MR PRIOR
Then I want you to look at page 81 because this passage of the submissions causes me particular problems and maybe you can explain that for the Committee.  If you can, please do and if you can't then you must indicate that you cannot explain.
	At the top of the page, and perhaps before I quote, this quotation or this evidence was given against the background of a question by the then leader of the Investigation Unit, Advocate Goosen, where he was seeking to ...[indistinct] or understand the difference between soft or hard targets and I think the reply from APLA was that at some stage there was no difference between the two.  
	I quote at the top of page 81:  
"So in the '90's a new form of emphasis or adaptation of the thrust or struggle did emerge and did take us a little off guard.  We were surprised and we did discuss.  And I'm sure that initially, with the question of King William's Town for instance, we were completely at a loss.  And we discussed and certain explanations were made to us by the high command.  Some of those explanations and the context of the changing environment, and they needed to carry with us the constituencies that were the main pillars of support of APLA, did, those explanations filtered through to us and we understood"
	Now the sense that I get from that is that when the King William's Town Golf Club operation occurred and had taken place, it seems to me that the APLA high command, those structures, the people in the leadership as it says here, were at a loss as to that operation.  Would I be correct in suggesting that it seems that this had not been sanctioned, this attack had not been sanctioned, the operation had not been sanctioned by the military high command?