Jump to content

tumblinmoneys

Spark
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Points

    1,437 [ Give ]
  • Feedback

    0%

Community Reputation

81 Flame

About tumblinmoneys

  • Rank
    Vega

Profile Information

  • Gender Identity
    Male
  1. Totally thought Perrie would be the one making this announcement. Those baggy outfits👀 a little Little Mix though😍
  2. It would be great if the well established acts supported upcoming talent by allocating them a percentage of their streaming profits. Not sure how practical that would actually be but something needs to change to breathe new life into the music scene. What incredible acts have we missed out on? Would Britney make it if her sixteen year old self debuted in the current streaming era?
  3. Great move Lynne👏 I’d love it if this opened up an audit into the extortionate fees Britney has been paying without her say so. Here’s hoping she gets all her money back and all involved get prosecuted🙏 Also wondering how TMZ are going to spin this to be in Jamie’s favour, if they even acknowledge it at all.
  4. The corruption here is intolerable. If I was in a legal battle against my Dad who was legally in charge of me as an adult, and I was required to fund his arguments against me to keep me under his control, then I would be profoundly unwell; anyone would. This woman has been deprived of her liberty (despite clearly demonstrating capacity) and is being charged millions of dollars per year for merely existing, it’s beyond criminal. How has the legal system allowed this to happen? In fact I am so frustrated for Britney that I need to channel my frustration into a rant. Did Jamie not go on the record and object to Sam hiring additional counsel (which was in keeping with Britney’s wishes) due to additional financial costs that would be incurred by Britney? Yet it is okay for him, a person who is in control of another person’s money, to spend that person’s money in fighting against their wishes? What a bogus argument anyway, the additional counsel Britney sought to hire is charging roughly a third of what the additional counsel that Jamie sought to hire is charging. Jamie is obviously happy to pay huge sums of money to those who help him keep Britney under her current restraints, and protests from her be damned she has no civil rights. I do believe that Jamie is doing what he thinks is in Britney’s best interest in regards to the conservatorship. Watching Britney go through her difficulties must have been excruciating for any parent, and for someone to step in and help her was the right thing to do I’m sure. However, after witnessing what he did it could be argued that he has suffered psychological trauma himself, and in his mind he couldn’t possibly relinquish control because the danger is it could happen again. Unfortunately what Jamie thinks is best is a subjective opinion from a flawed human being. Jamie’s version of helping Britney is clearly causing her more harm than good. The issue here is the Californian legal system allowing a father to act is such a manner in being able to seize, and retain, control over his adult daughter in the way that he has. Why was a conservatorship utilised before any lesser measures? Why was Britney denied the right to have counsel of her choosing? Why has it gone on this long? Why have steps have been taken to promote and encourage Britney’s independence? What are the long-term psychological effects of depriving someone of their liberty in their twenties? What is the long term plan? Who is to succeed Jamie when the time comes? Andrew Wallet submitted to the court that there was continued improvement to Britney’s wellbeing, and how the conservatorship should be viewed as a “business hybrid model”. The is not the purpose of a conservatorship, and openly acknowledging improvements in regards to Britney’s wellbeing but not taking steps to review her deprivation of liberty is a huge red flag. Does anybody making money of Britney want her to be free? Ethically are their motivations corrupt? How can a legal system allow a person to cause another person, what I am sure would constitute, intense emotional distress? In particular a person who, in the eyes of the law, is so fragile that they are within the confines of a conservatorship. Jamie is entirely unfit for the role of which he occupies. He has a well documented history of abusive behaviour, alcoholism and no relevant credentials to warrant the management of one of the world’s biggest talents. Britney’s boyfriend has spoken out against him, as has one of Britney’s sons. Jamie even has a restraining order against him preventing him from seeing Britney’s children due to a physical altercation that he had with one of them. The person who paid the price here was Britney who had her visitation rights reduced around this time. How did he retain any sort of control over Britney following this? Doesn’t make any sense does it. Of further concern is the family dynamic itself. Jamie (allegedly) referred to Britney as “a race horse that needs to be controlled as such”, and in a recent interview Brian stated that “the women in his family are very wilful” as though it were an issue, which was picked up on by the interviewer. It could be argued that this family has deeply embedded misogynistic views which would be deeply problematic it itself, let alone giving a man in that family the legal control over his adult daughter’s financial and personal decisions. There is also perhaps a sense of purpose that Jamie is deriving from his role. What would his life look like if he was not in control of his daughter’s life? It is not for Britney to pay the price for his failure to be successful. Of course Britney will be making money under this arrangement, but that is by no means justification for keeping it in place. It could be posed that Britney would have been more successful without Jamie’s involvement, or it could be that she would have been less successful, but the key point is it’s all hypothetical. Britney is not being given a chance to demonstrate her ability, nor is she being encouraged or supported to do so. The legal system is grossly flawed and has absolutely failed Britney, it has not protected her in the way that it should have. It could be argued that the conservatorship has caused more harm than good, to have been treated like a child and be deprived of your liberty for so long is bound to have a profound psychological impact; then factor in the patriarchal figure in Britney’s life being given the legal right to exercise such extreme levels of control over her life. Truly deplorable. People need to be held accountable, and laws need to change to stop this from happening again. Free Britney.
  5. Really sad to hear that she was experiencing suicidal thoughts, and glad that she has made changes in her life in response to those thoughts. I do think that racism had a part to play here, but even if Meghan was white it would still have been a bumpy ride. We know that the royal family conduct themselves very differently from standard celebrities, expressing too much of an opinion can land them in hot water (we’ve all seen The Crown), and as they are funded by the taxpayer they need to appear to remain somewhat neutral. Being an autonomous and independent celebrity, who likes to express their opinions, would be a difficult transition to make, and perhaps those difficulties lent themselves into the difficult behaviour that has been reported. I find it difficult to believe that she was not appropriately warned about this beforehand and that she felt silenced. It must have been difficult for Meghan when Her family aired their dirty laundry in public, and not being able to defend herself. Considering that this has been so hard on her, it is quite shocking that Meghan has thrown Kate under the bus knowing that she remains in a position where she cannot defend herself. I hope that Meghan and Harry find happiness in their new life and look forward not back.
  6. Respect to him for defending his friend but we don’t know what really went down and we likely never will. This whole situation just screams champagne problems to me. Hopefully everyone can just move on after this interview, but I suspect that won’t be the case. If I were Oprah I’d be asking about the following suspect matters . 1. Meghan estranged and feuding with her family (okay we can’t choose our family, let’s not get hung up on that). 2. Became a part of husband’s family, now both she and he are estranged and feuding with his family as well as her own (2 for 2). 3. In her short time as an active royal Meghan had 2 personal assistants quit and upset many others with an investigation opened into her bullying staff. 4. Refused her photo being taken at Wimbledon by the public, a highly public event, with her security actively enforcing this. Members of public confirmed this having security ask to delete photos. 5. Made Kate Middleton cry, 6. Preached about how others should reduce their carbon footprint. However, Harry and Meghan stated that they never went more than 2 weeks without seeing each other from the start of relationship through to their engagement whilst living on opposite sides of the Atlantic. Have also been known to use private planes. 7. Total renovation of Frogmore cottage to their requested specification costing the taxpayer 2.4 million pounds. 8. Meghan insisted that she did not know much about Prince Harry, or the Royal family, prior to meeting him because she was American. As her co star says once Meghan entered her role as a royal she became a global household name, of which Harry already was. 9. Stepping down as senior royals to “focus on next chapter” but appear to be capitalising on time as royals through interviews, fully knowing that no member of the senior royal family would be able to challenge this in a tell all interview of their own.
  7. Unsurprising. Looking on the positive side though, if he’s seeking this kind of control it’s likely his efforts to get Bessemer Trust on his side have failed!
  8. Give it up and let go, there’s people who are far more competent out there who are better able to help Britney manage her affairs than Jamie. People who aren’t abusive alcoholics that have a restraining order against them from their grandchild, and wouldn’t pay a business manager 500k for a year in which Britney didn’t work a single day. A trust, such as Bessemer trust, might initially cost more to manage Britney’s financial affairs, however, their better understanding of financial affairs may result in an overall greater income for Britney. It’s clear Jamie doesn’t have Britney’s best interests at heart, maybe at one point he did but he’s lost sight, and lost his way (go to the light and see Jesus). He should listen to his daughter, Britney and do what’s right. Jamie’s situation could be likened to Trump’s and his refusal to let go. At least America have democracy, and have been able to use their voices in choosing to remove Trump from power, Britney however is not so fortunate.
×
×
  • Create New...

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

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