Here's a good one for the good people at Oxford Institute or other to get their head around.
At the Telegraph one of their senior execs tells us about a reader who wants a link taking down. It's a foul link. Put it this way, you're caught with your 'trousers down". And it gets written about, at worst blogged.
What if the event is a conviction which becomes spent over time.
By law you're not required to reveal the offense. You may even in some cases sue for libel. Meanwhile that "foul" link sits in a paper's archive and number 1 in google against your name staring ominously at any potential employer or friends looking you up.
The Telegraph's stance is that the article written on you at the times is a reflection of the event - the link stays - just as you couldn't undo a newspaper piece 6 years ago.
Mind you that newspaper piece is probably in a landfill - out of sight.
I'll post the actual video of our discussion at some point, but it's interesting to note that other newspapers have gone into their archives and removed offending links.