I've alawys had the feeling that a lot of the coldness and bitter feelings between Sherlock and Mycroft-- well, it crossed my mind that part of it is to keep them from being used as leverage againsgt each other. Moriarty didn't even bother to threaten Mycroft. CAM, however wanted to use Sherlock as leverage on Mycroft, and that makes me think he knew a little more about the hidden relationship between the brothers. 

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

I've alawys had the feeling that a lot of the coldness and bitter feelings between Sherlock and Mycroft-- well, it crossed my mind that part of it is to keep them from being used as leverage againsgt each other. Moriarty didn't even bother to threaten Mycroft. CAM, however wanted to use Sherlock as leverage on Mycroft, and that makes me think he knew a little more about the hidden relationship between the brothers. 

 
Interesting Ravens..Moriarty was under the impression that Mycroft betrayed Sherlock..in an information exchange between them.
Once Sherlock was alive...and likely working/with help from Mycroft...that cover/idea is blown.
So maybe Magnusson got the info about Mycroft/Sherlock actually being closer than it seems..and the Redbeard info...from a Moriarty linked source.
What that his same source for the info on Mary?
Linking Moriarty,  Magnusson,  Mary.....idk

Maybe the airport scene needed to happen for a reason...thus Mycrofts mission insistance.

nakahara wrote:

Willow wrote:

nakahara wrote:

Mycroft would be the biggest hypocrite on earth if he really meant that “my brother is a murderer” line.
 
It was strongly implied in the show that Mycroft′s work includes plenty of immoral, shady and illegal dealings. One murder committed by the misguided idealist is just a minor annoyance for Mycroft. “The Iceman” wouldn′t be bothered by the fact the scum like CAM died.
 
His sudden moral indignation is certainly just an act.
 

 
Yes, and no.

After all, he could have had Irene Adler killed, but he didn't. The nastiest thing he did to her was to not put her into protective custody; it was Sherlock who threw her to the wolves, once he realised that his screw up menaced Mycroft and the country. Admittedly he took a detour to Karachi to assist her in keeping her head on her shoulders, but it was Sherlock who stripped her of her protection in the first place.

Mycroft wasn't prepared to let a plane full of live people go down to preserve the fact that they had broken a code; he set up a plane full of dead people instead.

I think Mycroft knows that Sherlock has to have a moral code because otherwise he's lost; a Sherlock who went rogue would be a terrifying thing, and Mycroft would be the person who would have to stop him. So, yes and no; Sherlock's acceptance of the fact that he is a murderer, and his willingness to pay the price, is what distinguishes him from people like Mary, and Mycroft knows he has to stay that way to stop him turning into someone like Mary, only a thousand times more dangerous.

Hence 'My brother is a murderer' is what paradoxically makes Sherlock a better person than someone like Mary...

 But you can also look at this situation from the opposite point of view:
 
Mycroft knew well that Irene Adler is doomed when he stripped her of her camera phone and yet he let her go, unprotected. He even told John later „I was thorough – this time“. It sounds to me as if he personally tipped those terrorists concerning Adler′s whereabouts. Sherlock, on the other hand, acted all cold and disinterested for the sake of fooling Mycroft, but he had secretly undergone the risky and dangerous mission to save Irene and he ensured her safety even when he had every reason not to (she betrayed him to Moriarty and ridiculed him). The way I look at it, Mycroft acted with clinical, almost inhuman detachment while Sherlock manifested his hidden compassion.
 
Mycroft has means to locate the terrorists who intend to blow up the plane in SiB without sacrificing any Boening and its passangers. Yet he allows this Boening to be filled up with dead bodies and to be blown up later just because he wants to observe some more facts about how this terrorist organisation operates. In short, he freely allows those terrorists to continue with their attacks just to obtain more information. Even when there were no passengers killed this time, „Coventry“ is a really fitting name for what Mycroft does here. I have a feeling that Mycroft would be willing to offer some real „human sacrifices“ to those terrorists if he saw no other way out of it.
 
And don′t forget how Mycroft quietly watched his brother being beaten to a pulp in TEH and was not swayed by his compassion to help him out any sooner, just because it suited his goals at that moment.
 
I agree with your assertion that „Sherlock's acceptance of the fact that he is a murderer, and his willingness to pay the price, is what distinguishes him from people like Mary, and Mycroft knows he has to stay that way to stop him turning into someone like Mary, only a thousand times more dangerous.“
 
Yet when I look at both brothers, Sherlock is the only one of them that actually possesses „a moral compass“. This moral compass is precisely the reason why he accepts punishment for CAM′s murder. But his conscience doesn′t stem from Mycroft, it stems from Sherlock himself. Mycroft is more like Macchiavelli, he works for certain higher political goals and not for idealistic reasons like Sherlock does. He certainly percieves Sherlock′s noble sacrifice as a foolishness and weakness – and this was probably the reason why he taught Sherlock that „caring is not an advantage“ in the past. And because Sherlock is Mycroft′s only vulnerable spot, he tries to form Sherlock into that cold and detached, but also lonely and isolated figure with his overbearing care.
 
So I don′t buy Mycroft′s line about his brother being a murderer. Mycroft seems more annoyed with Sherlock′s foolish idealism than actual act of murder in this scene. And he certainly wouldn′t admit in front of those people that he actually cares for Sherlock – even if he attempts to save him in secret.
 

It was Sherlock who stripped her of the phone, Sherlock who broke the code, and Sherlock who handed it to Mycroft, notwithstanding the fact that Irene begged him not to, pleading that she wouldn't last six months without it. Sherlock's only response was to give the phone to his brother, expressing the hope that its contents would make up for the inconvenience he had caused him. Irene, had after all a few moments earlier demanded vast sums of money, amongst other things, from Mycroft aka the British Government; she was perfectly happy to do that, and without Sherlock cracking the code on the phone, Mycroft aka the British Government would have had to pay up. Sherlock's throw away remark was 'if you are feeling kind, lock her up' to his brother; his throw away remark to Irene was 'sorry about dinner'.

As a British taxpayer I see no reason why I should foot the bill for the costs of protecting Irene; she was a blackmailer who had successfully deceived Sherlock right up to the very last moment, and was extorting money from me, in my role as taxpayer, along with all the other taxpayers, who, I am pretty sure, would agree that they saw no reason for their hard earned dosh being expended in looking after a failed blackmailer. Mycroft was, in that instance, acting as my representative and I completely agree with his decision.

You are stretching the boundaries of the plausible in order to try and make Mycroft into a sinister figure, and you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Mycroft knew who all the members of a terrorist ring were and could have had them arrested. The thing about terrorists is that they rarely helpfully provide you with their names and addresses plus similar data for every other terrorist; that is why the intelligence services try to monitor them to trace other members. It has been standing procedure for many decades for terrorist organisations to have very tightly controlled circles of knowledge, precisely because otherwise it's a great deal easier to catch them. And whilst Mycroft may have power to order arrests in Britain he has no such power in other countries, and the dialogue makes it clear that other countries were involved. You are criticising him for not doing the impossible, and making up stuff to fill the gaps. Mycroft had no need to tip anyone off about Irene, and no reason to waste his time on doing it; he did spend time trying to find out whether the reports of her death had been highly exaggerated, since she had already pulled the fake death trick once. After doing that he points out to John that this time 'it would take Sherlock Holmes to fool me', which, of course, it had.

Incidentally, if Mycroft hates, or even dislikes, Sherlock why should he bother to discuss with John what they should tell Sherlock? Why should he be concerned about Sherlock's emotional reactions? It is Mycroft who shows us that John's description of Sherlock as a machine is just plain wrong; Sherlock is, after all, the little boy who wanted to be a pirate.

I really don't know whether Mycroft could have done some killing in Serbia to get Sherlock out quicker; I don't think Mycroft  would kill without a very good reason. We can complain that Mycroft should have got him out quicker, but short of killing the guy beating hell out of Sherlock, it's difficult to see how he would achieve what we are asking him to do. Some strange guy who you've never seen before wandering in telling you to stop interrogating a prisoner is unlikely to work; why would it?

On the one hand you are complaining that he's not good, and on the other hand you are complaining that he's not bad enough; this is not something which can ever be resolved. I would say that Mycroft is a complex character but I see no reason to doubt his deep affection for his brother, nor do I believe that he lacks a moral compass. He worries a great deal about Sherlock, and since he loves him, and his loss would break his heart, he has tried to deter Sherlock from caring too much; he doesn't want Sherlock's heart to break.

He is equally well aware that if Sherlock went rogue it would be his job to track him down and kill him; as he notes during the Lady Smallwood scene at the end, there would be daily riots in any prison containing Sherlock. So Mycroft has a very personal reason for wanting Sherlock not to go over the edge, as well as public ones; England needs Sherlock Holmes...




 

Yes, of course we mostly agree; my apologies if I was over protective of Mycroft, and, indeed the British taxpayer. 

You will recall Anthea, Mycroft's aide, pointing out to Sherlock that a man had died getting them the information which made extracting Sherlock now vitally important, and Sherlock basically blew her off. This was not exactly the response of a man with a perfectly functioning moral compass

Devoted as I am to Sherlock, he and his brother are more alike than either of them would care to admit; both of them have brains the size of small planets, and both of them are therefore hugely vulnerable because stupid people do stupid things, but if you really want to screw things up then people with brains the size of small planets are the people who will do it for you

Thus, Sherlock was completely blindsided by Moriarty not possessing a super duper computer code because Sherlock naturally thinks that it must be something really, really clever; old fashioned bribery and corruption never occurred to him, which left him standing on Barts roof with a dead body on his hands, or, to be more precise, at his feet, looking at a murder charge. Not exactly what he'd been hoping for, I think you will agree.

The point which I think you may be overlooking regarding Mycroft is that people of his rank work 14-16 hours a day, 7 days a week; once Irene Adler had been defused as a threat he would no longer care. His only action would be a protective one for his brother, but since we see him worrying about Sherlock's reaction to her death it is improbable that he would take any steps to bring it about.

Equally, people working those sorts of hours don't make work for themselves; they spend their lives trying not to drown in a sea of paper. Making up incredibly complicated unnecessary plots is immensely time-consuming, it's the sort of thing which under employed people might do, but not the ones whose lives are portioned out in five or ten minute slots; Sherlock might well do it, because Sherlock has time. Mycroft doesn't; if I didn't know that Mary shot Sherlock my principal suspect would be Mycroft's appointment secretary.

And on that happy note I had better potter off, before we analyse all three seasons line by line; sleep beckons

lil wrote:

Yes Sherlock and Mycroft are difficult.....they are on the side of the angels...but not one of them..they have to walk the line and occasionally cross it.
I think its pretty obvious they genuinely care for each other..on some level.

I agree Mycrofts not bothered by the murder/death of Magnusson so I don't think he means that murderer line. Probably more the way Sherlock did it..and getting caught , or maybe because Sherlock made a sentiment mistake.

Perhaps he meant to teach Sherlock the don't get caught..or it means saying goodbye to John..me..your work kind of lesson..and improve his ice man rep at the same time. So he was planning an airport scene scenario sentiment type lesson...but planned on it lasting more than 4 minutes. ?.lol...idk.

I don't believe Mycroft was actually sending Sherlock off to die...but idk..if Sherlock didn't believe it...what the heck the goodbye to John about.
Sherlock seemed to believe it....thats really sad..but doesn't make sense considering Christmas.

The way I perceive it, both brothers are similar but Sherlock is a bit ... softer, more vulnerable than Mycroft. When they showed him as a crying little boy through Mycroft′s eyes at the end of HLV, it resonated with me in a strong manner.
 
Mycroft, on the other hand, is much more powerful and not so easily shaken up by nasty surprises (usually there aren′t any where he is concerned – he is always two or three steps above his enemies). Yet his position comes with a price. My sentiment about Mycroft was nicely sumed up in this „Lord of the Rings“ line: „To wield a ring of power is to be alone.“
 
As it happens, I also have a minor position in the government (not such thrilling stuff like kidnappings and blowing up planes, just a lot of boring legal paperwork, unfortunately ) and althrough my line of work is peaceful, not concerning human lives, I can understand where Mycroft is coming from. When you act as government, you are constantly forced to make decisions which have no ideal solutions – there will always be a wronged party after you decide and you can only choose between two evils. You are also forced to apply ruthless means to achieve your goals sometimes, again not out of cruelty but out of necessity (which is actually what Niccolo Macchiavelli described in his „Ruler“). Therefore you cannot afford sentiment. Emotional detachment is the only way how to cope with such things properly. The nature of „The Iceman“ is what is required for this job.
 
So Mycroft really cannot act sentimentaly, that′s a luxury only his younger brother Sherlock can afford. Mycroft probably percieves sentiment as Sherlock′s most critically vulnerable point and he is trying to make a more cold, unapproachable person out of Sherlock in his effort to protect him. And Sherlock is usually able to detach himself from his emotions (as he does in TGG or when he speaks to Anthea in TEH, I don′t think there′s something wrong with his moral compass in that scene ), but he is not willing to live his whole life in that manner. Unlike Mycroft, he craves the companionship of other people.
 
The way HLV was set, Sherlock really couldn′t shoot CAM when no witnesses were present – he needed to ensure they would see only him and him alone as a shooter, so that John wouldn′t be connected with CAM′s murder. Mycroft must certainly be unnerved that Sherlock was willing to sacrifice so much for this friend.
 
Sherlock probably believes Mycroft wanting to punish him as a child would believe that his parents hate him when they are angry. But as we know, there′s no way Mycroft actually means that. He only wants to give Sherlock a little lesson but he won′t allow that „punishment“ to last for too long, IMHO.
 
(And one little note aside: thank you, Willow, for mentioning St. Bart′s – that′s actually one more proof about Mycroft′s penchant for the theatrics. Considering that the whole business of „Sherlock′s deadly jump from the roof of St. Bart′s“ was Mycroft′s idea, he truly has a heart and soul of the film-director. Why make solutions easy when you can have them convoluted?   Sherlock′s penchant of seeing cleverness and brilliance where′s just a little sham functions in a same manner.)
 

Willow wrote:

lil wrote:

Yes Sherlock and Mycroft are difficult.....they are on the side of the angels...but not one of them..they have to walk the line and occasionally cross it.
I think its pretty obvious they genuinely care for each other..on some level.

I agree Mycrofts not bothered by the murder/death of Magnusson so I don't think he means that murderer line. Probably more the way Sherlock did it..and getting caught , or maybe because Sherlock made a sentiment mistake.

Perhaps he meant to teach Sherlock the don't get caught..or it means saying goodbye to John..me..your work kind of lesson..and improve his ice man rep at the same time. So he was planning an airport scene scenario sentiment type lesson...but planned on it lasting more than 4 minutes. ?.lol...idk.

I don't believe Mycroft was actually sending Sherlock off to die...but idk..if Sherlock didn't believe it...what the heck the goodbye to John about.
Sherlock seemed to believe it....thats really sad..but doesn't make sense considering Christmas.

I think that the take home message is that Sherlock really does know that there are lines which cannot be crossed, and that in deliberately crossing them he believes that the only way to justify it is by offering his own life in exchange.

That is what makes his last conversation with John understandable; Sherlock recognises that he has become a thing which he abhors, and he really doesn't expect to see John ever again. I don't think it's about Mycroft saying Sherlock is a murderer; it's about Sherlock believing he's a murderer. And for Sherlock, being a murderer is something which goes beyond anything he has ever contemplated.

Of course, Moftiss were using it to convey many messages; the most obvious one is that Sherlock and Mary were not, in any way, alike. But it's mostly the message that Sherlock has grown up, acquired a moral compass, and has judged himself perhaps more harshly than other judges would; he is carrying out the sentence which he has allocated to himself...


 

Spot on.

Agreed with all that was written above.
It′s precisely this what kinda redeems Sherlock at the end, after he shoots CAM. He takes full responsibility for the deed like a real man should. He acknowledges what a grave thing he has done. He doesn′t try to sugarcoat the killing or to make some lame excuses for himself. He doesn′t whine for mercy. He is prepared to atone for the murder fully, even if it means he will die himself.
That′s probably why 4 minutes of „punishment“ is sufficient, in his case. Even if you punished him for longer, you could not make him more contrite than he already is.
 

Another possibility.

SherlocklivesinOH wrote:

Willow wrote:

lil wrote:

Idk because yes pushing the mission makes Mycroft look like the ice man short term....but then later if Sherlock is extracted..and doesn't die...be quite hard to cover that up just months later.

Well, Mycroft originally told Sherlock that the mission would kill him in six months; that gives him time to be creative on how to extract Sherlock without too much backlash. I don't think Moftiss would create something as predictable as Mycroft doing the Moriarty gif in order to haul Sherlock back after four minutes in the air; it isn't complicated enough.

And we still have one last Moriarty linked villain from canon, so that would be my bet
 

However potentially dangerous the mission, I think, given that this is Sherlock Holmes we are talking about, sending him on ANY kind of covert mission, danger and all, is more merciful than locking him up with nothing to do! I think the real suffering Sherlock undergoes when about to be sent off is facing the prospect of never seeing John again! And perhaps Mycroft realizes that, and it's part of his idea of punishment.

As much as I wanted to feel that the MPs and Mycroft were being morally correct - murder is murder - I had a bit of a, "What....? You should be thanking him!" reaction, especially regarding Smallwood. Which shows how good a job they did writing CAM as a villain. And also...come on...do you really think the British (and US) governmenst have never had anyone assassinated, Mary-style? The UK is the nation of James Bond, after all. 

I wonder if the whole "hearing" scene was in a sense, ALL for show. Because MPs and British government officials don't want to be seen as condoning or celebrating murder. But I have no doubt many of them are privately celebrating CAM's being gone and would like to honor Sherlock for it. I have some rather wild fanfic ideas about this...

This way they can say to the public, "Well, we did INTEND to punish him, but then we needed him."

Or, perhaps it was Smallwood who arranged for the Moriarty images to appear on the TVs?


 

 
One of the people in that room was James Bond's boss; Sherlock is a scalpel, not a blunt instrument, as Mycroft pointed out. There was undoubtedly some inter service rivalry going on, but Mycroft preserved his plausible deniability; Lady Smallwood, I am sure, feels responsible for Sherlock's shooting, near death and imminent despatch to a very dangerous place, hence her comment, but if she had that sort of technical wizardry up her sleeve she wouldn't have needed Sherlock in the first place. Mycroft will have to tread carefully, Sherlock will have to tread carefully since he is, in effect, on parole, but our hero lives to fight another day

We do have to bear in mind the possible consequences; who inherits CAM's empire?   How do they fit into having lunch with the PM, without CAM's vast interconnecting web of information which enabled him to find pressure points on a lot of people around the world? The politicians have heaved sighs of relief but they can hardly demonstrate public joy, so there will be some careful manoeuvring along the line...