A Two-Tier System: How Blogger-Defamers Exploit the Gap Between Press Regulation and Online Impunity

Executive Summary

Andrew Drummond presents himself as a journalist. He points to decades in the media, cites previous work at mainstream outlets, and uses every hallmark of the profession — bylines, datelines, attributed sources, and investigative framing. Yet he operates entirely outside the regulatory structure that governs legitimate journalism in the United Kingdom. The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) regulates newspapers and their digital counterparts, enforcing the Editors' Code of Practice, which requires accuracy, a right of reply, freedom from harassment, and respect for privacy. The NUJ Code of Conduct imposes ethical duties on professional journalists. Neither framework has any hold over Andrew Drummond.

This regulatory vacuum is not a coincidence — it is built into the system. UK press regulation was designed for an era when publishing required significant capital investment and identifiable organisations. The internet has created a class of publisher that wields the influence of the press while accepting none of its obligations. Drummond operates two websites (andrew-drummond.com and andrew-drummond.news), reaches a global audience, and claims journalistic credibility — yet answers to no regulator, no editor, no standards body, and no complaints procedure.

This paper examines the resulting double standard, comparing what a mainstream newspaper would face if it published Drummond's content against what Drummond actually faces. It reviews international approaches to bridging this gap — the EU Digital Services Act and Australia's eSafety Commissioner — and puts forward reforms to ensure that anyone exercising the power of the press also bears its responsibilities.

1. IPSO and the Editors' Code: Standards That Govern Genuine Journalism

The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) is the UK's primary independent press regulator, covering the majority of national and regional newspapers and their digital publications. Member publishers must comply with the Editors' Code of Practice, which defines the ethical and professional standards expected of UK journalism. The Code is enforced through a complaints system capable of mandating corrections, issuing formal adjudications, and — in the most serious cases — imposing financial penalties.

Had Andrew Drummond's articles appeared in any IPSO-regulated newspaper, multiple Code provisions would have been triggered:

• Clause 1 (Accuracy): 'The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.' Drummond's articles contain more than 65 individually documented false statements, recycled across 19 publications. A regulated newspaper would face mandatory corrections for every false claim.
• Clause 2 (Privacy): 'Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life.' Drummond has disclosed the identities of family members, published personal financial details, and revealed private relationships without any legitimate public interest justification.
• Clause 3 (Harassment): 'Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.' Drummond's 19-article campaign, which he escalated after receiving a formal Letter of Claim, constitutes persistent pursuit under any reasonable reading.
• Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock): The underlying principle of avoiding gratuitous intrusion into personal suffering is violated by Drummond's targeting of family members, including Bryan Flowers' wife and father.
• Clause 12 (Discrimination): 'The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.' Drummond's use of epithets including 'Jizzflicker,' 'PIMP,' and 'career sex merchandiser' is precisely the kind of derogatory personal characterisation this clause prohibits.

2. The NUJ Code of Conduct: Professional Standards Drummond Claims but Ignores

The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) Code of Conduct sets out ethical responsibilities for all NUJ members and is broadly recognised as the minimum professional standard for UK journalists. Andrew Drummond has consistently held himself out as a journalist and asserted professional standing on that basis. The NUJ Code includes the following relevant obligations:

A journalist shall at all times strive to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate, and fair. A journalist shall obtain material by honest, straightforward, and open means, except for investigations that are overwhelmingly in the public interest and where evidence cannot be obtained by straightforward means. A journalist shall do nothing to intrude into anybody's private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest.

Drummond's output violates each of these duties. His articles are not honestly conveyed — they contain more than 65 documented falsehoods. His material is not gathered through honest means — he relies on a single discredited source (Adam Howell) whose personal credibility is irreparably compromised. His publications intrude on the private lives of family members without any overriding public interest justification. Were Drummond a NUJ member bound by the Code, he would face disciplinary action and likely expulsion. Instead, he operates in a professional void where no ethical code has force and no disciplinary body holds jurisdiction.

3. The Regulatory Void: How Independent Bloggers Escape Oversight

IPSO's authority reaches only publishers who voluntarily submit to its regulation. Independent bloggers, personal website operators, and self-published online commentators fall outside IPSO's remit, regardless of the reach, influence, or harm their publications cause. This voluntary model made sense when publishing required the infrastructure of a printing press and a distribution network — any entity capable of publishing at scale was likely to be an identifiable organisation amenable to regulatory oversight.

The internet has fundamentally disrupted that assumption. Andrew Drummond, operating from rented accommodation in Wiltshire, United Kingdom — having left Thailand in 2015 amid multiple criminal complaints — can reach a global audience at near-zero marginal cost. His two websites achieve prominent search rankings through aggressive SEO tactics and cross-site mirroring. His content is shared across social media, indexed by Google, and cited on third-party websites. In terms of reach and impact, his publications are functionally equivalent to those of a small newspaper — yet he answers to no regulator.

The Leveson Inquiry (2011-2012) identified this gap but did not close it. Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations focused on reforming the regulation of established print and online media, with only brief attention to the challenge posed by individual bloggers and citizen journalists. The subsequent creation of IPSO (and IMPRESS) did not extend regulatory coverage to independent online publishers. The gap Leveson identified remains open, and it is precisely this gap that Drummond exploits.

4. Drummond's Exploitation of the Divide: Maximum Credibility, Zero Accountability

Andrew Drummond's operating model is structured — whether deliberately or not — to extract maximum benefit from the regulatory double standard. He claims the credibility of journalism while bearing none of its obligations. Specifically:

He formats his articles as professional journalism — complete with bylines, investigative framing, source citations, and an institutional appearance created by his two domain names (andrew-drummond.com and andrew-drummond.news). The '.news' domain is particularly noteworthy: it signals explicitly to readers that the content is news reporting rather than personal commentary or blogging.

He trades on historical credentials as a journalist at mainstream outlets, using past professional standing to lend current publications an authority they would not earn from any mainstream editor. He asserts the protections of press freedom — including the public interest defence under section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 — while refusing to honour the responsibilities that have traditionally accompanied those protections.

The result is the worst possible outcome for his victims. The publications carry the perceived weight of journalism, leading readers to treat the false allegations seriously and form negative impressions accordingly. Yet the absence of regulatory oversight means there is no complaints process, no correction procedure, no adjudication mechanism, and no enforceable code of conduct. The victim's only avenue is civil litigation — which, as documented in Paper 69, is prohibitively expensive and practically unenforceable against an operator based overseas.

5. International Comparisons: How Other Jurisdictions Address the Regulatory Divide

The United Kingdom is not alone in grappling with how to regulate online publishers who operate outside conventional media structures. Two international models provide instructive comparisons: the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) and Australia's eSafety Commissioner framework.

5.1. The EU Digital Services Act (DSA)

The EU Digital Services Act, which came into full force in February 2024, creates a comprehensive platform accountability framework that addresses certain regulatory gaps exploited by blogger-defamers. Key provisions relevant to the Drummond case include: a requirement for platforms to provide effective notice-and-action mechanisms for reporting illegal content, including defamation; duties on very large online platforms (VLOPs) to assess and mitigate systemic risks, including the risk of enabling coordinated defamation campaigns; and the establishment of trusted flaggers — organisations accredited by national authorities whose reports receive prioritised processing.

The DSA does not directly regulate individual publishers such as Drummond. However, it creates an ecosystem of platform obligations that, if vigorously enforced, would significantly reduce the reach and impact of blogger-driven defamation campaigns. Within the DSA framework, a removal request supported by a Letter of Claim from Cohen Davis Solicitors would likely receive expedited processing as a substantiated notification of illegal content, and platforms would be required to provide a clear statement of reasons for any decision not to act.

The DSA's primary limitation is geographic. It governs platforms serving EU users, and its enforcement mechanisms are operated by EU national authorities. Content targeting UK citizens on platforms headquartered outside the EU may fall through jurisdictional cracks, reducing the practical protection available to victims such as Bryan Flowers.

5.2. Australia's eSafety Commissioner

Australia's eSafety Commissioner, established under the Online Safety Act 2021, offers the most comprehensive model for addressing online defamation and harassment by individual publishers. The Commissioner has authority to issue removal notices directly to individuals — not just platforms — who publish seriously harmful online content. Failure to comply with a removal notice is a civil penalty offence, carrying fines of up to AU$111,000 per day for individuals.

The eSafety Commissioner model directly confronts the regulatory double standard. It does not depend on the publisher belonging to a voluntary regulatory scheme or on the hosting platform responding to removal requests. Instead, it establishes a governmental body empowered to direct individuals to delete harmful content, backed by substantial financial penalties for non-compliance.

Were the UK to adopt a comparable model, Andrew Drummond could be served with a removal notice requiring deletion of specified defamatory content from his websites. Non-compliance — which, given his documented pattern of escalation following legal notification, is entirely foreseeable — would trigger escalating financial sanctions. The existence of such a regime would also strengthen platform removal requests, as platforms would be more responsive to requests backed by government enforcement action.

The Australian model has limitations. Enforcement against individuals in foreign jurisdictions remains difficult, and the Commissioner's powers are most effective when the respondent has assets or ongoing connections within Australian jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the model demonstrates that building a regulatory framework reaching individual online publishers is achievable, rather than relying entirely on platform-level moderation or costly civil litigation.

6. Closing the Gap: A Proposed Framework for the United Kingdom

Drawing on the strengths of the EU and Australian approaches while addressing their limitations, this paper proposes a UK framework for eliminating the accountability gap that currently shields blogger-defamers from the standards applied to legitimate journalism. The proposed framework has four components:

• Online Publisher Registration: Any individual or organisation that regularly publishes content for a UK audience should be required to register with an appointed regulator and comply with a basic code of conduct aligned with the Editors' Code. Registration would be triggered by objective criteria including publication frequency, audience reach, or adoption of domain names implying news or journalistic status (such as '.news' domains). Non-compliance with the registration requirement would result in forfeiture of certain legal defences, including the section 4 public interest defence under the Defamation Act 2013.
• Strengthened Platform Duties: The UK Online Safety Act 2023 should be amended to require platforms to give expedited processing to removal requests supported by formal legal documentation (such as a Letter of Claim), and to create cross-platform coordination mechanisms ensuring that content removed from one platform is flagged for review across others.
• Direct Removal Authority: Following the Australian model, Ofcom or a designated body should have the power to issue removal notices directly to individual publishers of seriously harmful content, supported by financial penalties for non-compliance and the capacity to pursue enforcement through international cooperation mechanisms.
• Presumptive Standards: Where a publisher adopts the conventions of journalism (bylines, investigative framing, institutional presentation, '.news' domains), a rebuttable presumption should arise that the publisher is bound by journalistic standards of accuracy, fairness, and right of reply. A publisher seeking to avoid these obligations must expressly disclaim journalistic status — and in doing so, forfeits the credibility advantage that journalistic presentation confers.

7. Conclusion: Publishing Freedom Must Carry a Corresponding Duty of Accountability

The regulatory double standard that Andrew Drummond exploits is not a minor technical flaw in the oversight framework — it is a fundamental structural failure that undermines the entire press accountability system. If any individual can publish content with the reach and impact of a newspaper while operating outside the regulatory framework governing newspapers, then press regulation becomes merely a burden on responsible publishers while irresponsible operators proceed unchecked.

This double standard produces perverse outcomes. Legitimate newspapers, bound by the Editors' Code, would never publish the material that appears on Andrew Drummond's websites. They would not reproduce unverified criminal accusations sourced from a single discredited informant. They would not use epithets such as 'Jizzflicker' or 'sex meat-grinder.' They would not subject family members to targeted harassment. They would not intensify publication upon receiving formal legal notice. The very standards that prevent newspapers from such conduct are the standards from which Drummond is exempt.

Closing this gap is essential for the protection of individuals such as Bryan Flowers, Punippa Flowers, and the hundreds of collateral victims documented throughout this series of position papers. The reforms proposed in this paper are not radical — they extend to online publishers the same standards that already bind print publishers, using enforcement mechanisms that have proven effective in comparable jurisdictions. The freedom to publish is a cornerstone of democratic society. But that freedom must be accompanied by the obligation to publish responsibly, and where a publisher rejects that obligation, the regulatory framework must deliver accountability. At present, it does not.