Persona Non Grata

Persona Non Grata

This post is simply to draw your attention to the film Persona Non Grata, available on YouTube via the link. It should have had 10, 000 times more views than it has.

It’s 15 minutes long. Watch it now!

It stands out from the usual YouTube fare in two ways. It’s production values are professional standard and that’s a rarity in men’s issues (Cassie Jaye aside).

The other unusual feature is lack of hyperbole. Yes, there are many child contact battles which are far more egregious than depicted here. No shortage. But this film represents a very typical case which is happening in bulk throughout the land as has been for several decades now.

Let me draw your attention to some rough statistics (for England & Wales), drawing on this source, data for 2016…

  • About 113,000 divorce petitions (108,290 granted);
  • Just under 48,000 private law cases in the family courts. (These are the cases involving child custody and contact disputes);
  • 165,000 children involved in private law orders;
  • (I suspect this double accounts – my estimate ~100,000 different children involved);
  • Number of injunction orders ~26,000 (of which 24,000 are non-molestation orders for domestic violence allegations);
  • About 270,000 children affected by parental separation (150,000 via divorces and 120,000 for which the parents were never married)

A parent normally assumes they have a legal right to bring up their child.

Taken from numerous first hand accounts, the 15 minute film shows how our legal system does not protect our children from a parent who is pathologically selfish. There is nothing written in law to uphold the equality that most parents assume is their legal right.

6 thoughts on “Persona Non Grata

  1. Groan

    “According to figures released by the Ministry of Justice under Freedom of Information rules, the number of non-molestation orders issued by the courts to protect people from harassment, intimidation or violence has increased by 21 per cent, from 4,925 to 6,101, between 2012 and 2014 in England and Wales.

    But in some areas the rise was even higher – there was a 92 per cent increase in the Midlands over the past two years.

    Family campaigners fear this has happened because solicitors in certain areas have been encouraging clients to make claims of abuse.”
    Says it all really. The system incentivises allegations, they don’t have to be proved to receive the legal aid and the Orders are civil not criminal law. At least some MPs have noticed this.

    “In the Midlands, there has been a 92 percent increase in non-molestation orders over the past two years. Tory MP Andrew Bridgen stated: “it is obvious that making domestic abuse the gateway for legal aid has caused an explosion in the number of allegations of domestic abuse, many of which may be baseless and made simply to secure legal aid.””

    Whether anything will be done is another matter. It seems fathers unjustly accused are “collateral damage”.

    1. William Collins Post author

      Yes, exactly so. The matter is discussed in detail in my post “Legal Aid and Domestic Violence in the Family Courts”, An expert in parental alienation speaking at the last Men’s Psychology Conference at UCL in June stated that she considers 67% of her cases to involve a false allegation against the partner, and 81% false allegations of abuse against the child. Everyone knows now that false allegations are a standard part of private law cases relating to child contact. A negligible percentage are ever subject to investigation, even at the lower standards of proof required in the civil courts. It is not just solicitors who are complicit but the entire system, especially social services and Cafcass. The latter have now openly aligned themselves with Women’s Aid, a partisan lobby group which has been deploying domestic violence as a weapon of mass destruction of men for 40 years. It is the fact that the entire system is complicit that prevents the matter being corrected – they are obliged to double down on their behaviour to prevent exposure, because the unvarnished truth is so very damning.

  2. Clay

    “Let us be clear, the removal of fathers from the lives of their children is … public … policy“.
    -Robert Franklin ICMI-14

    “Men’s rights activists must wake up and realize that the time for trying to counter the hypocrisy with rationality – with essentially male arguments, using facts and truth, in the hope that sense will prevail – is not going to make any difference to the relentless feminist long march on men”
    -Herbert Purdy ICMI-16

    “For many years now, we’ve known two important things about “deadbeat dads.” First, they’re not deadbeats and second, they’re not always dads”. -Robert Franklin Esq.

    “Everywhere you look—everywhere you look!–there are feminists pushing their way to the front of the line demanding women’s “fair share” of all of the goodies, the good stuff, the loot, the booty, the cookies. Even if women don’t need it. Even if women don’t deserve it. And even if somebody else needs it and deserves it more.
    And they get it, because we give it to them”. -Karen Straughn (GirlWritesWhat)

    “Let’s be clear; child support and alimony laws aren’t about caring for children. They’re about transferring as much money as possible from men to women.”
    -Robert Franklin Esq.

  3. Godfrey Sandford

    Hello William,
    Many thanks for drawing attention to this excellent film by Fingerpost Films.
    I recently attempted to leave a comment on YouTube (underneath this video), but my multiple attempts were unsuccessful and I received the notice: ‘your comment failed to post’.
    This, of course, could easily be due to my ineptitude.
    However, in light of many commentators warning of censorship on YouTube (for example: ), I wonder whether YouTube has actually blocked new comments underneath ‘Persona Non Grata’?
    Has anyone else encountered an error message when attempting to comment on this video?
    No doubt this is my technical ineptitude and I am making a mountain out of a molehill…
    Regards, Godders.

      1. Godfrey Sandford

        A further attempt was successful on the first iteration! Hence, I assume that my earlier difficulty was due to my technical ineptitude…


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *