My paternal grandfather was the son of a small farmer in a shtetl in Polish Galicia. Scholarly and curious, he absorbed classical literature and German poetry.

He became the town postmaster of Stryj, now Stryi in Ukraine. He was apolitical, saw the best side of others, and disbelieving its horrors until too late died in the Nazi murders along with almost his entire family. His son, my father, also seeing the best side of human nature, survived and came to the UK in 1940, and became a much loved GP.

He was the world’s most reasonable man, the father who never raised his voice despite provocations but gently weaponised the word “disappointed”, saw the best in almost everyone, adored my voluble and sometimes difficult Polish post-war defector mother, taught me democratic values, and almost convinced me that every problem has a civilised solution.

So whenever I see a trace of exaggerated anger in our midst I ask myself how those two most civilised of ancestors would have reacted.

NatWest has reported an unexpectedly sharp rise in first-half profits to £3.6bn. This has brought great benefit to the taxpayer, who owns 39 percent of the bank. Yet chief executive Dame Alison Rose has been forced to resign over the unwise and unjustified closure of Nigel Farage’s NatWest-owned Coutts Bank account.

The manner of her going was hastened when ministers from the Prime Minister downwards, dashing to support arch-Brexiteer Farage, hung her out to dry by clambering for her eject button.

Dame Alison, who I do not know, is a career banker who joined NatWest over 30 years ago. She blazed a trail for female bankers, indeed is a paradigm for female executives, becoming pre-eminent in a world which has embraced female CEOs slowly.

She made a mistake. I am sure that Nigel Farage is discussed at many dinners, not always with undisguised admiration. To some of us he a disrupter, a gadfly in the Socratic sense. His intervention in national politics, despite his failure to secure a seat in our elected House of Commons, contributed strongly to Brexit, a disastrous dalliance with national repercussions from which we might recover at some unknown time in the future.

Dame Alison’s mistake was to gossip about him to a well-known and much respected BBC journalist, and to apparently conceal an unwise and idiosyncratic decision by Coutts founded on a dislike of his political views — a decision with a whiff of the blackballing antics of Edwardian gentlemen’s clubs.

Apparently Coutts wrongly and outrageously regarded Farage as a bit of a rotter, which he is not, because they didn’t like his opinions, to which he has every right.

Was her enforced resignation a correct result? Was it proportionate as a reflection of her error as against her record? How would my father and grandfather have judged the consequences?

The deleterious potential power of modern banks was brilliantly forewarned by the great US constitutionalist and President Thomas Jefferson, principal author of the timeless US Constitution. He said: “I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”

Fair warning. The difference is that Dame Alison’s achievements have been within a strongly regulated 21st century banking sector and for a generally decent bank. Until the recent mistaken decision by Coutts she was irreproachable.

The controversialist — who many serious people believe to have made serial errors of judgement — has secured primacy over a business leader of stellar quality. She was one of today’s true leaders. By her usually sound judgement and solid management, she has brought benefit to many thousands of everyday NatWest customers, individuals and businesses. He is a very engaging but ultimately forgettable political minotaur guarding his own image of the United Kingdom, an image rejected by many.

Surely the strong apology given as the issues emerged should have been the proportionate end to this saga? Many ministers over the years have mis-spoken and their careers have survived. The whiff of double standards is unmistakeable.

Of course, the case is important as an example of discrimination. Mr Farage’s right to speak out is embraced by human rights lawyers, even those who don’t like him. Writing in the Harvard Business Review in February 2022 Michael Timms, elegantly stating the obvious, said: “We all make mistakes from time to time. It’s what makes us human. No good comes from blaming and shaming each other for our imperfect nature. You benefited from learning from your mistakes, so allow others to do the same.”

Mr Timms speaks for my lineage. In the scheme of things, this could all have been handled far better: Dame Alison Rose would still be leading her bank, Mr Farage would have his apology and his account restored (or a suitable alternative). Surely that would have represented the correct solution?