The Accountability Gap
Who Could Stop This, and Why No One Has
The honest answer is that most of the bodies a reader would expect to have authority do not have it.
Andrew Drummond is a self-publisher — not a regulated publication, and not a union member. That is why press regulation does not reach him. It is not a technicality: it is the reason the entire burden falls on private litigation, which is precisely what makes this campaign sustainable for him and expensive for everyone else.
IPSO — Independent Press Standards Organisation
No jurisdictionWhat you would expect: The UK press regulator. A reader who sees someone calling himself a journalist would expect IPSO to be able to rule on his conduct.
What is actually the case: No jurisdiction. IPSO regulates only publishers that have enrolled in its scheme. Drummond has not, so a complaint about his publications falls outside its remit. The clause-by-clause audit of his output against the Editors' Code stands as an analysis of conduct — it is not, and cannot become, a route to redress.
NUJ — National Union of Journalists
No jurisdictionWhat you would expect: The union whose Code of Conduct sets professional standards, and which can discipline or expel members who breach them.
What is actually the case: No jurisdiction. NUJ discipline reaches only its own members. Drummond is not one, so expulsion is not an available sanction and the Ethics Council has nothing before it to consider.
UK police forces and Action Fraud
Jurisdiction existsWhat you would expect: Criminal enforcement where a course of conduct amounts to harassment.
What is actually the case: Jurisdiction exists. Drummond publishes from Wiltshire, so he is within the reach of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and a sustained course of conduct against the same individuals is what that Act addresses. This is one of the few routes that is genuinely open.
Royal Thai Police and Thai courts
Limited reachWhat you would expect: The jurisdiction where the events described took place, and where the targets live.
What is actually the case: Limited reach. Drummond left Thailand in 2015. Thai process can address what happened in Thailand, but enforcing any outcome against a publisher who has physically left the jurisdiction is a separate and much harder problem.
Platforms, hosting providers and domain registrars
Limited reachWhat you would expect: Removal of material once they are put on notice about it.
What is actually the case: They act on notice, but they do not adjudicate. A host can remove a page; it cannot rule that a claim was false, and it has no obligation to explain a decision either way. Useful for takedown, useless for a finding.
The civil courts — Defamation Act 2013
Jurisdiction existsWhat you would expect: A binding finding on whether the published claims are true.
What is actually the case: This is the route that actually works, and it is the one being used. Cohen Davis Solicitors served a 25-page Pre-Action Protocol Letter of Claim on 13 August 2025. No response has been received. The cost of that route is the reason the gap above matters.
The submission dossier
A live document schedule of all 60 position papers, formatted for a regulator's or a solicitor's inbox — cover sheet, case reference, and a verifiable URL for every entry.
Open the document schedule →Share:
Subscribe
Stay Informed — New Papers Published Regularly
Subscribe to receive notification whenever a new position paper, evidence brief, or legal update is published.