The Accountability Asymmetry: Why Blogger-Defamers Exploit the Gap Between Journalism Regulation and Internet Lawlessness

Executive Summary

Andrew Drummond presents himself as a journalist. He references decades of media experience, cites his previous work with mainstream outlets, and adopts the conventions of journalism — bylines, datelines, source attribution, and investigative framing. Yet he operates entirely outside the regulatory framework that governs legitimate journalism in the United Kingdom. The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) regulates newspapers and their online editions, enforcing the Editors' Code of Practice that requires accuracy, a right of reply, prohibition of harassment, and respect for privacy. The NUJ Code of Conduct imposes ethical obligations on professional journalists. Neither framework reaches Andrew Drummond.

This regulatory gap is not accidental — it is structural. The UK's press regulation framework was designed for an era when publishing was expensive and controlled by identifiable organisations. The internet age has created a class of publisher that exercises all the power of the press while bearing none of its responsibilities. Drummond operates two websites (andrew-drummond.com and andrew-drummond.news), publishes content with global reach, and claims the credibility of journalism — but is accountable to no regulator, no editor, no standards body, and no complaints process.

This paper analyses the accountability asymmetry, comparing the standards to which a mainstream newspaper would be held if it published Drummond's content with the standards to which Drummond is actually held. It examines international approaches to closing the gap — the EU Digital Services Act and Australia's eSafety Commissioner model — and proposes reforms to ensure that anyone who exercises the power of the press also bears its responsibilities.

1. IPSO and the Editors' Code: The Standards That Apply to Real Journalism

The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) is the UK's largest independent press regulator, covering the majority of national and regional newspapers and their digital publications. Publishers who are members of IPSO are bound by the Editors' Code of Practice, which establishes the ethical and professional standards expected of UK journalism. The Code is enforced through a complaints process that can result in the requirement to publish corrections, adjudications, and — in the most serious cases — financial sanctions.

If Andrew Drummond's articles had been published by an IPSO-regulated newspaper, multiple provisions of the Editors' Code would have been engaged:

• Clause 1 (Accuracy): 'The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.' Drummond's articles contain more than 65 individually documented false statements, recycled across 19 publications. A regulated newspaper would face mandatory correction requirements for each false statement.
• Clause 2 (Privacy): 'Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life.' Drummond has doxxed family members, published personal financial information, and exposed private family relationships for no legitimate public interest purpose.
• Clause 3 (Harassment): 'Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.' Drummond's 19-article campaign, intensified after receiving a formal Letter of Claim, constitutes persistent pursuit by any reasonable definition.
• Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock): While not directly applicable, the principle of avoiding unnecessary intrusion into personal distress is violated by Drummond's targeting of family members, including Bryan Flowers' wife and father.
• Clause 12 (Discrimination): 'The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.' Drummond's use of epithets such as 'Jizzflicker,' 'PIMP,' and 'career sex merchandiser' constitutes precisely the type of pejorative personal characterisation this clause prohibits.

2. The NUJ Code of Conduct: Professional Ethics Drummond Claims but Does Not Follow

The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) Code of Conduct establishes ethical obligations that apply to all NUJ members and that are widely regarded as the baseline professional standard for UK journalists. Andrew Drummond has historically identified himself as a journalist and has claimed professional standing on that basis. The NUJ Code includes the following relevant obligations:

A journalist shall at all times strive to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate, and fair. A journalist shall obtain material by honest, straightforward, and open means, with the exception of investigations that are both overwhelmingly in the public interest and that involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means. A journalist shall do nothing to intrude into anybody's private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest.

Drummond's publications violate each of these obligations. His articles are not accurately conveyed — they contain more than 65 documented falsehoods. His material is not obtained by honest means — he relies on a single discredited informant (Adam Howell) whose own credibility is fatally compromised. His publications intrude into the private lives of family members without any overriding public interest justification. Were Drummond an NUJ member subject to the Code, he would face disciplinary proceedings and likely expulsion. Instead, he operates in a professional vacuum where no ethical code applies and no disciplinary body has jurisdiction.

3. The Regulatory Vacuum: Why Bloggers Escape Accountability

IPSO's jurisdiction extends only to publishers who voluntarily subscribe to its regulation. Independent bloggers, personal website operators, and self-published online commentators are not within IPSO's remit, regardless of the reach, influence, or harm of their publications. This voluntary model of regulation made sense when publishing required the infrastructure of a printing press and distribution network — any entity capable of publishing at scale was likely to be an identifiable organisation amenable to regulatory oversight.

The internet has fundamentally disrupted this assumption. Andrew Drummond, operating from a rented house in Wiltshire, United Kingdom — having fled Thailand in 2015 under the weight of multiple criminal complaints, can reach a global audience at zero marginal cost per reader. His two websites achieve search engine prominence through aggressive SEO practices and cross-site mirroring. His content is shared across social media platforms, indexed by Google, and referenced on third-party sites. In terms of reach and impact, his publications are indistinguishable from those of a small newspaper — but he is regulated by no one.

The Leveson Inquiry (2011-2012) recognised this gap but did not resolve it. Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations focused on reforming the regulation of established print and online media, with only passing reference to the challenge posed by individual bloggers and citizen journalists. The subsequent implementation through the creation of IPSO (and the alternative regulator IMPRESS) did not extend regulatory coverage to independent online publishers. The gap identified by Leveson remains open, and it is precisely this gap that Drummond exploits.

4. How Drummond Exploits the Gap: The Worst of Both Worlds

Andrew Drummond's operating model is designed, whether consciously or not, to extract the maximum benefit from the accountability asymmetry. He claims the credibility of journalism while accepting none of its constraints. Specifically:

He presents his publications in the format of professional journalism — with bylines, investigative framing, source citations, and an institutional veneer created by his two domain names (andrew-drummond.com and andrew-drummond.news). The '.news' domain is particularly significant, as it explicitly communicates to readers that the content should be understood as news reporting rather than personal opinion or blogging.

He references his historical credentials as a journalist who has worked with mainstream outlets, leveraging past professional standing to lend authority to current publications that would not meet the standards of any mainstream outlet. He claims the protections of press freedom — including the public interest defence available under section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 — while refusing to observe the responsibilities that traditionally accompany those protections.

This creates the worst of both worlds for his victims. The publications carry the perceived authority of journalism, causing readers to take the false allegations seriously and to form negative judgments based on them. But the lack of regulatory oversight means there is no complaints process, no correction mechanism, no adjudication system, and no enforced code of conduct. The victim's only recourse is civil litigation — which, as documented in Paper 69, is prohibitively expensive and practically unenforceable against an overseas operator.

5. International Comparisons: How Other Jurisdictions Address the Gap

The UK is not alone in facing the challenge of regulating online publishers who operate outside traditional media frameworks. Two international approaches offer instructive comparisons: the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) and Australia's eSafety Commissioner model.

5.1. The EU Digital Services Act (DSA)

The EU Digital Services Act, which came into full effect in February 2024, establishes a comprehensive framework for platform accountability that addresses some of the regulatory gaps exploited by blogger-defamers. Key provisions relevant to the Drummond case include: the requirement for platforms to provide effective notice-and-action mechanisms for reporting illegal content, including defamation; obligations on very large online platforms (VLOPs) to assess and mitigate systemic risks, including the risk of facilitating coordinated defamation campaigns; and the creation of trusted flaggers — organisations certified by national authorities whose reports receive priority processing.

The DSA does not directly regulate individual publishers like Drummond. However, it creates an ecosystem of platform obligations that, if effectively enforced, would significantly reduce the reach and impact of blogger-defamation campaigns. Under the DSA framework, a takedown request supported by a Letter of Claim from Cohen Davis Solicitors would likely receive expedited processing as a substantiated notification of illegal content, and platforms would be required to provide a clear statement of reasons for any decision not to act.

The limitation of the DSA is geographical. It applies to platforms serving EU users, and its enforcement mechanisms are administered by EU national authorities. Content targeting UK citizens on platforms headquartered outside the EU may fall between jurisdictional gaps, reducing the practical protection available to victims like Bryan Flowers.

5.2. Australia's eSafety Commissioner

Australia's eSafety Commissioner, established under the Online Safety Act 2021, provides the most comprehensive model for addressing online defamation and harassment by individual publishers. The Commissioner has the power to issue removal notices directly to individuals (not just platforms) who publish seriously harmful online content. Non-compliance with a removal notice is a civil penalty offence, with fines of up to AU$111,000 per day for individuals.

The eSafety Commissioner model addresses the accountability asymmetry directly. It does not depend on the publisher being a member of a voluntary regulatory scheme or on the platform hosting the content being responsive to takedown requests. Instead, it creates a government authority with the power to order individuals to remove harmful content, backed by meaningful financial penalties for non-compliance.

If the UK adopted an equivalent model, Andrew Drummond could be served with a removal notice requiring the deletion of specific defamatory content from his websites. Non-compliance — which, given his history of escalation after legal notice, would be entirely predictable — would result in escalating financial penalties. The existence of such a regime would also empower platform takedown requests, as platforms would be more responsive to requests supported by government enforcement action.

The Australian model is not without limitations. Enforcement against individuals based in foreign jurisdictions remains challenging, and the Commissioner's powers are most effective when the respondent has assets or ongoing connections within Australia's jurisdiction. However, the model demonstrates that it is possible to create a regulatory framework that reaches individual online publishers, rather than relying exclusively on platform-level moderation or expensive civil litigation.

6. Closing the Gap: A Proposed UK Framework

Drawing on the strengths of the EU and Australian approaches while addressing their limitations, this paper proposes a UK framework for closing the accountability gap that currently shields blogger-defamers from the standards imposed on legitimate journalism. The proposed framework has four components:

• Online Publisher Registration: Any individual or entity that regularly publishes content with a UK audience should be required to register with a designated regulator and to comply with a basic code of conduct aligned with the Editors' Code. Registration would be triggered by objective criteria such as publication frequency, audience size, or the use of domain names that imply news or journalistic status (such as '.news' domains). Failure to register when required would result in the loss of certain legal defences, including the section 4 public interest defence under the Defamation Act 2013.
• Enhanced Platform Obligations: The UK Online Safety Act 2023 should be amended to require platforms to give expedited processing to takedown requests that are supported by formal legal documentation (such as a Letter of Claim), and to implement cross-platform coordination mechanisms so that content removed from one platform is flagged for review on others.
• Individual Removal Power: Following the Australian model, Ofcom or a designated body should have the power to issue removal notices directly to individual publishers of seriously harmful content, backed by financial penalties for non-compliance and the ability to seek enforcement through international cooperation mechanisms.
• Regulatory Presumption: Where a publisher adopts the conventions of journalism (bylines, investigative framing, institutional presentation, '.news' domains), a rebuttable presumption should apply that the publisher is subject to journalistic standards of accuracy, fairness, and right of reply. A publisher who wishes to avoid these obligations must clearly disclaim journalistic status — and in doing so, forfeits the credibility advantage that journalistic presentation provides.

7. Conclusion: The Right to Publish Must Be Matched by the Duty to Be Accountable

The accountability asymmetry exploited by Andrew Drummond is not a minor technical gap in the regulatory framework — it is a fundamental flaw that undermines the entire system of press accountability. If anyone can publish content with the reach and impact of a newspaper while operating outside the regulatory framework that governs newspapers, then press regulation itself becomes merely a handicap imposed on responsible publishers while irresponsible publishers operate without constraint.

This asymmetry produces perverse outcomes. Legitimate newspapers, bound by the Editors' Code, would never publish the content that appears on Andrew Drummond's websites. They would not repeat unverified criminal allegations from a single discredited source. They would not use epithets like 'Jizzflicker' or 'sex meat-grinder.' They would not target family members for harassment. They would not escalate publication after receiving a formal legal notice. The standards that prevent newspapers from engaging in this conduct are precisely the standards from which Drummond is exempt.

Closing this gap is essential for the protection of individuals like Bryan Flowers, Punippa Flowers, and the hundreds of collateral victims documented across this series of position papers. The reforms proposed in this paper are not radical — they extend to online publishers the same standards that already apply to print publishers, using enforcement mechanisms that have been proven effective in comparable jurisdictions. The right to publish freely is a cornerstone of democratic society. But that right must be matched by the duty to publish responsibly, and where a publisher refuses that duty, the regulatory framework must provide accountability. Currently, it does not.