A Reform UK council has been slammed after it hired private security guards to keep on an eye asylum seekers.
Article continues below
Essex County Council said that six of its operatives will patrol parts of Braintree, Colchester and Chelmsford from today for an initial three-month trial period.
Article continues below
The council claimed the move came in what it describes as a “direct response to concerns raised amongst local residents, particularly women and girls, over gatherings of male migrants in town centres”.
But the decision to pay out for the guards, which do not powers to arrest people, has been branded a waste of money – with locals questioning whether the money would be better spent elsewhere.
On Monday, two security workers in red-coloured stab vests walked as a pair around Braintree town centre, patrolling across a supermarket car park and through a pedestrian area near the town hall.
Support worker Patricia Crowhurst, 78, who was in the town centre on Monday, said: “I don’t think there’s any point in it.
“If they’ve got money to waste surely they could give it to the police that we’ve already got and we could have more security in the town if people are frightened.”
Sheila Clark, 66, said she was not frightened of migrants, adding: “I haven’t seen them in any trouble as such, they never seem to have caused any trouble and I’m in town a lot.”
Article continues below
She said she was more concerned about issues with drugs in the town. The part-time carer, who lives near Braintree, said: “There’s a lot of drug people just hanging round continuously. They don’t seem to do nothing with them, police.”
But she described the security patrols were “a good thing for the town,” adding: “I feel better because they’re around if there’s anything happens.”
The tie-in with private security firm My Local Bobby was announced in August after the Government informed Braintree District Council that it plans to expand the use of nearby former RAF airbase Wethersfield, which houses asylum seekers, some of whom travel to surrounding areas by bus.
The Home Office said it would increase the site’s capacity from 800 to 1,245, and will remain operational beyond 2027.
Andy Cullen, an area manager for security firm My Local Bobby which has supplied the security staff, said the two operatives in Braintree were wearing stab vests that were “pretty armoured”.
Speaking in the town on Monday, he said operatives could perform a citizen’s arrest if they saw a crime being committed, as anybody could, “and that’s as far as it goes really”.
“It’s really about providing that safer, smiley community, that’s what we want,” he said.
He said the firm had not been given instructions to focus on migrants, adding they were “looking at making sure that everybody is feeling secure in their own shopping centre and town centre and they can walk round feeling happy”.
Town hall bosses said the security guards will be paid for by tapping into £150,000 from the Community Innovation and Improvement Fund reserve, with no additional cost to taxpayers.
Councillor Peter Harris, Leader of Essex County Council, said: “Operation Vanguard is a direct response to ensure how safe and secure our residents feel across the county.
“At Essex County Council, we prioritise being proactive over being reactive and that is exactly what we are doing with Operation Vanguard.
“We cannot and will not wait for an increase in antisocial behaviour and crime before acting.
Article continues below
“The safety of Essex residents is quite simply, not negotiable.“
Locals Blast “Waste of Money” as Reform-Run Essex Deploys Security Guards Amid Asylum Seeker Row
A new political experiment is unfolding in Essex, where private security guards have been deployed in several town centres as tensions surrounding asylum seekers continue to grow.
The move has immediately divided local opinion.
Supporters say the patrols are a practical response to concerns about safety and public order. Critics, however, argue that the money could have been spent on policing, struggling public services or other priorities affecting residents every day.
At the centre of the controversy is a three-month trial involving private security operatives in Braintree, Colchester and Chelmsford.
Essex County Council says the initiative is designed to respond to concerns raised by local residents, particularly women and girls, about groups of male migrants gathering in town centres. The council has allocated £150,000 from an existing Community Innovation and Improvement Fund reserve to pay for the scheme. Officials say this does not represent an additional cost to taxpayers.
But the decision has opened a much bigger argument.
What exactly should local government do when residents say they feel increasingly uncomfortable in their own town centres?
And how should councils balance public reassurance against the cost of providing security that does not have the same powers as the police?
The New Patrols Arrive
The first patrols have now appeared in Braintree.
Security workers employed by private company My Local Bobby have been seen walking through the town centre wearing highly visible red stab-resistant vests.
Their presence is deliberately noticeable.
The intention is not necessarily to replace police officers but to provide an additional visible security presence.
The operatives do not have police powers. They cannot routinely arrest people simply because they suspect them of wrongdoing. They can, like members of the public, make a citizen’s arrest in circumstances permitted by law.
That distinction has become one of the main issues in the debate.
If the guards cannot exercise police powers, critics ask, what exactly are residents paying for?
Supporters have a different answer.
They argue that security is not only about arresting criminals. A visible presence can potentially deter antisocial behaviour, reassure shoppers and provide another set of eyes in busy public areas.
The company supplying the guards has also said that its personnel were not specifically instructed to target migrants.
Their stated role is to make town centres feel safer for everyone.
That distinction will be important as the trial continues.
Why Was the Scheme Introduced?
The decision did not happen in isolation.
The controversy has developed alongside the expansion of asylum accommodation at the former RAF Wethersfield site near Braintree.
The Home Office has said the site’s capacity will rise from around 800 to 1,245 people and that the facility is expected to remain operational beyond 2027.
Some asylum seekers accommodated at the site travel by bus into nearby towns.
For residents, this has made the national asylum system much more visible at a local level.
Braintree is no longer simply debating immigration as an abstract national political issue.
People see groups of asylum seekers arriving in the town.
They see buses transporting people between the accommodation centre and nearby communities.
And they are being forced to consider how a national government policy affects their local environment.
That visibility has helped transform the issue into a major political question for Essex.
A Town Divided Over What “Safety” Means
One of the most striking aspects of the controversy is that local residents do not appear to have a single view.
Some people have welcomed the patrols.
Others have questioned whether they are necessary.
One resident quoted in reports said she felt reassured by seeing security personnel in the town.
Another questioned why money was being spent on private guards rather than giving additional resources to the police.
Other residents have said they are more concerned about problems such as drug activity than asylum seekers.
This matters because it demonstrates that the debate is not simply “for or against migrants.”
Some residents are genuinely concerned about public safety.
Others believe the problem has been exaggerated.
Some support stronger security but do not necessarily blame asylum seekers.
Others question why a private security operation is needed in the first place.
The political challenge is therefore much more complicated than the headlines suggest.
The £150,000 Question
Perhaps the most politically sensitive part of the scheme is its cost.
Essex County Council has allocated £150,000 for the three-month trial.
Council officials say the money comes from a reserve rather than representing an additional charge to taxpayers.
Nevertheless, residents are entitled to ask whether the expenditure represents good value.
That question cannot be answered simply by pointing to the source of the money.
A pound spent from a council reserve is still a pound that cannot necessarily be spent somewhere else.
Could the same money support additional CCTV?
Could it fund community projects?
Could it provide more resources for local police?
Could it improve neglected parts of town centres?
Or does the visible presence of security guards provide a benefit that other forms of spending would not?
Those are ultimately questions about priorities.
And that is why the controversy has become political.
Reform’s Approach to Local Government
The patrol scheme also provides an insight into how Reform UK-controlled local authorities are attempting to govern.
Immigration was one of the issues that helped Reform attract significant support in local elections.
The party has repeatedly argued that established political parties have failed to respond adequately to concerns about illegal migration, asylum accommodation and pressure on public services.
Now that Reform politicians control local authorities in parts of Essex, voters have an opportunity to see what those promises look like when translated into policy.
The security patrols are one example.
Rather than waiting for crime or antisocial behaviour to rise, the council says it wants to act pre-emptively.
Council leader Peter Harris has described the approach as proactive rather than reactive and said the safety of Essex residents is a priority.
Critics can reasonably ask whether the policy is proportionate.
Supporters can reasonably argue that local government should listen when residents express concerns.
The effectiveness of the trial may therefore become important beyond Essex.
If the patrols are judged successful, other councils could consider similar measures.
If they are judged ineffective or unnecessarily expensive, the policy could become an example of the difficulties involved in translating political promises into practical local government.
The Police Question
Another important element is the relationship between private security and the police.
Security guards cannot replace professional policing.
Police officers have extensive legal powers, specialist training and responsibility for investigating crime.
Private security workers have a more limited role.
That raises an obvious question: would the money have a greater impact if it were directed toward policing?
One local resident made precisely that argument, saying that if money was available, it could instead support the police already serving the town.
This is likely to remain one of the most important criticisms of the scheme.
However, supporters might respond that private patrols and policing perform different functions.
A security guard walking visibly through a shopping area can provide reassurance without necessarily requiring a police officer to be present.
The trial may therefore be testing whether an additional layer of visible security can complement existing policing.
The results should ultimately be measured rather than assumed.
Are Asylum Seekers Being Targeted?
The language surrounding the scheme has generated another sensitive question.
The council says the patrols were introduced in response to concerns about groups of male migrants in town centres.
The private security company, however, says its operatives were not instructed to focus specifically on migrants and are intended to help everyone feel safer.
That distinction matters.
If the guards simply patrol public areas and respond to behaviour regardless of someone’s nationality or immigration status, the scheme can be understood as a general town-centre security initiative.
If their presence becomes effectively focused on asylum seekers as a group, the political and social implications would be very different.
The difference between those two approaches will be closely watched.
The Bigger Problem Behind the Argument
Perhaps the most important lesson from the Essex controversy is that the security guards themselves are not the whole story.
They are a visible response to a much larger problem.
Britain’s asylum system has created pressure on hotels, military sites and local communities.
Local residents often have limited influence over where asylum accommodation is established.
Councils are then left dealing with the consequences.
This can create resentment even when individual asylum seekers have committed no offence.
At the same time, asylum seekers themselves can become the focus of anger over decisions made by central government.
That is an uncomfortable reality.
A person waiting for an asylum decision does not control the national asylum system.
A local resident worried about their town centre did not choose where an accommodation centre would be built.
And a council is often trying to manage a situation created by policies decided elsewhere.
What Happens After Three Months?
The most important part of this experiment may come at the end of the trial.
Will residents say they feel safer?
Will crime or antisocial behaviour statistics change?
Will businesses report improvements?
Will the police see a difference?
And will the public believe that £150,000 was justified?
Those questions should be answered with evidence rather than political slogans.
If the scheme succeeds, Reform-controlled councils will have a concrete example of a policy they can point to.
If it fails, critics will argue that the money could have been used more effectively.
Either way, the experiment will provide useful information about what local communities actually need.
A Symbol of Britain’s Wider Immigration Debate
The scene in Braintree reflects a much larger argument taking place across Britain.
Immigration is no longer confined to Westminster debates.
It is increasingly visible in local communities, where residents experience the practical consequences of national policy.
That makes local government an increasingly important battlefield in Britain’s immigration debate.
The security guards now walking through Braintree, Colchester and Chelmsford represent one response to that pressure.
Some residents see them as reassurance.
Others see them as unnecessary expenditure.
Some see the entire controversy as evidence that the asylum system is placing too much pressure on local communities.
Others believe the focus on migrants risks creating fear without addressing the underlying problems.
The three-month trial will not resolve Britain’s immigration debate.
But it may provide a small and very visible test of a larger political question:
When people feel that their community is changing and that public safety is becoming uncertain, what should local government actually do?
Essex has chosen to experiment with visible private security.
Now the council will have to demonstrate whether that experiment delivers what it promises.
Because when the trial ends, the most important question will not be who won the political argument.
It will be whether residents genuinely feel safer — and whether the money spent achieved something that the community could see, measure and justify.