MR CLARKE
Thank you Mr Chairman, I undertook to be brief, that I'll do.  I appear only for Mrs Clackers, she opposes amnesty in respect of her three attackers.  My submission is very briefly that the applicants have three fences to clear, the compliance with requirements, we've got no difficulty with that, then I'd refer to Section 20 C, full disclosure of the relevant facts and then in the third place that the act was one associated with a political objective.
	It's our submission that the applicants have not made a full disclosure of the relevant facts, far from it and if they fail to clear that fence then they stop there.   Without going into specific detail as to what was said I submit that Mrs Clackers made an extremely - very strong impression as a witness, that compared to the offerings that had in evidence, it is perfectly clear that they've tried to dress their deeds up and grace them with the role of freedom fighter and grace them with the role of comrade when in fact it's little more than acts of thuggery and robbery.  Maybe that the initial purpose or motive was to have gone to warn her off trading, I've got no difficulty with a submission like that, I don't for a moment ask you to accept that this was a plan that was hatched and conceived to go and rob before they left Stutterheim but it seems clear to me that during the course of the series of events it went beyond that, whether there was an apparent attempt to reach or a movement that gave them to think that they meant be moving, reaching for a firearm or not doesn't in my respectful submission alter the fact that they then seized upon a very vicious attack on a defenceless woman and that their account of what happened is patently untruthful hence they've failed to clear the second hurdle that I referred to. 
	In any event, should the Committee find that they indeed did get that I would submit that the further conduct was clearly motivated for personal gain alternatively malice, spite and ill will and it's possible or conceivable that there was a bit of a verbal spat that turned into this very vicious assault.  Accordingly I would respectfully associate myself with the view of reconcessions that were made by Mr Kincaid and submit that they've by no means succeeded in discharging what is required of them to be granted amnesty in respect of the attack on Mrs Clackers.
	Further there are one or two outstanding things, I don't believe that it was in, on their evidence, it was within the community mandate that the traders should be visited and threatened.  My understanding of a consumer boycott is to pressurise the effected community rather than to use strong arm tactics on the shoppers and clearly this was a frolic of their own.  I have nothing further to say, thank you.