Sitting 9th August 2022
Tony Scott Andrews (Chairman), Dennis Carter, Mike Harris
J2022/11: Derek Stanley
This comes before the Court as a Disciplinary matter. Mr Derek
Stanley is summoned before the Court to answer allegations
that he is in breach of NCRs A.10.1.1, A.10.1.3, A.10.1.5, C.1.1.4
and G.17.3.
Mr Derek Stanley appears in person.
Motorsport UK is represented by their Disciplinary officer Mr
Jamie Champkin.
This matter came to the attention of Motorsport UK as a result
of concerns expressed by a very experienced female marshal
about the conduct of a Clerk of the Course with whom she
worked, the Clerk being Stanley.
Seeking further information and general advice about Drifting,
she put a request on the Drift Pro Championship WhatsApp
group for all to see. She was rather surprised to receive a private
WhatsApp message from a number she didn’t recognise but
which had come from Stanley. It suggested that she might like
to watch a YouTube video involving Drifting adding “but it’s
for men”. The video in fact is unlikely to assist anyone seeking
information about the art of drifting a car and can properly be
described as an example of “upskirting”.
There followed an exchange of messages in which Stanley
made several personal observations about the marshal who,
with great politeness and tolerance, sought to make it clear
to Stanley that such comments, whilst doubtless intended
to be complimentary, were unwelcome and should stop.
Notwithstanding a clear wish that he desist, a further email was
received using an unwelcome form of address and enquiring as
to what she “would be up to at the weekend.”
The recipient mentioned the matter to a colleague who was
able to accurately guess who she was talking about. It became
apparent that this situation had arisen before with officials from
another club. Concern was also expressed as it was suggested
that the Clerk in question may have interviewed young drivers
in the absence of a responsible adult. It was at this point that
it was felt necessary to bring the matter to the attention of
Motorsport UK’s Safeguarding Officer.
It was ascertained at that point that the reference to incidents
with another Club involved complaints from three, women.
Stanley’s actions had caused such concern that Stanley had
been informed by the club in June 2018 that his conduct,

particularly toward a female member of the club’s race control
team, would not be tolerated. Stanley had given an assurance
that it would not happen again.
In respect of the above complaints, a similar assurance was
given by Stanley to Motorsport UK in August 2020.
Stanley maintains that nothing he did was intended to be
offensive and the Court accepts that. What is relevant, however,
is not just the intention but also the unfortunate effect of his
conduct upon others of which he was or should have been
A Clerk of the Course is very much the face and representative
of Motorsport UK at any event at which he or she officiates.
For a male official to behave in such a way as to make
female officials with whom he is working at an event feel
uncomfortable in his presence is utterly unacceptable. To
continue such unwanted attention by sending messages of
dubious content is equally reprehensible.
To be clear, there is nothing to suggest that Stanley’s conduct
involved anything other than oral comments and messages.
Nonetheless, Motorsport UK has a duty to protect and safeguard
all those persons attending an event. Stanley’s behaviour is
considered to be unacceptable for a Motorsport UK official.
The Court therefore orders that each and every licence issued by
Motorsport UK to Derek Stanley be withdrawn with immediate
effect. No further licence is to be issued to Derek Stanley for a
period of ten years from today’s date.
One final matter remains. That is to offer the Court’s gratitude
to the marshal concerned for coming forward and bringing this
matter to the attention of Motorsport UK. It is not an easy thing
to do and without such selfless action it is simply not possible
to prevent conduct such as that displayed by Stanley.
The marshal concerned is content for her identity to be
disclosed. The Court, however, is concerned that this may not, in
fact, assist her in carrying out her duties in the future and that
the fact of disclosure may dissuade others experiencing similar
conduct from coming forward. The Court therefore declines to
name the marshal concerned.

Tony Scott Andrews, Chairman
9th August 2022

Revolution - September 2022