Hey tony, how many did you count? Do you think there were 100,000 as 'the organisers' apparently claim? Do you think their were 10,000 as the police have said? Perhaps you think the figure might be more like 20,000 (police usually seem to half the realistic numbers).

I believe the debate is pointless. Blatently the march had less people than 'the big one' which saw between 1 million and 3 million people depending on whos figures you believe. The big one failed to stop the war (and I would argue that it actually gave the green light for the invasion since the peace movement proved it's unwillingness to take effictive direct action to stop the war during that march). After that march the numbers game became a lossers game. We can not mobilise that level of attendence again and so every march since has appeared crap by comparison. The numbers game is a fools game.

Marching never used to be about an A to B stroll along a route agreed with the cops (the tool of the enemy). Marching used to be a show of strength to instill fear into the minds of the opposition before the battle commenced. That show of strenght might be so overwhelming that the enemy would surender or flea before the march arrived to engage in conflict.

Now we are crippled by liberal non-violence and appathy pushed on us by the media, a media controled by the very powers we seek to overthrow.

Of course the march had low numbers, did you imagine otherwise?

Of course the media seek to play down our support, ift's their job!

Of course we loss the numbers game, it's stacked against us.

The era of marching is over! Get it? Marching is a relic of the old order. Marching is part of world of might makes right and either we accept that to be true or we seek other ways to express and enforce our politics.

This is NOT A GAME!

The BBC can't do better, but Ch4 can do worse.

They said; anti-war protestors who want troops brought home, claim that what happened to the Special Forces at the hands of "militiamen" demonstrate the danger 'our boys' are in, as though these under-cover-fuckers were the victims! They shot at police, they are murderers.

Bring them to trial... a court martial!

The warmongers want to exit from Iraq, leaving it in a civil war, which is what the SAS are doing with their "suicide bomb" kit and the government is using the anti-war motto as their excuse, like they are conceding, but its only to free up soldiers to invade Syria and Iran.

The anti-war movement wants troops out because they are killing thousands of innocent Iraqi's and illegally occupying their country for oil and creating a strategic front-line from which to escalate conflict in the Middle East, until they have a global confrontation, WWIII.

Since Greg Dyke was forced to leave the BBC, I have found that the BBC is a mouth piece for Tony Blair's Labour government. Their reports are very limited in what they cover compared to news on all of the other channels. And the BBC reports what the government wants you to hear as fact. I think everyone should stop watching BBC news except to occasionally monitor its Labour Party propaganda.

Culture Minister Tessa Jowell has approved the privatisation of "BBC Broadcast" to Australian bankers, Macquarie Bank for £166 million. See www.bectu.org.uk/news/bbc/nb0270.html
This means the British media will under the control of foreign investors who don't care about British people's culture or welfare, because these capitalist bankers just want to make money. Why sell to foreign bankers, they always want profit which is money taken from services, so why couldn't the BBC make that money? Maybe Macquarie Bank are planning to sell to Australian media don Rupert Murdoch.

Blair's privatisations and contracts to Labour Party donors makes me suspect that money is going under the tables. Who benefits from selling the BBC?

On the BBC website they reported both figures, which is better than the Reuters one, which didn't report any figures last time I looked. The BBC 10pm news on BBC1 barely mentioned the march at all, only mentioning it after talking about the one in Washington!

But there is a problem with numbers on a march: first the police will ALWAYS underestimate the number of protesters (except when the Countryside Alliance march when they agree with the organisers!), this is something we have no control over.

However, the Stop the War Coalition have ALWAYS overestimated the number of people, often by a ridiculously large amount - please Stop the War Coalition PLEASE BE HONEST! Although i wasn't on this march i've been on a lot of these marches and Stop the War always overstate how many there were, its really sad you have to lie to make you seem bigger than you are.

Let's be honest and leave lying to the police and politicians.

Also the media seem to be very fickle in the coverage of protests - like when the Countryside Alliance had thier big march a few years back and there was massive coverage, but an anti-war march of the same size the following week received very little coverage. Similarly - the recent fuel price protest flops got massive coverage but protests against DSEi got virtually nil coverage!

At the CA march there were people actually COUNTING the marchers. Everyone filed through a couple of gates in Whitehall where volunteers clicked away on their counters. So there could be NO DOUBT as to the size of the march. The figures were emblazoned on a huge read-out.

A simple solution.. obviously lost on the anti-war crowd.

The CA event counted legs that passed through a gate, which included dogs, cats the Police and the road sweepers in there little trucks at the back; not to mention the people circling the gates (I saw the footage).
On the September Anti-War march StWc est. 400,000 same as the CA one a week or so earlier I asked a copper what the size was after a bit of cajouling he admitted it was much bigger than the CA march, he unlike me was on both! So I don't think StWc over estimate that much, on Sat my estimate 70-100,000. and sue me if I am wrong. And whats wrong with bigging up yourself half the battle is publicity.

As for not stopping the wars true non of the marches have done that, obviously, but they have inspired a generation into action (be it direct or indirect) it has also made it harder for the politicians to continue their lies, it has made the Lib dems slither towards an "anti-war" possition and now even the Tory's are trying to get in on the act. Blairs been on the ropes for two years, unfortunately their have been no heavyweights around to knock him out.

The BBC has been given over to the role of cheerleader and the Anti-war movement and it's leaders have been villified repeatedly in the Press and banned from the TV and get scant chance to debate on the Radio either.

Direct action is a bit like terrorism in the way it is covered, in so much as it gives the Police and Government the ability to paint a picture of "violent anarchists" or a "Traveling Circus" and the actions get just as little coverage as Demos and don't really achieve much either, becuase other than the couragous act itself, and the enevitable mini-demo outside the local magistrates offices several weeks later the momentum is lost and the state cracks down futher.

Now if you try to include the organised Trade Union movement in direct action that's another story because they have some teeth (not all have been pulled), but like any giant it is a hard job to wake it up, not even with the smell of an Englishman's blood (although I think most Soldiers, seem to be from Scotland, Wales and the North, where ecconomic conscription is in full swing, and the status of Englishman in many areas not relished). So let us work in out Unions and demonstrate oo the streets and hand out leaflets and dint a few tanks, subs, trucks, etc. But lets not fail the test of unity if StWc say 100,000 what's the big deal. If they said 2 million every time they'd still be far more credible than th Police and Tory Blair.

Of course! If only we'd had clickers our figures would have been incontrovertible and the mainstream media and Police would have naturally believed us and reported them.

And then in turn Bliar would have seen the light, admitted he was wrong, handed over power to the Greens and turned himself in at The Hague.

After all it's not as if there's bias in the mainstream media to hype up right-wing pro-ruling-class actions and play down or disparage left-wing anti-establishment protests.

I mean, that wouldn't be fair would it?

 http://www.stopwar.org.uk

I don't think these posts give the Feb 2003 march enough credit. (1) It nearly stopped the war, seemingly. (2) It was one of a number of things which stopped the war after the war. The question in Washington after they took Baghdad was "left or right?" ie., Tehran or Damascus. Not much of that rhetoric now, and 20,000,000(ish) people on the streets around the world in every continent had something to do with that.