Resolution statement – 00851-24 Boeg v Mail Online

Summary of Complaint

1. Simon Boeg complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Mail Online breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “British Army helicopter pilot accused of 'having affairs with TWO of his comrades' wives' sparks fury as crews 'refuse to fly with him' over allegations now being probed by top brass”, published on 20 January 2024.

2. The article reported “[a] helicopter pilot [the complainant] in the army has been accused of having affairs with two of his comrades' wives.” It said the alleged affairs had “sparked fury and crews have refused to fly with him,” and that the complainant “ha[d] since been grounded by Army bosses for safety reasons and started a misconduct investigation.” It also reported, “[t]he trio were reportedly close friends and even went to each other’s weddings, [another publication] had reported”. It stated the complainant “was posted 7,000 miles away to Brunei with his family, including his children. However, when he came back to Britain for short stays he started an affair with his co-pilot's wife. The three marriages have all since fallen apart, it has been reported.”

3. The article also contained an image of the complainant and ex-wife. It was captioned, “Mr Boeg has been accused of sleeping with his co-pilot's and door gunner's wives in two separate affairs”.

4. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because he disputed crews had “refused to fly with him”. He said his Chain of Command (CoC) had assured him it had received no refusals to work with him from within his unit. In a statement to IPSO, a representative for the CoC stated, “[i]n relation to the allegation made in the article that aircrew had refused to fly with Capt Boeg I can confirm that no such sentiments or statements were received by the CoC.”

5. The complainant also disputed that he was grounded by army bosses for safety reasons. He said he was suspended without prejudice to enable the investigation to happen.

6. The complainant also said the article was inaccurate because he said it had not been proven that he had two affairs; he said this was still under investigation.

7. The complainant also said the article had inaccurately reported details of the marriages and weddings of the individuals involved in the incident. He said he had only attended one wedding, rather than three. He also said it was inaccurate to report that “the three marriages have all since fallen apart”, as he said his marriage had broken down while he was living in Brunei from late 2022 onwards, not as part of the investigation, as reported in the article. He also said it was inaccurate to report he had been posted “7,000 miles away to Brunei with his family, including his children.” He said he was selected for this position and carried out all pre-posting transition training before any of the incidences alleged in the article, rather than because of them. He also said the article inaccurately reported the reasons for the door-gunner leaving.

8. The complainant also said the article was in breach of Clause 2 because it included an image of him and his ex-wife, which he said was private, and was protected by settings on social media which meant it could only be viewed by friends, and friends of friends. He also said the article intruded into his family life, and represented a breach of his personal and operational security as a member of the armed forces, which could have implications for his safety and ability to “deploy on operations”.

9. The complainant said the article was in breach of Clause 10 because he did not know how the images of him and his ex-wife were obtained.

10. The publication said it had reported crews had refused to fly with the complainant and that the complainant had been grounded for safety reasons because another publication had reported such.

11. The publication said the references to the complainant’s alleged affairs were clearly distinguished as allegations. It said where the complainant had been under investigation when the article was published, it did not consider there to have been any breach of the Code on this point.

12. The publication also did not accept a breach in reporting details of the marriages and weddings. It said where none of the individuals were identified and where the focus of the article was the official investigation into the complainant, it did not accept the statements were significantly inaccurate or misleading.

13. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 2. It said the images of the complainant and his ex-wife were from a social media page which was publicly available. It did not accept its reporting had intruded into the privacy of the complainant and his family, as the only details included about the complainant’s ex-wife were that she had been married to him and the relationship had previously broken down, which it said did not constitute an intrusion into her privacy.

14. The publication did not accept Clause 10 had been engaged – it said no subterfuge had taken place.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Clause 2 (Privacy)*

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home, physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital communications.

ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. In considering an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information and the extent to which the material complained about is already in the public domain or will become so.

iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge)*

i) The press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held information without consent.

ii) Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge, including by agents or intermediaries, can generally be justified only in the public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other means.

Mediated Outcome

15. The complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.

16. During IPSO’s investigation the publication offered to print the following correction:

“On 20 January we published an article about a British helicopter pilot, Captain Simon Boeg, which reported on an investigation into him following alleged affairs he had with the wives of two colleagues. Following publication we were contacted by Captain Boeg who clarified that the investigation had not, as reported, been prompted by any of his colleagues refusing to fly with him. We are happy to clarify that the army confirm this was not the case, and apologise for any contrary impression given.”

17. It also offered to apologise privately to the complainant’s ex-wife, as well as to remove the online article.

18. The complainant said that this would resolve the matter to his satisfaction.

19. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code. 

Date complaint received: 22/02/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 18/06/2024