Britney Spears DUI last night

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope all the "Free Britney" people are happy.

If this is how she is without the conservatorship then clearly she should have been getting intensive mental health care during the conservatorship and not performing in Vegas.

But the Free Britney people pointed to her successful Vegas residency as evidence of her solid mental health. Surely she didnt need to be under conservatorship when she was thriving and performing. They were the ones buying tickets.

Mentally ill people can still dance and perform with guidance.

Agreed, but they should not be forced to do it against their will.

Maybe she wasn't. Maybe she said she wanted to perform, then changed her mind but had to carry through on the contract. She's impulsive, of perhaps not the brightest intellectually, and mentally ill. Not necessarily the best combination of truth- telling traits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope all the "Free Britney" people are happy.

If this is how she is without the conservatorship then clearly she should have been getting intensive mental health care during the conservatorship and not performing in Vegas.

But the Free Britney people pointed to her successful Vegas residency as evidence of her solid mental health. Surely she didnt need to be under conservatorship when she was thriving and performing. They were the ones buying tickets.

Mentally ill people can still dance and perform with guidance.

Agreed, but they should not be forced to do it against their will.

Maybe she wasn't. Maybe she said she wanted to perform, then changed her mind but had to carry through on the contract. She's impulsive, of perhaps not the brightest intellectually, and mentally ill. Not necessarily the best combination of truth- telling traits.

It’s pretty clear she didn’t want to perform many times when she was forced to. I didn’t even think that was a controversy is sometimes it was quite obvious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope all the "Free Britney" people are happy.

If this is how she is without the conservatorship then clearly she should have been getting intensive mental health care during the conservatorship and not performing in Vegas.

But the Free Britney people pointed to her successful Vegas residency as evidence of her solid mental health. Surely she didnt need to be under conservatorship when she was thriving and performing. They were the ones buying tickets.

Mentally ill people can still dance and perform with guidance.

Agreed, but they should not be forced to do it against their will.

Maybe she wasn't. Maybe she said she wanted to perform, then changed her mind but had to carry through on the contract. She's impulsive, of perhaps not the brightest intellectually, and mentally ill. Not necessarily the best combination of truth- telling traits.

It’s pretty clear she didn’t want to perform many times when she was forced to. I didn’t even think that was a controversy is sometimes it was quite obvious.

She sure loves to "perform" on Instagram.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It just seems like there is not a single person in her life that really cares about her. If she had any sort of real support network maybe she could move out of the spotlight and get sober and on a good medication regime. But when everyone around you just wants to exploit your celebrity, that seems basically impossible. It’s really sad her parents weren’t there for her — maybe that wouldn’t have been enough (see Nick Reiner whose parents were great) but at least she would have had a shot.

This is so sad to read but I think you're right, PP.

I have to agree with this sad sentiment.

Her parents sadly seem incapable of loving her properly.

She’s almost 50 years old and Britney fans are still blaming Britney’s parents, the paparazzi, Kevin Federline, or Justin Timberlake for all her problems.

She deserves to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law if she’s committing DUI’s and endangering the lives of others on the road. Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan had to learn the hard way. Britney is not exempt either

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope all the "Free Britney" people are happy.

If this is how she is without the conservatorship then clearly she should have been getting intensive mental health care during the conservatorship and not performing in Vegas.

But the Free Britney people pointed to her successful Vegas residency as evidence of her solid mental health. Surely she didnt need to be under conservatorship when she was thriving and performing. They were the ones buying tickets.

Mentally ill people can still dance and perform with guidance.

Agreed, but they should not be forced to do it against their will.

Maybe she wasn't. Maybe she said she wanted to perform, then changed her mind but had to carry through on the contract. She's impulsive, of perhaps not the brightest intellectually, and mentally ill. Not necessarily the best combination of truth- telling traits.

It’s pretty clear she didn’t want to perform many times when she was forced to. I didn’t even think that was a controversy is sometimes it was quite obvious.

I agree and I think this was truly sinster on their part. If she had so many people on her payroll that she needed the money then they should've downsized. If she is so impulsive then she shouldn't be involved in projects with such strict contracts. They did not have her best interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope all the "Free Britney" people are happy.

If this is how she is without the conservatorship then clearly she should have been getting intensive mental health care during the conservatorship and not performing in Vegas.

But the Free Britney people pointed to her successful Vegas residency as evidence of her solid mental health. Surely she didnt need to be under conservatorship when she was thriving and performing. They were the ones buying tickets.

Mentally ill people can still dance and perform with guidance.

Agreed, but they should not be forced to do it against their will.

Maybe she wasn't. Maybe she said she wanted to perform, then changed her mind but had to carry through on the contract. She's impulsive, of perhaps not the brightest intellectually, and mentally ill. Not necessarily the best combination of truth- telling traits.

It’s pretty clear she didn’t want to perform many times when she was forced to. I didn’t even think that was a controversy is sometimes it was quite obvious.

She seems like a difficult, headstrong person to rein in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope all the "Free Britney" people are happy.

If this is how she is without the conservatorship then clearly she should have been getting intensive mental health care during the conservatorship and not performing in Vegas.

But the Free Britney people pointed to her successful Vegas residency as evidence of her solid mental health. Surely she didnt need to be under conservatorship when she was thriving and performing. They were the ones buying tickets.

Mentally ill people can still dance and perform with guidance.

Agreed, but they should not be forced to do it against their will.

Maybe she wasn't. Maybe she said she wanted to perform, then changed her mind but had to carry through on the contract. She's impulsive, of perhaps not the brightest intellectually, and mentally ill. Not necessarily the best combination of truth- telling traits.

It’s pretty clear she didn’t want to perform many times when she was forced to. I didn’t even think that was a controversy is sometimes it was quite obvious.

She seems like a difficult, headstrong person to rein in.

Yeah. I'm sure it was a real fun day when she had to be held down and get that IUD forced into her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope all the "Free Britney" people are happy.

If this is how she is without the conservatorship then clearly she should have been getting intensive mental health care during the conservatorship and not performing in Vegas.

But the Free Britney people pointed to her successful Vegas residency as evidence of her solid mental health. Surely she didnt need to be under conservatorship when she was thriving and performing. They were the ones buying tickets.

Mentally ill people can still dance and perform with guidance.

Agreed, but they should not be forced to do it against their will.

Maybe she wasn't. Maybe she said she wanted to perform, then changed her mind but had to carry through on the contract. She's impulsive, of perhaps not the brightest intellectually, and mentally ill. Not necessarily the best combination of truth- telling traits.

It’s pretty clear she didn’t want to perform many times when she was forced to. I didn’t even think that was a controversy is sometimes it was quite obvious.

She seems like a difficult, headstrong person to rein in.

Yeah. I'm sure it was a real fun day when she had to be held down and get that IUD forced into her.

She was heavily drugged for many years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope all the "Free Britney" people are happy.

If this is how she is without the conservatorship then clearly she should have been getting intensive mental health care during the conservatorship and not performing in Vegas.

But the Free Britney people pointed to her successful Vegas residency as evidence of her solid mental health. Surely she didnt need to be under conservatorship when she was thriving and performing. They were the ones buying tickets.

Mentally ill people can still dance and perform with guidance.

Agreed, but they should not be forced to do it against their will.

Maybe she wasn't. Maybe she said she wanted to perform, then changed her mind but had to carry through on the contract. She's impulsive, of perhaps not the brightest intellectually, and mentally ill. Not necessarily the best combination of truth- telling traits.

It’s pretty clear she didn’t want to perform many times when she was forced to. I didn’t even think that was a controversy is sometimes it was quite obvious.

She seems like a difficult, headstrong person to rein in.

Then people who are better equipped with handling the mentally ill should've been in charge

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope all the "Free Britney" people are happy.

If this is how she is without the conservatorship then clearly she should have been getting intensive mental health care during the conservatorship and not performing in Vegas.

But the Free Britney people pointed to her successful Vegas residency as evidence of her solid mental health. Surely she didnt need to be under conservatorship when she was thriving and performing. They were the ones buying tickets.

Mentally ill people can still dance and perform with guidance.

Agreed, but they should not be forced to do it against their will.

Maybe she wasn't. Maybe she said she wanted to perform, then changed her mind but had to carry through on the contract. She's impulsive, of perhaps not the brightest intellectually, and mentally ill. Not necessarily the best combination of truth- telling traits.

It’s pretty clear she didn’t want to perform many times when she was forced to. I didn’t even think that was a controversy is sometimes it was quite obvious.

She seems like a difficult, headstrong person to rein in.

Then people who are better equipped with handling the mentally ill should've been in charge

Exactly. The dad was getting paid something like $12,000 a month to manage the conservatorship, and he still kept asking for and receiving more money. These people weren't interested in Britney's well being beyond ensuring she was their cash cow. I don't know what judge allowed this- it's crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope all the "Free Britney" people are happy.

If this is how she is without the conservatorship then clearly she should have been getting intensive mental health care during the conservatorship and not performing in Vegas.

But the Free Britney people pointed to her successful Vegas residency as evidence of her solid mental health. Surely she didnt need to be under conservatorship when she was thriving and performing. They were the ones buying tickets.

Mentally ill people can still dance and perform with guidance.

Agreed, but they should not be forced to do it against their will.

Maybe she wasn't. Maybe she said she wanted to perform, then changed her mind but had to carry through on the contract. She's impulsive, of perhaps not the brightest intellectually, and mentally ill. Not necessarily the best combination of truth- telling traits.

It’s pretty clear she didn’t want to perform many times when she was forced to. I didn’t even think that was a controversy is sometimes it was quite obvious.

She seems like a difficult, headstrong person to rein in.

Then people who are better equipped with handling the mentally ill should've been in charge

If you don't, be very, very thankful you're not responsible for the safety and well-being of a severely mentally ill person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope all the "Free Britney" people are happy.

If this is how she is without the conservatorship then clearly she should have been getting intensive mental health care during the conservatorship and not performing in Vegas.

But the Free Britney people pointed to her successful Vegas residency as evidence of her solid mental health. Surely she didnt need to be under conservatorship when she was thriving and performing. They were the ones buying tickets.

Mentally ill people can still dance and perform with guidance.

Agreed, but they should not be forced to do it against their will.

Maybe she wasn't. Maybe she said she wanted to perform, then changed her mind but had to carry through on the contract. She's impulsive, of perhaps not the brightest intellectually, and mentally ill. Not necessarily the best combination of truth- telling traits.

It’s pretty clear she didn’t want to perform many times when she was forced to. I didn’t even think that was a controversy is sometimes it was quite obvious.

She seems like a difficult, headstrong person to rein in.

Then people who are better equipped with handling the mentally ill should've been in charge

If you don't, be very, very thankful you're not responsible for the safety and well-being of a severely mentally ill person.

DP. If I'm responsible for someone who needs a presictable sleep and meal routine (which is common for bipolar patients), I sure won't send them on a worldwide tour after a grueling multi-year Las Vegas residency.

These people were NOT looking out for her. I have to question what kinds of doctors were willing to treat her under these circumstances. She seems like she has a severe mental illness and a very low IQ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope all the "Free Britney" people are happy.

If this is how she is without the conservatorship then clearly she should have been getting intensive mental health care during the conservatorship and not performing in Vegas.

But the Free Britney people pointed to her successful Vegas residency as evidence of her solid mental health. Surely she didnt need to be under conservatorship when she was thriving and performing. They were the ones buying tickets.

Mentally ill people can still dance and perform with guidance.

Agreed, but they should not be forced to do it against their will.

Maybe she wasn't. Maybe she said she wanted to perform, then changed her mind but had to carry through on the contract. She's impulsive, of perhaps not the brightest intellectually, and mentally ill. Not necessarily the best combination of truth- telling traits.

It’s pretty clear she didn’t want to perform many times when she was forced to. I didn’t even think that was a controversy is sometimes it was quite obvious.

She seems like a difficult, headstrong person to rein in.

Then people who are better equipped with handling the mentally ill should've been in charge

If you don't, be very, very thankful you're not responsible for the safety and well-being of a severely mentally ill person.

DP. If I'm responsible for someone who needs a presictable sleep and meal routine (which is common for bipolar patients), I sure won't send them on a worldwide tour after a grueling multi-year Las Vegas residency.

These people were NOT looking out for her. I have to question what kinds of doctors were willing to treat her under these circumstances. She seems like she has a severe mental illness and a very low IQ.

+1 How can you be so mentally ill that you require a conservatorship for years yet be forced to performed at a professional level such that people pay hundreds of dollars each to see you? It doesn't compute.

Kanye West is bipolar and has done tons of crazy things and no one put him under conservatorship. Seems to only happen to women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope all the "Free Britney" people are happy.

If this is how she is without the conservatorship then clearly she should have been getting intensive mental health care during the conservatorship and not performing in Vegas.

But the Free Britney people pointed to her successful Vegas residency as evidence of her solid mental health. Surely she didnt need to be under conservatorship when she was thriving and performing. They were the ones buying tickets.

Mentally ill people can still dance and perform with guidance.

Agreed, but they should not be forced to do it against their will.

Maybe she wasn't. Maybe she said she wanted to perform, then changed her mind but had to carry through on the contract. She's impulsive, of perhaps not the brightest intellectually, and mentally ill. Not necessarily the best combination of truth- telling traits.

She wrote her autobiography. You can read it. She said she didn't want to perform and was forced to by people who made her have an IUD and controlled what she ate, limited her spending and monitored her phone calls and emails and social contacts. That's a pretty major violation of human rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope all the "Free Britney" people are happy.

If this is how she is without the conservatorship then clearly she should have been getting intensive mental health care during the conservatorship and not performing in Vegas.

But the Free Britney people pointed to her successful Vegas residency as evidence of her solid mental health. Surely she didnt need to be under conservatorship when she was thriving and performing. They were the ones buying tickets.

Mentally ill people can still dance and perform with guidance.

Agreed, but they should not be forced to do it against their will.

Maybe she wasn't. Maybe she said she wanted to perform, then changed her mind but had to carry through on the contract. She's impulsive, of perhaps not the brightest intellectually, and mentally ill. Not necessarily the best combination of truth- telling traits.

She wrote her autobiography. You can read it. She said she didn't want to perform and was forced to by people who made her have an IUD and controlled what she ate, limited her spending and monitored her phone calls and emails and social contacts. That's a pretty major violation of human rights.

If you think she's the first mentally ill or disabled person to have her guardian/conservator/parent/government persuade/force/strong arm into birth control, boy are you naive.

I was born in 1974 in Virginia and have a genetic chronic illness/physical disability. Four different doctors (in Virginia, DC and Boston) all tried to convince my parents to sterilize me AS A CHILD, and two threatened to report my parents to CPS (or whatever it is called) as an unfit parent for saying no. Eugenics still happens today, it's just not talked about or people use fancy language to describe it.