Ooooh the BBC said it was 700k so it must be true.

There's been some convincing analysis of aerial photography that puts the turn out at 100k.

You didn't see me there because I'm neither a sad, middle-aged upper middle class luvvie on a jolly who doesn't know the meaning of democracy nor am I a student virgin.

Don't make me rinse you with facts, again. It's getting boring.

What the f*** is a GC anyway? That's just my actual initials which a logical mind would have guessed.

I am still waiting for you to rinse, or even give a slight pre-wash, to my facts.

Ooh, double barrelled eh, how posh.

Strange for someone that works in international business to not know what a GC is.

More logical thinking:

The first march can't have been attended by 700,000 people. That's the equivalent of every man, woman and child in Edinburgh, Oxford and Cambridge combined.

The university of Manchester crowd analysis team put the figure at 300k, tops, although there is no way of knowing for sure as the Met don't release crowd estimates, leaving it to the organisers to guestimate and they're hardly likely to be cautious, are they?

I've seen reports from spectator bloggers who were there who say 150k tops, which I'll accept as an underestimation and meet in the middle where the research puts it.

To put a 300k turnout into perspective, that's 100k less than the countryside alliance march got in 2002.

There's 1m, it's on the news

Why are you so keen to deny or disbelieve the amount of people on this march, what's your motive?

Seems like you feel compelled to toe the leave party line rather than debate sensibly and objectively

How wise was Wilson to insist on the country giving whole-hearted consent in 1975.

Last time they voted to leave 52/48 but really they don't now and would probably turn it around.

Look at the chaos and division fuelled by a tin-pot dictator PM in power to preserve the tory establishment of public school t**ts at any cost to the nation.