Kamran Balayev: Nothing but proper, visible policing will make London feel safe

Kamran Balayev is an international legal and policy expert, business leader, and former London mayoral candidate.

Each time I speak about enhancing security in London, the response is immediate and clear. There is broad support from residents and businesses who understand that safety is not a luxury – it is the foundation upon which urban life depends.

If we want London to thrive, attract investment, support enterprise, and maintain a competitive, low-tax economy, then public safety must be a first-order priority. Without it, families relocate, businesses withdraw, and trust in local institutions erodes.

Alongside this support, however, there is also concern from those worried about civil liberties and surveillance overreach.

In liberal democracies, these are legitimate concerns. But the idea that we must choose between security and freedom is a false dichotomy. Security and human rights are not opposing forces, they are interdependent. Without rights, security becomes coercion; without safety, rights remain theoretical.

Recent events have made this clearer than ever. The fatal stabbing of a 24-year-old man in Knightsbridge was not an outlier – it was a stark reminder of how pervasive and unpredictable violence in London has become. Whatever the motivation for the crime, the outcome is the same: a young life lost in public, in the very heart of the capital.

That this could happen anywhere in the city reflects a deeper breakdown in deterrence, and should concern all of us: according to Metropolitan Police data, there were over 15,000 knife-related offences recorded in London in 2023/24. That’s more than forty knife crimes per day.

These figures must not be normalised. They represent a pattern of violence that increasingly affects ordinary Londoners. Yet, City Hall insists London is safe—pointing to selective data trends and relative comparisons. But perceptions matter. Londoners do not feel safer, and this disconnect between official messaging and lived experience undermines public confidence.

This dissonance is especially troubling given London’s extensive surveillance infrastructure. With an estimated 627,000 to 942,000 CCTV cameras, London is among the most-watched cities in the world. In theory, surveillance should provide deterrence and accountability.

In practice, it too often fails. When footage is only reviewed after the fact and enforcement is patchy, cameras offer little preventive value. The mere presence of technology is not enough.

Empirical evidence consistently shows that the certainty of being caught is a far more effective deterrent than the severity of punishment. A 2012 study by the US’ National Institute of Justice found that potential offenders are more influenced by the perceived likelihood of apprehension than by the size of the penalty.

Many criminals are unaware of the specific sanctions they face, and longer prison sentences often fail to deter first-time or opportunistic offenders. In some cases, incarceration may even increase reoffending.

This is why visible, localised policing remains indispensable. The principle of “hot spots policing” (deploying officers to areas of elevated risk) has been validated across multiple jurisdictions. When police are present, crime falls.

But visibility must be matched by engagement and capacity. Officers on foot, known in their communities and empowered to act swiftly and proportionately. This is what makes streets feel safe. Symbolic policing or reactive strategies are no longer enough.

London also faces a more entrenched challenge: organised violence. It is estimated that over 300 violent gangs are active in the capital. These groups engage in drug trafficking, weapons offences, and youth exploitation; their influence extends beyond individual postcodes, creating a culture of fear and normalised violence.

Tackling this requires more than patrols. It demands multi-agency coordination across law enforcement, intelligence, local authorities, and civil society. Above all, it requires consistent political focus – not just reactive statements after high-profile crimes.

Emerging technologies offer promise, especially in surveillance and predictive analytics. AI-assisted systems, drones for public monitoring, and data-driven threat modelling can support overstretched police forces.

But these are tools, not substitutes for leadership and presence. Used poorly, they risk becoming symbols of technocratic overreach. Used wisely, they can form part of a broader architecture of public protection.

Too often, London’s response to violent crime is reactive and fragmented. We need a shift toward prevention, rapid containment, and strategic deterrence. That also means ensuring that after major incidents, key transport routes are secured swiftly and reopened as soon as it is safe, so that disruption to daily life is minimised and public confidence is reinforced.

Intelligence-sharing between agencies must also become routine, not exceptional. Anyone who believes they can commit violence and disappear into the crowd should think again; London must become a city where escape is intercepted in minutes, not hours.

What underpins this approach is a belief in accountability, order, and the social contract. These are principles long associated with conservative political thinking – not in a partisan sense, but as a framework of responsibility and pragmatism. Citizens deserve predictable, fair, and consistent protection. A just society defends its law-abiding majority without resorting to excessive force or infringing liberties. But inaction carries its own moral cost.

It is time to treat public safety not as a passing concern, but as a permanent pillar of urban governance. This does not require abandoning our values; it requires applying them with greater clarity and courage. Leadership in this moment means closing the gap between policy and public experience. It means matching rhetoric with delivery.

London has the tools, the institutions, and the know-how. What it needs now is a renewed commitment to coherence, coordination, and courage. The goal is not to be the most surveilled city, but the safest – not by default, but by design.

When we walk the busy streets of central London, how many police officers do we see? Too few. Many police stations were closed with the aim of getting officers onto the streets, preventing crime rather than waiting for it to happen. Yet the public perception remains that officers are nowhere to be seen unless a crime has already occurred.

Police leadership will claim they must respond to incidents. But isn’t it better to prevent those incidents in the first place? Preventative policing must restore visibility and squeeze the space in which criminals feel they can act with impunity.

A pair of officers park at a busy intersection, with their blue lights flashing. They patrol the area, engage with people, stop into a café or a library. People know they’re there; so do the criminals. An hour later, they move on and repeat. More space covered, more presence felt, less space for crime to occur.

Yet Sadiq Khan is now closing the ‘front counters’ at half of those stations that remain. Let’s instead make London safe. Let’s make London work. Let’s make London yours.