It's not the inference itself which would need to be watertight but the reasoning on why possible reputational damage would impact the bottom line and therefore not a risk the bank could accept

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

They aren't being applied for vetting political persuasion. You are again confusing what causes something with the reason for it. His political views may be the basic cause of this, but they aren't the reason. If they had no impact on the need to supervise his account more strenuously then they would be ignored, just as yours and mine are. Alongside that is the marketing stance that the bank has adopted which has resulted in them deciding that their reputation might suffer by association with him.

I doubt though that the latter consideration played a significant role in the decision to close the account. More likely with his mortgage ending and a lack of substantial deposits, the costs of running his account outweighed the returns. Bottom line! Like every business.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Just consider the highlighted sentence again. It totally contradicts itself.
You are arguing against something that you know to be true.

Did you forget that Farage obtained an internal report that confirmed that he was targeted because of his opinions and that the CEO told lies to a reporter about his financial status?

Are you going to continue to play dumb or just concede now?

No.

If Farage had fallen below the thresholds required ( which for a time he did ) then Coutts could have exited him without a fuss. Although even then, the Relationship Managers should be talking to their clients to ascertain if they intended funding the account to restore it sufficiently.

As for monitoring his now funded account, his political views would - in my experience - not require any additional monitoring. You said it yourself, NF hasn't changed, it's Coutts.

Obviously, I can't speak for all Coutts clients, but it bothers me not that they have Farage on their books. And much as I used to despise Jeremy Corbyn, that wouldn't have bothered me either. In fact I would find some irony in that.

All I want from my bank is to provide the level of service expected and to protect my interests in the most effective way. I don't care if they are environmentally friendly, carbon neutral etc etc. To me that's all Virtue Signalling BS and not a reason for me selecting to have an account with them

Old, Ungifted and White

This makes sense. Banks are continually trying to coax clients from each other with promises of increased interest rates, etc, and anyone who moves their accounts does so without any thought about who the other customers might be.

As you obviously didn’t read the link I provided on the subtle, but vital, difference between cause and reason I will provide it again so there’s at least a chance that you might grasp the point.

Of course I know that Farage obtained the report. That’s what started all of this. As I know that the CEO gave a misleading interview. The report did not though confirm that he was targeted because of his political opinions. That’s just the way it has been spun by Farage and the right-wing press to be gobbled up by people like you. What it did was describe those opinions in unfortunate terms, for which an apology was made. That doesn’t mean they were the reason for his debanking, only that they were the cause of it. His views could have been considered controversial for a whole host of other reasons and the result been the same. He is a PEP.

[Link]

The only thing that must be conceded is that you are unlikely to understand this.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Surely the cost of monitoring someone as high profile as Farage with significantly controversial and divisive opinions and with rumours of funding from Russia around him, even if unsubstantiated, would be significant and not comparable to an average PEP.

Would that not be enough on its own to make a bank want shot of him?

What you, I, or anyone else as individuals want from our bank is beside the point. It must be down to the bank itself, via whatever reasoning they decide to use, to determine what’s in their best interests. If they decide to virtue signal that’s their choice. If you decide to close your account as a consequence that’s yours.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Key point being the accusations against Farage were 100% false although the irony of the hypocrisy of Coutts ( allegedly ) is something to see

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

I think the accusations remain unproven and not false.

That if they existed they would have been buried under a pile of plausible deniability is obvious.

So too though was that the Leave campaign was remarkably well funded.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Oops there it is again !