Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 123328


SSSusan:
> > If that's the correct scenario [DD offered protection to the 
> > Dursleys if they took Harry in], then it's sort of a symbiotic, 
> > or perhaps more accurately a co-dependent, relationship: DD 
> > needed the Dursleys' help, the Dursleys needed DD's protection, 
> > but nobody wanted to push too hard or go too far with demands for 
> > fear the other side would balk at the deal.  Sheesh.  No WONDER 
> > DD stayed out of it!

Lupinlore:
> Once again, it would be understandable but in no way clears him of 
> the moral outrage of participation in child abuse, and in fact 
> deepens his complicity.  The ONLY way Albus can get off is if he 
> had no leverage whatsoever he might have used to make Harry's life 
> with the Dursleys better.


SSSusan:
Okay, but I feel that you're not really addressing what I'm saying.  
I *know* you're very upset about Harry's treatment and that DD did 
nothing about it.  But I'm saying WHAT IF DD couldn't push too hard 
because the Dursleys might just BACK OUT OF THE DEAL, might just say -
- oh, maybe, for instance, when Harry was age 5 or age 7? -- "We 
don't CARE anymore.  He's yours!"  If DD thought that was a real 
possibility, then he has very little leverage.  So what could DD have 
done then?  How would he have protected little Harry?  That's what I 
would like to know:  if the Dursleys had backed out, what options 
would have been available to DD for ensuring Harry's safety?

Yeah, it's a hypothetical, but at this point, with the limitations on 
what we know about those 10 years, it's all hypothetical.  Might as 
well address this one, which seems like a plausible set-up -- that 
the Dursleys could have back out.

Siriusly Snapey Susan