I think I've got this right:

The Guy in ADs article committed no offences in Thailand. However it was discovered that he had convictions in the UK and for this he was deported.
Andrew Drummond hails this as a victory against "perverts" and thrown his metaphorical hat in the air. Fair enough.
AD then invites anybody to send him names of people and he will investigate them to see if they fall into the same category as the subject of the article.
No evidence of any kind is required to inform on people and send their details to this self-righteous, self-appointed Witchfinder General - any "suspicion" will be more than enough he assures us, for AD to set his "contacts" on to them.

Well, I'm not sure I approve of that, but at least it's good to know we can sleep safely at night knowing that AD will protect us from people who are doing nothing wrong. The kind of people that AD will save us from having to take a .38 to, as he says himself.


But on the other hand, imagine if somebody was running a boy prostitution racket within a bar, kept some very dodgy company indeed, and even acquired a criminal record in Thailand - there's would be absolutely no way that Andrew Drummond would step down from his moral high ground to defend you, is there? Especially since every time you solicited an "off" fee at your "bar" you were probably aiding and abetting an illegal act. A purely hypothetical situation of course, because AD would never get involved with people like that, would he?

I'm quite sure he will appear here to explain the apparent double standards, which of course are perfectly acceptable in British "journalism" .

Similar Threads: