Dame Alison Rose resigned as chief executive of NatWest after admitting being the source of an ... [+] inaccurate BBC report about Nigel Farage's account at its subsidiary, Coutts Bank. (Photo by Richard Baker / In Pictures via Getty Images)In Pictures via Getty Images

The departure of Dame Alison Rose as chief executive of the banking group NatWest, announced in the early hours of Wednesday morning, was sadly inevitable. Once she had admitted a “serious error of judgement” in talking to a journalist about the relationship of former UKIP leader Nigel Farage with the bank, her position was — despite the vote of confidence from her chairman — untenable. It has been pointed out repeatedly that the first rule of banking is client confidentiality. As someone who had spent her entire career in the sector — indeed, at NatWest — Rose must have known that. And yet here we are.

However, it was also — one cannot help thinking — highly avoidable. Certainly, it is hard to see how, in this age of sophisticated corporate communications and media training, a chief executive was allowed to find herself in a position where she could be seen talking to a journalist who ends up the very next day running a story that, not only turns out not to be entirely true, but also brings to a head the whole sorry saga. And, if avoiding conversation was impossible, whatever happened to the old — albeit frustrating to journalists — response of “I couldn’t possibly comment.”

But even before that fateful charity dinner earlier this month — The Guardian has helpfully published a timeline — the bank was in trouble because of the presence of a document that was less than complimentary to Farage, who played a key role in bringing about Brexit and now presents a show on the television channel GB News. One could say that it was unlucky for the bank that Farage chose to disclose that he had been turned down for an account at an at the time un-named bank. But Farage is not the type to go away quietly, particularly when he detects a chance to stand up for the “little man” against the Establishment. He has already highlighted the fact that any member of the public can do as he has done and used a “subject access request” under data privacy legislation to find out what information an organisation holds about them — and, according to reports, thousands are doing just that. He has also brought under the spotlight the concept of “politically exposed persons,” people who are deemed to require greater supervision by banks because they are deemed to be at greater risk of bribery or corruption.

None of this could be entirely unexpected. Farage has a reputation for, not just stirring things up (plenty of idiosyncratic public figures have done that in the past), but also sticking to the task. After all, it is down in no small part to his single-mindedness that the U.K. is no longer a member of the E.U.. Hindsight is, of course, a wonderful thing, but surely somebody on what must be an extensive NatWest “comms team” thought of what the consequences might be of Farage finding out what at least some in the bank thought of him.

Unfortunately, if this did not occur to anybody then the organization is open to another of Farage’s accusations — that, like many other big businesses, it is so keen to be seen on the “right” side of the liberal causes of the day that it is not too concerned about upsetting those with different views. As I have already written, corporate activism can be a minefield and it would not be surprising if many organizations have a look at how they are acting in this area.

NatWest, though, is in something of a unique position because — as a result of being bailed out in the Financial Crisis — it is still partly owned by the U.K. Government. Add in the fact that the current inhabitants of Downing Street cannot ignore the protestations of those on its right wing and you have an especially tricky situation. Nevertheless, one might have expected the bank’s chairman, Sir Howard Davies, a man who has been around the fringes of government for what seems like forever, to have been alive to this and forced an end to the crisis sooner. Davies’s initial statement yesterday evening in the wake of Rose’s admission of her error, that she had the “full confidence” of the board, only to find himself hours later announcing her departure, looks especially strange. As a keen sports fan, he will know that this makes Rose look like one of those hapless football managers who after a series of disastrous results receives the backing of the club’s owner only to be sacked the next morning.

For now, Davies insists he is staying in post until his planned departure next year. But — with shareholders reportedly unhappy with his handling of the episode — that cannot be taken for granted. Certainly, Farage is showing no signs of settling for one scalp. And, who knows, NatWest might not be his only target.