Interesting discusssion..with no surprises at the fawning (and may I say thoroughly arrogant)apologists for Balpa.
Balpa should be a trade union first and foremost and not a club. The first duty of any union should be to protect the individual. In that duty Balpa is wanting to my own knowledge and from the examples presented here.To cut the ground of support from someone who has lost his or her job is just appalling.....especially when it is an economic decision and scarce resources have been spent freely on dubious Politically correct escapades. (I have yet to speak to a single colleague who did not think that the Starmer case was a spectacular own goal.and indicative of a leadership that was out of touch with it core membership)
Given that I suspect the majority join out of fear in order to protect themselves with legal cover, it is pretty apparent that at the very least there is a large question mark of the associations ability to perform.
Your own household insurance policy invariably gives the option of excellent legal cover in the event of employment issues and so I commend to anyone who doesnt like what Balpa's spokesman has to say here to give yourself a 1% pay rise and make a phone call to your domestic insurers.