Yes, It’s Eye Catching All Right…

…but probably not for the reasons the ‘Guardian’ might suppose:

Dog bites man has never been a headline, but the fact that three times as many people living in the most deprived areas of England are bitten by dogs as in the least deprived areas is an eye-catching statistic.

Well, indeed so. Dogs are expensive to keep and feed (assuming, of course, that you do both properly).

How can these areas be considered ‘deprived’ if they can afford to do so?

Public managers and government bodies, as well as academics, are starting to realise the value of putting together different bits of the jigsaw to achieve more joined-up thinking about public health policies in local areas.

Hmmm, really? Sounds like they merely concentrate on their usual hobby horses to me:

One conclusion that is already inescapable is the role of alcohol in endangering public health.

Errr, I’m not sure you can conclude from this that the dogs are getting drunk…

People living in poorer neighbourhoods are still substantially more likely to suffer an assault – by dog or human – than those who live in more affluent areas, but Manchester University academic Ian Warren, has found that living in an ethnically diverse area reduces the impact of poverty on levels of violence. This suggests that there is more violence in poor white neighbourhoods.

What about poor black/brown/yellow neighbourhoods? Or are we supposed to pretend they don't exist?