⟡ On the Application of Policing in the Absence of a Criminal Threshold ⟡
Filed: 16 February 2026
Reference: SWANK/CollegeOfPolicing/PC65350
Download PDF: 2026-01-05_PC65350_Complaint_PolicingSafeguardingInterface.pdf
Summary: A standards complaint inviting review of policing involvement in safeguarding contexts where no criminal threshold was met.
1. The Threshold Question
The complaint does not concern misconduct.
It concerns mathematics.
Specifically:
If the criminal threshold is not met, on what legal basis does policing presence acquire operational weight?
Safeguarding is administrative.
Policing is coercive.
They are not interchangeable disciplines.
Yet in practice, the boundary appears to have been treated as… stylistic.
2. Role Clarity (Or Lack Thereof)
The submission raises four restrained concerns:
• Police engagement where criminality was not established
• Blurring of safeguarding administration with policing authority
• The psychological impact of authority presence on children
• The absence of clear national guidance at this interface
No accusations.
Only structural discomfort.
When a uniform enters a non-criminal context, it alters compliance dynamics whether or not powers are formally exercised.
Authority does not need to arrest to influence behaviour.
3. Proportionality and Disability
Where disability is present, escalation carries amplified impact.
The complaint therefore asks a simple standards question:
Is national guidance sufficiently explicit about when police involvement is necessary — and when it is merely intimidating?
Threshold is a legal concept.
It is not decorative.
4. The Legal Satire (Quietly Applied)
There is something faintly elegant about invoking “multi-agency working” while importing coercive symbolism into an administrative safeguarding matter.
One calls it collaboration.
Children may experience it as enforcement.
The distinction is not semantic.
It is constitutional.
5. SWANK’s Position
This is not indignation. It is calibration.
• If no offence exists, policing presence requires justification.
• If safeguarding is procedural, it should not borrow enforcement tone.
• If authority is deployed unnecessarily, proportionality becomes theoretical rather than applied.
The complaint does not dramatise.
It asks whether guidance, training, and threshold discipline are functioning as advertised.
⟡ Formally Archived ⟡
No officer has been individually accused.
No impropriety has been alleged.
Only the quiet suggestion that when threshold is elastic,
so too is trust.
Because occasionally,
the issue is not volume.
It is jurisdiction.
© 2026 SWANK London LLC