Abus, Scrimgeour, and Harry (WAS: Re: Deathly Hallows reread CH 1 -3)

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 186251

> Zara:
> Fudge knew what the letter was about. We know it received a response, because the Prophet reported a rift between Albus and Scrimmy.

Alla:

Ah, thanks. So responding to some points and not to others on which we are too different.

> 
> Zara:
> I have two objections to this line of reasoning.
> 1) It is my opinion Albus would have considered "he is Harry's ally, period, end of story" a flat out lie, something, remarkably enough, he never in seven books, told to Harry.
> 2) And you and Harry would have believed it just as you believed such unequivocal statements as "I trust Severus Snape completely". <bg>

Alla:

Well, but **of course** I know that Albus would have considered this line a lie for him! This is sort of my point. I argue that Albus poisoned Harry against Scrimgeour even if he coached it in nice words. It seemed to me that Harry picked up exactly what Albus was implying. Of course he did not say that Scrimgeour is Harry's ally, because Albus did not think so. My point is that he was wrong in at least not trying harder.



 
> > Alla:
> > Yes Harry does bring Stan up and believe me, in HBP I was oh so nodding my head – how dear big bad Ministry arrested that innocent kid? After all we have Sirius' example and did not they learn anything? Only see after DH I really do not share the belief in Stan's innocence anymore and therefore when I reread this conversation, I am thinking – how about you learn more Harry before you speak?
> 
> Zara:
> This ignores that Harry had already drawn a conclusion for himself, with no input from Albus. P. 221 of the US paperback edition of HBP has half a page of dialogue among the Trio which I will not reproduce. But they considered the published circumstances of his arrest and their own personal knowledge of Stan to reach the conclusion he was innocent, and the arrest was a PR stunt. Arthur mentioning Albus agreed about Stan's innocence weeks later did not form Harry's opinion - it just reminded him of something he had been upset about before based only on his own opinions and those of his best friends.

Alla:

Sorry, but I really do not consider this conversation as the example of Harry and his friends forming **informed** opinion. I do grant you that I thought this conversation happened before bringing Albus' opinion in, but really, Harry's what are they playing at by taking Stan's seriously? Um, Harry, maybe because he deserved to be taking seriously? Just a possibility?

And note, how Hermione flat out disagrees that Stan was under Imperius curse, since in her opinion he otherwise would not have acted as he did. So, what exactly does it mean? Maybe it was Stan's playing around. Why, I wonder. OR could it be that he was not playing around?

Interesting how Harry returns to him being under Imperius curse in book 7.


Zara: 
> I would also add this is irrelevant. Even if Arthur, his Ministry sources who interviewed Stan and considered him innocent, Albus, Harry, Ron, and Hermione were all wrong, it does not alter the Ministry's poor handling of the case. No trial, like you say. And Stan was not even the only one - see my Arthur quote, there were two others of which Arthur was aware.

Alla:

It is irrelevant on disagreeing with Ministry's methods, sure. It is however not irrelevant to me when I am deciding how much weight I should give to Harry's disapproval of the Ministry if that makes sense.


> Zara:
> X=Harry. In this case, X knows a detainee personally and believes based on that personal knowledge and facts in the public record, that X is not a terrorist. But again, the analogy is really that X and Harry object to the *policy*.

Alla:

Yes, I got that LOL. My point is that I do not consider all objections to policy to be automatically logical and supportable, even if I completely disagree with the policy. As I said, if Harry would have said, give Stan **a trial** or say **stop torture him**(go back to RL again), sure. However, if I would hear about celebrity saying - release so and so NOW, because I the celebrity met this person once in my life and just KNOW that he is innocent, I would have shaken my head and would have wished such celebrity shut up.

 
> Zara:
> But this *is* basically what happened. Albus appealed to Scrimmy personally (without Harry's knowledge until Christmas. No Change. Harry personally brought it up. No Change. Harry personally brought it up *again*. No Change. Either Scrimmy is a moron (which I do not believe) or he was not willing to compromise here. <SNIP>

Alla:

Not what I meant though. See the paragraph above and tell me if I was clearer.


Pippin:
If JKR didn't think people needed keeping in order, she wouldn't have given us
Dudley. She's okay with authority, she just wants to see it properly used. After
all, Arthur's a ministry employee. <HUGE SNIP>

Alla:

Right and this was my original point actually, really did not mean to start another Ministry/Dumbledore bash ( but cannot resist LOL). I was trying to say that my biggest switch was in thinking that JKR respects authority more than I expected. There is also not much I disagree with in your post Pippin. I am certainly not trying to say that Ministry and Rufus did not have their faults, lots of them.

I am just saying that they IMO deserved better from Dumbledore, but of course Dumbledore deserved better from them too.

JMO,

Alla