fairly normal and not out of the ordinary at all – it’s just that she still works in those circles and she was really nice, so I don’t want to say anything that could possibly hint at her identity.
It was just interesting that the public perceptions of people aren’t quite what we always think. I remember John Virgo came to Flitwick in the early 90′s to do a trick shot exhibition – I went along as a 14-yr old thinking he would be quite witty and it would be a fun night, and yet he was rude and looked like he didn’t want to be there at all. People aren’t always what they appear…….
…..although in fairness it was Flitwick, so perhaps he could be forgiven for being underwhelmed by the experience……;-)
H, Hemmelig’s point re buttering of bread etc is valid I think for some of the more senior officers.
But what is also very worrying is the arrogant sense of untouchability that now seems to pervade all ranks of the police.
The disgraceful De Menezes case is the worst example of this of course, but there are many others. Casual corruption has become common and the closing of ranks at every opportunity to prevent misconduct becoming public now seem to be the norm.
Fair enough Chris K.
I suppose there must be a lot of people who work for the Conservative Party who do not want to be named for some reason
It is disappointing – when I was a young man, there was some appalling police misconduct & at times criminality, and the SPG was around and behaved in a fashion which at times made a mockery of the notion that they were enforcing the law. Since those days in the late 70s, there has been, in general, a steady improvement within the police, which has not by any means been replicated in that many other countries, and I felt that, by and large, policing in this country was fairer than pretty much anywhere else in the world. It is sad that there still remains, however, this covering-our-tracks sort of culture, where if a policeman does wrong he (usually) is backed to the hilt by his colleagues and gets away with it for far too long. I suppose that in a way it’s encouraging that this particular officer hasn’t got away with it, however. It is still a very serious matter for me personally that even when officers have been shown – or shall we say alleged – to have acted in a criminal fashion (e.g. the death of Ian Tomlinson, and many other incidents) they tend to be sacked but not face criminal charges. It is vital in a truly democratic society that the police enforce the law, and prevent crime, not commit it and get away with it. Of course, what has happened to Andrew Mitchell is a lot less serious than what happened to Tomlinson, Blair Peach, and, sadly, plenty of others, but it seems to be indicative of a continuing unhealthy culture within at least parts of the police. In the past, I would have been called all sorts of things like traitor for saying this, but perhaps there may be a chance after this that there could be some cross-party consensus on dealing with what potentially can still be a very serious problem within our society.
A lot of it is the fault of the TV.
The public buys in to the image of The Sweeney, Life On Mars, A Touch Of Frost, Taggart etc……which are all centred on heroic detectives who have to break the rules and ignore procedure in order to convict the guilty.
But as countless cases including Ian Tomlinson show, when you do things that way it doesn’t always have a righteous ending.
I have an uncle who is a retired policeman, and he blames the gradual decline of the police on the abolition of “police houses” in the 1960s. When police constables were forced to live within the communities they policed, they had more respect from the people and understood them better. But it’s a different world now.
I don’t know, I think she was made of sterner stuff and was prepared to have that awful label attached to her…..:)
Without turning this discussion into one totally about her (and, by proxy, by dating history) she perhaps does represent the wider difficulty facing Cameron. Both her and I are broadly on the ‘wet’ wing of the Tory party, and are instinctive Tory supporters – yet neither of us are convinced by him and we should represent his natural constituency.
If he’s struggling to convince us, it perhaps doesn’t bode that well for converting centrist voters that went LD/stayed with Labour in 2010, or indeed for preventing a degree of drift from the right towards UKIP (I don’t think that it will be spectacular but I still believe UKIP will poll 4-4.5% in 2015).
I still think that, unless there is significant (and surprising) economic growth before 2015, which in turn may persuade some centrist public sector swing voters that the worst of the cuts are over, a working Labour majority is the most likely result.
Is that the sane wing of the Tory Party Chris K?
I don’t see why anyone is remotely surprised that the Prime Minister “is not a very nice person”.
Prime Ministers are almost never nice people, because you do not get to the top by being a nice person.
The few Prime Ministers who have been genuinely nice people, such as John Major and Alec Douglas-Home, are those who are most often rated as failures.
@The Results
Well, I wouldn’t go that far by any means;-) I think I’m quite centrist but there are few more right-wing views I agree with.
But this is the problem with right and left wing I guess. For instance, from your post the other day you and I are far apart in political ideology and would struggle to find common ground on economic policy for example. Yet from the same post I see we would agree on EU specticism to a greater or lesser degree.
And we might even have, for example, watched last year’s riots and both had at least a fleeting thought that at least some of the rioters deserved (and indeed may benefit from) a good kicking…..but I don’t mean to pre-suppose your views of course:)
The point is I guess most people, on any wing of any party that isn’t totally on the extreme, have some useful views. And I sometimes think that the lack of common ground between even a hard left and hard right winger is often underestimated.
sorry meant lack of common ground is exaggerated…..
The Results:
I’d argue that there are several sane wings of the tory party and one insane one (not to name any names). I am on the right of the party in many regards but I think it would be harsh to label me as insane.
The same is probably true of the labour party.
There arent any sane Lib Dems.
I do not agree that the rioters deserved a good kicking but at the same time I don’t condone their actions. It’s good to see that we agree on Europe, but I would never think about voting for UKIP.
Good post Barnaby.
What these incidents show is how easy it is for an organisation to slip from a culture of ‘bend a few rules sometimes to get the right result’ to ‘ignore the rules entirely whenever we see fit’.
We have rules about due process to protect us from abuses of power by the police and others. Too often the purpose of these rules is forgotten, in particular by the bodies bound by them but also by the general public who retain a naive faith in the probity of bodies such as the police.
Im sorry, but how on earth can anyone, right, left or centre say that the rioters don’t deserve a “good kicking” if it was your house being burnt down it would be interesting to hear your views.
P.S. What are your views on Liverpool militant.
The rioters did not deserve “a good kicking”, because we don’t live in a country where that is considered reasonable “justice”.
A good kicking is obviously a metaphor for a substantial prison sentence or similar punishment within the law.
Of course, in that context yes I would agree- But literally obviously not.
‘I don’t see why anyone is remotely surprised that the Prime Minister “is not a very nice person”.
Prime Ministers are almost never nice people, because you do not get to the top by being a nice person.
The few Prime Ministers who have been genuinely nice people, such as John Major and Alec Douglas-Home, are those who are most often rated as failures.’
Whilst the last paragraph is probably correct – although I personally don’t think John Major could be accurately described as even remotely nice – the whole reason Cameron got the top job in the first place was because he was perceived by fellow Tory Party members as someone who did genuinely care – or was at least good at prending to care – and therefore represented their best chance of getting elected
Of course those of us au fait in politics have seen the real Cameron – when he gets rattled by something he doesn’t like his behaviour is usually disgraceful – but given that Cameron’s whole appeal was based on him being a nice guy who gives a damn, I think some, probably less knowledgeable people, would be surprised by the revelations of Chris K’s friend
I also struggle with the notion that you have to be some kind of Francis Urquhart to get to the top – even I’m not that cynical yet
“I also struggle with the notion that you have to be some kind of Francis Urquhart to get to the top”
That’s not what I said.
But I think it’s ridiculous that people pretend to be surprised – like in Chris K’s comment above – to find that the prime minister is “opportunistic”. Of course he’s going to be opportunistic. Nobody gets to be party leader or
prime minister without being opportunistic.
“the whole reason Cameron got the top job in the first place was because he was perceived by fellow Tory Party members as someone who did genuinely care”
And that’s the fine art of getting someone to vote for you! Have you never observed Tony Blair at work?
If you haven’t read it yet, I recommend Peter Hennessy’s book profiling all prime ministers since the war. It clearly shows how opportunism, ruthlessness and duplicity is essential for the job and that those who are too nice or too ineffectual to engage in that – such as Major and Home – were condemned to fail.
‘If you haven’t read it yet, I recommend Peter Hennessy’s book profiling all prime ministers since the war. It clearly shows how opportunism, ruthlessness and duplicity is essential for the job and that those who are too nice or too ineffectual to engage in that – such as Major and Home – were condemned to fail.’
I’ll put that on my Christmas list
But John Major was both highly ruthless and highly opportunistic. He failed as PM not because he was short of these qualities, but because he got re-elected in 92 with a wafer thin majority, and presided over the ERM meltdown
Part of the reason he snatched victory from the jaws of defeat was partly becaise he was able to portray himself as a normal guy from a humble background – which given he was a wealthy millionaire by that time – is as disingenuous as you get
I happen to think Major got dealt a pretty difficult hand and was treated almost as badly as Neil Kinnock by the press, once they realised that he wasn’t really a Thatcherite afterall – but he was as cunning, ruthless and opprtunistic as they come and the fact that he was able to mask it all with this normal guy image just highlights that
He makes Cameron look like a complete amateur
Perhaps.
Major did show a lot of cunning in persuading both Thatcherties and wets that he was “one of them”, in order to get their support in the leadership election. And his dental problems kept him usefully out of having to support Mrs Thatcher in her final days.
However his conduct in office post-1992 shows that he just did not have the skills necessary to be a good prime minister. Jim Callaghan would have been a good prime minister if he had had a bigger majority. John Major would still have been a bad prime minister even if he had a large majority. He just wasn’t up to the job.
Incidentally…where did you hear that Major was a millionnaire becoming Prime Minister? I would have found that extremely unlikely. He must be a multi millionnaire now though.
“Dear Mr Randall,
I am resident in your constituency and have consistently supported and voted for you( and the Conservative Party ) in passed elections. This is because I believe you are a man of the highest integrity who truly does believe in the welfare of his constituents. This is evident by the good work you do for the area, in particular helping Ruislip HS2.
Unfortunately I write you to complain about the absolutely digesting behaviour I was witness to yesterday, Wednesday 19th September 2012 about 7:30 pm, display by your fellow Member of Parliament at Downing Street.
I was with my relative from Hong Kong doing the usual site seeing. After visiting Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey we walked down Whitehall to the gates of Downing Street, my nephew was hoping to catch a glimpse of the Prime Minister or other famous politician.
As we were waiting at the main gates of Downing Street, with several other tourists, he point to a man on a push bike coming up Downing Street. My nephew wanted to take a photograph of him as he mistakingly thought that this man was BORIS JOHNSON, but I corrected him, having a keen interest in politics and the Conservative Party, knew it was ANDREW MITCHELL – Member of Parliament for Sutton Coldfield.
Imagine to our horror when we heard MR MITCHELL shout very loudly at the police officers guarding ” YOU ——- PLEBES !!” and ” YOU THINK YOU RUN THE ——- COUNTRY” and just continued to shout obscenities at the poor police officers. My nephew, as was I, totally taken aback by his, MR MITCHELLS’ behaviour and the gutter language he used, especially it appeared directed at the police officers.
Now I know that the other people / tourists standing with us were also shocked and some were even, inadvertently filming the incident ( it wouldn’t surprise me that in this age it’ll be on YouTube or other social media website ) One person even remarked as to why was BORIS swearing.
It was to one of the police officers credit that he calmly spoke to MR MITCHELL. I don’t know what he said but MR MITCHELL eventually left Downing Street by a side entrance.
Is this what our country has come to when ELECTED Members of Parliament speak to police officers, who are doing a very under valued but extremely difficult job, as if they were something they have trodden on? And even if MR MITCHELL was having a difficult day his yobbish / loutish behaviour is totally unacceptable.
I thought that as law abiding citizens we support our police but what example does MR MITCHELLs’ behaviour say ” if you are in a position of authority or standing you can say and do whatever you like to the police ” because you are simply more important than anyone else. Well shame on MR MITCHELL we all have bad days but the vast majority of us treated others as human beings and with civility. If MR MITCHELL is Chief Whip of the Conservative Party god help the Conservative Party.
I realise nothing will come of this letter, nor do I expect anything to. However I feel I had to
write to you to express my sadness at witnessing such an event. I know that you would never behave or condone such actions as displayed by MR MITCHELL.
Keep up the good work
Kind regards
——————–”
ht tp://www.channel4.com/news/andrew-mitchell-email-letter-plebgate-pleb-police
Excellent article by Andrew Gilligan in today’s Telegraph re widespread police corruption
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9761022/Have-the-men-in-blue-crossed-the-line.html