The rather fishy thing about that graph is that it says that there's no data for 2009, and the figure goes up from about 3000 to 5000 each side of that missing data. It strongly suggests that they have changed the way they calculated it.
Or else the 2009 figures got rolled into 2010 by mistake.
The rather fishy thing about that graph is that it says that there's no data for 2009, and the figure goes up from about 3000 to 5000 each side of that missing data. It strongly suggests that they have changed the way they calculated it.
Or else the 2009 figures got rolled into 2010 by mistake.
