Google removes first Oxford story about Robert Daniels-Dwyer's conviction for shoplifting under Right To Be Forgotten ruling

Google removes first Oxford story about man caught shoplifting under Right To Be Forgotten ruling

Google removes first Oxford story about man caught shoplifting under Right To Be Forgotten ruling

First published in News
Last updated
Oxford Mail: Photograph of the Author by , Assistant Editor

A STORY about an archaeology specialist caught shoplifting has become the first Newsquest Oxfordshire story to be erased from Google searches under the controversial new ‘right to be forgotten’ laws.

Google yesterday notified Newsquest Oxfordshire, publisher of the Oxford Mail and The Oxford Times, it had removed the story about Dr Robert Daniels-Dwyer – who had been convicted of trying to steal £200-worth of Christmas presents from Boots in Cornmarket Street, Oxford – from its listing following a European Court of Justice ruling last month.

Critics have labelled the ruling by the ECJ – that articles deemed irrelevant or out of date should be wiped from search engine results – censorship and open to abuse by criminals and the powerful who will try to hide information from the public.

Yesterday Google started to comply with the ECJ ruling and one of the stories it has deleted covers Daniels-Dwyer’s conviction in May 2006 if you search for his name.

Whilst it is not known if it was Daniels-Dwyer who applied to Google to remove the story, he has previously failed in a bid through the Press Complaints Commission to have it taken off our websites.

The story details that a jury at Oxford Crown Court found Daniels-Dwyer – then 35 and living in Manor Road in Oxford – guilty of theft after hearing he had hid toiletries and presents in a bag underneath his two-year-old son's pushchair at the chemist.

He then tried to leave Boots without paying for the gifts, claiming he lost his wallet.

He was given a two-year conditional discharge and ordered to pay £1,500 costs.

That conviction is now spent.

Daniels-Dwyer complained to the Press Complaints Commission about accuracy four years after the court case and that he was being caused “embarrassment”.

Amongst his demands was: “Newsquest should purge the article from all databases, internally and externally available, and from any news databases to which it provides content.”

Two factual amendments were made the article and the PCC dismissed his case.

The European Court ruling only affects search engine companies like Google. It does not have the power to order newspapers to remove stories but by deleting a search listing it becomes harder for the public to find stories they are searching for.

Today Oxford Mail and Oxford Times group editor Simon O’Neill said: “The ruling by the European Court of Justice is, in reality, an assault on the public’s right to know perfectly legitimate information.

“The problem is that it will be misused by criminals, politicians, celebrities and charlatans to stop the public learning inconvenient or embarrassing information.

“If anything, the Right To Be Forgotten, as this ruling has been called, will really become the Right To Censorship.

“It is an attempt to re-write history. Nothing else, and you can’t just suddenly pretend an event has not happened.

“We often get complaints from convicted criminals that publishing stories about them invades their privacy or is unfair but the simple fact is if they didn’t go out committing crime and appearing in court then there would not be a story.

“We will resist this move to stop you, the public, knowing perfectly legitimate information about people.”

The Oxford Mail has had other people demanding stories about them be removed under the Right To Be Forgotten including a businessman who claimed his drink driving conviction was affecting his reputation.

How the ECJ ruling is flawed

The European Court of Justice’s ruling only extends to Google’s operations and websites in Europe.

That means people living outside of Europe – or people who just use the web address Google.com rather than Google.co.uk – can see the ‘deleted’ search results banned by the court.

Here are two screenshots of a search for “Robert Daniels-Dwyer” Oxford on google.co.uk and google.com.

The first shows no listing for the story about his conviction, whilst the second does.

Oxford Mail:

Oxford Mail:

You can get around the ECJ ruling by using google.com rather than google.co.uk

Our top stories:

City handouts give big lift to the less fortunate

Oxford Mail:

5:00pm Saturday 30th August 2014

ROSE Hill has the highest child poverty rate in Oxford.

Acts jump through hoops as Big Feastival begins

Oxford Mail:

9:30am Saturday 30th August 2014

SOPHIE Greenwood showed punters at the Big Feastival how to hula yesterday, as the event opened with musical performances from Reggae Reggae sauce entrepreneur Levi Roots and Abba tribute act Bjorn Again.

Mullins believes cup will lift U's

Oxford Mail:

9:30am Saturday 30th August 2014

Johnny Mullins is confident Oxford United’s midweek cup exertions will be a help rather than a hindrance in the search for their first points of the season today.

Hospital complaints up

Oxford Mail: Where will funds come from?

9:10am Saturday 30th August 2014

New data from the Health and Social Information Centre revealed that the number of written complaints to Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, which runs the county’s main hospitals, increased to 890 in 2013/14, from 792 in 2012/13.

Make-up driver fined

Oxford Mail: Thames Valley Police logo

9:10am Saturday 30th August 2014

A driver putting on make-up close to Abingdon police station was among drivers stopped and fined for motoring crimes on Thursday morning.

Police fear for welfare of missing teenager

Oxford Mail:

9:10am Saturday 30th August 2014

A teenager was missing last night, with police and his family fearing for his welfare.

 

Comments (37)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:52pm Thu 3 Jul 14

ashleyc says...

Haha, well done OM. Not only are you reposting all the details of this man's crimes in a new story but you're giving details on how to access the original story as well. Keep it up, this is a pathetic law and the simple fact that i'm able to see and comment on Dr Robert Daniels-Dwyer's misdeeds when I was previously unaware shows how pointless it is.
Haha, well done OM. Not only are you reposting all the details of this man's crimes in a new story but you're giving details on how to access the original story as well. Keep it up, this is a pathetic law and the simple fact that i'm able to see and comment on Dr Robert Daniels-Dwyer's misdeeds when I was previously unaware shows how pointless it is. ashleyc
  • Score: 39

1:06pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe says...

ashleyc wrote:
Haha, well done OM. Not only are you reposting all the details of this man's crimes in a new story but you're giving details on how to access the original story as well. Keep it up, this is a pathetic law and the simple fact that i'm able to see and comment on Dr Robert Daniels-Dwyer's misdeeds when I was previously unaware shows how pointless it is.
Quite agree, had never heard of him until this story now I know all about him.
[quote][p][bold]ashleyc[/bold] wrote: Haha, well done OM. Not only are you reposting all the details of this man's crimes in a new story but you're giving details on how to access the original story as well. Keep it up, this is a pathetic law and the simple fact that i'm able to see and comment on Dr Robert Daniels-Dwyer's misdeeds when I was previously unaware shows how pointless it is.[/p][/quote]Quite agree, had never heard of him until this story now I know all about him. Sandy Wimpole-Smythe
  • Score: 28

2:01pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Andrew:Oxford says...

It's an important example.

I've had a quick look and there are useful stories concerning "Activists" in Oxford that have now disappeared.

The trouble with the legislation is it assumes that everything that is to be "forgotten" is going to be something bad.

Stories of bravery, honour and good deeds are being "forgotten" too.
It's an important example. I've had a quick look and there are useful stories concerning "Activists" in Oxford that have now disappeared. The trouble with the legislation is it assumes that everything that is to be "forgotten" is going to be something bad. Stories of bravery, honour and good deeds are being "forgotten" too. Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 12

3:02pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Fergie10 says...

Surely this has backfired on Robert Daniels-Dwyer? Previously I knew nothing of his crime, and would have had no interest in searching for such but this has brought it to mine, and many others attention! For someone supposedly so clever I wonder whether this plan was thought through properly. If you don't want to remind people that you are a criminal, don't commit the crime in the first place. A jury found you guilty after hearing all the evidence, therefore you are a criminal.
Surely this has backfired on Robert Daniels-Dwyer? Previously I knew nothing of his crime, and would have had no interest in searching for such but this has brought it to mine, and many others attention! For someone supposedly so clever I wonder whether this plan was thought through properly. If you don't want to remind people that you are a criminal, don't commit the crime in the first place. A jury found you guilty after hearing all the evidence, therefore you are a criminal. Fergie10
  • Score: 18

3:03pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Quentin Walker says...

Own goal, shot self in foot - you choose, Dr Daniels-Dwyer...
Own goal, shot self in foot - you choose, Dr Daniels-Dwyer... Quentin Walker
  • Score: 19

4:03pm Thu 3 Jul 14

The New Private Eye says...

Surely another reason to leave the EU, how many other laws have they bought in without our knowledge. Had this not been highlighted here I would never have known to use .com or .th etc instead of an EU .etc
Surely another reason to leave the EU, how many other laws have they bought in without our knowledge. Had this not been highlighted here I would never have known to use .com or .th etc instead of an EU .etc The New Private Eye
  • Score: -8

5:13pm Thu 3 Jul 14

MrSooty says...

This ruling is down to Euroempress wannabe Viviane Reding.Remember her?She's the elite politician from Luxurybourg who thinks the British public too ignorant to understand the issues involved in a referendum,and the main reason that I shall be voting for Mr Farage at the next general election.A very dangerous woman.
This ruling is down to Euroempress wannabe Viviane Reding.Remember her?She's the elite politician from Luxurybourg who thinks the British public too ignorant to understand the issues involved in a referendum,and the main reason that I shall be voting for Mr Farage at the next general election.A very dangerous woman. MrSooty
  • Score: 1

6:27pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Milkbutnosugarplease says...

This archaeologist who was caught stealing - I've heard that his career is in ruins! Bum bum, as Basil Brush used to say.
This archaeologist who was caught stealing - I've heard that his career is in ruins! Bum bum, as Basil Brush used to say. Milkbutnosugarplease
  • Score: 14

11:44pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Geoff Roberts says...

It kinda looks like you're harassing someone just for the sake of a story.
It kinda looks like you're harassing someone just for the sake of a story. Geoff Roberts
  • Score: 3

9:33am Fri 4 Jul 14

elperrohavuelto says...

With so many important things happening around the world and within Oxford itself, I find it a little sad that the Oxford Mail has stooped to this kind of reporting, and harassment is absolutely the right word Geoff.

By all means debate the European ruling and reference that it has impacted on some of the stories you have reported on, but to individually identify these people is petty and makes you lose any moral high ground, the sort of reporting I would expect from the tabloids.

I sincerely hope the Oxford Mail ups its game with intellectual thought provoking pieces rather than go down this route of lazy journalism.
With so many important things happening around the world and within Oxford itself, I find it a little sad that the Oxford Mail has stooped to this kind of reporting, and harassment is absolutely the right word Geoff. By all means debate the European ruling and reference that it has impacted on some of the stories you have reported on, but to individually identify these people is petty and makes you lose any moral high ground, the sort of reporting I would expect from the tabloids. I sincerely hope the Oxford Mail ups its game with intellectual thought provoking pieces rather than go down this route of lazy journalism. elperrohavuelto
  • Score: 6

11:17am Fri 4 Jul 14

OldOnTheOutsideONLY says...

Is this meant to be news? ...... oh boo hoo Oxford Mail its hardly the biggest injustice in the world.. stop throwing your toys from the pram and start reporting on something worth reading. You have put so much effort into this NON story it shames you. I couldn’t care less about Robert Dwyer misdemeanour all those years ago because it impacts none of us in Oxford NOW at all, the only negative thing impacting me is the fact my subscription fee is paying for such boring non stories that id expect from social media not an apparent respected newspaper.........
Is this meant to be news? ...... oh boo hoo Oxford Mail its hardly the biggest injustice in the world.. stop throwing your toys from the pram and start reporting on something worth reading. You have put so much effort into this NON story it shames you. I couldn’t care less about Robert Dwyer misdemeanour all those years ago because it impacts none of us in Oxford NOW at all, the only negative thing impacting me is the fact my subscription fee is paying for such boring non stories that id expect from social media not an apparent respected newspaper......... OldOnTheOutsideONLY
  • Score: 2

12:57pm Fri 4 Jul 14

ElderP says...

You might think this is not news, but as it's currently the 5th most shared article, not everyone shares this view. Perhaps those people who have had first-hand experience of Mr D-D find it more than interesting. Sometimes you need to read between the lines...
You might think this is not news, but as it's currently the 5th most shared article, not everyone shares this view. Perhaps those people who have had first-hand experience of Mr D-D find it more than interesting. Sometimes you need to read between the lines... ElderP
  • Score: 9

2:20pm Fri 4 Jul 14

elperrohavuelto says...

Just because something is shared doesn’t make it news worthy, if that was the basic criteria the Oxford Mail would be full of pictures of cats in humorous poses.

All I am saying is that is the subject of the ruling is interesting and worthy of good journalism, but when it gets turned into a circus of excitement because one persons attempts at bettering their life fails due to the Oxford Mail acting out like a spoilt child defying their parents it loses focus and balance.

I read the Oxford Mail because local news is important, and I personally believe they (OM) tend to give a very fair balanced view on issues reported, but this one piece is in complete contrast to that and they let me down. If their buying public want these types of stories they ok cater to it, but it will drive away people like me who want to read a decent paper and not tabloid toilet roll.

Finally you’re right I don’t know the subject of the article, but if he is trying to make steps to correct his life after the mistakes he has made why would anyone want to make that harder? What is it with humans where we prefer judgement and damnation over support, hope, and forgiveness? His criminal record won’t go away, his results can still be found using the .com, and I am sure there are many other ways of getting this info if you’re really that keen to find out about him.

YES lets debate the EU ruling, YES let’s try and change it if its deemed incorrect, and YES YES YES let’s keep focus on the bigger picture rather than downgrade our intelligence to that of a mob mentality taking pleasure from other pain because by doing this we become no better than them at their worst!
Just because something is shared doesn’t make it news worthy, if that was the basic criteria the Oxford Mail would be full of pictures of cats in humorous poses. All I am saying is that is the subject of the ruling is interesting and worthy of good journalism, but when it gets turned into a circus of excitement because one persons attempts at bettering their life fails due to the Oxford Mail acting out like a spoilt child defying their parents it loses focus and balance. I read the Oxford Mail because local news is important, and I personally believe they (OM) tend to give a very fair balanced view on issues reported, but this one piece is in complete contrast to that and they let me down. If their buying public want these types of stories they ok cater to it, but it will drive away people like me who want to read a decent paper and not tabloid toilet roll. Finally you’re right I don’t know the subject of the article, but if he is trying to make steps to correct his life after the mistakes he has made why would anyone want to make that harder? What is it with humans where we prefer judgement and damnation over support, hope, and forgiveness? His criminal record won’t go away, his results can still be found using the .com, and I am sure there are many other ways of getting this info if you’re really that keen to find out about him. YES lets debate the EU ruling, YES let’s try and change it if its deemed incorrect, and YES YES YES let’s keep focus on the bigger picture rather than downgrade our intelligence to that of a mob mentality taking pleasure from other pain because by doing this we become no better than them at their worst! elperrohavuelto
  • Score: -3

2:58pm Fri 4 Jul 14

elperrohavuelto says...

Never deprive someone of hope; it might be all they have. - H. Jackson Brown, Jr
Never deprive someone of hope; it might be all they have. - H. Jackson Brown, Jr elperrohavuelto
  • Score: 0

2:08pm Sat 5 Jul 14

ElderP says...

elperrohavuelto I agree with most of what you say and the sentiment of you your post, but you might want to consider two things.
First, if you "personally believe they (OM) tend to give a very fair balanced view on issues reported, but this one piece is in complete contrast to that", ask yourself what might the OM's motive be behind this article. Maybe give them a call and ask to speak to Jason Collie and see if he can answer that.
Secondly, how does persuing the OM through the PCC and then presumably the ECJ to hide the first article show that "he is trying to make steps to correct his life after the mistakes he has made".
elperrohavuelto I agree with most of what you say and the sentiment of you your post, but you might want to consider two things. First, if you "personally believe they (OM) tend to give a very fair balanced view on issues reported, but this one piece is in complete contrast to that", ask yourself what might the OM's motive be behind this article. Maybe give them a call and ask to speak to Jason Collie and see if he can answer that. Secondly, how does persuing the OM through the PCC and then presumably the ECJ to hide the first article show that "he is trying to make steps to correct his life after the mistakes he has made". ElderP
  • Score: 0

6:19pm Sat 5 Jul 14

Severian says...

LOL - now he will have to submit a request to Google not to index the story about his story being removed! Then the Oxford Mail can write a story about him being the first person to submit a request to have a story about submitting a request removed! Then he will have to submit a request..... etc.

The reality of the story is simple - someone committed a crime and now wants to hide the fact from anyone who might be interested in that fact.

If that is the law, then the law is a ****.
LOL - now he will have to submit a request to Google not to index the story about his story being removed! Then the Oxford Mail can write a story about him being the first person to submit a request to have a story about submitting a request removed! Then he will have to submit a request..... etc. The reality of the story is simple - someone committed a crime and now wants to hide the fact from anyone who might be interested in that fact. If that is the law, then the law is a ****. Severian
  • Score: 9

10:02pm Sat 5 Jul 14

elperrohavuelto says...

ElderP wrote:
elperrohavuelto I agree with most of what you say and the sentiment of you your post, but you might want to consider two things.
First, if you "personally believe they (OM) tend to give a very fair balanced view on issues reported, but this one piece is in complete contrast to that", ask yourself what might the OM's motive be behind this article. Maybe give them a call and ask to speak to Jason Collie and see if he can answer that.
Secondly, how does persuing the OM through the PCC and then presumably the ECJ to hide the first article show that "he is trying to make steps to correct his life after the mistakes he has made".
Hi Elder, thank you for coming back to me as I do appreciate polite debate and the sharing of opinions.
I understand why you suggest I call Jason Collie, however honestly I am simply not that interested in finding anything out that was deemed not interesting enough to be included in the original article. I am sure as a professional journalist it is extremely annoying to have your work hidden or removed by such a major search engine, but I would have preferred to read from him ripping the EU ruling apart and pointing out where this right to be forgotten is flawed, rather than focus the content on the individual.
Why I suggest and it is purely a suggestion that he is trying to better himself is because if something you have done in your past now embarrass you, it’s probably because you learned your lesson and no longer want that unfortunate time in your life to impact your future. What if a future employer googles his name? No work, or what if a potential partners family googles his name? Stress and embarrassment in his new life. Just two examples and of course I could be absolutely wrong, and I would like state at this point I am not saying I support the right to be forgotten ruling, I am not sure yet what I feel about it, I would like to find out more. All I am saying is if this is the law at the moment right or wrong please let’s not chastise and embarrass those using it because we don’t know why they are and what impact a fresh round of shame could have on them and their family. The request to Google wasn’t an illegal act, so let’s not treat them like one.
[quote][p][bold]ElderP[/bold] wrote: elperrohavuelto I agree with most of what you say and the sentiment of you your post, but you might want to consider two things. First, if you "personally believe they (OM) tend to give a very fair balanced view on issues reported, but this one piece is in complete contrast to that", ask yourself what might the OM's motive be behind this article. Maybe give them a call and ask to speak to Jason Collie and see if he can answer that. Secondly, how does persuing the OM through the PCC and then presumably the ECJ to hide the first article show that "he is trying to make steps to correct his life after the mistakes he has made".[/p][/quote]Hi Elder, thank you for coming back to me as I do appreciate polite debate and the sharing of opinions. I understand why you suggest I call Jason Collie, however honestly I am simply not that interested in finding anything out that was deemed not interesting enough to be included in the original article. I am sure as a professional journalist it is extremely annoying to have your work hidden or removed by such a major search engine, but I would have preferred to read from him ripping the EU ruling apart and pointing out where this right to be forgotten is flawed, rather than focus the content on the individual. Why I suggest and it is purely a suggestion that he is trying to better himself is because if something you have done in your past now embarrass you, it’s probably because you learned your lesson and no longer want that unfortunate time in your life to impact your future. What if a future employer googles his name? No work, or what if a potential partners family googles his name? Stress and embarrassment in his new life. Just two examples and of course I could be absolutely wrong, and I would like state at this point I am not saying I support the right to be forgotten ruling, I am not sure yet what I feel about it, I would like to find out more. All I am saying is if this is the law at the moment right or wrong please let’s not chastise and embarrass those using it because we don’t know why they are and what impact a fresh round of shame could have on them and their family. The request to Google wasn’t an illegal act, so let’s not treat them like one. elperrohavuelto
  • Score: -1

3:24am Sun 6 Jul 14

LetsBeRational says...

I can see why people think this is a pointless article, but it is highlighting a really important issue, that of free speech and a free press.
Although there is no obligation to remove the page by Newsquest, the vast majority of news articles on the web are found through Google. Essentially by removing the link they are removing part of our free press by not letting people find facts that have been reported.

Although the singling out of this story may seem unfair to the person involved, as many have pointed out it highlights the the fact it won't make much difference.

Another thing to consider is what others may use this ruling for and who decides what should go and what should stay. How would you feel if in five year's time and MP who had been found fiddling their expenses was able to remove any article relating to their misdemeanor? Under this ruling, if they have a different job, in a non-public sector and weren't convicted under law they could do just that. Who is then to say whether or not that is relevant information? The answer is someone who Google employs to do just that.

Surely that is something a court should decide based on legal factors, not an employee of Google. With the amount of requests received I get the feeling that if removing an article from searches is a few simple clicks of a mouse, then that would be easier than have to email the person requesting the removal, explaining why the request was denied, then dealing with any appeal or court case that may arrive. Especially as it is an entirely internal process as they are not ask other companies to remove pages.

The bigger picture and context of this ruling, as I said earlier is about free speech and a free press. Big changes in freedoms we take for granted often happen slowly, piece by piece and by the back door. For example, the way anti-terrorism laws are used to deal with peaceful protesters. The piece of legislation is potentially the building block of more laws and amendments to this one that see the press being prevented from reporting on stories that embarrass those in power, or at least not be given the exposure to report.

Sorry this comment is a bit long, but there is a much bigger issue than being able to find out about a man that stole from Boots using his kid's pram.
I can see why people think this is a pointless article, but it is highlighting a really important issue, that of free speech and a free press. Although there is no obligation to remove the page by Newsquest, the vast majority of news articles on the web are found through Google. Essentially by removing the link they are removing part of our free press by not letting people find facts that have been reported. Although the singling out of this story may seem unfair to the person involved, as many have pointed out it highlights the the fact it won't make much difference. Another thing to consider is what others may use this ruling for and who decides what should go and what should stay. How would you feel if in five year's time and MP who had been found fiddling their expenses was able to remove any article relating to their misdemeanor? Under this ruling, if they have a different job, in a non-public sector and weren't convicted under law they could do just that. Who is then to say whether or not that is relevant information? The answer is someone who Google employs to do just that. Surely that is something a court should decide based on legal factors, not an employee of Google. With the amount of requests received I get the feeling that if removing an article from searches is a few simple clicks of a mouse, then that would be easier than have to email the person requesting the removal, explaining why the request was denied, then dealing with any appeal or court case that may arrive. Especially as it is an entirely internal process as they are not ask other companies to remove pages. The bigger picture and context of this ruling, as I said earlier is about free speech and a free press. Big changes in freedoms we take for granted often happen slowly, piece by piece and by the back door. For example, the way anti-terrorism laws are used to deal with peaceful protesters. The piece of legislation is potentially the building block of more laws and amendments to this one that see the press being prevented from reporting on stories that embarrass those in power, or at least not be given the exposure to report. Sorry this comment is a bit long, but there is a much bigger issue than being able to find out about a man that stole from Boots using his kid's pram. LetsBeRational
  • Score: 7

6:28pm Sun 6 Jul 14

elperrohavuelto says...

LetsBeRational wrote:
I can see why people think this is a pointless article, but it is highlighting a really important issue, that of free speech and a free press.
Although there is no obligation to remove the page by Newsquest, the vast majority of news articles on the web are found through Google. Essentially by removing the link they are removing part of our free press by not letting people find facts that have been reported.

Although the singling out of this story may seem unfair to the person involved, as many have pointed out it highlights the the fact it won't make much difference.

Another thing to consider is what others may use this ruling for and who decides what should go and what should stay. How would you feel if in five year's time and MP who had been found fiddling their expenses was able to remove any article relating to their misdemeanor? Under this ruling, if they have a different job, in a non-public sector and weren't convicted under law they could do just that. Who is then to say whether or not that is relevant information? The answer is someone who Google employs to do just that.

Surely that is something a court should decide based on legal factors, not an employee of Google. With the amount of requests received I get the feeling that if removing an article from searches is a few simple clicks of a mouse, then that would be easier than have to email the person requesting the removal, explaining why the request was denied, then dealing with any appeal or court case that may arrive. Especially as it is an entirely internal process as they are not ask other companies to remove pages.

The bigger picture and context of this ruling, as I said earlier is about free speech and a free press. Big changes in freedoms we take for granted often happen slowly, piece by piece and by the back door. For example, the way anti-terrorism laws are used to deal with peaceful protesters. The piece of legislation is potentially the building block of more laws and amendments to this one that see the press being prevented from reporting on stories that embarrass those in power, or at least not be given the exposure to report.

Sorry this comment is a bit long, but there is a much bigger issue than being able to find out about a man that stole from Boots using his kid's pram.
Hi LetsBeRational, please don’t apologies for a long reply you make some great points.

The singling out does make a lot of difference because this article doesn’t just tell people how to get round the ruling i.e. use google.com, it uses the man’s name in a optimised way meaning his name is now intrinsically linked to this new piece of news. So why is that bad?
1 - It gives all the details about his original crime again
2 - It links to the old article creating an easy paper trail
3 - This new piece of journalism on him doesn’t paint him in the best of light building on the negativity of public opinion on him that he was hoping to change without looking to establish why he has chosen to go down this route instead just chastises him for that decision.

As much as I do not think the man’s name should have been used at all, I think the Oxford Mail and Jason Collie would have looked a lot more professional and serious if they would have addressed the ruling and where the Oxford Mail feels it is imposing on things such as free press, then pointed out how people can still locate these items via .com and IF they needed to (debateable if the original piece was strong enough) simply list the names of those who have used the service but not optimises the story so that their names are pulled into the search out of respect and general humanity.

I understand and really like the points you have made regarding changes in freedoms being imposed via the back door, and I agree we shouldn’t simply accept this EU ruling if it is indeed impacting these freedoms. I also understand your point about the MP fiddling their expenses and who is to say if this information is relevant or not.

However at the moment due to this ruling these people can apply for their right to be forgotten in Google, it is a legal act they can make for whatever reason they have chosen to do so. It is for this reason that I think it highly unfair and harassment on the part of the Oxford Mail to take out their frustrations regarding this EU ruling on the individuals rather than the EU or Google. I would much rather their respected journalists took the ruling to task and made a big song and dance out of all the flaws it may or may not have than do any more stories like this one.
[quote][p][bold]LetsBeRational[/bold] wrote: I can see why people think this is a pointless article, but it is highlighting a really important issue, that of free speech and a free press. Although there is no obligation to remove the page by Newsquest, the vast majority of news articles on the web are found through Google. Essentially by removing the link they are removing part of our free press by not letting people find facts that have been reported. Although the singling out of this story may seem unfair to the person involved, as many have pointed out it highlights the the fact it won't make much difference. Another thing to consider is what others may use this ruling for and who decides what should go and what should stay. How would you feel if in five year's time and MP who had been found fiddling their expenses was able to remove any article relating to their misdemeanor? Under this ruling, if they have a different job, in a non-public sector and weren't convicted under law they could do just that. Who is then to say whether or not that is relevant information? The answer is someone who Google employs to do just that. Surely that is something a court should decide based on legal factors, not an employee of Google. With the amount of requests received I get the feeling that if removing an article from searches is a few simple clicks of a mouse, then that would be easier than have to email the person requesting the removal, explaining why the request was denied, then dealing with any appeal or court case that may arrive. Especially as it is an entirely internal process as they are not ask other companies to remove pages. The bigger picture and context of this ruling, as I said earlier is about free speech and a free press. Big changes in freedoms we take for granted often happen slowly, piece by piece and by the back door. For example, the way anti-terrorism laws are used to deal with peaceful protesters. The piece of legislation is potentially the building block of more laws and amendments to this one that see the press being prevented from reporting on stories that embarrass those in power, or at least not be given the exposure to report. Sorry this comment is a bit long, but there is a much bigger issue than being able to find out about a man that stole from Boots using his kid's pram.[/p][/quote]Hi LetsBeRational, please don’t apologies for a long reply you make some great points. The singling out does make a lot of difference because this article doesn’t just tell people how to get round the ruling i.e. use google.com, it uses the man’s name in a optimised way meaning his name is now intrinsically linked to this new piece of news. So why is that bad? 1 - It gives all the details about his original crime again 2 - It links to the old article creating an easy paper trail 3 - This new piece of journalism on him doesn’t paint him in the best of light building on the negativity of public opinion on him that he was hoping to change without looking to establish why he has chosen to go down this route instead just chastises him for that decision. As much as I do not think the man’s name should have been used at all, I think the Oxford Mail and Jason Collie would have looked a lot more professional and serious if they would have addressed the ruling and where the Oxford Mail feels it is imposing on things such as free press, then pointed out how people can still locate these items via .com and IF they needed to (debateable if the original piece was strong enough) simply list the names of those who have used the service but not optimises the story so that their names are pulled into the search out of respect and general humanity. I understand and really like the points you have made regarding changes in freedoms being imposed via the back door, and I agree we shouldn’t simply accept this EU ruling if it is indeed impacting these freedoms. I also understand your point about the MP fiddling their expenses and who is to say if this information is relevant or not. However at the moment due to this ruling these people can apply for their right to be forgotten in Google, it is a legal act they can make for whatever reason they have chosen to do so. It is for this reason that I think it highly unfair and harassment on the part of the Oxford Mail to take out their frustrations regarding this EU ruling on the individuals rather than the EU or Google. I would much rather their respected journalists took the ruling to task and made a big song and dance out of all the flaws it may or may not have than do any more stories like this one. elperrohavuelto
  • Score: -3

11:48pm Sun 6 Jul 14

Dilligaf2010 says...

Is he planning on doing some further shoplifting, and just wanted to cover his previous tracks, in case somebody did some research on him, and found out he'd done it before?
The easiest way to make sure something is forgotten, is to never mention it to anyone, and never cause anyone to have reason to Google you......it's not rocket science......as somebody else has pointed out, don't commit a crime in the first place is the best course of action.
Is he planning on doing some further shoplifting, and just wanted to cover his previous tracks, in case somebody did some research on him, and found out he'd done it before? The easiest way to make sure something is forgotten, is to never mention it to anyone, and never cause anyone to have reason to Google you......it's not rocket science......as somebody else has pointed out, don't commit a crime in the first place is the best course of action. Dilligaf2010
  • Score: 4

11:58pm Sun 6 Jul 14

LetsBeRational says...

Hi elperrohavuelto. I'm glad we agree on the overarching points, but think we will have to agree to disagree on method.

As I say, I feel this piece by linking to the original story, naming the individual, and re-reporting has to be done to prove the ruling cant practically work. The OM has no legal obligation under it, and also no say on the article being found or not. This shows that although people can use the .com option, it is very easy to make the article reappear on the .co.uk version.

I do understand that it may cause further embarrassment to the man named, however when we commit crime, being convicted and then reported in the press for it is a risk you run.

As I say, I think we could go back and forth, but we won't agree on that point, and that's fair enough, but I hope the OM carry on the debate about the bigger picture.
PS, nice to have polite discussion on the internet where people accept others have differing opinions and that's accepted, doesn't happen often!
PPS, I'm off to get forgotten from this thread :)
Hi elperrohavuelto. I'm glad we agree on the overarching points, but think we will have to agree to disagree on method. As I say, I feel this piece by linking to the original story, naming the individual, and re-reporting has to be done to prove the ruling cant practically work. The OM has no legal obligation under it, and also no say on the article being found or not. This shows that although people can use the .com option, it is very easy to make the article reappear on the .co.uk version. I do understand that it may cause further embarrassment to the man named, however when we commit crime, being convicted and then reported in the press for it is a risk you run. As I say, I think we could go back and forth, but we won't agree on that point, and that's fair enough, but I hope the OM carry on the debate about the bigger picture. PS, nice to have polite discussion on the internet where people accept others have differing opinions and that's accepted, doesn't happen often! PPS, I'm off to get forgotten from this thread :) LetsBeRational
  • Score: 2

1:40am Mon 7 Jul 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

elperrohavuelto wrote:
With so many important things happening around the world and within Oxford itself, I find it a little sad that the Oxford Mail has stooped to this kind of reporting, and harassment is absolutely the right word Geoff.

By all means debate the European ruling and reference that it has impacted on some of the stories you have reported on, but to individually identify these people is petty and makes you lose any moral high ground, the sort of reporting I would expect from the tabloids.

I sincerely hope the Oxford Mail ups its game with intellectual thought provoking pieces rather than go down this route of lazy journalism.
On the contrary. To talk about the issue in an abstract fashion means that the majority will never grasp the reality of what is being done. In effect the ECJ, a collection of rag bag placemen very few of whom would have the qualification to even be a solicitor or barrister in our legal system is legitimising the favourite activity of Stalinism, airbrushing out of history. Of course we must disengage from it and all the other European excesses though the lap dog Google which warmly licks the hand of the violent Chinese autocracy will not be affected by that.
[quote][p][bold]elperrohavuelto[/bold] wrote: With so many important things happening around the world and within Oxford itself, I find it a little sad that the Oxford Mail has stooped to this kind of reporting, and harassment is absolutely the right word Geoff. By all means debate the European ruling and reference that it has impacted on some of the stories you have reported on, but to individually identify these people is petty and makes you lose any moral high ground, the sort of reporting I would expect from the tabloids. I sincerely hope the Oxford Mail ups its game with intellectual thought provoking pieces rather than go down this route of lazy journalism.[/p][/quote]On the contrary. To talk about the issue in an abstract fashion means that the majority will never grasp the reality of what is being done. In effect the ECJ, a collection of rag bag placemen very few of whom would have the qualification to even be a solicitor or barrister in our legal system is legitimising the favourite activity of Stalinism, airbrushing out of history. Of course we must disengage from it and all the other European excesses though the lap dog Google which warmly licks the hand of the violent Chinese autocracy will not be affected by that. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 6

1:43am Mon 7 Jul 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

PS how do you "correct" being a thief? How do you "harass" someone by telling the truth about them?
PS how do you "correct" being a thief? How do you "harass" someone by telling the truth about them? Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 10

7:56am Mon 7 Jul 14

elperrohavuelto says...

LetsBeRational wrote:
Hi elperrohavuelto. I'm glad we agree on the overarching points, but think we will have to agree to disagree on method.

As I say, I feel this piece by linking to the original story, naming the individual, and re-reporting has to be done to prove the ruling cant practically work. The OM has no legal obligation under it, and also no say on the article being found or not. This shows that although people can use the .com option, it is very easy to make the article reappear on the .co.uk version.

I do understand that it may cause further embarrassment to the man named, however when we commit crime, being convicted and then reported in the press for it is a risk you run.

As I say, I think we could go back and forth, but we won't agree on that point, and that's fair enough, but I hope the OM carry on the debate about the bigger picture.
PS, nice to have polite discussion on the internet where people accept others have differing opinions and that's accepted, doesn't happen often!
PPS, I'm off to get forgotten from this thread :)
Cheers LetsBeRational, and thank you for the polite discussion.
[quote][p][bold]LetsBeRational[/bold] wrote: Hi elperrohavuelto. I'm glad we agree on the overarching points, but think we will have to agree to disagree on method. As I say, I feel this piece by linking to the original story, naming the individual, and re-reporting has to be done to prove the ruling cant practically work. The OM has no legal obligation under it, and also no say on the article being found or not. This shows that although people can use the .com option, it is very easy to make the article reappear on the .co.uk version. I do understand that it may cause further embarrassment to the man named, however when we commit crime, being convicted and then reported in the press for it is a risk you run. As I say, I think we could go back and forth, but we won't agree on that point, and that's fair enough, but I hope the OM carry on the debate about the bigger picture. PS, nice to have polite discussion on the internet where people accept others have differing opinions and that's accepted, doesn't happen often! PPS, I'm off to get forgotten from this thread :)[/p][/quote]Cheers LetsBeRational, and thank you for the polite discussion. elperrohavuelto
  • Score: 2

8:04am Mon 7 Jul 14

elperrohavuelto says...

Dilligaf2010 wrote:
Is he planning on doing some further shoplifting, and just wanted to cover his previous tracks, in case somebody did some research on him, and found out he'd done it before?
The easiest way to make sure something is forgotten, is to never mention it to anyone, and never cause anyone to have reason to Google you......it's not rocket science......as somebody else has pointed out, don't commit a crime in the first place is the best course of action.
Yeah... all in store security stop people on entrance to see ID in order to Google their name to cross reference it with available visuals in order to help better them monitor shoppers... He must have got fed up with this level of security and decided to utilise the right to be forgotten law....

I also do love it when people say statements like "don't commit a crime in the first place" as if the decision was as black and white for anyone. No one knows the life they led before making that decision, and we are all human which means we make mistakes! But the true test of a character is how we deal with those mistakes and better our lives after them.

I sincerely hope that anyone who makes comments such as this one never find themselves or any of their loved ones on the wrong side of the comment.
[quote][p][bold]Dilligaf2010[/bold] wrote: Is he planning on doing some further shoplifting, and just wanted to cover his previous tracks, in case somebody did some research on him, and found out he'd done it before? The easiest way to make sure something is forgotten, is to never mention it to anyone, and never cause anyone to have reason to Google you......it's not rocket science......as somebody else has pointed out, don't commit a crime in the first place is the best course of action.[/p][/quote]Yeah... all in store security stop people on entrance to see ID in order to Google their name to cross reference it with available visuals in order to help better them monitor shoppers... He must have got fed up with this level of security and decided to utilise the right to be forgotten law.... I also do love it when people say statements like "don't commit a crime in the first place" as if the decision was as black and white for anyone. No one knows the life they led before making that decision, and we are all human which means we make mistakes! But the true test of a character is how we deal with those mistakes and better our lives after them. I sincerely hope that anyone who makes comments such as this one never find themselves or any of their loved ones on the wrong side of the comment. elperrohavuelto
  • Score: 3

8:22am Mon 7 Jul 14

elperrohavuelto says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
elperrohavuelto wrote:
With so many important things happening around the world and within Oxford itself, I find it a little sad that the Oxford Mail has stooped to this kind of reporting, and harassment is absolutely the right word Geoff.

By all means debate the European ruling and reference that it has impacted on some of the stories you have reported on, but to individually identify these people is petty and makes you lose any moral high ground, the sort of reporting I would expect from the tabloids.

I sincerely hope the Oxford Mail ups its game with intellectual thought provoking pieces rather than go down this route of lazy journalism.
On the contrary. To talk about the issue in an abstract fashion means that the majority will never grasp the reality of what is being done. In effect the ECJ, a collection of rag bag placemen very few of whom would have the qualification to even be a solicitor or barrister in our legal system is legitimising the favourite activity of Stalinism, airbrushing out of history. Of course we must disengage from it and all the other European excesses though the lap dog Google which warmly licks the hand of the violent Chinese autocracy will not be affected by that.
The majority won’t grasp it? We live in Oxford a city renowned for many things but specifically its academic lifestyle, and you believe the majority of readers wouldn’t understand the ins and outs of an article debating the rights to be forgotten and how that impacts our freedoms? I think you are doing an injustice to many people.

HOWEVER if that was the case, then like I stated in an earlier comment if the Oxford Mail would rather cater its paper for people who like tabloid tales that drum up frenzy and victimisation instead of educated journalism then I will back away and let it go down that route, I for one however don’t want to spend my money financing organisations that have this belief because that is what opens us up to situations where journalists pay to hack dead teenagers mobile phones (RIP Milly Dowler).

To answer your second points I believe you ‘correct’ being a thief by serving your punishment, and then trying to correct this bad time in your life by bettering yourself as a person going forward. If you do this then all of society wins. If you keep pounding someone down and stereotyping them as a negative persona then you reduce the chances of them achieving this creating a horrible circle of events that no one benefits from.

You can easily ‘harass’ by repeating a truth over and over again if that truth has a negative consequence on their life or that of their families. A purely hypothetical situation now as I don’t know this man or his life, but let’s say due to this story and the one connected to his historic crime is making it hard to get work which is why he wants Google to remove the link, who else is losing out other than him? Innocent people who love him and share his life such as his children, but none of this matters as long as the tabloid readers get their daily dose of other peoples misery to make their existence and struggles easy to deal with.

We haven’t come very far as a race because we still enjoy watching the torment of others, we just choose to do it from behind a TV or newspaper instead of in a Colosseum.
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elperrohavuelto[/bold] wrote: With so many important things happening around the world and within Oxford itself, I find it a little sad that the Oxford Mail has stooped to this kind of reporting, and harassment is absolutely the right word Geoff. By all means debate the European ruling and reference that it has impacted on some of the stories you have reported on, but to individually identify these people is petty and makes you lose any moral high ground, the sort of reporting I would expect from the tabloids. I sincerely hope the Oxford Mail ups its game with intellectual thought provoking pieces rather than go down this route of lazy journalism.[/p][/quote]On the contrary. To talk about the issue in an abstract fashion means that the majority will never grasp the reality of what is being done. In effect the ECJ, a collection of rag bag placemen very few of whom would have the qualification to even be a solicitor or barrister in our legal system is legitimising the favourite activity of Stalinism, airbrushing out of history. Of course we must disengage from it and all the other European excesses though the lap dog Google which warmly licks the hand of the violent Chinese autocracy will not be affected by that.[/p][/quote]The majority won’t grasp it? We live in Oxford a city renowned for many things but specifically its academic lifestyle, and you believe the majority of readers wouldn’t understand the ins and outs of an article debating the rights to be forgotten and how that impacts our freedoms? I think you are doing an injustice to many people. HOWEVER if that was the case, then like I stated in an earlier comment if the Oxford Mail would rather cater its paper for people who like tabloid tales that drum up frenzy and victimisation instead of educated journalism then I will back away and let it go down that route, I for one however don’t want to spend my money financing organisations that have this belief because that is what opens us up to situations where journalists pay to hack dead teenagers mobile phones (RIP Milly Dowler). To answer your second points I believe you ‘correct’ being a thief by serving your punishment, and then trying to correct this bad time in your life by bettering yourself as a person going forward. If you do this then all of society wins. If you keep pounding someone down and stereotyping them as a negative persona then you reduce the chances of them achieving this creating a horrible circle of events that no one benefits from. You can easily ‘harass’ by repeating a truth over and over again if that truth has a negative consequence on their life or that of their families. A purely hypothetical situation now as I don’t know this man or his life, but let’s say due to this story and the one connected to his historic crime is making it hard to get work which is why he wants Google to remove the link, who else is losing out other than him? Innocent people who love him and share his life such as his children, but none of this matters as long as the tabloid readers get their daily dose of other peoples misery to make their existence and struggles easy to deal with. We haven’t come very far as a race because we still enjoy watching the torment of others, we just choose to do it from behind a TV or newspaper instead of in a Colosseum. elperrohavuelto
  • Score: -5

10:37am Mon 7 Jul 14

Dilligaf2010 says...

elperrohavuelto wrote:
Dilligaf2010 wrote:
Is he planning on doing some further shoplifting, and just wanted to cover his previous tracks, in case somebody did some research on him, and found out he'd done it before?
The easiest way to make sure something is forgotten, is to never mention it to anyone, and never cause anyone to have reason to Google you......it's not rocket science......as somebody else has pointed out, don't commit a crime in the first place is the best course of action.
Yeah... all in store security stop people on entrance to see ID in order to Google their name to cross reference it with available visuals in order to help better them monitor shoppers... He must have got fed up with this level of security and decided to utilise the right to be forgotten law....

I also do love it when people say statements like "don't commit a crime in the first place" as if the decision was as black and white for anyone. No one knows the life they led before making that decision, and we are all human which means we make mistakes! But the true test of a character is how we deal with those mistakes and better our lives after them.

I sincerely hope that anyone who makes comments such as this one never find themselves or any of their loved ones on the wrong side of the comment.
Perhaps I should have put a smiley face at the end of my comment, I thought people might realise I wasn't being serious ;-)
[quote][p][bold]elperrohavuelto[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dilligaf2010[/bold] wrote: Is he planning on doing some further shoplifting, and just wanted to cover his previous tracks, in case somebody did some research on him, and found out he'd done it before? The easiest way to make sure something is forgotten, is to never mention it to anyone, and never cause anyone to have reason to Google you......it's not rocket science......as somebody else has pointed out, don't commit a crime in the first place is the best course of action.[/p][/quote]Yeah... all in store security stop people on entrance to see ID in order to Google their name to cross reference it with available visuals in order to help better them monitor shoppers... He must have got fed up with this level of security and decided to utilise the right to be forgotten law.... I also do love it when people say statements like "don't commit a crime in the first place" as if the decision was as black and white for anyone. No one knows the life they led before making that decision, and we are all human which means we make mistakes! But the true test of a character is how we deal with those mistakes and better our lives after them. I sincerely hope that anyone who makes comments such as this one never find themselves or any of their loved ones on the wrong side of the comment.[/p][/quote]Perhaps I should have put a smiley face at the end of my comment, I thought people might realise I wasn't being serious ;-) Dilligaf2010
  • Score: -1

3:42pm Mon 7 Jul 14

The New Private Eye says...

elperrohavuelto wrote:
ElderP wrote:
elperrohavuelto I agree with most of what you say and the sentiment of you your post, but you might want to consider two things.
First, if you "personally believe they (OM) tend to give a very fair balanced view on issues reported, but this one piece is in complete contrast to that", ask yourself what might the OM's motive be behind this article. Maybe give them a call and ask to speak to Jason Collie and see if he can answer that.
Secondly, how does persuing the OM through the PCC and then presumably the ECJ to hide the first article show that "he is trying to make steps to correct his life after the mistakes he has made".
Hi Elder, thank you for coming back to me as I do appreciate polite debate and the sharing of opinions.
I understand why you suggest I call Jason Collie, however honestly I am simply not that interested in finding anything out that was deemed not interesting enough to be included in the original article. I am sure as a professional journalist it is extremely annoying to have your work hidden or removed by such a major search engine, but I would have preferred to read from him ripping the EU ruling apart and pointing out where this right to be forgotten is flawed, rather than focus the content on the individual.
Why I suggest and it is purely a suggestion that he is trying to better himself is because if something you have done in your past now embarrass you, it’s probably because you learned your lesson and no longer want that unfortunate time in your life to impact your future. What if a future employer googles his name? No work, or what if a potential partners family googles his name? Stress and embarrassment in his new life. Just two examples and of course I could be absolutely wrong, and I would like state at this point I am not saying I support the right to be forgotten ruling, I am not sure yet what I feel about it, I would like to find out more. All I am saying is if this is the law at the moment right or wrong please let’s not chastise and embarrass those using it because we don’t know why they are and what impact a fresh round of shame could have on them and their family. The request to Google wasn’t an illegal act, so let’s not treat them like one.
why bother wasting our time here with your comments if yo are not bothered enough abut the story to contact Jason. The bloke is a criminal,and he is trying to hide it. Tough, he shouldn't have done it in the first place, and well done to OM for pointing it out, and making it more relevant in future searches
[quote][p][bold]elperrohavuelto[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ElderP[/bold] wrote: elperrohavuelto I agree with most of what you say and the sentiment of you your post, but you might want to consider two things. First, if you "personally believe they (OM) tend to give a very fair balanced view on issues reported, but this one piece is in complete contrast to that", ask yourself what might the OM's motive be behind this article. Maybe give them a call and ask to speak to Jason Collie and see if he can answer that. Secondly, how does persuing the OM through the PCC and then presumably the ECJ to hide the first article show that "he is trying to make steps to correct his life after the mistakes he has made".[/p][/quote]Hi Elder, thank you for coming back to me as I do appreciate polite debate and the sharing of opinions. I understand why you suggest I call Jason Collie, however honestly I am simply not that interested in finding anything out that was deemed not interesting enough to be included in the original article. I am sure as a professional journalist it is extremely annoying to have your work hidden or removed by such a major search engine, but I would have preferred to read from him ripping the EU ruling apart and pointing out where this right to be forgotten is flawed, rather than focus the content on the individual. Why I suggest and it is purely a suggestion that he is trying to better himself is because if something you have done in your past now embarrass you, it’s probably because you learned your lesson and no longer want that unfortunate time in your life to impact your future. What if a future employer googles his name? No work, or what if a potential partners family googles his name? Stress and embarrassment in his new life. Just two examples and of course I could be absolutely wrong, and I would like state at this point I am not saying I support the right to be forgotten ruling, I am not sure yet what I feel about it, I would like to find out more. All I am saying is if this is the law at the moment right or wrong please let’s not chastise and embarrass those using it because we don’t know why they are and what impact a fresh round of shame could have on them and their family. The request to Google wasn’t an illegal act, so let’s not treat them like one.[/p][/quote]why bother wasting our time here with your comments if yo are not bothered enough abut the story to contact Jason. The bloke is a criminal,and he is trying to hide it. Tough, he shouldn't have done it in the first place, and well done to OM for pointing it out, and making it more relevant in future searches The New Private Eye
  • Score: 4

10:09pm Mon 7 Jul 14

elperrohavuelto says...

... yeah ok The New Private Eye...... thanks for bringing normal lowbrow remarks to the discussion *sighs*......
... yeah ok The New Private Eye...... thanks for bringing normal lowbrow remarks to the discussion *sighs*...... elperrohavuelto
  • Score: -9

10:35pm Mon 7 Jul 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

"To answer your second points I believe you ‘correct’ being a thief by serving your punishment, and then trying to correct this bad time in your life by bettering yourself as a person going forward. If you do this then all of society wins"
Who would dispute it? And then you "correct" all record of your having been a thief? How is that remotely relevant to the citizen who can say "I have erred but I have tried to lead a decent life since erring" You think the good citizen says" I have erred and now I shall expunge all record of my error" I think not
"You can easily ‘harass’ by repeating a truth over and over again" What repetition? This man has called attention to himself , has he not? His choice.
"We live in Oxford a city renowned for many things but specifically its academic lifestyle" Tongue in cheek surely? This man is an "academic" or at least he hung round college long enough to get a PhD, but didn't even manage to grasp the difference between meum and tuum. Poor dab, as they say in Nantyglo
"To answer your second points I believe you ‘correct’ being a thief by serving your punishment, and then trying to correct this bad time in your life by bettering yourself as a person going forward. If you do this then all of society wins" Who would dispute it? And then you "correct" all record of your having been a thief? How is that remotely relevant to the citizen who can say "I have erred but I have tried to lead a decent life since erring" You think the good citizen says" I have erred and now I shall expunge all record of my error" I think not "You can easily ‘harass’ by repeating a truth over and over again" What repetition? This man has called attention to himself , has he not? His choice. "We live in Oxford a city renowned for many things but specifically its academic lifestyle" Tongue in cheek surely? This man is an "academic" or at least he hung round college long enough to get a PhD, but didn't even manage to grasp the difference between meum and tuum. Poor dab, as they say in Nantyglo Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 3

8:11am Tue 8 Jul 14

elperrohavuelto says...

Hi Lord Palmerstone.

He or others aren’t correcting all record of him being a thief; they were simply looking to remove the press article reporting the story from local search results. Their official criminal record still exists, the original story in print still exists, so history hasn’t been rewritten in the slightest, it should just be a wider debate looking at how modern society deals with these issues since the Internet is now a dominant feature in our lives.

Historically people who committed crimes would have been able to move town and start again fairly easily after their sentence was up because it didn’t follow them around for life, now thanks to the Internet they can’t escape it. When you’re convicted of a crime you are given a punishment that hopefully meets the actions of the criminal act, when you serve that sentence you should be allowed to move on with your life if you do so lawfully as it wasn’t a life sentence. The problem is we want our cake and eat it in today’s world, we want reoffending rates to go down but we want people branded for life at the same time.... if they have shown over a number of agreed years that they have lived a law abiding life why shouldn’t they in principle have the same rights we use to give ex-criminals before the age of the Internet? They still have their criminal record and a CRB check will still highlight this past to potential employers, the only difference is a "Google" search of their name wouldn’t haunt them.

I wouldn’t agree that he called attention to himself either, he (we presume as it wasn’t confirmed) made the lawful application to Google privately, it was the Oxford Mail that took the decision to make him a very focal point of the wider discussion.
Hi Lord Palmerstone. He or others aren’t correcting all record of him being a thief; they were simply looking to remove the press article reporting the story from local search results. Their official criminal record still exists, the original story in print still exists, so history hasn’t been rewritten in the slightest, it should just be a wider debate looking at how modern society deals with these issues since the Internet is now a dominant feature in our lives. Historically people who committed crimes would have been able to move town and start again fairly easily after their sentence was up because it didn’t follow them around for life, now thanks to the Internet they can’t escape it. When you’re convicted of a crime you are given a punishment that hopefully meets the actions of the criminal act, when you serve that sentence you should be allowed to move on with your life if you do so lawfully as it wasn’t a life sentence. The problem is we want our cake and eat it in today’s world, we want reoffending rates to go down but we want people branded for life at the same time.... if they have shown over a number of agreed years that they have lived a law abiding life why shouldn’t they in principle have the same rights we use to give ex-criminals before the age of the Internet? They still have their criminal record and a CRB check will still highlight this past to potential employers, the only difference is a "Google" search of their name wouldn’t haunt them. I wouldn’t agree that he called attention to himself either, he (we presume as it wasn’t confirmed) made the lawful application to Google privately, it was the Oxford Mail that took the decision to make him a very focal point of the wider discussion. elperrohavuelto
  • Score: -4

1:55pm Tue 8 Jul 14

The New Private Eye says...

elperrohavuelto wrote:
Hi Lord Palmerstone.

He or others aren’t correcting all record of him being a thief; they were simply looking to remove the press article reporting the story from local search results. Their official criminal record still exists, the original story in print still exists, so history hasn’t been rewritten in the slightest, it should just be a wider debate looking at how modern society deals with these issues since the Internet is now a dominant feature in our lives.

Historically people who committed crimes would have been able to move town and start again fairly easily after their sentence was up because it didn’t follow them around for life, now thanks to the Internet they can’t escape it. When you’re convicted of a crime you are given a punishment that hopefully meets the actions of the criminal act, when you serve that sentence you should be allowed to move on with your life if you do so lawfully as it wasn’t a life sentence. The problem is we want our cake and eat it in today’s world, we want reoffending rates to go down but we want people branded for life at the same time.... if they have shown over a number of agreed years that they have lived a law abiding life why shouldn’t they in principle have the same rights we use to give ex-criminals before the age of the Internet? They still have their criminal record and a CRB check will still highlight this past to potential employers, the only difference is a "Google" search of their name wouldn’t haunt them.

I wouldn’t agree that he called attention to himself either, he (we presume as it wasn’t confirmed) made the lawful application to Google privately, it was the Oxford Mail that took the decision to make him a very focal point of the wider discussion.
Sorry that my comment did reach the intellectual heights that are expected. But I though it better to put my point across in words of 2 syllables or less to be succinct, as I felt was fitting as a reply. By the way, you aren't the Geezer we are commenting about, are you?
[quote][p][bold]elperrohavuelto[/bold] wrote: Hi Lord Palmerstone. He or others aren’t correcting all record of him being a thief; they were simply looking to remove the press article reporting the story from local search results. Their official criminal record still exists, the original story in print still exists, so history hasn’t been rewritten in the slightest, it should just be a wider debate looking at how modern society deals with these issues since the Internet is now a dominant feature in our lives. Historically people who committed crimes would have been able to move town and start again fairly easily after their sentence was up because it didn’t follow them around for life, now thanks to the Internet they can’t escape it. When you’re convicted of a crime you are given a punishment that hopefully meets the actions of the criminal act, when you serve that sentence you should be allowed to move on with your life if you do so lawfully as it wasn’t a life sentence. The problem is we want our cake and eat it in today’s world, we want reoffending rates to go down but we want people branded for life at the same time.... if they have shown over a number of agreed years that they have lived a law abiding life why shouldn’t they in principle have the same rights we use to give ex-criminals before the age of the Internet? They still have their criminal record and a CRB check will still highlight this past to potential employers, the only difference is a "Google" search of their name wouldn’t haunt them. I wouldn’t agree that he called attention to himself either, he (we presume as it wasn’t confirmed) made the lawful application to Google privately, it was the Oxford Mail that took the decision to make him a very focal point of the wider discussion.[/p][/quote]Sorry that my comment did reach the intellectual heights that are expected. But I though it better to put my point across in words of 2 syllables or less to be succinct, as I felt was fitting as a reply. By the way, you aren't the Geezer we are commenting about, are you? The New Private Eye
  • Score: 2

2:00pm Tue 8 Jul 14

elperrohavuelto says...

No The New Private Eye I'm not. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion...
No The New Private Eye I'm not. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion... elperrohavuelto
  • Score: 3

2:09pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

But no one is going to google the man's name to pass an empty hour, are they? So it seems wholly academic to have Trotsky razor bladed out of the photo.
CRB's are pretty useless actually because serious criminals have more than one identity and the system doesn't use finger prints. Moreover most criminal law agencies don't share information , so they'll tell you very little about incomers, legal or illegal. Yes , believe me, illegals get CRB checks or "vetting and baaing " or similar inanity. Usually when they get a job as a care assistant. Surprisingly such searches rarely reveal any record!
But no one is going to google the man's name to pass an empty hour, are they? So it seems wholly academic to have Trotsky razor bladed out of the photo. CRB's are pretty useless actually because serious criminals have more than one identity and the system doesn't use finger prints. Moreover most criminal law agencies don't share information , so they'll tell you very little about incomers, legal or illegal. Yes , believe me, illegals get CRB checks or "vetting and baaing " or similar inanity. Usually when they get a job as a care assistant. Surprisingly such searches rarely reveal any record! Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 5

2:29pm Tue 8 Jul 14

elperrohavuelto says...

That is truly shocking, I was completely unaware the CRB system was so full holes. It goes without saying that this system and those that support it get serious attention so they become a complete robust central database making the sharing of crucial information simple and faultless.

That aside I still stand by my point that whether the new EU ruling is liked or not, it was wrong of the Oxford Mail to attack this man for legally utilising it instead of going after those who imposed it on Google.

You are right that it is unlikely people would Google this man’s name to pass time; however it is fact that employers are increasingly using Google to vet applicants. A study I read a while back said the primary reason was to see if they could access the applicants social media profiles to see how they portray themselves and maybe cross reference a few facts from their CV, however a well optimised story from a reputable newspaper like the Oxford Mail will also rank very highly so could negatively impact an applicant.
That is truly shocking, I was completely unaware the CRB system was so full holes. It goes without saying that this system and those that support it get serious attention so they become a complete robust central database making the sharing of crucial information simple and faultless. That aside I still stand by my point that whether the new EU ruling is liked or not, it was wrong of the Oxford Mail to attack this man for legally utilising it instead of going after those who imposed it on Google. You are right that it is unlikely people would Google this man’s name to pass time; however it is fact that employers are increasingly using Google to vet applicants. A study I read a while back said the primary reason was to see if they could access the applicants social media profiles to see how they portray themselves and maybe cross reference a few facts from their CV, however a well optimised story from a reputable newspaper like the Oxford Mail will also rank very highly so could negatively impact an applicant. elperrohavuelto
  • Score: -4

3:03pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

I guess "HR" departments could take it in their stride to discover that someone has a dishonesty conviction. I haven't , because I'm a little scaredy custard, but lots of adults do. You can't turn them all down. Though I suppose you could take on an illegal with a squeaky clean CRB instead of the local hero......
I guess "HR" departments could take it in their stride to discover that someone has a dishonesty conviction. I haven't , because I'm a little scaredy custard, but lots of adults do. You can't turn them all down. Though I suppose you could take on an illegal with a squeaky clean CRB instead of the local hero...... Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 5

6:52pm Thu 17 Jul 14

John Lamb says...

Bloody hell!
Remind me not to get on the wrong side of this Jason Collie bloke.
Well played sir.
Bloody hell! Remind me not to get on the wrong side of this Jason Collie bloke. Well played sir. John Lamb
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree