An interesting 'fact' is that the authority's figure is usually always below the
mid-point when this method is applied, and the organiser's figure is above. It
is therefore very interesting to look at the attendance figures being bandied
about for the UK protest against George Bush's State Visit to the UK on the
20th of November 2003.Organisers predicted a turnout of around 100,000; which, although considerably
lower than the one to two million at the demonstration against the war on Iraq
in the spring of 2003, it would be a massive demonstration for a weekday.
Official police figures on the day were initially pretty dismissive
claiming around 20,000 to 30,000 attending but were rapidly
revised to be in the region of 100,000 to 110,000.
The event organisers' estimate was around 150,000, which, applying the rule
in our opening paragraph, gives a 'real attendance figure' of around 185,000.
That's above the official estimate, but also well above the organiser's
own estimate.
Would the organisers really have under estimated the turnout of such
an event ? It seems unlikely, but it seems equally unlikely that the official
estimates would correspond more closely to the actual turnout figures than
they usually do.
I don't know whether the organisers use the same 'rule of thumb' attendance
estimate that I do, but their attendance figures jumped, first to 200,000,
then soaring to 300,000; at which point the equation does start to balance a
little better. But was this just number juggling ? How did it feel on the
street ?
Evidence of exaggeration, and it's always suspected, came not from the organisers
themselves but from an ITN reporter, reporting live from the scene, "Thousands
of protesters are streaming into Trafalgar Square". Not that I could see,
and I was standing next to him - but thanks for the free 'to air' footage for
my own video anyway.
Quite a few people did arrive at the demonstration's focal point later on, and
it does seem that there were many more people still trailing their way from the
starting point across London at the time, so it is hard to actually say what
the total attendance was by observation in a single place. It certainly looked
like there were around 50,000 in Trafalgar Square, but another 60,000 on the
streets at that time ( 100,000 on the organiser's original estimate ) ? It
seemed unlikely.
So why is there a discrepancy between what I saw and the official police
estimates ? No one would expect the police to over estimate attendance
figures, and if they were doing so, it has to be asked, why ? Undoubtedly
many in the police feel much the same way as those protesting do about Bush and
American policy, but they don't usually turn on their political masters in this
way.
By looking at other figures produced by police and comparing them to what was
seen on the ground, it all becomes a bit clearer. According to the police,
there were some 15,000 officers on the ground, working in
shifts over the course of Bush's visit, with some 6,000 officers on the streets
during the protest march - the biggest police operation ever seen, and far
larger than that for the traditional May Day protest events.
Yet on the streets there were remarkably few police to be seen. Roadside
patrolling and marshalling was minimal and low-key, and there were no hordes
of riot police skulking in their own and Kenning Hire Vans around every
corner. Outside Downing Street itself there were fewer than a dozen or so
coppers guarding the gates, and not many more patrolling Whitehall. The
police cordons on exit routes from Trafalgar Square were equally minimal; a
thin blue line at best.
A tribute perhaps to the police's view that the protests were going to be
peaceful, but at odds with their initially stubborn refusal to allow the
protest march to travel past Parliament, Downing Street and along Whitehall in
the first place, because of fears of trouble.
This was a six million GBP policing operation, and one would expect to see
something which showed where this money was being spent, and to most that would
mean seeing police on the street. That there were so few to be seen is plainly
disturbing.
And no where was this more aptly demonstrated than when protesters made a break
from Trafalgar Square to head off towards the US Ambassador's Residence to
disrupt Bush's evening meal.
Armed with copies of tube maps, outdated A-to-Z's, and a vague notion of
where 'north' was, the protesters moved off, without really knowing where they
were, or exactly where they were travelling to next.
It was therefore something of a surprise to most demonstrators when they should
turn a corner and find that they were nowhere else but alongside the US Embassy
in Grosvenor Square.
The US Embassy ! The biggest potential terrorist target in London during Bush's
visit after Bush and Blair themselves. And how many police were on the roads
protecting this juicy target ? None. Not one police officer at all.
The police presence outside the Embassy and within its perimeter fencing was
far below that which is there to great the normal, casual passer-by on a weekday.
If we had been a marauding band of Al-Qaedians, Christmas - if you'll forgive
the misplacement - would have come early. And there was little that would have
stopped anyone driving their home-made explosive car alongside the Embassy
either.
Unbelievable. More so, when the protesters were prevented from proceeding
towards their intended destination, turned round and passed the embassy again,
without there being any visible signs of a shift in security levels.
So if there weren't many police on the ground, and they weren't sitting in their
vans, "waiting for trouble", where exactly were they ? What gave rise to this
massive multi-million pound security operation ?
There can only be one answer; the police have conned us all, and the government
in particular. Hyped-up out of all proportion, this was a financial heist on
the people of Britain perpetrated by the police themselves. The biggest claim
for work not done and overtime not worked the country has ever seen.
