August 10, 2010

Bill Maloney Commits Treason.

Just as he said he would.




I am Stan said...

Yooooo Capitan!,

Mmmm he`s a brave and angry man,he seems to be sincere,either telling the truth or barking,

If he attracts too much attention I predict a mysterious fatal car crash, a fatal walk in the woods, a poisoned liver or a radioactive cup of tea etc..jeez!

Watch yer back!.

Fat Councillor said...

Sorry, but this guy sounds mad.

Captain Ranty said...

I'd be mad as well, if all my family suffered abuse and my sister was murdered.

I'll try and dig out some earlier stuff that Bill filmed.

He is bright, and he is fighting for the abused. Two worthy attributes, in my book.

And, as Stan says, he is at risk.

Our upper echelons, FC, are a bunch of kiddie-fiddling freaks.

We should flay them and dip them in salt.


Fat Councillor said...

I can see that he is angry about what has happened to him and his family, and so he should be, but, when making allegations about named people (and I have no idea whether they are true or not), he needs to provide evidence, otherwise he simply looks mad.

Too often, people who tell the truth a written off as madmen because they don't structure their arguments properly.

Captain Ranty said...

I believe he has the evidence at his website.

I agree though, that making allegations is a serious business. Notice though, that he wasn't arrested, and so far, no-one has said that his allegations are untrue.


Silence gives consent.

He that does not disagree, agrees.


Giolla said...

Sadly the factual errors he makes irritate the pedant in me and make me question the rest of his data. As does another pint he makes.

First the error:
The vatican is not populated purely by clergy there are about 150 laity resident as well who aren't celibate (not to mention the odd visiting dignitary) And 250 non-citizen residents who clerical status I couldn't find.
Wikipedia also gives similar numbers.

And his shock at the age of consent being raised to 14, which matches the rest of Italy - is a bit odd. Generally for not liturgical matters the Vatican just follows Italian law so a bit of a week argument there. And that's not a terribly odd age of consent across Europe. Plus of course the alw would apply to people in the vatican not just resident so obviously there has to be an age of consent and matching Italy makes sense lest you criminalise a young couple that accidentally wander across the border.

The rest of what he says may or may not be true, but as with journalists if I spot something I know to be guff, then I have to suspect the rest is as well

Captain Ranty said...


I could have argued from the same stand-point. I found that I liked his overall message though.

I won't defend the man or his words. It isn't my place, as I am sure he can defend himself.

BUT, I do find it odd (using your figures) that around 75% of the community who swore to celibacy even need an age of consent.

It seems as ridiculous to me as a muslim community agreeing to a pub being built in their village to facilitate the non-muslim drinkers.


Revolution Harry said...

Giolla, the point was that up until a year ago the age of consent was just 12. What that meant was that if you were resident in the Vatican it was ok to have sex with a 12 year old child.

As for his other, pretty serious, allegations, as the Captain says, he's yet to be arrested.

Captain, I was as equally impressed with you by Bill Maloney which is why I also put this video up on my site. It certainly seems as if child abuse is far more common than we dare to realise and is particularly prevalent amongst certain members of the ruling elite.

Giolla said...

I find it kind of odd, that there's the dual argument that a celibate population doesn't need an age of consent and yet at the same time it's bad that they have a low one. The law is presumably for the 25% who aren't sworn to celibacy, and also with the recent conversion of various church of England vicars to Rome it's not event certain that all the clergy in the Vatican are celibate (married Anglicans converting weren't forced to take the vow of celibacy)

Also as I observed I suspect the law on the age of consent is for the benefit of people visiting rather than resident, as generally I've found that laws apply to people in a country regardless of if they're resident or not. The number of foreign nationals locked up in most countries tends to support this. So having a law which notionally is irrelevant to most of it's citizens isn't that odd. Would a lack of law specifying the age of consent mean that consent wasn't possible or that there was no-minimum?

Also having just checked he's wrong about it only changing a year ago, as up until 2009 Vatican criminal law automatically followed Italian law, so the age of consent would have changed in 1929 when Italy's did.

Like I said it doesn't disprove a thing he said, but it does weaken his argument. As his statement about the age being raised to 14 is a strawman it's in line with a lot of European countries, and his claim on the population is just wrong, which doesn't help lend credibility to his other claims.