Glossary
14 key legal and regulatory terms explained in plain English. Each term links to the position papers and site sections that discuss it in context.
Accuracy (IPSO Clause 1)
The first clause of the IPSO Editors' Code of Practice requires that publishers take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information. If an inaccuracy is published, a correction must be published promptly and with due prominence. Drummond's articles breach this clause in relation to dozens of specific false statements.
Paper #29 — IPSO & NUJ Ethics Audit →Defamation
The publication of a false statement that lowers the reputation of an identifiable person in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. In English law, written defamation is called 'libel'. Under the Defamation Act 2013, a claimant must also show that the publication caused or is likely to cause 'serious harm' to their reputation.
Paper #50 — Regulatory Roadmap →Defamation Act 2013
The primary UK statute governing defamation. Key provisions: section 1 (serious harm threshold), section 2 (truth defence — formerly justification), section 3 (honest opinion defence), and section 4 (publication on a matter of public interest). The Act codifies the Reynolds responsible journalism defence and modernises rules on online publication.
Paper #50 — Regulatory Roadmap →Dual-Site Mirroring
A tactic where the same defamatory article is published simultaneously on two separate domains — in this case andrew-drummond.com and andrew-drummond.news — to maximise search engine visibility and make removal more difficult. Two separate pages rank for the same search query, amplifying the reputational damage and making it harder for any one platform to suppress the content.
Paper #7 — Dual-Site Defamation →Editors' Code of Practice
The set of standards enforced by IPSO in the UK. Covers accuracy, opportunity to reply, privacy, harassment, intrusion into grief or shock, children, children in sex cases, hospitals, reporting of crime, clandestine devices, victims of sexual assault, discrimination, financial journalism, confidential sources, witness payments in criminal trials, and payments to criminals.
Paper #29 — Ethics Audit →Harassment (IPSO Clause 3)
IPSO Clause 3 prohibits journalists from engaging in harassment, intimidation, or persistent pursuit of an individual. Publishers must not publish material designed or likely to encourage others to harass. Drummond's 19-article campaign published over 14 months, combined with personal attacks on family members and staff, constitutes systematic harassment.
Paper #35 — Family Collateral Damage →IPSO
The Independent Press Standards Organisation — the independent regulator for most UK newspapers and magazines, established in 2014 following the Leveson Inquiry. It enforces the Editors' Code of Practice and can require publishers to print corrections and adjudications. Jurisdiction covers online publications by registered UK publishers.
Paper #29 — Ethics Audit →Letter of Claim
A formal legal letter sent before issuing court proceedings, required under the Pre-Action Protocol for Media and Communications Claims. It sets out the words complained of, their meaning, the harm caused, and the remedy sought. Cohen Davis Solicitors sent a 25-page Letter of Claim to Andrew Drummond on 13 August 2025 on behalf of Bryan Flowers. Drummond did NOT respond. An updated Letter of Claim was served on 18 February 2026.
Legal & Accountability page →Natural and Ordinary Meaning
In defamation law, the meaning a reasonable person would understand from the words used, taking into account any innuendo. A court assesses this meaning as a whole, not just individual phrases. The Letter of Claim sets out the natural and ordinary meaning of each of Drummond's articles — for example, that Bryan Flowers is a sex trafficker.
Paper #1 — Anatomy of a Vendetta →NUJ Code of Conduct
The National Union of Journalists' Code of Conduct sets ethical standards for NUJ members. Key provisions: obligations to produce accurate work, not fabricate facts, not distort the truth, protect sources, not intrude into private grief, and not produce material likely to lead to discrimination. Drummond's articles breach multiple provisions.
Paper #29 — Ethics Audit →Pre-Action Protocol
A set of procedural steps that claimants and defendants in UK defamation cases must follow before issuing court proceedings. Requires the claimant to send a Letter of Claim and gives the defendant an opportunity to respond with a Letter of Response. Failure to comply with the Protocol can be taken into account by a court when awarding costs.
Legal page →Public Interest Defence
Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 provides a defence where a statement is on a matter of public interest AND the defendant reasonably believed that publishing it was in the public interest. Crucially, the defendant must also show they acted responsibly — this requires verification, balance, right of reply, and other journalistic standards. The Letter of Claim argues this defence is unavailable to Drummond because his publications fail the responsible journalism test.
Paper #9 — Ethics Breaches →Serious Harm (Section 1 DA 2013)
Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 requires a claimant to show that publication has caused or is likely to cause 'serious harm' to reputation. For companies, serious harm means 'serious financial loss'. This threshold deters trivial defamation claims. The Letter of Claim documents specific reputational and business harm caused by Drummond's publications to Bryan Flowers' hospitality operations.
Paper #1 — Anatomy of a Vendetta →Truth Defence (Section 2 DA 2013)
Section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013 provides a complete defence to a defamation claim if the defendant can show that the statement complained of is substantially true. If the statement is false, this defence is unavailable. Cohen Davis argues that none of Drummond's defamatory allegations can be proved substantially true because they are based on fabricated or unverified claims from Adam Howell.
Paper #4 — The Unreliable Source →