MAGGIE PAGANO: Weasel defence of Dame Alison Rose
There is the acrid stench of a stitch-up between NatWest and No 10 over the 扱うing of the 最新の スキャンダル in the Nigel Farage 事件／事情／状勢.?
It is 信じられない that Howard Davies, NatWest chairman, has decided not to 解雇（する） Dame Alison Rose after admitting that she was the source of the BBC story about Farage's account, without the 総理大臣's blessing.
After all, the 政府 ? or rather we the taxpayer ? is the biggest 株主 in NatWest. Either No 10 or the 財務省 ? probably both ? must have been 協議するd over whether NatWest should keep Dame Alison in her 役割 or 解雇（する） her.
Inexcusably, NatWest wants her to stay but for the most pathetic 推論する／理由s.
NatWest chairman Howard Davies has decided not to 解雇（する） Dame Alison Rose after admitting that she was the source of the BBC story about Nigel Farage's account
Indeed, the 声明 put out late yesterday by Davies ? with the 支援 of the 独立した・無所属 非，不，無-(n)役員／(a)執行力のある directors and the board ? is a weasel defence of Dame Alison, 述べるing her conversation with BBC 新聞記者／雑誌記者, Simon Jack, as 'a 残念な error of 裁判／判断 on her part'.?
Really? An error of 裁判／判断? Is it only an error of 裁判／判断 to 明らかにする／漏らす the 財政上の 詳細（に述べる）s of one of the most high-profile political characters of the last few １０年間s to Britain's only 公然と-owned 放送者?
Maybe Dame Alison and Jack had enjoyed too much of the 歓待 at that fateful dinner at London's Langham Hotel.
Rose's words were careless and flippant rather than an error of 裁判／判断.
銀行業者s don't have やめる such a 正確な 同等（の） of the 医療の profession's Hippocratic 誓い but （弁護士の）依頼人 confidentiality ? and m y word is my 社債 ? is pretty good to be getting on with.
And Dame Alison blew her 社債.
The former chairman of the 財政上の Services 当局 no いっそう少なく, Davies, goes on to say that: 'The events will be taken into account in 決定／判定勝ち（する）s on remuneration at the appropriate time.' This rather 示唆するs that NatWest believes that the betrayal of a （弁護士の）依頼人 by the bank boss can be 補償するd for by 支払う／賃金ing Dame Alison いっそう少なく money?
That is laughable and rather supports the 見解（をとる） that 銀行業者s are even more greedy than we think they are. Dame Alison's own mea culpa was just as pathetic.
She also says her comments to Jack about Farage were an 'error of 裁判／判断'.
She defends herself by 説 she thought it was general knowledge that he banked at Coutts, but even so 確認するd it, going その上の, telling Jack he had been 申し込む／申し出d a NatWest account. Even that is breaking （弁護士の）依頼人 confidentiality.
The fact that she had not seen the Coutts Wealth Reputational 危険 委員会 ? the dossier which 指名するs Farage as a Brexiteering, Novak Djokovic supporting grifter of 疑わしい 人種差別主義者 values ? is 簡単に irrelevant. She should have said nothing.
What is 利益／興味ing is that the 財政上の 行為／行う 当局 ? the City's main 監視者 ? is taking a much harder line than the 政府 or NatWest itself.
Sheldon Mills, 消費者 and 競争 director, appears to be putting feet to the 解雇する／砲火／射撃. Encouragingly, Mills says the FCA has already raised 関心s with NatWest and Coutts about the 主張s of 違反 of 顧客 confidenti ality, 追加するing that NatWest's review must be 井戸／弁護士席 資源d and have 接近 to all （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状）.
Then it will decide what 活動／戦闘 to take. Good.
Both Davies and Dame Alison 結論する their 声明s with more 陳謝s, and the 約束s of 独立した・無所属 reviews to '確実にする this doesn't happen again'.
They also both profess 広大な／多数の／重要な affection for each other.
Davies 説 what an 優れた leader Dame Alison has 証明するd to be while she says it's been the 特権 of her life to work for the bank.
Both these 感情s can be true, and she has 証明するd to be a good 銀行業者.
Yet if my word is my 社債 means anything at all, Dame Alison has to step 負かす／撃墜する to show that the bank has the very highest of 倫理的な values ? and accountability.
長，率いるs should also roll at the most 上級の levels at Coutts ? 特に those 責任がある 許すing such a cack-手渡すd mess to occur.
