ebitda, there are 650 individuals deciding on various options today - of course the fact that 6 million feel so strongly they would revoke without even a referendum will make a difference to some of them, its not a game changer but it goes into the mix, just as the one million plus march for a referendum does. For some reason the media (including oddly the BBC by virtue of nearly every "vox pop" they do) sets an agenda that most people just want to leave and fvck the consequences. Things like the petition and march re-balance that.
"300,000 turned up to a so-called march in favour of the "People's Vote" That campaign goes to great lengths to say they are not asking for another referendum,"
312,000 is the lowest estimate out of a fairly wide range of possibilities, made by people who aren't entirely neutral in the matter and admit that they can't really tell with any degree of certainty how many people attended the march.
But I guess you know that as well as the rest of us.
You are being entirely disingenuous and you know it.
Why not just say "no one knows how many people attended the march but it doesn't really matter since it won't make any difference"? It would make you look less stupid than persisting in underestimating even the very lowest guesstimate given by the closest thing we have to an "expert", who actually says he has no idea how many people were there.
If you read about how he has arrived at his (still extremely approximate) calculations, it's clear that he doesn't really know and has come up with a best guesstimate, which is all anyone can do.
Lets not swing the other way Lady P. Nowhere does Professor Still say that he has no idea how many people are there. He has done proper work on it and says "it’s between 312,000 and 400,000 people". Lets also not fall into the "expert" bullshit. He's a "hard" scientist by background with a PhD from Warwick, multiple Crowd Science professorships and experience advising swathes of public bodies on these kinds of things.
There are almost certainly other experts with other views on the numbers - but he is an expert in this rather than an "expert".
And on the bias, Full Fact are just reporting a Wired article. Do you know of any specific bias on the part of Wired or Prof Still?
I think there may an issue with capacity on the march - essentially the entire route was full and there was not really anywhere else to go - I know a few people who turned up at marble arch but turned back because the march never moved forward.
No, not saying that at all, I am not saying how many were there - how do I know? I agree an neutral expert is more likely to be accurate than the organisers of an event. I am just staying that I know some people who turned up and then left again immediately essentially because there was nowhere to go.
0
0
It doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference.
0
0
ebitda, there are 650 individuals deciding on various options today - of course the fact that 6 million feel so strongly they would revoke without even a referendum will make a difference to some of them, its not a game changer but it goes into the mix, just as the one million plus march for a referendum does. For some reason the media (including oddly the BBC by virtue of nearly every "vox pop" they do) sets an agenda that most people just want to leave and fvck the consequences. Things like the petition and march re-balance that.
0
0
Of course they are asking for a second referendum. Explicitly. I'm not sure whether you get this "great pains" bollocks from.
Looking forward to the Tories collapsing at the next election. It's gonna be awesome.
0
0
"300,000 turned up to a so-called march in favour of the "People's Vote" That campaign goes to great lengths to say they are not asking for another referendum,"
Evidence for that please.
0
0
A one where he agrees with the people who are marching?
0
0
Bradders even the lowest estimate from supposedly “independent” sources was 312,000 so u r a hypocrite
0
0
Why do you care if you think it's so insignificant?
0
0
Guy, its from Full Fact.
Although of course nobody can ever resist giving things a spin...
0
0
it’s equally important that u use ur critical skills to assess whether the full fact article is truly independent and trustworthy or not
rather than just swallowing it whole unquestioningly
0
0
I think you’ll find it was 312,000-400,000, with significant and visible flaws in its methodology (acknowledged by the authors)
0
0
312,000 is the lowest estimate out of a fairly wide range of possibilities, made by people who aren't entirely neutral in the matter and admit that they can't really tell with any degree of certainty how many people attended the march.
But I guess you know that as well as the rest of us.
0
0
You are being entirely disingenuous and you know it.
Why not just say "no one knows how many people attended the march but it doesn't really matter since it won't make any difference"? It would make you look less stupid than persisting in underestimating even the very lowest guesstimate given by the closest thing we have to an "expert", who actually says he has no idea how many people were there.
0
0
Is his name Still or Stone?
If you read about how he has arrived at his (still extremely approximate) calculations, it's clear that he doesn't really know and has come up with a best guesstimate, which is all anyone can do.
0
0
Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but Patrick Minford has a PhD in economics.
0
0
There were 2 million according to lots of people on Twitter.
That is about as true as saying over 5 million real people signed the petition.
None of it will make and difference.
0
0
Lets not swing the other way Lady P. Nowhere does Professor Still say that he has no idea how many people are there. He has done proper work on it and says "it’s between 312,000 and 400,000 people". Lets also not fall into the "expert" bullshit. He's a "hard" scientist by background with a PhD from Warwick, multiple Crowd Science professorships and experience advising swathes of public bodies on these kinds of things.
There are almost certainly other experts with other views on the numbers - but he is an expert in this rather than an "expert".
And on the bias, Full Fact are just reporting a Wired article. Do you know of any specific bias on the part of Wired or Prof Still?
0
0
Sorry last comment aimed at Sergio FAOD.
0
0
Ray - Prof Still was the person the NYT used. i.e. the person every non-fascist in the world was bigging up as he derided Trump's claims.
If you ever spoke or thought in favour of the expert's view on the Trump crowd (as opposed to the President's) you were supporting Prof Still.
0
0
I think there may an issue with capacity on the march - essentially the entire route was full and there was not really anywhere else to go - I know a few people who turned up at marble arch but turned back because the march never moved forward.
0
0
No, not saying that at all, I am not saying how many were there - how do I know? I agree an neutral expert is more likely to be accurate than the organisers of an event. I am just staying that I know some people who turned up and then left again immediately essentially because there was nowhere to go.
0
0
"I know some people who turned up and then left again immediately essentially because there was nowhere to go."
sums up the current state of things quite well.
0
0
it's difficult to estimate the number of marchers. do you for example inlcude those lunching in the vicinity at claridges?
0
0
Well if we count everyone in london that day there wear about 5 million on the march!
some might have been working in shops along the route but there were all there!
0
0
wear! WEAR! ffs were.
0
0
Interestingly, Professor Still's Twitter feed suggests that he may personally be in favour of a People's Vote.
Join the discussion