Position Paper #8
A chronological account of how a commercial investment dispute was turned into a sustained public attack, including the delivery of and deliberate failure to respond to the Pre-Action Protocol Letter of Claim.
Formal Position Paper
Prepared for: Victims of Andrew Drummond's Smear Campaigns
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)
🇹🇭 บทความนี้มีให้อ่านเป็นภาษาไทย — คลิกที่ปุ่มสลับภาษาด้านบน — This article is available in Thai — click the language toggle above
What started as an ordinary commercial disagreement between business partners has been deliberately weaponised by Andrew Drummond into an unrelenting, multi-platform defamation and harassment campaign. This formal position paper presents the complete, verifiable timeline from the original investment dispute through to the present date (18 February 2026). It shows a clear escalation from a single article in December 2024 to a sustained barrage of sensationalised falsehoods, the deliberate disregard of formal pre-action legal correspondence, and continued publication long after Mr Drummond was put on explicit notice that his allegations were false.
The campaign depends exclusively on the unreliable and self-serving account of Mr Adam Howell, as fully set out in the Rebuttal Document. Mr Drummond's conduct violates every relevant journalistic standard and exposes him to substantial personal liability under UK law.
Mr Adam Howell first became involved with the Night Wish Group as a regular customer and bar patron on Soi 6, Pattaya. Following an extended period of socialising at the venues, he invested approximately US$500,000 (15 million Thai baht) as one of several investors in the informal hospitality investor group known as the Night Wish Group.
In late 2023/early 2024, amid the ongoing economic aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic, Mr Howell demanded the immediate complete repayment of his investment — and subsequently 55m, 110m, and ultimately 150m baht. Dividend payments (which had been distributed to other investors) were suspended in his case solely due to his subsequent threatening behaviour, false allegations, trolling, malicious videos, and extortion attempts.
Instead of pursuing legitimate commercial or legal remedies, Mr Howell:
It was at this juncture that Mr Howell contacted Andrew Drummond and began providing him with the falsehoods that would constitute the sole basis of the subsequent articles.
17 December 2024 — Publication of the First Article: "British Media Mogul Sues Over Thai Sex Trafficking Allegations" on andrew-drummond.com.
This article introduced the central defamatory allegations of sex trafficking, child trafficking, "bar-brothels", "mafia wars", and threats with a firearm — every one of which is entirely false, as set out in detail in the Rebuttal Document and Letter of Claim.
The campaign intensified sharply in 2025, with at least nine core articles (many replicated across both websites) published within a three-month period:
Every article recycled and amplified the same proven falsehoods, employing increasingly sensational headlines and the dual-site replication tactic to maximise reach and longevity.
On 13 August 2025, Cohen Davis Solicitors served Andrew Drummond with a comprehensive Pre-Action Protocol Letter of Claim. The 25-page letter:
The letter was dispatched by recorded delivery to Mr Drummond's home address in Royal Wootton Bassett and remains unacknowledged and without response to this day.
Notwithstanding formal legal notice, Mr Drummond has:
As of 18 February 2026, both andrew-drummond.com and andrew-drummond.news continue to serve as active vehicles for the identical false narrative. All 19 articles remain on both sites to this day, along with 6 translations.
Mr Drummond's conduct fulfils every element of defamation under the Defamation Act 2013 (publication, defamatory meaning, serious harm, identification). The truth defence is unavailable because the allegations are false. The public interest defence under s.4 is unavailable because Mr Drummond failed to carry out any responsible journalistic investigation and has continued publishing after being furnished with overwhelming contradictory evidence.
The sustained character of the campaign, the deliberate disregard of the Letter of Claim, the dual-site duplication, and the personal attacks on Mr Flowers' wife, family, and staff constitute a course of conduct amounting to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The post-notice continuation represents strong evidence of malice, supporting claims for aggravated and exemplary damages.
The timeline illustrates a textbook conversion of a commercial dispute into a vendetta. Andrew Drummond has opted to weaponise his websites rather than engage with the facts or the law.
Mr Bryan Flowers accordingly demands, within 14 days of the date of this position paper:
Non-compliance will result in the immediate commencement of High Court proceedings for defamation, harassment, and associated remedies, with the full timeline and ignored Letter of Claim cited as primary aggravating factors.
All rights remain expressly reserved.
— End of Position Paper #8 —
Share:
Subscribe
Subscribe to receive notification whenever a new position paper, evidence brief, or legal update is published.