The Wall of Lies

The truth

Bryan goes to the UK once a year with his children and is in Thailand most of the year. He maintains a known residential address, operates businesses openly, and has never been subject to any arrest warrant.

The truth

Bryan hasn't been involved in running any bars since 2018 and has never been involved in any news business. As a founder and investor in 10+ businesses, he doesn't work on any of them and has no direct control or involvement in any day-to-day operations.

The truth

The entrepreneur group is bigger than ever.

The truth

Bryan did not delete anything. He LOST long-standing Facebook accounts — including one he had held for fourteen years — following a mass-reporting campaign by Adam Howell aimed at several of his business pages. An account removed by a coordinated reporting campaign is the opposite of an account its owner deleted, and the difference is not subtle: fourteen years of contacts, business presence and personal history were lost, with real commercial and personal consequences. Drummond then reported that loss as though Bryan had wiped his own social media to conceal something — the same 'it is gone, therefore he is guilty' device recycled into an Odysee video titled 'Flowers Scrubs Social Media After Trafficking Raid', and run again in the 26 July 2026 Telegram article (see /evidence/drummond-telegram-allegation-july-2026, Claim 2).

The truth

Bryan has never been involved in such a project. This is a completely fabricated claim.

The truth

Andrew has stated this several times but it has never been true. There is no active investigation and no imminent arrest.

The truth

Bryan owed Kenot money at the time and didn't let him rot. Bryan was the first to visit, get a lawyer and arrange bail. Three people, including Bryan, put their hands in their pockets and paid themselves — there was no fundraising. Bryan put 30% of the money in: 800,000 baht for the lawyer and 800,000 for bail. No one paid judges and Bryan had nothing to do with Kenot skipping bail.

The truth

Everyone in the world who goes to Pattaya knows there are 1,000+ drinking bars. They do not make money from what customers do with the girls. The ladies make money directly from customers when they go on dates, and what happens between consenting adults is up to them. The bars make money from selling drinks, and barfines cover salaries.

The truth

FABRICATION

No such message was sent. The 'virgin' screenshots, like the other chat screenshots in these articles, were supplied by Adam Howell, a former investor convicted of criminal defamation on 27 August 2025. Howell's own messages, published with screenshots on this site, record a friend telling him 'Those fake screenshots you made are funny', to which he replied 'It's war bro', and record Howell writing of Drummond that he publishes what Howell supplies 'even if it's obvious I made them'. No original file, device, full conversation or metadata has ever been produced for any of these screenshots.

The truth

FABRICATION

Drummond messaged several people making this claim. The messages and screenshots he relies on are fabricated: like the other chat screenshots in these articles, they were supplied by Adam Howell, a former investor convicted of criminal defamation on 27 August 2025. No original file, device, full conversation or metadata has ever been produced for any of these screenshots.

The truth

Bryan has 203 domains and hosts tons of websites/forums for many people. Some were written for fun by several other people. Bryan has never written about sex with ladyboys. Andrew uses this to discredit Bryan with thousands of people.

The truth

Bryan has 203 domains and hosts tons of websites/forums for many people. Some were written for fun by several other people. Bryan has never written about sex with ladyboys.

The truth

FABRICATION

Bryan Flowers has never said on video that he bribes judges, police or officials. The actual source video Drummond points to is one Bryan himself made about rescuing a friend from a Thai prison: Bryan and three friends together raised ~800,000 baht for the lawyer and ~800,000 baht for bail; Bryan personally contributed ~400,000 baht toward the friend's legal expenses and another ~100,000 baht on release. Every baht went to the licensed lawyer or to the bail process — none of it to any judge or official. Drummond took a video about paying lawyers and spun it as 'admitting to paying judges', and additionally lied that Bryan made money from the rescue when Bryan in fact spent half a million baht of his own money on a friend in trouble. Layered on top, Drummond uses private voice notes supplied by Adam Howell, edited and stripped of context; forensic analysis of the recordings used to dress up the Drummond articles found at least 4 splice points. The harassment channel hosting the clip (@Soi6Whistleblower) is the same network that republished video of one of Bryan's children when he was 11. Howell is the sole source for the entire narrative — convicted of criminal defamation in Thailand on 27 August 2025 (6-month suspended sentence), in writing admitted to paying Drummond to attack Bryan, offering him a percentage of any future payout, and paying him extra to target his family, with three further criminal charges in Thailand for false allegations against other people; he left Thailand early in 2026 leaving his Thai debts unpaid. Separately, on the bribery hypocrisy: Drummond's Thai fixer Kanokrat Nimsamut Booth has bribed Thai immigration officials to obtain Bryan's visa status and a copy of his passport; Drummond himself has admitted to bribing Pattaya court staff; and his protected informant Ricky Pandora has openly discussed paying Thai police on YouTube, yet receives zero scrutiny from Drummond. The man accusing Bryan of bribery is — on his own admission — the one paying bribes.

The truth

FABRICATION

Bryan has been married for 15 years and with the same partner for 19 years; he has children. The '3,000 girls / no condom' invention is the kind of specific, untraceable, deliberately humiliating fabrication that does the work the 10 June 2026 'Soi 6 Mafia' flyer is built to do — a number designed to be impossible to disprove and easy to share, with the 'no condom' framing additionally implying a public-health risk to Bryan's own wife and family that no journalist with a working ethics standard would put in writing without evidence. Drummond produces no source, no audio, no message, no testimony — because none exists.

The truth

MISATTRIBUTION

'Professor Monger' is the persona of whoever writes the Belts of Mongering website, a site Bryan Flowers hosts, among more than 300 domains he holds and hosts for other people, but did not write and does not control (Lies #15 and #55). That site has used the name since at least 2023. Drummond took it from there in June 2025 and attached it to Bryan across his articles until search engines associated the two, and the 10 June 2026 flyer then presents it as a title Bryan demands. There is no sex cult. There is no membership. There is no statement by Bryan anywhere — in any chat, video, article quote or message — using 'Professor Monger' or 'monger god' of himself. The flyer bullet is a construction projected back as if it were a Bryan self-claim.

The truth

FABRICATION

None of the three screenshots is a message Bryan Flowers sent, and no such messages exist. (1) 'Vegas contacting you. Can you look after a girl for 20 days until shes 18 please', (2) 'Fresh pussy. Some managers can next week. But tomorrow. Need a nice guy' and (3) 'Can you bring a virgin please for us. It will help. Today or tomorrow. Need a nice guy' are fabricated screenshots in the same series as the 'virgin' material at Lie #12, supplied by Adam Howell, whose own chat records a friend telling him 'Those fake screenshots you made are funny' and his reply 'It's war bro' (/evidence/paid-to-troll). No sender account, recipient, thread, timestamp, device or original file has ever been produced for any of them. A screenshot of a chat can be produced by anyone in minutes; attributing an invented message to a named man and graphic-designing it onto a wanted poster is fabrication of evidence.

The truth

FABRICATION

False. Bryan is not curious about ladyboys, has no interest in ladyboys, and everyone who has spent time with him knows this. There is no source. The bullet exists on the 10 June 2026 'Soi 6 Mafia' flyer because Drummond and Howell believe humiliating sexual smears are an attack vector their audience will share, not because any underlying conduct exists. The post text on the Pattaya 365 'Soi 6 Mafia' post additionally highlights this bullet with a red underline and teases it as a forthcoming revelation 'in the hands of law enforcement' — an empty threat used in place of any underlying evidence.

The truth

FABRICATION

There is no such Telegram group, no such channel, no such membership. If a 'channel for child prostitution' existed, Howell — who positions himself in the letter as a confidential AHTD informant with insider access — would have produced the channel name, the join link, member identities, message content, screenshots, or any other concrete artefact. He has produced none of those things because none exist. The allegation is the sort of specific, untraceable, deliberately damaging fabrication that does the work the letter was built to do — a claim impossible to disprove on its face but devastating in any unverified summary.

The truth

FABRICATION

Bryan has never made this boast. The figure is invented. Bryan's actual documented spending in the Flirt Bar case is on lawyer fees, court costs, and bail bonds — none of which went to any judge or official, and all of which is consistent with normal legal defence costs in a contested Thai case currently on appeal. The 'boast' framing follows the same pattern as the prison-rescue video misrepresentation already documented at Lie #71: real, lawful legal-fee spending mischaracterised as bribery. Howell produces no friend, no recording, no message, no thread, no witness statement supporting the 'boast' framing.

The truth

FABRICATION

Bryan is not associated with the Hell's Angels gang. There is no documentation of any such association anywhere — in this letter, in Drummond's articles, in any Thai police record, or in any public source. The 'Hell's Angels' branding is added to inflate the threat level of the letter and to invite a particular kind of police interest. Howell produces no name, no incident, no photograph, no chapter, no patch sighting, no document for the alleged gang association — because none exists.

The truth

FABRICATION — and absurd on its face. Bryan Flowers is a British national from Coventry. He cannot 'illegally enter' the country of which he is a national. A British citizen has the right of abode in the United Kingdom under Section 2 of the Immigration Act 1971; the concept of 'illegal entry' does not apply. That the letter to the Thai AHTD Commander contained this claim — a falsehood any junior fact-checker could falsify in seconds — is itself revealing about the standard of fact-checking applied to Howell's material before it reached the police, and (in parallel) before it reached Andrew Drummond and was republished across his archive.

The truth

FABRICATION, AND ANSWERED IN PUBLIC SIX WEEKS BEFORE IT WAS PUBLISHED

The letter was not leaked to anyone. Bryan Flowers' Thai lawyers applied for it formally and obtained it through the proper channel available to a person who is the subject of a complaint — the route that exists so that an accused person can answer what is alleged against them. Disclosure to the accused is not a leak. The letter, together with that stated provenance ('obtained via Bryan's Thai counsel'), was published in full on this site at /evidence/howell-ahtd-letter on 11 June 2026, with a line-by-line rebuttal; Drummond wrote on 26 July 2026 that police had leaked it. A man secretly warned by corrupt officers does not publish the warning document himself, under his own name, in its entirety. Separately: no officer of the Central Investigation Bureau, the Anti-Human Trafficking Division, Pattaya police, Bangkok police or any other force has at any time contacted Bryan Flowers about a complaint of this kind — not in person, not by telephone, not through an intermediary, and not through his lawyers. There was no tip-off. This is not a peripheral detail but the narrative engine of the entire 26 July 2026 article: every subsequent paragraph depends on the reader accepting that a warning was received and acted upon. The claim also carries an internal contradiction the article never addresses — it requires the same force to be corrupt enough to leak a confidential complaint to its subject, and functional enough to have received, understood and processed it, while producing no case file, no summons, no interview, no seizure and no charge.

The truth

FABRICATION

There is no secret Telegram account and there never was one, so there was nothing to take down. Bryan Flowers has exactly one Telegram account. Its username is identical to his LINE username — he chose the same handle on both applications when he opened them and has never changed it on either — and that account is open today and has been continuously since creation. The claim is not merely unsupported; it is falsifiable by anyone who has ever messaged him on either platform, which over more than a decade in Pattaya includes a large number of people, among them people hostile to him.

The truth

FABRICATION

The handles in those screenshots are not Bryan Flowers' handle. They do not match the username he has used on Telegram since the day he signed up — the same one he uses on LINE. Two impersonation profiles are involved. On Telegram, display names and profile photographs are chosen freely by whoever creates an account; neither establishes identity. The username is the identifier that matters and it is the one that does not match. Drummond holds the screenshots and is therefore the one person able to place the handle he published beside the handle Bryan has used publicly for over a decade and demonstrate they are the same. He has not, because they are not. Separately and secondarily: Telegram permits any user to be added to a group by another person without consent or prior notice, so a member-list screenshot evidences neither joining, posting nor viewing — but the primary point stands, which is that the accounts are not his.

The truth

UNVERIFIED AND UNFALSIFIABLE BY DESIGN

Bryan Flowers has never been contacted by TICAC and knows of no such investigation — no approach, no interview, no summons, no request for devices, no correspondence at any point. The claim gives no reference number, names no officer, and attaches no date. It follows the established pattern across this campaign of announcing investigations that are always at a preliminary stage, always awaiting authorisation from an unnamed authority, and never produce an observable step. Set it against the actual record: substantially the same allegations were put to the Pattaya police, the Bangkok police and the Anti-Human Trafficking Division across roughly two years, and no charge has been brought against Bryan arising from any of them.

The truth

THE ARTEFACT DOES NOT SUPPORT THE HEADLINE, AND THE CAPTION CONCEDES IT

Drummond published two screenshots. His own caption beneath them reads: 'Both contain adult porn and drugs groups but only the [name redacted — one of the two accounts; this site does not reproduce that identifier] group shows groups with child sexual abuse material.' By his own description, therefore, one of the two images he published contains no such material at all — adult pornography and drugs groups — and was published anyway beneath a headline about paedophile networks. As to what the images are: they are directory listings, lists of group names of the kind any Telegram user sees when browsing. They are not conversations, not media, and not member lists. A listing establishes what a group is called; it does not establish the group's contents, who posted to it, who read it, or whether the person named in the article was ever in it. As to what is visibly on them: a number of the listed groups carry 18+ designations — the platform's own adult-content label, applied to age-restricted material. That label is the opposite of the allegation, because child sexual abuse material is not age-gated on any platform; it is removed, which is what Drummond says elsewhere in the same article happened to these groups. As to what is absent: nothing visible refers to minors, children or ages, and nothing refers to sale, purchase or trade — notable because 'trading' is the article's own characterisation of what the groups were doing. The group names are publicly recognisable as very large adult groups; no access is required to establish that and none is claimed.

The truth

A SCRAPE CANNOT DO THIS, AND NO SCRAPE HAS BEEN PRODUCED

Scraping collects what is publicly visible — display names, usernames, group titles, whatever a page renders. Establishing that two accounts are operated by the same person requires platform-side records: registration data, the phone number an account was created with, device identifiers, IP history and session logs. Telegram holds those records and releases them to law enforcement on legal process and to nobody else. No journalist and no private individual can obtain them, and no scrape approaches them. Separately, nothing has been produced: no method, no date, no author, no tooling and no output — nothing a reader could check or an expert could test. It is the same pattern as the other evidentiary assertions in the campaign, in which the existence of material is described rather than the material shown. The handle mismatch is also untouched by it: a scrape cannot make an account belong to a person whose actual usernames do not match it.

The truth

TWO LAWFUL ADULT BUSINESSES ARE PLACED BESIDE A CRIMINAL ALLEGATION AND NOTHING IS SUPPLIED TO CONNECT THEM

A friend was starting a business selling used underwear between consenting adults and asked Bryan Flowers for help marketing it; he gave that help and covered it openly on his own YouTube channel at the time, under his own name and while it was happening. The friend then decided not to proceed and the business never launched. Selling used underwear between adults is lawful in Britain and in Thailand. The escort website is one adult site among a large portfolio of websites he promotes and invests in, in which he holds a small interest; it is lawful adult commerce. Neither has any relationship to the allegation in the headline and the article supplies no connection, because none exists. This is distinct from the hosting position at Lies #15 and #55 — hosting a domain whose content is written and controlled by another person is one thing, holding a small stake in a lawful adult business is another, and neither is criminal. The method depends throughout on readers not distinguishing 'adult' from 'illegal'.

The truth

THE EPISODE BEING USED AGAINST HIM IS THE ONE IN WHICH PEOPLE WERE FED AND KEPT IN WORK

Thailand closed its bars for the better part of two years. Around 300 women lost their income overnight with rent still falling due. What was set up in response was not adult webcam work: the women made YouTube videos and interacted with customers online for support. It was lawful, ran openly on YouTube where anyone could watch it, kept hundreds of people in work through the closure, and stopped when the bars reopened. Alongside it roughly 1,000 meals a day were handed out to people in the area with no work. The article separately uses a photograph of Bryan Flowers presenting fruit to officials at a Pattaya News event as proof he uses the publication to promote himself; his own businesses were shut at the time, and those appearances formed part of a campaign run with his wife Punnipa petitioning for the bars to reopen so that thousands of workers in the city could earn again — a campaign that contributed to their reopening. On the publication itself: Bryan Flowers has no legal ownership of it and no involvement in it; the Thai side is run by his wife, who is one of its owners, being closer to a charitable venture than a business.

The truth

THE CHAIN BREAKS AT THE FIRST LINK

The identification runs in three steps: a post on the adult-industry forum GFY.com under a handle rendered 'Asian Panties'; that post allegedly asking for replies to a Telegram account; and that Telegram account allegedly being Bryan Flowers. The first step is wrong. 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. A post that is not his cannot demonstrate which Telegram account is his. As to method, the article states the identification was made by putting the question to an AI - 'Ai came back with this' - in the same article that dismisses this site's response as a '15,000-word AI-assisted ramble'. A language model has no access to account registration data, device identifiers, IP history or post revision logs; it produces plausible text about what it is shown, and nothing it returns can establish who operated an account. The claim that impersonation is 'Impossible' is an assertion about what platform records would show, and those records are held by GFY.com and Telegram, not by him. He has produced none of them.

The truth

FABRICATION

Bryan Flowers did not contact media in Colorado Springs and did not tell anyone he was an investigative journalist. The claim appears in three different forms, each thinner than the last. First, the Colorado Springs sentence itself in the 22 May 2025 article, alongside that article's own summary of an alleged voice memo: 'He poses as a journalist to tell newsmen in Colorado, so tell them Exodus Road staff are scammers'. Second, in the 13 February 2026 article it has shrunk to ‘He’d even posed an investigative journalist to ring around sponsors of the NGO to say the same things.’ Third, in the 1 September 2026 article it survives only as an unsourced parenthesis: ‘(Flowers has admitted posing as an ‘investigative reporter’).’ No editor is named, no outlet beyond 'the media in Colorado Springs' is identified, no date is given and no email or recording is produced, in any of the three appearances, across sixteen months.

The truth

FABRICATION

There is no paid 'get out of jail' service. The case the articles are describing is one in which a Thai bail law firm was engaged; Bryan Flowers paid about a quarter of the bail and legal fees from his own money, and three friends paid the rest. There was no public fundraising and nobody made any money from it. The articles' own account keeps adding detail without ever supplying a document: 'In a YouTube video he confessed to paying 800,000 baht to get a Norwegian friend and investor out of prison in Bangkok', followed by 'But his reasons were not entirely altruistic. He made a profit.' A later article goes further still, that he ‘turned a profit acquiring the man’s car.’ No receipt, invoice, price list or paying customer has ever been produced for a 'service', in any of the four articles that repeat the claim.

The truth

MISLEADING

This is the one claim in this batch where the underlying mechanism is real and only the label attached to it is not. Staff working for Bryan Flowers placed paid press releases in outlets of this kind to counter the online defamation campaign. Paying to place a press release is ordinary commercial practice, it was paid for openly, and every factual statement contained in those releases was true. What is false is the characterisation built on top of that fact — described elsewhere across these nine articles as a 'false bio' rather than what it was: an accurate, paid-for release. A paid press release whose content is accurate is not a fake biography, and this site records the claim as misleading rather than fabricated for that reason: the payment happened, the placement happened, and nothing untrue was said in what was placed.

The truth

Adam would constantly send 4am rants to Bryan during COVID asking for money. One night Adam messaged asking for money about his lady friend's sick dog. When Bryan woke up, Adam said it was sorted. A week or two later the dog died and Adam told Andrew that Bryan caused it. But the girl who owned the dog posted on Facebook that it had been having problems for a while. The dog died after Adam raised millions on the SuperDoge NFT scam.

The truth

For the defamation case sentence, Bryan appealed it. Adam said Bryan did appeal, but then Adam didn't follow through on his side. The facts of the court proceedings directly contradict Drummond's account.

The truth

Adam was a regular Soi 6 customer until he started being violent towards the girls and trying to give illegal drugs to staff. He was a regular on bar crawls, often seen at bars with hostesses, and was well known at one point as a bar regular.

The truth

Andrew said Adam wanted payback for not getting paid (even though he was offered money), but later changed the narrative to Adam finding out about human trafficking and deciding to blow the whistle. The story shifted because the original motive was too obviously a personal vendetta.

The truth

Andrew Drummond himself originally wrote that Adam is NOT a habitual defender of human rights and women and children — one of the few truthful things he said. He also originally wrote that Adam's main focus was payback/revenge, not justice. He later deleted both statements.

The truth

Andrew Drummond's only source, Adam Howell — who has scammed multiple people in the crypto space — claims to have helped raise $500,000 USD to charity. But it was another scam.

The truth

Adam was in a 60,000 baht/month house during COVID. He was scamming NFTs. Where did the 2 million USD from crypto pump-and-dumps go? He had money for alcohol, video game subscriptions and purchases, women, and drugs. On photos of a Soi 6 girl's Facebook, there was new gym equipment, lots of protein powder, and a whiteboard with his NFT scams written on it. These photos were seen by Andrew, but he continued with the lies.

The truth

This wasn't true. He had money for alcohol, video game subscriptions, women, and drugs. Andrew saw evidence of this but continued with the lies.

The truth

What Drummond didn't mention is that Adam was very aggressive and threatening — the same behaviour he has shown with staff, investors, and partners of Scott and Rob. Adam Howell was trying to coerce Nick into an extortion scam against Bryan for money and threatened Nick that if he didn't join him, he would be attacked.

The truth

Adam was a customer of the bars. He had been drinking, taking girls, going on bar crawls before ever talking to Bryan about becoming an investor. He knew exactly what he was investing in.

The truth

This doesn't make sense at all. It was a defamation case against Adam, which Adam lost. There will be a civil defamation case for which Adam will have to pay compensation.

The truth

Adam Howell used video footage stolen from the CP Group and dubbed over vile lies about the Soi 6 bars. CP Group lawyers have been contacted with Adam's details because he claimed the child actors in their footage were trafficked.

The truth

Adam Howell (born 2 March 1982, Canadian) is not a whistleblower but a disgruntled former business partner. He is an alcoholic and ice user, addicted to video games, who hasn't worked for over a decade. He jumped on crypto pump-and-dumps (Dope Coin, SuperDoge). He currently owes his landlord 2-3 million baht — literally living off his retired landlord. He was convicted 27 August 2025 of criminal defamation (6-month suspended sentence) and has 3 criminal cases pending; on 23 February 2026 the Pattaya Provincial Court awarded Bryan Flowers 50,000 baht in damages with interest against him, and he is appealing.

The truth

Adam's false allegations including fraud have been dismissed due to zero evidence — just baseless lies from Adam Howell. Adam has also told police it was him who set up the bars, but it wasn't him. Andrew Drummond has been supplied evidence of Adam's confession and false police statements but refuses to acknowledge any of it.

The truth

Adam threatened to get the FBI onto Nick Dean and accused him of trafficking children — pure intimidation tactics to coerce people into his extortion scheme against Bryan.

The truth

FABRICATION

No gangsters were ever sent. No incident at Howell's residence occurred. What Bryan actually did was file lawful libel proceedings against Howell — proceedings Howell lost on the merits on 27 August 2025 when a Thai court convicted him of criminal defamation (6-month suspended sentence). The letter recharacterises lawful legal proceedings as physical intimidation — the same inversion pattern used elsewhere in the campaign to recast Bryan as the aggressor when he is in fact the complainant. Three further Thai criminal cases for false allegations are pending against Howell, and on 23 February 2026 the Pattaya Provincial Court awarded Bryan Flowers 50,000 baht in damages with interest against him; he is appealing.

The truth

The last investor Bryan had was in 2018. Everything is self-funded. Everyone who invested in the bars is still getting paid very well.

The truth

Bryan was renting a 3-bedroom house for 55,000 baht a month. Now he rents a 5-bedroom house for 55,000 baht a month (including gardener and maintenance). Bryan does not own the house he lives in. The Mercedes was financed before he met Adam Howell and paid off over 5 years.

The truth

Bryan has no access to the finances or money of the bars on Soi 6. He is paid transparently by the finance team, like everyone else.

The truth

Not one manager ever got an education visa from Rage. The visas were done in business partnership with Fight Visa/Fairtex — a completely separate arrangement.

The truth

When Adam Howell attacked Scott and Rob Dey all over the internet, they stopped offering his money back. The payments from the bars stopped to Adam at the same time due to COVID. Everyone had no income during COVID. The only reason Adam's payments never restarted was because of all the trouble, defamation, stress, extortion, and false allegations he had made against the bars he invested in.

The truth

Running an unregistered business, which is different from a licensed one, doesn't make something a criminal organisation. In the scheme of things, it is a minor administrative charge. Probably every bar and most restaurants and other establishments in Pattaya would qualify under this definition.

The truth

There are 4 groups on Soi 6, but the only focus for Andrew is the one that Bryan is a part owner of. He has also attacked two other group owners that Bryan is friends with.

The truth

The group was very diverse, with investors and managers from all around the world. Bryan and his dad are the only Brits involved, Bryan's dad has never been directly involved in controlling anything, and Bryan hasn't been involved since before 2018. There are no Brits controlling any of the bars.

The truth

This is made up by Drummond to try to get more interest from UK press. The managers were from all around the world.

The truth

The managers had been gone for years, minus one, and were unrelated to this entire situation. Departures were due to performance-related issues and problems they caused.

The truth

Andrew claimed this but removed it later — probably after his best friend Ricky Pandora told him it was wrong.

The truth

FABRICATED

Drummond invented this dollar figure in a Facebook comment ("Behind the News in Thailand" page) in reply to a reader asking whether investors get paid. No investor associated with Bryan has lost US$460,000. The only individual making payment-related allegations is Adam Howell — a convicted defamer who pleaded not guilty and was convicted on one count of criminal defamation (27 Aug 2025), faces 3 further criminal cases, has a civil judgment against him for Bryan Flowers (23 Feb 2026, under appeal), fled Thailand to Dubai in February 2026 leaving 5–6 million baht in unpaid personal debts, and has admitted in writing to paying Drummond to run this campaign. Every other person who invested in Bryan's businesses has been paid and continues to be paid. Drummond's last investor claim in an article was a different number again — the dollar amounts shift because they are made up.

The truth

FABRICATED

No individual has ever invested AUS$1,000,000 into any business Bryan is associated with. Drummond invented the figure in the same Facebook comment thread where he invented the US$460,000 claim (screenshot at /evidence/false-investor-claims). Bryan has not taken external investment since 2018 — all subsequent business activity has been self-funded. The only person publicly claiming to be an unpaid investor is Adam Howell, whose dispute is (a) a civil commercial matter affected by COVID, not fraud, (b) complicated by Howell's own conduct (convicted criminal defamer, harassing Bryan's staff and family, admitted paying Drummond to attack Bryan), and (c) documented in Position Papers #10, #45, #48. No AUS$1M investor exists.

The truth

MISREPRESENTATION OF A REAL DOCUMENT

The memorandum exists, and it says close to the opposite of what the article implies. It is an account of what the March 2023 raid COST the business: lawyers' fees, bail bonds, court costs, and trade lost while the matter was live. Where it refers to corrupt police, it identifies the CAUSE of those costs — not a recipient of them. The article inverts a record of money the business lost into a record of money the business paid out. This is the same manoeuvre already documented at Lie #71, where lawful legal expenditure was recast as bribery. Drummond has held this document and has never published it in full, with its date, author, recipients and complete text, so readers could assess the inversion for themselves.

The truth

UNVERIFIED

No document, ledger, bank record, recipient, date or witness is offered for this. It is an assertion about recurring monthly cash movements over a period of years — the kind of claim that, if true, would leave an extensive documentary trail, and which the article's own source (a former investor with access to the company's affairs) would be uniquely placed to evidence. Nothing is produced. This is the same 'the material exists' assertion pattern already documented at Claim 2 of the AHTD letter page, where bank accounts, financial transaction records and income statements were said to exist and were never shown.

The truth

The News of the World journalist who tracked down Gary Glitter in Vietnam in November 2005 was Dominik Lemanski. Lemanski confronted Glitter at his villa in Vung Tau, triggering the police investigation. It was NOT Andrew Drummond.

The truth

Drummond fled Thailand across the border over a decade ago because of many legal cases, most of which were defamation. He lied to other media and said he ran away because he was taking on big criminals and was under threat. The truth is he ran from legal issues. None of the other news outlets reported anything he wrote because there was no evidence.

The truth

Anyone in the world who is getting harassed, abused, or defamed in a smear campaign is going to complain and give their side of the story. If it were real, neutral reporting, there would be no action to take. But it's harassment and outright lies.

The truth

Drummond still has active legal cases against him, and new ones over the years. He went after senior Thai police, Deputy Prime Ministers, His Royal Majesty the King, and powerful members of the Thai military. The attacks against His Royal Majesty the King have been deleted, but screenshots exist.

The truth

Analysis shows duplicated quotes, unverifiable endorsements, and a pattern of self-promotion. The testimonials page is built on fabricated praise.

The truth

Ricky Pandora has one of the dirtiest hands on bars in Pattaya, and he is Andrew Drummond's biggest informant. How does Andrew attack people for doing less than what his friend Ricky Pandora does? Andrew knew Pandora from the days he had sex with his gogo girls. Pandora describes himself as the 'Godfather of Pimps.'

The truth

Kanokrat Nimsamut Booth is Drummond's on-the-ground Thai fixer who collaborates in smear campaigns, evidence tampering, and official interference. She went to courts to feed information back to Drummond and has offered to help the Flirt bar cashier for free to cause more problems.

The truth

CONFIRMED BY DIRECT ADMISSION

Adam Howell has now admitted in a Facebook Messenger conversation that he pays Andrew Drummond to attack Bryan Flowers. In Howell's own words: 'I told him I will give him a percent', 'I paid him extra to drag Bryan's family and friends into it', and 'he's the only one willing to attack without asking questions'. What was previously an inference from pattern evidence is now direct first-person admission by the financier himself. See /evidence/paid-to-troll for the 5 chat screenshots in full.

The truth

FABRICATED

The campaign-record site and its associated source domains are operated openly by Bryan Flowers and his team. No Fiverr freelancers — from Pakistan or anywhere else — have been engaged to attack Drummond. The assertion was made in writing in Drummond's 9 May 2026 email to Bryan's former UK solicitors, accompanied by zero supporting evidence. The pattern of attaching racialised colour to bare assertions when no actual evidence exists is itself characteristic of the broader smear strategy documented across this site.

The truth

FABRICATED

A YouTube channel called Lying Sporran (@lyingsporran) does exist, but Bryan Flowers does not run it. What is fabricated is the claim that he does: Drummond offers no URL, no channel ID, no upload history, no content reference, and nothing connecting the channel to Bryan. The claim was sent in writing to Bryan's former UK solicitors in Drummond's 9 May 2026 email as if it were established fact.

The truth

FABRICATED

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 the 9 May 2026 email rebuttal documents. (Drummond's residence in Wiltshire has, in any case, been openly disclosed by Drummond himself across his own publications for years.)

The truth

SELF-DEFEATING

The article's own sentences close off its defence. It states the scans were 'taken over two years'; that 'considerable other material has been obtained including images. No laws have been broken in the process'; and that 'the CSAM groups here have already all been taken down by Telegram'. Taken together there are only two available readings. Either he believed the material was what he says it was — in which case a two-year collection exercise, the obtaining of images, and the publication of identifiable screenshots instead of a same-day report is indefensible on his own account. Or he did not believe it — in which case the gravest allegation he has published in nineteen months was made without belief in its truth. There is no third reading. The publication decision is the hardest part to explain: by his own statement the groups were already deleted before he published, so publication could not help anyone find, report or remove them. Note also that screenshots of a group's interior can only be taken from inside it, and that the article's own wording says Howell showed police 'groups he was in' — an admission of prolonged insider access that the article never examines. The self-certification 'no laws have been broken' names no force, no jurisdiction and no authority as having reviewed it.

The truth

SHE WAS ACQUITTED OF THE TRAFFICKING CHARGES, AND THAT IS THE COURT'S OWN DETERMINATION

Punnipa Flowers stood trial and was acquitted of the serious trafficking charges — the finding of the judges who heard the evidence. Andrew Drummond reported that acquittal himself, and this site records his doing so as correct (Claim 20 at /evidence/drummond-telegram-allegation-july-2026). She had no role in recruiting, managing or making decisions for the Soi 6 bars; the only thing she did was let customers use her bank QR code for some of them. She runs Rage Fight Academy and The Pattaya News Thai. To be precise, because precision is the point: a separate and lesser first-instance verdict was returned against her, and that matter is under appeal — it is recorded on this site at /evidence/pattaya-groups-incitement-may-2026 and is not a trafficking finding. Calling her a child trafficker is false, and it remains false whatever happens on that appeal.

The truth

Andrew has said this to try to get Bryan's wife to leave him. This is a deliberate personal attack designed to destroy Bryan's marriage, not journalism.

The truth

Punnipa Flowers is a real partner and owner of a gym, Muay Thai resort, fight gear brand, and news company. Drummond even admitted to reporting the companies to Thai authorities in an attempt to get them raided or shut down — which an unbiased journalist would never do.

The truth

This is an outright lie and part of the smear campaign against Bryan's family. Drummond also claimed Bryan's brother is involved in the bars — he has zero involvement. Going after most of Bryan's family is a deliberate harassment tactic.

The truth

Drummond paid to get a copy of Bryan Flowers' passport and posted it as intimidation. He also allegedly tried to cancel Bryan's passport. This is doxxing and harassment, not journalism.

The truth

Bryan's family HAVE received nasty messages from Adam Howell. This is documented harassment of private family members.

The truth

THE WORD THE CLAIM NEEDS, AND DOES NOT USE, IS TRAFFICKING

The accurate position has three parts and this site gives all three, including the two that are less convenient than a flat denial. First, Punnipa Flowers was ACQUITTED of the serious trafficking charges - the determination of the judges who heard the evidence, and an acquittal Andrew Drummond reported correctly himself, recorded on this site as correct at Claim 20 of /evidence/drummond-telegram-allegation-july-2026. Second, a separate and lesser first-instance verdict was returned and is under appeal; this site has recorded that openly since May 2026 at /evidence/pattaya-groups-incitement-may-2026 and has never suggested it did not happen. It is not a trafficking finding. Third, 'recruited girls' is false: she had no role in recruiting, managing or making decisions for the Soi 6 bars, and her businesses are Rage Fight Academy and The Pattaya News Thai. The claim reaches for a lesser verdict that is under appeal and presents it as though it vindicated the accusation the court rejected.

The truth

It was already a known fact that there was no underage girl found in any raid. The girl used another person's real ID. She was the tallest in the bar. Police wrote 38 identical statements. She lived outside the bar with her Thai boyfriend. Police threatened her to claim trafficking. The case was illegal because police gathered no evidence themselves. The Exodus Road accepted all evidence. The case was moved to Bangkok courts due to lack of evidence.

The truth

Bryan's wife was never at the business — she only had her name on the QR code. The people jailed worked at the bars daily. The cashier discovered the girl lied about her age. Everyone on Soi 6 knows Bryan's wife was never involved in bar operations.

The truth

There is no human trafficking in Pattaya's Soi 6. All ladies choose to do this job. Soi 6 has thousands of customers every week, and none have ever met an underage girl or a trafficked one. You would have to be totally insane to employ an underage lady — the risk is massive. Bryan's bars had a strict 18+ policy and zero issues in 12 years, with over 800 ladies at any one time.

The truth

The Exodus Road planted someone in Flirt bar. The girl who used the false ID was the tallest in the bar. She refused to go back to the bar for the raid. The cashier who discovered the girl's real age kept quiet and has been working with police since. She missed every hearing. Even The Exodus Road have ignored Adam's pleas to go after Bryan Flowers.

The truth

Scott was with his wife way before the bar group was started, and she was NOT from Soi 6. Drummond is trying to ruin another person's reputation. It is a common trend for Andrew to target and insult people's wives.

The truth

Nick was sent a YouTube video link by Adam Howell that was first public, then changed to unlisted. It doesn't make any difference if it was listed or unlisted — it was still accessible and shared. Adam sent the link to several people to threaten and extort Bryan Flowers.

The truth

It was Drummond who sent the trafficking case verdict from the first court to The Sun and many other newspapers. Only The Sun accepted it. The details were wrong. William Bilton maintains his innocence and is appealing. The complainant retracted her trafficking claim in court and has made several statements since. It is an absolute tragedy for everyone involved, including William's mum and brothers.

The truth

FALSE

There is no perjury charge, no perjury finding and no perjury proceeding against any of these four people, in any court, anywhere. The proceeding the article alludes to ended in the criminal defamation conviction of Adam Howell on 27 August 2025. Accusing four named people of a criminal offence for which none has been charged, let alone convicted, is itself defamatory — and it fits an established pattern rather than being a new departure. Attacking the named witnesses in the civil case is documented at /evidence/witness-intimidation, where Fernando, Nick Dean and Chris B have each already been targeted on the public record.

The truth

112 accounts were created to attack Bryan Flowers and several other people on Quora. These are coordinated fake accounts seeding questions like 'Is Bryan Stephen Flowers the owner of Night Wish Group?' and 'How much does Bryan Flowers bribe Pattaya police?' Account names identified include Kevin McIntosh, Jelena, and Kurdas Milly.

The truth

Drummond created subreddit r/pattayanews specifically to harass victims. Uses 'The next crusade' as main account with cartoon avatar, plus 'Working-Marsupial-95' and multiple other accounts. Posts identical content across platforms using blackhat SEO tactics.

The truth

84 videos created across YouTube, Odysee, Bitchute, Rumble, and PeerTube that harass and abuse several people. YouTube channel was banned for 'violation of various YouTube harassment policies.' Rumble account was also banned. Videos contain false information, doxxing, and Thai language translations for maximum harm.

The truth

FABRICATED AND DEFAMATORY

A forum post bearing this headline has surfaced in Google Web search results, sourced to the TripAdvisor Japan Forum. The snippet reads 'As of April 2026, the case of Bryan Flowers remains one of the most controversial examples of legal evasion within the Thai justice system.' There is no case. There is no arrest to avoid. There is no 'legal evasion' — Bryan has never been charged with any offence, lives at a known address, and is available through legal counsel. The label 'child pimp' is a criminal allegation made without a shred of evidence; it is word-for-word the same category of smear that Drummond and Howell propagate on andrew-drummond.com, Odysee (@Soi6Whistleblower) and Quora. Posts like this are typically removed by TripAdvisor within days, but the Google cache and search snippet persist for months, poisoning search results. This is the 'ephemeral forum' tactic — plant a defamatory claim on a high-authority host so Google indexes it before the platform deletes it. Part of the same coordinated multi-platform smear machine documented across /attacks/quora, /attacks/reddit, /attacks/facebook and /attacks/videos.

The truth

It was already proven and well known that the English guys started the problem. They were barely injured, and it wasn't Bryan's bars or security.

The truth

None of the three incidents were related to Bryan's bars. Andrew and Adam used false accounts to spread the word that Bryan's bars were involved, creating a lot of hate at the time. They keep repeating this in articles, which shows Andrew knowingly lies.

The truth

FABRICATION

There have never been physical threats made by anyone on Bryan Flowers' side, and there has never been any intimidation from his side. The 23 February 2026 article's central apartment-threat allegation is printed with its own caveat attached — ‘but not confirmed by a second source, it is alleged that Flowers and two named ‘friends’ actually threatened him at his Pattaya apartment’ — and is then published and headlined regardless of that caveat. The 'security force' language elsewhere in the campaign describes Night Wish Security, an ordinary door and security-staff operation for the bars, of which the same article says only that ‘several of them’ were ‘members of biker gangs’ — a description of some doormen's other associations, not of the business. The 'blackshirt' label is a single anonymous former employee's word for a uniform, not a documented paramilitary designation.

The truth

THESE ARE HIS OWN WORDS, TWO DAYS APART, ABOUT THE SAME CONDUCT, AND THEY CANNOT BOTH STAND

On 26 July 2026 Andrew Drummond certified to his readers that no laws had been broken in obtaining his material. On 28 July 2026, explaining why his investigation went no further, he wrote: 'It is illegal to join these groups.' In the same 28 July article he tells readers the material comes from a source who was inside those groups taking screenshots across a two-year period — his 26 July article described the images as 'two of many scans taken over two years'. If joining is unlawful, then two years of insider access is not an investigation and requires an explanation that has never been offered, by a person who has never been identified as having done it and who never reported anything to any authority. If joining is not unlawful, his stated reason for stopping is untrue. No third reading is available. He is not accused here of anything; he is quoted, and both statements are dated and in writing.

The truth

THE DESCRIPTION IS TECHNICALLY ACCURATE AND MATERIALLY MISLEADING BY OMISSION

The 28 July 2026 article rests, in Drummond's own description, on Adam Howell's records, and describes him to readers as a defrauded investor. It does not tell those readers that a Thai court convicted Howell of criminal defamation on 27 August 2025 for these same allegations against this same person; that three further criminal cases are pending against him on the same fact pattern and that on 23 February 2026 a civil court awarded Bryan Flowers 50,000 baht in damages with interest against him, which he is appealing; that among the pending charges are ones arising from making false allegations to police; that he has left Thailand for Dubai; or that he was recorded in writing offering payment for this campaign to be run, including extra to target the family. Every one of those facts bears directly on the reliability of the source, and not one appears. A reader given only 'investor who lost money' cannot assess what they are being asked to believe.

The truth

THIS IS HIS FOURTH ACCOUNT IN SIX WEEKS OF WHO HANDLED THE MATERIAL, AND IT CANNOT STAND WITH THE OTHER THREE

On 26 July 2026 he wrote 'These are two of many scans taken over two years' and 'Considerable other material has been obtained including images. No laws have been broken in the process.' On 28 July 2026 he wrote 'It is illegal to join these groups.' On 8 August 2026, in a Facebook comment since deleted, he wrote 'we sat on those for long time'. On 1 September 2026 he writes that all viewing was handled by those with authority. If that last statement is true, who spent two years taking scans, who obtained the images, and what did he sit on - given that sitting on material requires having it? 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 such material. He is not accused of anything: he is quoted, and all four statements are dated and were published by him.