As I said before this event has provided Farage a huge propaganda opportunity which he is continuing to milk. Something which is not in the public interest!

There is a great deal of misreporting going on as a consequence of the claims being made by him, which the government are reinforcing by their own response. Which suggests to me that their fear of Farage remains alive and well.

Let’s be clear. Farage was not “debanked” because of his political views, despite all the claims to the contrary by him which seemed to have been swallowed by so many and regurgitated as fact.

He was “debanked” because someone holding those views was seen as a business threat as a consequence of the way other customers, and potential customers, could perceive them. Some might say, there’s no difference, but there is and it’s a very important one. It’s not the bank’s view of him that was considered. I doubt they have a view. It’s the view of their customers which was. The reason for the “debanking” was solely to do with potential reputational damage.

I have no doubt that Coutts have held accounts for some seriously unpleasant people in the past and done nothing about them. That though was then. This is now, and times, standards and responses have all evolved.

That the CEO has had to resign is a completely separate issue, although once again I somehow doubt that will be accepted.

She handled this very badly and had no alternative. Misleading the BBC and forcing them to apologise was embarrassing enough but breaking client confidentiality was beyond that. Trust between a bank and their client is paramount and must never be broken. She has caused immense damage to Nat West and the whole financial services industry.

Her behaviour is though nothing to do with the underlying principle that banks can make their own decisions, for their own reasons, on who they accept and retain, as customers. Banks are not public utilities to which we all have a right of access.

It could come to pass that the government, through the FCA, will require banks to give a notice period prior to closure, with an explanation of why it is happening and for there to be the opportunity to appeal. They could also require the high street banks to provide a basic facility to everyone who requests one. Something that must remain in credit to function and has charges for every transaction.

All of which makes sense. What does not is the way Farage’s claims about being “debanked” for his political views have just been accepted, with little or no question.

A Farage win. And all down to one of the biggest own-goals by the Establishment in a long time. And it ain't over yet. Talk of a massive group action by others who have been 'de-banked'. The Nat-West is now very much in play.

As I said before this event has provided Farage a huge propaganda opportunity which he is continuing to milk. Something which is not in the public interest!

There is a great deal of misreporting going on as a consequence of the claims being made by him, which the government are reinforcing by their own response. Which suggests to me that their fear of Farage remains alive and well.

Let’s be clear. Farage was not “debanked” because of his political views, despite all the claims to the contrary by him which seemed to have been swallowed by so many and regurgitated as fact.

He was “debanked” because someone holding those views was seen as a business threat as a consequence of the way other customers, and potential customers, could perceive them. Some might say, there’s no difference, but there is and it’s a very important one. It’s not the bank’s view of him that was considered. I doubt they have a view. It’s the view of their customers which was. The reason for the “debanking” was solely to do with potential reputational damage.

I have no doubt that Coutts have held accounts for some seriously unpleasant people in the past and done nothing about them. That though was then. This is now, and times, standards and responses have all evolved.

That the CEO has had to resign is a completely separate issue, although once again I somehow doubt that will be accepted.

She handled this very badly and had no alternative. Misleading the BBC and forcing them to apologise was embarrassing enough but breaking client confidentiality was beyond that. Trust between a bank and their client is paramount and must never be broken. She has caused immense damage to Nat West and the whole financial services industry.

Her behaviour is though nothing to do with the underlying principle that banks can make their own decisions, for their own reasons, on who they accept and retain, as customers. Banks are not public utilities to which we all have a right of access.

It could come to pass that the government, through the FCA, will require banks to give a notice period prior to closure, with an explanation of why it is happening and for there to be the opportunity to appeal. They could also require the high street banks to provide a basic facility to everyone who requests one. Something that must remain in credit to function and has charges for every transaction.

All of which makes sense. What does not is the way Farage’s claims about being “debanked” for his political views have just been accepted, with little or no question.

Why on earth she disclosed in the first place and then thought she could ride out the storm just shows how arrogant she and the other seniors are.

I spent my career working in banking and during my time I saw all sorts of activity relating to famous people. We all signed a confidentiality clause.

What I am amazed about is that the CEO and the board could think she should hang onto her job.

If that had happened then it would have been a green light for more junior staff to reveal details about other famous people. At any employment tribunal the lawyers would argue that said person should not have been sacked as the CEO did the very same thing.

This is not whistle blowing illegal activities but disclosing someone's legal business.

Why on earth she disclosed in the first place and then thought she could ride out the storm just shows how arrogant she and the other seniors are.