Defending Percy ( was Percy Weasley )

[Mel]

No: HPFGUIDX 105084

I think my messages may be still being monitored so I apologize if 
this was too late to make sense. 

>> Del replies :
> Where are the proofs that LV is indeed back ? DD is going around
> saying Harry saw him, but giving no proof whatsoever. There are no
> sign of dark activity, everything is just as usual. The only one
> creating trouble is DD himself. And yet his parents ask Percy to
> believe DD. I ask again : why should he ? Yes Percy respected DD, 
but
> he also respects Fudge. When asked to make a choice, he goes with 
the
> one that looks sane and logical and who's not trying to create a
> general panic with no proof to back his allegations. I see nothing
> wrong with that.

Cedric's dead body?  That was a big piece of evidence and I was 
rather disappointed that it wasn't said how his death of the AK was 
explained by the Ministry as "a horrible accident".  Also, both 
McGonagall and Snape heard Barty Crouch's confession, so it wasn't 
just the word of DD and Harry.  On top of that there was Fudge's 180 
degree turn around regarding Harry.  At least a little suspicous. 
Not to mention if DD was going senile, wouldn't the ministry not "go 
around "making his name mud", but try to get him to a Doctor? Also 
suspicous to me.  Additionally, we have the disappearence of that 
witch (the one Wormtail caught I've forgotten her name), Karkaroff 
running off on his class, Crouch Senior's disappearence and ultimate 
death.  Then we have the word of his family, which one would think 
he believes somewhat intelligent.  Either way, there wasn't 
a "smoking gun", but there was a lot of strange unexplained 
occurences that at least should ahve made Percy think twice, unless 
he's just the stupidest person on the planet (which is difficult to 
believe; he was headboy)


> Del replies :
> How is believing that LV is back "right" ? How is defending one's
> governing body "wrong" ?

In a democratic society defending one's governing body without proof 
(in either direction) is unwise and unpatriotic.  LV was in fact 
back that's how it was right.  The government "sweeping it under the 
rug" (see evidence above) was wrong.  Percy should have kept an open 
mind, gathered information on his own, and then made a decision.  
It's the only patriotic thing to do.  Did he think that Cedric 
Diggory dropped dead of his own accord?  Really?  Did he speek to 
Amos Diggory about it?  Did he speak to McGonagall or Snape?  Did he 
do anything, but kiss Fudge's feet?  


> 
> > Percy back to the fold : Arthur. It's Arthur who insulted Percy, 
yet
> he doesn't seem to be willing to make any reconciliation effort. If
> Arthur, the adult, is allowed to act so childish, then why should
> Percy know any better ?

The last post you were saying Percy was an adult.  I agree, 
therefore his behavior is his own responsiblity not Arthur's.  Also 
it wasn't Arthur that insulted Percy, it was Percy that insulted 
Arthur.  Percy stated he had to struggle against his Dad's "lousy 
reputation" and they've always been poor because of his lack of 
ambition, etc.  Percy completely disrespected his father and left 
the house, how is it childish that Arthur doesn't run after him?  
Percy either comes back or he doesn't, but I don't think Arthur 
should go after him.  He's an adult.