The British government has turned its gaze to Mexico City's sprawling security apparatus, a model that pairs robotic dogs with helicopter patrols, as it prepares for the 2026 World Cup. Home Office officials confirmed this week that a delegation visited Mexico's capital to study the high-tech, high-surveillance system designed to prevent terror attacks during mass gatherings. But for those of us who remember the Manchester Arena bombing or the 7/7 attacks, the question is clear: will this keep our streets safe, or just add another layer of cost and control?
The Mexican system is a product of necessity. Mexico City has faced years of cartel violence and public protests. To secure its stadiums during the 2026 World Cup, which it co-hosts with the US and Canada, it rolled out a network of drones, helicopters, and robotic dogs equipped with cameras and sensors. These machines can scan crowds for weapons, detect suspicious behaviour, and even follow suspects through alleyways. The UK delegation, led by counter-terrorism officials, toured the city's control centre, a windowless room filled with screens monitoring every inch of the stadium precincts.
But the price tag is eye-watering. Mexico City's security budget for the World Cup is estimated at £200 million, a figure that includes hardware, software, and the salaries of thousands of police and private contractors. For the UK, this raises uncomfortable questions about public spending. The government already cut local policing budgets by 20% between 2010 and 2020. Our police forces are stretched. Our hospitals are full. Our schools are crumbling. And now we are looking to spend millions on robodogs.
I spoke to Maria Lopez, a street vendor near the Azteca Stadium in Mexico City. She told me through a translator: 'The dogs are creepy. They walk like real dogs but they have no soul. They make me feel like I am being watched all the time.' She worries that the money spent on these machines could be better used on social programmes to tackle the root causes of violence. She has a point.
The UK's own history with counter-terror technology is mixed. After the Manchester bombing, the government invested heavily in facial recognition cameras and armed police patrols. Yet the threat remains. The highest alert level is still 'substantial', meaning an attack is likely. And the public is left to wonder if we are any safer, or just more surveilled.
Some counter-terror experts argue that the robotic dogs offer a tactical advantage. They can enter dangerous spaces without risking officers' lives. They can cover more ground than human patrols. But they also require skilled operators and maintenance. And what happens when a robodog malfunctions in a crowd? Or when a hack turns it against its handlers?
The Home Office has not confirmed whether it plans to purchase the Mexican system outright. A spokesperson said the visit was part of 'ongoing international collaboration on event security'. But the suggestion that the UK is borrowing ideas from a country with high levels of violence is not reassuring.
For the average worker in Manchester or London, this news is another reminder that the government's priorities lie in high-tech security, not in the everyday safety of a well-funded police force. A robodog cannot replace a community officer who knows the local streets. A helicopter cannot replace a youth centre that keeps kids from turning to crime.
As the World Cup approaches, the government must explain how it will balance the need for vigilance with the need for trust. Because if all we get is a pack of robotic dogs and a sky full of cameras, we might be safe from terror but we will have lost something more valuable: the sense that we are not just suspects, but citizens.
