Did anybody see this news story that appeared on both BBC and The Guardian's websites last week (see link at the bottom). It's basically an update of how Google have been handling requests under the new "Right to be Forgotten" ruling. Interestingly, they mention that they removed a link to a page about one person's conviction because the crime was spent under the ROA. Here's the exact wording:

"It [Google] said a news summary of a man who was convicted at a magistrates' court had been removed as, under the UK Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, his conviction had been spent."

This seems to be a VERY significant development that has been overlooked by many that might visit this site. I made a request on these very same grounds and was rejected. It seems as though Google are not being very consistent with how they make their decisions. My conviction is spent, but is "one of those" crimes. Perhaps this is why they declined my request? Strange that the ROA doesn't discriminate between types of offences but Google does.

I wonder whether Unlock were aware of this development and have considered exploring this issue further? I might make another request based on this new information.

Here's a link to the BBC report: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29586700

Sadly you're probably right. Still, the fact that they've publicly admitted that this is part of their process should give some fodder for our cause.

Having said that, the BBC have just published this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29658085

One step forward, two steps back!...

Sounds good, though like you mention I have heard a few people complain that they were still not granted the right for it to be removed despite being spent I would hope at some point google provides a clear criteria that must be met but it seems like they make the decision on personal feelings.

Agree 2 steps back, its sad to see google discriminate, law should be law but as we know the truth is very different reality.