I would point out a several things in relation to your response.
If you are suggesting that the figures I quoted are low, because of what they take in to account fair enough, but the other countries then need judged against the same criteria, and their figures could rise likewise, so context is important, and we need to use the data we have, which has the UK in third.
I also notice that the information you provide with the higher figures relate to London, not the UK, which is the primary reason the figures appear higher.
I also note that the carefully cropped snippet you provided, that there is a "3" in front of the text, which also tallies with London's position on the global table of cities, so even only taking London in to account, it is still in third position.
I wouldn't call it semantics to provide demonstrably incorrect information as fact. It is a personal bugbear of mine, when people state incorrect information as fact. I appreciate that it is an internet forum, and not a scholarly article, and that I may be like King Canute on the internet, but I do believe it is important.
As I couldn't find figures that agreed with your representation, I simply asked for your source. It also may not have been intended, but you could have said, 'I don't have a source, I may have been wrong, but the UK is certainly up there, and there is too many which ever way you cut the pie", but instead, you attempted to muddy the waters, with higher figures for a completely different category to the original statement (cities instead of Countries/state), which made the UK's position appear much higher that the others and still neglected to mention that even with these new higher figures, London was still not in the highest.
Finally, my apologies for taking a minor comment on a thread, and having a rant, but as mentioned it does annoy me greatly as I believe it is important, especially when 'facts' can be spread so easily, when misinformation is presented as fact.
