Facial recognition technology will be banned and resources for "offensive" social media posts transferred to front line policing under Confelicity Mayor of Essex, James Miller

Introduction

The government are looking to disband Police, Fire and Crime Commissioners and turn those powers over to Mayors - including the new Mayor of Essex. This role will set the “overall strategy of policing in line with government objectives”.

Let me straight away argue that the assumption an elected Mayor who does not belong to the Labour Party will adhere to their policies is wishful thinking, and as such I have outlined in this blog my broad take on law and order and then some of the key policies I would look to implement with the Chief Constable.

These include the banning of facial recognition technology; the ending of waste of time social media arrests; investing in satellite police stations in our high streets; supporting the re-opening of youth centres; investing heavily in directing as much resource in front-line policing; launching a huge drive in Special Constables and the Employee Supported Scheme; launching the biggest ‘Inspirational Speaker’ drive to go into our schools; and supporting the fight against drug dealing.

I start this blog with a discussion about my take on policing and the complications involved in the law and its implementation.

My broad take on Law and Order

Firstly, in my humble opinion, I think the police do a monumental job overall. We can all point to reports of police corruption or neglect, but I for one am eternally grateful to our brave officers who put their lives on the line every morning to protect us from harm. They do not know what they are going to face and if they have been called, it is normally because the situation has already gotten well out of hand. Any organisation will have its problems, and they will always need to be addressed professionally and fairly, but I am thankful to have them with us defending those who cannot defend themselves.

I had the privilege of attending an attestation when one of our staff members joined the Special Constables. In fact, we were awarded with the Employer of the year in this respect.

I have also seen first hand the brilliant way they have handled potentially explosive situations by adept de-escalation skills. Nothing like the same scale as the police, but I am in charge of our security team and can appreciate the importance of getting the philosophy just right. Over zealousness provokes situations and can cause crime while a light touch can result in a walk over and will breed more crime.

Getting it right is not easy.

In simple terms, the victim must take precedent and the perpetrator should receive the necessary punishment. However, nothing is ever that simple because no one is born a criminal. In fact, the notion of criminality is often a matter of deep philosophy rooting back to the values and beliefs of our law-makers i.e. the politicians.

The law determines what is criminal, but laws to some can be unlawful in and of themselves relative to an individual’s values and beliefs. Like all of us, there are plenty of laws that I disagree with and behaviours that I think should be law but aren’t. How are those politicians who went to war under false pretences and were responsible for the killings of thousands still at large? I guess it helps if you make the laws!

The other major issue is how the law punishes people, but the question out of all of this is what is the law trying to achieve?

Is it zero criminality? Or simply for all of us to live and feel safe as we go about our lives in freedom under the notion of fair play? Because there is a difference.

Do we put facial recognition technology in every nook and cranny? Do we put recording devices everywhere we can to track every word we say? If we did this surely almost all crime would be wiped out? Wouldn't that be good?

Maybe so, but is that the life we want to lead?

The untold truth is many people commit crimes and have never been caught. For those this does not applu to I apologise, however, I will go out on a limb and go as far as saying most people have committed some kind of unlawful act at least once in their lives - even if it is littering. Coincidentally, a super-conscientious local Labour councillor reported five posters left behind on a wall in Southend High Street at the recent Green Belters protest!

I am not condoning law breakers, but the idea that we are all innocent is unlikely even if you have never disclosed what you have done. Let me go first: I may have once put chewing gum in a bush about 20 years ago. I didn’t think it was a criminal act then and have never thought of myself as a criminal thereafter, but it was in fact a criminal act according to the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005.

Had a stringent police officer or overly keen local councillor witnessed my criminal behaviour it would have been a fair cop!

We must have a serious and honest look about our views on how we want our police to act because we need to be careful what we wish for. Those who spout “if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear”, I have no doubt theyare setting themselves up for some kind of punishment in the future.

And let us not forget laws change all the time.

With the following controversial and an ill-advised example I am about to use, there are those in the country that have deep concerns as to the idea of Sharia law being implemented in the UK. Well, the reality is, if through our democratic system a future government happens to be Islamic-based, they may vote this through. Although I have knowledge of a number of these laws, that on the face of it, I am not in favour of, I have never read the Qur'an, so I am not in an informed position to make comment whether this would be a good idea. However, I highlight this because the law is ever-changing and if Sharia law were implemented, what laws would we then be breaking that are currently legal now?

How many broke the strict COVID laws? Even the most law abiding struggled a touch I would suspect. I, myself, was vehemently against the COVID passport and had that become law I would have been a criminal overnight.

I had the displeasure of watching a video of a judge sentencing a man to 2 years for a social media post that I never in a million year felt it was even criminal. Down he went and with it a life lost. I cannot imagine the lifetime trauma that awaits him. Part of the remit of the would-be Mayor or Essex is to help with rehabilitation and reducing the chances the criminal would repeat the crime. However, I would back the so-called criminal who posted to do it again - for I believe in freedom of speech. Preferably respectful, but rudeness should not be a crime. If that was the we might as well turn the whole country into a jail!

What about the cruel ULEZ nightmare Londoners have to suffer? Horrendous policy that punishes those who can least afford it and though I do not support the unlawful behaviour of the ‘Blade Runners’ dismantling government property, I dare say they have been put in a very difficult position.

I know of a person that might be considered well brought up who told me they regularly stole washing up liquid and toilet roll from their work as they could not afford it. I was shocked at first, but the reality is I would do the same if I had no money and needed to survive. And what about the person who actively lies to authorities to cover up this crime? Yes, if proven, they then could be arrested.

Stealing we all know is unlawful, but if that person has no money and is trying to feed her three children, for instance, then what? By the book she should be arrested and punished, but it might be considered heartless to condemn her to a jail sentence. Is that sentence going to make her think twice? Will it ‘rehabilitate’ her? I have my doubts. On the other end of the spectrum, a very loose argument may suggest it should be criminal that the leaders of society have set up a situation where a mother has to steal for her family to survive!

Anything can be made law depending on who is in power and those in power might not always agree laws that seem particularly good for society. Digital ID has been announced whereby it will be against the law to work without one. I recently had to succumb to what I perceive as this digital tyranny when I had to submit to the director's mandatory digital ID obligation otherwise I could not have remained in my position. In hindsight, I should have resigned my position and made a stand such as Adventure Island has by publicly opposing Digital ID.

As said, the government wants the Mayor to ‘rehabilitate’ people and reduce reoffending, but does the mother trying to feed her children need rehabilitation or a solution to feeding her children? Just maybe, there is no rehabilitation needed - just money or a way of them being able to make money. Because what exactly are we rehabilitating? How do we reduce the likelihood of her doing that again? Would I need rehabilitation had I rebelled against Digital ID. Will I need rehabilitation when I rebel agaist Digital ID if it comes in? Never!

What about 15 year old girl that uses a knife to severely injure a classmate after suffering years of torment and bullying for her sexuality and where she received no help from her school to solve the problem? How is the Mayor supposed to rehabilitate that person and stop her reoffending?

These are the very crimes the government want the Mayor to help to prevent following in line with their ‘Safer Streets Mission’, but it is quite obvious that a lifetime of causes culminated in these crimes that no Mayor could possibly solve.

Very often I look at our political leaders and think some of what they do should be against the law such as breaking manifesto policies and omitting those that are known to be vote losers - such as stopping the Winter Fuel Allowance or putting our taxes to Unsustainable levels. Indeed, the use of Facial Recognition Technology without the express authorisation from citizens of the UK should be illegal in my opinion. I am not saying to send Starmer to jail because he has done exactly this as I recognise the myriad of arguments against such a law, but from the top to the bottom of society it is far too simplistic to say: "lock everyone up"! Or blindly follow the populist and simplistic cliche: "long jail sentences keep jails empty".

No, achieving zero criminality is not the end goal.

I believe it is for all of us to live and feel safe as we go about our lives, in freedom, under the notion of fair play.

But let’s run through the notion of zero criminality.

To achieve this much would depend on the punishment.

It is quite obvious that crime would be vastly reduced with physical punishment. If we all knew that a limb would be lost for every criminal act we might think twice. If we all knew we’d be put to death regardless of crime, I’d imagine crime would be a thing of the past. But is that the type of society we wish to live in? Some would say yes, but I point to what we have been discussing.

On the other side is the idea of total leniency where even murderers, rapists and paedophiles are ‘rehabilitated’ with the idea to re-enter society and be a productive member. I’m not sure how I’d feel if any of my friends or family were the victim of these crimes nor anyone else. I would instinctively want them to feel the full force of the law as I would imagine most would. With all the empathy and compassion that can be shown to people with clear causes to their behaviour, it is quite unlikely victims of these crimes will not feel the same.

Burglary, for example, may traumatise someone for life. Sure, the person behind it had no food or was struggling badly with drug addiction caused by an abusive childhood, but the victim had to live with the mental problems that come with the shock of somebody entering the sanctuary that is their house threatening their lives.

So where does this leave us?

I have presented a brief and simplified set of ideas, concepts and complications that I do so to provide an insight into my personal views on policing and the law. I am neither liberal or authoritarian - everything depends on the circumstance and I therefore take a case-by-case view. Being that the Mayor does not have any day-to-day powers over how the police carry out their tasks, it does beg the question: why is my opinion worth considering? It is because the Mayor does have power strategic powers over where the money is spent, and this will be influenced by a Mayor's philosophy on policing.

The job of the police is to arrest people who break the law, but if the Mayor, along with the Chief Constable, decide to put police resources in way area instead of another it result in a different set of arrests.

How much do we focus on rehabilitation versus front line policing? How much do we invest in preventative measures instead of trying to stop county line drug dealing or modern slavery?

It is finding that balance that deters criminality, but where we can live without fear of our lives being destroyed by the very laws meant to protect us.

What does the government want from the Mayor of Essex?

“The remit does not include operational control (how police or fire services respond day-to-day) stays with the Chief Constable or Chief Fire Officer. Cannot personally prosecute or enforce law—responsible for strategic oversight, funding, and policy guidance. Must work collaboratively with the Chief Constable, local councils, and regional/national government.”

They want them to help achieve the government’s ‘Safer Streets Mission’ and take on the role of Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner.

With the Safer Streets Mission they want to:

• Halve knife crime within ten years.

• Halve violence against women and girls (VAWG) within ten years.

• Improve public confidence in policing and the criminal justice system.

• Strengthen neighbourhood policing: named, contactable officers; visible patrols; community‑led priorities.

• Address anti‑social behaviour (ASB), shoplifting, street theft and creating safer high streets and town centres.

• Improve policing standards, harnessing technology, increasing accountability and performance across police forces.

• Use targeted initiatives via the Safer Streets Fund to invest in preventative local crime‑reduction projects, such as CCTV, street lighting, door and home security improvements, especially in hotspot areas.

• Strong emphasis on community‑led efforts: named neighbourhood officers, local residents being able to set priorities, visible patrols, tackling ASB and VAWG.

With the role of the Police, Crime and Fire Commissioner, this includes:

• Setting the overall strategy of policing in line with government objectives.

• Allocates the budget for the police force, including the local precept from council tax.

• what” is done “how resources are allocated,”

• Local residents being able to set priorities

• Focus on tackling root causes of crime, such as youth vulnerability, drug and gang involvement, and social deprivation.

• Support strategies for tackling serious and organized crime, domestic abuse, anti-social behaviour (ASB), and exploitation of young people.

• Develop and implement local policing priorities based on community needs and crime data.

• Invest in prevention programs, such as youth engagement, educational campaigns, and public safety initiatives.

The Mayor (or their PFCC role) decides how the policing budget is spent to support these priorities.

I cover below some of both the Safer Streets Mission and the remit of the PFCC, however, as a fiercely democratic Mayor I will up the anti with community engagement where I will be looking to work in partnership with local residents being able to set priorities.

Knife Crime

For the 12 months to 15 May 2025, there were 1,449 knife-enabled crime incidents recorded in Essex.

My view is those involved in gangs who use knives as a weapon will use other weapons regardless of how many machetes that are banned from sale. I would support the ban on machetes and other knives, but that will not solve the problem one bit. If a gang member wants to hurt someone they will find a suitable alternative.

Dealing with today, yes, knife crime must be punished accordingly. No one has a right to inflict physical pain on another unless in self-defence. However, the only way to solve this is by getting to the root of the problem. As the government acknowledges, the link between deprivation is quite clear. In this respect, the government’s aim quite rightly asks the Mayor to assist in all ways where they can.

Education is the key and working with schools is where the heart of the matter resides.

It is vital that we re-open youth centres to provide safe, productive spaces and reduce crime.

Education at the earliest age and positive role models essential. I am certain much work has already been done here, however, I would like to see how effective this has been and whether the budget can be earmarked to have the best from Essex go into schools on an official programme of mentorship.

Anti-social behaviour

For the financial year 2024/25 the net expenditure budget was around £383.391 million. I would look forward to conversations as to how we get as much of that budget out on the streets. As I have said, I would ditch the Facial Recognition Programme entirely and divert all resources into man-power. This is all we want!

There were 14,138 ASB incidents in Essex.

Of all the crimes this one has a major impact on how safe people feel. Rowdy or threatening behaviour, harassment or intimidation prevents people from going out and enjoying the place where they live. This is where police presence solves much of these problems. Although I see the value in CCTV, there is nothing more reassuring than to see police walking the street. I fully support the government’s ambitions to put bobbies back on the best with named police officers. They have set a target of 13,000 officers nationwide, however, my small concern is that they have not mentioned staff turnover. It’s all very well recruiting this amount and stating they achieved it, but if X amount leave then the achievement has not fulfilled its purpose of strengthening the numbers.

For example, in Essex there were over 100 police that had left.

I would like a deep-dive into why officers are leaving to see what can be done about it. In my day job I oversee HR and know the various reasons why people leave and what can be done. I would like to collaborate with the Chief Constable to see how we could further make policing the one to keep.

Where I do feel very passionate about is the volunteering sector and how we, as residents of Essex, might be able to contribute to different areas of society that will never be fulfilled by government budgets. Policing is one of them and they already have several superb schemes in place.

There are currently 251 Special Constables in Essex and may we commend each of them for the valuable work they do. I feel confident that there are at least 2,000 residents across Essex who would love to be a Special Constable and would be quite capable. Were each Special to work 10 hours in a year simple math tells you that’s another 20,000 hours over the year. Same goes for the Employee Supported Scheme, which has businesses pay for employees to train and then pay for them whenever they are on a shift. According to the Essex Chambers of Commerce there are 80,800 businesses in the county. We only need 1% of business offering a tribute and we have another 800 police officers. If they each do 10 hours a week that’s another 8000 hours of policing. I would be a huge champion of these schemes and would look to invest more of the budget into this area to promote it.

We know the hotspots of ASB and often it is our high streets. On Southend seafront I can tell you first hand what Operation Union had on reducing the level of crime. The police were superb and our businesses had vastly reduced incidents. Enormous credit to the police. But it was their mere presence that did the business and the professional way they handled potentially explosive situations. A satellite police station was set up and this idea must be expended to all high streets.

Drugs and Alcohol

There were 6,202 drug related crimes in Essex.

The drug campaigns that hit me when I was growing up worked. ‘Just say no’ was genius. Using examples of those who tragically lost their lives to drugs also worked. Leah Bett’s death had a significant impact on our school.

I am unequivocally against legalising drugs. The effects are not conducive to anything helpful or productive in society. They may numb some pain for a while, but drugs are not the solution to mental health issues. Sure, many find them fun and while I believe in ‘your body, your choice,’ there are caveats and limits. Alcohol is bad enough but that horse bolted centuries ago! We must not make it worse!

If the government could tax legalised drugs I am sure there would be fortunes to find, but the longer term impact on people would ultimately lead to societal problems that we will never un-solve.

I commend the police on the action they have taken to find and arrest those involved in drug dealing and I would support their efforts with more investment in this area. The attack on county-lines drug dealing is so important and long may that continue.

Harnessing Technology

Facial Recognition Technology and Social Media Arrests

I would ban it FRT.

To me, it is unlawful. Stalking is unlawful, so just because a physical person is not following me with a pair of binoculars doesn’t mean there isn’t anyone following every move I make with my image snapped, saved and given to another person to spy on me.

I did not give my permission to be spied upon.

This is not balance, this is in fact a criminal act.

"In the UK, stalking is a criminal offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which was strengthened by later amendments — particularly the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the Stalking Protection Act 2019."

a. Stalking (Section 2A, Protection from Harassment Act 1997)

This makes it an offence for a person to pursue a course of conduct that amounts to stalking.

Examples of stalking behaviour include (but are not limited to):

• Following someone;

• Contacting or attempting to contact someone (by phone, online, or in person);

• Publishing material about someone;

• Monitoring someone’s internet use or social media;

• Loitering near a person’s home or workplace;

• Interfering with someone’s property.

Maximum penalty: 6 months’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine (if tried in a Magistrates’ Court), or up to 5 years’ imprisonment (if tried in a Crown Court).

b. Stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm/distress (Section 4A)

This is a more serious offence — it applies if the stalking causes:

• The victim to fear that violence will be used, or

• The victim serious alarm or distress that has a substantial adverse effect on their day-to-day activities.

Maximum penalty: Up to 10 years’ imprisonment (since 2022, following the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act).

‘Following someone’ - tick.

‘Contacting or attempting to contact someone (by phone, online, or in person) - tick

‘Monitoring someone’s internet use or social media’ - tick

‘The victim serious alarm or distress that has a substantial adverse effect on their day-to-day activities - tick

It is hard to imagine a person at the end of monitor that has your image - looking at you and watching your every move. It is hard to imagine a person monitoring every click you make online. But this is what is happening and for every day folk like you and I this would be jail time - and deservedly so. For the government, no such punishment. And ironically, it will be the police doing the stalking and spying!

We should not be putting our police force in this position.

Reference

https://essex.pfcc.police.uk/police-and-crime-plan/policies-crime-priorities/drive-down-anti-social-behaviour-and-crime