That's awful.... journalism that is. For a start it is barely readable and not helped by a headline that's is not English.
Secondly the raw data is for ALL airprox reports regardless of categorisation and they have done a really bad job of describing their analysis. Looking at the data I see 65 CAT A airprox and only 32 of them involved one or more military aircraft. (That is if you include 2 Air Cadet Vigilant gliders and one "bulldog" which could have been civil.) so call it 31 and 1 suspect.
By including all the CAT C - (no risk of collision existed) they have bulked out their numbers to make it appear more spectacular, just shody work there.
"14 incidents a month involving military aircraft" would be 840 and yet there are only 832 (they claim) reports including all the civil and no risk ones
The actual rate of mil cat A's would be 0.53 per month. Still high but somewhat less than they are suggesting.
Finally, by relying on a single source of data they have missed out on all the ACTUAL collisions which occurred in the UK in the same period.
Polly Curtis and Dan Milmo, remain behind and write 500 lines "I must not try to sensationalise data that I don't understand"
Airprox categorisation for the uninformed.
A Risk of collision An actual risk of collision existed
B Safety not assured The safety of the aircraft was compromised
C No risk of collision No risk of collision existed
D Risk not determined Insufficient information was available to determine the risk involved, or inconclusive or conflicting evidence precluded such determination