MORE LIES AND HYPOCRICY FROM MERYL DOREY

or

IS THIS AS TEDIOUS FOR YOU AS IT IS FOR ME?

Perspicacious readers like you will remember how on 23 January I exposed a recent rant from Meryl
Dorey as lies. Her foaming-at-the-mouth rant was about how I submit occasional complaints to
“government outlets.” This was stimulated by an article in the Perth Post on 21 January 2012
“Chickenpox response ‘inadequate’” by David Cohen. (My article is at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79065295/More-Lies-From-Meryl-Dorey).

Dorey’s rant implied that my various complaints to government instrumentalities are vexatious and
dishonest. My article showed that the government investigations that resulted vindicated my
complaints and led to government action.

So what lands on my desk the next day? An investigation report that shows that Dorey herself has
submitted a vexatious and dishonest report to the Media Arts and Entertainment Alliance. (See it on
the last page here.)

This report is only the latest of a long line of rejections of complaints from Meryl Dorey about the
West Australian journalist Cathy O’Leary. That long line of complaints was described by Dorey in her
“media release” of Saturday, 12 November 2011 when she claimed that journalist Cathy O’Leary had
complained to WA Consumer Protection about the AVN’s fund-raising irregularities and then
published an article stating that WA Consumer Protection were investigating a complaint from the
public. If this was true, (and it is not), Cathy O’Leary would be shown to be dishonest and unethical.

Dorey herself claims that she submitted the media release to all media outlets in Australia and that:

“Complaints have been filed with the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) and
the Australian Press Council (APC). A further complaint against the West Australian has been
filed with ABC's Media Watch.”

So what became of Dorey’s complaints?

Australian media companies, without exception, binned Dorey’s “Media Release.”

Media Watch binned it on 14 November 2011. That was followed soon after by the Australian Press
Council and the “West Australian” newspaper.

Finally, the Media Arts and Entertainment Alliance Ethics Complaints Panel rejected Dorey’s
complaint on 18 January 2012, see the last page here. All recipients regarded Dorey’s complaint as
baseless. So what do we call someone who alleges that I submit vexatious complaints while at the
same time she submits vexatious complaints?

1
 LIAR
AND
HYPOCRITE!
(In case you missed the point, that’s you, Meryl Dorey.)

Ken McLeod

24 January 2012

2
3
 MEAA Ethics Complaints Panel

Decision

Complaint by Meryl Dorey, Australian Vaccination Network, Nov 14, 2011

against

Cathy O’Leary, The West Australian

Meryl Dorey complained about a story published in The West Australian on Nov 5, 2011
which said the Consumer Protection department in WA was investigating whether the
Australian Vaccination Network had breached charity laws.

Ms Dorey said at the time she read the article she was not aware of such an investigation. She
said she had contacted the department, which she said told her there was only one complaint –
from Cathy O’Leary.

Ms Dorey alleged O’Leary had breached the code of ethics by not reporting accurately and
having a conflict of interest.

The committee asked Ms O’Leary for a response. She said she did not make the complaint,
rather contacted Consumer Protection to confirm that a complaint had been made by a
member of the public. O’Leary provided the committee with the name and a statement from
the person who had raised the matter with Consumer Protection on November 1.

She provided the media statement made by the department on November 2, which stated
“Consumer Protection is looking into the issue of whether the Australian Vaccination
Network (AVN) requires a charitable collections licence for its activities in WA.”

The committee is satisfied that, for the purposes of publication in a news report, that
“investigating” has the same meaning as “looking into”.

The committee also is satisfied that the reporter was reporting on a complaint made by
another party and that a conflict of interest did not arise.

Accordingly, the ethics Complaints Panel has dismissed the complaint.

January, 18 2012