May not be something for this group, but may open decision around the google effect, 

as ex offenders google And the ICO drag us through the mill to try and get our information removed, and most times with little success.

yet in the space of 24 hrs this weekend google have removed all reference And picture to Winston Churchill Being the UK prime minster during the 2nd world war 

It just don’t add up

https://9to5google.com/2020/06/14/google-search-churchill/
they say it was not intentional.

Yeah pigs might fly lol

with  everything going on Someone just accidentally hit the remove button lol

Just think about it for a moment. If they were removing Churchill from search results, why was is a very specific instance? It was an error on "British Prime Ministers".  If you searched for "Winston Churchill" his mug came up every time. It was a very poor attempt at wiping his existence off the web if that was the social justice warrior's behind the nefarious plot's aim.

You are entitled to feel paranoid. I've become paranoid. But 99% of times a cock-up is the reason for most things rather than a conspiracy.

Hi Was, I am not a conspiracy theorist, I agree that it was a cock up on google part, was just looking to change the dynamics of the conversations at the moment, away from what was being discussed

and as I was thinking what to write that story popped up on the news 

sometime a change is good for the soul

Sorry. i misunderstood your point. I read it as if they can remove WSC overnight, why can they not remove right to be forgotten links just as quickly.

I've got a very good case for RTBF. Because of an almighty FUBAR by the CPS barrister, they read out in open court what the police originally arrested me for. There was never ever any evidence for that (mainly because it wasn't true.). As court reporting is a qualified privilege the local papers have no obligation to correct it as it is not legally libelous, resulting in people Googling me "finding" that I have apparently committed far more serious offences. I have a good case for delisting, but the papers would then be entitled to publish a follow up explaining that the links had been removed.

However, I've chosen the path of not invoking the Streisand Effect!

I mean.

You probably could get your stuff removed from Google searches if you had access to millions of pounds and a barrage of pearl-clutching government types at your disposal...

I've also decided to essentially just "leave it" with mine, at least for now. If you Google my name you get 4 links about my offence on the first page of results.

1. The first time it was posted up in the local news when I made my guilty plea
   
2. My local Guy Fawkes mask enthusiast group linking to said news article
3. Guy Fawkes posting again a few months later when I was sentenced
4. My details in that database website

Hi guys just thought I'd let you know my experience.

My SO conviction was reported in the local paper online. For the first few years it was on the first page of results if you "Googled" my name. The report itself contained several inaccuracies and I did consider contacting the local paper directly to set the record straight but thought better of it, besides when has any media platform cared about publishing factually correct information? Even dear old Auntie is slipping these days.

I was interested in having the link removed under "the right to be forgotten" when my conviction became spent however this has been unnecessary.

It is now 5 years later and googling my name does not provide any link to anything regarding my conviction so either the local papers online news-site has deleted or archived the publication or there were so few clicks on the link after a couple of years that it got pushed down in googles search results and eventually de-listed.

My advice would be unless you have an extremely unique name or the "google effect" is causing you immediate problems to just leave it and see what happens with the passage of time. Remember the less clicks a link receives the lower it will trend on google results so don't inadvertently bump your own write-ups!

My advice would be unless you have an extremely unique name

Sadly for me, this is true. Although neither my christian name and surname are obscure, the combination is. I have never found anyone else online with it with a Google or Bing search. 

Of course the police advice was to change it. Yeah, because that doesn't mark you out as suspicious.🙄 

I'm in the same boat.

I did contemplate changing it. I have done, slightly and nothing shows up on Google using my "new" name. It's my birth name which I shortened in average life prior to this. So it helps somewhat.

The issue with changing it is there's still the risk of you showing up in the media if you have a court review for example as it'll show on the court roll your previous name and the paper/media will almost certainly state "Joe Bloggs, previously known as Steve Dave was in court today..." so all the hassle of changing all your information is all essentially for nothing.