HP and the democratic equilibrium(Re: Umbridge, brooms and DEs)

[Geoff Bannister]

No: HPFGUIDX 87135

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ali" <Ali at z...> wrote:
 
Ali:
> Theft in English Law involves "dishonest appropriation of another 
> property with the intention to permanently deprive"

Geoff:
Precisely.
 
Ali:
> It is not dishonest if Umbridge had the legal authority to do it. 
> Certainly, British pupils would expect their teachers to confiscate 
> property that they owned at school. Nor has Umbridge appropriated 
> the broom for herself. She has stopped Harry from using it though.
> 

Geoff:
There is also English law about taking away property without the 
owner's consent.

I wonder whether Umbridge does have the legal authority to do it. 
British pupils might possibly expect things to be confiscated, but as 
I said in a previous post, in my own experience of 32 years in the 
state sector, I never kept anything beyond the end of the week at 
most because confiscated items usually got in the way, There is also 
a distinct difference between a catapult or a water pistol or a 
farting cushion and a Firebolt, which is the Porsche of the broom 
world, highly expensive and rare (and even a Walkman in the real 
world). I have known of cases locally where I now live where parents 
have arrived in high dudgeon because a mobile phone has been taken 
and have threatened legal action.


Ali: 
> Given that Umbridge kept the brooms in her office, and then later 
in 
> the dungeons, I believed that although Harry  would be unable to 
use 
> it, he was still considered the owner of his broom. the broom would 
> not be used by or appropriated by anybody else.

> I believe it is arguable whether Umbridge would have kept Harry's 
> broom after he had left Hogwarts.


Geoff:
I reiterate what I said previously. The Quidditch incident had 
nothing to do with brooms. Umbridge applied a sanction – that of 
banning – which was relevant to the affair. To then withdraw the 
brooms had nothing to do with the incident; it was a spiteful attempt 
to upset Harry.

Look at the canon:

"She rolled up the parchment and put it back into her handbag /still 
smiling/ (my emphasis).

`So
 I really think I will have to ban these two from playing 
Qudditch ever again,' she said, looking from Harry to George and back 
again.

Harry felt the Snitch fluttering madly in his hand.

`Ban us?' he said and his voice sounded strangely distant. `From 
playing..... Ever again?'

`Yes, Mr.Potter, I think a lifelong ban ought to do the trick,' said 
Umbridge, her smile widening still further as she watched him 
struggle to comprehend what she had said. '..... I will want their 
broomsticks confiscated of course; I shall keep them safely in my 
office to make sure there is no infringement of my ban......'

And with a look of the utmost satisfaction, Umbridge left the room 
leaving a horrified silence in her wake."

(OOTP "The Lion and the Serpent" p. 369 UK edition)

I believe that she knows that Harry has not realised that she cannot 
ban him beyond Hogwarts and is heaping the most horrendous mental 
abuse on him.  I also believe that she intends to hang on to the 
Firebolt just as long as she can. I drew a theoretical parallel with 
a professional footballer being banned and told he couldn't even kick 
a football which would be both ludicrous and unworkable. There is 
no/valid or legal/ basis for her to remove the broomstick because, if 
he is banned, he can't play Quidditch but he still retains the right 
to fly a broom.  So the broom is being held for what is effectively 
an unenforceable reason, if challenged. Sadly, because he feels 
estranged from Dumbledore, the only adult he might confide in would 
perhaps be Sirius and he is not in a position to start action against 
Umbridge for  wrongful treatment or removal without the owner's 
consent.

But of course, we have already discussed the Wizarding World's 
shortcomings until we are blue in the face in terms of fairness and 
perceived judicial good practice, looking at Harry's arraignment 
before the Wizengamot and the evidence we have of malpractice by 
people such as Crouch in the past.

Geoff