I'm sorry, but I'm with the pigs.
Consider the drugs world:
A) A white-van-man who takes a crate of cocaine up the M9 is a criminal.
B) A National Express coach driver who takes a passenger carrying a suitcase of cocaine up the M9 is not.
The van driver made the trip to get the cocaine to his contacts. The coach driver was performing a legal, legitimate service and someone else abused that service, presumably without his knowledge.
TV-Links was part of the supply-chain of infringing content. Unlike Google, it's main purpose was to supply links to infringing content.
"On a side note, it's a bit appalling how Free Speech seemingly doesn't matter any more. I mean, I this bar where, if you really try, you can find all kinds of interesting stuff that fell off the back of a truck. But I should presumably just shut my gob or I could face jailtime. Neat. Problem solved. Or maybe not..."
That's always been illegal in the UK. It's called being "an accessory to crime". If you know where someone fences goods, you're supposed to tell the police, not drum up business!
The question here is whether copyright law enables prosecution as an accessory. If it doesn't, the man shouldn't be in custody, but if it doesn't, it needs changed.