The Dilbert management theory of John Banks and Kim Dotcom
* Allegedly, *allegedly, *allegedly, *allegedly, *allegedly, **illegibly, ***in my opinion, *allegedly, *allegedly, *allegedly. **** I reckon.
That’s the best way to talk about this Banks / Dotcom palaver: if you get the legal tip-toeing out of the way first, it’s just asterisks, not lawyers, that break your flow as you try to explain it. It’s hard to work out what’s going on if you’re worrying about getting sued.
Anyway, let’s see what we’ve got. Deep breath…
… okay so the slim majority of our government is at risk of collapse because the PM – who struck a deal with a casino* to change the law in exchange for a convention centre – depends on support from an ex-Mayor who has been soliciting corporate donations* and calling them anonymous*, including money from said casino plus an absurdly wealthy internet pirate* who split his donations into more easily concealed parts at the ex-Mayor’s request* by signing** a couple of $25,000 cheques. But the pirate is now angry*** because, apart from buying the ex-Mayor’s (failed) efforts to influence the law and help him purchase a mansion*, his money was wasted when the ex-mayor didn’t go to $50,000-worth of effort* to block his extradition on trumped-up charges out of the US* which itself has purchased New Zealand’s legal co-operation in order to protect its entertainment sector ****.
…Phew. What an unsavoury mess. It’s as if the galaxy of stars required to even explain this situation are casting a wan and wobbly light of their own – one that picks out worry lines on John Key’s brow and glints from the sweat beads on Banskie’s too-tight skin. It’s an unattractive scene. Continue reading…









Welcome to my blog and online portfolio. A freelance journalist and sub-editor, I like to write about interesting things that hide in plain sight – and fascinating facts that have been tucked away. But really I’ll write about anything – everything’s interesting if you look the right way. Feel free to read, browse, 
