dissemination of the information concerned is prejudicial to the data subject. In this regard, Article 17 of the GDPR explicitly recognises certain exceptions where retention of the data is necessary for exercising the right of freedom of expression and information. 23. In view of the above, the validity of a delisting request should be determined by striking a fair balance between the legitimate interest of Internet users potentially interested in havins access to the information, and the data subject,s fundamental risht to I rivacy and data protection. 24. As far as your case is concerned, having made reference to NT1 & NT2 v Google LLC [2018] EWHC 799 (QB) and carefully considered the circumstances of the case, and in particular the following, we are of the view that the right to be forgotten would not be applicable, and non-erasure or retention of the data posted through the Links can be reasonably justified: (a) The information on your arrest published through the Links relates to one or more of the suspected criminal offences, such as participating in an unauthorised assembly and obstructing police officers in the due execution of their duties. Such information may be sensitive in nature, but it is not intrinsically private in nature. (b) The fact that the information on your arrest was widely reported by the press should fall within your reasonable 10