Hate-filled ABC under investigation

by SEAN BURKE – THE ABC is under investigation for its hate-filled “hijacking” of King Charles’ Coronation earlier this month. 

With thousands of complaints pouring in since the May 6 ceremony at London’s Westminster Abbey, an investigation has been launched by the ABC ombudsman into alleged editorial breaches. 

The commandeering of the broadcast into a monologue of everything that might be wrong with our great country – and then depositing it all at the feet of our constitutional monarchy – was both blatantly absurd and an abuse of the occasion.”
Eric Abetz
Former Federal Senator

Former mainstream broadcaster Stan Grant featured on the pre-Coronation broadcast venting his new-found anti-Australia agenda.

Former Federal Senator Eric Abetz said Australia’s national broadcaster had become twisted in its thinking.


“The outpouring of public outrage at the hijacking of the Coronation by the ABC requires a full disclosure as to how this pitiful turn of events was allowed to eventuate,” he said.

“The ABC was out of step with every other broadcaster, including the BBC.”

Mr Abetz said a freedom of information (FOI) request had been lodged in regard to the ABC’s pre-Coronation broadcast.

“This FOI will expose the twisted thinking and those responsible for this unprecedented and unprincipled takeover of what should have been a factual commentary on an exceptionally historical event,” he said.

“The commandeering of the broadcast into a monologue of everything that might be wrong with our great country – and then depositing it all at the feet of our constitutional monarchy – was both blatantly absurd and an abuse of the occasion.”

Both major Australian pro-Constitutional Monarchy organisations have launched separate petitions to pressure the ABC to censure its radicalised staff who repeatedly misuse and politicise the tax-payer funded broadcaster.

National Chair of the Australian Monarchist League (AML) Philip Benwell said his organisation’s petition was gathering steam.

“This is an opportunity to censure those ABC staff who consistently misuse our public broadcaster as a propaganda machine for their own republican views,” he said.

The National Convenor of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy (ACM) Prof David Flint agreed.

“The ABC seriously breached standards on accuracy, impartiality, and not causing gratuitous offence,” Prof Flint said.

“The most effective way to object to the ABC’s behaviour in its Coronation Broadcast is to file your complaint with them.”

He said concerned Australians could lodge their concerns over the ABC’s coverage via ACM’s Facebook page.PC

ABC: ‘A literally insane staff-run collective’

MAIN PHOTOGRAPH:  Stan Grant. (courtesy SBS)

47 thoughts on “Hate-filled ABC under investigation

  1. I think normal people – like most of us who read this website’s comments – should just calmly ignore Noel Jones. In my view he needs serious help …. and I suspect none of us have the necessary training to provide the assistance he so obviously requires. LET’S JUST IGNORE HIM.

    1. “In my view [Noel Jones] needs serious help […]”

      Like all left wingers, Noel is not right in the head, and, worse than that, his spirit is twisted. He’s a sad individual who is very confused, and it’s beyond pathetic to see him constantly ranting on with his ill-informed drivel.

    2. Normal people?
      Let me tell you lad, you grovelling monarchist sycophants are not normal people.
      Normal people back Australia.

  2. The misled Noel said: “By whom is the Governor General appointed?
    For whom does the Governor General act?
    To whom does the Governor General answer?
    To whom does the Governor General pledge ‘obedience’?
    Whose pleasure does Governor General require?”
    Easy answer – the PEOPLE you fool!

    1. Marilyn, let me give you some advice.

      If you really think the constitution is not broken – if you really are too gutless to back Australia, and want to live on your knees desperately grovelling to a foreign monarch like a slobbering second class pom – at least be honest.

      Don’t lie.

  3. I have one question – where are ITA and ANDERSON those much hailed board members? Asleep at the wheel? Or in agreement with the clowns like STAN?

  4. Stan Grant’s continued victimhood is never now going to leave him. He forgets that the “Colony” has been something that has given him every opportunity that any other Australian has been provided. He never complained about colonisation and racist attacks when he was on Sky News (I think it was) in Asia broadcasting in HKG, Malaysia and Singapore etc. I cannot help but think his latest dummy spit is to garner sympathy to help the Voice constitutional change. Every reason to still vote NO!

    1. The disgusting racist outbursts against Stan Grant have exposed the disgusting bigotry of monarchists.

      At least some good has come from it, I guess.

        1. I want an Australian as our head of state.
          I back Australia.
          Unlike you slobbering little colonials who think Australia is the distant outpost of another country’s empire, and should grovel to another country’s king.

          1. You’re very ignorant. The 1986 Australia Act removed ALL legal and political connection between Britain and Australia. 1975 cannot rehappen, the G-G is now independent of Britain and answerable to the PM and the crown has no reference to what happens here. The fact is everything of value we have in our country came from England and having a sentimental respect for England and the monarchy is perfectly reasonable. Explain how a Republic would change what we have now apart from a different method of appointing the G-G. And don’t refer to obsolete parts of the Constitution.

            Off you go angry little man.

          2. Why do you lie?
            Why can’t you be honest?
            Claiming that the GG is accountable to the PM is a bare faced constitutional lie.
            The GG is appointed by the monarch, acts for the monarch, answers to the monarch, and serves only at the pleasure of the monarch. And that monarch must be the King or Queen of the United Kingdom.
            If you think that’s all we deserve – if you are too gutless to back Australia – so be it.
            But don’t lie. Be honest.

          3. Ah, so you admit you haven’t read or understood the Australia Act. The monarch has no say in the appointment of the G-G; the Monarch cannot dismiss the G-G and the G-G cannot dismiss the government.


          4. You utter, utter, utter fool.
            The Australia Acts changed the relationship between Westminster and Canberra. That’s it.
            The Australia Act did not change the powers or the role or the identity of the (British) monarch in any way. Which remains exactly as per 1901, as set out in the constitution, unaffected by the Australia Acts in any way.
            I will give you the benefit of the doubt: you’re not lying, you’re just stupid.

        2. The monarch has no powers in Australia. That ceased after the Australia Act. You’re probably referring to the inoperative sections of the Constitution which became redundant after the Australia Act. Do you know what they are? But I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you didn’t just do a quick google. In any case give us all an example of Monarchical intervention after the passing of the Australia Act. Are you taking medication?

          1. Legislation can not and does not change the constitution, fool.

            Got the idea?

          2. You obviously haven’t. The Australia Act 1986 must be read in conjunction with the Statute of Westminster 1931. By virtue of s.15 of the Australia Act, the Australia Act and the Statute of Westminster in their application to Australia can be repealed or amended only by an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament passed at the request or with the concurrence of the Parliament of all the States.

            All the states. Get the idea.

            Now I repeat what are the sections of the Constitution made redundant by the above and what Monarchical interventions have occurred since 1986?

            What medicine are you on?

          3. By whom is the Governor General appointed?
            For whom does the Governor General act?
            To whom does the Governor General answer?
            To whom does the Governor General pledge ‘obedience’?
            Whose pleasure does Governor General require?

            When pondering your answer, please try not to lie.

          4. The PM. The language is symbolic but apart from that and a few names Australia is essentially a republic already. The only issue is the method of the appointment of the G-G/President.

            Ss59, 60 and 74 of the Constitution which gave real power to the Monarch ceased with the Australia Act as explained above. But maybe your drugs wore off.

            Since the monarchy no longer has any real power the words on advice of the PM determine and control what the G-G can do and the sections in the Constitution dealing with the role of the G-G are filtered through that condition: advice of the PM.

            Th G-G does retain reserve powers;

            1.The power to appoint a Prime Minister if an election has resulted in a ‘hung parliament’;

            2.The power to dismiss a Prime Minister where he or she has lost the confidence of the Parliament;

            3.The power to dismiss a Prime Minister or Minister when he or she is acting unlawfully; and

            4.The power to refuse to dissolve the House of Representatives despite a request from the Prime Minister.

            But those reserve powers are independent of the monarchy.

            Anyway your turn.

            How would your republic be better and what drugs are you on.

          5. That is a shameless, bare-faced lie.

            The Governor General is not accountable to the PM, or the parliament, or the people; the Governor General is accountable to the monarch, and only monarch, and serves only at the pleasure of the monarch.

            All powers are vested in the monarch. The Governor General is the monarch’s appointed representative. Everything the Governor General does is in the name of and on behalf of the monarch.

            Your lies are pitiful.

      1. But on the basis you actually believe your lies, tell me this.
        On one hand you people base your campaign to protect the foreign monarchy on a how much you hate politicians.
        But on the other want the crown to be the sock puppet of a politician, the PM’s hand picked order takers, without any capacity for judgement or discretion.
        What gives in the Politician’s Monarchy?

        1. “The Governor General is not accountable to the PM, or the parliament, or the people; the Governor General is accountable to the monarch, and only monarch, and serves only at the pleasure of the monarch.

          All powers are vested in the monarch. The Governor General is the monarch’s appointed representative. Everything the Governor General does is in the name of and on behalf of the monarch.”

          The G-G is accountable to the PM and must follow the PM’s instructions apart from the 4 exceptions I listed, which as I said exclude the monarch. That’s been the case since 1986.

          You’re a strange, angry thing. But then, so are all lefties.

        2. “But on the basis you actually believe your lies, tell me this.”

          See the ignorant left-wing moron in action: he wants to argue abstruse points of law to prove how clever he is, but he gives the game away with a schoolboy howler (starting a sentence with a conjunction).

          If he wants to join the ranks of the faux intellectuals in the so-called “elites” of the left, he’ll need to first complete his education (third grade at primary school would be a good place for him to start).

          1. Lying about the constitution seems to be the monarchists #1 debating tactic.
            Tell me, did your master tactician Eric Abetz come up with this strategy – lying- or do you grovelling colonial suck holes just freelance?

  5. The Monarchist League’s petition has got just 5K signatures.
    What a miserable flop.
    Literally only 0.02% of Australians buy into your pathetically confected colonial outrage.
    You fringe dwelling fools don’t know how marginalised you are from normal Australia.

  6. The so called public broadcasting service known as the ABC is supposed to be impartial and when showing the coronation of the country’s King one would imagine only a gentle commentary would be needed. It is beyond parody what happened. Extraordinary, subjective, divisive, inaccurate and obsessive. There surely is needed a reassessment of the role of the ABC in public life. Public funding must be in doubt and those employees who allowed and presumably encouraged such a disgrace should be relieved of their posts.

    1. Impartial?
      There was five hours of shameless, state-sponsored, unadulterated monarchist propaganda.
      So there should have been five hours of republican discussion.
      Balance, yes?

  7. I heard that ABC Radio audiences are slipping and today are few compared to the good old days when ABC stood straight bending no more than a little to either side occasionally.

    ABC was created when there was very little to offer from the private sector, it’s now time to merge ABC and SBS and reduce the taxpayer funding, maybe create a fee for service?

  8. Stan Grant and Ray Martin were once white and okay with taking the white fellas $$$$ . Now they just want more . Ask where all the hate is coming from and you will find the answers.

  9. To allow this program to be aired when the Coronation of our King was due to happen is a disgrace. ABC’s Management have much to answer for this terrible event.

    1. Our king?
      Charles Windsor is not an Australian.
      Get off your knees.
      Back Australia.

  10. It is about time the ABC came under investigation. I would disband it altogether – it is truly sabotage at our expense. I complained once so their answer was to deny me their ABC FB page, Wooppee. Absolutely unanswerbalae. So much for Ita and Anderson,

  11. Stay healthy, exercise, eat sensibly, get sufficient sleep, be positive – and stay away from the ABC!

  12. I’ve stopped watching the ABC it is just left wing blah. I’d like a tax refund on my subscription as I’m sure many others would. I grew up in the days when ABC just reported the facts with out opinion. Now it’s just opinion reporting ? ?

  13. Reference my post below ……. here is a copy of my original complaint to the ABC Ombudsman.


  14. I was one of the many who complained to the ABC Ombudsman Fiona Cameron about the scandalous ABC coverage of the Coronation. If you complain via the official ABC Ombudsman Complaint form you then receive a standard acknowledgement – but from the ABC – not the Ombudsman’s Office! As a result, I have just sent an email to Fiona Cameron as shown below. It will be interesting to see whether I get a response and what it says. Fiona’s email address is: ombudsmansoffice@abc.net.au

    Dear Fiona,

    I was informed by one of your senior managers that you do actually read emails sent to this address. I hope so because quite a few of us have concerns about the ABC’s Complaints procedure. We registered our annoyance with the ABC TV’s coverage of the Coronation via The Ombudsman’s Office’s official online complaint form. We received a standard response acknowledging our complaint – but it came from the ABC, not your Office.

    Our concern is, why didn’t it come directly from the Ombudsman Office? Being intercepted by ABC staff provides an obvious opportunity for complaints that don’t suit the ABC to be blocked from getting to you.

    I was advised that this should not and does not happen – but how would you know? I was also told that as you receive some 23,000 written complaints each year, which means that you need to utilise ABC staff to assist in the process of checking and allocating complaints to the appropriate staff including – but not exclusively – to those in your Office. Simply put, you appear not to have the resources necessary to review all the many complaints that are sent to you by taxpayers like us.

    We believe that with a budget of well over $1 billion per annum the ABC could and should properly fund your office so that you are truly independent, which you clearly aren’t now. How can an Ombudsman’s Office operate effectively when it is clearly under the control and supervision of the principal party?

    Your response would be appreciated.

    Cliff Reece

  15. You monarchist grovellers are truly pathetic.
    The foreign monarchy is highly divisive and deeply political in Australia.
    A little bit of a scrutiny before five hours of shameless state sponsored monarchist propaganda, and this is how you fools react.
    No wonder you people are such a laughing stock.

      1. Noel’s problem is that he never learns.

        Told many times what a constitutional (laws) monarchy is, Commonwealth of Australia, and that there is no Head of State in our Constitution.

    1. Youse people! Lol. You go Noel.

      To normal people; activists like Grant use the monarchy to attack Australia, democracy and white people. Grant and his ilk are the true racists.

    2. Look, it is Noel the moral majority that, no doubt, has benefited by riding on the coat tails of The Commonwealth ???

    3. What is Section 11 of the Australia Act 1986?
      11 Termination of appeals to Her Majesty in Council

      in so far as they are part of the law of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory, are hereby repealed. The Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act 1890, section 6.

    4. The English Monarchy is not the foreign Monarchy.. simple fact.
      The “foreign monarchy” is the false queen of Australia, the pretend figure head that of the Corporation of Australia has invented, You will notice that the corporate queen of Australia emblem no longer consists of the Monarchy’s Coat of Arms but is a corporate coat of arms consisting of a kangaroo and an emu standing either side of a shield. Australia is registered on the American Stockmarket as a business entity, we are now using Maritime laws and not our original 1901 Constitution which was usurped around 1973 with a fake constitution. But our 1901 Constitution stands firm and all laws of the land come from this original document ?


Comments are closed.