Bob Lambert resigns as University lecturer over spying controversy


It has been announced that Bob Lambert, the former police spy and current University of St Andrews lecturer who has been the subject of controversy over his actions while in the police, will resign.

In a statement from the University it was announced that Dr Lambert’s resignation will take effect from the end of the current term.

Exposed as a high ranking undercover police officer in 2011, Dr Lambert has been accused of using his position to pursue sexual relationships with women who were also his targets.

Posing as an animal rights activist from 1983 to 1988, Dr Lambert fathered a son with an unsuspecting woman before abandoning them. The woman in question, who has referred to experience as “state rape” subsequently received £400,000 in compensation from the Metropolitan Police.

Dr Lambert was also accused of engaging in another long term relationship with a woman in order to lend “credence” to his undercover persona.

Dr Lambert has also been accused of involvement in many of the Animal Liberation Front’s activities, including setting fire to a Debenhams.

A recipient of an MBE for his services to the police, Dr Lambert has also faced allegations that he appeared in court under the name of his undercover identity, Bob Robinson, rather than his real name.

In an interview with Channel 4 in 2013, Dr Lambert admitted that he had been “cruel” in pursuing relationships with women in activist groups that he was targeting.

Campaigners, including journalist George Monbiot, had recently renewed calls for Mr Lambert to be sacked from his position, publishing an open letter condemning him as “supremely unsuitable for teaching and shaping the thoughts of others”.

They also accused him of “years of deliberate, strategic abuse of citizens and undermining of legitimate campaigns”.

The resignation comes as a judicial inquiry into undercover policing is about to begin.

The University has consistently resisted calls to sack him and stated that his teaching was highly valued by his students.

Professor Louise Richardson, the outgoing Principal of the University, also spoke to The Saint about the controversy.

“When Bob Lambert was hired here he made clear that he had been an undercover police officer and he made no effort to disguise that. So he was hired by the University in full knowledge of that. And I think hiring people who have had real world experience in an institution which is teaching counter terrorism in entirely legitimate.

In my position I’m not going to get involved in what people do privately whoever they are, so I think the University were legitimate to hire him and I think it has been reasonable for us to keep him. Students have appreciated his lectures, have learned from him. So I really don’t have anything to add to that saga.”

Dr Lambert also resigned from his position as a lecturer as London Metropolitan University earlier this month.


  1. I don’t see how fathering a child with a woman you’re spying on (who was involved in a lawful protest movement) should be considered by any right thinking person as “real world experience”. Thank goodness Richardson is finally leaving.

  2. His bosses said what he did to women was abusive, wrong and a breach of human rights, then paid out record compensation. He oversaw spying on the family of Stephen Lawrence. He is an utter disgrace. Good riddance.

  3. This man yould be nowhere near young adults, he is a vile sexual preadotor that has ruined lives. It’s disgusting that the university hired such a monster.

  4. Faux liberals and Guardianistas ===> witch-hunting Bob Lambert and welcoming Shaker Aamer with open arms. Sounds reasonable. . .

    • Pretty reasonable when you remember that there is no evidence of wrongdoing against Aamer, while Lambert freely admits to his own misdeeds.

  5. ‘In my position I’m not going to get involved in what people do privately whoever they are…’

    …just a pity your pal Lambert didn’t share the same ethos isn’t it? Because he apparently felt that he was within his rights to violate the private lives of others in the most sickening way imaginable.

  6. Yeah lets get rid of a guy who has decades of real world experience, various acclaimed articles and invaluable knowledge for another text book tree hugger with none… ridiciulous…

      • Consensual? It is entirely likely that the woman would never have agreed to sleep with him had he not told elaborate lies. The Psychological damage caused is as real as and worse than if, say- he had knowingly given her VD. Grow up- you must be some kind of pervert yourself ‘bro’. Undoubtedly male and simply, very badly brought up.

        • You sound like a deluded bigot zoe grow up with your childish assumptions. Get out there in the real world, nobody said he was a saint who needs a medal for best person award but that has no baring on what he was doing for this country since before you were born, what are you like some teenager whose read the guardian and now thinks you know the ins and outs of his entire life.. you don’t know who he is or who the woman is or how genuine it is. You femofascists make society laugh you are a ridiculous joke to women everywhere.

        • Do your research properly Zoe… only an idiot would tell somebody to grow up raising a legitimate point then say they were ‘you must be a pervert yourself’.. grow up.

      • He had sex with four women whilst undercover. One of them, with who he had a planned child, said “I was not consenting to sleeping with Bob Lambert, I didn’t know who Bob Lambert was” and that it is “like being raped by the state”.

        This is not some bloke exaggerating to pull in a bar. This is a team of state agents being paid to invent a completely fake identity in order to undermine what someone values most.

        If women who pretend to be men get sent to jail for sexual deceit, then men like Lambert should be behind bars.

        • I know the case you are referring to and its a completely different situation. By your logic people who tells lies about themselves in bars or on dating sites to attract attention, and then do so are criminally liable because maybe the woman/man s/he pulled wouldn’t have been interested had the individual not been as rosy as they made out.

      • “Who has he harmed?”

        These relationships were a violation of the women’s human rights, an abuse of police power and caused significant trauma. They were wrong and were a gross violation of personal dignity and integrity.

        It is apparent that some officers may have preyed on the women’s good nature and had manipulated their emotions to a gratuitous extent.

        None of the women with whom the undercover officers had a relationship brought it on themselves. They were deceived pure and simple. None of these women could be in any way criticized for the way in which these relationships developed.

        (Not my words; it’s the Metropolitan Police’s opinion)

  7. As young under-cover officer in the mid-1980s, Lambert fathered a boy with one of the activists he had been sent to spy on and while the relationship did not last long, he was in regular contact with the infant, fitting visits to him around his clandestine duties.

    After two years, the mother married another man who took responsibility for raising the child and the mother was naturally keen that Lambert gave up his legal right to contact with his son and cut him out of her new life.

    As it appears the agreement was reached amicably and he has not seen or heard of the mother or their son for nearly 30 years I tend to agree with Principal Richardson.

    • Where on earth did you get that version from? The mother, Jacqui, has described how Lambert siad he needed to flee the country because the police were after him for firebombing a department store, and letters arrived from Spain saying that, once it was safe, she and their son could join them.Then no more letters came.

      She has described how distraught she was. It was only some time later that she began another relationship. That man died, meaning her son lost two dads by the age of 8.

      When Lambert was exposed, he made an apology to a group he spied on and to Belinda Harvey (a woman he had had a relationship with in the moths before he disappeared. He made no mention of Jacqui or his son, presumably hoping it wouldn’t be found out.

      His two children with his wife had both died of a disorder that can be tested for and treated. Yet he made no contact with Jacqui to tell her to get their son tested. It was only eight months after his exposure that Jacqui saw the truth by chance in the Daily Mail. Had that not happened, she said she beleives he would have taken the secret to his grave.

    • How could jacqui or her son look for him? They didn’t even have basic details like his name! Believe me they looked for years so did the CSA, Social Services and a private detective! Each time info came back that Bob Robinson was a ‘wanted man on the run and involved in extreme animal rights activities’ SB made sure he couldn’t be found. Many these details are made clear during the Inquiry, will you apologise to jacqui for defaming her and calling her a liar?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.