I feel a bit different about these revelations tbh. I've just been trying to work out why because normally I'm absolutely incensed by things like this and I just feel a bit underwhelmed about this one.
I think the difference is that Gino made no attempt to hide who he was. Sleazy, misogynistic, and full of himself - his personality and cocky behaviour was out there for all to see.
So I'm not sure this news story is much of a revelation really - as the comments on this thread prove. None of us are shocked. Sleazy man turns out to be sleazy. Quelle surprise.
I think I'm less outraged by Gino because it was clear who he was and what he was like. Just a nasty, seedy little man - and they're ten a penny. Rightly or wrongly, I find I get angrier at those men who are supposed to be "safe" who turn out to be just as bad. Like Gregg Wallace. Neil Gaiman. Or those in power who enable these men.
In this case, I think the real issue is that Gino continued to be booked, despite his lewd behaviour. People at the top, undoubtedly men, thought his behaviour was fine, even though it was overtly misogynistic and sexual. I find that outrageous, and while systemic and institutional misogyny is rife, we don't stand a chance at rooting these seedy little creeps out.
It's like Hydra. Cut one off and another appears.