An email address is not an author

The Sun has told me it links me to the Belts of Mongering website, and to a persona on it called "Professor Monger", through "multiple email addresses linked to the website" and "a trail". I am not Professor Monger. I did not write the material The Sun attributes to that persona.

The address The Sun identified to me was an old SEO and domain-management address used by a former partner of mine, who has since died. In my own account records that address sat on around 241 domain registrations. An email address on a registration record identifies a technical contact. It does not identify who wrote the words on a website. Technical administration, domain ownership and editorial authorship are three different things.

I host and manage more than 300 domains for friends, associates and former clients. 195 of the sites run on my hosting, alerts and AI-SEO system; tonvincollection.com is the public directory of that collection. The remaining domains are simply hosted and are not in that system.

Who I am

I am an entrepreneur. I have been married for 15 years and I am the father of two children. I am an investor in start-ups and I have done charitable work in Thailand, including during the pandemic. I travel with my children. My current commercial interests are technology, news publishing, Rage Fight Academy and angel investment. tonvincollection.com is the directory of the sites I am responsible for.

My full statement to The Sun is reproduced word for word below.

Where the material comes from

Many of the allegations The Sun has put to me closely resemble material published by Mr Andrew Drummond since December 2024 (listed on my evidence site). I believe that material draws substantially on information supplied by my former business associate, Mr Adam Howell.

Mr Drummond writes that Mr Howell gave him his files. In his article of 2 December 2025 he wrote: "After publishing a story about the forthcoming libel case, we were contacted by Howell who unloaded his files." (Mr Drummond, 2 December 2025)

Adam Howell

Mr Howell is a former investor with whom I had a commercial dispute. I publish the record of that dispute at adamhowellwarning.com.

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.

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.

Mr Drummond's own article of 2 December 2025 records that Mr Howell had left the country after paying the fine and lodging an appeal, and that I had written to the court about his departure (Mr Drummond, 2 December 2025). To my knowledge he now lives in Dubai (my record of his Dubai venture). I understand that three further criminal complaints for false allegations have been filed against him in Thailand; my Thai legal representatives can clarify their procedural status.

The payment Mr Howell described

I publish screenshots of Mr Howell's Messenger conversation with a friend of mine at drummondhowellcampaign.com/evidence/paid-to-troll.

In frame 1 the message shown as from Mr Howell reads: "can't afford to pay Drummond anymore". In frame 3 it reads: "I paid him extra to drag Bryan's family and friends into it". The five screenshots are published at that page.

On 1 September 2026 Mr Drummond wrote: "In Howell's case, the author has had to spend money and help him relocate safely." (Mr Drummond, 1 September 2026) In the same passage Mr Drummond writes that he does not accept payment for investigating matters raised by members of the public, and describes the Messenger conversation as "a fabricated conversation between Adam Howell and another person". I dispute that description; the screenshots are published in full so that readers can judge for themselves.

Andrew Drummond

Mr Drummond has published 25 article pages about me since 17 December 2024 across his two domains: 20 distinct pieces, five of them posted on both (listed on my evidence site). My own records show that Cohen Davis Solicitors issued a Letter of Claim to him on 13 August 2025 and an updated letter on 18 February 2026. Complaints have also been made to Thai police about material published about me and my family.

On 23 October 2026 I received written confirmation from my Thai lawyer, following confirmation from Thai police, that Mr Drummond would be arrested if he returned to Thailand. That confirmation can be made available to The Sun's legal department. I do not present it as a judicial determination of anything Mr Drummond has published.

The full record of what he has published, and of the statements my evidence site has catalogued as false or misleading, is at drummondhowellcampaign.com.

What has been published about me since December 2024

Every figure below links to its source: the page on my evidence site, drummondhowellcampaign.com, where it is counted, or Mr Drummond's own article.

Counts as shown on the linked pages, checked on 24 October 2026.

The Sun has published Mr Drummond's material before

My evidence site records that Mr Drummond sent the first-court verdict in the trafficking case to The Sun and to other newspapers, that only The Sun accepted it, that The Sun's article credited him for the photograph, and that details in that article were wrong (entry 63 on my evidence site).

I ask that this time the provenance of the material is checked before it is printed.

The full statement I sent to The Sun on 23 October 2026, reproduced here word for word.

PRESS STATEMENT - BRYAN FLOWERS

Print or link to the statement on its own page

"I categorically deny involvement in human trafficking, knowingly employing or exploiting children, bribing police officers or judges, or coercing witnesses to provide false evidence.

I also dispute the authenticity of private messages and recordings attributed to me. I do not recognise the alleged conversations and believe there are substantial reasons to question whether this material is genuine.

Many of the allegations in your enquiry closely resemble material previously published by Andrew Drummond, based substantially on information supplied by my former business associate Adam Howell.

This history is particularly significant because Howell has been convicted of criminal defamation in Thailand, while a separate civil court has found specific allegations against me to be defamatory and awarded damages in my favour.

These are judicial decisions, not simply personal denials. I ask that your editor and legal department examine the relevant judgments and independently verify the provenance of your material before publication.

My background and withdrawal from the bars

I moved to Thailand in 2006 and established Pattaya Addicts, which became a prominent English-language online community.

I met my Thai wife in early 2007. We have been married for 15 years and have two children together.

I subsequently became involved in developing the Night Wish hospitality business, which expanded through additional investors and the efforts of Thai management and staff.

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.

The branding was also reduced or removed from individual establishments during refurbishment following Covid.

I have never concealed my historical involvement in the hospitality industry.

However, my circumstances changed substantially following serious heart problems beginning around 2014. I stopped drinking and regularly attending bars, increasingly concentrating on technology and other commercial activities.

I withdrew from routine management and left the relevant group conversations around 2018. I underwent heart surgery in 2020 and have not visited the bars since before Covid.

Although I continued working remotely on websites and assisted with promotional and charitable activities during the pandemic, I was not responsible for the daily operation of the establishments.

My current commercial interests are principally in technology, news publishing, Rage Fight Academy and angel investment in other ventures.

My financial position

I acknowledge my historical investment in the hospitality businesses, but I no longer personally receive income, fees or distributions from the bars.

My wife continues to receive income from her Thai business interests. My own commercial activities are now focused elsewhere.

It is essential to distinguish historical investment, current ownership arrangements, operational management and income personally received.

I therefore dispute any suggestion that historical group turnover represents money I currently receive from prostitution.

The nature of the establishments

The establishments operate as bars, generating revenue from drinks and hospitality.

Payments commonly known as bar fines compensate a business when an employee leaves work and is no longer available to serve drinks or undertake other duties.

The bars do not take a percentage of private tips or payments independently received by employees outside their employment.

What consenting adults may arrange privately outside a bar is distinct from the business's hospitality activities.

You also refer to alleged sexual activity in 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.

I dispute your broader characterisation of the businesses as a criminal prostitution enterprise. Any specific allegation of unlawful activity on the premises should be supported by identifiable evidence concerning the venue, date and conduct alleged.

The disputed messages and recordings

I am particularly concerned about the explicit messages and recordings you attribute to me.

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.

There has also been a longstanding problem involving fake accounts, impersonation and communications appearing under my name. I believe some of this activity is connected to individuals involved in the disputes described below.

I previously submitted copyright-related complaints seeking the removal of disputed material from Andrew Drummond's website.

Those complaints were attempts to secure removal of material I disputed. They were not intended as admissions that any particular quotation, screenshot or recording attributed to me was genuine. Their actual wording and circumstances should be considered before drawing conclusions about authorship.

I recognise the seriousness of the references to young women and their ages, particularly the alleged message concerning somebody approaching her eighteenth birthday.

I categorically deny knowingly arranging or facilitating sexual exploitation involving anyone under 18.

Please provide the original messages, complete conversations, relevant account information, dates, recordings and available metadata so that their authenticity and context can be properly examined.

The Flirt investigation

The Flirt investigation and subsequent prosecution have had devastating consequences for my family and for people associated with the business.

Our position is that a 16-year-old girl worked at one establishment for approximately three weeks using identification belonging to another person.

Our understanding is that the cashier responsible for checking identification subsequently became aware of the girl's true age but did not disclose this to senior management.

The business operated identification procedures and was subject to regular checks by the authorities.

The girl had left the establishment months before the police operation. According to information provided to us about the raid, no underage person was found working there and no unlawful sexual activity was observed taking place at the premises at that time.

There are also substantial concerns about the manner in which witness statements were obtained.

I have received accounts alleging that approximately 28 staff members were assembled together and placed under pressure to sign statements that were word-for-word identical or substantially the same. Staff have reported fearing imprisonment if they refused to sign.

I also understand that the young woman subsequently raised concerns about the circumstances in which her original statement was obtained, including allegations that she was pressured into signing a statement prepared by others.

These are serious matters which should be examined through the legal process.

We dispute whether the statements represented genuinely independent accounts of the events concerned.

The reliability of those statements, the identification evidence, the conduct of the investigation and what individual members of management actually knew are matters being examined with the lawyers handling the appeals.

I recognise that the trial resulted in serious convictions.

My wife received a three-year sentence and is currently on bail pending appeal. Other defendants, including William Bilton, received substantially longer sentences.

Those convictions have not been overturned, and I do not suggest otherwise. However, important aspects of the evidence and the findings are being challenged through the legal process.

I was not a defendant in the Flirt prosecution and categorically deny knowingly participating in any unlawful recruitment or exploitation.

Allegations of bribery and witness interference

I categorically deny paying or authorising bribes to judges, police officers or other public officials.

I also deny arranging corrupt payments to influence criminal proceedings, obtain unlawful protection or improperly secure favourable detention conditions.

Substantial sums were spent on legal representation in connection with the Flirt proceedings.

Any allegation that particular expenditure constituted bribery should be supported by identifiable transactions, recipients, dates and original records.

I further categorically deny coercing, threatening or forcing any employee to change or withdraw a police statement or provide false evidence.

Seeking to challenge evidence believed to be inaccurate is entirely different from unlawfully interfering with a witness.

I request the complete recordings and conversations supporting these allegations so that the words, speakers, dates and context can be examined by my legal representatives.

Historical interviews

You refer to an informal interview from 2017 containing expressions such as "pimp" and "mafia".

Those remarks were made in a humorous context and were not intended as literal admissions of involvement in organised crime.

I would welcome the complete original interview so that the precise wording and context can be established.

Business size, recruitment and financial figures

The hospitality business expanded to approximately 27 establishments before Covid, although the number subsequently changed.

I cannot independently verify the historical recruitment figures, employee numbers, retention rates or financial calculations contained in your enquiry without examining the underlying records, particularly those dating from 2019.

I was not responsible for day-to-day recruitment or payroll arrangements.

My understanding is that women generally approached establishments seeking employment rather than being systematically transported from rural communities.

The individuals described as recruitment staff were principally involved in administrative duties, including onboarding employees and assisting them with employment-related matters.

To my knowledge, the business did not conduct organised recruitment visits or outreach events in rural communities.

I dispute the suggestion that these administrative activities amounted to a trafficking operation. Ordinary employment administration should be distinguished from any specifically alleged unlawful recruitment practices.

I dispute the allegation that I organised or knowingly participated in trafficking women for sexual exploitation.

Please provide the records supporting your claim that thousands of women worked for the group annually, together with the accounting basis for the turnover and profit figures quoted.

Your allegation concerning an investor allegedly being offered sexual services at an initial business meeting also requires clarification of the date, participants and supporting evidence before it can be properly addressed.

Pattaya Addicts

I founded Pattaya Addicts in 2006 and have never concealed that fact. 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.

Professor Monger and Belts of Mongering

I want to be absolutely unequivocal: I am not Professor Monger.

I have never used that identity, written material under that pseudonym, or authorised anyone to publish material under that name on my behalf.

I did not author the articles or statements you attribute to Professor Monger, and I categorically reject the suggestion that this identity represents me.

I also deny being responsible for the offensive material and alleged encouragement of unsafe sexual practices contained on the Belts of Mongering website.

For many years I have worked with servers, websites and domain names belonging to numerous individuals and businesses. I currently manage approximately 24 servers and more than 300 domains for friends, associates and former clients.

The email address you identified in your correspondence was associated with a former SEO and domain-management partner who has since died. Our historical technical work involved numerous websites and domains.

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.

I understand that you believe you have established a connection through historical email addresses. Please provide the records supporting that claim and distinguish technical administration, domain ownership and editorial authorship.

I also categorically deny the claims attributed to me about having sexual relations with thousands of women.

The circulation of these allegations, including material brought to the attention of my wife, has caused considerable distress to my family. I believe some of the publications have been intended to cause personal as well as reputational damage.

The suggestion that I am Professor Monger is false. I ask that you do not present that identification as an established fact.

Adam Howell — criminal and civil judgments

There is a documented history of legal proceedings between myself and Adam Ryan Howell, a former investor with whom I became involved in commercial disputes.

On 27 August 2025, Howell was convicted of criminal defamation in Thailand. He received a six-month custodial sentence, suspended for two years, together with an 18,000-baht fine.

On 23 February 2026, Pattaya Provincial Court separately ruled in my favour in civil defamation proceedings concerning statements published about me in May 2024.

The civil judgment concerned defamatory allegations associating me with bribery, unlawful business operations and human trafficking.

I was awarded 50,000 baht in damages, together with interest.

These findings are especially relevant given the similarity between some of those earlier allegations and the matters now raised in your correspondence.

I recognise that the judgments relate to particular statements and do not automatically determine the accuracy of every subsequent allegation.

Nevertheless, they are material facts which deserve serious consideration when assessing the reliability and provenance of information arising from the same longstanding dispute.

Further complaints and legal proceedings have also been pursued concerning allegations made by Howell. My Thai legal representatives can clarify their procedural status and provide the relevant records.

The court documents can be made available through my legal representatives.

Andrew Drummond — legal proceedings and the origin of the allegations

Andrew Drummond has published numerous articles containing allegations about me over an extended period.

He has publicly acknowledged receiving substantial files and historical communications from Adam Howell.

I believe Howell was likely the principal, and potentially the only original, source for much of the material subsequently published by Drummond and reflected in your present enquiry.

A number of the allegations contained in your questions closely resemble those earlier publications, including distinctive quotations, allegations involving financial arrangements and claims concerning the Flirt proceedings.

My concerns about Drummond's reporting are longstanding and have resulted in formal legal action and complaints.

My UK solicitors, Cohen Davis, issued a formal Letter of Claim on 13 August 2025 concerning his publications. Complaints have also been made to Thai police concerning material published about me and my family.

On 23 October 2026, I received written confirmation from my Thai lawyer, following confirmation from Thai police, that Andrew Drummond would be arrested if he returned to Thailand.

This is the current position communicated to me through my legal representative. The written confirmation can be made available to your legal department.

I do not present the existence of complaints or an arrest warrant as a judicial determination that every allegation published by Drummond is false.

However, these developments demonstrate that there is an established and serious legal dispute surrounding his publications, rather than merely a disagreement over unfavourable reporting.

Why the source material requires independent verification

I want to make one point particularly clear.

This is not simply a case of a businessman objecting to critical journalism.

There is a documented commercial dispute involving Adam Howell, a criminal defamation conviction against him, a separate civil judgment in my favour concerning serious allegations, and an extended series of publications by Andrew Drummond drawing upon material supplied by Howell.

Drummond has expressly acknowledged receiving historical communications and files from Howell.

The overlap between those earlier publications and your present questions is substantial.

I am particularly concerned that allegations previously challenged in court may be repeated through another publication without the underlying evidence being freshly and independently examined.

I do not contend that a criminal conviction for defamation renders everything a person subsequently says false. Nor do I suggest that a longstanding dispute automatically invalidates every document connected with it.

But these circumstances are plainly relevant to the assessment of source reliability.

Where allegations include bribery, exploitation of children, interference with witnesses or involvement in trafficking, the consequences of publishing inaccurate information are exceptionally serious.

I believe it would be unsafe to treat the Drummond–Howell material as independently established fact merely because it has appeared in multiple articles, on several websites, or in documents supplied to another journalist. Repetition is not corroboration.

I therefore ask that The Sun distinguish between material originally created or supplied by Howell, material subsequently published by Drummond, and evidence which your newspaper has independently authenticated.

In particular, I ask whether the original messages and recordings have been obtained from their source accounts or devices; whether their dates, authorship and completeness have been independently checked; and whether the allegations they are said to establish have been corroborated by evidence independent of the parties involved in this dispute.

I also ask that the judgments in my favour be examined in relation to any overlapping allegations, rather than dismissed simply because they arise from proceedings in Thailand.

My concern is not that your newspaper is asking questions. It is that seriously disputed material may acquire an undeserved appearance of credibility through repeated publication without adequate scrutiny of its provenance.

Conclusion

I recognise the importance of investigative journalism and the legitimate public interest in allegations involving criminal conduct or exploitation.

I am not asking you to disregard credible evidence. I am asking that disputed allegations be properly examined and not presented as established facts without sufficient verification.

I have directly denied the most serious allegations against me, explained my historical and present business involvement, disputed the authenticity of communications attributed to me, and identified court judgments relevant to the reliability of earlier allegations.

I have also explicitly and unequivocally denied being the person known as Professor Monger.

Please provide the underlying messages, recordings, videos and documents on which you intend to rely, together with contextual information necessary to assess their authenticity. I appreciate that legitimate source confidentiality may require appropriate redactions.

I ask that this response and the supporting court judgments be referred to your editor and legal department before publication.

I request a reasonable opportunity to provide a supplementary response following examination of any original material supplied.

Please also respect the privacy of my children and ensure that the ongoing Thai appeal proceedings are reported accurately.

I remain willing to answer properly evidenced questions and ask that the substance of my position be represented fairly, including in any headlines, captions or promotional material."