Google Removals Journey

theForum

Google Removals Journey

https://forum.unlock.org.uk/Topic34534.aspx

By tedstriker - 20 Mar 25 3:16 PM

After successfully applying to have links about me removed I have searched and noticed one news story has changed it's URL and so still appears after I applied and was approved. Anyone with any experience of this?

By AB2014 - 20 Mar 25 3:26 PM

tedstriker - 20 Mar 25 3:16 PM

After successfully applying to have links about me removed I have searched and noticed one news story has changed it's URL and so still appears after I applied and was approved. Anyone with any experience of this?

Not directly, but as you already have a decision in your favour, you should be able to quote your reference and ask them to add the new URL.

By Evan Davis - 20 Mar 25 3:26 PM

tedstriker - 20 Mar 25 3:16 PM

I don't have experience specifically with this, but being somewhat of a techie, I can say that it's not completely uncommon for URLs to change slightly during software/website updates. So this may not be a "malicious" targetting of you as such, and in fact is rather unlikely to be such. Much more likely that it's a changed URL that's been relisted by the search engine as it didn't meet the exact URLs submitted in your request.

Submitting another RTBF request with the new link should be sufficient to have it delisted, although I appreciate will mean going through the semi-lengthy process again. I'd include any reference number or such you might have made a note of from the previous request too, just to potentially speed things up.

By khafka - 21 Mar 25 5:21 AM

tedstriker - 20 Mar 25 3:16 PM

I had a couple pop up every now and then but they're no hassle to get removed.

Just reply to the removal confirmation email from Google saying "I have found the following URL(s) that need to be removed" and then just paste the URLs.

They're fairly quick at getting back to you and you don't have to fill out the form or anything again. I've had a 100% success rate with this so out of about 5 or 6 links and they're gone within about 2 days of emailing.

By tedstriker - 21 Mar 25 11:08 AM

Thanks. My concern was whether Google were back to notifying those whose links were removed and so they’d just changed the url to be awkward. This url didn’t appear at first and it’s only been a couple of days since my request. What I think is probably more likely is there were 2 urls for the story originally (the original page still exists) and Google had disregarded the new one. Once the irl had been removed the new one then appeared in search results.

I replied to the email with the new url and it was gone within an hour or two.

Its a bit of a crazy feeling putting your name into google and nothing appearing after 15 years of worry.

By khafka - 21 Mar 25 11:18 AM

tedstriker - 21 Mar 25 11:08 AM

Thanks. My concern was whether Google were back to notifying those whose links were removed and so they’d just changed the url to be awkward. This url didn’t appear at first and it’s only been a couple of days since my request. What I think is probably more likely is there were 2 urls for the story originally (the original page still exists) and Google had disregarded the new one. Once the irl had been removed the new one then appeared in search results. I replied to the email with the new url and it was gone within an hour or two.Its a bit of a crazy feeling putting your name into google and nothing appearing after 15 years of worry.

No problem! Happy it worked for you too! I just keep that email chain so there is a clear of removals being accepted for when I reply.
Thankfully I wasn't as long as yourself, I was only about 4 years I was showing up on Google. Gives a weird peace of mind now though.

By tedstriker - 21 Mar 25 11:34 AM

Now to tackle Yahoo and Bing!

By Freedom111 - 28 Oct 25 8:49 AM

Hi, I’m new to the forum and have just come across this post. I’m also having some concerns around this red rose site. Abit of back story. My conviction happened 23 years ago, there was only one small story on the internet about this when it all happened. I’ve not been in trouble with the law since. I had the original story delisted by Google as my conviction became spent a long time ago. However red rose have somehow come across the story and re posted the article on there site back in May. Since then I’ve had the posts de listed by Google and removed whenever they pop up. However my concern is that even though the results for me are not showing up, when you google my name it comes up with other links to red roses site for other people and then if people click that link they can access the link about me.

Has anyone ever managed to sort this out?

Personally I feel like red rose are surely breaking some law posting my conviction 23 years later?

Any help or advice would be appreciated

By khafka - 28 Oct 25 11:20 AM

Freedom111 - 28 Oct 25 8:49 AM

Hi, I’m new to the forum and have just come across this post. I’m also having some concerns around this red rose site. Abit of back story. My conviction happened 23 years ago, there was only one small story on the internet about this when it all happened. I’ve not been in trouble with the law since. I had the original story delisted by Google as my conviction became spent a long time ago. However red rose have somehow come across the story and re posted the article on there site back in May. Since then I’ve had the posts de listed by Google and removed whenever they pop up. However my concern is that even though the results for me are not showing up, when you google my name it comes up with other links to red roses site for other people and then if people click that link they can access the link about me.Has anyone ever managed to sort this out?Personally I feel like red rose are surely breaking some law posting my conviction 23 years later?Any help or advice would be appreciated

Hey there,

Basically there's little you can do on that front. You can try your luck with Google and point them that you are mentioned on the page but I've found it very hit or miss, sometimes they seemed to be okay removing it and other times they refused. I'm also battling with a weird Facebook one at the moment where when you search for my name you'll see the link header for someone else but the short description Google shows is about me but when you click on the link I get a page that says:

This content isn't available at the moment
When this happens, it's usually because the owner only shared it with a small group of people or changed who can see it, or it's been deleted.

So no idea, I don't have Facebook so I can't go in and check either.

By Freedom111 - 28 Oct 25 11:38 AM

It’s a nightmare isn’t it!!

All this lately has been taking over my life a little!

I’m sure this red rose sight is breaking GDPR rules posting spent convictions. I’ve thought about going to the ICO about the site and seeing what happens however worried it’ll just draw more attention to a 23 year old conviction.

By khafka - 28 Oct 25 12:10 PM

Freedom111 - 28 Oct 25 11:38 AM

It’s a nightmare isn’t it!! All this lately has been taking over my life a little!I’m sure this red rose sight is breaking GDPR rules posting spent convictions. I’ve thought about going to the ICO about the site and seeing what happens however worried it’ll just draw more attention to a 23 year old conviction.

Aye! I'm honestly not sure where the GDPR law lies with this, I'm sure it'll be allowed due to some 'Freedom of the Press' something of that ilk.

As for going to ICO about the site in general - I'd advise extreme caution with this!

I went to ICO about a similar site years ago when my stuff all kicked off (I was younger and naive and was still trying to navigate all this). The end result was ICO effectively doxxing me. They reached out to the website admin basically saying "Hey, John Doe wants you to remove the posts about him. If you wish to speak with him here's his email address".

Suffice to say this went down like a fart in a lift. The result being they plastered me even more as I was trying to "hide" from it all and some other Facebook groups joined in to, and I quote, "make him famous". I got in touch with the police about the harassment and such but they said there's nothing wrong, unless someone actually takes action off the back of the post they can't do anything - I've since learned that is a load of shite and I was basically fobbed off.

Now with everything spent I've just been focusing on getting the results removed from Google/Bing etc. - Unless you know the direct URL of the newspaper post or want to trek back through years of Facebook posts including a main page that no longer exists then I think it's generally the best outcome I can get for now.

EDIT:
Google's ears must have been burning! haha

Just got an email back about those two Facebook URL results I mentioned and it looks like they'll be removing them?

So if it helps you here is what I sent to them:

Good morning,

There's two new posts popping up which clearly show my name but as I don't have a Facebook page I can't see the full article. I have attached a screenshot to prove my name shows up.

Good morning,

There's two new posts popping up which clearly show my name but as I don't have a Facebook page I can't see the full article. I have attached a screenshot to prove my name shows up.

[URL 1]
[URL 2]

Thank you for your time.

[Attached a screenshot of the Google results showing my name]

By Freedom111 - 28 Oct 25 1:03 PM

Thank you for your reply and advice, it is appreciated.

I’ve sent the URLs off to Google which arnt about me. I’ve stated how my name doesn’t appear on these URLs so can I have them removed as they should not show up on a search of my name. I’ve then stated that with them search results present then it could lead people to the URL I’ve already had de listed.

I’ve then asked if there is anyway I can have all urls relating to red rose completely removed from search results going forward.

I’ll update you once I get a reply. Hopefully won’t be too long as I’ve just replied to my past email from Google.

How long are you waiting to hear back from Google these days?

As for the ICO that’s terrible what they did and what these websites also done! I’m thinking maybe the ICO isn’t an option now. Maybe it’s best to just keep working with Google and just wait it out and see what happens going forward!

I’ve heard this red rose site are also posting people without any evidence so maybe in the future this site will be forced to close if they post wrong information about people. We can only hope.

By khafka - 28 Oct 25 1:15 PM

Freedom111 - 28 Oct 25 1:03 PM

Thank you for your reply and advice, it is appreciated.I’ve sent the URLs off to Google which arnt about me. I’ve stated how my name doesn’t appear on these URLs so can I have them removed as they should not show up on a search of my name. I’ve then stated that with them search results present then it could lead people to the URL I’ve already had de listed.I’ve then asked if there is anyway I can have all urls relating to red rose completely removed from search results going forward.I’ll update you once I get a reply. Hopefully won’t be too long as I’ve just replied to my past email from Google.How long are you waiting to hear back from Google these days?As for the ICO that’s terrible what they did and what these websites also done! I’m thinking maybe the ICO isn’t an option now. Maybe it’s best to just keep working with Google and just wait it out and see what happens going forward!I’ve heard this red rose site are also posting people without any evidence so maybe in the future this site will be forced to close if they post wrong information about people. We can only hope.

Fingers crossed for you! I'm going to give it a day or so and have a wee Google tomorrow and see if those results pop up, they're literally the only 2 URLs left that are hanging on like a wee jobby!

As for Made by Rose and their multiple URLs, I did try and bring it up with Google in an effort to save them time and effort as well as I discovered the URLs were all exactly the same except they had a different ID attached to them. I mentioned it earlier in this thread but my gut feeling is as the website is made using Wordpress the ID is linked to a category they have set up, like "paedo = ID1, images = ID2" and so on, so when they create the post on the website they tick all the categories and it applies them to that page. So once one URL gets taken down Google goes to index the next closest one so picks another ID category and then links that, or something along those lines.

It's been a while since any new ones have popped up and for now seems to have capped at 15 URLs, 1 x general one, 14 x with different IDs. August was the last time they removed a Made by Rose one so touch wood...

Google speed has been wild, anywhere from minutes to weeks. This latest one though was a couple of hours! Your initial comment actually got me to ping them an email this morning to see. Checking it I see I sent it at 11:25am today, got the response at 12:10, so less than an hour.

By Freedom111 - 30 Oct 25 9:24 AM

Thought I’d share and update. Today Google have removed URLs that appear when my name is searched that have nothing to do with me from red rose. However I’ve noticed that once they get removed Google indexed other posts from red rose. They arnt about me but sometimes they do have links at the bottom of the page to the link about me.

Getting frustrating now! It’s appears that the only way around this is to keep sending the URLs to Google everyday.

Hope your all keeping well?

By khafka - 19 Nov 25 10:19 AM

khafka - 14 Aug 25 6:33 AM

RunningMan - 13 Aug 25 3:38 PM

Hello. I wanted to get some practical info from those of you who have approached Bing and Yahoo requesting URL removals. I have been successful with Google and now want to turn my fire on them. Is there a form used by either or both that I need to complete, or site I need to visit to apply? Not sure how this process works or where to go to get it started. Any help much appreciated. Thanks.
RM

I haven't tackled Yahoo yet and I'm still working on Bing. Based on my own personal experience and experiences of others they appear to be an absolute shitemare to get stuff removed as they just reject everything as "public interest" - I've tried them twice now.

First time they refused due to this unquantifiable "public interest" tag. The second time I went back to them after Google removed my links and used that in an attempt to have some leverage "Look, Google removed them" and again was pushed back due to "public interest" which they never elaborate on and their email is a no-reply one so you can't follow it up.

This time I raised a case with ICO about it but they're so horrendously back-logged that I'm still waiting for them to get back in touch, I raised the case in about mid-April 2025, when I chased it up in June they advise they were just picking up cases from January so I'm not expecting much until probably October at this point.

Either way, here is the link for the Bing removal form: https://www.bing.com/webmaster/tools/eu-privacy-request

I personally found the form to be a more messy and a pain to fill out compared to Google's but that's just me.

Thought I'd update everyone Operation: Bing.

ICO got back to me this morning and perhaps unsurprisingly, they've sided with Bing and won't be pursuing them to remove any links. Here is what they said, if anyone is interested:

----------

Our decision

We have considered the factors which are relevant to your removal
request and we have decided it is likely that the search results comply
with the data protection legislation. We do not therefore expect Bing to
remove the links.

This is because the articles were primarily published in a journalistic
context and contain information which, in our view, is of legitimate public
interest.

From the information available to us it appears that Bing has complied
with its data protection obligations in processing of personal data to
present the search results. We will not be contacting Bing about this
matter and do not intend to take any further action.

If you disagree with the view we have provided, please note that
individuals are entitled to take their own cases to court, irrespective of
our decision. The ICO cannot assist individual court applications, and we
strongly advise that you seek independent legal advice if you pursue this
option.

Finally, please let us know how we did by taking our customer service
feedback survey. It takes less than a minute and helps us to improve our
service.

Yours sincerely,

ICO Pleb

-------------

So, now I'm thinking what my next move is - I don't really have money for any legal nonsense. I'm thinking of just being a nuisance in the hopes they'll eventually comply in the hopes of just getting me to shut up. Essentially fill out the removal request > Once their rejection comes through > Fill out a new removal request > rinse and repeat.

By AB2014 - 20 Nov 25 9:19 AM

khafka - 19 Nov 25 10:19 AM

khafka - 14 Aug 25 6:33 AM

RunningMan - 13 Aug 25 3:38 PM

I don't know how the law is phrased in Scotland, but in England & Wales, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 says that once your conviction is spent, you have the right to be treated as if you'd never had the conviction in the first place. Not data protection law, but it should carry a lot of weight when deciding what is "legitimate public interest".

By khafka - 20 Nov 25 10:48 AM

AB2014 - 20 Nov 25 9:19 AM

khafka - 19 Nov 25 10:19 AM

khafka - 14 Aug 25 6:33 AM

RunningMan - 13 Aug 25 3:38 PM

That Act applies to Scotland as well although we do have a handful of adjustments. None of which are relevant or impact my situation.

It's just annoying as I thought I was on to a winner as once my sentence was spent Google, to their credit, have been brilliant in removing stuff for me and I'm clear on Google. Bing are just being shitebags for seemingly no reason. This is also my 3rd attempt at going through ICO to resolve this matter in general and they've been utter garbage every single time. Hell, some folk might remember my first attempt years ago where they ended up doxxing me to one of the owners of those registry websites which results in a bit of a hate campaign on Facebook.

By khafka - 24 Mar 25 7:43 AM

tedstriker - 21 Mar 25 11:34 AM

Now to tackle Yahoo and Bing!

Best of luck, mate! Let me know how you get on.

I still need to get back on them. I tried Bing after Google removed mine and they were being such difficult shitebags about it I gave up for a while. Weirdly half the Google results don't even show on Bing in the first place but still...

By tedstriker - 29 Mar 25 8:32 AM

tedstriker - 21 Mar 25 11:08 AM

And now it's back again with a different URL. Guess I'm playing whack-a-mole for a while.

By khafka - 11 Apr 25 3:29 PM

Right,

Just sent off my request to Bing to see if they can remove the links.

What I will state is I noticed a new website has cropped up and showing me in Google (I've requested them to remove it). I have also reported their domain URL to their host as they're openly admitting to running a public offender database which is against the law.

So if you've had stuff removed maybe take a quick check to see if you've popped up again.

It's 'Red Rose' that is doing it.

By khafka - 19 Apr 25 1:21 AM

So a week later.

Google have removed that link, happy days.

Bing have told me to jog on as they believe that public interest is more important than my privacy. They have no way to appeal either, shitebags.
Thats twice they've refused it now. I think I'll lodge a case with ICO, the fact Google removes my stuff will hopefully work in my favour.

As a sidenote, Microsoft actually publish their removals. From January To June 2024 they accepted/removed only 43% of all requests.

By Evan Davis - 19 Apr 25 3:28 PM

khafka - 19 Apr 25 1:21 AM

So a week later.

Google have removed that link, happy days.

Bing have told me to jog on as they believe that public interest is more important than my privacy. They have no way to appeal either, shitebags.
Thats twice they've refused it now. I think I'll lodge a case with ICO, the fact Google removes my stuff will hopefully work in my favour.

As a sidenote, Microsoft actually publish their removals. From January To June 2024 they accepted/removed only 43% of all requests.

I'd definitely recommend trying the ICO and leaning a bit into Article 8 - good luck!

PS: With regards specifically to the publishing of figures, I'd be semi-wary of paying much heed whatsoever to these figures - it does sound like it's on the low side, but I don't doubt they're receiving a lot of applications from people who are "having a go" and aren't really dedicated to the process as such, so perhaps aren't filling out the request form correctly or ensuring they put across the ongoing effects it is having on their lives, and so are being denied.

By khafka - 20 Apr 25 1:50 AM

Evan Davis - 19 Apr 25 3:28 PM

khafka - 19 Apr 25 1:21 AM

Yeah, I'll be putting a report to ICO together on Monday.

I've been burned heavily by them before when they made a massive mess and were just basically "sorry lol". This was earlier before I knew more about the removals process I went to ICO about a few websites posting about me and then got in touch with the people directly saying "Khafka wants you to remove the posts about him". My crime being a sex offence you can imagine how that went down with those websites...

By khafka - 23 Apr 25 12:00 PM

Just updating everyone regarding Operation: Bing

Sent off my request to ICO this morning, according to the auto-response it could take up to around a week to get assigned and receive a reference number etc.

Aside from the main bits on the report the bulk of my request stated the following:

My offence has been spent as of 2023 and under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act I am afforded the opportunity to carry on my life as a ‘normal’ individual. These search results being active has prevented me from obtaining employment, housing, engaging in public activities, as well as further facilitating embarrassment and harassment. I am not a public figure, I’m not famous in any way. My offence is over half a decade old at this point and has been legally classed as spent for over 2 years so I’d reject the notion of it still being in public interest.

Additionally Bing have denied my request on the basis of the EU GDPR which has no relevance within the UK as we operate on the UK GDPR scheme.

Furthermore, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) entitles me to live my life in privacy which these results contravene.

Other search engines such as Google have accepted my request and have removed all results I have requested. Bing seem reluctant due to ‘public interest’ however they will not quantify that nor is there an escalation procedure in place for it to be removed.

So we'll see how it pans out, I'll be sure to get folks updated on the progress even if only for posterity.

By RunningMan - 13 Aug 25 3:38 PM

Hello. I wanted to get some practical info from those of you who have approached Bing and Yahoo requesting URL removals. I have been successful with Google and now want to turn my fire on them. Is there a form used by either or both that I need to complete, or site I need to visit to apply? Not sure how this process works or where to go to get it started. Any help much appreciated. Thanks.
RM

By khafka - 14 Aug 25 6:33 AM

RunningMan - 13 Aug 25 3:38 PM

By RunningMan - 15 Aug 25 2:32 PM

Hello. I have been playing 'whack-a-mole' all week finding, almost daily, new listings of my case and then approaching google to get them removed. One set of particularly stubborn URLs relates to an online site called 'madebyredrose'. Totally unlawful and potentially risking people's safety, they list anyone and everyone who has been convicted of any kind of sexual offence. Has anyone had any dealings with this group? Are they deliberately reshuffling URLs to circumvent the 'right to be forgotten' and is there a way to appeal beyond google and actually go after this group itself due to the unlawful nature of what they are doing? It is starting to get me down, to be honest. Having to do a daily trawl of the public reporting of my awful mess when it has been spent for years is a task I can do without. I would be interested to hear anyone's experiences or ideas about possible next steps. Thanks
RM

By khafka - 16 Aug 25 5:41 AM

RunningMan - 15 Aug 25 2:32 PM

Hello. I have been playing 'whack-a-mole' all week finding, almost daily, new listings of my case and then approaching google to get them removed. One set of particularly stubborn URLs relates to an online site called 'madebyredrose'. Totally unlawful and potentially risking people's safety, they list anyone and everyone who has been convicted of any kind of sexual offence. Has anyone had any dealings with this group? Are they deliberately reshuffling URLs to circumvent the 'right to be forgotten' and is there a way to appeal beyond google and actually go after this group itself due to the unlawful nature of what they are doing? It is starting to get me down, to be honest. Having to do a daily trawl of the public reporting of my awful mess when it has been spent for years is a task I can do without. I would be interested to hear anyone's experiences or ideas about possible next steps. Thanks
RM

I've been caught up with them too.

I've spoken about it on this thread here and actually approached Police Scotland about it as the website and the listing for me was set up after I'd been removed from the registry and my sentence became spent.

https://forum.unlock.org.uk/Topic35501-3.aspx

The short answer is: The police didn't care.

I don't believe they're intentionally doing it to circumvent anything, without sounding like a bit of a dick - Looking at the rest of the website and the way it is has been setup I don't believe they're smart enough to achieve that and this is all basically just circumstance/accidental of the backend of the CMS system they use.

What I have noticed is it is a singular number suffix at the end of the URL which is what causes Google to re-list it. The website is setup using Wordpress and the number suffix is linked to a category, so theoretically they have setup a bunch of categories which are linked using a number ID, I guess it just depends how many categories they have and how many are linked to a specific article.

The URLs are all the same except the number at the end, in my case it's like this: https://madebyredrose.co.uk/abuser/[MY-NAME]?category=18

I've had 14 numbers removed so far as well as a base-listing.

If it helps, the numbers for me have been: 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 - Note that these did not appear in sequential order but I arranged them this way for ease of reading.

I also tried to raise the case with Google that given the article URL is still in essence the same could they not just do a wildcard removal like https://madebyredrose.co.uk/abuser/[MY-NAME]?category=* but they never really acknowledged it and just continue to keep removing any URLs I send so not sure about that moving forward.

By AB2014 - 19 Aug 25 9:07 AM

khafka - 16 Aug 25 5:41 AM

RunningMan - 15 Aug 25 2:32 PM

If this is all related to a particular sub-domain, it might be worth trying the ICO about that. Regardless of whether you think this is deliberate, it's still happening, so maybe the ICO would be interested in seeing whether it is a delibrate attempt to deny the right to be forgotten. The worst they can do is say no.

By khafka - 23 Jan 24 2:26 PM

Hey folks,

I thought I'd document my second attempt at trying to get search results about me removed in the hopes it may help someone in the future and give a bit of a realistic overview of what actually happens.

So a quick recap of the offence as it may be relevant for some:

Indecent Images Offence
120hrs Community Resolution Order
RSO Rehabilitation Program
Subject to the notification requirements for 3 years

My 3 years on the registry was the final bit holding it all back from being spent (even though it seems that it would still class as being spent regardless) but either way, with that element no longer in the way it should give them even less to push back on.

I have applied in the past and have been removed due to the very vague "public interest" reason that nobody at Google can seem to define for me. ICO have also been completely useless and in the first instance actually caused more issues by accidentally giving my contact details to a vigilante group. But I digress...

As of today (23/01/2024) I have submitted a fresh request and referenced my previous request from ~4 years ago.

I submitted all the links I could find for up to 10 pages on Google (which I felt would be enough), which in the end result in around 10 links in total.
My main reasoning for the link removal was focused around the offence being spent, the rehabilitation of offenders act stating that I have a legal right to move on with my life as if this offence didn't happen (as suggested by NACRO). As well as the links just being generally no longer in the public interest and how I'm not a famous person of interest etc.

I will continue to update this post as and when updates happen.

By RunningMan - 1 Sep 25 11:47 AM

Hi again. Thanks to those of you who have posted with some helpful thoughts/advice. A further follow up query. As mentioned, Google removed some historic URLs as per my request and when further sites appeared, I responded to that original email from them and these too were promptly removed - sometimes within a matter of minutes. However, a few more appeared and I replied to the Google email again (which worked on several previous occasions) only to receive nothing. I put in another request using the Google Form and not heard anything back yet either. Has anyone else experienced this? It is very frustrating having finally got a response and multiple links removed only to then be 'blanked' / ignored and have to resort to putting in an entirely new request via their online removals form.
Thanks
RM

By khafka - 1 Sep 25 12:00 PM

RunningMan - 1 Sep 25 11:47 AM

Hi again. Thanks to those of you who have posted with some helpful thoughts/advice. A further follow up query. As mentioned, Google removed some historic URLs as per my request and when further sites appeared, I responded to that original email from them and these too were promptly removed - sometimes within a matter of minutes. However, a few more appeared and I replied to the Google email again (which worked on several previous occasions) only to receive nothing. I put in another request using the Google Form and not heard anything back yet either. Has anyone else experienced this? It is very frustrating having finally got a response and multiple links removed only to then be 'blanked' / ignored and have to resort to putting in an entirely new request via their online removals form.
Thanks
RM

I think there must be a backlog or something as another URL popped up for me about 3 weeks so sent my wee email off as usual and heard nothing back (I followed it up about 5 days ago). They are typically very quick and I think maybe 2-3 days is the longest I've had to wait so this is out of the norm, given you seem to be experiencing the same I reckon they do just have some backlog or something.

By khafka - 3 Sep 25 9:06 AM

Huzzah!

Just got an email this morning confirming the removal of the URL, so yeah, must have just been a backlog or something! Fingers crossed you get something soon.

By khafka - 12 Sep 25 12:23 PM

Feck off.

So a new Facebook page has popped up and slapped me on it a week or so ago. Requested for it to be removed via Google but the page doesn't have any information about the dates and how it happened years ago so it looks fresh despite my sentence being spent since 2023. They also appear to have somehow got hold of my "new" name (although spelled my last name wrong lol). Shitebags, man.

Between this and that Made By Rose website I do wonder where they're pulling the information from? Seems weird and a bit sad if they're just trawling through years of newspaper articles for this stuff to post.

By CB Root - 13 Sep 25 5:10 PM

khafka - 12 Sep 25 12:23 PM

Feck off.

So a new Facebook page has popped up and slapped me on it a week or so ago. Requested for it to be removed via Google but the page doesn't have any information about the dates and how it happened years ago so it looks fresh despite my sentence being spent since 2023. They also appear to have somehow got hold of my "new" name (although spelled my last name wrong lol). Shitebags, man.

Between this and that Made By Rose website I do wonder where they're pulling the information from? Seems weird and a bit sad if they're just trawling through years of newspaper articles for this stuff to post.

Yes, after a couple of years of relative calm (only 1 single reference to be found by top-level search and another discoverable by a bit of digging), I was dismayed to see multiple FB hits pop up.

They all seem to be associated with a group called "O-C Exposure Australia". A small consolation is that there doesn't seen to be any personal animus (no recent comments etc.) so I think it's just a data dump.

In a way I am not really any worse off than I was before this recent activity, so I am going to sit tight for a while and see if they drop off the first few pages of results.

By khafka - 13 Sep 25 5:39 PM

CB Root - 13 Sep 25 5:10 PM

khafka - 12 Sep 25 12:23 PM

Aye, when I looked at it aside from 2 comments and a couple of emoji reactions there was nothing, really. Certainly nowhere near the amount of stuff on the original FB posts about me - Which, in a surprising but nice twist of fate is gone completely. They closed their entire account down or it was possibly banned, I'm not 100% sure but either way it's gone from FB.

I've put in for Google to remove the current FB result which I suspect they will do and hopefully just through time it'll filter away. One thing I have noticed though and not sure how to address it is when you search my name there's currently 3 results: The main FB post of this new account, and 2 other posts from this account which aren't about me but the wee blurb description in the Google results is about me, like it's pulling the wrong data or something. I'm hoping as it's a new account it'll sort itself out over time but if anyone has any ideas I'm all ears!

By david123 - 15 Sep 25 10:25 AM

khafka - 16 Aug 25 5:41 AM

RunningMan - 15 Aug 25 2:32 PM

I have just found a new red rose link appear with a new index number so have sent off a request to Google to get it removed.
They must re-index the database every so often giving the articles new subject id's
Just got to keep checking!

By khafka - 15 Sep 25 11:57 AM

david123 - 15 Sep 25 10:25 AM

khafka - 16 Aug 25 5:41 AM

[quote]

RunningMan - 15 Aug 25 2:32 PM

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. As the website is made through Wordpress my theory is the ID corresponds with a tag they assign to the article, for example.

#Paedo= ID1, #sexoffender = ID2, #children = ID3 etc.

So when they post the article they add in all these hashtags/categories and Google just picks one. Then once one is removed Google indexes another ID and so on. Could be wrong though but having worked with Wordpress sites before it makes sense logically to me.

I have been keeping a track of them (and other links), here's the list for me so far if anyone is curious.

https://forum.unlock.org.uk/Uploads/Images/c1456d5d-176b-4280-9f7e-3ab9.jpg

By RunningMan - 25 Sep 25 2:59 PM

A quick update. As previously mentioned, I sent in an original request to google to have some links removed. They replied to that after one month. Further links had popped up in that time so I replied to their original email reply two or three times as more links appeared and they responded immediately by removing them too. It was brilliant. It felt like I was finally making some progress! However, they stopped replying to that original email. Very annoying as there were only a few links left. So I emailed a new request (linked to the reference from the original request I sent) and once again, after 4 weeks they replied. That was Monday this week. As before, I then replied to that response requesting a couple of extra links be removed that had popped up in the meantime. Total. Silence.

I decided to push back - having to put in yet another request and wait yet another 4 weeks is totally unacceptable. So, I replied to the most recent email and challenged them a little bit as to the delay explaining the situation and hinting I would 'escalate it' if this excessive delay continued. I kept it polite but assertive. And sure enough, three hours later I received a reply. Links removed. All of them.

It is definitely worth holding their feet to the fire and not settling for the usual excuses about lack of resources/very high demand for the service blah blah blah - I appreciate they are busy but they need to ensure sufficient staff headcount to meet their legal obligations.

RM

By marcovanba - 27 Sep 25 6:50 PM

Having a bit of an issue with Bing / Yahoo

They keep saying they will remove links but don't, and their process is much more painful than google

I have to restart every single time

Any suggestions as to how I could look at resolving this?

Thanks in advance!

By AB2014 - 30 Sep 25 9:23 AM

marcovanba - 27 Sep 25 6:50 PM

Having a bit of an issue with Bing / Yahoo

They keep saying they will remove links but don't, and their process is much more painful than google

I have to restart every single time

Any suggestions as to how I could look at resolving this?

Thanks in advance!

Well, if you have it in writing that they will remove the links but then they don't remove them, I'd suggest giving them one last reminder, backed up by the written evidence. Allow a reasonable time, maybe 14 or 28 days, and if they still haven't done it, complain to the ICO. After all, you're not asking the ICO to decide whether the information should be deleted, you're asking them to enforce the deletion that was promised in writing. It will take a while, obviously, but waiting for Bing & Yahoo to fulfill their promises would probably take much longer.

By marcovanba - 1 Oct 25 4:20 PM

AB2014 - 30 Sep 25 9:23 AM

marcovanba - 27 Sep 25 6:50 PM

Thank you for taking the time to reply.... I will give that a try

By khafka - 2 Oct 25 1:58 AM

marcovanba - 1 Oct 25 4:20 PM

AB2014 - 30 Sep 25 9:23 AM

marcovanba - 27 Sep 25 6:50 PM

Thank you for taking the time to reply.... I will give that a try

What I will say is there is a long backlog with ICO at the moment.

I submitted a case with them about Bing (funnily enough!) around mid-April and it still hasn't been picked up yet. I checked in on it around I think it was June or July and they advised they were just getting round to January's requests.

So if you do take it to ICO just be aware you may have at least a 6 month wait.