Pretty much no one liked the report from London's Metropolitan police regarding why complaints of corruption and misconduct against Asian officers are 10 times greater than for white officers. At least that's how The Guardian's Sandra Laville and Hugh Muir would like you to see it. I consider this article Exhibit A in why directed reporting, also known as reporting with a slant, fails a democratic society. Here's the newsy part of the article:

A secret high-level Metropolitan police report has concluded that Muslim officers are more likely to become corrupt than white officers because of their cultural and family backgrounds.

The document, which has been seen by the Guardian, has caused outrage among ethnic minorities within the force, who have labeled it racist and proof that there is a gulf in understanding between the police force and the wider Muslim community. The document was written as an attempt to investigate why complaints of misconduct and corruption against Asian officers are 10 times higher than against their white colleagues.

The main conclusions of the study, commissioned by the Directorate of Professional Standards and written by an Asian detective chief inspector, stated: "Asian officers and in particular Pakistani Muslim officers are under greater pressure from the family, the extended family ... and their community against that of their white colleagues to engage in activity that might lead to misconduct or criminality."

The article goes to great lengths to explain why the report's conclusions are not helpful to the country. That much is certain. Exactly how the conclusions might be wrong is less clear. But the issue is raised.

What the article fails to address is the biggest question of why indeed are Asian officers 10 times more likely to be complained about than white officers? I'd like to know, as would the people of London.

Photo via Flickr.