The Statute of Secrecy

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 158992

Ken wrote:
> 
> That is an interesting attitude but I am quite certain that 
> forging an official document is in itself a criminal offense
> in most cases. Dumbledore uses his forged document to
> deceive Mrs. Cole into releasing a minor child into his 
> guardianship. How is that not fraudulent? How is that not
> a serious crime? As it happens Dumbledore is a real 
> teacher at a real school that really is offering Tom an 
> education but that does not justify the means he used to
> obtain Mrs. Cole's assent. He is using the methods a 
> pedophile might use to gain access to a child. <snip>

Carol responds:
Sorry to snip the rest of your post, but I just want to point out that
there's no forged document, only a spell on a piece of paper that
causes Mrs. Cole to see what she thinks should be there for the
documents to be in order. There's really no other way that I can see
for Dumbledore to get Tom to Hogwarts, where he has to be so he can
learn to control his magic, especially if there's evidence that he's
been using it to abuse other children. Since DD has no choice but to
prevent Mrs. Cole from knowing the truth (I see no way that he could
obtain genuine documents. Fudge isn't MoM yet, so there may not even
be any communication between the MoM and the Muggle Prime Minister),
and she probably wouldn't believe official documents authorizing Tom's
attendance at the Hogwarts School for witchcraft and Wizardry, anyway,
it seems to me that Dumbledore's "crime" here is pretty minor. In this
case, whethe Dumbledore and JKR generally approve the principle or
not, the end justifies the means.

No harm came to Mrs. Cole, and it was certainly for the good of the
children in the orphanage to get Tom away from there for ten months of
each year.

Carol, not trying to get into an OT philosophical discussion, only to
state once again that DD in this instance had no choice (and could
have been much more forceful if he were less respectful of Muggles
than he is)