How would you feel if Britney was free but then had a downward spiral?

[wukemon]

Why is the burden on Britney to prove that she doesn’t need a conservatorship when she did absolutely nothing to deserve being completely stripped of her rights in the first place? ******* unfair.

[MyAccountGotBanned]

2 hours ago, Hooked-On-Knee said:

I- what? Just cause she doesn't use the performing skills she used to have in her performances anymore doesn't mean she doesn't deserve to be free from the conservatorship 

Yes I agree. I just hate when fans talk **** about her performances . So I was calling out the hypocrisy of some fans ... they want her to be free so they can pretty much own her to be the Britney they want . I hope when and if she does come back she is no longer expected to have to compete with her 18 yr old self

[PrettyGorl]

2 hours ago, Jordan Miller said:

Almost nobody is upset about this conversation being discussed. The overwhelming majority of people think Britney will thrive. I agree with them. It’s ok to talk about topics that are uncomfortable. This situation is complex and thus complex topics like this one are created.

I hear you, but I don’t need reminding about being mentally I’ll and conservatorships. I’ve been saying this is unjust for 12 years.

Let’s agree to disagree. 🙏

My friend who doesn’t even use exhale texted me about this thread you tweeted. He was upset about it and said all the tweets were upset at the question you posed. I know you’re on Britney’s side but I don’t think this thread was a good use of time, especially tweeting it.

[Steel Magnolia]

1 hour ago, wukemon said:

Why is the burden on Britney to prove that she doesn’t need a conservatorship when she did absolutely nothing to deserve being completely stripped of her rights in the first place? ******* unfair.

I've been one of the most vocal opponents of the conservatorship on this board going back to 2008.

However...

Even I wouldn't claim that the conservatorship was unjustified.

It was needed...when it was temporary.

It was only when it became permanent that it became a problem.

[Jordan Miller]

2 minutes ago, PrettyGorl said:

My friend who doesn’t even use exhale texted me about this thread you tweeted. He was upset about it and said all the tweets were upset at the question you posed. I know you’re on Britney’s side but I don’t think this thread was a good use of time, especially tweeting it.

I’m sorry that that put you in a difficult position. At this point no matter what I say or do some people tend to be outraged. I think this topic created by another Exhaler was worth discussing. If people on social media disagree, which they often do, I can understand that and to some extent agree.

[The Greatest Show]

It depends on what kind of breakdown she has. If she just has a couple of bad months where she drinks to much and then snaps out of it then thats fine and normal. If she gets to a point where Im worried that she might kill herself (accidentally or not) then I would feel like ****.  That being said she deserves to have a shot. I think at bare minimun they can dissolve the Cship like it started. First make it temporary and after a year make it permanent. Surely if she is so bad that she needs constant supervision then she wont make it to a year without issues.

[PokemonSpears]

22 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

I've been one of the most vocal opponents of the conservatorship on this board going back to 2008.

However...

Even I wouldn't claim that the conservatorship was unjustified.

It was needed...when it was temporary.

It was only when it became permanent that it became a problem.

No, there are actually other ways, even other legal resources that aren't as extreme as a conservatorship, that they didn't even try. They went straight to the most extreme of them all. And even when it was temporary, the deadline was almost year.

 

And ultimately, did SHE really need it? I mean, of course everyone that loves her, her family, her friends, her fans, we all want the best for her, and want her to be good, happy, healthy. No one wants something bad happening to her, but did she ever get to that point? As far as we know, she never attempted anything against her life (like maaaany other celebrities) nor put the lives of others at risk either. Her biggest crime was locking herself in the bathroom with her kid, which not only was a one time incident, but didn't really put his life at risk at all. She hadn't consumed any substance, and was released from the 5150 before even meeting the 72 hrs of examination, because they didn't find anything wrong with her. And if any, the biggest punishment that she should've received because of that was just losing any visitation rights that were left to see her kids.

But going to my question from before. Does SHE need to be "taken care of"? Again, as much as her family, friends and fans want her to do good, and live forever, it's just unrealistic to pretend that nothing bad will ever happen to a person, be Britney or anyone else. You just can't take over someone's life just because YOU don't want anything bad happening to them. As cold as it sounds, you may try to help all you want, but you get to a point where you just have to let the other person take their own decisions and make their own mistakes, even if they end up being fatal (which again, there isn't enough evidence to conclude that Britney was on the verge of that). Because that's life. You can protect the life of innocent people that you're responsible of, like her kids, as long as they're underage, and even them, I don't think they live under as many restrictions as she does. I really doubt their classmates have to sign a NDA to spend time with them, for instance. But if conservatorships, even temporary ones, were the only solution, every parent that worries about their kids in this world (or at least in the US) would put their children under conservatorships after the first mistake in life that they make. But that's just insane.

 

[Britisahuman]

17 hours ago, nwonder said:

Thank god it wasn’t daddy Jamie 

 

 

He looks like an alcoholic and everything but healthy 

[Blackout2006]

13 hours ago, Lukas1896 said:

since 2010 (a.k.a. THE BEGINNING OF THE CONSERVATORSHIP)

Fixed** 

[Body ache]

Then she's human. She's allowed to be human. 

[ConceptD]

21 hours ago, MathCarmignani said:

if she needs the c-ship for real it's ABOUT TIME her team prove it to us. I mean, I get it, it's personal and they owe us nothing, BUT if the c-ship is necessary and the #Freebritney movement is doing more harm than good to the c-ship and her well being, also taking in consideration it is really a public interest matter because the movement got organically so big and she is freaking Britney Spears, isn't it like passing the time they calm our hearts and prove they are taking care of her or that she actually can't live by herself?

Until they prove it's necessary i don't think for a split second she would have another breakdown if free. Not. At. All. 

Actually yes they do owe us something. If they want us to keep financially supporting them and keep purchasing her music we need to know just how "impaired" she is because I'm not comfortable supporting 1) a vegetable in a **** costume pushed out on stage or 2) a fully capable woman being used and manipulated through a conservatorship designed for people that can't even function on the most basic level. 

They need to make it make sense. 

[MintChocoLatte]

Honestly, it doesn’t matter how I would feel. I’d be devastated of course, but my feelings do not matter at all in this debate. Her right to freedom shouldn’t depend on a mere possibility that her team already abuses to scare people into believing Britney can’t be on her own, which is bs. Her team justifies this cship on (made up) concerns, completely disregarding what Britney actually wants. I’m not going to hop on that train and put my fears over Britney’s rights to happiness and freedom. 

[HearMeOnYourRadio]

This topic seems very reminiscent of 2007-2008. People like to think we are so much more accepting of people who may have differences, or understanding of systemic problems, but their comfort level keeps them from moving forward. 
 

I have been a Britney fan my whole life, but this is bigger than her. If everything that has been dug up about this conservatorship is true then it is corrupt and a violation of someone’s civil rights. It’s completely wrong to use a worst case scenario to argue why someone doesn’t deserve autonomy.

 

 

[Steel Magnolia]

7 hours ago, PokemonSpears said:

No, there are actually other ways, even other legal resources that aren't as extreme as a conservatorship, that they didn't even try. They went straight to the most extreme of them all. And even when it was temporary, the deadline was almost year.

 

And ultimately, did SHE really need it? I mean, of course everyone that loves her, her family, her friends, her fans, we all want the best for her, and want her to be good, happy, healthy. No one wants something bad happening to her, but did she ever get to that point? As far as we know, she never attempted anything against her life (like maaaany other celebrities) nor put the lives of others at risk either. Her biggest crime was locking herself in the bathroom with her kid, which not only was a one time incident, but didn't really put his life at risk at all. She hadn't consumed any substance, and was released from the 5150 before even meeting the 72 hrs of examination, because they didn't find anything wrong with her. And if any, the biggest punishment that she should've received because of that was just losing any visitation rights that were left to see her kids.

But going to my question from before. Does SHE need to be "taken care of"? Again, as much as her family, friends and fans want her to do good, and live forever, it's just unrealistic to pretend that nothing bad will ever happen to a person, be Britney or anyone else. You just can't take over someone's life just because YOU don't want anything bad happening to them. As cold as it sounds, you may try to help all you want, but you get to a point where you just have to let the other person take their own decisions and make their own mistakes, even if they end up being fatal (which again, there isn't enough evidence to conclude that Britney was on the verge of that). Because that's life. You can protect the life of innocent people that you're responsible of, like her kids, as long as they're underage, and even them, I don't think they live under as many restrictions as she does. I really doubt their classmates have to sign a NDA to spend time with them, for instance. But if conservatorships, even temporary ones, were the only solution, every parent that worries about their kids in this world (or at least in the US) would put their children under conservatorships after the first mistake in life that they make. But that's just insane.

 

I agree with this...in theory.

But at the time, she had lost all rights to her children. She had been deemed a "frequent and habitual user of *****" by the court. She was spiralling and Lutfi was attempting to move in and get his hands on her fortune.

As much as I despise the permanent conservatorship, at the time in 2007 (and I put emphasis on AT THE TIME) it was a relief to see her father step in and provide some structure and stability before something horrible happened. 

But my support of Jamie ended the moment the conservatorship became permanent. That was the moment he truly showed his cards.

[PokemonSpears]

1 hour ago, Steel Magnolia said:

I agree with this...in theory.

But at the time, she had lost all rights to her children. She had been deemed a "frequent and habitual user of *****" by the court. She was spiralling and Lutfi was attempting to move in and get his hands on her fortune.

As much as I despise the permanent conservatorship, at the time in 2007 (and I put emphasis on AT THE TIME) it was a relief to see her father step in and provide some structure and stability before something horrible happened. 

But my support of Jamie ended the moment the conservatorship became permanent. That was the moment he truly showed his cards.

Still, again, as bad as it sounds, if it was her decision to overdose or spend her fortune on *****, that was for her to decide that. Take away her kids or anyone that can be harmed, try to take her to rehab or talk her out of it, but if it doesn't work, that wasn't really nobody else's problem. Again, you don't see every "frequent user of *****" being placed under a conservatorship, that is not what they're for.

Sam Lutfi's problem gets resolved with the restraining order. The conservatorship wasn't needed. 

If they really wanted to help her, the temporary conservatorship shouldn't have been longer than days, just enough time to take her to rehab or checked at the hospital or whatever, then you give them their rights back. Conservatorships aren't made to prevent things, or to protect someone from bad people. They can argue anything, that she was addict, alcoholic, schizophrenic, bipolar, none of those things justify the conservatorship.

And in the worst case that the conservatorship was needed, why did they did everything wrong, like not notifying her beforehand about the cship to let her hire a lawyer and fight back? If they were so sure that she needed it, why were they afraid that she might prove that she wasn't actually in need of it? How could someone that's so affected possibly prove that they don't need a cship? And most importantly, why her father as the conservator, of all people, when they didn't have a good relationship, she didn't even want him at her house. The conservator should've been someone she really trusted.

And what structure and stability did they really provide, sending her to work on How I Met Your Mother in less than a month after the cship was placed? I'd love to hear which therapist or doctor or psychiatrist or whatever recommended work as the cure for someone that's been deemed unable to handle the most basic things in her life.

[Itscuzim31]

It would prove to me that that conservatorship was a massive failure. In 12 years you should have put her in a position that she would be able to thrive on her own. Building her back to up take the reigns of her own life and be a responsible mother for her children. With the endless resources they have if she fails then they’ve failed.. unless their only goal was to **** her up and milk her for everything in that case.. jail them. 

[Steel Magnolia]

4 hours ago, PokemonSpears said:

Still, again, as bad as it sounds, if it was her decision to overdose or spend her fortune on *****, that was for her to decide that. Take away her kids or anyone that can be harmed, try to take her to rehab or talk her out of it, but if it doesn't work, that wasn't really nobody else's problem. Again, you don't see every "frequent user of *****" being placed under a conservatorship, that is not what they're for.

Sam Lutfi's problem gets resolved with the restraining order. The conservatorship wasn't needed. 

If they really wanted to help her, the temporary conservatorship shouldn't have been longer than days, just enough time to take her to rehab or checked at the hospital or whatever, then you give them their rights back. Conservatorships aren't made to prevent things, or to protect someone from bad people. They can argue anything, that she was addict, alcoholic, schizophrenic, bipolar, none of those things justify the conservatorship.

And in the worst case that the conservatorship was needed, why did they did everything wrong, like not notifying her beforehand about the cship to let her hire a lawyer and fight back? If they were so sure that she needed it, why were they afraid that she might prove that she wasn't actually in need of it? How could someone that's so affected possibly prove that they don't need a cship? And most importantly, why her father as the conservator, of all people, when they didn't have a good relationship, she didn't even want him at her house. The conservator should've been someone she really trusted.

And what structure and stability did they really provide, sending her to work on How I Met Your Mother in less than a month after the cship was placed? I'd love to hear which therapist or doctor or psychiatrist or whatever recommended work as the cure for someone that's been deemed unable to handle the most basic things in her life.

Just out of curiosity...

How old were you in 2007?

I'm five years older than Britney, and would consider myself a card carrying feminist. I also have a mother who has Alzheimer's. And even I would still consider a temporary conservatorship as justified back in February of 2008. I woke up every morning to check the news with a sense of dread, because I fully anticipated to hear that Britney had died overnight from either a car accident or suicide. The situation felt that dire.

She was in a very unique situation at the time, and it felt like it required a unique solution.

However...

I never saw "work" as part of the equation.

She needed to be reunited with her boys. She needed protection from the leeches around her. She needed stability.

But to this day, I don't believe that putting her back to work should have been part of that equation. It felt like she needed a break -  from the cameras, from the business, and from having any kind of expectations put on her. She needed to find herself. Unfortunately, that never happened.

And here we are, 12 years later.

[PokemonSpears]

2 minutes ago, Steel Magnolia said:

Just out of curiosity...

How old were you in 2007?

I'm five years older than Britney, and would consider myself a card carrying feminist. I also have a mother who has Alzheimer's. And even I would still consider a temporary conservatorship as justified back in February of 2008. I woke up every morning to check the news with a sense of dread, because I fully anticipated to hear that Britney had died overnight from either a car accident or suicide. The situation felt that dire.

She was in a very unique situation at the time, and it felt like it required a unique solution.

However...

I never saw "work" as part of the equation.

She needed to be reunited with her boys. She needed protection from the leeches around her. She needed stability.

But to this day, I don't believe that putting her back to work should have been part of that equation. It felt like she needed a break -  from the cameras, from the business, and from having any kind of expectations put on her. She needed to find herself. Unfortunately, that never happened.

And here we are, 12 years later.

I was 14 at the time, and I do remember seeing her on the news every day. I did fear for her, and, as probably most of the people did, I also believed the narrative that the conservatorship was the best for her at the moment. Yay, we still have our Britney, safe and sound, and she's coming back stronger than ever with her Circus era. Later I thought it was more of a ruse, or some sort of legal technicality just to protect her from lawsuits (something that wouldn't have been correct anyways) but that stopped making sense when in 2016 she was made to appear in court to face Sam Lutfi.

Btw I wonder how things would've been if she wasn't followed by paparazzi 24/7. If the media had actually left her alone, would people have the same impression of her? Would her family had worried so much about her to the point of putting her under a conservatorship? How would've the world reacted to Britney being put under a conservatorship without the preconceived image that the media gave her in the previous couple of years?

It's really difficult to tell, because we can't go back and change things to see how things would've been in a different scenario. Would've Britney shown "erratic behaviors" if she wasn't followed by dozens of paparazzi every day?

 

Yes, she might have needed help, but a conservatorship wasn't the answer, and there's no amount of love or worry that her family may have felt to justify it. And when you see how the conservatorship was placed, how they stepped over what the law says the process should be, how they tricked her into getting into that second evaluation so they could go to the court and say it was better not to tell her anything about the cship, so she couldn't fight back, and most importantly, when you really see what a conservatorship is really about, and in which cases it should be applied, you realize how they were (and still are) just basically playing with the law, using this legal resource to create their "hybrid business model".

At first the conservatorship was due to end on December 31. However it was made permanent in October, because according to Reva Goetz, Britney Spears had shown she was “susceptible to undue influence.” Why did they need so much time to get her life on track to begin with? The most they should've done was just getting her into rehab or some sort of treatment, and then let her be on her own, giving her her rights back. Work and money income wasn't even a problem for her, she had just released an album in the worst moment of her life, a new perfume had come out in early 2008, she was preparing a single at the time, I mean, what was even their plan or what were they trying to fix? They just put her to work on other things. Did they need a conservatorship for that?

 

 

[JunoLou]

[Steel Magnolia]

3 hours ago, PokemonSpears said:

I was 14 at the time, and I do remember seeing her on the news every day. I did fear for her, and, as probably most of the people did, I also believed the narrative that the conservatorship was the best for her at the moment. Yay, we still have our Britney, safe and sound, and she's coming back stronger than ever with her Circus era. Later I thought it was more of a ruse, or some sort of legal technicality just to protect her from lawsuits (something that wouldn't have been correct anyways) but that stopped making sense when in 2016 she was made to appear in court to face Sam Lutfi.

Btw I wonder how things would've been if she wasn't followed by paparazzi 24/7. If the media had actually left her alone, would people have the same impression of her? Would her family had worried so much about her to the point of putting her under a conservatorship? How would've the world reacted to Britney being put under a conservatorship without the preconceived image that the media gave her in the previous couple of years?

It's really difficult to tell, because we can't go back and change things to see how things would've been in a different scenario. Would've Britney shown "erratic behaviors" if she wasn't followed by dozens of paparazzi every day?

 

Yes, she might have needed help, but a conservatorship wasn't the answer, and there's no amount of love or worry that her family may have felt to justify it. And when you see how the conservatorship was placed, how they stepped over what the law says the process should be, how they tricked her into getting into that second evaluation so they could go to the court and say it was better not to tell her anything about the cship, so she couldn't fight back, and most importantly, when you really see what a conservatorship is really about, and in which cases it should be applied, you realize how they were (and still are) just basically playing with the law, using this legal resource to create their "hybrid business model".

At first the conservatorship was due to end on December 31. However it was made permanent in October, because according to Reva Goetz, Britney Spears had shown she was “susceptible to undue influence.” Why did they need so much time to get her life on track to begin with? The most they should've done was just getting her into rehab or some sort of treatment, and then let her be on her own, giving her her rights back. Work and money income wasn't even a problem for her, she had just released an album in the worst moment of her life, a new perfume had come out in early 2008, she was preparing a single at the time, I mean, what was even their plan or what were they trying to fix? They just put her to work on other things. Did they need a conservatorship for that?

 

 

What they were trying to fix was her image.

To this day, the biggest issue they are concerned with, IMO, is her brand.

Britney was taking her image in a dark direction. (Example: The original Gimme More video.)

What better way to keep the millions rolling in than to freeze her brand in time for the next 12 years?