Gang smashes into store in Shirley in cigarette raid

Premier Stores in Park Road, Shirley

Premier Stores in Park Road, Shirley

First published in Crime
Last updated
Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter

THIEVES smashed their way into a Southampton convenience store and stole a haul of cigarettes.

The raiders forced their way in through the front door at Premier in Park Road, Shirley, and in a matter of minutes made off with all the cigarettes from the counter.

Police were alerted by a member of the public who heard the store’s alarm ringing and called 999 – but when they arrived the thieves had fled, making their getaway on a motorbike believed to have travelled towards Shirley.

Officers have spent the past two days carrying out enquiries and searching the area following the raid at 3.41am on Tuesday. Now they are appealing for witnesses who may have seen the three men thought to be responsible.

The trio were all wearing hoodies, and two wore balaclavas to hide their faces.

The raid has all the hallmarks of similar cigarette thefts that have occurred in Southampton this year.

In April a gang of cigarette thieves struck in Hollyoak Stores in Coxford and stole stock worth £5,000, having forced open the metal shutters.

In that burglary they also fled the scene on a motorbike.

A BP petrol station in Paynes Road, Freemantle, was then targeted in May by a masked gang who smashed their way in and made off with cigarettes and cash from the till.

In January, Hampshire police launched Operation Drench to combat the rising number of raids at shops and convenience stores, having recorded 26 such crimes related to cigarette thefts since November 21 last year, in which tobacco worth tens of thousands of pounds was taken.

Newsagents and shops in the Shirley, Bitterne, Eastleigh and Southampton areas have been targeted in the raids, most of which have happened late at night or in the early hours.

A spokeswoman for Hampshire police said: “We would welcome any information from anyone who saw a motorbike in the area, which had two or possibly three men on it.”

Anyone with information is asked to call police on 101, or Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:49am Thu 3 Jul 14

Woolston ollie says...

Hopefully they will smoke them all and die
Hopefully they will smoke them all and die Woolston ollie
  • Score: 13

8:26am Thu 3 Jul 14

Hastagger says...

FFS - they are bound to have numerous convictions already. We really do need to start locking repeat offenders up for a very long time - i.e. until they are too old (85+) to commit crimes any more. I certainly wouldn't mind paying a few more pennies in the pound in terms of tax to house them, and thing of all the policing resources and insurance money that would be saved.
FFS - they are bound to have numerous convictions already. We really do need to start locking repeat offenders up for a very long time - i.e. until they are too old (85+) to commit crimes any more. I certainly wouldn't mind paying a few more pennies in the pound in terms of tax to house them, and thing of all the policing resources and insurance money that would be saved. Hastagger
  • Score: 23

10:16am Thu 3 Jul 14

sotonbusdriver says...

Hastagger wrote:
FFS - they are bound to have numerous convictions already. We really do need to start locking repeat offenders up for a very long time - i.e. until they are too old (85+) to commit crimes any more. I certainly wouldn't mind paying a few more pennies in the pound in terms of tax to house them, and thing of all the policing resources and insurance money that would be saved.
Although I agree with your comment of locking them up for very long periods of time, that is committing the taxpayers to a huge bill, and where there are so many repeat offenders they would need to create new jails every year to cope with the increase of prisoners.
Personally I think there is a much more apt punishment that would be likely to be more effective in stopping them re-offending.
Take them to a public stock, strip them bare and whip, or birch them till their skins bleeds profusely.... A punishment of 500 lashes would make them think twice about doing it again, and wouldn't burden the taxpayers with a legacy of huge tax costs to pay for them...
[quote][p][bold]Hastagger[/bold] wrote: FFS - they are bound to have numerous convictions already. We really do need to start locking repeat offenders up for a very long time - i.e. until they are too old (85+) to commit crimes any more. I certainly wouldn't mind paying a few more pennies in the pound in terms of tax to house them, and thing of all the policing resources and insurance money that would be saved.[/p][/quote]Although I agree with your comment of locking them up for very long periods of time, that is committing the taxpayers to a huge bill, and where there are so many repeat offenders they would need to create new jails every year to cope with the increase of prisoners. Personally I think there is a much more apt punishment that would be likely to be more effective in stopping them re-offending. Take them to a public stock, strip them bare and whip, or birch them till their skins bleeds profusely.... A punishment of 500 lashes would make them think twice about doing it again, and wouldn't burden the taxpayers with a legacy of huge tax costs to pay for them... sotonbusdriver
  • Score: 9

10:48am Thu 3 Jul 14

Woolston ollie says...

sotonbusdriver wrote:
Hastagger wrote: FFS - they are bound to have numerous convictions already. We really do need to start locking repeat offenders up for a very long time - i.e. until they are too old (85+) to commit crimes any more. I certainly wouldn't mind paying a few more pennies in the pound in terms of tax to house them, and thing of all the policing resources and insurance money that would be saved.
Although I agree with your comment of locking them up for very long periods of time, that is committing the taxpayers to a huge bill, and where there are so many repeat offenders they would need to create new jails every year to cope with the increase of prisoners. Personally I think there is a much more apt punishment that would be likely to be more effective in stopping them re-offending. Take them to a public stock, strip them bare and whip, or birch them till their skins bleeds profusely.... A punishment of 500 lashes would make them think twice about doing it again, and wouldn't burden the taxpayers with a legacy of huge tax costs to pay for them...
Spot on
[quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hastagger[/bold] wrote: FFS - they are bound to have numerous convictions already. We really do need to start locking repeat offenders up for a very long time - i.e. until they are too old (85+) to commit crimes any more. I certainly wouldn't mind paying a few more pennies in the pound in terms of tax to house them, and thing of all the policing resources and insurance money that would be saved.[/p][/quote]Although I agree with your comment of locking them up for very long periods of time, that is committing the taxpayers to a huge bill, and where there are so many repeat offenders they would need to create new jails every year to cope with the increase of prisoners. Personally I think there is a much more apt punishment that would be likely to be more effective in stopping them re-offending. Take them to a public stock, strip them bare and whip, or birch them till their skins bleeds profusely.... A punishment of 500 lashes would make them think twice about doing it again, and wouldn't burden the taxpayers with a legacy of huge tax costs to pay for them...[/p][/quote]Spot on Woolston ollie
  • Score: 7

11:03am Thu 3 Jul 14

Stapleman says...

sotonbusdriver wrote:
Hastagger wrote:
FFS - they are bound to have numerous convictions already. We really do need to start locking repeat offenders up for a very long time - i.e. until they are too old (85+) to commit crimes any more. I certainly wouldn't mind paying a few more pennies in the pound in terms of tax to house them, and thing of all the policing resources and insurance money that would be saved.
Although I agree with your comment of locking them up for very long periods of time, that is committing the taxpayers to a huge bill, and where there are so many repeat offenders they would need to create new jails every year to cope with the increase of prisoners.
Personally I think there is a much more apt punishment that would be likely to be more effective in stopping them re-offending.
Take them to a public stock, strip them bare and whip, or birch them till their skins bleeds profusely.... A punishment of 500 lashes would make them think twice about doing it again, and wouldn't burden the taxpayers with a legacy of huge tax costs to pay for them...
If crime is falling year on year, why are the prisons so full?
[quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hastagger[/bold] wrote: FFS - they are bound to have numerous convictions already. We really do need to start locking repeat offenders up for a very long time - i.e. until they are too old (85+) to commit crimes any more. I certainly wouldn't mind paying a few more pennies in the pound in terms of tax to house them, and thing of all the policing resources and insurance money that would be saved.[/p][/quote]Although I agree with your comment of locking them up for very long periods of time, that is committing the taxpayers to a huge bill, and where there are so many repeat offenders they would need to create new jails every year to cope with the increase of prisoners. Personally I think there is a much more apt punishment that would be likely to be more effective in stopping them re-offending. Take them to a public stock, strip them bare and whip, or birch them till their skins bleeds profusely.... A punishment of 500 lashes would make them think twice about doing it again, and wouldn't burden the taxpayers with a legacy of huge tax costs to pay for them...[/p][/quote]If crime is falling year on year, why are the prisons so full? Stapleman
  • Score: 4

11:07am Thu 3 Jul 14

Shane75 says...

Stapleman wrote:
sotonbusdriver wrote:
Hastagger wrote:
FFS - they are bound to have numerous convictions already. We really do need to start locking repeat offenders up for a very long time - i.e. until they are too old (85+) to commit crimes any more. I certainly wouldn't mind paying a few more pennies in the pound in terms of tax to house them, and thing of all the policing resources and insurance money that would be saved.
Although I agree with your comment of locking them up for very long periods of time, that is committing the taxpayers to a huge bill, and where there are so many repeat offenders they would need to create new jails every year to cope with the increase of prisoners.
Personally I think there is a much more apt punishment that would be likely to be more effective in stopping them re-offending.
Take them to a public stock, strip them bare and whip, or birch them till their skins bleeds profusely.... A punishment of 500 lashes would make them think twice about doing it again, and wouldn't burden the taxpayers with a legacy of huge tax costs to pay for them...
If crime is falling year on year, why are the prisons so full?
The reason crime appears to be falling is because crimes do not appear on the crime statistics. Unless a conviction has been made.
[quote][p][bold]Stapleman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hastagger[/bold] wrote: FFS - they are bound to have numerous convictions already. We really do need to start locking repeat offenders up for a very long time - i.e. until they are too old (85+) to commit crimes any more. I certainly wouldn't mind paying a few more pennies in the pound in terms of tax to house them, and thing of all the policing resources and insurance money that would be saved.[/p][/quote]Although I agree with your comment of locking them up for very long periods of time, that is committing the taxpayers to a huge bill, and where there are so many repeat offenders they would need to create new jails every year to cope with the increase of prisoners. Personally I think there is a much more apt punishment that would be likely to be more effective in stopping them re-offending. Take them to a public stock, strip them bare and whip, or birch them till their skins bleeds profusely.... A punishment of 500 lashes would make them think twice about doing it again, and wouldn't burden the taxpayers with a legacy of huge tax costs to pay for them...[/p][/quote]If crime is falling year on year, why are the prisons so full?[/p][/quote]The reason crime appears to be falling is because crimes do not appear on the crime statistics. Unless a conviction has been made. Shane75
  • Score: 6

12:29pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Stapleman says...

Shane75 wrote:
Stapleman wrote:
sotonbusdriver wrote:
Hastagger wrote:
FFS - they are bound to have numerous convictions already. We really do need to start locking repeat offenders up for a very long time - i.e. until they are too old (85+) to commit crimes any more. I certainly wouldn't mind paying a few more pennies in the pound in terms of tax to house them, and thing of all the policing resources and insurance money that would be saved.
Although I agree with your comment of locking them up for very long periods of time, that is committing the taxpayers to a huge bill, and where there are so many repeat offenders they would need to create new jails every year to cope with the increase of prisoners.
Personally I think there is a much more apt punishment that would be likely to be more effective in stopping them re-offending.
Take them to a public stock, strip them bare and whip, or birch them till their skins bleeds profusely.... A punishment of 500 lashes would make them think twice about doing it again, and wouldn't burden the taxpayers with a legacy of huge tax costs to pay for them...
If crime is falling year on year, why are the prisons so full?
The reason crime appears to be falling is because crimes do not appear on the crime statistics. Unless a conviction has been made.
But don't they have to be convicted before they go to prison? I think they are just closing too many of the smaller prisons.
[quote][p][bold]Shane75[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stapleman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hastagger[/bold] wrote: FFS - they are bound to have numerous convictions already. We really do need to start locking repeat offenders up for a very long time - i.e. until they are too old (85+) to commit crimes any more. I certainly wouldn't mind paying a few more pennies in the pound in terms of tax to house them, and thing of all the policing resources and insurance money that would be saved.[/p][/quote]Although I agree with your comment of locking them up for very long periods of time, that is committing the taxpayers to a huge bill, and where there are so many repeat offenders they would need to create new jails every year to cope with the increase of prisoners. Personally I think there is a much more apt punishment that would be likely to be more effective in stopping them re-offending. Take them to a public stock, strip them bare and whip, or birch them till their skins bleeds profusely.... A punishment of 500 lashes would make them think twice about doing it again, and wouldn't burden the taxpayers with a legacy of huge tax costs to pay for them...[/p][/quote]If crime is falling year on year, why are the prisons so full?[/p][/quote]The reason crime appears to be falling is because crimes do not appear on the crime statistics. Unless a conviction has been made.[/p][/quote]But don't they have to be convicted before they go to prison? I think they are just closing too many of the smaller prisons. Stapleman
  • Score: 2

12:48pm Thu 3 Jul 14

excusemoi says...

There must be a chain smoker in the family!
There must be a chain smoker in the family! excusemoi
  • Score: 3

1:05pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Service-defender says...

Not again! I thought they convicted someone of this a while back?

It amazes me these criminals have the brains to raid a shop and evade the police so why not use that towards making something of your life.

The public can tackle this sort of crime too, DON'T buy fags that's not sold in a shop and Pubs make sure people don't sell goods in your premises because it's all stolen any ways.

Lets hope the sods are caught soon and anyone who buys these cigarettes knowing they are stolen are convicted for handling stolen goods
Not again! I thought they convicted someone of this a while back? It amazes me these criminals have the brains to raid a shop and evade the police so why not use that towards making something of your life. The public can tackle this sort of crime too, DON'T buy fags that's not sold in a shop and Pubs make sure people don't sell goods in your premises because it's all stolen any ways. Lets hope the sods are caught soon and anyone who buys these cigarettes knowing they are stolen are convicted for handling stolen goods Service-defender
  • Score: 1

2:33pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Subject48 says...

One would think they disappeared in a puff of smoke...

Chop their hand off. We could do with a good show!
One would think they disappeared in a puff of smoke... Chop their hand off. We could do with a good show! Subject48
  • Score: 2

2:44pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Tallship says...

Stapleman wrote:
sotonbusdriver wrote:
Hastagger wrote:
FFS - they are bound to have numerous convictions already. We really do need to start locking repeat offenders up for a very long time - i.e. until they are too old (85+) to commit crimes any more. I certainly wouldn't mind paying a few more pennies in the pound in terms of tax to house them, and thing of all the policing resources and insurance money that would be saved.
Although I agree with your comment of locking them up for very long periods of time, that is committing the taxpayers to a huge bill, and where there are so many repeat offenders they would need to create new jails every year to cope with the increase of prisoners.
Personally I think there is a much more apt punishment that would be likely to be more effective in stopping them re-offending.
Take them to a public stock, strip them bare and whip, or birch them till their skins bleeds profusely.... A punishment of 500 lashes would make them think twice about doing it again, and wouldn't burden the taxpayers with a legacy of huge tax costs to pay for them...
If crime is falling year on year, why are the prisons so full?
Not sure about the figures. But as for full prisons.

The judicial system in this country is wrong. Putting someone in prison for short periods for minor crimes rather than community/noncustodi
al sentences would free up places for more serious offenders.
[quote][p][bold]Stapleman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hastagger[/bold] wrote: FFS - they are bound to have numerous convictions already. We really do need to start locking repeat offenders up for a very long time - i.e. until they are too old (85+) to commit crimes any more. I certainly wouldn't mind paying a few more pennies in the pound in terms of tax to house them, and thing of all the policing resources and insurance money that would be saved.[/p][/quote]Although I agree with your comment of locking them up for very long periods of time, that is committing the taxpayers to a huge bill, and where there are so many repeat offenders they would need to create new jails every year to cope with the increase of prisoners. Personally I think there is a much more apt punishment that would be likely to be more effective in stopping them re-offending. Take them to a public stock, strip them bare and whip, or birch them till their skins bleeds profusely.... A punishment of 500 lashes would make them think twice about doing it again, and wouldn't burden the taxpayers with a legacy of huge tax costs to pay for them...[/p][/quote]If crime is falling year on year, why are the prisons so full?[/p][/quote]Not sure about the figures. But as for full prisons. The judicial system in this country is wrong. Putting someone in prison for short periods for minor crimes rather than community/noncustodi al sentences would free up places for more serious offenders. Tallship
  • Score: 1

2:47pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Hastagger says...

Tallship wrote:
Stapleman wrote:
sotonbusdriver wrote:
Hastagger wrote:
FFS - they are bound to have numerous convictions already. We really do need to start locking repeat offenders up for a very long time - i.e. until they are too old (85+) to commit crimes any more. I certainly wouldn't mind paying a few more pennies in the pound in terms of tax to house them, and thing of all the policing resources and insurance money that would be saved.
Although I agree with your comment of locking them up for very long periods of time, that is committing the taxpayers to a huge bill, and where there are so many repeat offenders they would need to create new jails every year to cope with the increase of prisoners.
Personally I think there is a much more apt punishment that would be likely to be more effective in stopping them re-offending.
Take them to a public stock, strip them bare and whip, or birch them till their skins bleeds profusely.... A punishment of 500 lashes would make them think twice about doing it again, and wouldn't burden the taxpayers with a legacy of huge tax costs to pay for them...
If crime is falling year on year, why are the prisons so full?
Not sure about the figures. But as for full prisons.

The judicial system in this country is wrong. Putting someone in prison for short periods for minor crimes rather than community/noncustodi

al sentences would free up places for more serious offenders.
Lock them up for ever. Most repeat offenders have dozens of convictions - jails wouldn't be full as it is the same people who are repeat offending. Life for stealing something would act as a deterrent. Maybe start the sentence with a flogging in the public stocks too!
[quote][p][bold]Tallship[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stapleman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hastagger[/bold] wrote: FFS - they are bound to have numerous convictions already. We really do need to start locking repeat offenders up for a very long time - i.e. until they are too old (85+) to commit crimes any more. I certainly wouldn't mind paying a few more pennies in the pound in terms of tax to house them, and thing of all the policing resources and insurance money that would be saved.[/p][/quote]Although I agree with your comment of locking them up for very long periods of time, that is committing the taxpayers to a huge bill, and where there are so many repeat offenders they would need to create new jails every year to cope with the increase of prisoners. Personally I think there is a much more apt punishment that would be likely to be more effective in stopping them re-offending. Take them to a public stock, strip them bare and whip, or birch them till their skins bleeds profusely.... A punishment of 500 lashes would make them think twice about doing it again, and wouldn't burden the taxpayers with a legacy of huge tax costs to pay for them...[/p][/quote]If crime is falling year on year, why are the prisons so full?[/p][/quote]Not sure about the figures. But as for full prisons. The judicial system in this country is wrong. Putting someone in prison for short periods for minor crimes rather than community/noncustodi al sentences would free up places for more serious offenders.[/p][/quote]Lock them up for ever. Most repeat offenders have dozens of convictions - jails wouldn't be full as it is the same people who are repeat offending. Life for stealing something would act as a deterrent. Maybe start the sentence with a flogging in the public stocks too! Hastagger
  • Score: 0

4:30pm Thu 3 Jul 14

vag says...

Ever since the Strangeways riots, prisons have not been the tough places they once were. I doubt they give a rats arse about getting locked up. Other than the fact you lose your liberty for a bit, prison really is no big deal now. I'd send them to a Turkish prison for a bit, they keep banging on about integration into the E.U. give them some of our scumbags, then they can come in. That sounds like a bargain to me.
Ever since the Strangeways riots, prisons have not been the tough places they once were. I doubt they give a rats arse about getting locked up. Other than the fact you lose your liberty for a bit, prison really is no big deal now. I'd send them to a Turkish prison for a bit, they keep banging on about integration into the E.U. give them some of our scumbags, then they can come in. That sounds like a bargain to me. vag
  • Score: 2

6:05pm Thu 3 Jul 14

BeyondImagination says...

Hastagger wrote:
FFS - they are bound to have numerous convictions already. We really do need to start locking repeat offenders up for a very long time - i.e. until they are too old (85+) to commit crimes any more. I certainly wouldn't mind paying a few more pennies in the pound in terms of tax to house them, and thing of all the policing resources and insurance money that would be saved.
So Rolf Harris should only get 1 year?
[quote][p][bold]Hastagger[/bold] wrote: FFS - they are bound to have numerous convictions already. We really do need to start locking repeat offenders up for a very long time - i.e. until they are too old (85+) to commit crimes any more. I certainly wouldn't mind paying a few more pennies in the pound in terms of tax to house them, and thing of all the policing resources and insurance money that would be saved.[/p][/quote]So Rolf Harris should only get 1 year? BeyondImagination
  • Score: -1

6:16pm Thu 3 Jul 14

bullsbags says...

If the gov didn't put about £7 duty on each packet of fags these crimes would not happen ,it's they who are the criminals so lock em up!
Having said that ,I don't condone what they have done and as for the old chestnut about if people didn't buy them ,unfortunately there will be exceptions to the rule and they are as much a criminal as those who broke into the shop
If the gov didn't put about £7 duty on each packet of fags these crimes would not happen ,it's they who are the criminals so lock em up! Having said that ,I don't condone what they have done and as for the old chestnut about if people didn't buy them ,unfortunately there will be exceptions to the rule and they are as much a criminal as those who broke into the shop bullsbags
  • Score: 3

11:17pm Thu 3 Jul 14

mike coll says...

excusemoi wrote:
There must be a chain smoker in the family!
Ho how right you are, its my 60 capstan per day sister, you can smell the stench of the fags every time you walk past her home in taunton drive.
[quote][p][bold]excusemoi[/bold] wrote: There must be a chain smoker in the family![/p][/quote]Ho how right you are, its my 60 capstan per day sister, you can smell the stench of the fags every time you walk past her home in taunton drive. mike coll
  • Score: -6

6:42am Fri 4 Jul 14

nervousbumskin420 says...

anyone got any cheap smokes going?
anyone got any cheap smokes going? nervousbumskin420
  • Score: -4

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree