Framing Britney Spears

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was so sad to me. The way that she was absolutely destroyed by the tabloids. I remember when all of that happened, of course, but I was so judgmental myself. It seems so wrong that she can't get an independent conservator.

Agreed. I wasn’t ever really invested in what was going on with her but looking back I feel like no one was defending her.

Including me.

But I do think now, she deserves some kind of independence. Perhaps just putting the majority of her money in a trust and preventing her current boyfriend from raiding it would be acceptable to let her be free of her dad.

+1

Same here. She made that money, I bet her dad is siphoning every bit that he can get his hands on. I have seen this happen in families, where one offspring claims to be "helping" the senior parent - but really all they are doing is siphoning money. And with much less than Britney has! Awful.

[Anonymous]

Well it looks like the conservatorship was all about covering up financial crimes by members of brits family. Her uncle, father, brother (and possibly many others in her various “teams”) were involved in some type of tax fraud. The push to have her work from 2008-2018 was to help pay back millions in back taxes owed by money mismanagement. So sad.

[Anonymous]

For those newly interested in #FreeBritney, watch the Black Mirror Episode Rachel, Jack and Ashely Too (season 5) starring Miley Cyrus. It's about Britney.

[Anonymous]

Just finished and found it super sad. As someone watching it unravel in real time years ago, I always thought Kevin Federline was her undoing. He made her feel safe, like she could be herself (look at the way she started acting) and then would devalue her, ignore and degrade her. (The night she attacked paparazzi he wouldn’t answer or come to the door) That was probably pretty traumatizing for someone who desperately wanted to be loved and obviously already had unhealed childhood wounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems like folks posting here are largely ignorant of the very strong legal protections for persons with mental illness and other incapacities under California law especially.

There is simply no way that a conservatorship would remain in place after such a length of time absent substantial clinical evidence, provided to the court by medical professionals, that she is incompetent to manage her own affairs. The court would not insist on keeping her father in place as conservator if there was any credible evidence he’s abused that position (conservators must provide very detailed reports to the court on a regular basis, at least annually if not more often), and the fact that the court has reaffirmed him as conservator repeatedly despite her efforts to have him removed rather suggests that her objections to him are viewed by the court as stemming not from any substantive failure on his part to carry out the duties properly, but is rather likely rooted in her incapacity.

For those who argue she can’t be incompetent and carry on her career as she is - please remember she is in the one industry in the world where a talented person can carry on working despite serious incapacity, because outrageous behavior is tolerated and most artists have an entourage of individuals buffering them in their interactions with the real world. She just has to show up, dance and sing.

Having a fair bit of experience in the field of law at issue, I have zero concern that she isn’t being protected by the system. The very fact that movies like this are out, and a whole fan movement, and her repeated opportunities to challenge aspects of the conservatorship in court, all points to her being free to speak out without fear.

I can guess at what her diagnoses are, but certainly they are not inconsequential by any means. I wish her healing and am deeply sorry for her that so many people who consider themselves her fans that care about her are actually feeding into her paranoia and fueling her disease with the whole ‘free Brittney’ thing.

I’m sorry, but having watched two judges let alleged insurrectionists go on vacation internationally while they’re out on bail, I don’t have quite the same faith in the legal system that you have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like folks posting here are largely ignorant of the very strong legal protections for persons with mental illness and other incapacities under California law especially.

There is simply no way that a conservatorship would remain in place after such a length of time absent substantial clinical evidence, provided to the court by medical professionals, that she is incompetent to manage her own affairs. The court would not insist on keeping her father in place as conservator if there was any credible evidence he’s abused that position (conservators must provide very detailed reports to the court on a regular basis, at least annually if not more often), and the fact that the court has reaffirmed him as conservator repeatedly despite her efforts to have him removed rather suggests that her objections to him are viewed by the court as stemming not from any substantive failure on his part to carry out the duties properly, but is rather likely rooted in her incapacity.

For those who argue she can’t be incompetent and carry on her career as she is - please remember she is in the one industry in the world where a talented person can carry on working despite serious incapacity, because outrageous behavior is tolerated and most artists have an entourage of individuals buffering them in their interactions with the real world. She just has to show up, dance and sing.

Having a fair bit of experience in the field of law at issue, I have zero concern that she isn’t being protected by the system. The very fact that movies like this are out, and a whole fan movement, and her repeated opportunities to challenge aspects of the conservatorship in court, all points to her being free to speak out without fear.

I can guess at what her diagnoses are, but certainly they are not inconsequential by any means. I wish her healing and am deeply sorry for her that so many people who consider themselves her fans that care about her are actually feeding into her paranoia and fueling her disease with the whole ‘free Brittney’ thing.

I’m sorry, but having watched two judges let alleged insurrectionists go on vacation internationally while they’re out on bail, I don’t have quite the same faith in the legal system that you have.

YES!

[Anonymous]

That’s silly whataboutism. Complain to your elected officials that there isn’t a federal domestic terrorism law that they can be charged with. They are most of them charged with misdemeanors and allowing work related travel while on conditions of release prior to trial and while the presumption of innocence attaches is actually proof that the courts ARE working. The judges are being impartial and applying the law regarding bailable offenses as intended.

<rolling eyes>

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like folks posting here are largely ignorant of the very strong legal protections for persons with mental illness and other incapacities under California law especially.

There is simply no way that a conservatorship would remain in place after such a length of time absent substantial clinical evidence, provided to the court by medical professionals, that she is incompetent to manage her own affairs. The court would not insist on keeping her father in place as conservator if there was any credible evidence he’s abused that position (conservators must provide very detailed reports to the court on a regular basis, at least annually if not more often), and the fact that the court has reaffirmed him as conservator repeatedly despite her efforts to have him removed rather suggests that her objections to him are viewed by the court as stemming not from any substantive failure on his part to carry out the duties properly, but is rather likely rooted in her incapacity.

For those who argue she can’t be incompetent and carry on her career as she is - please remember she is in the one industry in the world where a talented person can carry on working despite serious incapacity, because outrageous behavior is tolerated and most artists have an entourage of individuals buffering them in their interactions with the real world. She just has to show up, dance and sing.

Having a fair bit of experience in the field of law at issue, I have zero concern that she isn’t being protected by the system. The very fact that movies like this are out, and a whole fan movement, and her repeated opportunities to challenge aspects of the conservatorship in court, all points to her being free to speak out without fear.

I can guess at what her diagnoses are, but certainly they are not inconsequential by any means. I wish her healing and am deeply sorry for her that so many people who consider themselves her fans that care about her are actually feeding into her paranoia and fueling her disease with the whole ‘free Brittney’ thing.

I’m sorry, but having watched two judges let alleged insurrectionists go on vacation internationally while they’re out on bail, I don’t have quite the same faith in the legal system that you have.

+1.

Pp sounds naive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That’s silly whataboutism. Complain to your elected officials that there isn’t a federal domestic terrorism law that they can be charged with. They are most of them charged with misdemeanors and allowing work related travel while on conditions of release prior to trial and while the presumption of innocence attaches is actually proof that the courts ARE working. The judges are being impartial and applying the law regarding bailable offenses as intended.

<rolling eyes>

It’s pretty clear you cannot bring logic into this thread.

[Anonymous]

I have a relative who is an experienced psychiatrist and thinks its pretty suspect and whack

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with Britney? What kind of mental illness does she have and is there proof of it?

I had not thought much of Britney for a long while. (I am 49 years old myself, and so I recall when she was really young and such a super star.)

Fast forward to last year. I was reading something online, and it referred to a strange video by Britney on her Instagram. I checked it out and was completely shocked. First, she had aged so so much since I had last seen her. Granted, we all aged but she looked pretty bad for her age. Second, she was acting in a completely strange way in the video. Then I noticed that she has tons of video on her Instagram of her just dancing (the same moves) in her house. I felt so bad for her, and how far she had fallen from her teenage days when she was on top of the world.

I think it's a lesson to avoid fame. It's fine to get rich, but probably best to do in a career other than show business. It seems like it's brutal what the fame does to people.

[Anonymous]

She wasn’t just relevant in her teenage years. She has one of the most successful Vegas shows of all time. My guess is that she didn’t always have mental health issues, but a series of events as the paparazzi hounds, her dad, being trashed by late night hosts etc, people can only take so much before any of us would need mental help at that point

[Anonymous]

A friend of mine who works in celebrity media/publicity etc in LA says the dad is awful, as in, worse than Lohan.

[Anonymous]

I think we’ve entered Michael Jackson territory. People want to free Britney but with that freedom will come predatory press which can she truly handle?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think we’ve entered Michael Jackson territory. People want to free Britney but with that freedom will come predatory press which can she truly handle?

She is an adult. She can waste her money and make stupid decisions like so many other adults, as long as she’s not a danger to herself or others. SHE can decide whether putting up with the press is worth it. We’re not talking about a 16 year old who is looking to be emancipated.