Dumbledore & Dursleys-what could DD do?

[Jim Ferer]

No: HPFGUIDX 123381


SSSusan:" SSSusan: But how can Dumbledore know FOR SURE? It seems
you're suggesting he should try it and see how it goes. But what if
trying it ONE time leads to the Dursleys calling off all bets and
kicking Harry out for good? How CAN he know for sure?

At some point, we're going to have to concede that DD had to use his
judgment, I think, because no human, even a wizard, can KNOW
everything in advance."

That's the nature of things with people who actually have to get
something done: you have to make decisions knowing you could be wrong,
that you have no guarantee.  Like the fire chief who sends his
firefighters into a building with no guarantee it won't collapse, the
guy in charge has to take his best shot.

I don't agree that bribery would have been wrong with respect to the
Dursleys if it would have worked. "After you pay the Danegelt, you
still have the Dane" doesn't apply here; it's a specific, limited goal
(to get one couple to ease up on one kid).  My guess is that
Dumbledore decided he could not interfere for the ancient protection
to work.

And the Dursleys could have been good to Harry about as long as a dog
can walk on two legs. It's just not in their nature.  Heck, they
abused Dudley worse than they did Harry.

Jim Ferer