Graphic by

Two Scots who attempted to get this website closed down or either have all stories and pictures about them removed failed in their bid at Koh Samui Provincial Court.

Brian Goudie and David Hanks last month lodged a case at Bangkok Criminal court against the founders of Google and the entire board for failing to close this website quoting the European Court ‘Right to be Forgotten’ judgment.

But already in Thailand Koh Samui court has dismissed similar claims after a heated hearing on the holiday island. The court has ordered all parties not to report on the testimony pending settlement of libel cases.

A case brought by Goudie against Andrew Drummond for libel and libel under the Computer Crimes Act was adjourned for decision whether to accept or refuse on August 27th. A case brought by Hanks was adjourned for examination of his witness Brian Goudie on September 17th/

Goudie’s reaction

Fuller Report to follow.

Goudie’s story on his Casewatchasia site


  1. The wee scrout's three days in court have not been entirely wasted.

    They stand as testament to the eagerness he has to have the truth of his deeds hidden from public view – an affirmation that AD's reporting is really hitting home.

    Donation to the cause submitted.

  2. The court in Koh Samui must be getting tired of a fake lawyer with his fake legal understandings.

    Message to ex-con Brian:
    Maybe you have misinterpreted the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union, it only gave a preliminary ruling on the reference from the Member State's court, in this case Spain's Audiencia Nacional (National High Court, Spain), on the interpretation of Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.

    The preliminary ruling is only persuasive in a court in a Member State in the EU, and irrelevant to the Thais.

    The summary released by the Court said:
    "The Court observes in this regard that even initially lawful processing of accurate data may, in the course of time, become incompatible with the directive where, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the data appear to be inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the purposes for which they were processed and in the light of the time that has elapsed. The Court adds that, when appraising such a request made by the data subject in order to oppose the processing carried out by the operator of a search engine, it should in particular be examined whether the data subject has a right that the information in question relating to him personally should, at this point in time, no longer be linked to his name by a list of results that is displayed following a search made on the basis of his name. If that is the case, the links to web pages containing that information must be removed from that list of results, unless there are particular reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, justifying a preponderant interest of the public in having access to the information when such a search is made."

    The last sentence covers just about everything AD has published about you. Data on a fake lawyer who has convictions for dishonesty offences is directly relevant to your public life and is directly in the public interest. Some of the other stories about your treatment of clients, ex-girlfriends etc are borderline but you are in the wrong court to argue this.

  3. Excellent points Jules. If you were a bit of a scal when younger but have reformed, then your right to be left alone should be respected. This is clearly not the case in the 3 stooges. All are involved in current court cases and in Goudie and Noyes we have career fraudsters.

    Andrew has done the public a tremendous service in revealing what these reprobates have been up to in both the recent and distant past. He has saved people from falling victim to these parasites. Their pathetic attempts to portray themselves as victims is pathetic and damn annoying.

  4. Ah the right to be forgotten. So how does it go? We'll let me tell you about my experience. A multiple convicted fraudster and fake London barrister and Royal Marine officer and more notable known associator of pedophiles (try suing me on that Brian) still has photos of my infant daughter oh his G+ site. I've tried for months to have the photos removed but Google are refusing…..why? Yet a former pimp currently on trail in Thailand and as mentioned earlier a multi convicted fraudster think they can be deleted from the public domain? Utter lunacy.

    1. Actually it's great evidence against them…when they want to constantly whinge and whine about cyber bullying, intimidation, internet warriors and deleting from Google here we have an example of the what deceitful frauds and bullshit merchants they are. Im inclined to believe this should be used in court against them if it ever comes to it.

  5. Thanks Weapon. The preliminary ruling in Spain was on the subject of a Spanish gentleman whose house had been repossessed some years ago. When his name was typed into Google it showed the repossession, which was old news that was no longer relevent and totally irrelevant to his public life and should be removed under the EU Directive.

    If you contrast that with an ex-con fraudster pretending to be a lawyer, a position of trust that a man with a history of dishonesty wishes to attain ………..

    If you are admitted to the Bar by one of the London Inns you will not get thrown out for murder, insurrection or treason. Amy dishonesty and you are out on your behind.

Comments are closed.