Yeah but my biggest criticisms haven't changed during Ncuti's go at it either. Not that he can help it much, he too gets crappy writing.
There was a brief resurgence in apparent good writing when Tennant took over, though the final faceoff with the Toymaker was deeply disappointing. Loved seeing Catherine again though, she was amazing in the 2nd episode.
It made me quit watching Jodie's run (which is too bad, because I like her). I gave it a other go when Ncuti took over, and I really enjoyed most of Tennant's quick stint. But unfortunately after that the bad writing took over again and Ncuti also was saddled with some bad stories.
I have to disagree a bit here, the recent writing has tried to very heavily shoe-horn it in, whereas in the past it was much more naturally present.
I think the worst one for me (before I quit watching) was with the enormous spiders in the hotel run by a very Trumpian figure.
"Trump" wanted to just shoot the enormous spider, but the Doctor stopped him saying "no weapons, ever". The spider then died an agonizing death caused by suffocation on-screen mere seconds later. Her offspring was lured and locked into a storage room with food, after which they would surely either cannibalize themselves or starve. Actually shooting them would've been a mercy at that point.
When presented with the Doctor's solution versus the "Trump" solution, I felt more sympathy for "Trump". And I fucking hate that guy. That's when I knew the writing just wasn't for me anymore.
There's a reason even the more diehard Whovians, who are very much considered "woke" are tuning out. It's not the cast, it's the writing.
I mean honestly, why would you at this point? Damage's already been done, drawing attention to her again would only make things worse.
She's not going to prison, she gets an ankle monitor and house arrest I believe.
There's no physical reason for it, it's mostly inexperience that can cause it.
Relax, do foreplay, lube up. Don't push it, take it slow. Won't be any different from any other time.
Of course, there are exceptions to this. But these are rarer than most people think.
No, it specifically talks about US lend-lease and the invasion of Europe. It's not talking about the entire western contribution to the war.
The US army says that lend-lease and the invasion of Europe shortened the war. It does not say that the Soviets would have won without the Allies being in the war. Even your source says that the lend-lease and the invasion, even if not the deciding factor, were "a great help".
Maybe read your sources a little better?
The Axis combined conscripted approximately 40 million men, whereas the Soviet Union conscripted approximately 34.5 million men. Without the Allies they would not have won just looking at the numbers.
The US conscripted 16 million, the British Commonwealth approximately 11 million. That's a combined 27 million, which isn't exactly insignificant compared to the USSRs 34.5 million (see https://www.statista.com/statistics/1342260/wwii-mobilization-by-country/).
The Soviets were forced to mobilize that many as they were essentially fighting an existential war at that time. They also suffered the brunt of the casualties, in no small part due to a lack of equipment.
Without the Allies, the USSR would have likely lost. Even Stalin knew and said as much. The US entry shortened the war but they certainly didn't "win the war for the rest of the Allies" or anything. But to minimize the contribution as a "pinprick" is ridiculous and not supported by historians east nor west.
Because the US and UK did nothing else during the war except lend-lease of course. The bombing of German industry, blockades of their supply lines, the Africa-campaigns, extensive intelligence operations, no all of that definitely did nothing and didn't contribute to the war effort at all.
It's likely the Allies would have won the war without the US involved, though it's estimated it would have taken much longer. Without UK involvement, it's more probable that the Germans could have achieved a victory, though perhaps not a total capitulation of the Soviets. Without a western front to guard as heavily, they would probably have taken Moscow by the end of 41 (irl they were 20 miles out). Japan would also have a much freeer reign in the pacific theatre.
Don't think they can vote if they're not a citizen, no?
True, but that translated into anti-violence most of the time. Here there was a chance to either give the creature mercy and kill it quickly, or let it suffer a horrible painful frightening death. At that point, what is exactly the ethical choice?
I thought the new run opened fairly poorly. Imo most of the issues I have with Who writing are still there.