AMID all the banners paraded at last weekend's anti-war demonstration in London was one which bore a strangely uplifting slogan.

Most of the protesters played with the notion of truth. Tony Blair was, courtesy of a pretty clumsy anagram, turned into "Bliar"; more straight-forward messages read "No more war lies" and the like.

But one banner stood out, at least in the photograph I saw. This was carried perhaps by a wag or by someone trying to make an oblique point. It said: "Couldn't think of a slogan".

This was heartening in a way, as we live in a sloganeering age in which every development, no matter how complex, can be reduced to a snappy slogan, a sort of politicised jingle.

That's part of the problem with protesters: they have absolute certainty on their side. As it happens, I have time for the anti-war protesters, not least because my mother joined in the mass demonstrations last year, at the age of 71. My father, long since divorced and living on the other side of town, was equally put out, although his anger was confined to conversation rather than action.

Last year's anti-war protests displayed a strength and depth feeling in this country that came as a surprise. It was a relief to know we could still be so angry, so motivated by events.

The unshakeable certainty of the marchers made no difference: the Iraq war went ahead anyway. So what was the point of marching again one year on? Not a lot that I can see, except to indicate that disagreement with what Tony Blair did in tagging along to America's war against Iraq still flows strongly in some quarters.

That non-slogan slogan set me thinking. A newspaper column is a bit like a placard, only delivered at greater length. There is generally little point in waiving in the air a column which says: couldn't think of what to say this week. A message, a conclusion of some sorts, is thought necessary.

I supported last year's marchers in spirit, while not displaying my mother's foot-slogging dedication. Looking back now for a new slogan to wave, I would have to settle for two.

The first reads: What did the Iraq war have to do with the war against terrorism? And the second: Whatever happened to those fabled weapons of mass destruction?

There were reasons for going to war a year ago, mostly to do with ridding Iraq of a hated dictator. But that wasn't the cause we were sold. Instead, George Bush wanted a link to the 9/11 terrorist atrocities, whatever the evidence, while Tony Blair tied himself in knots trying to explain his justification for joining in.

The war happened and was, by some calculations, successfully pursued. Yet the cost, political and humanitarian, has still to be properly calculated. Tony Blair and George Bush each face elections in which the fall-out from the war could have an effect.

More seriously, the so-called war against terrorism continues, in the wake of the Madrid bombs, to boast little appearance of success. This is largely because we are fighting an idea rather than a person; the enemies of the West are diffuse, changeable - and are prepared to take disagreement with our way of life to deadly extremes.

They are, in short, desperately hard to pin down. Every mad Muslim - and most of the world's Muslims are sane and peaceable - who perpetrates an atrocity in the name of al-Qaeda displays the weakness of the US to protect its allies or its way of life. All of which is too scary for slogans.

WATER, WATER: Three weeks ago, I wrote about the madness of Coca-Cola "purifying" tap water and then marketing it as designer water.

Now the entire UK supply of Dasani has been pulled off the shelves because it has been contaminated with bromate, a cancer-causing chemical.

So let's recap: Coca-Cola took perfectly good tap water and spent untold millions turning it into mock mineral water. And in the process made the water potentially harmful.

Meanwhile, the real thing is available for almost nothing from a tap near you. Ho and another ho, I say.

Updated: 10:35 Thursday, March 25, 2004