[HPforGrownups] Re: Sadism or not ? McGonagall and her punishments

[Shaun Hately]

No: HPFGUIDX 186745

> Magpie:
> Whoa. Sorry I missed this but wow, this is exactly the kind of thing
> that would drive me crazy if I was a kid. It's exactly the "spirit of
> the law" that gets broken by saying that McGonagall's only "bending"
> it by going to Dumbledore.

Shaun:

Really? Well, I find that odd. Both based on my own expectations of teachers 
as a child, and in the expectations of the children I teach today. Most 
children have a reasonably strong sense of what they consider to be right 
and wrong (which may or may not match the common adult perception of these 
things) and most children seem to understand that sometimes rules should be 
bent in order to make things fair.

Someboy in this discussion has referred to 'zero tolerance' in education. 
Zero tolerance is an idea that has gained a lot of currency in schools - 
especially in the United States - in recent years - and it refers to schools 
treating particular rules as rules that cannot be varied under any 
circumstances. And it leads to, at times, absolutely ridiculous results.

A few real examples of situations this thinking has lead to:

a five year old child suspended from kindergarten for 'possession of a 
weapon'. A nail file.

three boys suspended (and facing expulsion) from school for 'possession of a 
firearm'. A water pistol.

a seven year old boy suspeneded from a school in Los Angeles for, again, 
'possession of a weapon'. It was a keyring, it looked like a gun, but was 
only one and half inches long.

13 year old David Silverstein who made a toy rocket out of a Pringles 
canister and was suspended for the rest of the school year for 'possession 
of a weapon'.

The boy in Garland, Texas who was suspended for possession of a weapon for 
forming his hand into the shape of a gun.

A ten year old girl suspended under sexual harrassment rules for asking a 
boy if he liked her.

six year old Seamus Morris of Colorado Springs, suspended from school under 
his schools zero tolerance drug policy - for giving another child a lemon 
drop.

Weapons in schools are serious, so are drugs, and so is sexual harrassment. 
It's absolutely sensible and reasonable for schools to have rules about 
these things - and very strict rules. *But* that also requires the school to 
be willing to be flexible enough to make exceptions when the situation calls 
for it.

There's a case before the US Supreme Court at the moment about a 13 year old 
girl who was strip searched by her teachers on suspicion she was carrying 
drugs. The drug in question was Advil (ibuprofen). This is the type of 
situation that expecting schools to impose rules without expecting them to 
show some degree of commonsense to modify their approach in particular 
cases, leads to.

Magpie:
> If the point is safety, then all first years who demonstrate an
> aptitude for flying should be able to be able to bring a broom
> (not that Harry even has to bring a broom--he's given a gift of
> a broom that's better than anyone else's while every other
> student has to buy their own or use the school brooms). Harry's
> hardly the first first year at Hogwarts to be able to fly already
> by the time he gets there. He's not even the only first year who's
> a good flyer in his own year. If a kid isn't already flying he
> probably wouldn't have a broom to bring in the first place. So
> to me the spirit of the rule must be directed at "naturals" like
> Harry as much as anybody else.

Shaun:

First of all, let me just remind people that I'm only guessing that the 
reason behind the rule is safety. It does seem to me to be the most likely 
reason, but I'm open to the idea there's something else behind it.

Having said that, to a great extent here, I agree with you. If the rule is 
about safety, and the reason it's being bent in this case is because safety 
isn't a concern for Harry, then, yes, I would expect it to be bent in any 
other case identical to Harry's.

The question is, are there any other cases identical to Harry's?

Harry doesn't just seem to be good on a broom. He seems to be absolutely 
brilliant. Oliver Wood, the first time he sees Harry practice as a seeker, 
believes he has the potential to play internationally someday.

When I was a kid, I was a good swimmer - backstroke was my style. A coach 
from the Australian Institute of Sport came down to see us swim, and after 
watching us for a while, he told us what he thought of our potential. I was 
good - but nothing particularly special. I could maybe reach state rep if I 
really worked hard. Most of us got similar verdicts.

One of us, however, was a potential Olympian - he was in a totally different 
category from the rest of us (and he did go to the Barcelona Olympics and 
brought home a bronze medal from Atlanta).

There's a big difference between being good - and being a potential 
international.

Harry is the first first year in a century to be selected for his house 
team. He's not just good - he's truly exceptional. IIRC, the only times 
Harry fails to get the Snitch in all his time at Hogwarts is in matches 
where he became unconscious. When he's allowed to play a full game, he wins 
every time.

An exception that can be justified for him may not be justified for any 
other student. They're just not good enough.

It would be unfair if another first-year student as good as Harry was denied 
the chance to play - if Professor Snape had gone to Professor Dumbledore and 
asked that a similar exception be made for Draco Malfoy, then it would be 
horribly unjust if this was not done. But there's absolutely no sign that 
this was even contemplated.

I've mentioned a couple of times now, one of my own schoolmates who was 
given the only exemption in the school concerning the wearing of earrings, 
and he was given it because he was a professional actor the role he was 
undertaking at the time required him to have an earring. Did we think that 
was unfair? I can't speak for everyone, but I certainly didn't - I 
understood there was a special reason for him to have that exemption. I was 
also fairly certain that *if* any other student had been in the same 
situation, they'd have got the same exemption.

Magpie:
> McGonagall pushes him through because she wants him on her
> Quidditch team--and on the best broom she can get for him. Not
> because Harry himself has some urgent need to have a broom
> (like he needs to fly home weekends and care for his strict
> grandmother, or he's a professional flyer in the summer and
> needs to keep in shape, or he's got some medical condition
> where by he has to be airborne several times a week), but
> because she wants to beat everyone at Quidditch. (And from the
> pov of most students it probably also looks like there are
> just special rules for Harry Potter.)

Shaun:

She pushes through the change because he is that good. Yes, she wants him on 
the team - but she wants him on the team because he's a truly exceptional 
player. The two things go together. And, yes, she gets him a broom. 
Normally, I'd object to that - except for one *very* important special 
factor in Harry's case. In loco parentis - Professor McGonagall is in place 
of his parents, and for an orphan, that carries special responsibilities, 
both morally and legally. There's a big difference between being ILP for a 
child who has parents, and having that role for a child who doesn't.  And 
when you look at the situation Harry is in...

Many British boarding schools (and those around the world based on them) 
have a tradition that they will look after the children of ex-pupils who die 
in war. It's a... well, almost a sacred trust - we will look after your 
kids. Harry's parents fell fighting for their society. He needs people 
looking out for him, far more than most kids do.

But, yeah, there are probably some kids who do think there are just special 
rules for Harry Potter. Just as, at my school, there were probably some kids 
who thought there were just special rules for Matthew Newton.

(Of course, today, Matthew Newton is one of the stars of the most popular 
and controversial program on Australian television. He's been nominated for 
at least a Logie (Australia's equivalent of an Emmy) and a Helpmann 
(Australia's equivalent of a Tony). I think most people would now agree the 
school was right to think he had real potential in this area).

Steve replies:
>
> Magpie makes good points here. I understand the "spirit" vs "letter"
> of the law distinctions shaun is mentioning, but I don't think they
> actually apply in this specific case of McG allowing Harry to have
> a really high quality broom in his first year.  I think Magpie is
> right on the mark thinking McGonagall's main motivation is for
> Harry being on the team with the best broom available so that
> McGonagall's "home" Quidditch team has a better chance of winning.
> Of course, it also provides JKR w/ major plot lines for Harry playing
> Quidditch, although perhaps she could have just accomplished that
> by not writing there being a "no first years having brooms" rule.
> I imagine you mean Harry flying home to care for his sick grandmother
> as opposed to his strict grandmother however? :)

Shaun:

I certainly agree that Professor McGonagall wants Harry on the team for 
reasons that aren't entirely about Harry (and are probably more about 
Gryffindor prestige than anything else) but the thing is, that wouldn't be 
an issue if Harry wasn't very good.

My school accepted me as a pupil over and above other students (and later 
gave me a scholarship) out of a fair degree of self interest. They thought 
that having me as a pupil might someday pay dividends for them. They knew 
I'd get good academic results and good academic results help to make the 
school look good. Matthew Newton, I'm sure part of the reason why they were 
willing to accomodate him was the hope that one day, he'd help make the 
school look good as well (I think they might have mixed feelings about him 
at this point...) And there were quite a few others as well - I'd guess at 
least 10% of students. *But* even if that was a large part of the 
motivation, they still gave us what we needed, and for the most part, did 
genuinely seem to care about that as well.

Doing something for the benefit of the House or the benefit of the school 
that isn't in the best interests of a child but only in the interests of 
their school or House is quite different from doing something that is in 
their interests.

Is anyone prepared to argue that Harry would, overall, be better off if he'd 
hadn't been allowed to play Quidditch in First Year? If so, I'd be 
fascinated to hear why, personally.

Magpie:
> No, it's like calling a good natural flier a good natural flier.
> Harry is not being trained to be a professional Quidditch player
> by Hogwarts.

Shaun:

Isn't he?

Where do professional Quidditch players come from? Oliver Wood goes straight 
from Hogwarts into Puddlemere United (their reserve team, admittedly, but 
this does seem to be his intended career). Ginny goes on to play for the 
Holyhead Harpies professionally.

Hogwarts has a duty to train its students for their later careers. For some 
of them, this will be a sporting career.

Again, for real world schools in the same tradition as Hogwarts, this is 
part of their role.

We've just had a series of major news stories here where I am about a 
Melbourne schoolboy in his final year at one of Melbourne's elite schools, 
and one of his school football matches, because he's already been signed to 
a major football team (Jack Watts of Brighton Grammar and the Melbourne 
Demons). There's a boy at my old school in a similar position (though not 
quite as high profile - Dan Hannebery (Xavier College/Sydney Swans), and 
there are numerous similar stories every year.

Hogwarts should be training Harry for any potential career. It should be 
training any of students with any special potentials in any areas in this 
way. That's both a duty of a school, and, once again, entirely consistent 
with real world practice.

Magpie:
> His personal skills are not much interest to anyone beyond
> the inter-house rivalry. They don't buy him a broom because
> he's supposed to be the Mozart of Quidditch. He doesn't
> practice out of some prodigy specific need to have his own
> broom that's the best there is. Viktor Krum is even
> significantly better than he is at the same age so if there's
> anybody who's the Mozart here it's Viktor.

Shaun:

Viktor Krum is about three years older than Harry, not the same age. Is he 
better than Harry? Well, Harry isn't playing international Quidditch at the 
age of 17 - but then again, he's too busy saving the world.

I think it's hard to compare the two although, yes, I think Viktor is 
probably the better of the two. Even out of two brilliant players, one may 
still be more brilliant - but I'm prepared to guess Viktor has had some 
support to get to the level he does as well.

Shaun:
>
> I agree that the simplest way of looking at things seems most useful.

a_svirn:
> Well, it is quite simple for me to assume that McGonagall
> is being her usual irritable self. No need to devise some
> fanfictional Hogwarts dress-code here.

Shaun:

I'm not devising anything 'fanfictional' at all. I'm just arguing for the 
possibility, maybe even the likelihood, that a school in Britain can 
reasonably be assumed to have similar characteristics to schools in Britain 
and assuming that it doesn't to make an argument work is something I find 
rather hard to understand.

a_svirn:
> It sounds like you reserve the right for teachers to insult
> and ridicule students who *do* something wrong.

Shaun:

I believe it is acceptable *in certain circumstances* for a teacher to 
verbally reprimand a student for doing something wrong in a way that the 
student will find unpleasant. I don't, personally, feel that Professor 
McGonagall insulted Parvarti (describing something a child is wearing as 
ridiculous is not the same as calling the child ridiculous) although I think 
I can understand why somebody might feel it's insulting.

I believe what Professor McGonagall said was acceptable in this case - just 
as I believe that if I told a student: "Your language is disgusting." or 
"Your language is offensive." if I caught him swearing is acceptable and 
appropriate in some cases.

*If* Professor McGonagall had called Parvarti herself ridiculous (equivalent 
to me calling a boy disgusting for swearing) my view would be slightly 
different. That's a significantly higher level of 'unpleasantness' and 
while, yes, I do think there are circumstances where it would be justified, 
a minor matter of violating a school uniform code wouldn't normally justify 
it.

a_svirn:
> Eh, what doesn't exist, dress-code in real life English
> Schools? I never pretended anything of the sort. We are
> discussing imaginary Hogwarts however. And that's not the
> point anyway. The point is, you are the one who accuses
> Parvati of violating some hairstyle regulations. The narrator
> does not do it; McGonagall herself does not do it. You do,
> so it is up to you to prove it.

Shaun:

No, that's not what I'm talking about.

I have provided *considerable* documentary evidence supporting my position 
throughout this discussion, both from within the text and external sources. 
Your claim that I am basing my position only on my own experience is 
therefore demonstrably false and that's what I've objected to here. You're 
free to decide that everything I present isn't convincing to you - but don't 
try and claim that I'm only use my only real life experience in discussing 
this. I've provided considerable amounts of quotes from the books, and 
considerable amounts of quotes from elsewhere. You might not find it 
convincing - but it's there for allto see.

a_svirn:
> Seems to me, you refer to the burden of proof, because you can't find
> any except in your real life experience. Which is not at all canon.
> And therefore not at all proof.

Shaun:

I have provided a significant no less than twenty five quotes from the books 
during this discussion - including, for example, every single reference to 
Hermione's hair that I could find in approximately 2,5000 pages of the 
novels, after somebody else - not me - thought it might have relevance. In 
addition to this, I've quoted over one and a half thousand words from other 
sources to back up many of my positions.

I am *not* relying solely on my real life experiences.

I'd like to see you provide some evidence from somewhere for your assertions 
simply because you have made some assertions that I believe are incorrect. 
Most notably, the statement you made that schools outside of somewhere like 
North Korea would not regulate something like hair clips.

Where's the canon argument in that?

You haven't based your arguments solely on canon, either - and I don't think 
that there's any reason you should have to, because I certainly do - but in 
my view, it's reasonable in that case for you to be asked to provide some 
sort of evidence to support your non-canonical conclusions.

Your assumption that this rule could not exist, is every bit as much as an 
assumption as mine that this rule probably does exist.

You can't prove it doesn't from canon. I can't prove it does. But I think 
I've made a great deal more effort to back up position than you have yours.


No, I refer to the burden of proof before as far as I can see, you've based 
your position on nothing more than the way you would

a_svirn:
> What do you mean by "acceptable"? If you are saying that McGonagall
> was within her rights to make Parvati remove the ornament in question,
> then I agree with you. Not because of some obscure hairpins rule of
> which there is no trace in the books, but because, as Pippin pointed
> out, she was acting in loco parentis. Still it was petty of her to
> act that way and insult Parvati.

Shaun:

What do I mean by acceptable? I mean allowable under the rules of the 
school. And if it is allowable under the rules of the school, I don't think 
it's petty on a special occasion. Uniform rules exist in schools for a 
reason. Enforcing them is not petty. If you are not going to enforce them, 
then they become pointless and petty.

Enforced doesn't have to mean at all times, either.

a_svirn:
> That was way later in the fifth book, iirc. And by then Neville had 
> started
> to change under Harry's tutelage.

Shaun:

Harry's teaching of Neville has a lot of positive effects for him, but 
there's no reason to suppose it's dealing with his memory issues at all.

a_svirn:
> After more than two years teaching him how could she possibly
> have missed the fact that he has a very bad memory? And we know
> she does, she make a reference to it when he couldn't hand in
> his permission slip.

Shaun:

Because her classes don't rely heavily on auditory memory. She teaches in a 
much more visual and kinaesthetic way. Neville's problems do not seem to 
impact him heavily when it comes to visual or kinaesthetic memory - and it's 
auditory memory that is tied up with remembering words.

a_svirn:
> "Please, Professor, I-I think I've lost
> "Your grandmother sent yours to me directly, Longbottom,"
> said Professor McGonagall. "She seemed to think it was safer.
> Well, that's all, you may leave."

Shaun:

Nothing there refers to memory - she could just as easily believe the 
concern is Neville's carelessness, rather than his memory. Also "She seemed 
to think it was safer." The way that is phrased is reporting Augusta 
Longbottom's opinion, rather than Professor McGonagall's. We know from 
Neville's post-OWL class choice discussion that Professor McGonagall doesn't 
seem to value Augusta's opinions about Neville's educational capabilities 
particularly highly. As a teacher, I can tell you that parents and guardians 
of children with learning difficulties very often wind up underestimating 
their child's potential and teachers of such students get quite used to 
stretching the children further than the guardians would and finding that 
the child responds positively.

A good teacher listens to what the parents and guardian say - but doesn't 
rely on it as definitive. You don't base your opinion on what the parents 
feel the child can do, you find out for yourself. Neville passes Professor 
McGonagall's classes - either she has put things in place to help him *or* 
he's capable of passing them without help. If it's the former, accusing her 
of the type of neglect you seem to be alleging seems curious. If it's the 
latter, then there's no reason to assume she would be aware of the problem 
he's having outside the classroom

a_svirn:
> Kind of hypocritical of her to punish a student for something she
> is also responsible. I am not saying that Neville had no responsibility
> whatsoever in this case. I am saying that McGonagall's failure to
> acknowledge *her* - in my view the most significant - share of the
> responsibility makes her rather harsh and humiliating punishment
> a classic example of scapegoating.

Shaun:

Hypocritical or not, it's still her job to discpline him. A very common 
experience of schoolboys throughout the centuries is the hypocrisy of being 
punished for smoking by a teacher who gets through forty a day.

If I have a student who hasn't done his homework, how does it help him if I 
let him off scot free because I know I'm behind in my marking? That's 
hypocritical too - but it's not in the best interests of the child for me to 
let him off.


a_svirn:
> Well, she should have. As a head of the house of a child
> with an obvious impairment it was her obligation to make
> reasonable adjustments for such a child. By the way, in real
> life schools in Britain it is unlawful to discriminate against
> children with disabilities, and, yes, not making reasonable
> adjustments counts as discrimination. Unfortunately, as
> I've already said, real life laws and rules do not always
> apply in Hogwarts.

Shaun:

There is a law in Britain that makes it unlawful for schools to discriminate 
against the disabled, yes. It's the Special Educational Needs and Disability 
Act of 2001 - I'm very familiar with it as it happens. Prior to that law 
being passed there was no such law in the UK, so such a law didn't apply in 
Britain at the time of Goblet of Fire.

More importantly, though, speaking as a qualified special education teacher, 
I don't believe that Professor McGonagall's treatment of Neville even comes 
close to violating the law even as it applies now/

The law makes it unlawful for a school to discriminate against disable 
students by treating them less favourably than others. The default 
assumption in the law is that disabled students should be treated *in the 
same way* as non-disabled students. You seem to be arguing that Neville 
should be given special treatment. That is only required by the law in a 
situation where the child might otherwise be substantially disadvantaged.

Neville passes most his classes with acceptable results. It is impossible to 
argue that across his education as a whole he is being substantially 
disadvantaged. It *could* reasonably be argued, I think, that in Potions 
class specifically, he suffers a substantial disadvantage which might mean 
Professor Snape has some legal liability, but not Professor McGonagall.

There's also the issue that under the law, it's unlikely that Neville is 
actually classes as disabled.

"A disabled person is someone who has a physical or mental impairment, which 
has an effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day 
activities."

Neville doesn't seem to have a problem with normal day to day activities.

Now, yes, I agree that a Head of House *does* have an obligation (whether 
the law says they do or not) to make reasonable adjustments for a child with 
an obvious impediment. I've said that already. The problem with that is, I 
can't see any evidence that Neville's impediment is obvious to Professor 
McGonagall.

He's passing in her classes.

a_svirn:
> And not a single first-year student in more than a century
> was good enough on the broom to be considered safe? Not
> likely. Draco seemed perfectly safe while airborne.

Shaun:

Perfectly safe, yes. But Harry is not just perfectly safe, he's 
exceptionally talented.

a_svirn:
> Where the presumption of innocence is concerned they do have
> exactly the same rights. Under the law children are innocent
> until they are proven guilty just like adults.

Shaun:

We're not talking about a criminal case when it comes to Parvarti, though. 
We're talking about a case of school discipline - which does not require a 
presumption of innocence in law. The allegations being made against 
Professor McGonagall however do rise to the standard that in the real world, 
courts and lawyers would probably be getting involved.

Alla:
> What I am trying to say here Shaun is that while nobody is arguing with 
> you that
> Hogwarts is based on English Boarding school model in general, I would 
> certainly
> disagree with you that every particular detail that is in place or was 
> ever in
> place in English boarding school should apply to Hogwarts.

Shaun:

The point is Alla, that I'm not arguing here about a rule that generally 
applies in British *boarding* schools. Yes, I do think Hogwarts fits that 
model quite well, but in this case, the rule I am discussing is not one that 
is confined to boarding schools. In talking about British schools in this 
particular case, I'm not talking about the relatively small number of 
boarding schools.

It's a rule that is familiar to British children in *most* schools. It is an 
absolutely typical and normal rule. It is so typical and normal that I 
believe most British children who read the passage in question is likely to 
assume that Professor McGonagall *is* enforcing a rule - whether they go to 
an elite boarding school like Eton or Harrow - or if they just go to the 
local comprehensive down the road.

Marianne:
> Shaun, I hope this is part of your post.

Shaun:

It is.

Marianne:
> I have a child that has learning disabilities.  I was guilty
> of standing in the way of allowing him to do things.  I used
> his LD as an excuse, because I was the one that worried too
> much.  I wrapped him in cotton as much as I could.  But when
> he was in school there were times when he had no choice to be
> in with the "normal" kids in classes.  Most teachers expected
> him to do his share, obviously on his learning level, and it
> was the best thing that ever happened to him - and me. My son
> even introduced me to the class rat - something I thought I'd
> never do.  As years have gone by, and he is in a job training
> situation, I've seen him become more and more independant.
>  He does things that I would never let him do.  Like touch a
> stove, etc.  He is not placed in situations that is beyond his
> limits, but he's learning beyond the ones I ever thought he
> could do.  Although he's never left alone - left to run amuck
> as I put it.  I'm darned proud of him and ashamed of myself
> for not allowing him to progress until now.

Shaun:

Thank you for making one of the points I've been trying to make. We don't do 
children with LDs any favours by not letting them do things they are capable 
of, and a lot of them are far more capable than a lot of people think. You 
shouldn't feel ashamed of what you did - you were honestly and sincerely 
acting in what you believed to be your child's best interests - and that is 
what a parent is expected to do.

It's also what we should expect teachers to do - to honestly and sincerely 
act in what they believe to the child's best interest. The difference 
between us and parents is that we have training - or at least some of us 
do - in these areas and so we don't just have to rely on instinct. We're 
also not, normally, as emotionally invested in the process - making a child 
do something that you do might fail to do but knowing it's the only way that 
you and they will find out if they can actually do it is hard enough for a 
teacher who cares about a child, but it's a hundred times harder for a 
parent who actually loves them.

Neville proves to be far, far tougher from Order of the Phoenix onwards than 
I think most people would have thought likely seeing him in Philosopher's 
Stone.

"'He's dot alone!' shouted a voice from above them. 'He's still god be!'

Harry's heart sank. Neville was scrambling down the stone benches toward 
them, Hermione's wand held fast in his trembling hand."

He's injured. He's terrified - and he's still fighting. This is not a child 
who needs to be wrapped in cotton wool.

By Half Blood Prince, he's a leader, he's the person Harry chooses to carry 
on if he, Hermione, and Ron can't.

I assume Neville's grandmother loves him. I certainly hope she does. And 
she's done an incredible thing for him - she's raised him from infancy and 
produced a decent, honest, good boy - with the potential for greatness. 
*But* the Neville we see at 17 is a product of his home - and a product of 
his school as well.

Marianne:
> If muggle schools has LD kids in their system, I wonder if
> Hogwarts would allow LD children in?  Would there be some
> kind of magic to tame down ADHD?  I can't imagine Hogwarts
> could/would ever change a personality of a child.  Muggle
> schools couldn't do it.  Or would parents keep their child
> home.  Sort of like the Kendra/Ariana situation.

Shaun:

I'd like to think Hogwarts could handle such a kid. I don't, unfortunately, 
see much signs that they could.

Of course... there are some things about Hogwarts that might have a positive 
impact on some LDs just accidentally. ADHD students, for example, in general 
benefit from strict teaching, routine, regular exercise, and a school 
environment that is always interesting. Hogwart seems to fit that fairly 
well. They'd probably go off the wall in Professor Binn's classes, though. 
As described, I can't imagine a worse environment for an ADHD child.

Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia