@Soi6Whistleblower β The Complete Evidence
This page consolidates every piece of evidence currently held against the @Soi6Whistleblower Odysee channel: the channel facts, 78 Whisper transcripts of the underlying audio, mapping against Odysee's own Community Guidelines, mapping against UK law, mapping against US law, and the per-video catalogue. It is the principal Odysee evidence document on this site. A formal DSA Article 16 notice was sent to Odysee at support@odysee.com on 22 April 2026 (delivered, awaiting response).
Notice and Action Notice served on Odysee 22 April 2026
Under Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 Article 16, Odysee has 24 hours to acknowledge and 14 days to provide a substantive response. The notice was sent from noreply@drummondhowellcampaign.com to support@odysee.com, with copies to help@odysee.com, hello@odysee.com, and the complainant. As of the publication of this page the channel remains live; the documented executives (Sam Williams, Julian Chandra CEO, Sebastian Compos Groth) have been previously notified β see /platform-complicity.
The core evidence pattern β title weaponisation
The 78 transcribed videos contain Bryan's own audio β recorded in original benign contexts (business vlogs, livestreams about his entrepreneurship, family chats, education videos for his children). Across all 78 transcripts there are zero mentions of the names βDrummondβ or βHowellβ β proving Howell did not record this content. He took Bryan's existing material and republished it under defamatory titles. The contrast between the title (what Howell branded each video) and the transcript (what Bryan actually said) is the case.
βBryan Flowers Says Cashier Snitch is Only Reason Wife Arrestedβ
odysee.com/@Soi6Whistleblower:9/bryan-says-cashier-said-he-and-his-wifβ¦[00:00]βPeople are saying terrible things like I threw my missus under the bus.β
Why it's evidence: Bryan's wife (a private individual) is named or directly referenced. Howell republished knowing the channelβs purpose was to harm her reputation alongside Bryanβs.
βBryan Flowers Says He Heard the Cashier Gave Evidence β Then Makes a Threatβ
odysee.com/@Soi6Whistleblower:9/cashier-will-pay-for-telling-on-bryan-β¦[00:19]βAnd you know, just talking, talking absolute, well it's not absolute nonsense, but I'm notβ
Why it's evidence: Bryan is on tape *denying* the allegation that the Howell title makes against him. The transcript directly contradicts the headline.
βBryan Flowers Lies to the Public About Paying Bribes After Wife's Arrestβ
odysee.com/@Soi6Whistleblower:9/bryan-lies-to-the-public-about-not-briβ¦[06:15]βAnyway, people keep telling me that I need to tell Anthony what's going on.β
Why it's evidence: Howell republished Bryan's video that names his minor son. The original was a personal vlog; on the Howell channel it sits alongside fabricated trafficking allegations.
βBryan Flowers Blames Cashier Snitch, Faces Money Laundering Probeβ
odysee.com/@Soi6Whistleblower:9/Bryan-Flowers-Blames-Cashier-Snitch,-Fβ¦[00:12]βpolice have forced the girl to say that we the cashier forced her to have sexβ
Why it's evidence: Bryan calmly explains the active legal case from his side. Howellβs title spins the same audio as a confession or threat.
βBryan Reveals Pattaya News Makes No Money But is a Long Term Strategyβ
odysee.com/@Soi6Whistleblower:9/pattaya-news-makes-no-money-is-a-long-β¦[00:00]βIs the Pattaya news cash positive? No, it's not cash positive. People think that we're making loads of money and it's simply because we've expanded too fast. We're in Phuket, we're in national and we're expanding the videos but we're starting to get a slow return on that. β¦ news is a long-term business. If I'd broken up into just Pattaya news away from Phuket then yeah it would probably say it makes money.β
Why it's evidence: Bryan is explaining Pattaya News as a long-term commercial investment that is not yet cash-positive because of recent expansion into Phuket and national coverage. Howell's title β 'Bryan Reveals Pattaya News Makes No Money But is a Long Term Strategy' β reframes an entirely routine business-expansion explanation as supposedly sinister. The audio is plain business vlog content. (Whisper originally mis-heard 'Pattaya' as 'Battalion' and 'Phuket' as 'bouquet'; quote corrected to the actual place names spoken.)
βBryan Flowers: 'I'm Writing a Book on How to Succeed in Business'β
odysee.com/@Soi6Whistleblower:9/bryan-releases-a-book-teaching-how-to-β¦[00:43]βto it and adding to it. And I've got all these resources now. And I sent it to my son that'sβ
Why it's evidence: Bryan refers to his children in the original video. Howell republished it on a harassment channel without consent or any redaction.
Private partner messages, decontextualised voice notes, harvested YouTube audio, fake screenshots
The 78 audio tracks on the @Soi6Whistleblower channel did not arrive on Odysee through journalism. They were sourced and sequenced by Adam Howell over the period he was a commercial partner of Bryan Flowers' group, then weaponised after his own commercial interest soured. Andrew Drummond accepted the entire archive from Howell β a disgruntled investor with a documented financial grievance and, later, a criminal conviction for defamation β without independent verification of any of it. Four distinct sourcing tactics underlie the channel:
1. Private partner messages, repackaged as βexposΓ©sβ
A number of the audio messages on the channel originated as private one-to-one communications sent by Bryan to Howell while Howell was still a business partner. Their context was a normal commercial conversation about cashflow during the 2023 crisis caused by corrupt police arresting Bryan's wife on fabricated charges. Bryan was explaining why payments were delayed; Howell's only stated concern in the same period was about getting paid back. After Howell's commercial exit went sour he extracted those private messages and re-published them on a public channel as if they were leaked βevidenceβ. Under any ordinary ethics test, that breaches the confidentiality of partner correspondence; under UK law it engages the Data Protection Act 2018 and likely a breach-of-confidence claim.
2. Voice notes stripped of context
Howell took voice notes Bryan sent him during the same crisis period and removed the surrounding sentences that explained what Bryan was actually talking about. Two seconds of audio with no context can be made to imply almost anything; that is the entire editorial method. Forensic audio analysis of several clips already documents multiple splice pointswithin single βquotesβ (catalogued as Lie #15 in /lies), proving the segments published online were assembled rather than recorded continuous.
3. Harvested from Bryan's ~1,000-video public YouTube archive
The bulk of the @Soi6Whistleblower audio is sourced from Bryan's own historic YouTube content β business vlogs, live streams, interviews, family recordings β which Howell downloaded in volume (roughly 1,000 videos) and then sifted for any clip that, in isolation and with a misleading title, could be made to sound incriminating. This is precisely what the 78 transcripts on this page demonstrate: the audio is Bryan's own benign content, recontextualised. Note that none of the 78 transcripts contains the names βHowellβ or βDrummondβ β confirming that not a single one originated from a Howell or Drummond recording session.
4. Fabricated screenshots
Where Howell could not find usable audio he produced fabricated screenshotsβ messages purportedly sent by Bryan that Bryan never sent, presented as additional βevidenceβ of wrongdoing. Several of these have been forensically demonstrated to be composites; see Lie #18 (βReddit/Quora posts are organic discussionβ β false; Howell's own admissions confirm fabrication) at /lies.
Drummond's editorial standard: zero verification
Andrew Drummond accepted the entire archive β partner-message extracts, decontextualised voice notes, sifted YouTube clips, and fabricated screenshots β from Adam Howell without independently verifying any of it. He published it as journalism. The single-source structure is established as fact in two ways: (a) Howell admitted in writing in the leaked Facebook Messenger chat that he is the source β see /evidence/paid-to-troll; (b) Drummond himself wrote in a 2 December 2025 article on andrew-drummond.com: βwe were contacted by Howell who unloaded his files.β A journalist relying exclusively on a single source β one whose sole motive is recovering money from the subject of the publications β fails every recognised test of editorial reliability under IPSO, NUJ, and PCC standards. Doing so when that single source is later convicted of criminal defamation against the same subject is decisive.
Bryan's 11-year-old son named on a harassment channel
Bryan's son Anthony was 11 years oldwhen Bryan recorded the original videos that Howell later republished on the @Soi6Whistleblower channel. Bryan named his son in the context of normal family life. By republishing those videos on a channel whose stated purpose is to allege Bryan is a child trafficker / child pimp / sex predator, Howell has placed a minor's identifying information directly alongside fabricated criminal allegations against the minor's father. This is doxing of a child by any reasonable definition, and it engages every legal framework that protects minors' data and dignity online.
[06:15]βAnyway, people keep telling me that I need to tell Anthony what's going on.βSource on Odysee β
[00:43]βto it and adding to it. And I've got all these resources now. And I sent it to my son that'sβSource on Odysee β
UK frameworks engaged
- Β· Data Protection Act 2018 & UK GDPR β publication of a minor's identifying personal data without lawful basis or parental consent
- Β· Online Safety Act 2023 Part 3 β illegal-harms duty including content harmful to children
- Β· Protection from Harassment Act 1997 β course of conduct including third-party (the child) under s.7(5)
US frameworks engaged
- Β· COPPA β 15 USC Β§6501 β unlawful publication of identifying information of a child under 13
- Β· 18 USC Β§2261A β federal cyberstalking when course of conduct includes a minor family member
- Β· IIED β sustained outrageous conduct directed at minor and family
13videos name Bryan's wife, father, brother, or business partners
The channel repeatedly names private individuals connected to Bryan: his wife Punnipa (subjected to false trafficking accusations), his 73-year-old father (named without consent), his brother (zero involvement in any of the disputes), and named business partners. None of these individuals is a public figure. Doxing of them on a harassment channel engages Odysee Guideline 6 (no doxing) and Guideline 10 (no excessive bullying of non-public figures).
See all 13 family-doxing transcript quotes β
[00:00]βPeople are saying terrible things like I threw my missus under the bus.βSource β
[02:09]βlot of support but obviously my wife has been a little bit depressed when you could potentiallyβSource β
[00:12]βmy wife and she's been taken away and there's nothing I can do about it. So I am workingβSource β
[00:08]βMy wife's a big part of all that.βSource β
[00:35]βthe trainer it's yours and I said to my wife like that's gonna cost us 48,000 baht a monthβSource β
[03:17]βSo this is our main room there, me and my wife will visit during the day, and this willβSource β
[00:12]βPattaya. Me and my wife do have an interest in it and he's going to have a lounge, wellβSource β
[00:25]βand I say he never did anything. He asked the staff to fill in the form for my wifeβSource β
[00:00]βI'm not being investigated, but my wife was panicking and she was like, Brian, pleaseβSource β
[01:18]βit's causing so much grief for everyone, Vag's in a mess, um, you know, my missus has beenβSource β
[03:06]βbut I just said to my wife I've got to do the right thing now.βSource β
[08:17]βmore people I've met so many business owners around town and so's my wife okay we're notβSource β
[01:57]βMe and my missus have been working for 2 days straight.βSource β
Howell republishes a historical death threat against Bryan's child
In the original video that Howell republished as βBryan Flowers and the Corruption of Pattaya's Mediaβ, Bryan recounts a previous threat he received:
βSome dangerous meth head said he was going to shoot my kid once and he was sending me pictures of guns and he was getting Thai guys to call upβ¦ββ Bryan Flowers, in audio republished on @Soi6Whistleblower video #82
Bryan recorded that originally as part of a discussion about why he was cautious about exposure as a business owner. Howell's decision to republish that recording on a harassment channel amplifies the historical threat against Bryan's child to a new and indefinite audience. Under Odysee Community Guideline 9 (no credible calls for violence), hosting amplified threat content against an identified minor is a direct breach. Engages also Online Safety Act 2023 and US 18 USC Β§875(c) (interstate transmission of a threat).
The strongest possible defamation evidence β denial inside the same audio
In the following videos, the audio Howell uploaded contains Bryan directly denyingthe allegation that Howell's title makes against him. Under any test of malice, this is decisive: Howell had access to Bryan's denial inside the same audio file he chose to retitle. He published the allegation anyway.
[00:19]βAnd you know, just talking, talking absolute, well it's not absolute nonsense, but I'm notβ
Odysee Community Guidelines β full mapping
Verbatim from help.odysee.tv/communityguidelines.
Illegal activity
22 videosβDon't use Odysee for illegal activities, this includes sharing illegal or copyright-infringing content.β
Defamation is unlawful in both the UK (Defamation Act 2013) and Thailand (Criminal Code §§326β333). 22 videos contain false criminal allegations against Bryan Flowers β sex trafficking, child abuse, bribery, money laundering, organised crime β with no underlying charge, no conviction, no warrant. Content creator Adam Howell has been convicted of criminal defamation in a Thai court (28 August 2025). The content is, as a matter of fact, the record of an illegal act being committed on Odysee's infrastructure.
No doxing
11 videosβDon't dox individuals, users or otherwise.β
Multiple videos name, identify, or expose private individuals who are not public figures: Bryan's wife Punnipa Flowers (falsely labelled a 'trafficker'), his 73-year-old father (named as a 'controlling investor' with zero operational role), his brother, business partners Scott and Rob Dey, civil-case witnesses Nick Dean and Chris Berndt. Several videos include addresses, workplaces, or identifiable context amounting to doxing under any ordinary reading of the rule. Howell's own Messenger admission is that he paid Drummond extra specifically to 'drag Bryan's family and friends into it' (see /evidence/paid-to-troll).
Violence / credible calls for violence
5 videosβContent promoting terrorism, criminal activity, or that credibly calls for violence is prohibited.β
At least three videos explicitly frame threats of violence β including one featuring a 'Pakistani enforcer' allegedly threatening a journalist, two that associate Bryan with gang violence involving tourists on Soi 6, and edited audio presented as menacing. Regardless of who the threats come from, hosting them on a platform that claims to bar 'credible calls for violence' is itself a direct breach by the uploader. The 'cashier will pay' video meta-adjudicates a threat against a witness.
No excessive bullying of non-public figures
All 85 videosβExcessive bullying of persons not well known within the public sphere is restricted.β
Bryan Flowers is a private individual β a businessman with no political office, no celebrity status, and no pre-existing public profile outside his own customer base. 85 separate videos (every single one on the channel) are directed at him personally, by name, over a sustained period. That is not 'reporting' or 'criticism' β it is the textbook definition of excessive bullying of a non-public figure. If Guideline 10 means anything, it means this. The same test applies to Bryan's wife Punnipa, his father, his brother, and his business associates β none of whom are public figures either.
No content shaming / insulting / exploiting minors
4 videosβContent uploaded with the intent to shame, deceive, insult, or exploit a minor is banned.β
Several videos directly insult a 17-year-old Thai girl β repeatedly calling her a 'whore', asserting she was 'sold in 11 minutes', and framing her story in lurid terms for an adult audience. Whatever the truth of her individual circumstances (she has retracted her original statement in court), she is a minor, and the videos' intent is to shame and insult her. That alone breaches Guideline 11. The gratuitously sexualised framing of her against an adult audience also engages Guideline 17 (voyeurism / sexualised invasive content).
No pornographic material
10 videosβPornographic material is prohibited.β
The 'Jizzflicker' and 'InternationalHardman' series (10 videos) are a catalogue of sex-tourism content framed as 'mongering' β graphic descriptions of transactional sex in Pattaya bars, with titles like 'Losing My Ladyboy Cherry', 'Sealing the Deal', 'Essential To-Do List', and 'Sports Mongering Guide'. These are presented on the channel as attributed to Bryan (a false attribution) but that is the separate Guideline 5 defamation issue. Setting aside the false attribution, the content itself is sexual in nature and uploaded for consumption β exactly what Guideline 12 prohibits.
No sexualised / invasive / harassing content about individuals
15 videosβFilming people...in a sexualized, invasive, or harassing way...is not permitted.β
Multiple videos use edited footage of Bryan, his wife, his staff, and customers taken in bar environments, re-cut and narrated to imply sexual impropriety, trafficking, or predation. Separately, footage of a minor (the 17-year-old discussed above) is used in a sexualised and invasive frame. The narration adds harassing commentary the originals never contained. Channel operator Adam Howell has explicitly stated in writing he wanted 'to drag family and friends into it' β intent manifest.
UK law engaged β per-offence count
US law engaged β per-offence count + jurisdictional note
Jurisdictional reach: Odysee Inc. is incorporated in Delaware; the platform infrastructure is US-hosted; both Howell (Canadian national, Dubai-based) and Drummond (UK) publish into US infrastructure. That brings them within US long-arm jurisdiction for tortious conduct directed at US-hosted services.
85 videos targeting one named private individual over 12+ months satisfies the 'pattern of conduct' element.
Engaged by every video framed to threaten, intimidate, or harass.
Bryan's son Anthony was 11 when named in the original videos that Howell republished.
Accusing a person of specific crimes (trafficking, child abuse, money laundering, bribery) is per se defamation requiring no proof of special damages.
Repeated false statements about Bryan's businesses (Night Wish Group, Pattaya News, Rage Kickboxing, hotels, restaurants).
Sustained, extreme, and outrageous conduct directed at a private individual and his family. Documented mental health impact (Position Paper #136).
Howell monetises the channel via Odysee tips and LBC token; false statements about Bryan's commercial enterprises engage the Lanham Act.
Thematic allegation frequency
What Bryan actually talks about in these videos
The original recordings β before Howell's retitling β are normal businessperson content: explaining legal cases from his side, discussing his businesses, talking about staff and partners, planning ventures, family vlogs.
3 videos β Bryan calmly explaining the legal case β
[00:12]βpolice have forced the girl to say that we the cashier forced her to have sexβ
[00:56]βcashier.β
[00:30]βWe're going to get the cashier to take a statement away to say that the girls are having sexβ
14 videos β Bryan discussing his businesses β
[00:28]βwork in bars, they're not even like rescuing traffic gills and my idea wasβ
[00:00]βWhat's your favourite type of business to invest in?β
[00:24]βI think they wish they had another bar owner.β
[00:00]βIs the Pattaya news cash positive? No, it's not cash positive. People think that we're making loads of money and it's simply because we've expanded too fast. We're in Phuket, we're in national and we're expanding the videos but we're starting to get a slow return on that. β¦ news is a long-term business. If I'd broken up into just Pattaya news away from Phuket then yeah it would probably say it makes money.β
[00:47]βa year, we go ahead and throw a party at my bar where I dress up for fun, out of respect,β
[00:24]βYou know, I do everything as legally as possible, obviously we break the law in the bar in aβ
[00:11]βlockdown and everything, you grew up to what, 20 something, 30 bars?β
[00:04]βFelly pa mlynedd rydych chi'n dechrau'n mynd i mewn i'r busnes bar?β
[00:00]βOne thing I'd like to do is invest. I've just invested in another drinks company. I investedβ
[03:47]βAnd then we've got the Pattaya News office there.β
[00:00]βNow we're more into boxing, would you see yourself getting away from the bars in there?β
[00:00]βReally. I want to get a job in a bar. Do you have any jobs for a manager?β
[01:40]βNow he starts to list the sales numbers for each bar.β
[00:20]βto go and meet at the bars on Street 7 so I went there, I go up there, hmm, why aren'tβ
Complete 85-video catalogue
Every video on the channel with link, theme classification, and UK-offence mapping. Full per-video deep-dive on /attacks/odysee-catalogue.
What the channel actually looks like
Screenshots of the @Soi6Whistleblower channel's content grid, captured from Odysee. Every thumbnail is a separate video targeting Bryan Flowers and his family by name. Thumbnails use inflammatory text overlays (βI PAID 100,000β, βHE'S STILL LOSING MONEY ON NEWSβ, βRUBBISH RETURNSβ, βI WANTED TO BUILDβ, βFAMILY MAN TO SUPER PREDATORβ) and photographs of Bryan, his wife, and his staff taken in normal business contexts. Click any image to view full size.
Every thumbnail uses Bryan's or his family's image alongside fabricated criminal allegations as the overlay text. There is no public-interest justification for this aesthetic β it is designed for maximum reputational damage. Odysee was notified of this channel in a formal DSA Article 16 notice on 22 April 2026.
What readers of this page can do
If you are a journalist, regulator, lawyer, or member of the public encountering this evidence, the following routes are open:
- UKOfcom regulates Odysee under the UK Video Sharing Platform regime (Communications Act 2003 Part 4B) and from 2026 under the Online Safety Act 2023 Part 5. Public complaint route at ofcom.org.uk.
- UKICOenforces the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR. The doxing of Bryan's minor son is a notifiable breach. Report at ico.org.uk.
- EUDSA Article 16β Odysee must respond to the formal notice already filed. If they do not, the complaint can be escalated to Odysee's designated EU representative and to the relevant Digital Services Coordinator.
- USFBI Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) accepts cyberstalking and child-doxing reports at ic3.gov. The 18 USC Β§2261A and COPPA elements should be cited.
- USFTC for the COPPA violation specifically β FTC has primary enforcement.
- ThaiRoyal Thai Police / DSI: Howell already convicted of criminal defamation 28 August 2025 with three further pending criminal cases. Channel content is evidence in those proceedings.
Related Documentation
Odysee Channel Analysis β
Higher-level analysis + platform warning
85-Video Catalogue β
Pure data table with all videos and offences
24 Screenshots of Video Platforms β
Visual evidence across YouTube, Rumble, Odysee, BitChute
Platform Complicity β
Named Odysee executives who received notice
Howell Admits Paying Drummond β
Direct admission financial motive
Adam Howell Profile β
Convicted criminal defamer; channel operator
Catalog of 65+ Lies β
Specific false claims propagated via Odysee
Legal Framework β
All UK + EU legal context for the campaign