Antony White's Social Media Accounts
Know a Social Media Account Linked to Antony White?
Want to add information? Log in to your account to contribute accounts and phone numbers.
ANTONY WHITE FROM BIDFORD SENTENCED FOR SEX OFFENCES INVOLVING KENT TEEN GIRL
In a case that has sent shockwaves through the community of Bidford and beyond, Antony White, a 30-year-old man from Crompton Avenue, Bidford, has been sentenced to prison for serious offences involving a minor girl from Kent. The incident, which came to light in May 2018, revealed disturbing details about White’s predatory behavior towards a 15-year-old girl, despite him being under a court-imposed order designed to prevent such conduct.White appeared before Warwick Crown Court, where he pleaded guilty to multiple charges related to his inappropriate and illegal communications with the young girl. The court was told that he had persuaded her to send him explicit photographs of herself, and in return, he sent her indecent images of himself. The court heard that White had also incited her to engage in sexual activity, further compounding the severity of his actions.
Prosecutor Graeme Simpson explained that police officers executed a search warrant at White’s residence in Bidford in May 2018. During the search, they confiscated his mobile phone and examined its contents. The investigation uncovered a disturbing pattern of communication between White and the girl, which spanned over four months. The messages contained explicit language and sexual content, with White repeatedly expressing a desire to have sexual intercourse with her. Notably, he made it clear that he preferred her to be underage, even suggesting a preference for an even younger girl.
White’s communications included him sending explicit photographs of himself and pressuring the girl to send similar images of herself, including naked pictures. Although she was initially reluctant, she eventually complied under pressure, and White continued to urge her to send more explicit images. The girl, overwhelmed and distressed by the situation, became so traumatised that she refused to cooperate with police investigations. Her mother, however, assisted officers and reported that her daughter had become increasingly distant, socially withdrawn, and despondent as a result of the ordeal.
Further background revealed that White had a history of similar offences. In April 2014, he was jailed for 16 months at Worcester Crown Court for inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity. He was also subject to a sexual offences prevention order at that time. Later, in September 2015, White received a 12-month community order after being convicted of seven offences related to making indecent images of children.
During the sentencing hearing, White’s defense argued that his messages to the girl were more in the realm of fantasy, citing phrases like “if you were here I would...” and emphasizing that there was no evidence of plans to meet her. However, Judge Anthony Potter pointed out that White had explicitly expressed a desire to meet the girl before she turned 16 for sexual activity, indicating a clear intent.
Defense barrister Graham Russell suggested that White’s comments were more about fantasy than actual plans, noting that White had previously struggled to admit his attraction to young girls. He mentioned that White recognized the need for help and was willing to undertake a course to address his behaviour.
In sentencing White, the judge emphasized the seriousness of his actions and previous convictions. White was sentenced to three years and four months in prison, ordered to register as a sex offender for life, and subjected to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO) that restricts his contact with children and limits his use of internet-enabled devices for 15 years. The court highlighted the aggravating factors, including White’s prior convictions and the fact that he was already under a court order meant to prevent such offending.
Judge Potter concluded by stating that although White had shown some acknowledgment of his unhealthy interests, he remains an ongoing risk to underage girls. The court’s decision reflects the gravity of his offences and the need to protect vulnerable minors from potential harm in the future.