• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Free Britney!

xjx388 said:
Conservatorships aren’t designed to make people behave properly or ensure that they never make bad decisions. They are supposed to be designed to step in for people who are so incapacitated that they can’t handle their own affairs. They are supposed to, as Matthew Best pointed out, conserve an incapacitated person’s assets so that they can be properly cared for throughout their lives.

I’ve seen conservatorships up close. I am not a fan of the whole arrangement except in the most dire of circumstances. Brittney is not an elderly person with dementia or a person with mental retardation. Whatever her issues are, they don’t appear to hinder her ability to do a pretty grueling and exhausting job. She is obviously competent enough to make her own decisions even if she can’t get custody or maybe even shouldn’t have unsupervised visits with her kids just yet. Even if she decides to marry some loser and he takes advantage of her. Even if she makes every wrong decision.
Click to expand...

Perfect summation of the issue, IMO.
 
Warp12 said:
You are assuming her situation is worse than what it might be, outside of the conservatorship. And that is based upon empathy. We will see how it plays out, agreed?
Click to expand...



I am not assuming that her situation is worse than what we know, or what the courts say, or whatever. My issue is that I'm against the whole concept of conservatorships for people who are not gravely disabled. Even then, I would want the arrangements to be subject to constant oversight and, if necessary, revision. Today, it's the bipolar girl who might do drugs and waste all her money. Tomorrow, it could be political dissidents. You just don't know what crazy **** the future holds, which is why the government/courts shouldn't have the power to remove people's rights for being odd, nor for being stupid, nor for being self-destructive.

That, and only that, is the issue. I know nothing about Britney Spears as a person, really, and she doesn't seem well. But she isn't demented, and she may be being abused. Because of the way these conservatorship arrangements are structured, she's having a hell of a time getting anyone to listen to her or review her situation. People are now noticing all this, and they're asking questions about the ease with which guardianship deals can be abused. That is the main draw of this story for the public. I do feel bad for Britney, but that's not why I'm following this story. I feel bad for a lot of people I see news articles about, probably some more deserving than others - but then I move on.
 
Belz... said:
...You don't put people in near-slavery just because you don't think they're handling their lives properly. This sort of thing only is supposed to happen when the person is essentially disabled.
Click to expand...


Indeed. And near-slavery is exactly what Britney's situation amounts to. (With emphasis on the "near", should someone want to point out that this isn't literally slavery.)

Clearly the most rational thing Britney could do at this time was to stop working altogether, as she has done. And when you realize the magnitude of the income foregone (or planned to forego) as a result, you understand how dire is her situation.



Butter! said:
I am not assuming that her situation is worse than what we know, or what the courts say, or whatever. My issue is that I'm against the whole concept of conservatorships for people who are not gravely disabled. Even then, I would want the arrangements to be subject to constant oversight and, if necessary, revision. Today, it's the bipolar girl who might do drugs and waste all her money. Tomorrow, it could be political dissidents. You just don't know what crazy **** the future holds, which is why the government/courts shouldn't have the power to remove people's rights for being odd, nor for being stupid, nor for being self-destructive.

That, and only that, is the issue. I know nothing about Britney Spears as a person, really, and she doesn't seem well. But she isn't demented, and she may be being abused. Because of the way these conservatorship arrangements are structured, she's having a hell of a time getting anyone to listen to her or review her situation. People are now noticing all this, and they're asking questions about the ease with which guardianship deals can be abused. That is the main draw of this story for the public. I do feel bad for Britney, but that's not why I'm following this story. I feel bad for a lot of people I see news articles about, probably some more deserving than others - but then I move on.
Click to expand...


Excellent summing up of the position of many of us who're following this story with increasing avidity.

There are four clear outcomes one expects, or at least hopes for, from this business. First, and as the meme demands, free Britney. Second, take away the father's ill-gotten and wholly undeserved gains, and put him in jail. (These two, provided the facts are as they appear, and do warrant that conclusion and that outcome, and not otherwise, obviously. That's for the court to determine.) Three, an investigation into the specific cases of guardianship/conservatorship abuse that are getting written about in the wake of this Britney circus. And four, a general overhauling of the provisions and practice of conservatorship. (Items three and four are political acts, that will require political momentum. That is, #3 is a judicial issue, but is unlikely to move without political will, while #4 is a reform at an explicitly political level. I hope the publicity around this business will help create that momentum.)
 
Last edited:
A tale of another Hollywood conservatorship gone way wrong.
Some in Hollywood have long weaponized these systems to seize control of the wealthy and vulnerable. I know, because I’ve spent the past decade retracing the dark saga of Harrison Post, a vulnerable, wealthy gay man who was taken captive and defrauded by his own family under the guise of “protection.” This was in the 1930s, and back then it was called a “guardianship,” but Spears’ testimony—an anguished plea delivered so fast that the judge kept asking her to slow down—was eerily familiar.
Click to expand...
https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/07/britney-spears-conservatorship-abuse-history.html
 
Chanakya said:
Indeed. And near-slavery is exactly what Britney's situation amounts to. (With emphasis on the "near", should someone want to point out that this isn't literally slavery.)

Clearly the most rational thing Britney could do at this time was to stop working altogether, as she has done. And when you realize the magnitude of the income foregone (or planned to forego) as a result, you understand how dire is her situation.






Excellent summing up of the position of many of us who're following this story with increasing avidity.

There are four clear outcomes one expects, or at least hopes for, from this business. First, and as the meme demands, free Britney. Second, take away the father's ill-gotten and wholly undeserved gains, and put him in jail. (These two, provided the facts are as they appear, and do warrant that conclusion and that outcome, and not otherwise, obviously. That's for the court to determine.) Three, an investigation into the specific cases of guardianship/conservatorship abuse that are getting written about in the wake of this Britney circus. And four, a general overhauling of the provisions and practice of conservatorship. (Items three and four are political acts, that will require political momentum. That is, #3 is a judicial issue, but is unlikely to move without political will, while #4 is a reform at an explicitly political level. I hope the publicity around this business will help create that momentum.)
Click to expand...

Give the woman her life back and absolutely throw Daddy's ass in jail for a long time.
 
Belz... said:
Gods, what a stupid question that was.

You don't put people in near-slavery just because you don't think they're handling their lives properly. This sort of thing only is supposed to happen when the person is essentially disabled.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is pretty much the crux of the matter. Is Britney in the advanced stages of dementia? No? Then she should be free to live her life.

Are you convinced she'll **** things up and end up unhappy? So are plenty of parents whose adult children defy their wishes, but they don't get to coerce them with the power of the state, even if they're right. Or at least, they shouldn't.
 
The majority of mega lottery winners end up going broke within a few years. Shall we mandate a conservatorship to go along with their winnings?

"That person might spend the money unwisely" seems to be a bad measure for how we apply these things.
 
I Am The Scum said:
The majority of mega lottery winners end up going broke within a few years. Shall we mandate a conservatorship to go along with their winnings?

"That person might spend the money unwisely" seems to be a bad measure for how we apply these things.
Click to expand...

In our allegedly "Free" society, people have the freedom to do foolish and stupid things and not be put in Court-control for their whole life.
 
I Am The Scum said:
The majority of mega lottery winners end up going broke within a few years. Shall we mandate a conservatorship to go along with their winnings?

"That person might spend the money unwisely" seems to be a bad measure for how we apply these things.
Click to expand...

Really?
 
The majority of the people in this thread have no concept of mental illness, and what that might mean, lol.
 
Warp12 said:
The majority of the people in this thread have no concept of mental illness, and what that might mean, lol.
Click to expand...

Yeah we actually do, and the many who have it and wrestle with it dont need to be reduced to nearly no freedom at all.
 
Another stink bomb, of the variety more formally called a "thought terminating cliché".
 
I'm sure it will be about his struggle with him being "too emotional" leading to him actually having a point or not defending psychopathic evil as some sort of strawman "logical" default. Thank God he was cured of that.
 
gnome said:
Another stink bomb, of the variety more formally called a "thought terminating cliché".
Click to expand...

Because, the few comments above don't prove my point, right? Or, how about the, "based on her Instagram posts, she seems fine to me" comments and such?

These views are on the same level as Facebook virologists and constitutional law experts. The ultimate in critical thought, no doubt.
 
It's thought terminating because, whether accurate or not, it dismisses the conversation.

If you don't think we're all qualified to talk about it, why participate?

If all you want to do is say that you don't think we know what we're talking about, your position is clear by now.
 
gnome said:
It's thought terminating because, whether accurate or not, it dismisses the conversation.

If you don't think we're all qualified to talk about it, why participate?

If all you want to do is say that you don't think we know what we're talking about, your position is clear by now.
Click to expand...

Why is anyone posting in this thread? To express their opinion, that's why.

Some were hoping strictly for a cheerleading session, I think. Well, those people should be mostly happy, I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom