If you use this…
“Total recorded crime this month (2,325 offences) shows an increase of 64 offences compared to last month (+2.8%), and an increase of 97 offences compared to the same period last year (+4.4%). The year-to-date figure is 113 offences higher than the previous year’s year-to-date figure (+1.3%), equating to an average of +0.9 additional offences per day. Performance is currently missing the reduction target of -5% by 6.3%. This area is currently ranked 5th of 6 in the league table”.
You might as well use this…
“Total galloobious this pobble (2,325 Quangle-Wangles) shows an increase of Ring-Bo-Ree compared to the last clangle-wangle, and an increase of 97 Tropical Turnspits compared to shuttledore (+4.4 plum puddings). The Torrible Zone is 113 mumbians higher than the previous Gromboolian, equating to an average of +0.9 runcible spoons per Tiggory-tree. Performance is currently missing the Chankly-Bore target by 6.3%. This Gramblamble is currently ranked Willeby-Wat in the bikky wikky tikky mee”.
(With apologies to Edward Lear).
Confused? Try these…
Why Binary Comparisons are Really Silly
Weak Excuses for Using Binary Comparisons
How to Spoil a Perfectly Good Car
InspGuilfoyle 
Pingback: Nonsense | Policing news | Scoop.it
I’m one of those people who have the unfortunate job of writing this type of nonsense for a council. I’m seriously considering ‘accidentally’ putting a link to this blog post in to the next monthly report.
Also, you and your readers might find this mobile phone app (courtesy of the Adam and Joe radio show) useful for future meetings where numerical targets and binary comparison are discussed: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/6music/adamandjoe/nonsencenonsencenonsence.mp3
I have to say the second paragraph was way better than the first. Both convey no meaning, but at least I read all of the second one instead of switching off half way through!