I wondered where this Mycroft straightening the knocker came from in the first place - as far as I remember the knocker was never askew in the first two seasons! Everybody seemed to be perfectly happy with it hanging straight.

I agree with Vhanja on the not going/going thing - doesn't make sense. And I'm with tonnaree on the beer - it's just a prop. Btw. - does Sherlock ever drink alkohol (apart from stag night)? I do wonder why, considering him complaining about his brain working to fast and being unable to switch off - seems the world's oldest legal downer would be just the thing... (nopes, I'm not condoning drug use here, just wondering)

Now for a nice factual question, which should have an easy answer, provided some Londoner is reading this: How are houses numbered in London? For even the producers have a problem with 3 doorbells for 221B, when for me (who grew up in Munich) it would be absolutely normal: In Munich the buildings are numbered - starting with 1 for the house closest to the city centre on the left-hand side of the road, continuing 3, 5, etc. (the even numbers are on the right side if you look away from the city centre). The B numbers are for houses that are later squeezed into a gap between two existing, already numbered, buildings, or possibly for when a building is divided and has now two separate entrances (or a big one is pulled down and two smaller ones built - every time you need an additional number that doesn't upset the whole system). The flats in a building don't have numbers or letters, there's just a namenext to the bell button and on the letterbox. So I would expect for 221A to be the next door to the left of 221B, and the sandwich shop to be either 221C or 223. Whereas the three flats in 221B are just distiguished by the names next to the bell buttons (and how is the mail delivered to those three flats? There's no letterbox, is there?)

So, how should the building/flats in it be numbered in London? According to Ariane DeVere's transcript: ...=small=10pt=small=10pt Steven admits that there is a “blatant improbability” with the front door, which has three doorbells and so really shouldn’t have the number of just one of those flats. “But how co

Can anybody actually make sense of the whole "terrorist plot" in ASiB?

An airplane crashes in Düsseldor. Presumably the crash was due to terrorist activity, though that's never confirmed. "Mycroft" (I'm just using the name for convenience's sake because I don't know who the other conspirators were - he probably wouldn't be directly involved in Germany) knew of the terrorist attack, and filled the plane with dead people so that nobody would die in the crash (btw: How did "Mycroft" fake people boarding the flight? How did the terrorists plant their bomb when the plane was not accepting passengers and luggage but parked in a closed-off area of the airport?). 

I'd like to point out that the Düsseldorf area is very densely populated and there's no way to exclude collateral damage (i. e. people killed) on the ground. But let's assume there were no additional fatalities so everybody is happy - the terrorists believe their scheme succeded, and as in Germany you don't get to see your loved one's ash (the urn's buried by cemetary employees) the relatives won't notice anything. Well, actually, people taking flights probably won't be too happy about the crash, but then we are all used to the risk and delete the facts pretty quickly, don't we?

Then there's Bond Air proper, LHR to Baltimore (which at least gives a nice stretch of sea for the plane to fall into - only then they wouldn't need corpses at all...). "Mycroft" has spent some 9 months collecting bodies (I'd say autumn for the hiker, the man with his aunt's urn came before the hiker, Bond Air is scheduled to leave in June/July - Irene's "6 months"), probably keeping them in deep freeze somewhere (and I wonder why he couldn't find corpses about whom nobody would care - does anybody know how many people die in the UK in 6 months?) Terrorists plant a bomb on the flight (same problem as above).

Moriarty has absolutely no connection to these terrorists, he apparantely doesn't know who they are - otherwise he coul

I have another "solution" to offer: As Sherlock's brain took a (very) brief holiday "downstairs" when he looked at naked Irene , he didn't notice any details beyond her measurements  and has not much to compare the dead body to.
However, I really, really want Liberty (and Aurora with her alternative solution in the very first post) to be right! Sherlock playing along with Irene, for whatever reason, offers so many interesting possibilities for fanfic...
Seriously I think it most likely was just another plot hole

Of course, for science, and to cover all the bases, we should then also have a naked Sherlock walking towards John and/or Irene...

I agree!

nakahara wrote:

....Sherlock´s universe is a peculiar one. In S3 it was established, that you can choose the place near person´s heart and shoot the person into it with such precision, that the person would not die but remains only incapaciated.
...

I agree with the first sentence - very peculiar! However, I've just read a fascinating explantion regarding the rest on http://wellingtongoose.tumblr.com. (Sherlock Medical Essays/On the Shooting) - the bullet wound is apparantly in the safest spot possible if you need to thoroughly incapacitate somebody.

nakahara wrote:

..... If Sherlock threw him into the Thames, it would be completely justified and a good riddance....
 

Interesting attitude to law and order - but that's not how things work in the European countries I know!

nakahara wrote:

Let′s face it the cabbie was a scum who gleefully poisoned four people. Three people were in the prime of life, enjoying successful careers and one was just a young man on the verge of adulthood, practically a child. If Sherlock not only stepped on cabbie′s bleeding shoulder but kicked him to his head or clawed his eyes out, it would be rightfully delt – the scum deserved every single bit of it.  

I agree that the cabbie was scum, but even scum has rights. At least in real life...

In fiction I'm absolutely not bothered by "bad guys" getting what I think they deserve (maybe I've read too many Jack Reacher novels: "“We splattered a thousand bugs on our windshield yesterday. A thousand more today. One extra won’t make any difference.” - The Hard Way - the extra bug of course is a man).

I just wanted to point out that Sherlock is not some fluffy teddybear but a potentially dangerous man who goes from torture (which probably wouldn't have made any difference to the cabby living or dyeing) to grievous bodily harm with intent (the fall could have easily killed the guy) to murder (or is it "only" homicide?) None of which particularly bothers me, but I would think twice before seriously annoying Sherlock or pushing him into a corner (and decide to not do it)!

 

Violet Hunter wrote:

A Pocket Knife?
But in England these days that would be not a good idea, my relatives there cold not laugh when I showed mine.

Swiss army knives are still perfectly legal (https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives) and the most useful anyway. I'd get a Victorinox with tweezers and magnifying glass...

And if Sherlock talked about me as about Molly, I'd keep the knife!

Back to Sherlock: What bothers me is not just the science, but also things like John's therapist suggesting he write a blog (why would one want to go public with ones problems? A personal diary, by all means, but a web log????), John doing all this running and jumping in the taxi chase - yes, the limp is psychosomatic - and how does one develop a limp from a shot to the shoulder???? - but John didn't do any jogging in the last months, did he? (btw, when does Sherlock work out?), the wildly fluctuating fighting abilities (Sherlock deals rather elegantly with his Jaria diamond attacker - how does he get rid of the knocked-out guy? - but Sherlock, John and SIG together can't cope with the Golem) - the list is endless...