Well to begin with I HATE Dumbledore .Why? you may ask well I will tell you .

1 How did Hagrid get to the Potters as fast as Black when a, Dumbledore must have known wards down then gone from study to Hagrid's hut then made Portakey then Hagrid had to get out area so Portakey worked .

2, Why did he have McGonagall watching the Dursleys family all day when

a, the Potters had only just died

b,as far as any one knew Black was Harry legal guardian .

3, All children at a small age are told not to accept sweets from strangers yet that is all Dumbledore does .

4,Harry has one year from the Goblet of fire to the fight in the ministry of hell ,Dumbledore does nothing of worth and the minister refuses to accept Tommy boy back but this is untrue .In Harry's first year he meets Tommy boy so Dumble knew Tommy about and spent from Harry's year one till the fight at the ministry doing nothing to combat what was obviously going to be a problem .

5, As in my Harry Potter the Ninja story i have this problem with him as well .He says and so do all the leaflets that Hogwarts is one of the most safest places in Britain ok . a, Why do none of the potions students get told about the basic safety garments needed like goggles and lab coats and hair nets .If Snape is such and expert he must know kids loose hair so there a chance of contamination he knows potions explode but he does nothing to make the lab safer .If Dumbles cares about his schools reputation and his students why does he not correct this . b,On Harry's first flying lesson Neville brakes his arm ok how come in the school they use cushioning charms but not on a pitch were students a long way of the ground .A cushioning charm would have saved Neville's arm and also pro Quidditch player might not need a safety net but this a school so why does the Quidditch pitch also not have cushioning charms on to save students who fall .

6,If Pettigrew shouted that about Black how did Black know who the secret Keeper was and how did Pettigrew escape Tommy boy and his goons if Pettigrew was captured and gave info and Tommy boy died then surly Bella would have killed him .Some might say he escaped as animagus but this was a secret so how would a certain Headmaster explain it .Also if he had been captured how was he able to walk with muggles as surely he would have been tortured so he should have St Mungo's record or from poppy .Yet he was well when Black got him .How long was it from when Potters died and Pettigrew supposed to be killed as unless same day or day after the Potter will must been read so Black should have had harry .

7, As supreme this head that when he found out Sirius was innocent and Pettigrew a animagus why did he not demand a trial with Pensive and veritisum as evidence .

8, After Tommy boy turned up as Quirrell how the hell did he let Moody past him .Didn't he see teachers Especially new ones needed to be monitored .How do you explain he not know Lockhart a fake after his first lesson .Did he really think so little about his students education.

9, OK so Tommy boy cursed the defence against dark arts job .Well let me see cancel defence against dark arts move to new classroom and call it how to defend yourself or Protection for you and your family or something if the defence against dark arts is not their the curse cant be there .

10, As the fidelius charm is hard work and that just how did Dumbles get the blood wards around the Dursley's in one night with McGonagall there all day never seeing him .

11, OK Halloween is in cold month .So why did he place a baby on a door step in a basket with only a blanket then walk away with out making sure any one in .Why did he not knock on the door .If he was Potters guardian wouldn't this be classed as abandonment so then he would loose his Guardian ship .How the hell did he get the Potters Vault key ?Why did harry never get a statement even after he turn 11 and re-entered the magical world .

https:///binaries/content/assets/mohippo/pdf/i/4/oct1981.pdf read one the coldest octobers for years at the time -2 and they left a baby on a door step

As I say he rubs me up the wrong way

That is just a few of the reasons I not like him as i said before in my stories that I hope are funny he will face the music .I am not to sure how Snape will fair in all my stories in my first one Harry's wacky life he comes out a good guy .So who knows .Please just read and enjoy my work thank you

-- I love Harry Potter and Addams family mix stories and have seen a few good ones. I might try one myself with maybe Marge meeting Addams family neighbour the judge .Maybe she say about them being freaks might have Harry about 2 ish . As I don't want them blood related like in many . let me know what you think .. -- Ok why do Dursley's try push Harry about to provoke him into magic .They know he would get expelled but in the original and fanfic they rub it in don't do magic or you be expelled. Surly if he expelled means they stuck with him and his freakishness. Wouldn't it make more sense to not annoy him so he not get expelled .Also petunia is his relative so would be his guardian not Vernon . If they not want him there why not give him permission to holiday with any of his friends Dumbledork could do nothing about it then. I might try add these to some story .

I would also like to ask How did anyone expect Harry to get out the house if there was a fire when locked in a cupboard or in a room with bars in window and locked door and no magic?

If this is a place that my guardian had placed me I would hate his guts not like many have with Harry and the headmaster like or even loving him.

Http ://

/news/nuns-abused-hundreds-of-children-1171988.html

wonder if this were Dumbles met old Tommy boy? Would explain a lot.

Http://

/news/759284-fury-as-pupils-are-locked-in-a-cupboard

seems this what normal people think to locking people in cupboards even if only for a few minutes. Yet many don't seem to think Dumbles knowing about it and doing nothing over years is OK?. If they not convince you maybe this will.

business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/columnists/article2316202.ece

The Law Explored: abduction and false imprisonment Gary Slapper explores the complexities of English law in plain language

to being a civil wrong. It is a primal violation of personal liberty. However, English law governing this area has to be quite subtle, as there are many situations in which society quite reasonably wants to empower someone to keep another person against their will. Think of parents controlling young children, or institutions such as schools or prisons acting “in loco parentis” (in the place of parents).

The definition of the common law offence of kidnapping is to take someone, by force or fraud, without their consent and “without lawful excuse”. Even being taken 100 yards can be enough for the crime to be committed. It can also include parents who take a child away without the child’s consent.

But there are various rules that stop prosecutions being brought too easily. For example, the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is needed for the prosecution of kidnapping against a child under the age of 16 by “a person connected with the child”. And it was noted in a House of Lords case in 1984 that parents should only be prosecuted for the crime “in exceptional cases, where the conduct of the parent concerned is so bad that an ordinary right-thinking person would immediately and without hesitation regard it as criminal in nature”.

There is also a common law crime of “false imprisonment”. This is the intentional or reckless restraint of someone’s freedom of movement from a particular place – a crime unless the restrainer has a lawful excuse. In assessing the seriousness of a false imprisonment when it decides on an appropriate punishment, the court can look at the purpose for the imprisonment. In a case in 1998, the Court of Appeal supported a life sentence against a repeat sex offender who had locked a university student in a bathroom cubicle and, at knifepoint, made her perform acts of gross indecency. The imprisonment lasted only 20 minutes but its purpose was inextricably linked to non-consensual sex

Parents are seldom found guilty of false imprisonment of their children because the sort of restraint imposed at home is usually well within the realms of what the law allows as “reasonable parental discipline”. But parental restraint can be unlawful where, for example, a parent stops a child from returning to residence of the person at which a court has ordered that the child shall live. A restraint on a child will also be unlawful if it is “outside the realm of reasonable parental discipline”. In a case in 1985, the Court of Appeal held that a conviction could stand against a father who had been trying to take his fifteen year old daughter back to her country of origin against her will. His car, in which she was being carried, was stopped by police officers as she was screaming for help out of the car window.

The crime of false imprisonment can be committed when the victim is restrained physically, like being locked in a car. It can also be committed simply by words, as where intimidation or commands are used, if the victim submits. A woman prevented from leaving a flat through the deliberate intimidating behaviour of a man who had assaulted her, and who had her apartment keys, would be falsely imprisoned.

In addition to kidnapping and false imprisonment, there are various relevant statutory offences. The Child Abduction Act 1984 is an example. Under this law, a person (for example, a parent or guardian) connected with a child under the age of 16 commits an offence if he takes or sends the child out of the United Kingdom without the appropriate consent.

All this criminal law is geared to punish wrongdoers with a fine or imprisonment. But there is also civil law covering this area. False imprisonment is also a tort (a civil wrong), which means the victim can sue for compensation. Total restraint of the liberty, even for a short time, by the use or threat of force or by confinement is considered an imprisonment. The claimant needn’t prove that the imprisonment was unlawful or malicious: if the claimant establishes a prima facie (at first impression) case by proving that he was imprisoned by the defendant, the onus then falls on the defendant to prove a legal justification.

The rules here have been carefully developed to reflect general standards in contemporary Britain – making anything brutal unlawful while permitting the responsible exercise of power.

Professor Gary Slapper is Director of the Centre for Law at The Open University

So how many did the Dursleys and Dumbledore break? What legal justification to lock child in a cupboard for days at a time ? or on Dumbledore's part forcing him to go back. Magical yes if we believe in wards that go around house not Harry so Harry could be snatched away from number 4. LOL number for wonder if that a place were two number 2's live?

I am English, allow me my toilet humour.

and yay got betas

Also a thing I am not keen on is anonymous reviews why they not leave a name is it because if they did any flame or spite or petty jealousy could be answered. Or maybe some are like school playground bullies they like to be mean but cry to mummy and daddy when it is returned to them in kind. I do not mind people having an opinion negative or positive to my writings but I do have a problem with people who bad mouth me or others and hide behind Anonymity , even well known haters of things have the courage to put their name to it. It also makes me smile when these people point out spelling mistakes and such. If I was perfect I would be god I am human so I screw up. I also have beta readers so why complain to me complain to them if I could write without a fault why would I ask others to proof read for me?. Maybe these anonymous reviewers should be beta readers and enlighten us all with their wisdom or maybe sign in so we can criticize their work. That's just my opinion wonder how many others who write stories would agree with me?.

hi will update soon i hope as lots things going on i have no plans abandoning any my stories i even have ideas for a few more. thanks for your patience.

My harry potter and U-neake solution is with betas at the moment and i posted it before they do their wonders with it. I posted it to show i still alive lol. hope you enjoy.

I was just reading a fan fic (shock i know) when i had a thought (okay out with smelling salts) Why was it okay for snape to treach potter mind arts (cant spell the occy thing) but not Dumble*ick i mean dumbled*ck could taught him basic like how clear mind and that. Instead he made snape do it all. Also if he worried what tommy rot would learn didn't he value snapes life as Harry had seen a lot of Snape going against various D,E at school including tommy rot in his first year. Also if harry heard somet he shouldn't have and snape failed to report it wouldn't old tommy know snape was not to be trusted? Makes you think doesn't it who Dumbled*ck would let be killed to meet his own agenda.

Been busy i hope to start updating soon none my stories are being stopped please bare with me.

am not dead but the amount of pain i been in some days wished i was

OBITUARY FOR THE LATE MR. COMMON SENSE

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.

He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as: Knowing when to come in out of the rain; why the early bird gets the worm; Life isn't always fair; and Maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge). His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6 year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get Parental consent to administer Calpol, sun lotion or a band-aid to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband; churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason.

He is survived by his 3 stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, Someone Else Is To Blame, and I'm A Victim. Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing.

RIP We shall remember.

I have some bits of story on tape/phone i had a offer for help from person who was blind and used a speech program but have lost his addy. I wonder if i they can get back in touch with me so i can send them what i have recorded. thanks