Blood Protection/Dumbledore and Harry

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 158863

a_svirn:
 The easiest explanation is that one went off the
> mark, surely? Even if they thought the scar suspicious it's a big leap
> to conclude that the Dark Lord was vanquished and lost his body. Not
> to mention, that it's not professional for the Law Enforcement
> officers to share their speculations with general public right after
> the murder was discovered.

Pippin:

Not if everyone knows that Voldemort is missing and  Harry is alive.
Those rumours would spread from the DE's and the aurors to everyone 
else, unprofessional or not. The WW is too small to keep secrets like 
that. It's like living in a village. Would you have liked the DE's story, 
that Harry survived because he was a greater Dark Wizard than 
Voldemort, to be the only one out there? 

It was hard on Harry to be greeted as a hero, but at least he
didn't have to face everybody thinking he was a dark wizard 
all his life.

> a_svirn:
> Precisely. And did he set her straight on that? No, he didn't. He did
> not say anything about Lilly's sacrifice; he let her believe that it
> was something about Harry that made Voldemort to loose his power. In
> other words, he made a major contribution to all the rumours that
> were circulating. Those same rumours that gave him an excuse to remove
> Harry from the WW so he wouldn't grow up pampered.

Pippin:
Harry was removed from the wizarding world because that's where his 
only blood relation was living. Everything else is secondary. Dumbledore
explains why he does not want to draw attention to the blood protection.
Voldemort knows of it, but he always discounts it, and this is a weakness
that Dumbledore believes he can exploit.

ppin:
> It seems that that Voldemort or his servants can not harm Harry while he
> is at Privet Drive or under his relations' care anywhere. At least, Harry
> has never been attacked by Voldemort or his servants under those
> circumstances.
> 
> a_svirn:
> As I said, Harry does not spend all his time indoors. 

Pippin:
And he would if he was being protected by, say, Sirius and Lupin??

a_svirn
 If Umbridge could come up with such a plan,
> why couldn't, say, Lucius?

Pippin:
If Lucius wanted to harm Harry for reasons totally unrelated to his
service to Voldemort, you mean? Why would he?


> 
> Pippin:
> As I told someone off list, if you state the problem in general
> terms, it's a no-brainer. <snip>

> a_svirn:
> You may have noticed that I do argue with the premises. Namely, with
> the premise 2 and 3.
> 
> My version is:
> (1) There are *ways* the child can be protected.
> (2) The protection Dumbledore chose is flawed.
> (3) Ergo he could have chosen another protection, less flawed.
>

Pippin:
For your premises to be valid, a less flawed means of protection
must exist. Dumbledore maintains in canon that it does not. I
take it you don't dispute his sincerity.

In that case it's not a matter of Dumbledore's morality at all, 
but his assessment of different forms of magical protection. 
I think we will have to agree to disagree on that, as I don't
think I can be convinced that you know more about magic
than Dumbledore :)

Pippin