I suspect you are worrying unnecessarily.
Automatic detection of infringements makes a lot of sense - in terms of bringing the event to controllers attention, but it does not identify the importance or potential impact.
See the LAA response to the Stansted TMZ and you see tiny numbers of serious infringements. Now there is no doubt that number may be down to effective controller actions. None the less the 'system' a combination of auto- detection, controller actions and even enforcement largely works.
What really worries me is the view from many controllers that a quiet life is much more preferable to offer a service of having to intervene. The classic 'remain clear' response that so may ATC units give to GA.
The contrast with countries like France is very very stark. I arrive close to a French TMA - I call on the VFR frequency and they tell me the routing and to call when clear. A huge contrast with 'remain clear'. It is a mindset and one which seems to come from the private profit orientated operations where controller workload managment is as important as managing traffic.
If NATS are unwilling to give the data which is supposed to support their need to restrict traffic then we are reaching a point where the governed will no longer accept that situation.