Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of/Why didn't Snape turn Harry in?

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 159261


> Sherry now:
> 
> This isn't a complete "me too" to Alla.  I don't believe for one moment that
> Dumbledore would have paid any attention to Harry if he'd told about
> Trelawney.  If DD really knew all along what Draco was up to, he let him run
> loose in the school, reeking havoc and plotting more deaths after the
> necklace incident.  He did nothing to stop Draco after the poisoning of Ron.

Pippin:
Thank you for illustrating the sort of pressure that got Sirius, Hagrid, 
Barty Jr, and Stan Shunpike thrown in jail regardless of the evidence 
because Something Must Be Done. Of course as Dumbledore says,
the Ministry does occasionally nail the right person, if only by accident. 
But is that really the behavior you want held up as the epitome of
goodness?

I know Dumbledore didn't express any interest in Harry's
suspicions of Draco. But that doesn't mean he didn't share
them. We know Dumbledore was not sure of himself and did 
not think he had everything under control. Hagrid 
says he was worried sick after Ron was poisoned. Dumbledore
told Snape to continue his investigations, so we know he was
in fact doing something. So why not involve Harry?

Think about it in terms of real life instead of a story; if there was 
an official investigation going on behind the scenes, would the 
authorities want a teenage boy with a grudge to help them with it?  
Well, Umbridge would, but the I-Squad was horrible, right?

Now Harry forms his own little I-Squad, courtesy of Dobby and
Kreacher, and you think the adults should cheer him on? Ick! 
Naturally they want to discourage him, which, as everyone who's 
dealt with a teenager knows, is often best done by ignoring the 
behavior you disapprove of rather than condemning it.

Pippin