Two weeks or so ago, like many other news junkies, I noticed the story about Coutts bank having closed the accounts they held for the former UKIP and Brexit Party leader, Nigel Farage. My initial thought was to note yet another example of Farage’s hypocrisy. A man who routinely sneers at “the elite” banking with one of the most exclusive financial institutions in the world.

Founded in 1692, Coutts, the second oldest extant bank in Britain, has always existed for the wealthy, having been for many years, the preferred bank of royalty. One has to have millions, even to open an account with them.

Farage told the media that the reason for this “debanking” was because he had spent so many years campaigning for Brexit. This I dismissed as paranoid nonsense. After all, he claims to have been doing business with them for years, which would make the suddenness of their decision rather ridiculous.

It seemed even more like paranoia, when politicians of all colours revealed that not only they, but their families, had had banking difficulties too, because they, the politicians are deemed to be a high risk as they are “politically exposed persons” (“PEPs”). I don’t know whether or not politicians and/or their nearest and dearest are particularly susceptible to bribery or being used to launder money, but they are an apparent banking risk.

Then Coutts had their say. They informed the media that Farage fell below their “wealth threshold”. That didn’t seem likely, but what to I know? They also suggested that having a client with such views might cause them repetitional damage. Really? And refusing to do further business with a high-profile loud-mouth with whom you disagree won’t?

But now, there has been another twist. After making a “subject access” request to Coutts, Farage has obtained a 40-page briefing paper. Therein, he is described as a “grifter” and a “chancer”. Details are included of his friendship with the controversial tennis star, Novak Djokovich, his well-known opposition to the governments environmental policies, his views on LGBT rights, as well as his criticisms of the King. It has been reported that Brexit is mentioned eighty-six times, and the former United States president, Donald Trump, with whom Farage has a cordial relationship, gets no fewer than thirty-nine mentions. The conclusion reached with the aid of this briefing paper, is that Farage’s views are “not compatible” with those of Coutts.

In his quest for a new bank, Farage has been offered the services of Nat West. This is deliciously ironic, as Coutts is one of their subsidiaries.

It is fair to say that I am no fan of the revolting man that is Nigel Farage. His politics are delusional, his demagoguery disgusting, and his public personality disagreeable in the extreme. He is, in my view, an offence to creation. However, the law says that he is entitled to express his views. He has availed himself of that right. If Coutts had evidence of criminal activity, or he had, indeed, fallen below the “wealth threshold”, their actions would have been reasonable. But they had no such evidence, nor had Farage insufficient moneys, either in their care, or due to him. It is wrong, therefore, for a group of employees at his former bank to close his accounts because they disagree with his views.

A bank’s duties are to provide financial services to its clients, and to make money for its shareholders. It is not within a banks remit to hold political or moral positions. Who is any banker to tell a client which god to worship, or which party to vote for, or who and how they may love? A bank’s reputation should be earned by being well run, and providing high quality services, not by who uses those services.

Yes, Farage is a truly odious creature. But Coutts are in the wrong. Political grandstanding and institutional virtue signalling are equally objectionable.