If you do this while grocery shopping, you're officially a ‘grub'
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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Aussie woman shares horror at being confronted by her local postman at her home after she complained about stolen parcel
An Australian woman has shared her horror at being confronted by her local postman at her home after she complained about her parcel going missing. The woman from Melbourne took to Reddit this week to say she ordered puppy products from Queensland small business Pablo and Co in preparation for the impending arrival of her new canine companion. What followed made her wish she had never made the purchase. The woman was in Bendigo visiting her terminally ill grandmother when her phone pinged, informing her her package was out for delivery and Australia Post would take the goods to the post office if she wasn't home. However, the corner-cutting postie delivered her parcel whilst she was away. "I came home and no sign of our parcel, so I went to the local post office to see what was going on," the woman explained. "The woman behind the desk showed me the screen and the delivery man had signed for my parcel on my behalf and then dumped it at my door. "And you guessed it, it was stolen." The disgruntled woman said the post office worker urged her to lodge an online complaint, which she did. And that's when events took a turn for the sinister. "Literally two days later, the delivery man came to my door while I was home and asked me why I'd submitted a complaint," she said. "I told him he'd fraudulently signed on my behalf and his actions had led to my parcel being stolen. "He tried looking into my house to probably see if I'd stashed it somewhere." The woman asked him why he thought it was appropriate for him to come to her house and harass her, to which he said his "boss told him to." "I was fuming, it seemed so inappropriate, and I'd been afraid something like this would happen if I complained." "A few days later, I get (an email) where Australia Post admits to fault and to contact the shop I purchased from. The woman did so, reaching out to Pablo and Co in the hopes Australia Post could reimburse the owners, only to be met with a brick wall. "Apparently not. Even with the email where they say they're (Australia Post) in the wrong, they've refused to reimburse the shop," she said. The business was kind enough to send the woman replacement products. However, they ended up being delivered by the same unruly postman who "threw" the parcel at her. The woman said she lodged another complaint with Australia Post and two more with the ombudsman for the fraudulent signature and for turning up to my house and "using my private details in an improper way." Unfortunately she didn't have a camera installed to capture the postie's alleged harassment. One person claimed the postman's forged signature was "100 per cent against the law." "How he wasn't fired is beyond me," they said. Another person quipped the postie must be "determined to lose his job" and "putting a lot of effort into it". "If only he put that energy into to actually delivering the parcels." "You should file a police report," one more person said. "Whether it's for assault and theft or just assault, it's worth going through with." has contacted Australia Post and Pablo and Co for comment.
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Automatic systems unlawfully cancelled 964 jobseekers' payments in two years, watchdog finds
Almost a thousand jobseekers had their income support payments unlawfully terminated over two years, the federal watchdog has found, cautioning the breach likely had a "profound if not catastrophic" impact on vulnerable people. The cancellations occurred automatically under the Targeted Compliance Framework, a system set up to monitor "mutual obligations", which are the conditions people have to meet to continue receiving payments, like job hunting and attending interviews. New laws introduced after the Robodebt scandal require agencies to consider the jobseeker's circumstances before cutting off a payment, which did not occur in 964 cancellations between April 2022 and July 2024. "Imagine that if you were already living under the poverty line, so you can't necessarily afford to pay rent, to feed yourself, to clothe yourself, but imagine then that that income is cut off for four weeks or more," Commonwealth Ombudsman Iain Anderson said. "What are you supposed to do? That's the type of catastrophe that we are talking about." The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations paused the cancellation of payments in July last year, but the watchdog found it took too long to act after identifying the issue. It then informed the Commonwealth Ombudsman in December that it had not implemented the new legislation, which was passed two years earlier, sparking an investigation into how the lapse occurred. In his findings, the Ombudsman invoked conclusions from the Robodebt royal commission that warned automated processes in the delivery of support payments can have serious impacts on highly vulnerable people. "[The Robodebt royal commissioner] noted that automation requires a lot of care and skill to make sure that things don't go wrong," Mr Anderson said. "And while this is not the same as Robodebt, in that it wasn't a deliberate intention of doing things wrongly, there just wasn't the adequate care and skill being employed to ensure parliament's instructions in terms of the legislation were properly implemented." The department was involved in developing the new laws, according to the Ombudsman, which shifted the requirement from the secretary "must" cancel payments to "may" if they determine the recipient failed to meet their obligations without an acceptable excuse. "That big change required the individual circumstances of each jobseeker to be considered before their payment was cancelled, and that's the step that they didn't do — instead the system went on automatically cancelling payments," he said. The report makes seven recommendations, including that the department not resume cancellations until the errors have been corrected and that systems are put in place to provide ongoing assurance that the framework complies with the law. All the recommendations be accepted by the department and Services Australia. The Ombudsman is also investigating whether the decision-making process that leads to cancellations is fair and reasonable, and the role of employment agencies, with the findings to be released in a second report later this year. Under the framework, recipients accrue demerit points if they fail to meet their obligations without a valid reason, which can lead to their payments being suspended, reduced or cut off. More than 883,000 Australians are currently on the scheme, according to government data. A separate review by Deloitte into the framework's computer system — which was completed in June but is yet to be publicly released — found it had become "increasingly unstable, with volatility directly impacting compliance function operation" and increasing the possibility of unexpected results "including flawed determinations". Employment Minister Amanda Rishworth did not respond to a request for comment.
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
UN urges Australia to halt deportation of man to Nauru while complaint investigated
The United Nations has urged Australia to halt plans to deport a man to Nauru while it investigates the human rights implications of his case. Australia is seeking to deport three people released under the NZYQ decision to the tiny Pacific nation in exchange for an undisclosed payment but their removal has been stalled since February due to court challenges. The men, one of whom has a prior murder conviction, were among a group of hundreds released into the community following the High Court's dramatic 2023 ruling that their indefinite detention was unlawful. The United Nations' Human Rights Committee wrote to the Australian government last week requesting the deportation of one of the trio be halted while they consider his complaint to the body, which was submitted days earlier. It cannot compel the government to follow its direction, which it issued as an interim measure while the matter is under investigation. "The principle is simple; if your visa is cancelled, you have to leave Australia," Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke said in a statement. "That's a pretty consistent principle, applied in every functioning immigration system around the world." But the Human Rights Law Centre, which is representing the man, argues the government has an international legal responsibility not to deport people to places where they might be killed or suffer inhumane treatment. Their complaint to the United Nations on behalf of their client argued that sending him to Nauru breached this obligation because he would not be able to access adequate medical treatment, would be separated from his family, could face violence or discrimination and there is no guarantee the Nauruan government would not deport him back to Iraq, where he faces the risk of persecution. "This insidious plan affects more than just three people. It shows the Albanese government believes that some people in this country deserve fewer rights than others, and deserve repeated, lifelong punishment," associate legal director Josephine Langbien said. "These deportations would set a dangerous new baseline for how all migrants and refugees can be treated. We must demand better from our political leaders." In February, the government announced it had struck a deal with Nauru, which offered to grant visas to members of the NZYQ cohort in exchange for payment. The group — many of whom were convicted of violent offences but have served their sentences — were previously being kept indefinitely in Australian immigration detention because they had failed character tests but also had no reasonable prospects of deportation. That was until the high court's landmark decision in the case of one man, identified only as "NZYQ", triggered the cohort's release into the community. The judgement sent the government scrambling to find an alternative solution, which included attempts to monitor the cohort using ankle bracelets and curfews. But that too had to be reworked when the High Court ruled the cohort could not be treated punitively. Announcing the deal with Nauru, Mr Burke said he expected that more than the three men would eventually be deported after the initial legal challenges were cleared. It is the first test of the new laws that the government passed last year to strengthen its powers to send people without a visa to a third country for resettlement. In the interim, the government has promised the High Court that the man would not be removed from Australia until his case was resolved. Court documents show he was convicted of a crime and sentenced to a total of five years' jail before being released on parole and taken into immigration detention. His lawyers argue the ruling about his visa was not made lawfully. It is unclear when the High Court will make a judgement in the case. "The Albanese government claims to respect international law and urges other countries to do the same," Ms Langbien said. "It must demonstrate that respect by following this direction from the UN Human Rights Committee and halting these deportations."
