Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 123367



> 
> Betsy:
> And I need to see something that shows us that Harry suffered to such 
> an extent that Dumbledore needed to risk Harry's life by 
> interfering.  So far, there's been nothing in the books that I 
> thought needed Dumbledore's direct interference.
> 
> Betsy

Well, to me EVERYTHING in the books screams out for DD's direct
interference UNLESS DD IS SPECIFICALLY RESTRAINED FROM INTERFERING. 
Sorry, nothing can justify child abuse (and yes, it IS abuse even if
not legally actionable).  And yes, this is very much a matter of
opinion and is one of those things we can argue about all day long and
no one will ever budge.  But, I repeat, unless we are SPECIFICALLY
told (not by implication, suggestion, or any other indirect method)
that DD had no way of easing Harry's suffering at the Dursleys short
of placing Harry in dire and direct danger of death, mutilation, etc.,
he remains complicit to child abuse (even if not legally actionable
child abuse).

Lupinlore