Maya Forstater

Given that for some partnerships, BO information is not recorded, it should be clear why for FSI purposes it is no longer applicable whether or not there is an update of this BO information (in the cases where it is provided, which are not all cases).

And (finally!), one last 'Error'https://twitter.com/DanNeidle/status/987264137943289856 …

Given there are cases where limited partnerships are not subject to record keeping requirements, then, according to the lowest common denominator principle, the answer for the question is negative. (Read methodology?)

In fairness to Dan, he ends a little less abrasivelyhttps://twitter.com/DanNeidle/status/987264141005082624 …

I want to echo that. I'm not an expert on most of this, and the FSI team have done a sterling job in chasing down each one of these, whether they were trivial misunderstandings, differences of opinion not fact, or pointed to a need for us to clarify.

I'll echo the other piece too - it's absolutely possible, indeed almost inevitable, that there will be errors in the whole FSI database. Perhaps Dan, or any of the others whose engagement we welcome entirely, will come up with these - and we'll be delighted to review and rectify.

But I want to stress something else, too. The FSI team, with substantial funding from the @COFFERSEU programme, do a quite ridiculous amount of work to pull together the index and the database. Everything is reviewed, and everything is published for critique.

It is unfortunate when people in positions of influence and/or expertise use their position to take potshots at something like the FSI, without the courtesy to engage with that public material.