Yes but for that to stick there has to be a clear obligation to present everything. Frankly, I don’t think they lost their licence because of the omission, but because of what happened - this article is just trying to make the story more dramatic. Even the title subtly implies this, the licence wasn’t revoked “because” it withheld footage, but “after”.
So they were a little sneaky in not presenting all the evidence up front, but they didn’t really withhold it in as bad a way as the title implies.
This is why we have “guilt by omission”
Yes but for that to stick there has to be a clear obligation to present everything. Frankly, I don’t think they lost their licence because of the omission, but because of what happened - this article is just trying to make the story more dramatic. Even the title subtly implies this, the licence wasn’t revoked “because” it withheld footage, but “after”.