Leaning on the Dursleys was Hogwarts Teachers -/Re: DD's dilemma - Protectio

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 126328


Alla earlier:
I definitely need to be convinced that Dumbledore's 
interference with  Dursleys would have been lethal for Harry  and 
for Harry only.
 
Pippin:
We have evidence of that already. Consider the upshot of the 
letter campaign.Harry was stranded on an island  out at sea in 
the midst of a storm, with no shelter but a leaky hut and a thin 
blanket, nothing to eat once the chips and the banana were 
gone, no fuel, an armed and increasingly hysterical Uncle 
Vernon , and no escape except a rowboat. I wouldn't give long 
odds on any of the party surviving if the storm had kept up past 
morning and Hagrid hadn't arrived.


Alla:

Oh, yes, I also think that it was dangerous but what I meant 
under "lethal for Harry' was that Dursleys would have thrown him out 
and I don't see that evidence in the text. Even using your example - 
Dursleys did not threw Harry out when the letters start arriving , 
they run WITH him, which indeed makes me think that Dumbledore 
promised them something - protection or something like that.


Lupinlore:
 
Well, the problem here Susan is that you put DD in an even worse 
moral position.  Not only does he do nothing, he has potential 
specific leverage over the Dursleys and STILL does nothing. 


Steve:
Perhaps I haven't followed this thread close enough, but I don't
understand your reply Lupinlore. How does SSSusan's comment put
Dumbledore in a worse moral position?
 
Before and after Voldemort's return, the Dursley's have some
spill-over protection from Harry's presences in their home. 

Before the fact, that protection doesn't give Dumbledore much 
leverage over the Dursleys because it is protection from something 
that doesn't actually exist, confining the context to Voldemort for 
the moment. The threat of withdrawing protection against a 
hypothetical danger, is not much of a threat and therefore is not 
much leverage.
<SNIP>

Alla:

I am going to give my reasons  and my reasons only why I think it 
puts Dumbledore in even worse moral position.

I disagree that before the fact such protection does not give 
Dumbledore much leverage , because if Dursleys indeed accepted such 
protection from the beginning , they were sufficiently scared of the 
fact that Voldemort may come back even HYPOTHETICALLY. I think that 
if Dumbledore threatened to withdrew such protection during those 
ten years, it would have worked very nicely.

Dursleys accepted that protection when Voldemort was not back yet. I 
submit that they would not have wanted to lose it whether Voldemort 
was there or not.


And of course all of it is just speculation. We are not even sure 
whether such protection was offered in the first place, although I 
do think that Susan was convincing  and something WAS offered to 
Dursleys.

Just my opinion,

Alla