Madbob - can we bring this back to reality? Are you suggesting this "63 year old, TRE, 12000 hour etc etc" is not aware of a 'reason to de-ice'? The BBC headline was actually incorrect, and should have read "had not been properly de-iced" which is what the news item goes on to say - quite different?
I do not have any enquiry results available, but comments are 'no anti-icing fluid' was applied, "he did not inspect the tail" etc. Re-read excrab's post. Without knowledge of detail here, why is it assumed that 'anti-icing fluid' was needed? Was precipitation falling or forecast before departure? I have often just 'de-iced' with no anti-ice. In my airline time I have always accepted the 'ok' of the de-icing operative that it has been done correctly and NEVER gone out to 'check the tail' or whatever - common standard practice in many operations. So, was there a misunderstanding between the crew and the de-icers? Did the ground-staff fail to do their job properly?
To 'hint' that the Captain somehow 'failed' in his duties is a little strong, in my opinion, without a little more evidence. I would tend to apply 'benefit of the doubt' here"!