Britney's former employee / new friend talks to the press after probation violation court hearing: I'm not a bad guy

[DiamondCircus]

Just now, Daniela.tomasseli said:

No one is saying she is not allowed to make decisions, but if she continues to make dumb stupid decisions we wont be praising nor encouraging dumb decisions. She can mess things up all she wants.. at the end of the day she is the one paying the consequences but if something is not okay we won't be nodding "yes ma'am".

THAT PART 

[easy]

4 minutes ago, DiamondCircus said:

Exactly and this decision shows no growth, this man clearly wasn't vetted by Britney's "so called team".

Back when she was dating Adnan a paparazzi, having Lufti in her life and all these clowns, this is the example that she hasn't grown in decision making having this man in her home.

 

Prove to me he's "in her life" without using tabloids and "sources". Actual, legitimate, proof. All we know for sure is he used to work for her and went to dinner with her ONE time

[Gutterguppy]

8 minutes ago, DiamondCircus said:

The C Ship is over, and this guy is further proof it's not a good choice to have him in her home.

Although it's her choice this is clearly a decision as undue influence, there's no crock to it.

This decision presents itself as showing it's possibly not a smart decision. 

[easy]

2 minutes ago, Daniela.tomasseli said:

No one is saying she is not allowed to make decisions, but if she continues to make dumb stupid decisions we wont be praising nor encouraging dumb decisions. She can mess things up all she wants.. at the end of the day she is the one paying the consequences but if something is not okay we won't be nodding "yes ma'am".

I haven't seen one person "praise" or "encourage" or "yes ma'am" this decision. Not one person. But keep living in your world where you think criticizing every step Britney takes just means you're being a "good" fan and anyone that thinks Britney should be allowed to make a decision without judgement is condoning her being a killer 

[DiamondCircus]

Just now, easy said:

Prove to me he's "in her life" without using tabloids and "sources". Actual, legitimate, proof. All we know for sure is he used to work for her and went to dinner with her ONE time

That's called being in her life if he went to dinner with her and was employed by her honey.

You did this same thing when it came to Scam that you're doing here with this guy boo, as you put it "used to work for her" still doesn't show growth in decision making having him in her home based on his history.

[easy]

Just now, DiamondCircus said:

That's called being in her life if he went to dinner with her and was employed by her honey.

You did this same thing when it came to Scam that you're doing here with this guy boo, as you put it "used to work for her" still doesn't show growth in decision making having him in her home based on his history.

That's not being in her life. If anything it shows good decision making that he no longer works for her. Again, give me legitimate proof he is currently in her life. You cannot provide that without citing a tabloid 

[DiamondCircus]

Just now, easy said:

That's not being in her life. If anything it shows good decision making that he no longer works for her. Again, give me legitimate proof he is currently in her life. You cannot provide that without citing a tabloid 

You know factually he's still not in her life? That doesn't show good decision making to have someone in the home putting herself at risk and in danger to begin with.

Whether he's still there now or gone doesn't omit the facts, it was an undue influenced decision and she put herself at risk period.

Edited September 12, 2023 by DiamondCircus

[easy]

1 minute ago, DiamondCircus said:

You know factually he's still not in her life? That doesn't show good decision making to have someone in the home putting herself at risk and in danger to begin with.

Whether he's still there now or gone doesn't omit the facts, it was an undue influenced decision and she put herself at risk period.

I know not to trust tabloids to give me the truth about Britney Spears. keep using your team con language thinking you're doing something other than show your true colors 

[hello70]

I love Britney but Yall do know why she dating/finding these kinds of guys right? 😅

Y’all keep saying y’all want her to find a “good and stable guy ” but the honest truth is stable people are typically attracted to other stable people. Wild people are typically attracted to other wild people. This is not necessarily shade to Britney, it’s just common sense in general. As amazing as I feel Britney is, in reality she is simply not the type to date the type of people we all wish she should date and never has been. Girl has been wildddddddd since 2004 and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that! Do yo thang! 

Like people attract like people. You are who you surround yourself with. Take me for example, I am not in the best place in my life personally as there’s been a lot of changes (recently moved back from overseas and am working on finally treating my severe depression and anxiety) and so I’m not really in a good position to date someone who is, so I’ve personally taken a break from dating until I am😅😅😅

[Propagandalf]

The lady is so random when dating. 

 

Persian Prince? No thanks, I'll have my messed-up teeth, tatted, jailbird! 

We don't know the details, so... Not really allowed to assume that much. Maybe he just fetched bread for her. 

[DiamondCircus]

Just now, easy said:

I know not to trust tabloids to give me the truth about Britney Spears. keep using your team con language thinking you're doing something other than show your true colors 

Team con language? The guy himself admitted his criminal history, the fact that his baby mom is on a 51/50 and has a lot of issues and drama going on in his life.

It's like putting two firecrackers in the dumpster and hoping there's no explosion, you admitted "he used to work for her" so now you're saying you don't trust the tabloids?

Clearly, he was employed and whether someone hires jack the ripper for 3 days then decides it was a bad decision and removes them doesn't discard the fact that it's an undue influence decision to begin with. 

[Daniela.tomasseli]

11 minutes ago, easy said:

I haven't seen one person "praise" or "encourage" or "yes ma'am" this decision. Not one person. But keep living in your world where you think criticizing every step Britney takes just means you're being a "good" fan and anyone that thinks Britney should be allowed to make a decision without judgement is condoning her being a killer 

You are an expert at dodging accountability by fiding the little holes to sneak out through .

You are exactly that, you are a praiser, you are an enabler, you are an encourager and here you are once again excusing and standing up for a criminal just like you did for Sam Asghari. Not only you excuse the scum in Britney's life with your flawed OJ Simpson-like "If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit" logic but you also excuse your enabling YES QUEEN behavior with that same logic. 

Edited September 12, 2023 by Daniela.tomasseli
.

[easy]

Just now, DiamondCircus said:

Team con language? The guy himself admitted his criminal history, the fact that his baby mom is on a 51/50 and has a lot of issues and drama going on in his life.

It's like putting two firecrackers in the dumpster and hoping there's no explosion, you admitted "he used to work for her" so now you're saying you don't trust the tabloids?

Clearly, he was employed and whether someone hires jack the ripper for 3 days then decides it was a bad decision and removes them doesn't discard the fact that it's an undue influence decision to begin with. 

The point is Britney is allowed to make bad decisions without people screaming UNDUE INFLUENCE and fostering a narrative that maybe she needs someone to make decisions for her since she can't do it herself. The fact that you don't see how dangerous that is, is truly bizarre to me. Is you being "right" on the internet more important than supporting Britney? That's the vibe you're giving. 

[hello70]

3 minutes ago, DiamondCircus said:

You know factually he's still not in her life? That doesn't show good decision making to have someone in the home putting herself at risk and in danger to begin with.

Whether he's still there now or gone doesn't omit the facts, it was an undue influenced decision and she put herself at risk period.

I get what you’re saying but a lot of things people are saying that make him a “bad person” are things Britney (and many others in the industry) have done themselves in the past, they just didn’t get arrested. Possession of *****? (She’s done that before) Child endangerment (she drove with her literal infant on her lap). But none of these things make Britney a bad person, so that doesn’t necessarily mean the guy she is dating now is a bad person. It means he has a past , like all of us.
 

What type of people do y’all really think she is able to date right now? Britney is hopefully growing and learning and for all we know this could be a fun rebound? Or maybe she just looking for a new baby daddy lol 

In any case, it’s not the end of the world as long as she has decent friends and good lawyers to support and protect her in case he does turn out to be a “bad” person

[Daniela.tomasseli]

12 minutes ago, DiamondCircus said:

That's called being in her life if he went to dinner with her and was employed by her honey.

You did this same thing when it came to Scam that you're doing here with this guy boo, as you put it "used to work for her" still doesn't show growth in decision making having him in her home based on his history.

Babe easy in 2007 was probably like "Do we know for a fact Sam Lufti was in Britney's life? because I don't" 

[easy]

Just now, Daniela.tomasseli said:

You are an expert at dodging accountability by fiding the little holes to sneak out through .

You are exactly that, you are a praised, you are an enabler, you are an encourager and here you are once again excusing and standing up for a criminal just like you did for Sam Asghari. Not only you excuse the scum in Britney's life with your flawed OJ Simpson-like "If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit" logic but you also excuse your enabling YES QUEEN behavior with that same logic. 

How can I enable someone whose life I am not apart of? You just don't like the fact that I, and others, refuse to jump on the "let's judge every breath Britney takes and criticize her for it" train, and actually allow a 41 year old woman to make whatever decision for HER life that she wants to make without judgements. Show me where I "stood up for a criminal"??? As for Scam, I defended Britney's choice to be with him. You never saw me thirsting after him/being inappropriate. 

[DiamondCircus]

Just now, easy said:

The point is Britney is allowed to make bad decisions without people screaming UNDUE INFLUENCE and fostering a narrative that maybe she needs someone to make decisions for her since she can't do it herself. The fact that you don't see how dangerous that is, is truly bizarre to me. Is you being "right" on the internet more important than supporting Britney? That's the vibe you're giving. 

The fact that you're defending that criminal in Britney's home and going out to dinner as you called it "one time" shows further proof of being an enabler of bad decisions.

I never said she needs someone to make her decisions, I clearly said there hasn't been any growth from the decision making of Adnan and Sam Lutfi, to this decision of having this criminal parading around her home and now talking to the press.

Like it or not it's called undue influence decision making, it's bizarre you're defending that criminal. 

[DiamondCircus]

Just now, hello70 said:

I get what you’re saying but a lot of things people are saying that make him a “bad person” are things Britney (and many others in the industry) have done themselves in the past, they just didn’t get arrested. Possession of *****? (She’s done that before) Child endangerment (she drove with her literal infant on her lap). But none of these things make Britney a bad person, so that doesn’t necessarily mean the guy she is dating now is a bad person. It means he has a past , like all of us.
 

What type of people do y’all really think she is able to date right now? Britney is hopefully growing and learning and for all we know this could be a fun rebound? Or maybe she just looking for a new baby daddy lol 

In any case, it’s not the end of the world as long as she has decent friends and good lawyers to support and protect her in case he does turn out to be a “bad” person

This could be a "fun rebound" and users are clapping at that?

 

[easy]

Just now, Daniela.tomasseli said:

Babe easy in 2007 was probably like "Do we know for a fact Sam Lufti was in Britney's life? because I don't" 

It's a shame this forum doesn't have posts from that time, because I was, in fact, a huge Lutfi hater and wanted nothing more than for him to get out of her life. I, however, didn't judge her choice to surround herself with bad people. 

[SkyAngelMovies]

Britney gets love bombed way to easily