Alecto and Amycus

they should be added. they were head of Discipline durng 1997-1998 while Voldemort owned the British Wizarding World. it should list everythng they did as Head of Discipline. eg: Use illegal curses. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by YaxleySnape (talkcontribs).

I mentioned them under the "Other forms of discipline" section that I created, but I presume you mean in the "In charge of discipline" section? ProfessorTofty 03:57, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

Albus Dumbledore allowed corporal punishment too.

  "Your father and I had been for a nighttime stroll," she said. "He got caught by Apollyon Pringle - he was the caretaker in those days - your father's still got the marks."

 Okay, so now we know that Mr. Filch's predecessor was allowed to cane students. However, this is what I noticed: He worked at Hogwarts during the sixties, but Dumbledore succeeded Dippet as Headmaster in 1956. So this is what I think is the case:

Corporal punishment were an accepted practice at Hogwarts and had been acceptable for centuries. When Dumbledore took over, he tried to abolish it, but he was opposed by the Board of Governors for some reason, whether it was because they saw it as effective and would find it illogical to have it removed or something else. However, in around 1973, he finally came through because of the employment of Argus Filch. One can easily imagine that prejudice towards people of his birth would have created an opening for this suggestion when parents everywhere refused to have 'a squib lay a hand on my children'.

Of course, this is only a assumption, but as I see it, it is also the only logical conclusion as to why Pringle was allowed to cane Arthur Weasley when just shaking a student hard was enough to make Dumbledore loose his temper and draw his wand at Umbridge. Simen Johannes Fagerli (talk) 11:52, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

Well, no LEA banned corporal punishment altogether until 1979/80, when three Labour-controlled outer London boroughs took the abolitionist plunge, followed more famously in 1981 by the huge, Labour-controlled Inner London Education Authority (ILEA), which covered 12 London boroughs, a population of nearly 3 million, and getting on for 1,000 schools. The ILEA had already banned CP in primary schools with effect from 1973. (Retrieved from here). So, it may be that, with the outlawing of it in the Muggle World, they had to get rid of it in the Wizarding School. Imagine if a Muggle, who was friends with a wizard (but didn't know they were a wizard), saw the caning and reported it? That would be illegal and Hogwarts would be in trouble as it would, indirectly, be breaking the statute of secrecy with it. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 16:12, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

How would a Muggle know about what kind of discipline is dealt out on Hogwarts? And in any case, wizarding parents can simply either confund the police or held them preoccupied until a Ministry Obliviator knocks on the door before they send him/them on their way. Simen Johannes Fagerli (talk) 19:04, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

I have to admit, I also find it unlikely that a Muggle law would make wizards change a whole, thousand-year-old system in a hidden school in the highlands. All the same, this entire discussion is speculation on part, as there is little to no canonical statement of cold, hard fact supporting any conclusion drawn here. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 19:13, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
I disagree to some extent, Hunnie Bunn. The canonical evidence of my theory lies in the fact that Dumbledore as Headmaster of Hogwarts abolished the use of corporal punishment and were a firm opposer of the practice, yet it was not until the employment of Argus Filch more than fifteen years later that he came through. The Ministry of Magic does not have any authority to expel students from the school without futher ado, while a Headmaster in theory could hand out a punishment like he saw fitting any said crime. My point is, that if the Ministry cannot expel students before a certain crietia is met, then they are unlikely to have the authority to influence internal affairs in the institution. The Headmaster, as school administrator and responsible for the day to day running of the school, has much more of a say in the matter. Therefore, it stands to reason that while the Headmaster has the final word on a number of things, the only thing that could possibly stop him from abolishing certain traditions would be - the Board of Governors, who has the final word in the running of the school as a whole, and have the authority to even remove the current Headmaster and appoint a new one as they see fit, as their point of view counts for more than anyone elses in the world of institutional academics in the British wizarding society. It is certain facts within our canonical fountain of knowledge which support my theory, be it speculation or not. Simen Johannes Fagerli (talk) 20:50, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
It certainly is odd, and the banishment of corporal punishment would strike anyone as one of Dumbledore's top priorities when he rose to Headmastership. I see three possibilities: an inconsistency on Rowling's behalf (i.e. while writing Goblet of Fire she reckoned Filch had been working at the school for as long as Dumbledore was Head, and therefore a predecessor of Filch's would answer to Professor Dippet, but then changed her mind by the time she wrote Deathly Hallows); that, as Simen is arguing, Dumbledore simply didn't have enough power to ban corporal punishment straightaway, be it the Board of Governor's doing, or the parents', or other; or that corporal punishment was actually already banned during Apollyon Pringle's time, and Pringle was just nasty enough to override Dumbledore's orders and punish the students as he saw fit without Dumbledore's knowledge (a la Umbridge and her Black Quill). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:47, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
I didn't even think about that. Fair point, really. However, Dolores Umbridge were a high-ranking official of a corrupt government, while Pringle were but a low-ranking member of a school staff. Something tells me he would risk more if he disobayed Dumbledore than Umbridge would have. Simen Johannes Fagerli (talk) 12:05, February 10, 2015 (UTC)