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.

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".

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

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.

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?

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. 

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.

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.

[URL 1]
[URL 2]

Thank you for your time. 

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

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.

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. 

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