How strange. My previous post about Andrew Greystoke rose rapidly up the Google rankings but has just as suddenly disappeared, even if you search "Andrew Greystoke + Hong Kong + fumier". In other words, Google has excluded it, although all the information in the post save Mr. Greystoke's presence in Hong Kong came from other sites found through a Google search.
Could it be that, despite its content consisting entirely, apart from Mr. Greystoke's visit here, of matters which are both public record and also covered extensively elsewhere on the Interweb, it touched a nerve, that one of Greystoke's Hong Kong cohorts tipped Greystoke the wink, and a Tarzan minion asked Google to remove the site from search results. No, surely not.
If it is the case, however, it would not be the first time that a sensitive flower has asked (or not, as the case may be) for a foamie exclusive to be removed from the searches. I remember a few years back the same thing happening (or maybe not) when I posted about a charity vanity site (using only the words of the site itself) called Hong Kong People, run by socialites David and Cara Weil, (with the luvly-bubbly Mabel Au-Yeung to give it some credibility). Up the rankings it went then it disappeared, perhaps after a Google vanity search. In this respect, it mirrored the performance of the charity itself which sank without trace (apart from in the Companies Registry's records) shortly afterwards, having - according to its accounts - racked up only about HK$10,000 in inward donations (receipts) and quite a lot more than that in expenses (hence no outward donations to the actual charities it was supposed to benefit) in its short life). Not a very good story for the old dinner circuit in the end, sadly.
Just for old times' sake I may repost that one soon, together with an account of its death throes.