As you who read the last post could probably tell, I was furious at the time. But things have been cleared up by Professor Hall, after an email exchange. He says he was not being intentionally malicious, and wasn't trying to "out" Dan as an informant or anything. In fact he was startled that his comments could be interpreted that way, and said he hoped Natalie wouldn't be upset by them. Apparently this was an honest case of mistaken identity; he really did think Dan worked for CTV, and in a legitimate way. Here are some excerpts from Professor Hall's letter, clarifying things:
"...my interpretation is not the same as yours. To my way of thinking the person hired to take the footage for CTV would not be a knowing participant in the collusion with police. That would happen at a higher level. Given her youth and inexperience, even the reporter may not be aware of the dark politics of her employer."
"[Natalie] does such excellent and righteous work and if I have undermined her in any way I regret it."
So, if you read it, kindly disregard what was said in that last post (except for the parts about Lesley Hughes and Kevin Barrett; those still stand). I've removed it so that others don't stumble across it and come away with the idea that Professor Hall has been making crazy, unfounded accusations against the spouses of people in his own movement.
Petscop: Overview of Video 5
5 weeks ago