TottsYesterday, over 500,000 people marched in Central London in what was the biggest defiance of far right politics
You will hear all most next to nothing about this in the MSM
#alltogethermarch
28 03 26
Bogdan Buduroiu@Geri ... organisers claim
The Met claims 50,000, so the number is probably somewhere in the middle
@budududuroiu were you there?
I have attended numerous marches in London xx
@Geri why does that matter? I've been to Glasto and there's no way I could tell you how many people are in attendance at whatever stage I'm at at the time
@budududuroiu you get an understanding of size if you are present rather than just watching on a TV
BTW the Daily Mirror are leading with 500 K
The Sleight Doctor 🃏🍉@budududuroiu @Geri It isn't in the "middle". The Met made up a low figure out of nowhere to mislead the public and downplay the size of the growing resistance movement. The police figure should be completely ignored, because halfway between the organisers' estimate and an imaginary number, is another imaginary number that is higher but still wrong. 🤷🏻♂️
purple's a fire marshal first aider@budududuroiu @Geri ‘somewhere’ — the middle of those two figures would be 275k, which would have the Met underestimating by more than five-fold, whilst still representing 55% of that claimed by the organisers.
Slightly unequal error margin that.
> Slightly unequal error margin that.
Why wouldn't it be unequal? You have one party stating they're using CCTV and aerial footage, and the other going off vibes from a stage, it would be weirder if these two methodologies _had_ an equal error margin. Unless you think Kevin Courtney had acess to CCTV to run a quick Jacobs' method on the crowd before his speech.
@budududuroiu @Geri your proposal here was that the organisers counted most people twice, whilst the Met only counted a little under one in five. That they missed four in every five.
That would make the Met the party with the worse accuracy, even with all that fancy CCTV.
@budududuroiu @Geri ah, so what you are saying is you only beleive the Met's number then 😉
Also, I presume you were being factious with ‘vibes from a stage’, but just in case: Kevin Courtney spoke several hours into the event, and the figure would have been based on the observations of the many stewards, quite possibly using a Jacobs-adjacent methodology, not simply ‘vibes’.
@purple I'm not, lmao. I'm saying the framing you're using in the comment above to expect error rates of both parties to be similar actually works in favour of saying that the true estimate is probably closer to the Met estimate.
Let's take the midpoint of 275k, this would require the Met to be off by 5.5x while the organisers are only off by 1.8x. Even accounting for partisanship of the Met, and difficulty of estimating crowd sizes, 5.5x error rate vs 1.8x from on the ground reporting without the aid of tech is a preposterous difference.
If both the Met and organisers we're off by 5.5x, the figure would be between 100,000 and 250,000, roughly.
If both the Met and organisers are off by 1.8x, a similar range is found.
Both of these ranges are closer to the Met estimate, that's what I'm saying, responding to your claim about error rates