MR MEYER
Yes, well my submission in that regard, Mr Chairman, is the only thing that that statement shows is the fact that he also told someone else that his private parts were injured.
	That doesn't mean that the fact that he also said it to someone else makes it necessarily true.  I would still think that he would have referred to it during his oral evidence then at a later stage before the HRV Committee.
	And then also he does refer to being shocked with electricity but he specifically mentions the earlobes and, one would think that if he had already - it was really so that the electrodes were attached to his private parts he would have said that.  And I really think that his explanation that it was simply an omission is highly unsatisfactory and seriously - has a seriously negative effect on his credibility in that regard.
	And that one also has to take into account, then his further explanation with regard to this whole question of Park Station which, Mr Chairman, with the greatest respect, I really don't think is satisfactory.  It's clear that the context in which those words were used were not used with regard to his private parts and, as Adv Bosman with respect, correctly pointed out, it was used in the context of a place or a destination and not with regard to his private parts.
	And then, similarly, with regard to Rev Phoshwana, exactly the same problem presented itself and well, it now seems that he also made a statement previously before he gave oral evidence before that Committee but, once again, my argument would be that again it doesn't mean that it's necessarily true because exactly the same argument goes for him.  If it was so serious, why didn't he mention it then in his oral evidence and him as well, he also refers to the electric shock treatment but, once again, only in connection with his earlobes.