Why not BRIBE the Dursleys, for heavens sake?

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 123046


We are on yet another of our twice weekly Dumbledore/Dursley jags.  I
don't object, as I think this is one of the most crucial issues raised
in the books.  But there is a possible angle that never gets explored.

The argument typically goes, "By not restraining the Dursleys DD is a
party to their abuse," which is my position and that of several other
people.

The answer often is "What choice did he have?"

To which the reply generally is "You mean to say that DD, the world's
most powerful wizard, had no way to put pressure on a couple of Muggles?"

To which the reply is usually "He's too noble," or "They would have
thrown Harry out," or "We don't know enough."

To which "my" side makes other replies and .......


But one question seldom asked is this.  Suppose DD did not believe he
could secure better treatment for Harry through threats or
remonstrations or pressure.  Let's not go into the arguments for or
against, but just grant that for the moment.  Why did he not simply
BRIBE the Dursleys?  As the Head of Hogwarts he must have access to
considerable funds, not to mention Harry has considerable funds of his
own.  The goblins may keep a close watch on what goes on at the bank,
but given the general ineptitude of the wizarding world its hard to
believe anybody watches DD's accounts very closely.

If he doesn't want to use money, its hard to imagine he could not use
magic to deliver material advantages to the Dursleys.  Yes, it is a
violation of Wizarding Law.  But it's impossible to believe Dumbledore
couldn't have pulled that bit of larceny off.  Besides, he
countenances breaking rules and laws (he's sheltering a convicted
murder in GoF and OOTP) on many other occasions, and if he refuses to
bribe the Dursleys to prevent their abuse simply because of wizarding
law he is a foul, mealy-mouthed old hypocrite.

Just something I often wonder about.


Lupinlore