THE convictions of 20 people have been wiped from Google search results because of a single complaint in the latest controversy caused by a controversial European privacy ruling.
Two months ago the European Court of Justice handed down a ruling that has been dubbed the Right To Be Forgotten that orders search engine companies like Google to delete search results of people's names if it can be argued an item is out of date or no longer relevant.
However, critics said this would be abused because it would lead to criminals trying to stop people learning about their convictions.
Within days Dr Robert Daniels-Dwyer had succeeded in having a story read only a few times about his conviction for shoplifting in Oxford removed from search results. This, however, backfired when publicity about his request meant thousands of people then learned about his crime.
This week an oxfordmail.co.uk Scales of Justice article rounding up court cases from Oxford Magistrates Court was removed because of a single 'Right to be Forgotten' complaint.
Google will not reveal who has made the request but it is believed it is likely to be only one person in the article. However, because that Scales of Justice article covered 20 cases it means searches of for any of the score of names will not reveal they were convicted.
Open justice is a cornerstone of the British justice system and the Oxford Mail believes the public has a right to know who has been convicted of crimes.
It has re-published the entire Scales of Justice list with its version of this article below to ensure the public's right to know is not thwarted by the European Court ruling.
Two weeks ago the Oxford Mail was also informed Google had removed the picture of motorcyclist Sandor Ferenci, pictured.
Ferenci was jailed in 2008 after posting an internet video of himself performing wheelies at speeds of up to 136mph, an act labelled “lunatic” by the judge.
The 'Right To Be Forgotten' ruling only affects search engine companies such as Google in Europe. People can ask for search results based on their names to be deleted.
It does not affect newspapers or owners of websites and cannot be used for articles or webpages to be removed.
People can get around the 'Right To Be Forgetten' censorship by searching on google.com - because it is based in America and therefore outside the European Court of Justice's jurisdiction - rather than google.co.uk
- This Scales of Justice article was published on October, 2011. The convictions date from that period, not 2014.
1. Joanne Lloyd, 30, of Speedwell Street, Oxford, admitted stealing cash and items worth £648.66 in Oxford on February 19, failing to surrender to court bail on April 4 and failing to surrender to court bail on June 2. Jailed for six weeks.
2. Michael Roberts, 31, of Clark’s Row, Oxford, admitted shoplifting sherry valued at £5.69 from Sainsbury’s in Oxford on May 4 and two counts of assault by beating in Oxford on the same date. Jailed for four months due to “offences committed while on licence, previous convictions for similar matters, nature and seriousness of assault charges”.
3. Adam Tidbury, 19, of Leaver Road, Henley-on-Thames, admitted wasting police time in Henley between January 19 and 22 by making a false report to give rise to apprehension for the safety of persons or property, and using a public electronic communications network to send a message that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character on January 21. Given a six-month drug-rehabilitation requirement and 12 months’ supervision.
4. Sean Buckett, 20, of High Street, Nettlebed, admitted stealing from Cargo Home Shops in Henley £59.97 on February 2 and fraudulently falsifying a £59.97 till receipt; £59.99 on March 8 and fraudulently falsifying a £59.99 till receipt; £49.99 on March 22 and fraudulently falsifying a £49.99 till receipt; £79.96 on April 1 and fraudulently falsifying a £79.96 till receipt; £71.98 on April 4; £55.98 on April 5 and fraudulently falsifying a £55.98 till receipt; £59.98 on April 18 and fraudulently falsifying a £59.98 till receipt. Twenty other offences taken into consider-ation. Fined £200, a £15 victims’ surcharge and told to pay £512.85 compensation.
5. Lucian Dunlop, 32, of Coniston Avenue, Oxford, admitted failing to provide a roadside specimen for analysis on May 22 in Oxford. Fined £300, a £15 victims’ surcharge and £85 costs. Banned from driving for 20 months.
6. Brian Hall, 23, of Deer Walk, Oxford, admitted burglary of copper from a property in Crauford Road, Oxford, on May 22 and commission of a further offence while subject to a conditional discharge. Fined £100, a £15 victims’ surcharge and £50 costs.
7. William Hood, 29, of Bembridge, Isle of Wight, admitted driving while disqualified and without insurance in Five Mile Drive, Oxford, on January 21. Fined £100, a £15 victims’ surcharge and £50 costs. Banned from driving for a year.
8. Stewart Butler, 50, of Hawksmoor Road, Oxford, admitted using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause a fear of immediate unlawful violence in Oxford on May 23. Given a six-month curfew and told to pay £50 costs.
9. Callum McMahon, 21, of Ferry Hinksey Road, Oxford, admitted assault by beating in Oxford on May 21. Fined £200, a £15 victims’ surcharge and £85 costs. Given a two-year anti-social behaviour order not to be drunk in public within the Oxford ring road between 5pm and 7am Friday to Sunday.
10. Jago Turner, 19, of Iffley Road, Oxford, admitted stealing a pedal cycle in Oxford on May 22. Given a six-month conditional discharge, told to pay £25 costs.
11. Alexander Crook, 29, of Mumbles, Swansea, admitted using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour to cause a fear of immediate unlawful violence in Oxford on May 21. Fined £200, a £15 victims’ surcharge, £100 compensation and £85 costs.
12. Stuart Crook, 27, of Bucknell Road, Bicester, admitted using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour to cause a fear of immediate unlawful violence in Oxford on May 21. Fined £150, a £15 victims’ surcharge and £85 costs.
13. Igor Matejski, 19, of Barns Road, Oxford, admitted driving without insurance and drink driving in Park End Street, Oxford, on April 17. Fined £100, a £15 victims’ surcharge and £10 costs. Banned from driving for a year.
14. Jonathan Steeds, 43, of Luther Street, Oxford, admitted being drunk and disorderly in St Aldate’s, Oxford, on May 24. Fined £50 and a £15 victims’ surcharge.
15. Lee Atkinson, 29, of The Grove, Abingdon, admitted criminal damage to a Ford Fiesta wing mirror in Abingdon on April 3. Told to pay £150 compensation and £85 costs.
16. Darren Sanders, 43, of Luther Court, Oxford, admitted shoplifting 10 packets of Neurofen capsules valued at £36.50 from W H Smith in Oxford on April 28. Given a six-month drug-rehabilitation requirement and nine months’ supervision. Told to pay £36.50 compensation and £10 costs.
17. Christine Robey, 49, of Westcot, Wantage, convicted of assaulting Pc Louise Williams in Abingdon on September 24, 2010, and drink driving in Watery Lane, Sparsholt on the same day. Given a five-month curfew, and told to pay £30 compensation and £70 costs. Banned from driving for 40 months.
18. Jonathan Beames, 30, of Burton Close, Ladygrove Farm, Abingdon, admitted failing to comply with the community requirements of a suspended sentence by failing to participate in an accredited programme on April 28, failing to report for supervision on May 9 and failing to keep in touch with his responsible officer. Night-time curfew on four Saturdays added and told to complete the Back on Track activity requirement.
19. Joshua Crossan, 19, of Pinnocks Way, Botley, admitted failing to comply with a community order by “unacceptable behaviour” while on unpaid work. Given 10 extra hours’ unpaid work.
20. John Kerr, 26, of Broadfields, Littlemore, admitted failing to comply with a community order by failing to attend unpaid work. Given a 12-week curfew on Friday and Saturday nights.
Comments
The "European Court" (of Justice, say they) is staffed by a majority who would not qualify to be District Judge in our courts and probably could not. Which may explain why they can't grasp that "privacy" can never apply to a violation of criminal justice. It is the most public thing a person can do, saying as it does "I care not for civilisation" "I love barbarism" "I don't want to be one of you conformists who make society work" "I'm a barbarian"
The "European Court" (of Justice, say they) is staffed by a majority who would not qualify to be District Judge in our courts and probably could not. Which may explain why they can't grasp that "privacy" can never apply to a violation of criminal justice. It is the most public thing a person can do, saying as it does "I care not for civilisation" "I love barbarism" "I don't want to be one of you conformists who make society work" "I'm a barbarian"
Heinz Kiosk wrote…
The "European Court" (of Justice, say they) is staffed by a majority who would not qualify to be District Judge in our courts and probably could not. Which may explain why they can't grasp that "privacy" can never apply to a violation of criminal justice. It is the most public thing a person can do, saying as it does "I care not for civilisation" "I love barbarism" "I don't want to be one of you conformists who make society work" "I'm a barbarian"
Not entirely so.
In this country we have legislation that after a certain number of years most minor offences become 'spent' and do not need to be disclosed to insurers and prospective employers (there are exceptions, so specific CRB checks are still needed eg when working with children and other vulnerable people).
The clock starts again if further offences are committed in that time.
Most non custodial sentences become spent after about 3 years, some much shorter, so it seems reasonable to at least restrict casual access via Google and the like to information about 'spent' convictions which is legally private and confidential to that individual.
Nobody is presently suggesting that newspapers' websites or internal searches should be censored or restricted.
Heinz Kiosk wrote…
The "European Court" (of Justice, say they) is staffed by a majority who would not qualify to be District Judge in our courts and probably could not. Which may explain why they can't grasp that "privacy" can never apply to a violation of criminal justice. It is the most public thing a person can do, saying as it does "I care not for civilisation" "I love barbarism" "I don't want to be one of you conformists who make society work" "I'm a barbarian"
Not entirely so.
In this country we have legislation that after a certain number of years most minor offences become 'spent' and do not need to be disclosed to insurers and prospective employers (there are exceptions, so specific CRB checks are still needed eg when working with children and other vulnerable people).
The clock starts again if further offences are committed in that time.
Most non custodial sentences become spent after about 3 years, some much shorter, so it seems reasonable to at least restrict casual access via Google and the like to information about 'spent' convictions which is legally private and confidential to that individual.
Nobody is presently suggesting that newspapers' websites or internal searches should be censored or restricted.
The analogy with the Rehabilitation f Offenders Act is perfectly sensible but there is another angle. Up to our grandparents' time there was little mobility and occupants of a town would know well who was a thief (after all "once a thief, always a thief") and act accordingly. That isn't so now. There's no neighbour we can ask if we are not sure about someone. Hence the internet, or rather a useful by-product of the internet. Of course one hopes that sanity will prevail and we'll un-yoke ourselves from the inanities of the "European" anything except continent. In the meantime, well done OM.
The analogy with the Rehabilitation f Offenders Act is perfectly sensible but there is another angle. Up to our grandparents' time there was little mobility and occupants of a town would know well who was a thief (after all "once a thief, always a thief") and act accordingly. That isn't so now. There's no neighbour we can ask if we are not sure about someone. Hence the internet, or rather a useful by-product of the internet. Of course one hopes that sanity will prevail and we'll un-yoke ourselves from the inanities of the "European" anything except continent. In the meantime, well done OM.
I have no sympathy for you Oxford Mail. You still have an article about me on your site about my conviction from 1999 which you won't remove. you haven't provided me with the opportunity to have my say but the reporter was allowed to add his own opinions on the sort of character I am. Further to this he failed to do any form of investigation, had he done so he would have unravelled a story that has similarities with Jimmy Saville and also the rapes of 1000+ girls in Yorkshire. When I say similarities I mean in the sense that certain people and certain groups were protected by not only the authorities but obviously the media.
Years later after a substantial battle with the organisation that's involved in this case I won an out of court settlement but would you as purveyors of the truth it seems report this? The answer to that is no, you wouldn't dare because as far as I'm concerned you're a bunch of cowards firstly and secondly you as morally guilty as anyone else of trying remove negative search results. You are guilty of failing to report the whole facts of a case purely so you get your kicks from hanging people like me out to dry and instilling your required reaction from your readers.
That in essence is why you need to be controlled just the same way as you try to control people's thoughts and reactions.
I have no sympathy for you Oxford Mail. You still have an article about me on your site about my conviction from 1999 which you won't remove. you haven't provided me with the opportunity to have my say but the reporter was allowed to add his own opinions on the sort of character I am. Further to this he failed to do any form of investigation, had he done so he would have unravelled a story that has similarities with Jimmy Saville and also the rapes of 1000+ girls in Yorkshire. When I say similarities I mean in the sense that certain people and certain groups were protected by not only the authorities but obviously the media.
Years later after a substantial battle with the organisation that's involved in this case I won an out of court settlement but would you as purveyors of the truth it seems report this? The answer to that is no, you wouldn't dare because as far as I'm concerned you're a bunch of cowards firstly and secondly you as morally guilty as anyone else of trying remove negative search results. You are guilty of failing to report the whole facts of a case purely so you get your kicks from hanging people like me out to dry and instilling your required reaction from your readers.
That in essence is why you need to be controlled just the same way as you try to control people's thoughts and reactions.
"That in essence is why you need to be controlled "
Are you any relation of Kim Jong-un ?
PS a search of the OM website for "Stacey Hume" gives no results, so you probably don't need to start sending newspaper editors to the Gulag yet a while.
"That in essence is why you need to be controlled "
Are you any relation of Kim Jong-un ?
PS a search of the OM website for "Stacey Hume" gives no results, so you probably don't need to start sending newspaper editors to the Gulag yet a while.
if you do the crime, you have to live with the consequences thereafter, society has a right to know who has transgressed for a good while after the offence, this should be serving as a deterrent to commit crime, not a hiding place to start over on a life of no good, the silent majority deserve the right to know whom they live with. how many people are actually aware after the day of sentence the burglars, drink drivers who live amongst us, yet alone more serious offenders. This country has given to much credance to the rights of the criminal yet barely given lip service to the victims.
if you do the crime, you have to live with the consequences thereafter, society has a right to know who has transgressed for a good while after the offence, this should be serving as a deterrent to commit crime, not a hiding place to start over on a life of no good, the silent majority deserve the right to know whom they live with. how many people are actually aware after the day of sentence the burglars, drink drivers who live amongst us, yet alone more serious offenders. This country has given to much credance to the rights of the criminal yet barely given lip service to the victims.
StaceyHume wrote…
I have no sympathy for you Oxford Mail. You still have an article about me on your site about my conviction from 1999 which you won't remove. you haven't provided me with the opportunity to have my say but the reporter was allowed to add his own opinions on the sort of character I am. Further to this he failed to do any form of investigation, had he done so he would have unravelled a story that has similarities with Jimmy Saville and also the rapes of 1000+ girls in Yorkshire. When I say similarities I mean in the sense that certain people and certain groups were protected by not only the authorities but obviously the media.
Years later after a substantial battle with the organisation that's involved in this case I won an out of court settlement but would you as purveyors of the truth it seems report this? The answer to that is no, you wouldn't dare because as far as I'm concerned you're a bunch of cowards firstly and secondly you as morally guilty as anyone else of trying remove negative search results. You are guilty of failing to report the whole facts of a case purely so you get your kicks from hanging people like me out to dry and instilling your required reaction from your readers.
That in essence is why you need to be controlled just the same way as you try to control people's thoughts and reactions.
Can't find the article so far.
I will keep trying for you though.
StaceyHume wrote…
I have no sympathy for you Oxford Mail. You still have an article about me on your site about my conviction from 1999 which you won't remove. you haven't provided me with the opportunity to have my say but the reporter was allowed to add his own opinions on the sort of character I am. Further to this he failed to do any form of investigation, had he done so he would have unravelled a story that has similarities with Jimmy Saville and also the rapes of 1000+ girls in Yorkshire. When I say similarities I mean in the sense that certain people and certain groups were protected by not only the authorities but obviously the media.
Years later after a substantial battle with the organisation that's involved in this case I won an out of court settlement but would you as purveyors of the truth it seems report this? The answer to that is no, you wouldn't dare because as far as I'm concerned you're a bunch of cowards firstly and secondly you as morally guilty as anyone else of trying remove negative search results. You are guilty of failing to report the whole facts of a case purely so you get your kicks from hanging people like me out to dry and instilling your required reaction from your readers.
That in essence is why you need to be controlled just the same way as you try to control people's thoughts and reactions.
Can't find the article so far.
I will keep trying for you though.
faatmaan wrote…
if you do the crime, you have to live with the consequences thereafter, society has a right to know who has transgressed for a good while after the offence, this should be serving as a deterrent to commit crime, not a hiding place to start over on a life of no good, the silent majority deserve the right to know whom they live with. how many people are actually aware after the day of sentence the burglars, drink drivers who live amongst us, yet alone more serious offenders. This country has given to much credance to the rights of the criminal yet barely given lip service to the victims.
Yes, but some of the cases in the original article are pretty trivial stuff. Do we really need to know all about them 3 years on?
"Given a two-year anti-social behaviour order not to be drunk in public within the Oxford ring road between 5pm and 7am Friday to Sunday. "
Are you really saying someone should have something like that hanging round their necks for the rest of their lives?
faatmaan wrote…
if you do the crime, you have to live with the consequences thereafter, society has a right to know who has transgressed for a good while after the offence, this should be serving as a deterrent to commit crime, not a hiding place to start over on a life of no good, the silent majority deserve the right to know whom they live with. how many people are actually aware after the day of sentence the burglars, drink drivers who live amongst us, yet alone more serious offenders. This country has given to much credance to the rights of the criminal yet barely given lip service to the victims.
Yes, but some of the cases in the original article are pretty trivial stuff. Do we really need to know all about them 3 years on?
"Given a two-year anti-social behaviour order not to be drunk in public within the Oxford ring road between 5pm and 7am Friday to Sunday. "
Are you really saying someone should have something like that hanging round their necks for the rest of their lives?
Gunslinger wrote…
faatmaan wrote…
if you do the crime, you have to live with the consequences thereafter, society has a right to know who has transgressed for a good while after the offence, this should be serving as a deterrent to commit crime, not a hiding place to start over on a life of no good, the silent majority deserve the right to know whom they live with. how many people are actually aware after the day of sentence the burglars, drink drivers who live amongst us, yet alone more serious offenders. This country has given to much credance to the rights of the criminal yet barely given lip service to the victims.
"Given a two-year anti-social behaviour order not to be drunk in public within the Oxford ring road between 5pm and 7am Friday to Sunday. "
Are you really saying someone should have something like that hanging round their necks for the rest of their lives?
Well if you're a normal human you presumably will feel shame about it to the end of your life. Won't you? No one is going to look you up casually, are they?. It IS your past. It doesn't go away. You may not appreciate how hard crims have to work to get into court, with all the "diversions." Having worked so hard at it they're entitled to their 10 minutes of fame in perpetuity, aren't they?
Gunslinger wrote…
faatmaan wrote…
if you do the crime, you have to live with the consequences thereafter, society has a right to know who has transgressed for a good while after the offence, this should be serving as a deterrent to commit crime, not a hiding place to start over on a life of no good, the silent majority deserve the right to know whom they live with. how many people are actually aware after the day of sentence the burglars, drink drivers who live amongst us, yet alone more serious offenders. This country has given to much credance to the rights of the criminal yet barely given lip service to the victims.
"Given a two-year anti-social behaviour order not to be drunk in public within the Oxford ring road between 5pm and 7am Friday to Sunday. "
Are you really saying someone should have something like that hanging round their necks for the rest of their lives?
Well if you're a normal human you presumably will feel shame about it to the end of your life. Won't you? No one is going to look you up casually, are they?. It IS your past. It doesn't go away. You may not appreciate how hard crims have to work to get into court, with all the "diversions." Having worked so hard at it they're entitled to their 10 minutes of fame in perpetuity, aren't they?
faatmaan wrote…
if you do the crime, you have to live with the consequences thereafter, society has a right to know who has transgressed for a good while after the offence, this should be serving as a deterrent to commit crime, not a hiding place to start over on a life of no good, the silent majority deserve the right to know whom they live with. how many people are actually aware after the day of sentence the burglars, drink drivers who live amongst us, yet alone more serious offenders. This country has given to much credance to the rights of the criminal yet barely given lip service to the victims.
Is it fair for the Oxford Mail to pick what "crimes" it reports? Is it fair that the Police pick what crimes they investigate? Both those situations occur on a regular basis and in my opinion are done deliberately. It it fair that some people who apparent misdemeanour's are available online for the rest of their lives yet others the Oxford Mail didn't report don't have to concern themselves which such things?
faatmaan wrote…
if you do the crime, you have to live with the consequences thereafter, society has a right to know who has transgressed for a good while after the offence, this should be serving as a deterrent to commit crime, not a hiding place to start over on a life of no good, the silent majority deserve the right to know whom they live with. how many people are actually aware after the day of sentence the burglars, drink drivers who live amongst us, yet alone more serious offenders. This country has given to much credance to the rights of the criminal yet barely given lip service to the victims.
Is it fair for the Oxford Mail to pick what "crimes" it reports? Is it fair that the Police pick what crimes they investigate? Both those situations occur on a regular basis and in my opinion are done deliberately. It it fair that some people who apparent misdemeanour's are available online for the rest of their lives yet others the Oxford Mail didn't report don't have to concern themselves which such things?
Look all you people who think this "right" handed down by a pot of non-lawyers to the east of here is wonderful, try this. Are you a Trades Unionist? Are you aware that a number of solicitors were disciplined for charging disabled former colliers fees for dealing with their "white finger" cases, when the scheme already paid them? You'd better believe they're all gagging to stop your right to know who they are. Do you want that to happen? If not tell your MP to vote to statutorily reverse this Eurotrash.
Where on earth is the TUC in this?
Sorry Miss Whoever you are "Stacey" but the issue's a bit bigger than your domestic whatever peccadillo it might have been.
Look all you people who think this "right" handed down by a pot of non-lawyers to the east of here is wonderful, try this. Are you a Trades Unionist? Are you aware that a number of solicitors were disciplined for charging disabled former colliers fees for dealing with their "white finger" cases, when the scheme already paid them? You'd better believe they're all gagging to stop your right to know who they are. Do you want that to happen? If not tell your MP to vote to statutorily reverse this Eurotrash.
Where on earth is the TUC in this?
Sorry Miss Whoever you are "Stacey" but the issue's a bit bigger than your domestic whatever peccadillo it might have been.
No Trades Unionists? Shame on you!
No Trades Unionists? Shame on you!
StaceyHume wrote…
I have no sympathy for you Oxford Mail. You still have an article about me on your site about my conviction from 1999 which you won't remove. you haven't provided me with the opportunity to have my say but the reporter was allowed to add his own opinions on the sort of character I am. Further to this he failed to do any form of investigation, had he done so he would have unravelled a story that has similarities with Jimmy Saville and also the rapes of 1000+ girls in Yorkshire. When I say similarities I mean in the sense that certain people and certain groups were protected by not only the authorities but obviously the media.
Years later after a substantial battle with the organisation that's involved in this case I won an out of court settlement but would you as purveyors of the truth it seems report this? The answer to that is no, you wouldn't dare because as far as I'm concerned you're a bunch of cowards firstly and secondly you as morally guilty as anyone else of trying remove negative search results. You are guilty of failing to report the whole facts of a case purely so you get your kicks from hanging people like me out to dry and instilling your required reaction from your readers.
That in essence is why you need to be controlled just the same way as you try to control people's thoughts and reactions.
If you hadn't posted on here, nobody would start searching for the article......you're creating publicity about something you're trying to get removed........not the sharpest knife in the block are you?
If you don't want people to know about something, then don't say anything, all you've done is highlighted your crime to the readers of over 200 other Newsquest publications around the country.........ROFL
StaceyHume wrote…
I have no sympathy for you Oxford Mail. You still have an article about me on your site about my conviction from 1999 which you won't remove. you haven't provided me with the opportunity to have my say but the reporter was allowed to add his own opinions on the sort of character I am. Further to this he failed to do any form of investigation, had he done so he would have unravelled a story that has similarities with Jimmy Saville and also the rapes of 1000+ girls in Yorkshire. When I say similarities I mean in the sense that certain people and certain groups were protected by not only the authorities but obviously the media.
Years later after a substantial battle with the organisation that's involved in this case I won an out of court settlement but would you as purveyors of the truth it seems report this? The answer to that is no, you wouldn't dare because as far as I'm concerned you're a bunch of cowards firstly and secondly you as morally guilty as anyone else of trying remove negative search results. You are guilty of failing to report the whole facts of a case purely so you get your kicks from hanging people like me out to dry and instilling your required reaction from your readers.
That in essence is why you need to be controlled just the same way as you try to control people's thoughts and reactions.
If you hadn't posted on here, nobody would start searching for the article......you're creating publicity about something you're trying to get removed........not the sharpest knife in the block are you?
If you don't want people to know about something, then don't say anything, all you've done is highlighted your crime to the readers of over 200 other Newsquest publications around the country.........ROFL
Dilligaf2010 wrote…
StaceyHume wrote…
I have no sympathy for you Oxford Mail. You still have an article about me on your site about my conviction from 1999 which you won't remove. you haven't provided me with the opportunity to have my say but the reporter was allowed to add his own opinions on the sort of character I am. Further to this he failed to do any form of investigation, had he done so he would have unravelled a story that has similarities with Jimmy Saville and also the rapes of 1000+ girls in Yorkshire. When I say similarities I mean in the sense that certain people and certain groups were protected by not only the authorities but obviously the media.
Years later after a substantial battle with the organisation that's involved in this case I won an out of court settlement but would you as purveyors of the truth it seems report this? The answer to that is no, you wouldn't dare because as far as I'm concerned you're a bunch of cowards firstly and secondly you as morally guilty as anyone else of trying remove negative search results. You are guilty of failing to report the whole facts of a case purely so you get your kicks from hanging people like me out to dry and instilling your required reaction from your readers.
That in essence is why you need to be controlled just the same way as you try to control people's thoughts and reactions.
If you don't want people to know about something, then don't say anything, all you've done is highlighted your crime to the readers of over 200 other Newsquest publications around the country.........ROFL
There are 17 people with her name in The UK, most of them in Essex, none of them in Oxfordshire. If you really exist Stace, can provide more info so we can judge for ourselves whether you are real or fictional.
Dilligaf2010 wrote…
StaceyHume wrote…
I have no sympathy for you Oxford Mail. You still have an article about me on your site about my conviction from 1999 which you won't remove. you haven't provided me with the opportunity to have my say but the reporter was allowed to add his own opinions on the sort of character I am. Further to this he failed to do any form of investigation, had he done so he would have unravelled a story that has similarities with Jimmy Saville and also the rapes of 1000+ girls in Yorkshire. When I say similarities I mean in the sense that certain people and certain groups were protected by not only the authorities but obviously the media.
Years later after a substantial battle with the organisation that's involved in this case I won an out of court settlement but would you as purveyors of the truth it seems report this? The answer to that is no, you wouldn't dare because as far as I'm concerned you're a bunch of cowards firstly and secondly you as morally guilty as anyone else of trying remove negative search results. You are guilty of failing to report the whole facts of a case purely so you get your kicks from hanging people like me out to dry and instilling your required reaction from your readers.
That in essence is why you need to be controlled just the same way as you try to control people's thoughts and reactions.
If you don't want people to know about something, then don't say anything, all you've done is highlighted your crime to the readers of over 200 other Newsquest publications around the country.........ROFL
There are 17 people with her name in The UK, most of them in Essex, none of them in Oxfordshire. If you really exist Stace, can provide more info so we can judge for ourselves whether you are real or fictional.
The New Private Eye wrote…
Dilligaf2010 wrote…
StaceyHume wrote…
I have no sympathy for you Oxford Mail. You still have an article about me on your site about my conviction from 1999 which you won't remove. you haven't provided me with the opportunity to have my say but the reporter was allowed to add his own opinions on the sort of character I am. Further to this he failed to do any form of investigation, had he done so he would have unravelled a story that has similarities with Jimmy Saville and also the rapes of 1000+ girls in Yorkshire. When I say similarities I mean in the sense that certain people and certain groups were protected by not only the authorities but obviously the media.
Years later after a substantial battle with the organisation that's involved in this case I won an out of court settlement but would you as purveyors of the truth it seems report this? The answer to that is no, you wouldn't dare because as far as I'm concerned you're a bunch of cowards firstly and secondly you as morally guilty as anyone else of trying remove negative search results. You are guilty of failing to report the whole facts of a case purely so you get your kicks from hanging people like me out to dry and instilling your required reaction from your readers.
That in essence is why you need to be controlled just the same way as you try to control people's thoughts and reactions.
If you don't want people to know about something, then don't say anything, all you've done is highlighted your crime to the readers of over 200 other Newsquest publications around the country.........ROFL
Look, she doesn't matter. Should people who interfere with children, look at horrible pictures on the internet, solicitors who overcharge disabled clients have a "right to be forgotten"? Yes or no?
The New Private Eye wrote…
Dilligaf2010 wrote…
StaceyHume wrote…
I have no sympathy for you Oxford Mail. You still have an article about me on your site about my conviction from 1999 which you won't remove. you haven't provided me with the opportunity to have my say but the reporter was allowed to add his own opinions on the sort of character I am. Further to this he failed to do any form of investigation, had he done so he would have unravelled a story that has similarities with Jimmy Saville and also the rapes of 1000+ girls in Yorkshire. When I say similarities I mean in the sense that certain people and certain groups were protected by not only the authorities but obviously the media.
Years later after a substantial battle with the organisation that's involved in this case I won an out of court settlement but would you as purveyors of the truth it seems report this? The answer to that is no, you wouldn't dare because as far as I'm concerned you're a bunch of cowards firstly and secondly you as morally guilty as anyone else of trying remove negative search results. You are guilty of failing to report the whole facts of a case purely so you get your kicks from hanging people like me out to dry and instilling your required reaction from your readers.
That in essence is why you need to be controlled just the same way as you try to control people's thoughts and reactions.
If you don't want people to know about something, then don't say anything, all you've done is highlighted your crime to the readers of over 200 other Newsquest publications around the country.........ROFL
Look, she doesn't matter. Should people who interfere with children, look at horrible pictures on the internet, solicitors who overcharge disabled clients have a "right to be forgotten"? Yes or no?
As I have stated on this site before I believe there should be some system in place that allows for historic stories to be taken “offline” so to speak. There will always be an official record of the crime, and there will always be a hard copy of the story, so no one is actually deleting history or removing people’s right to know, it’s just making it a bit harder to find out, the same way it was years and years ago. Whether the Oxford Mail and supporters of their insistence to repost news stories like it or not the world has changed due to the Internet and certain aspects of how we live our life have to change in order for society to improve.
You can’t have your cake and eat, if you want to reduce reoffending rates then you need to help people reintegrate in society and get their life back on track, if you put up hurdles for these people then you make it harder for this to happen and increase reoffending.
I work within a industry that has major crossovers with this subject which is why I am passionate about it. I will have to be careful with what information I share as it is of course personal to someone, but a few years back I helped a woman get her life back on track after years of going in and out of prison for petty theft, she was written off as a trouble maker and found herself turning to drug abuse to cope with her life. Once we were able to get close to her we discovered years of abuse from her childhood that had caused the antisocial behaviour which ultimately led to the drug abuse once society had blacklisted her so to speak. Long story short she is now working a fulltime job and in a committed loving relationship, but we had to pull major strings to get her that job because a quick search of her name showed a very long history of criminality. We (society) do not know everyone’s life story, and as upsetting and awful crime can be by turning our collective backs we don’t solve our societies issues we make them worse, and it for this reason and many others for why I feel search engines and website owners should have some policy that allows for articles and reports that impact negatively someone’s life to be removed from the results if certain criteria has been met such as so many years passing and no repeat of these actions. I could go on for ages but I am probably boring everyone now.
As I have stated on this site before I believe there should be some system in place that allows for historic stories to be taken “offline” so to speak. There will always be an official record of the crime, and there will always be a hard copy of the story, so no one is actually deleting history or removing people’s right to know, it’s just making it a bit harder to find out, the same way it was years and years ago. Whether the Oxford Mail and supporters of their insistence to repost news stories like it or not the world has changed due to the Internet and certain aspects of how we live our life have to change in order for society to improve.
You can’t have your cake and eat, if you want to reduce reoffending rates then you need to help people reintegrate in society and get their life back on track, if you put up hurdles for these people then you make it harder for this to happen and increase reoffending.
I work within a industry that has major crossovers with this subject which is why I am passionate about it. I will have to be careful with what information I share as it is of course personal to someone, but a few years back I helped a woman get her life back on track after years of going in and out of prison for petty theft, she was written off as a trouble maker and found herself turning to drug abuse to cope with her life. Once we were able to get close to her we discovered years of abuse from her childhood that had caused the antisocial behaviour which ultimately led to the drug abuse once society had blacklisted her so to speak. Long story short she is now working a fulltime job and in a committed loving relationship, but we had to pull major strings to get her that job because a quick search of her name showed a very long history of criminality. We (society) do not know everyone’s life story, and as upsetting and awful crime can be by turning our collective backs we don’t solve our societies issues we make them worse, and it for this reason and many others for why I feel search engines and website owners should have some policy that allows for articles and reports that impact negatively someone’s life to be removed from the results if certain criteria has been met such as so many years passing and no repeat of these actions. I could go on for ages but I am probably boring everyone now.
elperrohavuelto wrote…
As I have stated on this site before I believe there should be some system in place that allows for historic stories to be taken “offline” so to speak. There will always be an official record of the crime, and there will always be a hard copy of the story, so no one is actually deleting history or removing people’s right to know, it’s just making it a bit harder to find out, the same way it was years and years ago. Whether the Oxford Mail and supporters of their insistence to repost news stories like it or not the world has changed due to the Internet and certain aspects of how we live our life have to change in order for society to improve.
You can’t have your cake and eat, if you want to reduce reoffending rates then you need to help people reintegrate in society and get their life back on track, if you put up hurdles for these people then you make it harder for this to happen and increase reoffending.
I work within a industry that has major crossovers with this subject which is why I am passionate about it. I will have to be careful with what information I share as it is of course personal to someone, but a few years back I helped a woman get her life back on track after years of going in and out of prison for petty theft, she was written off as a trouble maker and found herself turning to drug abuse to cope with her life. Once we were able to get close to her we discovered years of abuse from her childhood that had caused the antisocial behaviour which ultimately led to the drug abuse once society had blacklisted her so to speak. Long story short she is now working a fulltime job and in a committed loving relationship, but we had to pull major strings to get her that job because a quick search of her name showed a very long history of criminality. We (society) do not know everyone’s life story, and as upsetting and awful crime can be by turning our collective backs we don’t solve our societies issues we make them worse, and it for this reason and many others for why I feel search engines and website owners should have some policy that allows for articles and reports that impact negatively someone’s life to be removed from the results if certain criteria has been met such as so many years passing and no repeat of these actions. I could go on for ages but I am probably boring everyone now.
That is a brilliant success story. Sadly it must be almost unique, because anyone with such an history of offending will have served sentences not caught by even the latest version of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and which would therefore always be discloseable in a job application. Moreover your success must have owed much to the fact that you were able to "lift " her from her previous milieu (where her character would be known anyway) and thereby tackle the greatest problem of rehabilitation of offenders who offend after 23, which is that their whole friendship group will share their proclivities making rehabilitation usually unattainable.
elperrohavuelto wrote…
As I have stated on this site before I believe there should be some system in place that allows for historic stories to be taken “offline” so to speak. There will always be an official record of the crime, and there will always be a hard copy of the story, so no one is actually deleting history or removing people’s right to know, it’s just making it a bit harder to find out, the same way it was years and years ago. Whether the Oxford Mail and supporters of their insistence to repost news stories like it or not the world has changed due to the Internet and certain aspects of how we live our life have to change in order for society to improve.
You can’t have your cake and eat, if you want to reduce reoffending rates then you need to help people reintegrate in society and get their life back on track, if you put up hurdles for these people then you make it harder for this to happen and increase reoffending.
I work within a industry that has major crossovers with this subject which is why I am passionate about it. I will have to be careful with what information I share as it is of course personal to someone, but a few years back I helped a woman get her life back on track after years of going in and out of prison for petty theft, she was written off as a trouble maker and found herself turning to drug abuse to cope with her life. Once we were able to get close to her we discovered years of abuse from her childhood that had caused the antisocial behaviour which ultimately led to the drug abuse once society had blacklisted her so to speak. Long story short she is now working a fulltime job and in a committed loving relationship, but we had to pull major strings to get her that job because a quick search of her name showed a very long history of criminality. We (society) do not know everyone’s life story, and as upsetting and awful crime can be by turning our collective backs we don’t solve our societies issues we make them worse, and it for this reason and many others for why I feel search engines and website owners should have some policy that allows for articles and reports that impact negatively someone’s life to be removed from the results if certain criteria has been met such as so many years passing and no repeat of these actions. I could go on for ages but I am probably boring everyone now.
That is a brilliant success story. Sadly it must be almost unique, because anyone with such an history of offending will have served sentences not caught by even the latest version of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and which would therefore always be discloseable in a job application. Moreover your success must have owed much to the fact that you were able to "lift " her from her previous milieu (where her character would be known anyway) and thereby tackle the greatest problem of rehabilitation of offenders who offend after 23, which is that their whole friendship group will share their proclivities making rehabilitation usually unattainable.
Getting someone out of a friendship circle that is trapped in an offending cycle is extremely difficult, I couldn’t agree more. However their unwillingness to leave what has become a trusted space is largely down to how they are treated outside of that group by society at large.
As for disclosing criminal history on job applications.... well that is something else I find very counterproductive in reducing reoffending rates by getting vulnerable people in employment. Don't get me wrong certain jobs need a level of safeguarding such as DBS checks, but in my opinion the law should be changed to focus on particulars rather than generalising. For example if you convicted of defrauding the organisation you work for, one of the stipulations of your release should be declaring that criminal act for X amounts of years within roles that would give you access to similar responsibilities. If after those X amount of years have passed and you haven’t reoffended then this stipulations expires also. There is a level of complexity within this, but I do feel it ultimately help in the long run.
Back to the original subject I do not know if I would class it as unique but it is certainly challenging and takes a lot of time, especially finding employers willing to work with us. Like I say I believe all the scaremongering by the Oxford Mail and co about deleting someone’s history is just smokescreen for wanting to make money selling papers by stirring up witch-hunting emotions by playing to the easy emotions of "you have a right to know"... well yes and no one is taking that right away from you, we/I just believe this situation needs a lot more attention and discussion to better reflect society today and how the Internet plays a major role in all our lives.
Getting someone out of a friendship circle that is trapped in an offending cycle is extremely difficult, I couldn’t agree more. However their unwillingness to leave what has become a trusted space is largely down to how they are treated outside of that group by society at large.
As for disclosing criminal history on job applications.... well that is something else I find very counterproductive in reducing reoffending rates by getting vulnerable people in employment. Don't get me wrong certain jobs need a level of safeguarding such as DBS checks, but in my opinion the law should be changed to focus on particulars rather than generalising. For example if you convicted of defrauding the organisation you work for, one of the stipulations of your release should be declaring that criminal act for X amounts of years within roles that would give you access to similar responsibilities. If after those X amount of years have passed and you haven’t reoffended then this stipulations expires also. There is a level of complexity within this, but I do feel it ultimately help in the long run.
Back to the original subject I do not know if I would class it as unique but it is certainly challenging and takes a lot of time, especially finding employers willing to work with us. Like I say I believe all the scaremongering by the Oxford Mail and co about deleting someone’s history is just smokescreen for wanting to make money selling papers by stirring up witch-hunting emotions by playing to the easy emotions of "you have a right to know"... well yes and no one is taking that right away from you, we/I just believe this situation needs a lot more attention and discussion to better reflect society today and how the Internet plays a major role in all our lives.
Are you any relation of Kim Jong-un?
No but then I'm not the NSA or GCHQ spying on people's emails, neither am I a newspaper that is owned by News International who hacked into people's phones. While i'm on the subject what do you think about the law that allows council officials to put you under surveillance for trivial matters?
I appreciate there are often two sides to stories but i would ask you to consider that sometimes the justice system along with the media work hand in glove to deceive the public and seem to think they are beyond reproach. until that changes and they stop abusing their privilege them I'm afraid life is just going to tougher for them.
I noticed someone earlier mentioned something about child images, nothing to do with I might add but do any of you remember Operation Ore. If you do recall it are you aware of the countless families who were destroyed by this or the suicides involved? This was all due to our so called justice system playing poker with people's lives and still even now won't offer any form of apology. http://inquisition21
.com Will take some reading to get your head around what happened but if you do you might get a sense of how hoodwinked members of the public can be when the majority of us put our faith into what we believe is a balanced justice system and a knowledgeable media. Sadly in lots of cases it's just an illusion.
I was none the wiser myself but then I saw first hand
Are you any relation of Kim Jong-un?
No but then I'm not the NSA or GCHQ spying on people's emails, neither am I a newspaper that is owned by News International who hacked into people's phones. While i'm on the subject what do you think about the law that allows council officials to put you under surveillance for trivial matters?
I appreciate there are often two sides to stories but i would ask you to consider that sometimes the justice system along with the media work hand in glove to deceive the public and seem to think they are beyond reproach. until that changes and they stop abusing their privilege them I'm afraid life is just going to tougher for them.
I noticed someone earlier mentioned something about child images, nothing to do with I might add but do any of you remember Operation Ore. If you do recall it are you aware of the countless families who were destroyed by this or the suicides involved? This was all due to our so called justice system playing poker with people's lives and still even now won't offer any form of apology. http://inquisition21
.com Will take some reading to get your head around what happened but if you do you might get a sense of how hoodwinked members of the public can be when the majority of us put our faith into what we believe is a balanced justice system and a knowledgeable media. Sadly in lots of cases it's just an illusion.
I was none the wiser myself but then I saw first hand
StaceyHume wrote…
Are you any relation of Kim Jong-un?
No but then I'm not the NSA or GCHQ spying on people's emails, neither am I a newspaper that is owned by News International who hacked into people's phones. While i'm on the subject what do you think about the law that allows council officials to put you under surveillance for trivial matters?
I appreciate there are often two sides to stories but i would ask you to consider that sometimes the justice system along with the media work hand in glove to deceive the public and seem to think they are beyond reproach. until that changes and they stop abusing their privilege them I'm afraid life is just going to tougher for them.
I noticed someone earlier mentioned something about child images, nothing to do with I might add but do any of you remember Operation Ore. If you do recall it are you aware of the countless families who were destroyed by this or the suicides involved? This was all due to our so called justice system playing poker with people's lives and still even now won't offer any form of apology. http://inquisition21
.com Will take some reading to get your head around what happened but if you do you might get a sense of how hoodwinked members of the public can be when the majority of us put our faith into what we believe is a balanced justice system and a knowledgeable media. Sadly in lots of cases it's just an illusion.
I was none the wiser myself but then I saw first hand
Not sure that "ore" has much bearing on publishing court cases, but if memory serves, didn't the FBI rush over hot and sticky to London gushing "Look here Mr Englishman. See what I've got. Credit card numbers for lots of people in your country who might or might not have been looking at dirty pictures. Aren't I a good boy? Aren't I ?"
And, instead of saying "Oh you certainly are Hiram. Such a good boy. I'll have to have look at your stuff one day. Now just cut along to your supper like a good fellow" and binning it, our politicised former police force decided it'd be so much more fun to play with this stuff and deal with the timid dirty mac brigade than actually catching violent real criminals, that it made this trivia into a national obsession for the mentally undemanding. Would that be about the story Stacey?
StaceyHume wrote…
Are you any relation of Kim Jong-un?
No but then I'm not the NSA or GCHQ spying on people's emails, neither am I a newspaper that is owned by News International who hacked into people's phones. While i'm on the subject what do you think about the law that allows council officials to put you under surveillance for trivial matters?
I appreciate there are often two sides to stories but i would ask you to consider that sometimes the justice system along with the media work hand in glove to deceive the public and seem to think they are beyond reproach. until that changes and they stop abusing their privilege them I'm afraid life is just going to tougher for them.
I noticed someone earlier mentioned something about child images, nothing to do with I might add but do any of you remember Operation Ore. If you do recall it are you aware of the countless families who were destroyed by this or the suicides involved? This was all due to our so called justice system playing poker with people's lives and still even now won't offer any form of apology. http://inquisition21
.com Will take some reading to get your head around what happened but if you do you might get a sense of how hoodwinked members of the public can be when the majority of us put our faith into what we believe is a balanced justice system and a knowledgeable media. Sadly in lots of cases it's just an illusion.
I was none the wiser myself but then I saw first hand
Not sure that "ore" has much bearing on publishing court cases, but if memory serves, didn't the FBI rush over hot and sticky to London gushing "Look here Mr Englishman. See what I've got. Credit card numbers for lots of people in your country who might or might not have been looking at dirty pictures. Aren't I a good boy? Aren't I ?"
And, instead of saying "Oh you certainly are Hiram. Such a good boy. I'll have to have look at your stuff one day. Now just cut along to your supper like a good fellow" and binning it, our politicised former police force decided it'd be so much more fun to play with this stuff and deal with the timid dirty mac brigade than actually catching violent real criminals, that it made this trivia into a national obsession for the mentally undemanding. Would that be about the story Stacey?