RBS banker Alexandre Graham, who organised last weekend’s anti-drinking ban protest on the Tube, has left the firm, after fearing for his job once the story broke. But should banks really get involved in employees’ private lives?

Around 10,000 people descended on the Tube on 1 June to protest against no longer being able to booze on the underground. The Standard reported with glee that the mastermind was, shock-horror, an investment banker working for RBS.

Graham has since escaped the media glare by leaving RBS and fleeing to the jungles of South America. It’s not clear whether he was pushed or left of his own accord.

However, RBS was said to be “deeply embarrassed” by the event, and Graham was afraid he might be sacked after the revelations.

Let’s put it in perspective. It’s not as though he was a criminal mastermind or a social revolutionary, he just set up an event on Facebook, which got out of control.

And would it have caused such a media circus if it were organised by a plumber from Basingstoke? Probably not.

Positioned somewhere towards the upper echelons of society, bankers, the world assumes, should behave with a sense of decorum.

Is this a fair assumption? Should bankers be able to cut loose at the weekends, organise parties and protests just like everyone else? Or do their individual actions reflect on the organisation they work for?

Your thoughts please….