Wooo! That's the exact email I got/get. 

That's the one to keep an hold of I mentioned earlier! In my experience they usually disappear within 24hours of that email. 

I will get round to trying to Bing again at some point but it's not a huge priority just now.

"Hello,

Thanks for reaching out to us.

We had a look at these URLs:
-
-

We'll delist these URLs from search results for queries related to your name. We'll delist them in your country, and from other European versions of Google Search. It may take a few hours for this to happen.

The content itself will still be online, but you can ask the site's webmaster to take it down. You can learn how to contact a site's webmaster on our Help Center."


I'll wait a bit before checking the outcomes, but if it works I'm elated. The only thread remaining to my punishment is some ugly rumours.
And Bing. The moral of the story is, keep is short and sweet, don't plead or overshare, just lean on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. And a benchmark reached -- jail time from 10 years ago. It might be a nice idea to begin a single long term thread where people share winning pleas/formulations.

Oh God, there's an American dimension to my life and work though 
I wonder if they meant "queries related to your name [globally], AND deliisted [generally] in Google searches in UK and Europe", 

You should've gotten an initial email too, or at least I did. 

But it was just a generic thing saying it's in the queue, here's your reference number so I wouldn't think too much of it if you've gotten a number. 

Depending how busy they are and how complex yours might be in terms of reviewing it all you should hopefully hear back in a couple of days. Once you get an email confirming the removals KEEP THAT EMAIL Then moving forward if any new links pops up just reply to that email with the new URL(s) and I've had zero issue with them removing them, usually within 24hours. 

Fingers crossed for you!

I didn't get a confirmation email, is that normal? Just a little confirmation page and incident number.

Nope, not other additional facility needed. 

It's been a hot minute since I've had to fill out the form but from memory there is an option for alternate spellings. I used it to cover all bases "think like John/Johnathan" etc. 

Well I'm finally doing it...I'll let you know how they respond to a spend 18 month sentence.

So those are THE links where the magic happens? No additional facility to speak of?

Here's my concern, going in:
"Click here if your name (or your client's name) is not the search query that produces the result(s) that you wish to have delisted"

Problem is, people google me by the wrong spelling of my name all the time, and get the offending article.

No confirmation email like I was expecting? I got the confirmation page though and the little incident number.

Nope, they never asked for anything like that. It was a few years ago but I think it was just a picture of my passport to prove I am me. No DBS or any other documentation was needed.

Thanks --- I will check out your links earlier in thread --  well my thinking is now.. their default mode would be to remove the links under those circumstances, so I'll make my case as bland and factual as possible, with emphasis on the rehab law.

Do they ask for a photocopy of your blank basic CRB certificate?

Yeah! It is straight forward. I can't remember what page it is on in this thread but I put links and a wee blurb and stuff about what I used. 

But essentially stated how the links/articles are harming my rehabilitation and contravene the rehabilitation of offenders act as well as stating how I'm not a famous person/politician etc. so they are no longer of any public relevance and should be removed under GDPR.

Then I got an email back I think a couple of days later saying they'll remove the links. Then ever since then any new links that have popped up I simply reply to that confirmation email with the links and they have removed them without any fuss or issues. Usually within about 24-48hrs too.

So yeah I'll say I'm 40 with a career now, my conviction is spent, and what you're reading about is some webcam malarkey from 2007 (college days), that really should be behind me.

The crazy thing is, I had already "outgrown" my conviction when it was handed to me in 2016.
I returned from my career in California to my mother's house in Scotland for xmas 2016.
Was there 3 days, when the police came crashing in, in search of jpegs. And I was like "fine whatever", thinking maybe my brother had been bandying around pics of his 16yo GF, and that's what they were after.
But in the house were a bunch of my old hard drives etc with heaps of deleted files on them from 9-10 years ago.
And I assumed they had been discarded anyway. 

Apparently the stuff they unearthed was not the stuff that tipped them off. They had simply been tipped off by a dirty meme I had posted to 4Chan in 2014, involving the girl in Jurassic Park getting her tits out to divert the attention of a T-rex. The image component that made the meme possible was an illegal one. 

So instead of returning to California, I spent the rest of the xmas period being poked and prodded in a Scottish police cell being spoken to like I was Bart Simpson or some fundamentally unserious character.

And now there are stupid articles talking about me, giving my mature age, citing this immature behaviour etc (the 2007 stuff and the Jurassic Park stuff), defining me utterly in to 2026. My tactic thus far has been to brazen it out totally, and continue to live my life in such a way that nobody could possibly believe I am the person in the article. It seems to work -- people who google me look right past it. 

Am I right in thinking it should be short and sweet? Lean on the ROO act etc, mention the crime is old and that I have a career now etc?