Jump to content

New Fake News Article: Britney’s Dogs Close To Death


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Lucian85 said:

lol, this is exactly what team con want you to believe. That she is an animal abuser, and not even able to take care of her dog. 

This story is set up. And the fact that it's coming out weeks before the big hearing, is no coincidence. 

This. You’re always speaking the truth. These stories are so obviously set up by Team Con.     

We know by now TMZ + Team Con are on the same team and we ain’t falling for it. 

  • Love 3
Link to comment

Just to reiterate:

 

If the dogs were near death that is the fault of the dog sitters and the conservators...if Britney isn't legally responsible for herself to the point that she has both a financial and body conservator then that means any pets she has are their responsibility...

  • Love 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment

I hope its not true cuz Id reconsider being a fan lol.

 

I want to clarify that according to testimony Britney choosed to feed the dog what she wanted despite being known that they have digestive issues. And that she keeps them with her for long enough so conditions for them to be poorly treated have time to develop. The truth is that the housekeeper is just a worker and can do nothing but give a friendly suggestion once and not be annoying so she doesn't get fired and maybe receive a report to whatever entity that is overlooking her job or career. That's also another thing if the dogs at any given time are clearly sick and something happens to them then that could have a profound impact in the housekeeper's career, and Britney herself could take action against her. She's just protecting herself which I don't find unreasonable.

 

That's not to say I believe all of this to be true I hope it's not because I would be very dissappinted personally if she was to get mad for something that she caused and behaved like that knowing she the one in power in the house.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, RAITEI said:

I hope its not true cuz Id reconsider being a fan lol.

 

I want to clarify that according to testimony Britney choosed to feed the dog what she wanted despite being known that they have digestive issues. And that she keeps them with her for long enough so conditions for them to be poorly treated have time to develop. The truth is that the housekeeper is just a worker and can do nothing but give a friendly suggestion once and not be annoying so she doesn't get fired and maybe receive a report to whatever entity that is overlooking her job or career. That's also another thing if the dogs at any given time are clearly sick and something happens to them then that could have a profound impact in the housekeeper's career, and Britney herself could take action against her. She's just protecting herself which I don't find unreasonable.

 

That's not to say I believe all of this to be true I hope it's not because I would be very dissappinted personally if she was to get mad for something that she caused and behaved like that knowing she the one in power in the house.

This is not a traditional worker/employee relationship...you are telling me the housekeeper doesn't have the authority to correct Britney on what she is feeding the dog, but has the authority to take the dog to the vet without consulting Britney and then refuse to return it...I mean you can't be serious...

Link to comment
1 hour ago, B. Leigh said:

This is not a traditional worker/employee relationship...you are telling me the housekeeper doesn't have the authority to correct Britney on what she is feeding the dog, but has the authority to take the dog to the vet without consulting Britney and then refuse to return it...I mean you can't be serious...

What type of different relationship worker/employee do you believe they have? 

 

Authority is a big word and there is no way in this world that housekeeper can dictate or forbid what Britnet does or not. As I said, a suggestion is the most she can do, if Britney wants to give something to the dog she cannot do anything about it other than report it to Jamie or Jodie or whatever and Britney may not like this. In the event of the dogs already being sick she choosed to take them to the vet (she is allowed to do this, otherwise she would face legal repeecussions) to avoid potential issues such as:

- Britney getting mad because she didn't take them to the Vet when they were clearly sick. Something could happen to the dogs.

- Losing her job because something happened to the dogs and she didn't take them to the vet, have repercussions in her career.

 

Or both.

 

Why would she not take them to the vet if they are unwell? I ask. The issue here is that the medical team decided the dogs needed more care and were not ready to return home, something that the housekeeper could have not foresee. Britney didn't find the dogs and wanted to report theft... but after understanding that going this route would bring to the light the reason why the dogs are sick and it has to do with her then she avoided it. They got an argument and all of this happened...

Believe me that the housekeeper needs to watch closely her job working with a person of such high profile like Britney and the last thing she wants is troubles because that could have her not working in that position in a decade.

 

I am just explaining the narrative that we are being presented. Whether it's true or not I have no idea, in fact I hope it's not because it'd be very dissappointing to me... 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, RAITEI said:

I hope its not true cuz Id reconsider being a fan lol.

 

I want to clarify that according to testimony Britney choosed to feed the dog what she wanted despite being known that they have digestive issues. And that she keeps them with her for long enough so conditions for them to be poorly treated have time to develop. The truth is that the housekeeper is just a worker and can do nothing but give a friendly suggestion once and not be annoying so she doesn't get fired and maybe receive a report to whatever entity that is overlooking her job or career. That's also another thing if the dogs at any given time are clearly sick and something happens to them then that could have a profound impact in the housekeeper's career, and Britney herself could take action against her. She's just protecting herself which I don't find unreasonable.

 

That's not to say I believe all of this to be true I hope it's not because I would be very dissappinted personally if she was to get mad for something that she caused and behaved like that knowing she the one in power in the house.

Jamie hired a freakin DOG SITTER. It's his job to take care of the damn dog.

Britney having the legal rights of a minor, she can NOT be held accountable if something happens to the dog. 

And stop falling for team con's smear campaign against Britney. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
30 minutes ago, RAITEI said:

What type of different relationship worker/employee do you believe they have? 

 

Authority is a big word and there is no way in this world that housekeeper can dictate or forbid what Britnet does or not. As I said, a suggestion is the most she can do, if Britney wants to give something to the dog she cannot do anything about it other than report it to Jamie or Jodie or whatever and Britney may not like this. In the event of the dogs already being sick she choosed to take them to the vet (she is allowed to do this, otherwise she would face legal repeecussions) to avoid potential issues such as:

- Britney getting mad because she didn't take them to the Vet when they were clearly sick. Something could happen to the dogs.

- Losing her job because something happened to the dogs and she didn't take them to the vet, have repercussions in her career.

 

Or both.

 

Why would she not take them to the vet if they are unwell? I ask. The issue here is that the medical team decided the dogs needed more care and were not ready to return home, something that the housekeeper could have not foresee. Britney didn't find the dogs and wanted to report theft... but after understanding that going this route would bring to the light the reason why the dogs are sick and it has to do with her then she avoided it. They got an argument and all of this happened...

Believe me that the housekeeper needs to watch closely her job working with a person of such high profile like Britney and the last thing she wants is troubles because that could have her not working in that position in a decade.

 

I am just explaining the narrative that we are being presented. Whether it's true or not I have no idea, in fact I hope it's not because it'd be very dissappointing to me... 

This is not the narrative we are being presented with...

 

What you are saying is the same house keeper that is so afraid to correct Britney about what she is feeding her dogs, is the same house keeper who feels comfortable enough to take the dogs to the vet without telling Britney, refuses to return the dogs based on what Britney is feeding them, took photos of those dogs in Britney's home to show her, and then filed a police report for assault on Britney for hitting a phone out of her hand...

 

This is not the traditional employee/employer relationship because Britney is under a conservatorship...these workers are paid by her father to take care of those dogs with the ultimate authority in that household being the two conservators...the welfare of those dogs are the ultimate responsibility of the two conservators... 

Link to comment
17 hours ago, Circuit said:

You don’t know Britney either :cheese_Britney_awkward_cringe_eek:

Of course she’s not intentionally harming her pets. But it doesn’t sound like she’s a good pet owner if she’s feeding dogs with special diets table scraps and not putting out water for them.

I don’t believe being a forgetful or even BAD pet owner makes you a bad person.

Or even having the impulsion to knock the phone out of someone’s hand when they’re accusing you of neglect in your own home. Britney is not a bad person.

So, please, **** off :cheese_Britney_awkward_cringe_eek:

 

You must be naive if you think this story is not orchestrated to sabotage her before the next hearing. How convenient, accusing her of animal neglect just weeks before the most important hearing of this case. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, B. Leigh said:

This is not the narrative we are being presented with...

 

What you are saying is the same house keeper that is so afraid to correct Britney about what she is feeding her dogs, is the same house keeper who feels comfortable enough to take the dogs to the vet without telling Britney, refuses to return the dogs based on what Britney is feeding them, took photos of those dogs in Britney's home to show her, and then filed a police report for assault on Britney for hitting a phone out of her hand...

 

This is not the traditional employee/employer relationship because Britney is under a conservatorship...these workers are paid by her father to take care of those dogs with the ultimate authority in that household being the two conservators...the welfare of those dogs are the ultimate responsibility of the two conservators... 

I have already adressed and explained those points in my prior post. It is down to you the interpretation you want to give to it.

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, RAITEI said:

I hope its not true cuz Id reconsider being a fan lol.

 

I want to clarify that according to testimony Britney choosed to feed the dog what she wanted despite being known that they have digestive issues. And that she keeps them with her for long enough so conditions for them to be poorly treated have time to develop. The truth is that the housekeeper is just a worker and can do nothing but give a friendly suggestion once and not be annoying so she doesn't get fired and maybe receive a report to whatever entity that is overlooking her job or career. That's also another thing if the dogs at any given time are clearly sick and something happens to them then that could have a profound impact in the housekeeper's career, and Britney herself could take action against her. She's just protecting herself which I don't find unreasonable.

 

That's not to say I believe all of this to be true I hope it's not because I would be very dissappinted personally if she was to get mad for something that she caused and behaved like that knowing she the one in power in the house.

you are the kind of people Jamie and co love - easily believe in the “news” they put out to tarnish Britney’s image :ehum_britney_um_unsure_confused_what:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, RAITEI said:

I have already adressed and explained those points in my prior post. It is down to you the interpretation you want to give to it.

 

Thanks.

You didn't though...in a normal working relationship the sitter would have no authority to take the dog out of the home without notifying the owner and receiving consent...the sitter would also have no authority to keep the dog out of the home after that due to care concerns...all the worker would have the authority to do is report Britney for animal abuse which was not done, not by this sitter and not by the vet which if the vet thought abuse or neglect was happening would be required to report the case by law...everything about this story doesn't make sense....

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

We noticed you're using an ad blocker  :ehum_britney_um_unsure_confused_what:

Thanks for visiting Exhale! Your support is greatly appreciated 💜  

Exhale survives through advertising revenue. Please, disable your ad block extension to help us and continue browsing Exhale. 🙏

I've disabled ad block