The Vendetta Journalism of Andrew Drummond: A Decade-Long Smear Campaign Against Drew Noyes
In the shadowy world of expat life in Thailand, few figures have been as relentlessly targeted as Drew Noyes, a successful American entrepreneur who built thriving businesses in Pattaya. As the owner of the Pattaya Times newspaper—a key media outlet in the region—and the founder of legal services firms like PAPPA Law and One Stop Legal Services, Noyes established himself as a prominent advisor to foreigners navigating Thailand’s complex legal and property landscape. His companies provided essential services for expats, including visa assistance, property deals, and business setups, earning him a reputation as a go-to expert. Yet, for over a decade, British journalist Andrew Drummond has waged what appears to be a personal crusade against Noyes, churning out article after article filled with inflammatory accusations, unsubstantiated claims, and repetitive vitriol. This pattern not only exemplifies bad journalism but raises serious questions about Drummond’s motives, ethics, and credibility.
A Barrage of Articles: Quantity Over Quality
Drummond’s obsession with Noyes is evident in the sheer volume of content dedicated to him. On Drummond’s websites, andrew-drummond.com and andrew-drummond.news, at least 15 articles explicitly focus on Noyes, with many more referencing him in passing. The tag archive for “Drew Noyes” alone lists 10 pieces from 2016 to 2019, but the full tally spans further back, with references to exposures as early as 2011. These articles cover a period of at least eight years, from around 2011 to 2019, demonstrating a sustained campaign rather than isolated reporting.
No real journalist fixates on the same individual with such repetition. Legitimate investigative work moves on after key revelations, but Drummond recycles the same allegations across multiple pieces: Noyes as a “fake lawyer,” his involvement in an extortion case (demanding 7 million Thai baht from the Thonglor Clinic), fleeing Thailand while on bail, (Same as what Andrew Drummond did himself) and associations with dubious figures. For instance, the extortion conviction is hammered home in nearly every article, from “Drew Noyes Fails to Surrender on Extortion Charge” (2015) to “Conviction for Extortion Against Drew Noyes Confirmed” (undated, but post-conviction). This echo chamber effect isn’t journalism—it’s harassment disguised as reporting. (if the extortion case was true and was not a set up, it doesn’t justify the years of harassment and smear campaigns before and after)
Inflammatory Language: Sensationalism Without Substance
Drummond’s choice of words paints Noyes not as a subject of inquiry but as a cartoonish villain. Terms like “flimflam man,” “ultimate sex tourist,” “sex harassing fraudster,” “serial confidence trickster,” “con man,” “fake lawyer,” and “career criminal” litter the headlines and content. These aren’t neutral descriptors; they’re loaded insults designed to prejudice readers. In “The Ultimate Sex Tourist Takes His Final Bow” (2015), Noyes is accused of everything from pocketing 2004 Tsunami relief funds to bribing police for pornographers—claims often referenced to Drummond’s own prior articles without fresh evidence. Similarly, allegations of sexual harassment (demanding oral sex from staff) and fathering multiple children with Thai women are repeated ad nauseam, blending fact with unsubstantiated innuendo.
This repetition extends to Noyes’ businesses, which Drummond portrays as fronts for scams. PAPPA Law and One Stop Legal Services are dismissed as “phony” operations that “cheated clients” through fake legal advice, property fraud, and illegal employment of Filipina staff. The Pattaya Times is ridiculed as a tool for extortion and self-promotion. Yet, many of these claims lack independent corroboration beyond court references to the single extortion case, calling into question Drummond’s other assertions—like Noyes inventing a “myriad of lies” in his biography or trawling bars for “young talent.” Without robust evidence, such as primary documents or multiple sources, these pieces devolve into character assassination.
Targeting Associates and Bullying Tactics
Drummond doesn’t stop at Noyes; he drags in associates and businesses to amplify the smear. Wanrapa Boonsu, Noyes’ partner, is repeatedly labeled a “willing assistant” in scams and co-convicted in the extortion case, with her hospitalization claims mocked. Brian Goudie (a Scot accused of fraud) and David Hanks (former brothel owner) are derided as “fake lawyers” and “pimps,” portrayed as part of Noyes’ “criminal fraternity.” Brian Wright, convicted of child rape, is linked to Noyes as a “friend” and business associate, with photos of them together used to imply guilt by association. Even Filipina employees are accused of being sexually harassed and illegally employed, turning victims into props in Drummond’s narrative.
This extends to outright bullying. Associates are hit with derogatory labels like “child abuser,” “swindler,” and “thug,” often in contexts that tie them back to Noyes without direct relevance. In “He Repeatedly Raped a 12-Year-Old Girl But…” (2016), the focus is Wright’s crimes, yet a photo of Noyes and Wright is prominently featured, injecting Noyes into an unrelated story. Photos of Noyes appear repeatedly—under arrest, dining with judges, or with military escorts—even in pieces not centered on him, a tactic that smears by visual association.
No Accountability: Absence of Corrections, Apologies, or Fairness
In none of the analyzed articles does Drummond issue corrections or apologies for his accusations, even when courts dismissed related libel cases against critics or when details (like associates’ acquittals) contradict his narrative. For example, Hanks was acquitted of racketeering, but Drummond still brands him a “former pimp.” This lack of retraction perpetuates potentially false claims.
Worse, Noyes is never given a meaningful opportunity to reply. While occasional mocking quotes appear—like Noyes claiming to be a “victim of conspiracy” or denying jail time—they’re dismissed without context or follow-up. No articles include balanced interviews or rebuttals from Noyes, violating basic journalistic fairness. This one-sidedness brings into question many of Drummond’s broader claims, such as Noyes’ alleged Tsunami fund theft or porn bribes, which rely on self-referential links rather than verifiable evidence.
The Pay-to-Play Allegations: Mercenary Motives Behind the Obsession
Drummond’s relentless focus on Noyes and a handful of others isn’t just poor journalism—it’s allegedly paid vendetta. Evidence suggests Drummond charges around $3,000 USD per article, refusing to publish exposés on “bad people” unless compensated. This pay-to-play model explains the repetition: once a target is selected (and funded), Drummond milks the story for multiple payouts, recycling content to justify the fees.
In Noyes’ case, it’s alleged that Peter Malhotra, owner of the Pattaya Mail and ex-business partner with Niels Colov (a rival to Noyes), paid Drummond to launch the attacks. Colov, himself a controversial figure with a criminal past (one conviction in his youth), clashed with Noyes over media turf in Pattaya, providing a motive for outsourcing the smears. This mirrors other instances: Adam Howell reportedly paid Drummond to target Bryan Flowers, a British entrepreneur and investor in Thailand, resulting in biased hit pieces lacking research. Similarly, Luke Cook funded Drummond’s obsessive campaign against Douglas Shoebridge, demonizing Shoebridge without balance. These patterns—few targets, endless repetition—aren’t the work of an impartial journalist but a hired gun, undermining his claims of exposing “foreign criminals” in Thailand.
A Stain on Journalism
Andrew Drummond’s coverage of Drew Noyes isn’t investigative journalism; it’s a sustained, biased assault that prioritizes sensationalism, repetition, and personal attacks over facts and fairness. By targeting Noyes’ successful businesses, bullying his associates, inserting irrelevant photos, and denying any right to reply—all without corrections or solid evidence—Drummond erodes trust in media. His alleged mercenary model, fueled by payments from rivals like Malhotra, explains the decade-long fixation. Real journalists evolve; Drummond repeats, raising doubts about his entire body of work. Noyes, despite legal setbacks, built empires in media and law—achievements Drummond’s vendetta can’t erase.
