Claims and the record

Claims about my control of bars run through all 25 of his article pages about me, as catalogued on my evidence site (drummondhowellcampaign.com/articles).

My statement sets out my position under “My background and withdrawal from the bars”, “My financial position” and “The nature of the establishments” (full statement). It says: I withdrew from routine management and left the relevant group conversations around 2018. It also says: Night Wish was originally the name of our first bar. It subsequently became an umbrella promotional identity used by multiple establishments. It should not be assumed that the use of that name established my personal ownership or day-to-day control of every individual venue. And: The establishments operate as bars, generating revenue from drinks and hospitality.

I do not reproduce the messages here. He reports them in his article of 29 November 2025 (archived copy).

Later in the same article of 29 November 2025 he writes that, rather than deny sending the messages, I made copyright complaints. In his words, Flowers has made DMCA complaints (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) claiming that use of the images by third parties without permission is illegal and breach of copyright. My statement says of those complaints: Those complaints were attempts to secure removal of material I disputed. Their actual wording and circumstances should be considered before drawing conclusions about authorship.

My statement also says: I also dispute the authenticity of private messages and recordings attributed to me. And: I do not remember making these statements, do not recognise the alleged conversations and believe material circulated about me may have been fabricated, altered, selectively presented or incorrectly attributed. (full statement, “The disputed messages and recordings”)

Mr Drummond names Mr Howell as his source: After publishing a story about the forthcoming libel case, we were contacted by Howell who unloaded his files. (his article of 2 December 2025 · archived copy)

In frame 2 of the screenshots published on my evidence site (drummondhowellcampaign.com/evidence/paid-to-troll), the message shown as from Mr Howell says of Mr Drummond that he is the only one willing to attack without asking questions, he puts all my shit out there, even if it's obvious I made them.

Mr Drummond's article of 1 September 2026 says of a conversation between Mr Howell and another person: Below is an example of a fabricated conversation between Adam Howell and another person, apparently designed to suggest that the author lacks ethics and acts only for money. (his article of 1 September 2026 · archived copy)

I dispute that description; the screenshots are published in full so that readers can judge for themselves.

Both of his sentences give the sum as my words, but he describes their source differently: in May 2025, communications shown to this site; in July 2025, a memorandum to foreign investors. Later in the same July article he gives the phrase, from messages he says Howell produced, as 'down to corrupt police'.

My statement says: I categorically deny paying or authorising bribes to judges, police officers or other public officials. And: Any allegation that particular expenditure constituted bribery should be supported by identifiable transactions, recipients, dates and original records. (full statement, “Allegations of bribery and witness interference”)

He uses the name “Professor Monger” for me in 6 of the 25 article pages (5 of the 20 distinct pieces) catalogued on my evidence site (drummondhowellcampaign.com/articles). Professor Monger is a persona on the Belts of Mongering website, archived since July 2023.

The same article carries an image caption that reads: From Belts of Mongering- 'Is Mongering a Religion?' -by Bryan Flowers. That caption puts my name to a piece from the Belts of Mongering website. I did not write the Belts of Mongering website, and I did not write that piece.

Hosting a website is not writing it. My statement says: A technical association with an email address, domain or server does not establish the identity of the person who authored content published through that infrastructure. (full statement, “Professor Monger and Belts of Mongering”)

On 23 February 2026 the Pattaya Provincial Court ruled in my favour in civil defamation proceedings over statements published about me in May 2024 and awarded me 50,000 baht in damages with interest; Mr Howell is appealing. The award and the appeal were reported by Mr Drummond on 23 February 2026; the other details are from the judgment, which can be made available through my legal representatives.

In the paragraph before it, in the same article, he writes that the court ordered Howell to pay 50,000 Thai baht damages to Flowers. He goes on to argue, by comparing the award with the sum he says I claimed and with the legal costs, that I was out of pocket overall. More on both rulings is on The two court rulings.

On 27 August 2025 a Pattaya court found Mr Howell not guilty on the public-libel count and guilty on one count of third-party libel; he received a six-month suspended sentence and an 18,000 baht fine, and has appealed. The verdict, the fine, the suspended sentence and the appeal were reported by Mr Drummond in an article published on 28 August 2025; the two-year suspension period is recorded in the judgment, which my legal representatives can make available.

That article of his is datelined Pattaya, 27 August 2025 (archived copy). In his article of 2 December 2025 he also writes: Howell paid an 18.000 baht (US$562) fine and has lodged an appeal. (his article of 2 December 2025 · archived copy) More on both rulings is on The two court rulings.

The label appears, as “Soi Six Mafia”, “Soi 6 Mafia” or “Mr. Soi Six Mafia”, in 10 of the 25 article pages (7 of the 20 distinct pieces) catalogued on my evidence site (drummondhowellcampaign.com/articles). In a later article he describes it as a joke: Flowers had frequently boasted on YouTube about his empire and even joked that at the local police station he was referred to 'Mr. Soi Six Mafia'. (his article of 13 February 2026 · archived copy)

My statement addresses this under “Historical interviews”: I would welcome the complete original interview so that the precise wording and context can be established. (full statement)

These three figures, all his, differ from one another. The first two are given in describing the same case, the Flirt Bar case that followed the police raid of 2023. My own figure for the business before Covid is in my statement, under “Business size, recruitment and financial figures” (full statement).

Of the 'sex rooms' and the bar-brothels he controlled in his sentences, my statement says of the upstairs rooms: These rooms are provided as sleeping accommodation for staff. Their existence does not establish that the premises were intended to operate as brothels. And of the establishments that used the Night Wish name: It should not be assumed that the use of that name established my personal ownership or day-to-day control of every individual venue. (full statement, “My background and withdrawal from the bars” and “The nature of the establishments”)

Later in the same article he gives the figure differently: with 57 per cent quitting within the first month. A rate “per month” and a rate “within the first month” are different measures.

My statement says that I cannot independently verify the historical recruitment figures, employee numbers, retention rates or financial calculations without examining the underlying records, and: I was not responsible for day-to-day recruitment or payroll arrangements. (full statement, “Business size, recruitment and financial figures”)

My statement says: My late business partner was also involved in its ownership. The forum grew into a substantial online community, with moderators and technical administrators undertaking its routine management. Although I retained backup technical administration access, I have not been an active contributor for years. I cannot reasonably be held personally responsible for every opinion or statement published by individual forum members without evidence of my involvement in its authorship or approval. (full statement, “Pattaya Addicts”)

The investor in that article is Mr Howell. In the next paragraph the same article attributes the account to him: Waiting for him downstairs, he said, were the two Night Wish bosses. In a later article Mr Drummond again gives the account as what Mr Howell said: When he attended his welcoming party in Pattaya Soi 6 he said he was thrust into a room with three naked Thai women. He declined the offer. (his article of 29 November 2025 · archived copy)

My statement asks for the date, the participants and the supporting evidence before this allegation can be properly addressed (full statement, “Business size, recruitment and financial figures”).

The claim appears in 9 of the 25 article pages (8 of the 20 distinct pieces) catalogued on my evidence site (drummondhowellcampaign.com/articles).

My evidence site records my account of these releases (drummondhowellcampaign.com/lies, entry 100): staff working for me placed paid press releases in outlets of this kind.