Open Letter to DreamHost Hosting Compliance & Abuse Team

Regarding the Continued Hosting of Harassment, False Child-Sex Allegations, and Targeted Abuse on andrew-drummond.news

To: DreamHost Hosting Compliance / Abuse Team
Named recipients: Charles J (Compliance), Richard "Toby" Laine (Abuse/Security)
Contact: abuse-replies@dreamhost.com

This open letter is published to formally place DreamHost Hosting Compliance & Abuse Team on public notice regarding its continued decision to host andrew-drummond.news, a website operated by Andrew Drummond that has, over a sustained period, published false accusations of child sex crimes, targeted harassment, doxxing, and malicious narratives against Bryan Flowers, his wife, his children, his father, his business partners, and his wider professional network.

Between 17 December 2024 and 2 December 2025, Andrew Drummond has published (16) multiple articles that form a coordinated harassment campaign, not isolated journalism. These articles are not neutral reporting. They are accusatory, repetitive, sensationalised, and designed to cause maximum reputational damage, fear, and personal risk.

DreamHost has now been repeatedly notified of this conduct. Despite this, DreamHost has chosen to take no action, stating that it will not intervene absent a subpoena or court order. This refusal is inconsistent with DreamHost's own Acceptable Use Policy, Terms of Service, and stated abuse framework.

This letter documents:

  • the harassment and safety risks,
  • the policy breaches,
  • the legal exposure, and
  • DreamHost's failure to act after notice.

1. Nature of the Abuse: Not Journalism, But a Targeted Smear Campaign

Andrew Drummond's website has published a series of articles that:

  • Accuse named individuals of child sexual offences without legal conviction
  • Present allegations as established fact, not opinion
  • Recycle the same claims across multiple articles
  • Escalates the tone over time
  • Expands targeting from the primary subject to family members, including children and elderly relatives
  • Integrates personal details, locations, and imagery

This behaviour meets every recognised indicator of targeted harassment:

  • persistence over time,
  • fixation on named individuals,
  • repetition of disproven or unadjudicated claims, and
  • expansion of collateral targets.

This is not investigative reporting. It is a malicious publication strategy.

2. False Allegations of Child Sex Crimes: Extreme Harm and Reckless Publication

Among the most serious elements of the content hosted by DreamHost are repeated accusations of child sex crimes.

Publishing such allegations carries exceptional risk:

  • irreversible reputational damage,
  • physical safety threats,
  • emotional harm to children, and
  • vigilantism risks.

These accusations are published without conviction, without due process, and without restraint, yet are framed in a way that encourages readers to treat them as proven.

No responsible website or media host can plausibly argue that repeated publication of child-sex allegations, presented as fact, does not constitute a clear and credible risk.

3. Targeting of Family Members and Children

The campaign does not stop with Bryan Flowers.

As an example, some of the articles and imagery published on andrew-drummond.news:

  • Reference Bryan's wife,
  • Reference Bryan's children,
  • Reference family residences, (photos and addresses listed twice)
  • Reference private associations and unrelated professional business partners, companies, and individuals in an attempt to portray them as complicit.

Dragging children and unrelated businesses and individuals into a hostile online campaign is a textbook example of abusive platform use.

DreamHost's infrastructure is being used not merely to publish speech, but to amplify intimidation.

4. Doxxing and Privacy Violations

The site has also published or republished:

  • identifiable addresses,
  • images of private residences,
  • personal associations,
  • private contextual information that serves no public interest.

This is an invasion of privacy, not reporting.

Once notified, continued hosting shifts from passive carriage to knowing facilitation.

5. Pattern, Coordination, and Duration

This is not a single disputed article.

  • First article: 17 December 2024
  • Latest article: 2 December 2025
  • Duration: nearly one full year
  • Pattern: repetition, escalation, cross-platform amplification

Sustained behaviour over this period demonstrates intent, not accident.

The harm caused by this content is not hypothetical.

United Kingdom:

  • Protection from Harassment Act
  • Defamation law
  • Ongoing police reports

Thailand:

  • Criminal and Civil defamation
  • Cybercrime statutes
  • Active legal proceedings and police involvement

United States exposure:

Once a host is on notice, continued hosting may create more civil risk if content is later deemed in a court of law to be unlawful.

DreamHost has now been repeatedly notified of these risks.

7. DreamHost Policy Violations (Quoted and Applied)

DreamHost's own policies state that customers may only use services for lawful purposes and that DreamHost may act where there are clear, credible indications of unlawful activity.

DreamHost also reserves the right to:

  • police its network,
  • suspend services on reasonable suspicion, and
  • prevent abuse of its infrastructure.

Targeted harassment, doxxing, and reckless publication of false child-sex allegations squarely meet those thresholds.

DreamHost's position that it is "unable to act" is therefore a policy choice, not a policy requirement.

8. Failure to Act After Notice

DreamHost representatives:

  • Charles J (Compliance Team)
  • Richard "Toby" Laine (Abuse/Security Team)

have both been informed of the nature of the content and the risks involved.

Despite this:

  • no abuse review has been confirmed,
  • no mitigation has been attempted,
  • no safeguarding measures have been applied.

DreamHost has chosen to require victims to shoulder the full burden of expensive, slow cross-border litigation while continuing to profit from hosting the abuse.

This is not neutrality.
This is abdication of responsibility.

9. Why This Matters Beyond One Case

If hosting providers adopt the position that only court orders matter, then:

  • harassment campaigns become economically viable,
  • false allegations become infrastructure-protected,
  • victims without immediate litigation resources are silenced.

This case is about whether hosting companies will act once harm is obvious and notice is given.

10. Call to Action

This letter is published so that:

  • Readers understand how harassment is being enabled at the infrastructure level
  • Journalists can examine the role of hosts in prolonged abuse
  • DreamHost customers can assess whether this aligns with their values
  • Regulators and lawmakers can see the real-world impact of unchecked hosting immunity

If you are concerned, you can contact DreamHost directly:

📧 abuse-replies@dreamhost.com

Ask them:

  • why this content remains hosted,
  • why child-sex allegations require no internal review,
  • and why repeated notice has resulted in inaction.

Parting Statement

DreamHost has been given ample opportunity to address this responsibly.

This open letter exists because those opportunities were declined.

From this point forward, continued hosting of andrew-drummond.news is no longer a matter of ignorance but it is a matter of choice.