The Telegraph:

[…] Rose saw her role as primarily ideological rather than tediously financial. "Put simply," she said, "tackling the climate emergency is one of, if not the biggest issue of our time – and banks have a massive role to play in mobilising the power of finance to meet the net zero ambition".

On that very same day, the bank ended new loans for oil and gas extraction, a ruinous piece of virtue signalling which hampered the British people's access to their own bountiful natural resources. Meanwhile, Norway, a country blessedly uncaptured by Marxist EDI – Equality, Diversity, Inclusion – zealots, is drilling like crazy in its part of the North Sea. (Guess which country the UK now buys half of its oil and gas supplies from at a cost of £40 billion a year? Green purity don't come cheap, you know.)

Not that paying the gas bill is much of a concern for Dame Alison. Last year, her pay packet was £5.25 million, a big chunk of that courtesy of the taxpayer, who owns 39 per cent of NatWest (and thus Coutts) since its bailout during the 2008 financial crisis.

But why? Did Ms. Rose get confused and think she joined Greenpeace instead of a bank? Nobody knows what this woman was thinking, but it's clear that she was paid millions a year to push a far-left radical political agenda instead of tending to the needs of the bank and its customers. Now, after making a mess of everything, people are calling for Ms. Rose, the first female chief executive, to be fired. This follows a sad and destructive pattern of unprofessional women who don't understand their job duties and think they were hired as political activists rather than as "executives" and "marketing managers." Just look at what happened at Bud Light when a team of women were left to their own devices; the company is now on the brink of collapse.