MR DEHAL
Thank you.  What I am saying simply is this, Mr Richard has asked a question in which he refers to this device as a bomb and the use of the term bomb is what is being objected to.  In that, one, it was not a complete device with a detonator, it could not have exploded, never would have exploded.   Mr McBride secondly was charged on this as a count, at the hearing he was convicted thereof and hence the application for the amnesty.  Perhaps the question ought to be phrased more correctly, least somebody reading this record, gets the wrong inference.