You're not a little confused, you're a lot confused.
Peter Sutcliffe cannot have his past forgotten because it is still relevant. He can apply to Google to have his past forgotten, Google can say "Fuck off and get a court order", and the court will simply say "Fuck off".
The recent court judgement says that when the court does order Google to remove invalid or out of date data from their database, Google must do so. Google's argument seems to be "bwaah! don't wanna!"
To clarify, the information is in Google's database, which is the link between the keywords searched for, and the resources found for those keywords. This judgement is that where a court has ruled that the resources contain invalid or our of date data that contravenes someone's right to privacy, then Google must not link certain keywords to certain resources.
The purpose of the court is to judge the relative merits of the individual's right to privacy and Google's rights, and Google do not have to do anything until a court has ordered them to. Google is upset because they don't want to do anything with courts at all.
Their solution is to they hire a raft of PR guys to spin this story as much as possible to confuse people in to thinking that this means people like Peter Sutcliffe can be erased from the internet. This form and the 12,000 "requests" that it has received are solely designed to give Google's PR people a story that they can spin to newspapers and confuse people further.
So far, they have had to remove one link to one article, containing out-dated financial information, when you search for one guys name, so that the guy can stop having it included in his credit score. That is it.
Poor google, how will they cope.