Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

bob lambert, late of the met police and london greenpeace

Pickman's model

Starry Wisdom
yeh, that bob lambert who is now an academic specialising in islamophobia was in special branch, the secretive special demonstration squad - and involved in london greenpeace in the '80s. see http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/16/academic-bob-lambert-former-police-spy

it's long been known that there were lots of private security in london greenpeace round the time they brought out the what's wrong with mcdonald's leaflet, but i for one was unaware there'd been an undercover cop in there.
 
Really? I'm sure this was widely known... At least one member had a relationship with someone known to be one.

*disclaimer - I might not be remembering correctly

ETA: and I didn't mean him either just cops in general.
 
Really? I'm sure this was widely known... At least one member had a relationship with someone known to be one.

*disclaimer - I might not be remembering correctly
no, i thought it was private security and that two of the private security had affairs. i suppose david and helen would know more about this than me...
 
maybe aufheben will be doing a cop consultancy workshop there also (it's fine though as it's harmless, nothing to see here)
 
libcom badly backed the wrong horse in this one - fucking woeful set of verbal & political gymnastics being carried out at the moment trying to justify an increasingly unjustifiable position
I've done a bit of searching and reading now, not all but I've scanned enough of the articles and documents that the Sussex uni gadgy has written (or is associated with), and I thought I would toss in my 4 penneth.

I've always known Limpcok yoof were politically shite, Aufheben I've been ambivalent about, but this is clearly a political disaster for that section of the Ultra Left.

IMHO as someone who is familiar with Criminology within Universities, the police, and what is possible as a communist, then I think the guy in question without shadow of a doubt is 'batting with the other side', the poster who said 'he has crossed the line' is correct. I do not understand how Sussex Uni man can reconcile his intellectual work developing public order policing with the cause of anarchism/communism, they are incompatible for me.

When people are employed they DO have choice about what they do, and what they research, how they research it, who for, who with etc. I've looked at Public order policing from an oppositional point of view, not developed a career based on teaching and improving the police responses, there is and there should be a difference for genuine anarchists/communists.

Here's a thread with the relevant links;
http://libcom.org/forums/general/cop-consultant-reading-list-17102011
 
Good to see that there is at least one anarchist who despite having to operate in the hostile and intolerable conditions of tech college academia is holding a principled position against the grain.
 
In case you hadn't seen it, here's the New Yorker piece which came out today.

You may be familiar with the basic elements of the story, but this is the first time some of the background details have been publicly aired. And some of them are gruesome.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/25/the-spy-who-loved-me-2

It tells the story of Jacqui (previously referred to as ‘Charlotte’), the woman who once upon a time fell in love with a dashing animal rights activist named ‘Bob Robinson’.

In reality, ‘Robinson’ was Robert Lambert, a career-long veteran of Special Branch, who in 1983 was sent deep undercover to infiltrate political groups on behalf of the secretive Special Demonstration Squad.

Almost immediately after being deployed on the ground, complete with the stolen identity of a dead child, Lambert sought out Jacqui at a protest, and began to woo her - which helped ease his way into animal rights groups that she was on the periphery of. Pretty soon they were an item, and by Christmas of 1984 Jacqui fell pregnant with Bob's son.

But in 1987 the relationship fell apart, as Bob became increasingly distant, argumentative, provocative. He began an 18 month relationship with another woman, ‘Karen’, who not part of any activist scene. In 1988, he disappeared completely from the lives of Jacqui, ‘Karen’ and all the people he had befriended during his adventure as a spy - ostensibly on the run in Spain to avoid the clutches of Special Branch, who had already arrested two other members of Bob's ALF incendiary bomb gang.

Between 1988 and late 2012, he made no attempt to remain in the life of his son. It was only when Jacqui realised that her long-disappeared ‘Bob Robinson’ was the same man as the former secret policeman Bob Lambert who had been accused of having set off a firebomb that gutted a department store whilst an undercover policeman, and tracked him down, that he showed any interest in his own progeny.

And that, in a nutshell, is the “genuine personal feelings” that the Met Police, recently forced to admit that Lambert was one of its spies, thinks drove Lambert to seek out an impressionable young activist, pester her into a relationship, impregnate her, emotionally bully her, dump her and then disappear from her life and the life of their son.

[Cross-posted]
 
Hate to say this but some of the ALF's activities were morally dubious at least according to some people, leaving legality aside. I think that's why the police felt their morally dubious (to say the least) activities were ok. It's a bit of a grey area. Ugly business. But, you swim with sharks etc.

I don't like undercover police because they undermine trust. But the ALF were not roads protesters, didn't they use violent means.

Happy to be told I am wrong about this.
 
Happy to be told I am wrong about this.

TBH I don't have the inclination or energy to rebut what is identical to the police's line on why they feel they can justify - in generalities - the very specific details of what they actually did.

But bear in mind that police officer Bob Lambert personally initiated, planned and took part in an ALF coordinated incendiary attack. That's not a grey area, is it?

How about identifying women in activist groups - using the intelligence files of Special Branch - and then briefing male undercover officers on the best way to inveigle their way into the women's lives? How best to seduce them? To treat them not as people, but as objects to be overcome, tackled, conquered? Technical challenges?
 
That he personally initiated an attack? I think that's hilarious. But then, I am a bit of a nihilist.
 
Ok maybe it's not. But does it need historical context?
if someone was doing something criminal and the police want to catch them at it, then do that the usual way - dont lure them into bed with you, have a long term relationship with them and then have a kid with them, and then disappear never to be seen again into the dead of night. Can you begin to imagine what that must feel like? Can you imagine what the child must feel? Its a scandal and the people behind it should go to jail
 
Last edited:
was he ever prosecuted for his crimes against women activists?
The case - well, the one moving forward at the moment - is against the Met rather than individual officers. (Case No: HQ12X02912, ‘Between DIL, TEB, RAB, Helen Steel, Belinda Harvey - and - the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis’)

Currently ‘crimes against women activists’ is not on the statute books.

Last week's admission - following the direction of Mr Justice Bean, who partially removed the ‘neither confirm nor deny’ farce as a defence (see this page onwards) - by the Met that Bob Lambert (4 known sexual relationships, 1 known child) and Jim Boyling (3 known sexual relationships, 2 known children) were the undercover policemen using the stolen identities ‘Bob Robinson’ and ‘Jim Sutton’ is a stepping stone for forcing greater disclosure, but one which the Met made only through gritted teeth. Bear in mind that there was never any doubt that Lambert and Boyling had been undercover policemen.
 
Back
Top Bottom