In reply to Tall Clare:
I haven't followed this case in detail, but yes, it was a temporary PA who had access to his private email and then released it to the press. From what I gather what HE wrote (as opposed to the other correspondent) was a bit tiresome and blokey, but hardly outrageous, and a proportionate response from the lady who "outed" him would, IMO, have been to speak to him about it, maybe gauge his true feelings, look for signs that there was actually a culture of demeaning women in his work.
But instead she took it to the media. Having done so, rather than simply saying something like "It's a shame he's expressed these views, make of it what you will" or suchlike, she's condemned him in the strongest, most sanctimonious, pious, holier-than-thou manner, which I find intensely irritating. Firstly, how great it must be to be as perfect as her, so able to judge and express one's superiority over others and to be so sure of your own rightness about things. Secondly, what does she have left to say about rapists, murderers, child-abductors and the like? Or is Scudamore worse than these type of people?
Another thing I don't like about these type of issues is the binary nature of them. People are labelled as "bad" and that's it. There's no nuance, no balance. If there's a hint that somebody is an -ist, they are A BAD PERSON.