What did Britney REALLY DO to justify the Conservatorship

[mfanbs]

we will never truly know 

and it’s none of our business 

[Applejack]

3 hours ago, hello70 said:

I completely agree with this statement. Like I said before, I believe multiple things can be true at the same time. Mental distress doesn’t exist in a vacuum. There can be a variety of environmental factors that contribute or prompt a mental health crisis. It’s hard to say how much of 2007 was due to a mental illness or just a breakdown from the insane life circumstances she found herself in. Sadly, Britney might never know because Team Con bulldozed into her life and hired doctors who would say whatever team con wanted them to say. I wouldn’t trust Team Cons opinion of Britney’s mental health and I wish she would find a doctor she can trust so she can unpack for herself everything that happened and finally heal on her own terms. But thanks to what happened, I don’t think she will ever trust a doctor again and I don’t blame her.

What I think they mean is that the whole thing was overblown in 2007 because the people on the other side were clearly out to get her, there were too many negative stories targetting her during a court case and it didn't even seem like the court had too much of a standard to actually investigate those

And I mean, I don't think she was having the best time of her life and I don't think she was walking out of that without some sort of mental illness or other health issue, but calling it "psychosis" is a bit,,, ummm,,, too far from what we know

It was a case of someone going through hard times but they were being magnified and people were overblowing and adding meaning to things that didn't have those meanings, as in her 5150s

Edited January 6, 2023 by Applejack

[madara]

I feel like if you follow someone with 70 cameras and provoke them, especially when they are going through a divorce with a human garbage and custody fights, most of the people would look like they are unstable. Anyone will look crazy if you overanalyze them the way the media does with Britney. She's just a normal person with a ****.ty family and also happens to be very famous. 

Her reaction seems weird until you realize what she reacts to. 

[BlackoutITZ]

She said no. Unfortunately that was enough.

[PokemonSpears]

3 hours ago, hello70 said:

It’s weird watching fans pretend nothing was “wrong” with Britney back then or that she was acting completely rational/normal. It’s like fans feel if they admit she indeed was struggling, they are afraid it’s like co-signing the justification of the Con. But it’s not.

In my opinion, I feel Multiple things can be true at the same time. She had a horrible, predatory family who took advantage of her wealth and good nature. She had a full blown breakdown and exhibited very concerning behavior that happened to coincide with her rightfully cutting them off. AND they reacted by forcing her into a conservatorship that she never qualified for, using her mental health in 2007 as a cover for their greed and ineptitude.

They’re doing the same thing now. They (and the public sadly) are pointing to her present mental health situation as proof the con was necessary and as a cover for their abuse of her. Completely ignoring the fact that, if anything, the CON is the exact reason for her present situation. They traumatized her beyond belief and every time she reacted to it, they looked to it as “proof” she’s unwell, rather than proof of the extent of their abuse and greed.

The problem is not whether she was struggling, or if she was going through something bad, or even if she had some mental or health issues.

 

The problem here, is that conservatorships are not meant for people like Britney, period. They're not meant to save struggling people from bad influences. They're a very extreme legal resource for a very specific kind of circumstances where the conservatee is completely helpless and won't recover from their status, but actually it will just get worse as time goes by.

And if they got away with it for so long it's precisely because of the ignorance of pretty much everyone, because no one really understood what a conservatorship was until pretty much a couple of years ago, unless you were a lawyer or something. And even back then, any honest lawyer that knew about Britney's situation should've said or done something, because it shouldn't have made sense, and it shouldn't make sense now to anyone that understands what a conservatorship is for. 

 

The OP is asking what justified the conservatorship. The only answer is, nothing, nothing justified her conservatorship and that is something that people need to learn.

That doesn't mean that she didn't have issues, or that people weren't worried about her. 

But then people have to realize two things, or three:

• there were many other ways to help her, if they were so worried about her, many ways they didn't bother to try, before even thinking about a conservatorship. Heck, the conservatorship at any point should've been an option for a 26 years old woman.
• as someone said, her reactions and behavior weren't normal, because the experience of life she was living wasn't normal either. The way she was stalked and pursued by dozens of paparazzi, I think any other person would've exploded much sooner and way worse than whatever we got to see with Britney. Not to mention the way the media talked and speculated about her life, which leads to the final point:
• even if it's evident that she may have been dealing with a lot of things, and that she wasn't emotionally in the best place, the media blew out of proportion a lot of the situations. We weren't living with Britney 24/7, we were seeing what the magazines and tabloids wanted us to see, the way they wanted us to see it. 

 

So as someone that will forever argue that the conservatorship wasn't needed, I feel the need to say that I don't deny she needed help. 

 

But the conservatorship wasn't the help she needed. And I know it's hard for people to imagine it any other way, because the only timeline we know is the one where she was put under a conservatorship, and her "problems went away", and she survived, and she's here with us 15 years later. So there will always be a portion of the people that will think "she needed it then, but it shouldn't have been that long", "it should've been temporary". The truth is, it shouldn't have lasted even a day, because conservatorships are not made for that purpose. They abused her by exploiting a legal resource that was not created for that goal.

Thinking that the conservatorship saved her, and that it was the only thing they could've come up with, it's like as if they broke her legs, or chopped her hands, so she would stop doing things, and then 15 years later we could say "wow, THAT was the answer, they saved her life by cutting her hands off, or breaking her legs". That's how extreme and how absurd the conservatorship really is. And people that still think it was somehow ok, they're just falling for what I think it's called false dilemma or fallacy: If Britney was put in a conservatorship, and Britney is alive today, then Britney was saved by the conservatorship. But that dichotomy just ignores every other scenario or possibility that could've have occurred in which she would also end up "surviving", and I put surviving that way because that's assuming her life was more at risk than anyone else's. 

 

If I was her parent back then and really wanted to help her, first I would've found the way to remove her from LA. If the laws weren't protecting celebrities from paparazzi, that would've been my first thought. If Britney was in LA because of the kids, and I already had communication with the exhusband, I would've tried to convince him to move to a quieter place, so Britney would follow them. Instead all they did was plotting together against her. I would've bribed him, I would've done everything that was possible in order for her to be with her kids again. And after she was more calm, then I would've tried to persuade her to take therapy, to go to rehab if they really think she needed it, but not by being forced. And most importantly, I wouldn't have sent her to work for a long while. But they only cared about her money. They didn't care about her or the harm they were doing to the kids. 

 

You can worry all you want about a relative or person you love. But at any point it's justified to strip them off their basic rights, and their money on top of it, and then excuse yourself by saying you were just trying to help them. In the most extreme case, if you think you really have done all you could and there's nothing left, you have to come to a point where you just have to let them live and make their own mistakes, even if that means they'll run out of money or whatever they were fearing. It was her money. It was her life. Even at her worst, Blackout was selling pretty well so it wouldn't have been a problem for her to come back with another album afterwards. The babies were already protected by the trust fund, not to mention they had a "competent father" that could've provided for them. So as harsh as it sounds, if Britney, or any other person for that matter, chooses to ruin their own lives, that's their problem. You can't just take over someone's life and force them to live it the way you want or the way you think it's best for them, even if it's your daughter. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Psammead]

She chose the wrong parents to get born into.

Seriously, if she'd been surrounded by people with more brain cells, and less avarice, they would have mitigated the circumstances that were aggravating her. She wanted time off, they could have facilitated it. They could have pushed back on the media stalking. They could have given her space.

What really seemed to resonate with authorities is the claim that she was jeopardizing her own wealth. I keep going back to, when she was 23 years old, she had the foresight to put $600 million in a trust to protect it for her children. I happen to be in the camp that thinks that trust was the aggravating factor to her parents, and ultimately the target.

[Peachy]

While I don’t think it was safe for Britney to run the streets without security ever and gang affiliate paparazzi… I also don’t agree having your civil rights taken from you while being worked and controlled like a slave are correct. She needed love and support.  

[Oprah Winfrey.]

3 hours ago, BlurredLover said:

I agree with this and would like to also point out that it is very very plausible that the TEMPORARY CONSERVATORSHIP saved Britney in a lot of ways and that it should have never been allowed or needed to become permanent… I think everyone had Britney’s best interest at heart to get the temp but the greed and ego took control when made permanent by Jamie 

If they had her best interest she would’ve been told about it happening 

[Oprah Winfrey.]

2 hours ago, Applejack said:

What I think they mean is that the whole thing was overblown in 2007 because the people on the other side were clearly out to get her, there were too many negative stories targetting her during a court case and it didn't even seem like the court had too much of a standard to actually investigate those

And I mean, I don't think she was having the best time of her life and I don't think she was walking out of that without some sort of mental illness or other health issue, but calling it "psychosis" is a bit,,, ummm,,, too far from what we know

It was a case of someone going through hard times but they were being magnified and people were overblowing and adding meaning to things that didn't have those meanings, as in her 5150s

Going for joy rides is a very normal thing to do when stressed and shopping a lot…i see it all the time why wasn’t Britney allowed to be normal so many celebrities suffer with addiction and fall down but it’s never magnified for the whole world to see…I do believe she was mentally vulnerable but also the paparazzi was definitely sent after her by those in power, people were indeed out to destroy Britney the media did this with Michael Jackson 

[amiro1989]

She was free, that's what she did wrong. So technically, she did not do anything wrong.

[MonaLisa613]

She did nothing to deserve a cship, however, she def needed help, the compassionate, understanding, how can I help you kind of help, not turned into a slave to benefit others and every aspect of her life controlled, all it did was cause her damage the longer it went on.

[GlitterRain]

She deserves justice 

[joe sp]

It happened while she was having the breakdown, but that is not reason enough for a c-ship. It was planned and unfortunately she didn't have good people around her so it was easier for them to do it.

[Sia]

There's definitely A LOT to unpack with this question and as someone else mentioned, I don't think many fans want to face the truth about Britney and where she truly was back in late 2006/early 2008. 

To this day, I don't think that the conservatorship was the answer to her "situation," but in a weird way I can sort of understand why her family may have seen it as the only option - AT THE TIME. Not to layer on stereotypes, but you have a relatively naive family who is easily manipulated and likely due to bad guidance turned to the conservatorship to "fix" what was going on. Add greed and money to the equation and you have the formula for disaster.

Part of facing the truth is recognizing that we can't take Britney's word at face value. It's always stricken me odd that she paints this picture of "I was just living my life and before I knew it, people were taking my rights away..." when those of us who were following her closely back then know that was not the life she had.

Her life was a LITERAL CIRCUS and I even remember there being a website at one point with a countdown for when people thought she would die. Prior to the conservatorship even being a thing, the general public and FANS truly thought she was going to die because of everything going on in her life.

We don't know what was going on inside her mind, but it was clear that Britney was not living a productive life. Now, did it warrant a conservatorship? I mean who really knows, but let's not try and paint this narrative that Britney's life was sunshine and roses and that her family came in and took over for absolutely no reason.

She didn't deserve what happened to her, but I will admit it frustrates me that she continues to talk as if 2006-2008 never happened. Like girl...do you forget this:

 

[fays1]

lol are we really gonna talk about this?

[Applejack]

5 hours ago, 3IsACharm33 said:

the paparazzi was definitely sent after her by those in power, people were indeed out to destroy Britney the media did this with Michael Jackson 

I don't think it was a big media conspiracy, I just think the people Britney cut off were constantly feeding TMZ, US Weekly, Star with shock stories.

[Oprah Winfrey.]

5 hours ago, Sia said:

There's definitely A LOT to unpack with this question and as someone else mentioned, I don't think many fans want to face the truth about Britney and where she truly was back in late 2006/early 2008. 

To this day, I don't think that the conservatorship was the answer to her "situation," but in a weird way I can sort of understand why her family may have seen it as the only option - AT THE TIME. Not to layer on stereotypes, but you have a relatively naive family who is easily manipulated and likely due to bad guidance turned to the conservatorship to "fix" what was going on. Add greed and money to the equation and you have the formula for disaster.

Part of facing the truth is recognizing that we can't take Britney's word at face value. It's always stricken me odd that she paints this picture of "I was just living my life and before I knew it, people were taking my rights away..." when those of us who were following her closely back then know that was not the life she had.

Her life was a LITERAL CIRCUS and I even remember there being a website at one point with a countdown for when people thought she would die. Prior to the conservatorship even being a thing, the general public and FANS truly thought she was going to die because of everything going on in her life.

We don't know what was going on inside her mind, but it was clear that Britney was not living a productive life. Now, did it warrant a conservatorship? I mean who really knows, but let's not try and paint this narrative that Britney's life was sunshine and roses and that her family came in and took over for absolutely no reason.

She didn't deserve what happened to her, but I will admit it frustrates me that she continues to talk as if 2006-2008 never happened. Like girl...do you forget this:

 

I don’t see what Britney is doing wrong in this video. She should be able to sit outside her own property and cry without people filming her. The issues she had were caused by being chased by the paparazzi and the circus was created by the media. No her life wasn’t perfect but it truly wasn’t bad at all she was like 24 she wasn’t a criminal breaking crimes she was being stalked by paparazzi 

[blissfuloutsider]

They wanted to control their "circus animal" she was losing money going through life and they didn't like that.. The way I saw it is if leeches such as her ex husband or Sam Lufti were going to take advantage of her money or her and **** her or get what they could out of her they were going to do it as she "owed" them "Owed the family business" believe that they were "entitled to her finances" that's what they saw her as..  So they held her kids against her, made all this **** up to get her under control by the court system and force her into being the work horse for all of them and apparently because she was blowing through HER money which she has proven time and time again she can make more money than ever if she really wanted to but she could give two ****s.. They took advantage and also just got her at a weak point " I believe it was just post part as well as life going sour with her ex and her children and a nervous mental breakdown which can take awhile to overcome.. " as many abusers do to their victim..In this case her family knew she loved them so much and they knew when to do what they did to take control.. Or else they'd all be living in the pits of hell most likely.. 

Edited January 7, 2023 by blissfuloutsider

[Sia]

9 hours ago, 3IsACharm33 said:

I don’t see what Britney is doing wrong in this video. She should be able to sit outside her own property and cry without people filming her. The issues she had were caused by being chased by the paparazzi and the circus was created by the media. No her life wasn’t perfect but it truly wasn’t bad at all she was like 24 she wasn’t a criminal breaking crimes she was being stalked by paparazzi 

If after watching that video all you see is a person taking a stroll and crying with her dog, then nothing I say will make you comprehend how wrong you are.

I don’t know about you, but most people don’t walk around a GATED community crying then park themselves on the ground within arms reach of photographers. This is clearly not a video of someone just wanting to cry “alone.” 

[oscar0]

The truth is that the first 5150 was fatal for her, and the truth is that there is no way to justify her locking herself and her son in the bathroom. Even more so if her justification was that the babysitter told her that she could be there without any problems. I mean, wtf. She knew she had to return kfed to her children by the end of that day's visitation, how could it be okay for her to lock herself in the bathroom. That's pretty strong evidence that she sees things differently than the rest, to put it mildly.