Aussies divided over controversial delivery after video emerged of driver casually tossing delivery over a fence - and Australia Post responds
Video posted to Reddit shows the delivery driver showing up at the front of the property in an unknown Australian suburb, before it is then thrown over the fence.
The driver then appears to write something on his PDA or phone and then walks away.
The Redditor said the event had taken place two weeks ago and captioned it "I mean at least he actually delivered it and didn't leave a card."
Comments were divided, with some calling the driver's handiwork "the best" they had ever seen.
'Trust me, your parcel has been through a lot worst through the sorting facility, this is nothing,' one wrote.
'Wow, a parcel not delivered to the post office but [to your] actual home? This is the best AusPost delivery I've seen,' a third added sarcastically.
'Honestly I wish they would do this with my deliveries instead of another failed delivery. Hope your stuff was ok though,' another agreed.
Other commentators shared their displeasure at what they had seen.
'The companies have a lot to answer for, we're paying for our s**t [EXPLETIVE] to be delivered, not for you to squeeze every last micro efficiency out of the process. Anybody caught yeeting a package across the floor should be kicked out, not given an award for efficiency. No respect,' one person said.
'That's insane?! Imagine if it had been glass or something,' said another.
While the driver's employer was not clear from the footage, Australia Post commented on the post, saying they wanted the customer to reach out to them to deliver feedback on the delivery.
'We are keen to look into this matter further and encourage the customer to get in touch with us directly via our website or calling 13 POST (13 7678)," the spokesperson said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
4 hours ago
- News.com.au
If you do this while grocery shopping, you're officially a ‘grub'
Shoppers are exposing the bizarre things they've found at supermarkets, including the bones of an entirely devoured roast chicken. A picture recently shared on social media showed a bag of Coles Roast Chicken discovered at the Southland, Victoria, store. However, instead of the bag being filled with a chicken, all it contained was the ravaged carcass left behind by a seemingly hungry customer. 'A customer ate a whole rotisserie chicken in the store and left a bag full of bones in the tissue aisle,' a Reddit user, who claimed to work at the supermarket giant, said. Some social media users found the act of eating a whole chicken hilarious — and were impressed that someone was able to get away with such a blatant act of theft. 'Gotta commend them for not only their commitment but discretion. I mean how does one eat an ENTIRE chicken without getting caught? Either they've done this enough to know how to be discrete or they huffed that thing,' one person commented. Another said; 'Put it in the basket and walk up and down each aisle. You realise pretty quickly the general public doesn't care about you lol.' 'Well it's acceptable to eat a few grapes why can't someone check the chicken is not well prepared? Lucky it wasn't the hound 'Think I'll take two chickens',' one commented. One added: 'Honestly I'm impressed. The tissue aisle was probably a tactical move tbh.' 'Won't be hard to spot on the CCTV but damn that's effort eating the whole damn chicken,' another social media user added. One added: 'Probably some gym bro.' 'You know what if I saw this at work, I wouldn't even be mad. This is impressive and funny while not leaving a huge mess to clean up,' another said. One commented: 'I reckon most people would be surprised by how often this happens.' 'They probably didn't eat it they probably shredded it up and put it in a different bag or hid it inside something so they didn't have to pay for it,' one commented. One social media user called it 'grub behaviour' but others gave the customer the benefit of the doubt, saying it was likely an act of desperation. 'Yeah, if it was a homeless or hungry poor person, I'm glad they ate it,' one said. Another added: 'Tbh, in this economy, I can kinda respect it.' 'If someone is doing it that rough they need to do this to get a nice chicken dinner, and not even be able to sit and enjoy it, they need it more that I do,' one commented. One said: 'Must have been starving, they inhaled it. My friends work at Coles and Woolworths and see homeless people come in and eat but also purchase a drink or something and I get it you gotta eat.' It's not unusual to find something slightly off at a retail store. Workers around the world have reported finding everything from open chip packets gorged on while strolling the aisles, used nappies and even urine in vases. Internet personality Emily Solberg found a stash of KFC's Popcorn Chicken hidden inside a gumboot at Walmart in January. Meanwhile in 2022, a Woolworths Coffs Harbour worker found a half eaten kebab hidden on the shelves. The worker labelled it a 'pig' act and said working in the team that restocked shelves at night, sights like this weren't uncommon. Another picture showed a corn relish dip shoved into a box of Chicken Crimpy Shapes. Last year, during the peak of the egg shortage, Australians were doing their best to secure a perfect carton. So, they would dump broken eggs onto the shelf. The Pick and Mix section of supermarkets have always proved controversial with a pigeon being spotted at a Coles store earlier this year. Last year, a customer called out another shopper for simply sticking their hand in and taking a snack for the road.
Sky News AU
5 hours ago
- Sky News AU
ASIO boss Mike Burgess gives chilling address on foreign espionage which has cost Australia $12.5 billion in a single year
ASIO Director-General Mike Burgess has given a chilling address concerning "unprecedented" foreign espionage, telling an audience in Adelaide spies had cost Australia at least $12.5 billion in one year. In an address in Adelaide on Thursday, the spy chief relayed instances of foreign agents stealing research and innovation secrets, as well as strategic and tactical information. Mr Burgess released an inaugural "cost of espionage" report prepared by ASIO which detailed the threats to the public and private sector. He said the report was believed to be the "first and certainly most comprehensive public analysis of its kind in the world". 'You would be genuinely shocked by the number and names of countries trying to steal our secrets,' Mr Burgess said. 'The obvious candidates are very active – I've previously named China, Russia and Iran – but many other countries are also targeting anyone and anything that could give them a strategic or tactical advantage, including sensitive but unclassified information.' Australia's top spy said it made his "head spin" that hundreds of Australians who had a security clearance publicly advertised that information on social media. "On just one professional networking site, the profiles of more than 35,000 Australians indicate they have access to sensitive and potentially classified information. Around 7,000 reference their work in the defence sector, including the specific project they are working on, the team they are working in, and the critical technologies they are working with," he said. "Close to 400 explicitly say they work on AUKUS, and the figure rises above 2,000 if you include broader references to 'submarines' and 'nuclear'. "Nearly two and a half thousand publicly boast about having a security clearance and thirteen hundred claim to work in the national security community. While these numbers have fallen since I first raised the alarm two years ago, this still makes my head spin." Mr Burgess said the "unprecedented" level of espionage had eclipsed the Cold War era and had shown foreign intellience services were taking a "very unhealthy interest in AUKUS and its associated capabilities'. "Australia's defence sector is a top intelligence collection priority for foreign governments seeking to blunt our operational edge, gain insights into our operational readiness and tactics, and better understand our allies' capabilities," he said. "With AUKUS, we are not just defending our sovereign capability. We are also defending critical capability shared by and with our partners." Mr Burgess said the $12.5 billion figure included the direct costs of "known espionage incidents" such as theft of intellectual property, as well as the indirect costs of countering and responding. "As just one example, the Institute estimates foreign cyber spies stole nearly $2 billion of trade secrets and intellectual property from Australian companies and businesses in 2023-24," he said. Mr Burgess said while cyber spying was a serious focus of ASIO, in-person espionage was still a major threat and relayed a story involving a rare fruit tree. "Several years ago, a delegation from overseas visited a sensitive Australian horticultural facility," he said. "During an official tour of the site, a member of the delegation broke away, entered a restricted area and photographed a rare and valuable variety of fruit tree. An alert staff member discovered and deleted the images but it later emerged photos weren't the only things taken that day – several of the tree's branches were missing. "The delegate had snapped them off and smuggled them out of Australia." Mr Burgess said it was almost certain the stolen plant material allowed scientists in their home country to reverse engineer and replicate two decades of Australian research. "In another case, an Australian defence contractor invented, manufactured and marketed a world-leading innovation. Sales boomed for a while but suddenly collapsed, for no apparent reason," the spy chief said. "Customers began flooding the company's repair centre with faulty products. While the returns looked genuine, closer examination revealed they were cheap and nasty knock offs. An investigation uncovered what happened. "One year earlier, a company representative attended a defence industry event overseas and was approached by an enthusiastic local. She insisted on sharing some content via a USB, which was inserted into a company laptop. The USB infected the system with malware allowing hackers to steal the blueprints for the product. "Almost certainly, the 'enthusiastic local' worked for a foreign intelligence service." Mr Burgess aid security was a "shared responsibility" and that all Australians had a role to play. The ASIO chief said there were three people currently before Australian courts on espionage-related charges and that he was confident there could be more if anyone tried to compromise AUKUS.
West Australian
12 hours ago
- West Australian
Mark Riley: Families of teen victims call for tougher laws as government focuses on age, not algorithms
Some people we meet look into our eyes, and we see them. Others do it in a way that allows us to see right into the very heart of them. Robb Evans, Emma Mason and Mia Bannister did that on Wednesday morning as they sat in the Prime Minister's suite at Parliament House, waiting to take part in an announcement they hoped would prevent the eyes of other parents from becoming windows to the boundless agony of losing a child. Robb Evans carried that pain with him as he cradled an urn containing the ashes of his daughter, Liv. She died of anorexia in April 2023. She was 15. It was important to Robb that Liv was there at that moment. Emma Mason's daughter, Tilly, and Mia Bannister's son, Ollie, were there in spirit, too. Anthony Albanese and Communications Minister Anika Wells could see them in their mothers' eyes. Tilly and Ollie both took their own lives. Tilly died in February 2022. She, like Liv, was 15. Ollie died in January 2024. He was just 14. All three teenagers had suffered through years of online torment and abuse. For those of us huddled against the Canberra cold in the Prime Minister's courtyard that morning, their presence could be felt as the next phase of the Government's social media ban for under-16s was laid out. It is far from perfect. Its impact will be real. But it will be limited. Kids, being kids, will get around it. But it tells social media giants that Australian legislators are determined to force them to accept responsibility for the vile, misleading and downright dangerous content their algorithms spew before susceptible young minds. Most of the companies say the right things. But they appear to do little. That's principally because governments have not yet found a way to hold them legally responsible for the treacherous rubbish their sites publish and broadcast. Scott Morrison tried. He proposed anti-trolling laws in 2021, partially as a response to the supercharged torrent of online abuse that flooded social media during COVID. Despite attracting the in-principle support of world leaders at various international forums, his domestic push failed. The intention was laudable. The legislation, though, was deeply flawed. Lawyers warned it would undermine existing defamation laws, human rights advocates said it would impinge on individual freedoms and eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant cautioned that it would be impossible to 'arrest or regulate our way out of online abuse'. So, legislators went back to the drawing board and came up with the under-16s ban. It is hailed as a world-first piece of legislation. The fact that the social giants dislike it so much probably tells us that it will have some impact. And it brings some relief to the hearts of grieving parents. 'Ollie, Tilly and Liv. Their lives mattered,' Mia Bannister declared. It was a deeply touching moment. But I and others were struck by the penetrating feeling that Ollie, Tilly and Liv deserved something more. This reform only treats one side of the issue. The ban is on children, not the content. The legislation threatens the media giants with fines of up to $50 million if they allow under-16s to operate accounts. The objective is to let kids access social media only in a logged-off state so the algorithms can't curate a dangerous diet of content based on their profiles. But it doesn't stop that content from being published or broadcast in the first place. Nor does it stop the kids from finding it without having to log in. We stop 15-year-olds from using assault rifles by banning the kids and the guns. But we don't do that online, where words are too often used as weapons. Any mainstream media outlet that published or broadcast such dangerous content would be put straight up before the regulators and the courts and face having its operating license ripped up. Quite rightly. But social media sites publish and broadcast this dangerous rubbish every second with apparent impunity. I asked Anika Wells when governments would stop the platforms from allowing this stuff to be posted in the first place. She said that question was 'ultimately one for the social media platforms to answer'. But it's not. It is for governments. And until governments find that answer, ministers and prime ministers and the rest of us will continue to look through the eyes of shattered parents and into the misery of broken hearts that will never mend. Mark Riley is the Seven Network's political editor
