Drummond's 9 May 2026 Email to Bryan's Former Solicitors

“Bryan ‘seems not to be proceeding with libel proceedings preferring to commission or construct himself a series of internet attack smear hubs’.”

The truth: The Pre-Action Protocol Letter of Claim was served on Andrew Drummond on 13 August 2025 (25 pages). An updated Letter of Claim was served on 18 February 2026 after Drummond’s only substantive reply (an unsubstantiated ‘wrong jurisdiction’ assertion) and after he published at least 10 further articles in the intervening period. Representation has since transferred to Defamation Guard Law; the matter is open and active. The public campaign record is a parallel right-of-reply exercise documented under legal guidance, not a substitute for proceedings.

“Drummond refers to Bryan in the context of ‘his involvement in the sex trade in Thailand’.”

The truth: Every iteration of this framing has been formally rebutted. UK ACRO and Royal Thai Police certificates confirm zero criminal record. Police records from Pattaya City, Banglamung, Tourist Police, and CSD confirm zero investigations against Bryan Flowers. Thai DBD shows lawful business registration. The Flirt Bar case (involving his wife Punnipa and staff) is under appeal with documented evidence of police coercion and the use of another person’s ID by the complainant. Bryan has not managed day-to-day bar operations since 2018.

“Adam Howell was ‘persuaded by Flowers to part with US$460,000’.”

The truth: This is a civil commercial dispute over an informal investment in the Night Wish Group — not a fraud or persuasion-by-deception event. The full financial framing, the lack of any criminal complaint by Howell on this point, and Howell’s parallel record as a serial crypto scammer (SuperDoge rug pull; DopeCoin pump-and-dump) are documented at the dedicated evidence page below. Howell was convicted of criminal defamation in Thailand on 28 August 2025 (6-month suspended sentence) and has fled to Dubai to evade three further criminal cases and one civil case.

“Howell ‘provided documentary and witness support to my articles’.”

The truth: Adam Howell is the SOLE source for all 21 Drummond articles — a single, convicted, partial source. Drummond himself admitted this in writing in his 2 December 2025 article (‘we were contacted by Howell who unloaded his files’). Audio recordings used to give the articles credibility were forensically analysed and found to contain at least 4 splice points (selective editing). There is no independent corroborating witness.

“‘A number of people have also come forward to describe how they have been put out of business by Flowers, a true internet warrior.’”

The truth: No names. No business names. No dates. No documents. No evidence of any kind. The claim is an unfalsifiable rhetorical assertion of the form Drummond habitually deploys when no sourceable fact exists. Bryan has not managed day-to-day bar operations since 2018; the framing of him as an ‘internet warrior’ putting others out of business has no factual anchor and is itself defamatory.

“‘Flowers has employed Pakistani agents from fivver.com’.”

The truth: This is invented. The campaign record and its associated source domains are operated by Bryan Flowers and his team. No Fiverr freelancers — from Pakistan or anywhere else — have been engaged to attack Andrew Drummond. The pattern of asserting an unverifiable foreign-agent boogeyman is consistent with the broader strategy of attaching racialised colour to bare assertions when no actual evidence exists.

“‘Flowers … created some 50 websites … to personally attack me’.”

The truth: The public record shows approximately 10 source domains, all of which have been openly consolidated into this single archive. The domains are listed by name and purpose on /about. None of them are anonymous, hidden, or coordinated through proxy agents. ‘Some 50 websites’ has no basis in fact and is contradicted by the public, named, openly-attributed source list this campaign maintains.

“‘A You Tube channel called ‘lyingsporran’ to personally attack me’.”

The truth: No such channel exists that is attributable to Bryan Flowers. Drummond offers no URL, no channel ID, no upload history, and no content reference. The bare assertion is contradicted by basic verification: anyone can check YouTube and confirm there is no Bryan-Flowers-operated ‘lyingsporran’ channel attacking Drummond.

“‘This doxing website www.andrewdrummondaddress.com’.”

The truth: Bryan Flowers does not own www.andrewdrummondaddress.com. Drummond produces no WHOIS record, hosting reference, screenshot, archive snapshot, or any evidence linking the domain to Bryan — because the link does not exist. The bare assertion that an unrelated domain belongs to Bryan, sent in writing to his former solicitors as if it were established fact, is precisely the kind of falsehood the rest of this page documents. (Drummond’s residence in Wiltshire is, in any case, something Drummond himself has openly disclosed across his own publications for years.)

“Bryan’s complaint to Wiltshire Police was ‘stamped ‘no further action’’.”

The truth: Drummond was formally INTERVIEWED by Wiltshire Police about the harassment campaign and officially warned. After the warning he escalated rather than desisting — he sent a fresh derogatory email to a third party (Nick Dean) containing false sexualised allegations and a false claim that police had ‘laughed’ at the complaint. That email was forwarded to the investigating sergeant. The 9 May 2026 email to former solicitors is the second documented post-warning escalation. Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, continuing course of conduct after police intervention is precisely the kind of pattern that strengthens a harassment case — the opposite of what Drummond’s framing implies. ‘No further action’ on one filing is not the end of a continuing matter.

“The site ‘seems to have been created at the time he was in your employ’.”

The truth: Drummond is correct — and this destroys his own framing. By conceding that the campaign-record site existed while Bryan was under legal representation, Drummond is admitting on the record that the documentation was not a renegade unilateral attack: it was prepared under counsel. That is the defining factual claim Drummond’s entire email is trying to undermine — and he concedes it in writing.

“‘Failure to answer will result in a statement to the SRA.’”

The truth: Using a threatened regulatory complaint to pressure solicitors into disclosing client information — or into confirming or denying a representation relationship — is itself coercive conduct. The Solicitors Regulation Authority exists to regulate solicitors, not to be weaponised by third parties against the clients they advise. The threat is documented here in writing and forms part of the harassment evidence pack.