Teepee man hates internet commenters and speaks exclusively to the tree killing media

johnboy 30 March 2012 55

william woodbridge

Forgetting where he got his media profile from William Woodbridge now get his kicks talking exclusively to the Canberra Times and hoping that a native title certificate and $3.50 will buy him a coffee:

Canberra’s teepee man William Woodbridge has taken his fight to stay on Lake Ginninderra to the Supreme Court.

The 21-year-old lodged an interlocutory injunction with the court yesterday to stop what local Ngambri elder Shane Mortimer labelled an ”unlawful forced removal” from the floating home.

Speaking exclusively to The Canberra Times, Mr Woodbridge said he intended to defy orders by the ACT government to relocate.

[Photo by Conor Hickey]


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
55 Responses to Teepee man hates internet commenters and speaks exclusively to the tree killing media
Filter
Order
Diggety Diggety 9:39 am 08 Jun 12

It was -5degC this morning. I wonder how many needy (not wanty) people slummed it with frozen apendages so this spoilt little scrotum could have a taxpayer funded w*nking box?

I don’t normally believe in “Top Tanking” another’s abode, but in his case I’d make an exception.

Erg0 Erg0 8:54 am 08 Jun 12

Erg0 said :

devils_advocate said :

Erg0 said :

Incidentally, the easy resolution to this is for the ACT govt to offer him a cosy little two-bedder in O’Connor. If he refuses it then he’s a liar, if he takes it then he’s a sellout.

Um, if the government hands out accomodation in o’connor (which would have to at least be subsidised to be acceptable to him) then they’d have to do it for every student, which is hardly easy.

Of course they wouldn’t, the point is to undermine the guy’s message by giving him exactly what he wants and then denying it to those he was supposedly representing. Win-win.

Ok, maybe I’m being a bit facetious – but I still think it would be worth a shot.

Oops, this was the post I meant to quote. I should have known that it’s never safe to assume you’re being facetious when talking about the ACT Government.

Erg0 Erg0 8:33 am 08 Jun 12

Erg0 said :

Incidentally, the easy resolution to this is for the ACT govt to offer him a cosy little two-bedder in O’Connor. If he refuses it then he’s a liar, if he takes it then he’s a sellout.

Sellout it is, then.

rosscoact rosscoact 7:46 am 08 Jun 12

HenryBG said :

Erg0 said :

As for the court case, I don’t think it could be reasonably argued that his specific cause has anything to do with the government’s decision to apply the law and move him on. As has been noted above, the Tent Embassy is on Commonwealth Land and has nothing to with the ACT government, and I can’t think of any other examples of protests in the ACT that have been selectively allowed to continue. Given that, I don’t think that you can really apply the slippery slope argument to a situation in which the government is enforcing the law as written.

So, out of technical interest, whose job is it to move on people who are illegally residing on Commonwealth Land?
Would it by any chance be people wearing the exact same uniform as the people who would be enforcing the ACT Government[sic]’s order against TeePee man, should he choose to ignore the order?

I reckon it would be the AFP whose role it is to protect Commonwealth and national interests from crime but not the separate ACT Policing arm.

Tomorrow_is_Yesterday Tomorrow_is_Yesterday 11:06 pm 07 Jun 12

I-filed said :

Canberra Times reported today (I read the hardcopy so can’t post a link) that far from “evicted”, teepee boy has jumped the queue by a couple of years and has been a choice inner-Belco guvvie flat all to himself. So, if you make a fuss and get yourself into the press, the ACT Government will roll over. Suck it up, non PR-savvy, bona fide housing waiting list folk! Care to change your vote next election?

No wonder the waiting is is so long, you only get to the top if you make a fuss it seems.

p1 p1 8:12 pm 07 Jun 12

I-filed said :

Canberra Times reported today (I read the hardcopy so can’t post a link) that far from “evicted”, teepee boy has jumped the queue by a couple of years and has been a choice inner-Belco guvvie flat all to himself. So, if you make a fuss and get yourself into the press, the ACT Government will roll over. Suck it up, non PR-savvy, bona fide housing waiting list folk! Care to change your vote next election?

I missed this back when you posted it. Is it true? I though teepee man had local parents who were supporting him (at least with his nautical projects)?

Diggety Diggety 6:27 pm 07 Jun 12

I-filed said :

Canberra Times reported today (I read the hardcopy so can’t post a link) that far from “evicted”, teepee boy has jumped the queue by a couple of years and has been a choice inner-Belco guvvie flat all to himself. So, if you make a fuss and get yourself into the press, the ACT Government will roll over. Suck it up, non PR-savvy, bona fide housing waiting list folk! Care to change your vote next election?

Sounds like Trolley Man.

I-filed I-filed 7:53 pm 13 Apr 12

Canberra Times reported today (I read the hardcopy so can’t post a link) that far from “evicted”, teepee boy has jumped the queue by a couple of years and has been a choice inner-Belco guvvie flat all to himself. So, if you make a fuss and get yourself into the press, the ACT Government will roll over. Suck it up, non PR-savvy, bona fide housing waiting list folk! Care to change your vote next election?

cantdance cantdance 9:04 pm 03 Apr 12

Can’t believe this is still dragging on. Hello, you’re not the only one with housing issues, suck it up man.

I call cheapskate.

Diggety Diggety 12:46 am 31 Mar 12

bigfeet said :

Put a Collins class sub in the lake and have it fight it out with the floating Teepee. It would be a pretty even match-up.

I think a beached whale would have a better chance than one of those subs.

dpm dpm 10:53 pm 30 Mar 12

HenryBG said :

…So, out of technical interest, whose job is it to move on people who are illegally residing on Commonwealth Land?
Would it by any chance be people wearing the exact same uniform as the people who would be enforcing the ACT Government[sic]’s order against TeePee man, should he choose to ignore the order?

The same law enforcement may or may not be involved with enforcing both situations, but as I said, i’m pretty sure they come under different laws (and also have different politicial problems). I’m not saying it’s right, but that’s how it is. Breaking it down into supposed simple logic won’t help here. If you think it will, I suggest you take it up with your local (both ACT and federal) members, not RA posters. Let us know whey they say. They can explain the difference to us! 🙂
Kinda like jury duty, things aren’t always fair for everyone….!

I-filed I-filed 10:25 pm 30 Mar 12

dpm said :

Further, there’s the whole ‘original owner’ justification, which is somewhat different between the two cases?

There are NO original owners of Canberra at the Tent Embassy. They are all from elsewhere. Ngunnawal don’t like them being there. They have even burnt down one of the 80 year old fir trees.
Who is paying for the garbage collection? Truck turns up every three weeks to clear up for them.

HenryBG HenryBG 8:37 pm 30 Mar 12

Erg0 said :

As for the court case, I don’t think it could be reasonably argued that his specific cause has anything to do with the government’s decision to apply the law and move him on. As has been noted above, the Tent Embassy is on Commonwealth Land and has nothing to with the ACT government, and I can’t think of any other examples of protests in the ACT that have been selectively allowed to continue. Given that, I don’t think that you can really apply the slippery slope argument to a situation in which the government is enforcing the law as written.

So, out of technical interest, whose job is it to move on people who are illegally residing on Commonwealth Land?
Would it by any chance be people wearing the exact same uniform as the people who would be enforcing the ACT Government[sic]’s order against TeePee man, should he choose to ignore the order?

bigfeet bigfeet 6:05 pm 30 Mar 12

Put a Collins class sub in the lake and have it fight it out with the floating Teepee. It would be a pretty even match-up.

Little_Green_Bag Little_Green_Bag 5:01 pm 30 Mar 12

c_c said :

Chop71 said :

Who knows, maybe “Do you wanna come see my teepee” will be a common pick up line at the Moose soon?

Don’t know about that. Todd Carney didn’t say that to the other guy before Carney gave him a golden shower in the men’s toilet at All Bar Nun.

Erg0 Erg0 4:45 pm 30 Mar 12

devils_advocate said :

Erg0 said :

You didn’t hear any of the Occupy people saying “We’re going to pitch a tent in your park and stay there until we decide to leave at our discretion,” did you?

Actually that’s exactly what I understood them to be doing, and precious little else. In fact this tent fellow seems to have articulated some kind of message/goal, which is a lot more than the occupy movement (OK maybe the US ones had some central message but the Australian/martin place ones had no discernible anything).

As I understand it, the goal of the Occupy movement is to stay put until things actually change. This guy just wants to stay until he feels like leaving.

As for the court case, I don’t think it could be reasonably argued that his specific cause has anything to do with the government’s decision to apply the law and move him on. As has been noted above, the Tent Embassy is on Commonwealth Land and has nothing to with the ACT government, and I can’t think of any other examples of protests in the ACT that have been selectively allowed to continue. Given that, I don’t think that you can really apply the slippery slope argument to a situation in which the government is enforcing the law as written.

c_c c_c 4:41 pm 30 Mar 12

Chop71 said :

My time at uni was about drinking beer and meeting girls, I wonder how he is doing in those departments.

Well he’s got a cool box, so the beer situation is probably okay, though he may want to wear some floaties if he plans on getting plastered.

Girl situation? Watch the video in the Canberra Times article, there’s a moment where he and the reporter are sitting next to each other and he comments “This is a bed we’re sitting on” with a grin I swear.

Who knows, maybe “Do you wanna come see my teepee” will be a common pick up line at the Moose soon?

geetee geetee 3:21 pm 30 Mar 12

He: “Wanna come back to my place and see my hatchlings?”
She: “Haha. Surely you mean etchings?”
He” “Err…no..”

Chop71 Chop71 3:05 pm 30 Mar 12

My time at uni was about drinking beer and meeting girls, I wonder how he is doing in those departments.

devils_advocate devils_advocate 2:44 pm 30 Mar 12

Erg0 said :

I’d also add that the court case has precisely nothing to do with the reason that he’s there in the first place, and is just an opportunistic attempt to avoid having to move before he feels like it – and a fairly transparent one, at that.

The court case appears to be about resolving the question of whether he is legally entitled to be there. In a sense, although he will be the applicant/plaintiff, he is really taking a ‘defensive’ action against the ACT govco’s attempts to evict him. So while it has nothing to do with the reason for him being there, it has everything to do with the fact of him being there. In the absence of clear constitutional rights about such things in Australia (such as in US) I would be concerned that if the ACT govco is allowed to simply move on those people whose protests they don’t like (while still allowing others) we are on a very slippery slope to somewhere not good.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site