Sfdebris.net

https://movieweb.com/free-britney-star- ... chols/amp/

Did this fly under all of our radar or just mine?

I wasn't aware of that, but then again that is in the nature of the issue, as it's a personal affair. At first glance, I have no issue with her being under a conservatorship. The woman is 86, nearing 87 by now, had at least one mild stroke and is diagnosed with dementia. So there's a case to be made that she may not be able to properly take care of herself anymore (and to an increasing degree) and if her son is estranged and can't or doesn't want to take care of her, a conservatorship seems a reasonable measure.

Statements like:

"In fact, conservatorship relies on the ableist notion that physical disability and/or mental disability justify the removal of civil rights and freedoms. They absolutely do not.”"

...cause me to raise an eyebrow and not just because of the bullshit-bingo at work. At first glance, yeah, physical or mental disabilities do not justify the removal of civil rights and freedoms. But disabilities may make it necessary to restrict someone's civil rights and freedoms. Whether that's the case with her, I just do not know enough details to evaluate and find creating a movement for this ad hoc pretty strange and questionable. Unless everyone's aware of details which are completely unknown to me, which I have issues in taking at face value, given the nature of twitter-movements.

I never knew about her condition. This flew under my radar big time.

"In fact, conservatorship relies on the ableist notion that physical disability and/or mental disability justify the removal of civil rights and freedoms. They absolutely do not.”"

They absolutely do. If you cannot look after yourself then society needs to step in and look after you. Idiots like the Free Britney movement would rather this vulnerable old woman would end up living underneath a hobo bridge because she was unable to manage her finances enough.

clearspira wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:22 am "In fact, conservatorship relies on the ableist notion that physical disability and/or mental disability justify the removal of civil rights and freedoms. They absolutely do not.”"

They absolutely do. If you cannot look after yourself then society needs to step in and look after you. Idiots like the Free Britney movement would rather this vulnerable old woman would end up living underneath a hobo bridge because she was unable to manage her finances enough.

Just based explicitly on the lettering, it's a very valid statement.

It's not necessarily sound, given that we're not assessing the nuts and bolts of conservatorship policy rationale and would need to do so in order to determine if it's true. If someone has a physical or mental disability, that's not grounds to take away their rights.

BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 3:50 pmIf someone has a physical or mental disability, that's not grounds to take away their rights.

We do that all the time, if it's in order to protect the person in question from themselves or in order to protect others from said person. And that is a very valid concern.

Madner Kami wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 4:11 pm

BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 3:50 pmIf someone has a physical or mental disability, that's not grounds to take away their rights.

We do that all the time, if it's in order to protect the person in question from themselves or in order to protect others from said person. And that is a very valid concern.

You're loading the concept. Disabilities are extremely commonplace. What you both are implying is that if someone is a danger to themselves or the public then that has to be assessed. There needs to be evidence of that, and simply stating it as "disability therefore rights suspension," is wrong.

Where did either me or clearspira say, that a disabilty is grounds for a suspension of rights per se? It was already qualified by the addage of "being unable to take care of themself or being a threat to others". By nature, an assessment has already been done, as otherwise the qualifier would not be met.

As it stands I'm not convinced a conservator would be any less likely to take advantage of Nichols's financially. The qualifications for becoming one under the current system are practically non-existent.

My grandparents had dimentia. Early on, it was them forgetting if they ate or not of if they paid a bill or not. Around I think 2014 is where my parents and my aunt had to step in and take care of them. Hiring nurses (who should have been part of their original job at the retirement home) to make sure they ate and my Mom paid the bills. But unfortunately they also outlived their retirement savings and really couldn't afford to live there anymore. And it was a stupid amount of money to live there too. We had to help pay for that until 2017 Grandpa died and then 2018 Grandma died. Both dimentia related, Grandma died while sleeping and Grandpa died after somehow choking on his own tongue.

My point is that at Nichelle's age she definitely needs a caretaker if she has dimentia and had a stroke.