There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
William Frost was referred to the British Horseracing Authority’s independent disciplinary judicial panel charged with breaking the sport’s safeguarding rules. He was found to have engaged in conduct that directly harmed the physical and mental welfare of two victims, having engaged in "non-consensual sexual acts".
While Frost was described as a registered stable employee, the name and location of his workplace were withheld in order to protect the identities of his victims. He chose not to participate in disciplinary proceedings.
The ruling, published on Thursday, said: “By virtue of his conduct, the panel found Mr Frost poses a risk of harm to female young persons in racing. The panel found Mr Frost had engaged in both non-consensual sexual acts and instigated verbal comments towards each victim which caused them significant harm.
"The panel found having heard from witnesses for the BHA, and considering Mr Frost’s written information, including the admission of hearsay evidence from Person C that Mr Frost was in a position of trust by reason of his age, experience and position and showed little insight for the impact of his behaviour towards Persons A and B."
The panel outlined Frost would need to serve his exclusion for seven years before a review could take place. The hearing took place in private in accordance with safeguarding regulations.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/britain/stable-employee-excluded-from-racing-after-being-deemed-a-risk-to-young-female-colleagues-a4BEr5y8KqGY/
While Frost was described as a registered stable employee, the name and location of his workplace were withheld in order to protect the identities of his victims. He chose not to participate in disciplinary proceedings.
The ruling, published on Thursday, said: “By virtue of his conduct, the panel found Mr Frost poses a risk of harm to female young persons in racing. The panel found Mr Frost had engaged in both non-consensual sexual acts and instigated verbal comments towards each victim which caused them significant harm.
"The panel found having heard from witnesses for the BHA, and considering Mr Frost’s written information, including the admission of hearsay evidence from Person C that Mr Frost was in a position of trust by reason of his age, experience and position and showed little insight for the impact of his behaviour towards Persons A and B."
The panel outlined Frost would need to serve his exclusion for seven years before a review could take place. The hearing took place in private in accordance with safeguarding regulations.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/britain/stable-employee-excluded-from-racing-after-being-deemed-a-risk-to-young-female-colleagues-a4BEr5y8KqGY/
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 40
|
By:
Head lad
 |
|
By:
New job as doorkeeper at the Tate Gallery ?
|
|
By:
I wonder if some of the so-called victims "cried" whilst giving their verbal evidence? The proven way in racing for embittered females to get their cases accepted as gospel.
If an offence (or offences), of a serious sexual nature took place why hasn't the police been called in? |
|
By:
You might not be so inclined to think that way if it was your daughter he was waving his old boy at?
|
|
By:
If that's what he did then the police should have been brought in and proper proceedings in law applied. The way this has been dealt with is wrong in my view. It is all speculation now as to what he did and didn't do. Indeed, Racing has washed its hands of it to save its own reputation, instead of dealing with it.
|
|
By:
They have dealt with it like they dealt with Johnny Farrelly and Milston Harris.
They have safeguarding provisions to protect people from various types of abuse. These have been applied and the miscreants dealt with. |
|
By:
Loyalhoncho. Your first post is absolutely horrendous.
I doubt very much that you have children or even nieces or nephews. May I go as far as saying you do not have morals either. I quite disgusting thing to write. |
|
By:
"If an offence (or offences), of a serious sexual nature took place why hasn't the police been called in?"
How do you know they have not been? "Yeah, we knew two of our young female staff had complained to the police about his behaviour, but we thought we'd just let him carry on working with them while the wheels of justice ground their slow course"? |
|
By:
Fair point but that being the case why didn't the BHS say so?
|
|
By:
Honcho seems to have dusted off his anti Bryony posts for another outing
|
|
By:
Honcho seems to have dusted off his anti Bryony posts for another outing
|
|
By:
Honcho seems to have dusted off his anti Bryony posts for another outing
|
|
By:
Honcho with his usual incel misogyny. Why don't you just say you hate women? The sport needs to rid itself of these people.
|
|
By:
Honcho with his usual incel misogyny. Why don't you just say you hate women? The sport needs to rid itself of these people.
|
|
By:
Has this vile employee been prosecuted. If no, why not? A minimum of 7-year exclusion from horseracing/stable is a very long period.
|
|
By:
BHA a bit like the Police force prefering to keep things " In house " sounds of carpet sweeping in the background, nothing to see here move on.
|
|
By:
Any idea who this individual is? Someone of wealth and/or importance? The BHA would go after small trainers for infringing the rules of horseracing. Why not this vile character?
|
|
By:
Regulatory conditions likely to be based on a lower burden of proof (balance of probabilities) than criminal (beyond reasonable doubt) which might explain why no criminal prosecution (lack of which does not preclude the police having been involved)
|
|
By:
LoyalHoncho thinks women have staples across their stomachs.
|
|
By:
Let the Police and the CPS decide whether the behaviour of this individual warrants a day in court or not. Not the BHA (Bloody Hopeless Authority).
|
|
By:
^^^
Perhaps they have? |
|
By:
I'm surprised the vile behaviour did not warrant the involvement of the Police (at least) despite the BHA issuing a 7-year suspension. I'm also very surprised the BHA had not identified and named the vile individual concerned. I hope the females concerned and/or their families are being supported, and possibly approach the Police (again) for a possible criminal proceeding.
|
|
By:
he has been named, i think most people read the op
|
|
By:
most people ...
|
|
By:
How do you know it hasn't impossible123?
|
|
By:
My apology the BHA did name the individual, and a 7-year censure. But, no involvement of the Police. This is what I find difficult to reconcile.
|
|
By:
I repeat, how do you know if the police have or have not been involved?
|
|
By:
The BHA has not alluded to whether the Police have or have not been involved. If the latter have then a 7-year suspension is inadequate given what was publicly known. A more appropriate censure would have been a life ban to safeguard future female staff in the horseracing establishment.
A leopard never changes its spots! |
|
By:
Earlier you said police not involved.
Now you imply you don't know. So why say it!? |
|
By:
Come on impossible 123
Why say it? |
|
By:
Some get ridden for years then fancy a payment…..
|
|
By:
Look at the one who took whip abuse in Wick….then squawked ….
|
|
By:
*Stop digging
 |
|
By:
Digging what ? Life is full of undesirable…..
|
|
By:
Yep, that's why he and that creep Harris have been warned off and won't be allowed young females in the future.
|
|
By:
Harris has gone all quiet tbf…..who was the one who sat on the bed wit G&T in hand ?
You couldn’t trust half of them with the bothy cat tbh…. |
|
By:
the one on the bed was harris
|
|
By:
The BHA has not alluded to whether the Police have or have not been involved
Not relevant. All the BHA are concerned with is whether he had broken their rules. |
|
By:
Early hours with G & T ffs……fkn horror stories tbh…..
|