"14 men were captured in a Chinese restaurant" (#208, Topic A)

Yesterday at 6 am, the time my alarm clock was set, I woke to an NPR report that "14 men were captured in a Chinese restaurant" by London police. Later that same morning, I heard the same message -- always "in a Chinese restaurant" -- at least 3 times, over CNN. I was puzzled as to the emphasis placed upon "in a Chinese restaurant", but no further details were given in these reports. Today, the Washington Post's London correspondent files a report on this story, which also prominenttly states, in his second paragraph, "a Chinese restaurant south of the Thames River". Reading the story further, the so-called Chinese restaurant is owned by a Medhi Belyani. A person of Chinese ancestry is unlikely to have a name like this. The story then says that "the restaurant, which serves meat prepared in a halal manner and no alcohol, is popular with Muslim customers." Well, as an Old Man Out Of China, I consider myself reasonably knowledgeable in Chinese cuisine -- and "meat prepared in a halal manner" is not Chinese cuisine. The restaurant's only relation to China is its name: The Bridge to China Town restaurant. Does this make the restaurant a Chinese restaurant? I doubt it. Why the London police, the NPR, and the WP repeatedly emphasize "Chinese restaurant"? My guess: they want the listener or viewer to develop a guilt-by-association mentality. This is objectionable. In the past, when WP published a story I considered offensive, I would send in a "Letter to the Editor." With my batting average less than .100, I realized that I am not in the league and stopping doing so. Let me use this vehicle to register my objection. This unnecessary guilt-by-association scheme is unprofessional, whether done by the police or by journalists. Please stop and, perhaps, offer an apology to people of Chinese ancestry.