The whacky web site of Andrew Drummond

Anybody who knows me will know I have been involved in a two year battle with a convicted criminal journalist called Andrew Drummond.

I have recently been following the antics and the comments on Drummond's web site and the articles seem to become more desperate and bizarre every day.

I have been following the site for a reason, and Drummond will receive the documents from Bangkok Southern Criminal Court in due course.

Drummond as a result of writing inaccurate articles was convicted in Pattaya Provincial Criminal Court  in February 2014 by David Hanks and Drew Noyes . Drummond was then convicted again by the Supreme Court of Thailand on 27th October 2014 in a case brought by James Lumsden.

In the Lumsden case the Supreme Court of Thailand the Court found that Drummond had made wild unsubstantiated allegations that were both false and defamatory. The case related to an article in 'Bangkok Post'. The newspaper settled out of Court.

Drummond also currently faces three inquiries by the UK Press Complaints Commission (now the Independent Press Standards Organisation 'IPSO').

Drummond uses electronically altered photos - which is forbidden by all credible press standards of ethics.

Drummond has already been indicted in case number 8368/2556 and case 1327/2557 in Pattaya and three criminal cases in Koh Samui numbers 1246/2556, 1269/2556 and 1826/2556. If convicted on all cases Drummond faces the real prospect of a custodial jail sentence in Thailand.

In the last 6 weeks traffic to Drummond's site has fallen by 65%.

The most vociferous commenter and  poster on Drummonds site goes by the fake name Tommy Weapon. Tommy is too pathetic to use his real name or a real photo.

Tommy Weapon tells everybody he is a big man in Thailand. Actually he is a worthless low life. He tells tales of being in Thailand many years.

Actually Tommy's real name is Keith - yes Keith we have traced your computer records via a firm of forensic investigators, and some documents are coming your way.

Along with another pathetic paedophile who goes by the name Sam Thai who claims to have been in Thailand many years - yet does not speak a word of Thai as he found out to his cost during a crank call he made to me :)

Tommy and Sam are ardent followers of convicted criminal Andrew Drummond.

Both Tommy Weapon and Sam Thai are  on the run and are wanted for jointly anally raping a ten year old boy.

Tommy and Sam are also friends with Ian Charles Tracey (or Tracy) another convicted paedophile who supports Drummond ( you can Google the filthy pervert Tracey) who was convicted of paying a 14 year old boy to perform oral sex on him!

Oh  by the way - just for you Sam : ไอ้สัส ไอ้เหี้ย ไอ้สาละเลว ไอ้น่าหีควาย ไอ้ควยเอ๋ย มึงน่าจะไปหากระโปร่งใส่ก่อนน่ะ สัส

Tommy can tell you what it means.

Andrew Drummond writing drivel again.

I see my old adversary Andrew Drummond is writing drivel again.

I dont know why he bothers really, he has wrtten the same story at least 50 times now - that can hardly be described as 'news'.

And since Andrew has now been convicted twice this year already of defamation, you would think he would be taking more care.

Apparently, Andrew does not understand how a director of a company in Thailand can be prosecuted for theft of company assets - easy really, a director removes all the company property, sells the items and pockets the money.

In English law it is called wrongful conversion, in Thai it is referred to as embezzlement of company assets under s. 353 of the Criminal Code - it is not the same as theft but is similar.

Andrew is all upset that one of his allies who is an ex member of staff of one of my companies, Boonrod Baikrathok, or Nang, has been told to surrender to Dong Tan police this week when her and two others will be formally charged with theft.

There have been all sorts of moves this week, and lots of interference trying to persuade police not to charge Nang - sorry guys not going to work - Nang will be charged and she will go to Court.

The option still remains open for Nang to simply return company property and there will be no need to take the case forward. She has told police the items were renoved from company premises for 'safekeeping', so obvioualy can be returned?

And this week is just the first case. More to come I suspect.

I would say Nang has had some very, very bad legal advice - it sems even her lawyer has been calling police saying she cant be charged and he will make unspecified 'problems' for police - we will see about that.

Nang of course is innocent until proven guilty and entitled to a defence.