RUSSELL HARDING FROM SLIMBRIDGE INVOLVED IN CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AT DEFENCE PROCUREMENT AGENCY IN BRISTOL

In a disturbing revelation, Russell Harding, aged 55 and a supervisor at the Ministry of Defence guard unit based in Bristol, has been publicly exposed as a paedophile himself. Harding's criminal activities came to light during a court hearing at Gloucester Crown Court, where he admitted to possessing a staggering collection of 16,560 images depicting child pornography. The severity of his actions has shocked the local community and raised serious questions about the oversight and safeguarding measures within the defence sector.

Harding's case is further complicated by the fact that he continued his employment despite his criminal conduct. His colleague, Gary Templar, aged 32, was also involved in a scandal when he was convicted of indecently assaulting an eight-year-old girl. Despite this conviction, Templar was reinstated to his position after a decision made by an independent panel, a move that sparked outrage among other staff members. Templar had previously received a 90-hour community order in February, yet the decision to allow him to keep his job was met with strong protests from his colleagues.

Seven other guards working at the Defence Procurement Agency in Bristol were dismissed from their roles after they voiced their opposition to Templar's reinstatement. Among these was guard Bob Smith, aged 40, who publicly stated, “Ninety per cent of the workforce are not talking to him,” referring to Templar. This widespread discontent highlights the tension and mistrust within the team following these disciplinary decisions.

As for Harding, his sentencing included a three-year community order, and he was also placed on the sex offenders’ register. It was revealed that Harding had been surfing the internet for pornographic material involving children for over five years, indicating a long-standing pattern of disturbing behavior. The court's decision underscores the gravity of Harding’s offenses and the ongoing concerns about the safety and integrity of personnel within sensitive government agencies. The case continues to draw attention to the need for rigorous background checks and monitoring to prevent such breaches of trust in the future.