30 March 2012

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

| johnboy
Join the conversation
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]

Join the conversation

55
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

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 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 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.

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_Yesterday11:06 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.

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)?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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….!

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.

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?

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_Bag5:01 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.

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.

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?

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

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

devils_advocate2:44 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.

devils_advocate2:21 pm 30 Mar 12

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).

HenryBG said :

By building a teepee, going to court and speaking to the media, it is fairly evidence that he is “trying to make a point”.

Can you clarify whatever it is you object to, precisely?

My problem is with the pretense that he’s actively looking for “accommodation that [he] find[s] suitable”, when he’s clearly just hanging on for as long as he can. To what end? He doesn’t have a defined goal, he’s not engaging with the government on the student housing issue (or anything else), he’s pretty much just sitting on the lake and lapping up any attention that’s thrown his way.

If you’re going to protest something then at least do it properly, otherwise you’re just being a narcissistic nuisance. 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?

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.

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.

dazzab said :

Professional balanced reporting there. Not. But as your bylines states, you get to write the news anyway you see fit. Reader beware.

If you don’t think editorial slant is a part of every media process in the City State Country planet Universe, then you are sadly mistaken. Some media are a little more open about their interests and objectives then others. Personally I think most of JB’s editorial slants are pretty obvious and not too insidious, unlike those of some of this big end of the market competitors.

HenryBG said :

And the fact that a bunch of campers outside OPH aren’t being moved on gives him grounds for objecting to selective application of the law, selective application of the law being the first telltale sign of corrupt government.

I think one problem with this rationale is that the OPH site is on NCA (Commonwealth) land? So, I guess there are slightly different laws involved from the outset? Further, there’s the whole ‘original owner’ justification, which is somewhat different between the two cases?

devils_advocate1:30 pm 30 Mar 12

HenryBG said :

… selective application of the law being the first telltale sign of corrupt government.

Unfortunately for us, this wouldn’t be the first telltale sign, not by a long shot. But a telltale sign, nonetheless.

devils_advocate1:29 pm 30 Mar 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.

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.

Erg0 said :

devils_advocate said :

I can’t honestly believe he likes living on the lake. Seriously, it would be cold and crap and getting worse as winter approaches.

I can believe he likes it more than the other available alternatives. Which really is the point here. The fact that someone would choose to live in a bloody tent on a lake than pay stupid prices for cramped student accomodation highlights that there is potentially something wrong.

The thing is, at this point he’s not living on the lake because he likes it or because he has no other options. He’s doing it to make a point, and says as much in the second quote in my post above.

All the “I’ll move as soon as I can find an alternative” stuff is just a smokescreen for his actual intent, which is to remain a pain in the government’s backside until he’s satisfied that his message has been spread effectively. I’m not really pro- or anti-teepee, as I’ve never had experience of student accommodation, but I’ve never been fond of smartarses who think they can pull the wool over people’s eyes. If he’s doing it to make a point, he should just own it.

By building a teepee, going to court and speaking to the media, it is fairly evidence that he is “trying to make a point”.

Can you clarify whatever it is you object to, precisely?

TeePee-man is doing the right thing – authority should always be challenged to ensure we keep our freedoms.

And the fact that a bunch of campers outside OPH aren’t being moved on gives him grounds for objecting to selective application of the law, selective application of the law being the first telltale sign of corrupt government.

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.

pink little birdie11:23 am 30 Mar 12

devils_advocate said :

What really makes it interesting is that the nature of the action (if I am understanding correctly) will focus on the power of the ACT to make laws restricting the ability of individuals to use certain land when they’ve been given permission by the native title claimants (rather than the interpretation of the law itself). Which is always interesting in itself.
/quote]

Actually why did he get Ngambi Elder permission? Ngambi is generally southern Canberra. Ngunnawal land is the Northern parts of Canberra, the boarder of the land groups is roughly along the Molongalo. Either way it is heavily in dispute but the ACT Government currently regognises Ngunnawal Elders as the Traditional owners of Canberra.

Also I’m fairly sure the majority of Canberra and lakes are exluded from people trying to claim Native Title on it.

“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”

Professional balanced reporting there. Not. But as your bylines states, you get to write the news anyway you see fit. Reader beware.

devils_advocate said :

I can’t honestly believe he likes living on the lake. Seriously, it would be cold and crap and getting worse as winter approaches.

I can believe he likes it more than the other available alternatives. Which really is the point here. The fact that someone would choose to live in a bloody tent on a lake than pay stupid prices for cramped student accomodation highlights that there is potentially something wrong.

The thing is, at this point he’s not living on the lake because he likes it or because he has no other options. He’s doing it to make a point, and says as much in the second quote in my post above.

All the “I’ll move as soon as I can find an alternative” stuff is just a smokescreen for his actual intent, which is to remain a pain in the government’s backside until he’s satisfied that his message has been spread effectively. I’m not really pro- or anti-teepee, as I’ve never had experience of student accommodation, but I’ve never been fond of smartarses who think they can pull the wool over people’s eyes. If he’s doing it to make a point, he should just own it.

devils_advocate11:04 am 30 Mar 12

Erg0 said :

devils_advocate said :

It is possible to do a given action for more than 1 reason.

Granted, but he can hardly expect people to believe that he’s genuinely trying to find suitable accomodation when he’s made it clear that moving off the lake is not what he really wants to do.

I can’t honestly believe he likes living on the lake. Seriously, it would be cold and crap and getting worse as winter approaches.

I can believe he likes it more than the other available alternatives. Which really is the point here. The fact that someone would choose to live in a bloody tent on a lake than pay stupid prices for cramped student accomodation highlights that there is potentially something wrong.

I don’t believe he’s made it clear that he doesn’t want to move of the lake. He has made it clear that he will do so on his terms, and has raised a question as to the validity of actions by government seeking to force him to do so on their terms.

Now it may be that the ACT govco is legally entitled to put an end to this, and it may be that they’re not. Presumably the court action will settle that question.

devils_advocate said :

It is possible to do a given action for more than 1 reason.

Granted, but he can hardly expect people to believe that he’s genuinely trying to find suitable accomodation when he’s made it clear that moving off the lake is not what he really wants to do.

devils_advocate10:52 am 30 Mar 12

I-filed said :

If the ACT Govt act against Woodbridge now, surely they will HAVE to do something about the five to seven cars parked daily at the Tent Embassy …

Good point. The law should be administered consistently. Whether this teepee ‘protest’ is more or less worthy than whatever is going on at the tent embassy is immaterial – a protest is a protest and the ACT govco should not be the self-appointed arbiter of what is and isn’t a worthy cause.

devils_advocate10:49 am 30 Mar 12

I didn’t really support this fellow until he manned up and decided to take court action to enforce whatever rights he may end up having. What really makes it interesting is that the nature of the action (if I am understanding correctly) will focus on the power of the ACT to make laws restricting the ability of individuals to use certain land when they’ve been given permission by the native title claimants (rather than the interpretation of the law itself). Which is always interesting in itself.

As a proponent of the declaratory theory of law (i.e. law is set and the job of the courts is merely to declare what is is, as opposed to making the law themselves) I am interested to know the outcome of this case and how it clarifies the law.

At first I thought he was just having a whinge but now that he’s actually sticking up for himself he has my support.

devils_advocate10:44 am 30 Mar 12

Erg0 said :

Having read that article, I’m less clear than ever on his motivations for staying on the lake. First he says:
“I would like the ability to move off the lake when I find accommodation that I find suitable,” he said.

Then it changes to:
“I’m trying to raise some fairly serious issues about student accommodation and unfortunately, it takes longer than six weeks to do that.”

So is he staying because he (supposedly) can’t find suitable accommodation, or is he staying to make a statement?

It is possible to do a given action for more than 1 reason.

Special G said :

Tent embassy is an ongoing protest. Can’t go removing one without removing the other.

If the ACT Govt act against Woodbridge now, surely they will HAVE to do something about the five to seven cars parked daily at the Tent Embassy …

Have to say Mr Woodbridge strikes me as a very simple person, certainly came across that way in the Canberra Times video. Also risks coming across as quite selfish making statements like “I would like the ability to move off the lake when I find accommodation that I find suitable.”

If he wants to make a genuine point about student housing fine, I’ll say to him what I said in a post earlier this month about student groups on student housing – be specific.

How do you define suitable? What do you want improved about student housing? If it’s price, name a figure or a percentage of income?
You obviously won’t get much, if any of it in the short term, but at least it moves the argument beyond this whiny stage.
Tens of thousands of students manage so unless he can be more specific, he’ll increasingly appear a spoilt whiner.

His statement has been well and truly made. Now give him the maximum $3300 fine and see how much student accomodation that could have bought him.

Having read that article, I’m less clear than ever on his motivations for staying on the lake. First he says:
“I would like the ability to move off the lake when I find accommodation that I find suitable,” he said.

Then it changes to:
“I’m trying to raise some fairly serious issues about student accommodation and unfortunately, it takes longer than six weeks to do that.”

So is he staying because he (supposedly) can’t find suitable accommodation, or is he staying to make a statement?

He spent $4000 on that teepee. I’m all for taking a stand and having your voice heard but spending that sort of money defeats the purpose in my opinion.

http://canberra.realviewtechnologies.com/?iid=60118&startpage=page0000001

Mr Mortimer has previously issued an ”authorisation certificate”, stating that Mr Woodbridge was ”authorised to occupy Lake Ginninderra or any other lake estuary or wetland” in Ngambri Country. The certificate was issued by Mr Mortimer on behalf of ”elders past and present”.

Does that make any difference whatsoever?

Diggety said :

some of the feedback he’d received through online forums had been offensive

Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/teepee-battle-heads-to-court-20120329-1w1id.html#ixzz1qXvLMypy.

Exaggerated headline much? Can do better Riot-act.

Sounds more like he hates RA posters’ comments, if anything.
Then again, it’s not unusual for such comments to be overly critical of almost anything…

I stumbled across this yesterday and it seems appropriate for many posts here! I guess we’re all bored and needing to feel better about ourselves! Hahahaha!
http://jezebel.com/5876891/the-art-of-hate+reading

Ok, so go ahead and protest the cost of student accommodation. But ask the government to provide you with housing? Now that’s a bit rich.

Aren’t there thousands of individuals and families already on the waiting list for housing? Does he want to jump the queue?

Perhaps he should just suck it up and do what many a struggling uni student has done before him – defer, or go part time, and get a job and support himself instead of expecting the community to give him a free ride.

I’m sure there are many people on the housing waiting list who don’t have the luxury of being able to move back in with their parents, or who can’t work.

I fail to see how he intends to claim native title on a man made (post European settlement of the continent) lake.

Maybe it’s the vibe?

there’s going to be tears before bedtime when the weight of the real world descends on young William and he realises that the world doesn’t revolve around him and his 15 minutes!

Tent embassy is an ongoing protest. Can’t go removing one without removing the other.

I bet he’ll be off the lake once it starts getting cold…

Im behind W Woodbridge all the way. The issue is the price of student accommodation in Canberra.

Felix the Cat4:23 am 30 Mar 12

Doesn’t it cost a lot of money to take a greivance to the Supreme Court? I thought the whole reasoning behind the teepee on the lake was because he couldn’t afford student accommodation.

Complaining of rental costs and then going to court is somewhat amusing.

He was also on the project on Wednesday night-

http://theprojecttv.com.au/video.htm?movideo_p=39696&movideo_m=173100

Spray the thing with silver paint, give it some LED lights and call it public art, can’t be worse than that thing in Woden and certainly cheaper.

Along with my recent choice to identify as Aboriginal, I will now change my name to William Woodbridge.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.