Interesting thread indeed... held back until now, but everyone else is having a hack at it, so...
First, Capt. Crook was there, we weren't. Those who know him have testified to his character. He exercised the prerogative of his command, end of story. It's not for anyone to second-guess him who wasn't there.
The very most that should happen is a few gentle words of advice, in private, IF, after a full investigation, taking statements from pax & gate staff, there's some question as to whether it could have been handled better.
Now, *we* are free to voice whatever opinions we like - and many have! IF we take the published account as the whole truth, I'd have to wonder... presumably most of the pax were Brits. After an overnight delay, a bit of ironic applause and a couple of good-natured inoffensive comments aren't exactly earth-shattering... they call for some witty repartee in return, to set the flight off on the right note, not clapping anyone who dares say anything in irons! (literal or metaphorical).
Two big 'ifs' there - if the account was accurate, and if the comments etc. were good-natured. Only Capt. Crook was there to judge the tone & body language, he made a command decision which deserves support.
I've only ever received an ironic 'well done' at the other end - after a less-then-creditable landing!
I also once received the following:
'Have you called the fire truck?'.... 'errrrr no, why?'... 'you planted it, you should water it...'
R1