Anyway, maybe he will read this thread, given he often checks up on those he blocks. Here’s the thread Andrew... https://twitter.com/cbokhove/status/1379034904009277440

It’s about this image, which (I think, but please correct if not worded ok) you use to argue with those saying ‘black’ (rather than for example Black Carribean) excluded more than white.

I think that those that then make the claim more precise (i.e. ‘Black Carribean’) are then sometimes said to be cherrypicking. Something along the lines that when you drill down you will always find some discrepancies.

Ok, so far so good...I went to look up the table at …https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/permanent-and-fixed-period-exclusions-in-england

But by default I can only seem to find the one that distinguishes the detailed categories. At the bottom you can edit the table though.

Question: did you edit the table to only show major categories? (And one year ‘18-‘19)

Given the detailed view is the default, I’m surprised you would aggregate the data like that but hey ho. I then continued to recreate your table. There are six subgroups.

Question: why did you only choose four of them?

Last question: is it coincidence that you left the two highest out?

So, I guess what I’m trying to ask is whether you haven’t actually literally cherrypicked the data you say others are cherrypicking when they mention the default detail level?

And I know ‘cherrypicking’ is a loaded term so maybe it should be ‘Did you customise this table selectively from what actually were more fine-grained data’?