Websites don’t have to follow ofcom guidelines. But even there, from a quick look, the photo of the grey drenched in blood is not on the entry page - you have to click through to the article to see it. This is because a reader will not reasonably expect to see a horse covered in blood on the front page of the BBC news site - but they can reasonably expect to see something like that if they click on a story about injured horses.
A lot of the editorial compliance guidelines are based on what the audience will reasonably expect.
So if you’re watching a post-watershed thriller, you can reasonably expect violence, sex etc. If you’re watching The One Show at 7pm whilst having family dinner, you wouldn’t.
If you’re watching the news, you will likely see or hear references to murder, war, sexual assault etc. If you’re watching This Morning, you would expect content of that sort to be mediated and / or warned about beforehand.
The decision to pixelate will have been made on the timing of the item and the likelihood viewers would be young / vulnerable (probably because of the timing) and the fact it’s a lifestyle show, not the news / current affairs.
I imagine the contrast between the grey hair and red blood would have come into play, too, as it made it particularly visceral.
Even leaving all this aside, censorship is not necessarily a bad thing. We don’t let children watch super violent or sexual content for good reason. We don’t let certain types of media to be shared widely - pornography, snuff films and so on. The line for decency changes with the prevailing culture, but the idea that censorship is inherently wrong is, IMO, nonsense.