The story of the famous BBC television presenter who, at the time of writing, has still not been named, has all the elements of 21st-century-media madness – something allegedly sexual which may or not involve a person too young for such things; a desperate hue and cry to see who will dare to name the accused first; anonymous accusers; a clash between strong legal rules about the accused’s anonymity and the strong social media custom of ignoring them; a confusion as to whether the ‘victim’ is a victim or whether he/she even believes he/she is a victim; gabby lawyers; the Sun; an angry mum; a stepfather; ‘fresh allegations’; a ‘concerned’ government which does not exactly know what it is concerned about; show-off MPs who want to use parliamentary privilege to name the accused; a perplexed police wondering whether a crime has been committed; a ‘suspension’; a frightened BBC which says it may have ‘some learnings’ [whatever happened to the word ‘lessons’?] from the case; a lack of facts, and a readiness to comment all the same. I suppose this little item is itself another example of the last phenomenon.

If one complained about every example of woke, one would send oneself mad and everyone else to sleep. For this reason, I forbore to comment on the fact that, for the whole of Pride month, Coutts Bank filled its entire front in the Strand with an enormous piece of propaganda. Having walked past it a dozen times, however, I stopped to read what it actually said. I decided I would pass it on. The enormous headline, framed by the Adelphi stucco, said ‘CHAMPIONING THE POWER OF PRIDE’. ‘What started as a riot,’ it continued, ‘ignited an unstoppable force for good.’ Further elucidation followed: ‘We believe everything we do should play a part in benefitting the environment and people of all identities and backgrounds. Recognising our influence to make a positive difference for the LGBT+ community, we’re working to ensure that we do this every day, not just in Pride month.’ I have a few questions. Does Coutts’s chairman, fourth Baron Remnant, whom I vaguely remember from my schooldays, actually believe that riots are a good way of doing business? If so, what would he and his board of directors say to the bank’s ‘high net-worth’ customers who disagree, and think their money is safer in a culture where democracy and the rule of law, rather than riots, instigate ‘unstoppable social change’? Are they aware that Pride is not an uncontroversial welfare organisation but an advocate for a controversial ideology which is opposed by gender-critical feminists, some lesbians who believe the trans agenda threatens their identity and many moral conservatives who prefer more traditional attitudes? Why do they think a bank should adopt any political ideology? Why are they proud of Pride which, as is well known, comes before a fall?

Coutts also says it is proud to be ‘a B Corp’, which means a company signed up to a vast list of principles about ‘equity’, diversity, greenery and ‘being the change we want to see in the world’. I read on the Coutts website about eligibility for holding a Coutts account. The opening form is interested only in whether you have at least £1 million to invest or borrow or £3 million in savings. Google tells me that the average person in Britain has savings of £17,753. A further question for Lord Remnant and his board: do they realise that they look like hypocrites?

Although Sir Keir Starmer lacks the seductive charm of Tony Blair, he is pursuing a similar path to victory. He considers it advantageous to gather followers from the ranks of political opponents. Who will be his most glittering recruit? I was interested that, in his speech about education last week, Sir Keir went out of his way to praise Michael Gove, quoting his famous words (first attributed to George W. Bush) as education secretary about ‘the soft bigotry of low expectations’. I wonder if this means great expectations for Mr Gove. He has now been a cabinet minister for longer than any Tory since Margaret Thatcher (13 years, apart from a couple of short breaks). He has for some time been ‘on a journey’, praising equality and generally getting greener and redder. If Sir Keir wins next year, Mr Gove might reasonably calculate that he could do the state more service by lending lustre to Labour (or taking a non-political role under it) than as a shadow spokesman of tired Tories.

A friend who loves having breakfast in hotels recently noticed, in a central London one, that although the rest of the breakfast was very good, the scrambled eggs tasted of nothing. He asked the waiter why. He was told it is now considered injurious to health simply to crack open an egg and scramble it. The hotel’s guidance is that the eggs must be pasteurised before they can pass anyone’s lips. What is left is, as he puts it, no yolk.

It is rightly frowned upon, except in some cases of the extremely famous, for tickets to be issued for memorial services. The ideal is that anyone who wishes to pay tribute by turning up should feel free to do so. However, the human fact is that admirers who do not personally know the deceased often feel shy about doing so. It was different at St Martin-in-the-Fields on Monday. The place was packed to join his widow Catriona in celebrating with high honour the Low Life of Jeremy Clarke, who sent so many wonderful weekly letters, including on his approaching death, to Spectator readers. As the editor, Fraser Nelson, explained to the 600-strong congregation, this service was different because readers, not just friends and colleagues, had been invited. It was touching that so many felt such a connection with Jeremy. The only pity was that he was not there to see it. We columnists wonder, in dark moments, whether our readers actually exist. How he would have loved this proof that they did.