TRSS,
I see (as usual) the detail that was requested to support your argument is not forthcoming. I see from further dialogue on this thread you are now changing the substance of your argument.
Your actual wording was
"Do keep up, dear boy: the issue is who has the choice.
In your case the choice to defend or withdraw is the union's: where one pays for insurance the choice to fight or flee is the individuals."
Now you are saying that this is subject to the legal experts decision. That is a qualification you had not made before. For the benefit of your integrity your £50 contribution can be made to Julie Rutley, Treasurer, BALPA Christmas Hardship Fund, BALPA House, 5 Heathrow Boulevard, West Drayton, UB7 0DQ
As a current pilot (11,000 hours, B757 Captain) I would certainly prefer that my livelihood is protected by the mechanism employed by Balpa, rather than some minimally legally qualified individual working for an insurance company. Indeed all of this discussion is a good reminder of the limitations of other organisations and their "legal protection". Any insurance based legal protection scheme will have limitations on pursuing an action.
At least with Balpa (which is not insurance based), the decisions are being made by people who are actively involved in flying. Indeed their decisions have the added incentive of affecting their own careers potentially. I know which I would prefer to look after my licence and my career.