Shocking testimony from Britney Spears

Vaccinated30

Faugheen wrote: »

Actually, they pulled the Vegas residency and has refused to perform until it’s lifted.

Nice gaslighting though. Suggesting she’s actually grand when she was very, very ill when it was slapped on her.

She doesn’t get a penny, she isn’t allowed her passport. She has an IUD and needs her father’s permission to have it removed so she can have a family.

Why are you turning this into a ‘shes grand’ scenario? How would you feel in her shoes?

They pulled it only because she refused to perform. The only control she has in the situation is to not perform. She can't even have her IUD (The Coil) removed

Mrcaramelchoc

i love the way all the celebs are all falling over themselves to support britney now.but there was no one around when she went bat **** crazy a few years back.
they dropped her like she was dare i say "toxic".
****ing hypocrites.

fergiesfolly

That poor woman was basically bred to fulfill her parents financial and fame hungry ambitions. Sycophantic cretins have destoyed her life and I hope once she's free from her father's grasp, she finds a little peace.

Mrs OBumble

Dontfadeaway wrote: »

The whole forcing her to have an Iud is disgusting. It doesn’t seem like any of her family are looking out for her, seems like they are only there for the money which is just sad.

She's already had some kids, and must have treated them pretty damn badly that they are in the sole custody of their father. So stopping her from abusing any more kids is probably a good idea.

She is being treated for her on-going, probably life-long, medical issues. Lithium and therapy are pretty standard treatments. Given half a chance, she'd stop them and go back to the state she was in before treatment. Again, not a great idea.

BorneTobyWilde

Her 50m estate''


50m , wtf

Where did the 5 billion she generated go

Neyite

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

She's already had some kids, and must have treated them pretty damn badly that they are in the sole custody of their father. So stopping her from abusing any more kids is probably a good idea.

She is being treated for her on-going, probably life-long, medical issues. Lithium and therapy are pretty standard treatments. Given half a chance, she'd stop them and go back to the state she was in before treatment. Again, not a great idea.

Where is your proof that she abused her kids?

Where is your proof of her health diagnosis?

Jafin

Mrcaramelchoc wrote: »

i love the way all the celebs are all falling over themselves to support britney now.but there was no one around when she went bat **** crazy a few years back.
they dropped her like she was dare i say "toxic".
****ing hypocrites.

Times have changed. Nobody really spoke about mental health back all that much back then and it was quite a taboo subject, whereas it's really started coming to the foreground in the past few years.

I'm not disagreeing with your comment by any means, I'm sure a lot of celebrities and people are indeed hypocrites, but I do think it's important to note that this change in attitude to mental health, and the understanding of it by the masses, is a relatively recent phenomenon. I am guilty of not understanding it in the past myself, and I probably laughed too when I saw images of her breakdown back in the late 2000s. Those images of her with a shaved head brandishing an umbrella probably caused a lot of us to laugh. Thankfully I have grown and I understand it more now, and many more probably have too.

B.A._Baracus

Dontfadeaway wrote: »

I think at the time it was needed, but she basically said they are forcing her to work and it’s for their benefit.

The whole forcing her to have an Iud is disgusting. It doesn’t seem like any of her family are looking out for her, seems like they are only there for the money which is just sad.

Oh totally. that dad of hers wants her money. That's his business like.

This whole thing is crazy. Like this is Britney Spears. She's still on TV. She's not some randomer living down the street who anyone barely sees. You could say anything to a judge to keep control of them. Can't function properly, can't make their own dinner, I dunno. Judge would only see how the person acts in the court room.

But with Britney you see her on TV. She has her facilities about her. Which makes you think what does her father have over her that he can continue to do this? Like did Britney try to kill herself or something is that his trump card?

Is the real britney much worse than she comes off and we don't know?

Its all so very strange.

anndub

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

She's already had some kids, and must have treated them pretty damn badly that they are in the sole custody of their father. So stopping her from abusing any more kids is probably a good idea.

She is being treated for her on-going, probably life-long, medical issues. Lithium and therapy are pretty standard treatments. Given half a chance, she'd stop them and go back to the state she was in before treatment. Again, not a great idea.

This reads like something from the early half of the last century. Let's remove all human rights, choice and autonomy from those with mental illness and maybe employ forced sterilisation while we're at it. Anything to be said for bringing back asylums? Forget this new age nonsense of treating the crazies like human beings.

Sweet Jesus

B.A._Baracus

Mrcaramelchoc wrote: »

i love the way all the celebs are all falling over themselves to support britney now.but there was no one around when she went bat **** crazy a few years back.
they dropped her like she was dare i say "toxic".
****ing hypocrites.

Ghouls. The lot of them
But that's one thing I do hate about the entertainment industry. Its all about which way the wind blows.

If somehow (and magically) Harvey Weinstein got revealed to be innocent tomorrow, they'd all be saying how they never believed it and how he is a lovely man :pac:

ax530

shocking that this can happen no doubt Britney not the only one in this situation, a form of slavery

the purple tin

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Her 50m estate''


50m , wtf

Where did the 5 billion she generated go

Probably fleeced by shysters in the music biz. It is amazing how many big musicians are screwed over by managers, accountants, labels etc without realising it.

B.A._Baracus

the purple tin wrote: »

Probably fleeced by shysters in the music biz. It is amazing how many big musicians are screwed over by managers, accountants, labels etc without realising it.

I used to wonder about that. Then it dawned on me...

Let's say me and you run some record label for example. You're the ceo and I'm a producer or whatever. We sign who we think is the next Lady Ga Ga to a three album deal. We take her from unknown to a star. She's just a product. For every million she gets, we have to make 20 off her. After those three records she could walk on over to Warner music leaving us.

Be it an actor or a singer, the real money is made by suits behind closed doors. I had to search it but it appears ceo of Warner music is named Stephen Cooper and has an estimated net worth of 200 million lol. He's minted lol.

Dontfadeaway

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

She's already had some kids, and must have treated them pretty damn badly that they are in the sole custody of their father. So stopping her from abusing any more kids is probably a good idea.

She is being treated for her on-going, probably life-long, medical issues. Lithium and therapy are pretty standard treatments. Given half a chance, she'd stop them and go back to the state she was in before treatment. Again, not a great idea.

There is no proof she abused her kids? We don’t know the reason she doesn’t have custody. Her kids have said they do not like her dad.

Podge_irl

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG2pEffLEJo

America has, as with so many things in life, taken something ostensibly designed to protect people, commoditised it and industrialised it and left it in the hands of for-profit businesses whose only interest is milking as much money out of the system as possible.

This situation is particularly odd/egregious as it involves a much younger person but it does indeed happen to many people in the States and there is no real reason to assume its happening for good reasons.

Shebean

Reminds me of that documentary, now a film, 'I care a lot'.
Basically they turn up at elderly peoples doors and take one of them and put them in a home they run, then the court gives them power of attorney and they cash in. All levels in on it.
I think of that when I think of Britney. Her father is abusing her to make money for himself.

the purple tin

Shebean wrote: »

Reminds me of that documentary, now a film, 'I care a lot'.
Basically they turn up at elderly peoples doors and take one of them and put them in a home they run, then the court gives them power of attorney and they cash in. All levels in on it.
I think of that when I think of Britney. Her father is abusing her to make money for himself.

Just like that crooked chidren's prison in US a few years ago. They got paid so much every month for every child they were holding so the warden had a deal with the local children's court judge to send him loads of kids.

Even for really minor petty crimes he was giving them sentence of 2 years or more. Then the warden was also holding onto prisoners after they had finished their sentence. Him and the judge were splitting the money :eek:

Mrs OBumble

Dontfadeaway wrote: »

There is no proof she abused her kids? We don’t know the reason she doesn’t have custody. Her kids have said they do not like her dad.

Yeah right, 'cos mothers lose custody of their kids for no reason.:rolleyes:

Just like doctors prescribe lithium for no reason.


If you want to stop child abuse in general, you need to stop children being created in abusive situations.

BattleCorp

I don't think there is any proof in the public domain that Spears abused her kids so it's a stretch to accuse her of that. But sole custody of her children wasn't given to their father for nothing. At the very least, Spears was viewed by the courts as being incapable of caring adequately for her children.

Secondly, the Conservatorship wasn't granted by the courts for nothing either. Spears went through a very public mental health breakdown and was clearly incapable of managing her affairs 'at that particular time'.

Has she sufficiently recovered to regain control of her affairs; to be honest I don't know. I guess that has to be down to how the courts view evidence of her current mental health condition. She does still seem to get confused rather easily when she gives interviews which isn't a good sign.

McGinniesta

I'm not familiar with the process of conservatorship.

Does it bare any resemblance with the ward of court system?

BattleCorp

McGinniesta wrote: »

I'm not familiar with the process of conservatorship.

Does it bare any resemblance with the ward of court system?

It's very like a power of attorney over someone.

A conservatorship is a form of adult guardianship in the US, which allows the conservator — mostly another family member — to be in charge of the conservatee. A conservator is a person or institution that protects the conservatee and gets distinctive powers from the court to do so.

The situation is contingent on the ability of the individual to take decisions of their life on their own. It’s mostly for individuals who do not have the necessary functioning capacity to look after themselves, their interests, finances, living arrangements, medical care and their general well-being or are susceptible to fraud of some kind.

The court usually appoints a conservator in case of old age, dementia, developmental disability or physical or mental limitations. The entire concept is based on keeping the conservatee healthy, out of harm’s way and keeping their best interests in mind.

kilburn

Mrs OBumble wrote:

She's already had some kids, and must have treated them pretty damn badly that they are in the sole custody of their father. So stopping her from abusing any more kids is probably a good idea.

Jesus you can't say things like that about people, the woman has mental health issues and you say she abused her kids I wouldn't be posting stuff like that against a very wealthy famous person online if I was you...

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Yeah right, 'cos mothers lose custody of their kids for no reason.:rolleyes:

Just like doctors prescribe lithium for no reason.


If you want to stop child abuse in general, you need to stop children being created in abusive situations.

What are you basing any of that on?

Neyite

BattleCorp wrote: »

I don't think there is any proof in the public domain that Spears abused her kids so it's a stretch to accuse her of that. But sole custody of her children wasn't given to their father for nothing. At the very least, Spears was viewed by the courts as being incapable of caring adequately for her children.
.

She shared custody 50:50 with her ex husband for years now, right up until her father tried to hit one of the boys. That prompted her ex to file a restraining order against her father meaning that she could not see her children in the vicinity of her father. Given his control over her entire life, this meant reduction of the custody to 70:30. Indeed it was to protect the kids - but from her father not her.

It's possible that her ex initially had sole custody in the early days of her mental health issues until she stabilised her health, but they shared parenting after that.

The diagnosis that was submitted to the court two years ago was early onset dementia. If that's actually the case then it tends to be rapid and if she was showing signs then, she'd be quite bad with it now.

Either she's too mentally ill to be in charge of her life, her fertility and her finances, so is too unwell to work or she's got health issues that are carefully managed and is fit to work so therefore should be able to make decisions about her own life and her own earnings - It can't be both.

Dontfadeaway

Neyite wrote: »

She shared custody 50:50 with her ex husband for years now, right up until her father tried to hit one of the boys. That prompted her ex to file a restraining order against her father meaning that she could not see her children in the vicinity of her father. Given his control over her entire life, this meant reduction of the custody to 70:30. Indeed it was to protect the kids - but from her father not her.

It's possible that her ex initially had sole custody in the early days of her mental health issues until she stabilised her health, but they shared parenting after that.

The diagnosis that was submitted to the court two years ago was early onset dementia. If that's actually the case then it tends to be rapid and if she was showing signs then, she'd be quite bad with it now.

Either she's too mentally ill to be in charge of her life, her fertility and her finances, so is too unwell to work or she's got health issues that are carefully managed and is fit to work so therefore should be able to make decisions about her own life and her own earnings - It can't be both.

So she does see her kids and it says it’s unsupervised. If she abused them it would be supervised. Sad how people just assume.

I’m sure she has some mental problems still but maybe not to the extreme they are making out.

ceadaoin.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Yeah right, 'cos mothers lose custody of their kids for no reason.:rolleyes:

Just like doctors prescribe lithium for no reason.


If you want to stop child abuse in general, you need to stop children being created in abusive situations.

One of the kids alleged abuse from her father not her. This is why she is unable to see them unsupervised. Previously she did see them unsupervised but obviously since her father controls every aspect of her life they don't trust that he won't be around.

BattleCorp

Neyite wrote: »

Either she's too mentally ill to be in charge of her life, her fertility and her finances, so is too unwell to work or she's got health issues that are carefully managed and is fit to work so therefore should be able to make decisions about her own life and her own earnings - It can't be both.

Your two examples aren't mutually exclusive. There are many examples of people with mental illness who produced absolutely world-class artwork, Van Gogh being one such example. Another example is Cody Lee, who won America's Got Talent a number of years back. He is blind and autistic and can still sing and earn money but certainly wouldn't be able to look after himself.

Britney Spears might well be able to sing and dance etc (work) but not able to look after other more complicated areas of her life such as finances etc. I'm not saying that's the case, I'm just saying it's a possibility.

I'm not arguing for or against the conservatorship but it was put there for a reason. Whether that reason is still there, I don't know.

KKkitty

chopperbyrne wrote: »

There was a documentary about Britney in about 2004.

In it, a guy alleged that her mother tried to get her into a relationship with him, when he was 20, and she was 14.

If true WTAF!

Junkyard Tom

People have a right to destroy themselves if they wish.

B.A._Baracus

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

People have a right to destroy themselves if they wish.

Heres the thing though, if you didn't have a pot to piss in a lot of people would gladly let you do just that.
Throw money into it like Britney has and suddenly its different - 'we have to act for her best interests' lol.