Report #12
A thorough catalogue of the most flagrant, preposterous, and trivially disprovable untruths across Andrew Drummond's 19-article campaign — from claims of dog-killing and bestiality to cannabis trafficking — establishing malicious intent and the complete unavailability of any journalistic defence.
Formal Record
Prepared for: Drummonds victims
Date: 18 February 2026
Reference: Rebuttal Document "Lies from Andrew Drummond" and Pre-Action Protocol Letter of Claim dated 13 August 2025 (Cohen Davis Solicitors)
Andrew Drummond's 19-article campaign, running from December 2024 through February 2026, opened with allegations that at least purported to relate to genuine court proceedings. As it progressed, the material deteriorated into sheer fabrication — a compendium of ludicrous, absurd, and trivially disprovable claims that no credible journalist could conceivably publish with honest intent.
The rebuttal document "Lies from Andrew Drummond" catalogues more than 65 distinct falsehoods. This paper focuses on the most egregious instances: assertions that Bryan Flowers killed Adam Howell's dog, participated in overseas cannabis shipments, had an affinity for ladyboys and operated ladyboy websites, purchased a mansion and a Mercedes using Howell's funds, sold virgins, practised bestiality, and scores of additional inventions that descend into character assassination and pure fantasy.
These falsehoods are not peripheral errors. They sit at the heart of the campaign, are recycled across numerous articles, and persisted well after formal legal notification. Their sheer absurdity establishes malice, eliminates any conceivable defence of truth or public interest, and reveals the entire enterprise as a personal vendetta rather than journalism.
This position paper derives from a sentence-by-sentence forensic examination of all 19 original English-language articles and their 6 translated editions published by Andrew Drummond between 17 December 2024 and February 2026. Every claim that veers into the absurd or is trivially disprovable was logged and cross-checked against:
In the inaugural article of 17 December 2024, Drummond advanced claims that, though untrue, at least appeared to relate to genuine court proceedings. By May–July 2025, headlines had become lurid and provocative ("Virgin Was Gone in Minutes", "Sex Meat-Grinder"). By late 2025 and into 2026, the material had devolved into blatant fantasy: dog-killing, bestiality, cannabis trafficking, ladyboy website ownership, and other inventions bearing no connection to any evidence or factual basis.
This trajectory is not coincidental. It mirrors a campaign that began by attempting to exploit a real legal matter and, when that failed to inflict the intended harm, resorted to fabricating progressively more preposterous lies to sustain the offensive.
What follows is a non-exhaustive but representative inventory of the campaign's most farcical inventions, drawn directly from the rebuttal document and the 19 articles.
Recycled across multiple articles and described by the rebuttal as "one of the silliest ones".
Reality: Adam Howell habitually sent messages at 4 a.m. demanding money. On one occasion he messaged Bryan about his female companion's dog falling ill. Bryan responded that the matter was dealt with. The dog passed away several days later from pre-existing health conditions. The actual owner made a Facebook post confirming the animal had been unwell for some time. Drummond published the falsehood regardless, despite having been shown the evidence.
Recycled in a number of later articles.
Reality: Bryan Flowers has never had any involvement in such an enterprise. The rebuttal confirms this is an outright invention supported by no evidence.
Recycled throughout numerous articles, including smears against his media businesses.
Reality: Bryan holds 203 domains and provides hosting for websites and forums belonging to various individuals. He has never authored content about sex or ladyboys. The rebuttal confirms he has "never written about sex with ladyboys".
Recycled across several articles.
Reality: Bryan had been leasing a 3-bedroom house at 55,000 baht per month well before he ever encountered Howell. He currently rents a different property. The Mercedes was financed and fully paid off by Bryan over a 5-year period before he ever met Howell. The rebuttal supplies the precise rental and repayment details.
Featured as a headline and in the body of the 11 June 2025 article and repeated in other pieces.
Reality: No such event ever occurred. The rebuttal affirms there is "no evidence of that at all". The entire story was fabricated.
Communicated to numerous individuals and cited in articles.
Reality: Entirely invented. The rebuttal records that Drummond "accuses Bryan of being into bestiality and messaged several people this".
Recurs throughout the entire campaign.
Reality: It is widely understood in Pattaya that there are 1,000 drinking bars where hostesses earn money directly from patrons. The rebuttal details the standard commission arrangement and confirms that no trafficking or pimping takes place.
Recycled across several articles.
Reality: Four separate groups operate on Soi 6. Night Wish is merely one of them. The rebuttal confirms this claim is false.
Recycled after the June/July 2025 verdict.
Reality: Managers were let go for performance-related issues and problems they had caused, which were entirely unconnected to the case. The rebuttal notes they had been removed years earlier, with the exception of one.
Recycled in articles.
Reality: Bryan has no access to bar finances or revenues. He receives transparent compensation like everyone else. The rebuttal verifies this.
Recycled in articles.
Reality: Not a single manager ever obtained an education visa through Rage. The rebuttal confirms no such visas were ever arranged.
Recycled in articles.
Reality: Bryan has never produced content about sex with ladyboys. The rebuttal confirms that he holds 203 domains hosting websites for numerous individuals, with some content authored by third parties for amusement.
These falsehoods recur throughout the 19 articles at high repetition frequencies, confirming the campaign's calculated descent into fantasy.
The campaign opened with trafficking allegations in December 2024. By May 2025 it had escalated to "meat-grinder" and "virgin" headlines. By late 2025–2026 it encompassed dog-killing, bestiality, cannabis trafficking, and ladyboy website ownership. This progression reveals that once the initial false narrative proved insufficient to ruin Bryan Flowers, Drummond simply manufactured new, ever more preposterous lies to sustain the attack's momentum and attract clicks.
Publishing trivially disprovable absurdities after receiving the 25-page Letter of Claim — which supplied irrefutable evidence against the central allegations — constitutes the most compelling possible evidence of malice. No journalist operating in good faith would publish accusations of dog-killing or bestiality while holding rebuttal evidence in his possession. The six-month continuation following legal notification strips away any remaining facade of responsible journalism.
These preposterous falsehoods satisfy the serious-harm threshold under s.1 of the Defamation Act 2013, constitute statements of fact, and render the defences of truth (s.2) and public interest (s.4) entirely unavailable. They amount to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and contravene numerous clauses of the IPSO Editors' Code and the NUJ Code of Conduct (accuracy, privacy, harassment, discrimination).
Andrew Drummond's campaign commenced with grave yet false allegations and degenerated into sheer invention — a succession of preposterous, absurd, and trivially disprovable lies that reveal the entire operation as a malicious personal vendetta rather than any form of journalism.
Mr Bryan Flowers requires, within 14 days of the date of this position paper:
Non-compliance will trigger the immediate commencement of High Court proceedings without further notice, seeking substantial damages (including aggravated and exemplary damages), injunctive relief, costs assessed on an indemnity basis, and all other available remedies.
All rights are expressly reserved.
— End of Report #12 —
Share:
Subscribe
Subscribe to receive notification whenever a new report, evidence brief, or legal update is published.