Who Did the Viewing?

The new article states that neither he nor Adam Howell will need “the protection of ‘journalism’” because “all viewing has been handled by those with authority to do so.”

That is a clean answer to the question this site has been asking since July. It is also his fourth answer to it. Here is the whole sequence, in his own words, in date order.

Read them together and the questions answer themselves. If all the viewing was done by people with authority, who spent two years taking the scans? Who “obtained” the images? What, exactly, did he sit on for a long time — and how does a person sit on material he never had?

These are not four descriptions of one thing from different angles. They are four different things. Material obtained by him is not material viewed only by authorities. Sitting on it is not passing it straight to police. A source embedded for two years is not a hands-off referral.

The 1 September version is the first that would place him beyond criticism, and it arrives last — after this site set out, on 27 July, what the law says about collecting and publishing material of this kind. A position adopted only after the difficulty is pointed out, and irreconcilable with three earlier accounts, is not a clarification.

He is not accused of anything here. He is quoted. Every one of those five statements is his, is dated, and was published by him.

Establishing his own disinterest, the article says he takes no payment, has spent his own money, and helped Adam Howell relocate safely.

Consider what that sentence describes. Adam Howell was convicted of criminal defamation by a Thai court on 28 August 2025. Three further criminal cases and one civil case remain outstanding against him in Thailand, two of the criminal charges concerning the making of false accusations to police. He left for Dubai while those matters were live.

The author now says he helped with that relocation, and offers it as evidence of his good character. It is difficult to think of a clearer statement of the relationship between the two men — and it is not the relationship of a journalist to a source.

Consider also who was helping whom. Adam Howell is not a man short of money. He raised a reported thirteen million dollars in the SuperDoge token, which reached that market capitalisation within forty-eight hours of launch and is now worth effectively nothing. He demanded 155 million baht from Bryan Flowers. Whatever else is in dispute, nobody has suggested he lacked the fare to Dubai.

Andrew Drummond, in the same article, presents himself as the opposite: a man who takes no payment, who has spent his own money on this, and who helped fund another man's relocation out of his own pocket.

That does not fit together. A journalist without means does not pay to move a wealthy source beyond the reach of the courts hearing that source's cases. If Howell needed the money he would be the poorer man, and he plainly is not. If he did not need it, the payment was not charity, and the question of what it actually was becomes unavoidable.

And consider who was doing the helping. Andrew Drummond carries two Thai criminal defamation convictions of his own, both suspended, from before he left Thailand in January 2015. There are defamation claims outstanding against him now that he has never answered, and a Thai court has ordered his websites blocked inside the country.

There is also a warrant for his arrest in Thailand, in a defamation matter. This site states one, because one is what it can confirm. Bryan Flowers understands there to be more than one; until each is confirmed individually, only the confirmed warrant is asserted here. That is the standard this site applies to itself, and it is the standard the articles it answers do not apply at all.

Provenance. The warrant is stated on Bryan Flowers' account and is verifiable through his Thai counsel by any court, police force or journalist with a proper interest. This site does not publish the document itself, and says so rather than implying a filing it has not put in front of readers. If Andrew Drummond's position is that no such warrant exists, that is a matter he can settle in one sentence, and it will be published here in full.

So the position is this. A man subject to a Thai arrest warrant, who left the country in 2015 carrying two criminal defamation convictions and has answered none of the claims brought against him since, has now stated in public that he helped another convicted man leave that same jurisdiction while his cases were live — and paid towards it out of his own pocket, while describing himself as unpaid. He is not a disinterested observer of Thai legal process. He is a participant in it, on the wrong side of it, assisting somebody else to the same side.

His identification runs in three steps:

1. a post on the adult-industry forum GFY.com, under a handle he renders as “Asian Panties”;
2. that post, he says, asks for replies to a Telegram account;
3. that Telegram account, he says, is Bryan Flowers.

The first step is wrong, and everything after it falls with it. Neither the GFY.com account nor the post is Bryan Flowers'. He did not create that account, did not write that post, and has never used that handle.

Once that is so, the rest is arithmetic. A post that is not his cannot demonstrate which Telegram account is his — however confidently the inference is drawn, and however many times an AI is asked to confirm it.

A note on the handle, made once. This site has consistently refused to publish any Telegram identifier — not the impostor accounts and not Bryan Flowers' own — for the reasons given in the editorial note. Drummond has now published the account he attributes to Bryan Flowers, in full and repeatedly, so naming it once here in order to deny it adds nothing to its circulation. The account @somchaibusiness is not Bryan Flowers' account. He has one Telegram account; its username is identical to his LINE username, chosen when he opened both applications, never changed on either, and open today. It is not that handle, and it can be verified through his lawyers by any police force, platform or court with a proper interest. That is the only place this site will print it; the redaction rule stands everywhere else.