Are bankers, politicians and rioters morally equivalent?

[mistermack]

“Su Wong marries Lee Wong. The next year, the Wongs have a new baby. The nurse brings out a lovely, healthy, bouncy, but definitely a Caucasian, WHITE baby boy. ‘Congratulations,’ says the nurse to the new parents ... ‘Well Mr. Wong, what will you and Mrs. Wong name the baby?’ The puzzled father looks at his new baby boy and says, ‘Well, two Wong's don't make a white, so I think we will name him Sum Ting Wong”

That reminds me of the Hong Kong phone book.
There are so many Wings and Wongs that people often wing the wong number.

[mistermack]

The bankers gambled our money away. Here politicians cheated big time on their expenses. Everyone it seems is on the take if they can be or so many people believe. Does that justify rioting?

Very few cheated. You can't accuse them all. Most did what they were told to do, make up their income on the expenses, but in a legal way.
And most of the money paid back was because the rules were changed AFTER the claims were made.
Bankers gambled? That's what they do. Nobody complained when they were making money. If the people stand as guarantor, then the people should have been checking up vigorously, and not leaving it all to unfettered capitalism. We got what we deserved.

Nothing justifies rioting in a peaceful democracy.
Apart from a free plasma screen. I might consider it for that.

[Audley Strange]

I kinda agree mistermack, but for the description of U.K. as a peaceful democracy and the absolutist "nothing" justifies a riot.