Someone was suggesting to me yesterday that a British Commonwealth's embassy's discretionary policy was based in part on the story that was told to them at the counter regarding destitution.

If the story seemed believable,or not, being one of the criteria, we are not certain.

If they ask for assistance surely they should be provided with it if the case has been ongoing for more than a week? It is hard to know how long one should be made to wait with no money in a country far from home. Even a week is too long IMO. One trusts in good souls.

It may just be that they discriminate on the type of thing that brought you to destitution abroad. If so, do you think that it is a correct view to hold?
And if so why?

As to my way of thinking, a British national (or other as the case maybe) has certain rights under the law and these rights should not affected by such discrimination without due process of the law. If, for instance, someone were to arrive at the embassy claiming destitution, and they were skinny, covered in infected mosquito bites ( NOT tract marks), wearing filthy clothes and looking ill after claiming to be destitute on the streets for 3 weeks, they shouldn't discriminate so readily that the illness is through drug use. The case of Nicholas McLernan is a good example of how this instant judgment can be very wrong.
McLernan was admitted into hospital not long after visiting the embassy, his friends said he had been sick for over a week with very severe headaches. The embassy could surely have seen this, Martin Gates says they did.

Is destitution assistance an actual right? Or is it a privilege service they have the ability to render at their discretion?
(For the US, it's a service they offer... but not a "right". )

Hasn't this been discussed to death OTOF ?
Definition of discretionary :

discretionary
dɪˈskrɛʃ(ə)n(ə)ri/
adjective
adjective: discretionary

available for use at the discretion of the user.
"there has been an increase in year-end discretionary bonuses"
synonyms: optional, non-compulsory, voluntary, at one's discretion, up to the individual, non-mandatory, elective, open to choice.

https://www.google.fr/search?q=discreti ... vtUqr4gOgO

OrangeDragon wrote:Is destitution assistance an actual right? Or is it a privilege service they have the ability to render at their discretion?
(For the US, it's a service they offer... but not a "right". )

It is not only a right, but also their 'top priority' apparently.

Here's some lnks for those that can be bothered.

Recent FCO select committee report into consular services.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 16/516.pdf

Televised select committee, 3rd session, Nov 2014.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/commi ... v-session/

I'll dig some relevant passages out later when I have the time.

juansweetpotato wrote:...they shouldn't discriminate so readily that the illness is through drug use. The case of Nicholas McLernan is a good example of how this instant judgment can be very wrong.

How could you possibly know whether they were wrong or not?

LTO wrote:

juansweetpotato wrote:...they shouldn't discriminate so readily that the illness is through drug use. The case of Nicholas McLernan is a good example of how this instant judgment can be very wrong.

How could you possibly know whether they were wrong or not?

Because unlike you previous post here that stated all on the other site and thread was mere opinion, I have been working on this for over 2 weeks now. I have lots of factual information. You chose to ignore some of it, probably because of my lack of gold poster status.
Vlad is right, you changed in his and my eyes on that thread. The rest I expected it of. Violet, jesus what a boring, malicious hag.
Please tell me she doesn't post over here.

Has the British Embassy made ANY comments on this "case"?

Do you actually "know" ANYTHING about the case?

Seems nobody knows anything about the whole fable except a supposed journalist/filmmaker who appears to have played everyone like a fiddle over this, and has NEVER been able to answer direct questions that would prove him right or wrong, and never even managed to take a second picture of the guys.

No news outlets will write a single article on it. I believe there's a very good reason for that, and it's because the whole story of events have been fabricated to the brim, and anyone in their right mind can see that.

Go find a case that DOESN'T have more holes than Swiss cheese and that ISN'T being fed to you by a writer/journalist/film maker that is actively promoting an almost identical film like this story that NOBODY will cover.

There is a reason it's amounted to nothing more than a tedious thread on a discussion forum.

juansweetpotato wrote:

LTO wrote:

juansweetpotato wrote:...they shouldn't discriminate so readily that the illness is through drug use. The case of Nicholas McLernan is a good example of how this instant judgment can be very wrong.

How could you possibly know whether they were wrong or not?

Because unlike you previous post here that stated all on the other site and thread was mere opinion, I have been working on this for over 2 weeks now. I have lots of factual information...

But how could you possibly know whether they were wrong or not? Claiming that you "have factual information" or dishing out weak ad hominems is not an answer to the question. In fact, I'll take that a step further and say you can't possibility know that. It may be your opinion, or what you'd like to believe, or what somebody told you, or maybe even a guess from the information you think you have, but you cannot know it or state it as a fact.

But to answer your question, YES, I think it should be up to their discretion.

If I ran into my embassy and said, "I need a million dollars because a cat stole my passport, and a dog ate my money, and a raccoon said that he would kill me if I didn't give him $1,000,000," I'd be glad if they used discretion and told me to "fuck off" as they try to offer their help to people who THEY deem actually need the help.

So I have no problems with handouts being discretionary.

I know one thing. If I thought I was in a life or death situation, my embassy would have one hell of a hard time removing me from my embassy.

Why should taxpayers help out, instead of family and friends?
I saw two young women and a man on TV, who got robbed the day they arrived in Tenerife, and the Embassy wouldn't help them, apart from let them use the phone to ask friends and family back home to pay for temp passports and early flight over the phone. No food or accommodation offered. As a UK taxpayer, I agree with the Embassy. They were abused for years by Brits who sold their passports and went to them for a freebie. It all had to stop because of abuse. People should stand on their own feet.