Home Forums New here? Share your story One Small Step Reply To: One Small Step

  • Total posts: 1,686

When you say “if someone wants a grant they should be able to complete the process” – what does that “someone” look like? Are they fluent in English? Are they financially skilled enough to prepare a five year financial forecast that integrates AND reconciles a profit and loss statement, cash flow statement and balance sheet? Or are these things not required because they are not important in determining suitability for funding? My understanding is that grants are not intended as a windfall handout to the fortunate recipient. They are designed to enhance the economy by supporting activities that the commercial markets are not prepared to support. Presumably any Govt support is with the objective of creating a net economic benefit.

If you want design a process that allows anyone to submit a grant application then its going to have to be dumbed down to an almost pointless level. Yes there are a lot of not so clever people in business (or trying to get into). Maybe we disagree on that.

Sorry but I think the internet has turbo charged fraud (the context of my statement) – but yes I like that it can now turn on my tv whilst I’m in my car 10kms away. Very handy for my dog who is prone to loneliness. My life is better but my personal information is not necessarily safer.

My reference to politicians and the citizenship issue is merely to highlight what happens in the absence of strict vetting. It was assumed (wrongly) that the highest lawmakers in this country (no less) were equipped to self assess their eligibility for their positions as elected federal members of parliament. There was no agency that undertook screening prior to nomination or swearing in. As it turns out, numerous members incorrectly self assessed their eligibility (to varying degrees of awareness). Given their positions I have little (no) sympathy because in my experience the law rarely affords the average citizen with such leniency if they try to plead ignorance as a defense. The joke is that there was not a process that independently verified the facts PRIOR to acceptance.