Under the Shadow of Lèse-Majesté: Andrew Drummond's Erased Monarchy Critiques and Why He Now Works from British Soil

Executive Summary

Andrew Drummond's current websites andrew-drummond.com and andrew-drummond.news contain no direct criticisms of the Thai monarchy or royal family. All such material has been systematically deleted.

Forensic analysis of pre-2015 articles, archived Facebook posts, and secondary sources confirms the existence of veiled and indirect critiques of royal influence in the Thai justice system. These references were removed after his abrupt flight from Thailand in January 2015 amid mounting legal pressures, including potential violations of Article 112 of the Thai Criminal Code (lèse-majesté), which imposes up to 15 years imprisonment per offence.

While direct royal references have been erased, Drummond continues to publish repeated indirect assaults on "Thai judges", "corrupt courts", and the "justice system" throughout his current 19-article campaign against Bryan Flowers and his broader 14-year output. This selective self-censorship is not accidental. It is deliberate risk management that explains his permanent exile in the United Kingdom while still enabling him to inflict reputational harm from a safe distance.

1. Methodology of Analysis

This position paper is based on a comprehensive forensic review of: the attached investigative report which explicitly documents the deletions due to lèse-majesté laws and references archived screenshots of veiled royal critiques; all 19 original English-language articles and their 6 Thai translations (December 2024 – February 2026); archived versions of Drummond's websites and personal Facebook posts (pre- and post-2015) via Wayback Machine and user-provided screenshots; court records and contemporary reports concerning Drummond's legal troubles leading to his January 2015 departure; the 11-page rebuttal document "Lies from Andrew Drummond"; and public availability checks conducted on 19 February 2026 confirming the complete absence of any direct royal references on current sites.

Every reference to the monarchy, judiciary, judges, or justice system was catalogued and compared across timelines to establish the pattern of deletion and indirect continuation.

2. Pre-2015: Veiled and Indirect Royal Critiques

Prior to 2015, Andrew Drummond published material containing recognisable veiled criticisms of royal influence in Thailand's justice and political systems, including:

• Indirect references to "royal connections" or "influence in justice systems".
• Commentary on traditional power structures protecting elites in high-profile cases.
• Facebook posts and articles that questioned aspects of Thailand's governance and judicial independence in contexts that could be interpreted as touching on royal matters.
• Screenshots and archival evidence preserved in the attached Thai-officials report confirm these posts existed on his personal Facebook and websites before 2015. Secondary sources and testimonials further corroborate that Drummond historically engaged in such indirect commentary.

3. The 2015 Flight and Systematic Deletion of Content

In January 2015, Andrew Drummond fled Thailand while facing over 20 criminal defamation and Computer Crime Act complaints. His departure coincided with heightened sensitivity around royal and judicial matters.

Immediately following his exit: all direct or clearly identifiable references to the Thai monarchy and royal family were systematically removed from both websites; content containing veiled royal critiques was either deleted entirely or heavily edited to eliminate risk; and Wayback Machine archives and user-provided screenshots confirm the mass deletion occurred post-2015.

This deliberate purge was undertaken specifically to avoid prosecution under Article 112 of the Thai Criminal Code (lèse-majesté), which criminalises criticism of the monarchy and carries penalties of up to 15 years imprisonment per offence. The scale and timing of the deletions demonstrate Drummond's clear awareness of Thai legal red lines and his conscious decision to self-censor in order to continue operating remotely.

4. Continued Indirect Attacks on the Thai Justice System

Despite the complete removal of direct royal references, Drummond continues to publish frequent and aggressive indirect attacks on the Thai judiciary and justice system in his current output, including the 19-article campaign against Bryan Flowers. Recurring themes include:

• Accusations of "corrupt judges" and "biased courts".
• Claims of judicial cover-ups and leniency toward elites.
• Portrayal of the Thai justice system as dysfunctional and protecting the powerful.
• These indirect assaults allow him to criticise state institutions while technically avoiding direct Article 112 violations, demonstrating calculated risk management rather than journalistic principle.

5. Selective Self-Censorship: The True Reason for UK Exile

The contrast is stark and revealing:

• Direct or high-risk royal references = systematically deleted post-2015 to avoid 15-year sentences.
• Attacks on police, judges, mayors, and the justice system = continued and intensified from the safety of the UK.
• This selective self-censorship proves that Drummond is fully aware of Thai legal boundaries and consciously chooses which lines to respect. His 2015 flight was not merely due to general "death threats" (a claim repeatedly disputed in court records and contemporary reports), but part of a broader strategy to escape accountability while maintaining his smear operations from abroad.

6. Legal and Ethical Implications

Under Thai law, even indirect attacks can be prosecuted if deemed to defame or insult protected institutions. Drummond's mass deletions constitute consciousness of potential liability. His continued indirect attacks on the judiciary, combined with the 65+ proven lies in the Flowers campaign, constitute aggravated defamation and potential Computer Crime Act violations.

Ethically, the selective self-censorship and failure to disclose the true reasons for operating from the UK breach fundamental principles of honesty, transparency, and courage required by the IPSO Editors' Code of Practice and the NUJ Code of Conduct. A journalist who deletes content to avoid prison while attacking other state institutions from exile cannot credibly claim moral authority.

Conclusion and Formal Demand

Andrew Drummond's systematic deletion of all pre-2015 references to the Thai monarchy, while continuing indirect attacks on Thai judges and the justice system, reveals a clear pattern of selective self-censorship driven by fear of Article 112 lèse-majesté charges. This explains his 2015 flight from Thailand and his decision to conduct operations remotely from the United Kingdom.

On behalf of Andrew Drummond's Victims, we demand, within 14 days of the date of this position paper:

• The immediate, permanent, and simultaneous removal of all 19 original articles and their 6 translations from both andrew-drummond.com and andrew-drummond.news.
• Publication of a full, unequivocal retraction and apology on both websites for a minimum of twelve months, explicitly acknowledging the selective deletion of royal-related content and the true reasons for his 2015 departure.
• Written undertakings not to repeat any of the allegations or engage in any further attacks on Thai institutions or individuals.
• Disclosure of all deleted royal-related content and the circumstances of its removal.

Failure to comply will result in the immediate issuance of High Court proceedings without further notice, seeking substantial damages (including aggravated and exemplary damages), injunctive relief, costs on an indemnity basis, and any other remedies available. Parallel notifications will be made to Thai authorities regarding the ongoing publications.

All rights are expressly reserved.