Seems to me that the bank was well in tune with their exclusive clients who would likely be pleased to see this action.
That’s not to say the action was right in any way. It was awful and I hope it results in law changes to protect access to bank accounts. But I think it will likely blow over and the exclusive clients will see the bank as having done “the right thing” if in a bit of a clumsy manner.
> the bank was well in tune with their exclusive clients who would likely be pleased to see this action.
Very unlikely. Consider that:
the bank had compiled a secret 40-page dossier accusing him of being a “disingenuous grifter” who promoted “xenophobic, chauvinistic and racist views”.
and that:
For 331 years Coutts’s reputation for guaranteeing the utmost discretion made it the bank of choice for the rich and famous – including King Charles and every member of the royal family since George IV.
Are we saying that Farage was more xenophobic and racist than Prince Philip? More disingenuous than Prince Andrew?
The trouble with kicking one morally dubious toerag out of an exclusive banking clientele is the inverse Sorites Paradox .. once you start how can you stop until no customers are left.
Come to think of it… this sounds like the kind of thing that'll make the bank really unpopular with a lot of people who wouldn't become customers anyway. But I don't immediately see why it's bad PR in the eyes of the people who have enough money to bank there.
