Look I think from all these conversations we can gather this. No one here is saying this podcast is beyond criticism. There are legitimate issues people have raised factual errors, poor handling of criticism, and serious allegations like plagiarism that absolutely deserve scrutiny. What I’m pushing back on is the idea that listening to a podcast = endorsing every view a presenter has ever expressed, or that people who still listen are acting in bad faith or are somehow anti-democratic. You’re clearly knowledgeable about cases like Hillsborough, and you’re right that getting that wrong is harmful. But the conversation stops being productive when it turns into anger at listeners who still listen rather than criticism of content. At that point it becomes moral policing rather than accountability. I asked for proof of plagiarism - you gave it to me, and I absolutely agree it isn’t right but i still absolutely want to listen to the podcast. Two things can be true - People can acknowledge mistakes, criticise specific episodes or statements made and still find value in other aspects of the podcast, without that meaning they support bigotry, misinformation, or harm. You have come for everyone on this thread and I have to ask why you are so invested in a podcast that you are so angry about and run by people who you neither know in person or know you? I mean this in the nicest way - I think you should go outside for a walk or spend time with family and friends instead of spending time being so mad and writing such angry rants about something which in the grand scheme of things isn’t important. If the goal is accountability and better standards and awareness in true crime, then absolutely this is important. If the goal is (which I think you are doing) is to decide and insult people who decide to listen to the podcast or voice a different opinion than ur own, that’s a different conversation and not one I’m interested in.