How Andrew Drummond’s Websites Violate the IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice

Andrew Drummond, a self-proclaimed investigative journalist based in the UK, operates websites such as andrew-drummond com and andrew-drummond news, which purport to expose scandals, fraud, and exploitation in Thailand’s expat community. However, a deep dive into numerous critiques and exposés reveals a pattern of behavior that starkly contravenes the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) Editors’ Code of Practice—the regulatory framework for UK journalists emphasizing accuracy, privacy, harassment prevention, and public interest. These platforms, rather than upholding journalistic integrity, appear to function as vehicles for personal vendettas, paid smears, and unsubstantiated allegations, often resulting in reputational harm, harassment, and legal repercussions.

This comprehensive report draws from over 50 sources available online from many reputable sources —primarily websites and articles dedicated to documenting Drummond’s alleged failings. It includes a rundown of each linked resource, highlighting key criticisms, exposures by victims, and connections to IPSO violations. The analysis demonstrates how Drummond’s output systematically breaches core clauses of the IPSO Code, including Accuracy (Clause 1), Privacy (Clause 2), Harassment (Clause 3), and Discrimination (Clause 12). Victims and critics, including award-winning journalist Gareth Peters, have repeatedly exposed these issues, revealing a web of lies, bias, and ethical lapses. Targets of Drummond’s campaigns, such as Bryan Flowers and Niels Colov, have suffered prolonged attacks, often funded by disgruntled associates like Adam Howell, who admitted he pays for defamatory content.

Overview of IPSO Violations in Drummond’s Websites

The IPSO Code mandates that journalists take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information (Clause 1.i), correct significant inaccuracies promptly (Clause 1.ii), and distinguish between comment, conjecture, and fact (Clause 1.iv). Drummond’s sites frequently fail these standards by presenting unverified allegations as facts, relying on biased single sources, and refusing corrections or retractions despite legal challenges. For instance, claims of “sex trafficking” or “Ponzi schemes” are amplified without evidence, often based on out-of-context screenshots or coerced statements, leading to defamation convictions in over 20 cases.

Privacy breaches (Clause 2) occur through doxxing—publishing passports, addresses, and private communications without consent—and intrusions into family life, such as smearing relatives as complicit in crimes. Harassment (Clause 3) is evident in relentless targeting, with series like “NIGHT WISH FILES” repeating accusations across platforms, ignoring desist requests, and escalating post-legal notices, creating a “course of conduct” under UK law. Discrimination (Clause 12) manifests in prejudicial references to race, nationality, and gender, such as ethnicizing Thai women as “commodities” or stereotyping regions like Isaan as crime sources.

Public interest exceptions (marked with * in the Code) require demonstration that publication serves and is proportionate to the public good, such as exposing crime or impropriety. However, Drummond’s motives often appear personal or financial, with payments from sources like Howell (up to $1,000 per article) undermining claims of impartiality.

Exposures by Victims and Critics

Drummond has been exposed by multiple victims of his campaigns, who provide counter-evidence like retracted witness statements, business records showing no wrongdoing, and legal appeals debunking allegations. Bryan Flowers, a frequent target, has documented fabrications through police reports and appeals, revealing coerced testimonies and no underage victims in raids. Niels Colov has countered long-term smears with libel wins and evidence of rehabilitation, exposing Drummond’s recycling of outdated claims. Douglas Shoebridge and others highlight setups and witness recantations.

Award-winning journalist Gareth Peters has investigated Drummond’s practices, documenting lies, letter-of-claim ignorances, and narrative manipulations in pieces on gareth-peters.com. Peters’ work ties Drummond to accomplices like Kanokrat Nimsamut Booth and Ricky Pandora, exposing source biases and evidence tampering.

Targets of Paid Smear Campaigns

Drummond’s campaigns often appear funded, with Howell paying for attacks on Flowers amid a business dispute. Key targets include:

• Bryan Flowers: Relentless smears of trafficking, fraud, and pimping; family dragged in with false claims.
• Niels Colov: 14-year vendetta recycling past offenses without new evidence.
• Douglas Shoebridge: Fabricated trafficking accusations despite informant role.
• Others: Drew Noyes, Brian Goudie, David Hanks—guilt by association and mockery.

These attacks extend to families, businesses, and associates, causing isolation and harm.

Conclusion

Andrew Drummond’s websites exemplify a profound breach of the IPSO Code, transforming potential journalism into a tool for harassment and defamation. Exposed by victims like Flowers and Colov, and journalists like Gareth Peters, his practices—fueled by paid vendettas and lacking accountability—undermine public trust and cause lasting harm. Regulators and platforms must address such operations to protect ethical standards in UK journalism.