AddThis SmartLayers

Ex-serviceman feared becoming terror victim over daily’s story

allan-woodsAn ex-serviceman who claimed his family risked being victims of terrorists after a daily newspaper published his personal details has had his complaint rejected by the press watchdog.

The unnamed soldier complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily Record breached Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined ‘Veterans’ fury at Walter Mitty Bloody Sunday Bigot.’

Allan Woods, pictured, claimed to have been a paratrooper and had mocked up a picture of himself on Facebook in which he superimposed his head onto a picture of the complainant in full military uniform, complete with a number medals he had been awarded.

The Record exposed him as a fraud after he launched a “vile rant” against a hero priest, Bishop Edward Daly, who had helped a dying boy during the 1972 massacre.

The original version of the story included the full name, photograph and hometown of the complainant, along with details of his military career, which included four military tours in Northern Ireland, as well as service in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The former soldier said the publication of such details had been unnecessary and intrusive, adding that the newspaper had acted negligently and put him and his family at risk of attack by terrorists.

The Glasgow-based Record said that the purpose of the story had been to highlight Allan Woods’ fraud, and to contrast his dishonesty with the complainant’s bravery.

It did not consider that the published information was private because it was publicly available on a website that documented the history of the Parachute Regiment and Airborne Forces.

An offer by the newspaper to remove his name and hometown from the online article, and to pixelate the photo, was rejected by the complainant.

IPSO found the complainant’s name, photo and service career details were already in the public domain on a publicly accessible website at the time the article was published, and that he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regards to the publication of his hometown.

The complaint was not upheld, and the full adjudication can be read here.