So controversial opinions are deemed u suitable for a bank account, I consider many views on the trans issue controversial, if I ran a bank would it be acceptable in your eyes for me to close accounts of those who hold the views? Surely if that is discrimination so is closing Farage’s account

A lot were allegedly business accounts. When suppliers or subbies arnt paid you lose business and potentially the whole company. Business accounts are not that easy to set up as they potentially have a lot more evidence needed and come with special conditions and even overdrafts to help with cash flow.
Maybe you don’t understand that’s how it works !

Evidence?

For what reason?

By the banks or account holder themselves?

I have closed redundant accounts many times.

I expect many families do have just one account and for any in joint names only the PEP would lose access, thus preserving the ability to function. That’s just a presumption though. Even if the account was closed it would surely be a simple matter for the non PEP part of the family to transfer everything to a new account in their name with the notice given?

How could money be lost? They aren’t raiding the account. They are closing it.

Already provided.

[Link]

That doesn’t though specify who closed them. It does explain that the increased requirements placed on banks to monitor money laundering could be behind the increased numbers. If I ran a bank and the government expected me to do their work for them without reward then I might take the simple option and close anything doubtful rather than spending time looking.

Let’s see what comes out of the enquiry.

Is the enquiry not being led by an arch remainer, who has described brexiteersas xenophobic, racists who need to get in the modern world? I may be wrong but if not, any guesses how thee qualify will go?

My reading of the process is that two considerations are reviewed. Firstly, if an account holder is a PEP whose public status is such that their account requires a lot more costly oversight than the income it generates, then closing it is considered. Secondly, if the account holder is someone whose public persona is regarded as potentially capable of causing reputational damage to the bank within their target market, that too might cause them to consider withdrawing service. If both considerations are found then the likelihood obviously increases.

If a bank targeted Mail and Express readers and watchers of GB News they might well think those who promoted trans equality controversial to their market.

That’s a matter for any business to determine itself.

I expect many families do have just one account and for any in joint names only the PEP would lose access, thus preserving the ability to function. That’s just a presumption though. Even if the account was closed it would surely be a simple matter for the non PEP part of the family to transfer everything to a new account in their name with the notice given?

How could money be lost? They aren’t raiding the account. They are closing it.

Wrong again.
PEPS also include family members. Here's the definition ;

This definition is extended to include family members and known close associates of a PEP. These are commonly called RCAs – Relatives or Close Associates and the rules that apply to PEPs apply also to RCAs. Family members include spouses, partners, parent, sibling, child, partner, or spouse of the child

Old, Ungifted and White