Hey, you're talking to a piece of white trash right here; don't be making fun of white trash!

(Okay, you can make fun the Confederate battle flags.)

The organizers provided the estimate. I VERY generously gave them the benefit of the doubt in order to be polite. ;)

Yeah, I mean I've been to a number of demonstrations before myself and if you can't fill a single street from side to side, you probably don't actually have 30,000 people in attendance. Or even 3,000. But I wanted to be nice! Sort of.

Estimates of the turnout for the main march in Washington DC vary a little (though I've not heard any mere 200,000 estimation yet and wonder what your source on that is), but it is worth saying that the total turnout nationwide has been widely estimated at between 1.2 and a full 2 million. It wasn't exactly an insignificant development.

Incidentally, 10% of 1.6 million (going for a median estimate here) is still 160,000 kids under the age of 18 and that's nothing to sneeze at, in my opinion. That figure by itself is significantly larger than most protest actions are in grand total attendance.

I know that as much certainly doesn't reflect the attitudes of most people in the UK. I just thought it was funny. Frankly, to me, as an American, the way they talked sounded like they were proposing to make Donald Trump the honorary prime minister of their country or something. :P

There's a lot that could be made fun of in the speech highlighted in the OP video. For example, positing the lion as an anti-feminist icon, being as lions are a matriarchal species wherein the male plays only a secondary role as a guard while the females do both the hunting and the child-rearing. :P (The superior agility of the females makes them more naturally suited to the role of actively pursuing prey, while the superior physical strength of the males renders them better-suited to a defensive role. Don't use The Lion King as your guide because Scar was right about the social roles.)

Animal iconry can be fun that way. Another example would be that the anti-feminist Republican Party (President Trump's party) here in the United States uses the elephant as their official party symbol. Guess what, guess what? Elephants too are a matriarchal species, contrary to what you saw in The Jungle Book. (In fact, just don't use Disney cartoons as a guide to the natural world.) A JC never forgets!

Anyway...more broadly though, I think the intellectual merits of this particular demonstration are well surmised in the fact that this thread has so quickly transformed into a debate over whether it should even have been legal. :P

Although I'm not from the UK myself, looking at it from the outside, Brexit to me has always come across as essentially a way to eliminate the citizenship status of many of the country's migrants from other parts of Europe (namely Eastern Europe) and thus establish a kind of two-tier working class similar to what we have in the United States around our 11 million or so undocumented immigrants, to which end it has not surprised me that our Donald Trump enthusiasts seem to be its most adamant supporters in my country.

You seem to ignore the fact that I don't care who's worse. Right now, Islam is a growing threat to the UK, Christianity isn't. It's that simple. Our politicians are beyond comfortable with the demographic change (more atheists, more Muslims, less Christians), and they're actively pandering to the Islamic base to a disgusting degree. Getting banned from entering the UK for describing Allah as Gay? Give me a break.

That's false and frankly naive. A socialist people couldn't exist without a governing body therefore it would remain a state. It would have to become more authoritarian over time to keep control like Venezuela. Socialism goes against human nature so people are gonna fight it. Besides there's other countries comprised of different thinking people with militaries. 

Ciudadanos is a party closer to american conservatives. Thanks to them Rajoy is the president despite claiming that they would never support him before the elections.

Without defending what the government of Venezuela has become, I take exception to the claim that socialist ideas are averse to human nature. There is no socio-economic system of organization more traditional to our species than democratic socialism.

In fact, even the most complex, capitalistic societies often still instinctively revert back to socialistic principles when in real need. For example, when a natural disaster strikes and yields a severe shortage of basic necessities like food, clean drinking water, and clothing, any given society is prone to respond by imposing a system of rationing: the distribution of those sorts of basic resources according to need rather than according to exchange value. Why? Why not let the free market work its magic and solve these sorts of serious problems on its own? Because deep down, we know better. We instinctively know that the result would be more loss of life.

A capitalist economic system is better at certain things than a socialist one is. Solving the most basic human problems, like a severe shortage of basic resources, though, isn't one of them. Capitalism can produce things more efficiently. It distributes those things less efficiently though. You see what I'm getting at here?

You're the one who brought up it achieving everything it wanted, and Venezuela is not socialist.

 Giving aid to people during disasters is not socialism, that's taking care of your own people or being a good person. The countries you're referring to are not socialist countries. Safety nets are not socialist. Socialist ideals are antithetical to human nature and that's why it doesn't work. People like to own property and keep the things they work for. Humans by nature are meritocratic. Even nature is.

Roughly 30 thousand was the amount of people who voted for the neonazi Britain First candidate during the 2016 London mayoral election. A protest of roughly 30 thousand people could very well be possible if you factor the entire Great Britain. I wouldn't see this as particularly revealing, at any rate. Trump is not well-liked over here, even among people who voted for BREXIT, or Tories.

Venezuela is closer to being socialist than any of the EU. He literally tried to seize the means of production from companies. He had their slogans everywhere.

Socialism doesn't want to dissolve the state. The only way the community could own and control the means of production, distribution and exchange is thru a government.

The premise behind public welfare systems is a socialistic one: that it is the responsibility of society to provide for human needs and well-being. The prevailing application that the modern nation-state might provide thereof is more a paternalistic one than a socialist one (being as the government and population exist as separate entities, in contrast to say in your ancient hunting and gathering communities), but that does not detract from the fact the principle of distribution of resources according to need is still valued by human beings to one degree or another.

Incidentally, in my previous reply, I supplied a link and an additional explanation for my opinion. It would be appreciated if you would try and do the same going forward instead of just repeating unsubstantiated claims again and again as though the repetition renders them more true.