Right now that's all he is. He hasn't even won the nomination. Your complaint was directed at the MSM for not covering it as fully as the Kavanaugh hearing and as has been pointed out there are some very good reasons why they don't. You especially target the BBC for not mentioning it but they have. This report from 2 days ago examines it fully:-
[Link]

I have read some stories about Ms Reade which suggest she has made many such complaints about a variety of people in the past, has defrauded go fund me accounts and is in essence an attention seeker. I have no more idea whether that is true than whether her allegation is. Which only points up the need for healthy scepticism and not to jump to conclusions. Only after testimony under oath and a thorough cross examination would an opinion have any validity.

Kavanaugh came into the public eye for the first time when nominated by Trump to sit on the Supreme Court. The timing of that had nothing to do with the Democrats. The timing of this stinks but it is notable that neither Trump nor his campaign are pushing it as they know it's an area of considerable weakness for him. It's only his sycophantic support base who are getting excited.

I am sure Biden would welcome a full under oath examination by the Senate, if he does become the candidate, so long as Trump does too. Such a process to determine that whoever is going to become the POTUS is a fit and proper person makes perfect sense. Just imagine if that had happened in 2016.Trump would certainly have been thrown out.

So I am not dismissing anything. I simply want things done properly and fairly for all and to all.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

The Democrats are biding their time I hear they plan to impeach him after his second term.

One more point

No significance just that this is the trump thread.

The significance to the matter under discussion! Which is the comparison of two, very different, ways that an allegation of sexual impropriety have been handled.

You mentioned impeachment, not me. But I answered anyway.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

To revisit an earlier point how would everyone react if Roy were replaced by a 78 year old on a four year contract?

There is properly structured, trustworthy investigation into allegations of substance, and then there are unsubstantiated smears.

Which do you think we are dealing with here?

Of course you give everyone, including "all women" the benefit of the doubt but you also give those accused the right to defend themselves. Should you not do that the doors are open wide to endless scurrilous allegations. As could be the case here.

Those involved in the "Me Too" movement understand that very well. These things need to be tested under oath, with both parties being cross examined. For most that means a Court. In this case a Senate committee hearing will be appropriate. For both Biden AND Trump.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.