indeed yawn and indeed less than an endorsement if it took >15 for AFP to attend -
As for the alleged PA advising a 'technical issue' - it further undersocres the comedy - if it is 'that' serious then the response should be at the appropriate level.
Maybe a few of my colleagues might disagree but please don't treat the punters as dummies - esp when the a/c has tied up at the aerobridge.
If the matter is 'that' serious that all the pax need to be 'detained' while awaiting attedance of the AFP, then the other 137 punters deserve an appropriate truthful explanation. - As one who in a previous pre-aircrew life commuted 3 times a week I can state with absolute authority that the punters are not dummies and any glossed up 'BS' about tech issues over PA just does not cut it.
Offending Pax should have been aproached on aerobridge/terminal.
End of the day - if it's serious enough to disenfranchise 137 pax, and CC evidence is tight then offender should be charged.
If CC case is not strong then an informal 1:1 between the Capt or FO & the offending punter on disembarkation may have been a more mature/effective resolution.