Too many people here want to have it both ways - they argue that this is simply a technical question of enforcing the rules of the workplace while at the same time thinking that they, as members of the general public, should be able to dictate how an employer should interpret or enforce those rules against their own employee, presumably because what was said here was so 'terrible' (which suggests an extremely privileged, sheltered existence).
The logic of what is being argued is that we should root out people with 'inappropriate' underlying attitudes. But how do we know what these attitudes are, unless they are caught out, like Scudamore? What if they are never articulated or overheard? Should we entrap people? Perform screening?
Can people really not imagine that a person can hold apparently contradictory views - for example, is a devoted lover of a disabled partner, working for a disability charity, but sometimes sharing a 'black humour' joke with their partner or colleagues about disability or other forms of disability? I can well imagine this scenario - unless you think all people with a disability are all angels.
Should women who share 'blonde jokes' with other women in an office face the sack? What if she shares a joke with a client, say in a hairdressers? What if she shares a joke about how dumb men are?
At the end of the day, if we, as adult women are to deal with the world as it really is, we cannot simply continually call on others to change it for us. We have to make serious judgements about what REALLY matters, what will really improve things for women AND men, forget the easy, symbolic, twitter-mob 'campaigning' which just reinforces the idea that women are weak, vulnerable and a pain in the ass to have around and in the process hands over many hard-won principles of liberty to faceless regulations, employers or the police.