Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 123370


>>Lupinlore:
>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).<

Betsy:
So Dumbledore is as equally guilty as the Dursleys in Harry not 
getting a gameboy.  He is evil!  The biggest thing Harry had to 
suffer was lack of love from the Dursleys.  Can anyone force anyone 
to love?  (Though, one could argue that the Dursleys tried to stamp 
out Harry's magic because they did care for him.)  

And I do wonder what you think the Death Eaters would do to Harry if 
they got their hands on him.  Serve him cake?

Betsy