IMO IF cabin staff were drinking in the wee small hours, the tip-off prevented legal action but not a BA disciplinary so I doubt the facts will be publicised.
Flight crew were not accused nor did it involve anyone manning a security checkpoint at Manchester. To date the anon allegations are unsubstantiated
The timing is suspicious, coming so close to the 'no case to answer' result on the Heathrow Virgin pilot. I believe the fire service still categorise false alarms as malicious (liable to prosecution) or with good intent (safety first)
It would be reassuring for all if the Police investigated false alarms and prosecuted malicious calls.
All warnings have to be acted on to minimise risk, so anyone could have a motive for causing disruption, tree-hugger, disgruntled employee or pax, but the honest whistleblower should not be penalised for safety reasons
I agree there is a tendency to assume guilt until proven otherwise and that is why anyone making a malicious false claim of rape should go to jail, but most don't - because it may deter legitimate accusations-not in the public interest
Disk Jockey suggests an alternative reason for the conspiracy theorists
He suggests the a/c may have been declared tech before the cc incident.
A cynic may want to check the Mcr flight was commercially viable or whether there was an intention to transfer passengers to the later HRW flight on cost grounds and avoid EU pax compensation. It happens!