Filch (was: Hagrid's Umbrella)

[Indigo]

No: HPFGUIDX 47480

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "clicketykeys" <clicketykeys at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Fer Mendoza" <nosref at y...> wrote:
> > 
> > I agree with Dianne.  I don't think a squib cannot be a accepted 
in 
> > any wizarding school.  It's as good as accepting muggles into 
> > Hogwarts. 
> 
> ok, I presume you mean "I don't think a squib can be accepted." 
> > 
> > When Filch was practicing Quick Spell did he use a wand? This is 
not 
> > supported by canon but I'm pretty sure he needed to have a wand 
for 
> > him to be able to learn Quick Spell.  Now this brings me back to 
one 
> > of my original questions.  Can a person not enrolled in any 
wizarding 
> > school own (or buy) a wand?
> 
> Sure, why not? A wand is merely a tool.
> > 
> > ...If so, what was the point of breaking Hagrid's wand when he 
can 
> > just buy another one?  Was it jus a symbolic thing?
> > 
> 
> Heck no. I'm pretty sure Hagrid was a special case - he didn't get 
his 
> wand broken "because" he was expelled. He got his wand broken (and 
was 
> expelled) because he'd (supposedly) opened the chamber of secrets 
and 
> (definitely, with Aragog) subjected the other students of the 
school 
> to danger.
> 
> To clarify: I think wand-breaking is a severe punishment in and of 
> itself, and may happen to other wizards who aren't in school 
> anymore... sort of a "bad, but not quite as bad as Azkaban" type of 
> punishment.
> 

Agreed. Not only was it a wand-breaking, but Ollivander actually 
glowered at Hagrid to make sure that Hagrid wasn't still /using/ the 
pieces of the broken wand ["of course not, Mister Ollivander."] , and 
clearly he hadn't sold Hagrid another.  So it was not just symbolic, 
but it got spread throughout the wizarding world.

> Personally, I think that was taking it a bit far in Hagrid's case, 
> even when they thought he was the one responsible for Myrtle's 
death. 
> To tell somebody that they can't do magic after it's been a part of 
> their life forever... it'd be sort of like someone taking away our 
> ability to read and write. It's severely limiting, and there's a 
huge 
> stigma attached. Plus, with Hagrid, it's not like he can just "go 
> Muggle."
> 
> - C.K.
> clicketykeys

Agreed again!  

And now that Hagrid's been proven innocent, all he's gotten by way of 
restitution for being falsely accused is that he's got a job as a 
teacher at Hogwarts in /addition/ to the Gamekeeper job.

The Ministry of Magic seems, ironically, to have a witch hunt 
mentality. Sirius was convicted without proof that he was the guilty 
party, but on circumstantial evidence.

In fairness, /yes/, Aragog was a far more solid bit of evidence than 
the multi-muggle murder.  

Which brings to mind the question -- why didn't somebody find out 
what was in Sirius' wand from Ollivander, and do a priori incantatem 
to see what Sirius' last spell was? That would've been proof. 

And I'm almost certain, given his profound loyalty to Gryffindor, 
that Hagrid was a Gryffindor himself in his youth.  It seems unlikely 
tto me that the Heir of Slytherin would've been someone who was not 
full-wizard-blood, and -not- a Slytherin. Another thing not taken 
into consideration.

Hopefully Harry will grow up and reform the Ministry of Magic some so 
that all these innocents stop getting blamed for things they didn't 
do! 

--Indigo
[faithfully devoted to Hagrid and Sirius]