“We Sat On Those For Long Time”
Andrew Drummond has spent nineteen months publishing allegations about Bryan Flowers, the gravest of which concern child abuse. In a public comment on his own Facebook page, posted under his own name and marked Author, he described what he did with those allegations. He said he sat on them.
What he wrote, in full
The comment is reproduced below exactly as written, including his spelling. It carried thirteen reactions and one share.
“I hope so 😂 But we have identified major problem with CIB in Thailand and this is maybe for a subject for the NAAC National Anti-Corruption Commission or DSI Department of Special Investigations, both of whom unfortunately have restrictions on their work load and can't just take on investigations through ‘gut reaction’..
Unfortunately the DSI is being seen more for what it is not doing in relation to scam centres, human traffcking etc. The NAAC does have a section specifically dealng with foreigners who have been affected by corruption. In terms of transparency there may be a problem in Thailand unless the order comes down from the P.M. So in that respect this subject will soon have to go mainstream.
In terms of the child abuse allegations., we sat on those for long time having notified police (UK) and Thai Cyber Crime (but Cyber Crme comes under CIB s department which has was regularly exposed for corruption candals during my tenure in Thailand. So there is a point to this all. How it will end remains open ended.”
“NAAC” appears to be a misspelling of the NACC, the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Quoted verbatim.
Both images are reproduced unedited and uncropped. Nothing has been redacted, because the comment names no private individual.
Seven words that answer the whole question
“In terms of the child abuse allegations., we sat on those for long time”
Consider what that sentence requires a reader to accept about its author.
A person who believes he holds evidence that children are being abused does not sit on it. There is no framework anywhere — not in journalism, not in law, not in ordinary decency — under which the correct response to such material is to hold it. Every child-protection body that publishes guidance says the same thing in the same order: report it, then delete it, immediately. The Internet Watch Foundation puts it plainly, and this site quoted that guidance weeks before this comment appeared.
So the sentence forces a choice, and both branches belong to him:
If the allegations were what he says they are — material concerning the abuse of children — then he has now stated in public that he sat on them for a long time. That is not a defensible position for any journalist, and it is not one he can explain by pointing at anybody else.
If they were not — if there was never anything of the kind — then there was nothing to sit on, and the allegation he has built nineteen months of publication on was never what he told his readers it was.
There is no third reading. He is not being accused of anything here. He is being quoted, from a public post, under his own name.
This is now the third dated self-contradiction in a fortnight. On 26 July he certified that “No laws have been broken in the process.” On 28 July he wrote that “It is illegal to join these groups.” Now he adds that he sat on the material. Read together, his own account is that his source spent two years inside groups he says it is illegal to enter, that no laws were broken in the process, and that he then held the result. Those three statements cannot stand together, and all three are his.
The full analysis of the first two is at the Telegram allegation page.
By his own account, five forces have now held these allegations
The same comment contains a claim he has not made before: “having notified police (UK) and Thai Cyber Crime”.
This site takes that at face value. It is his claim, not ours, and we neither dispute it nor rely on it being true. But if it is true, it does not help him — it adds to a tally that was already the strongest fact on this website.
Substantially the same allegations have now, on the combined record, been placed before:
- Pattaya police — 2024, by Adam Howell
- Bangkok police — 2024, by Adam Howell
- the Anti-Human Trafficking Division — by Adam Howell, in the letter published here in full
- UK police — per Drummond's comment
- Thai Cyber Crime — per Drummond's comment
Bryan Flowers has never been interviewed, summoned, cautioned, arrested, charged or asked to attend by any of them, at any time. Not one question has ever been put to him about any of it, by any force, in any country.
That is a higher threshold than the absence of a charge. Across five separate forces, in two countries, over a period of years, with every one of them holding the power to act, the resources to investigate and no reason whatever to protect Bryan Flowers, nothing submitted has ever reached the point at which a single question was put to the man being accused.
An accusation built so that nothing can disprove it
Having established that five forces have done nothing, the comment supplies the reason. It is not that the allegations lack substance. It is that the police are corrupt.
He writes that Thai Cyber Crime “comes under CIB s department which has was regularly exposed for corruption candals during my tenure in Thailand”, and that he has “identified major problem with CIB in Thailand”.
Follow where that leads. If a force acts on his allegations, he is vindicated. If a force declines to act, that is evidence the force is corrupt — which he presents as further vindication. There is no outcome, and no piece of evidence, that could count against him.
That is not an investigative standard. It is the defining shape of a conspiracy theory: a claim insulated in advance from every possible refutation. A journalist treats the failure of five forces to act as information about the allegation. He treats it as information about the forces.
It is also worth noting which force he has chosen to accuse. The CIB is the same body he wrote about on 26 July 2026, when he told readers that its officers had leaked a confidential complaint to Bryan Flowers. That claim was answered six weeks before he made it — the letter concerned had already been published here in full on 11 June 2026, with its provenance stated on the page. In July the CIB was corrupt because it allegedly helped Bryan Flowers. In August it is corrupt because it has not acted against him. The accusation adapts; only the conclusion is fixed.
One further detail. He dates his knowledge of CIB corruption to “during my tenure in Thailand”. He left Thailand in January 2015. He is explaining the conduct of officers in 2026 by reference to scandals from more than a decade ago, in a country he has not lived in since.
What the rest of the comment concedes
“This subject will soon have to go mainstream.” After nineteen months and twenty-three articles, that is a concession that none of it has been picked up by any mainstream outlet. Not one has reported the allegations. The reason a story of this gravity goes unreported by everybody else is not usually that everybody else is corrupt.
“How it will end remains open ended.” His own closing words. No charge, no finding, no conclusion, after nineteen months of publishing that a named man with two young children is involved in the abuse of children.
“can't just take on investigations through ‘gut reaction’.” He offers this as an explanation of why the NACC and DSI have limited capacity. Read it again as a description of what he is asking them to act on.
“We”.The comment says “we” six times. Not “I”. We have identified. Wesat on those. Who the other parties are, he does not say — but his own 2 December 2025 article already told readers where his material comes from: “we were contacted by Howell who unloaded his files.”
And then there is what he is doing with it. He is not publishing evidence. He is canvassing which Thai state agency might be persuaded to open a file — the NACC, the DSI — and observing that in Thailand this may need “the order… from the P.M.” A journalist who has evidence publishes it and lets institutions respond. A person without evidence goes looking for an institution willing to supply the legitimacy the evidence does not.
He took it down
The comment is no longer there. It stood publicly on his own page for about a week, under his own name, marked Author, gathering thirteen reactions and a share. It was captured. Within hours of being captured, it was removed.
A man who deletes his own published words has made a judgement about them. Nobody removes a sentence they are comfortable standing behind. The deletion is not a neutral act of housekeeping a week after the fact; it is the author reading his own comment back and concluding it should not be readable.
It does not, of course, un-say it. The comment existed, it was public, and it is reproduced above in full. But the deletion tells you something the comment alone does not: he understood what he had written.
It is also a familiar pattern. This is the same author whose websites went offline in June 2026 and were re-hosted elsewhere, and whose earlier material has repeatedly been altered after publication. Material that is inconvenient does not get corrected with a note. It disappears.
He is invited to explain the comment. That invitation is open, it is not time-limited, and his response will be published here in full and unedited if he gives one. Deleting a sentence is not an explanation of it.
Three Facebook presences, one subject
The comment did not appear in isolation. Andrew Drummond maintains at least three separate presences on Facebook, each of which carries material about Bryan Flowers:
- Behind the News — facebook.com/profile.php?id=100063934576458
- The Flying Sporran — facebook.com/theflyingsporran
- A personal profile — facebook.com/andrew.drummond.395
These are listed so that a reader can check the record rather than take this site's word for it. They are his own public pages and no inference is drawn here about why there are three.
The relevance is one of scale rather than motive. Alongside the twenty-three articles across two websites, this material is also pushed through multiple social presences, and separately amplified across Quora, Reddit, X and TripAdvisor by accounts documented elsewhere on this site. The same allegations, about the same private individual, arriving from what looks to a casual reader like several independent directions.
That is the practical difficulty a person in Bryan Flowers' position faces, and the reason this archive exists. A single article can be answered once. The same claim republished across three Facebook presences, two websites and four other platforms cannot be — which is precisely what makes volume an effective substitute for evidence, and precisely why it is not one.
What this page does not say
- It makes no allegation that Andrew Drummond has committed any criminal offence, and none should be read into it. It sets his published words beside the record and leaves readers to draw their own conclusions.
- It makes no assertion about the existence or nature of any material he says he holds. This site does not know what he has, and will not claim knowledge it does not have.
- His claim to have notified UK police and Thai Cyber Crime is his claim. It is neither verified nor disputed here. It is taken at face value because the argument above does not require it to be untrue.
- Nothing here suggests the CIB, the NACC or the DSI have acted improperly in any respect. The observation is about the structure of his reasoning, not about any Thai institution.
- The comment is quoted verbatim, including spelling errors, and is not paraphrased or condensed anywhere on this page.
How this comment was obtained
This site states how it comes by material, including when the answer is imperfect.
The comment was captured by a third party from Andrew Drummond's public Facebook page and sent to Bryan Flowers. Two screenshots were provided, the second continuing the first, so the comment is reproduced in full above. In the screenshots the comment is timestamped one week old, is marked Author, and shows thirteen reactions and one share.
The comment was deleted within hours of being captured and is no longer publicly available. That is why it is published here as images rather than as a link: a link would now lead nowhere. Readers cannot verify it against the live page, and this site says so plainly rather than implying otherwise.
Bryan Flowers did not take the screenshots himself, and this page does not suggest he did. What is reproduced above is the whole of the comment as captured, unedited and uncropped, with nothing removed and nothing added.
Related Documentation
The Public Groups Problem →
The 26 and 28 July 2026 articles answered in full — including the two earlier self-contradictions this comment now joins.
The AHTD Letter, Published in Full →
The source document behind the allegations, published here on 11 June 2026 with its provenance stated.
Paid to Troll →
Adam Howell's written admissions that he paid for this campaign, including extra to reach the family.