I just would not have thought that the same guy who watched his brother being beaten to a pulp (etc. at the start of TEH) would be so squeamish when it comes to killing what is clearly not an "innocent man". The Governor is directly responsible for the whole mess by having interacted with Euros against Mycroft's orders - though of course, you could also argue that Mycroft was responsible, because it was he who "woke Euros up" by having her meet Jim. (Another reason for me to dislike the guy.) And, by the way, the Governor begs Mycroft to shoot him. Mycroft's "I will not kill. I will not have blood on my hands" is simply selfish in this situation. In my opinion.

And it's a sign of complete denial: Mycroft is effectly saying that he does not have blood on his hands. Whereas it was pretty clear in TST that he sent soldiers into dangereous situations - he just replaced free-lancers by state-employed ones. Anybody seriously thinks that nobody ever died on subsequent missions? So, just like politicians everywhere, Mr. British Government is okay with other people doing the killing for him as long as he does not have to get his own hands dirty (he didn't try to stop John, did he? Instad of using that supposedly clever brain of his and coming up with a solution - I do wonder what would have happened, for example, if everybody had refused to play Euros's game right from the start - he just looks away.)

Though at least Mycroft refuses from the outset which has the advantage of being clear. Whereas John is being cruel: Acting as if he was going to kill the Governor, asking whether he's sure, waiting, making as if to kill him, waiting some more, making him kneel, talking some more, hesitating some more - and not doing it in the end. Which was pretty clear to me from the beginning, because it's much easier to kill by simply going through with it: Make the decision and kill the victim before it knows what happens - just like Sherlock did in HLV.  And that's what I mean by "knowing how to kill". Dithering for minutes (I haven't watched the timer, but it certainly seems like ages) is agony for the victim (just imagine yourself in the Governor's place!) and (I hope) for the would-be killer.

Change of subject: Why does Lestrade call Sherlock "a good one" at the end? The last time we've seen Lestrade he was being told that Sherlock had shot Magnussen in the face (oops, somebody should have told John about the "beyond top secret" classification) after Sherlock had tried to attack Smith with a scalpel while being drugged out of his mind. Does using the correct first name make up for that?
 

Last edited by Kittyhawk (October 11, 2017 12:17 pm)

Yes, the governor was at fault, but it seems that Eurus is extremely manipulative and was influencing him.  And anyway, I don't see any of them being happy with executing him.  

I think Mycroft's reaction was very human and believable.  There's a world of difference between ordering actions from your desk that might get people killed, and killing somebody who's standing in front of you (which I do think may have been one of the points being made - as we know there must be government people in the former category!).  I'm sure it's been said before that Mycroft doesn't do the legwork.  Maybe this is one of the reasons why.

John may have been a soldier, but he's in the situation of a prisoner having to kill another prisoner, rather than a soldier having to kill an adversary.  I do agree that it's more cruel to draw it out the way he does! 

There was also no guarantee that they could trust Eurus to spare the governor's wife. 
 

I agree about Sian!  I wish there was more of her in Doctor Foster, which is currently airing!   Yes, she saved people ... and also possibly saved people through her work with Mycroft. 

@Kittyhawk: as for Greg calling Sherlock a good man. You are right, he has not seen most of the dramatic events so it seems a bit contrived. On the other hand Sherlock has just told Greg to look after Mycroft in a very caring, compassionate way. And we should not forget that Greg knows about the wedding planning, he heard the speech, he knows Sherlock helped to catch serial killer CS who would have gone undetected by NSY. Maybe this is enough.
 

Yes, I think it's probably a gradual development over the whole four series that he's talking about, rather than something specific to TFP alone.

I think something changed....presumably Benedict and Martin's availability.

Not a question, really, but a nice discovery. Mary's epilogue is actually just a reprise of things that have been said long before - by Sherlock and John: 

SHERLOCK: You were a doctor who went to war. You’re a man who couldn’t stay in the suburbs for more than a month without storming a crack den and beating up a junkie. (that would be Mary's 'the doctor who never came home from the war’)

SHERLOCK: Your best friend is a sociopath who solves crimes as an alternative to getting high. That’s me, by the way. Hello. (and this is of course Mary's 'the junkie who solves crimes to get high’)

 And the place which is the ‘last refuge for the desperate and terrified’ is already mentioned at the beginning of TFP by John:

JOHN: Well, don’t worry. There’s a place for people like you – the desperate, the terrified, the ones with nowhere else to run.
MYCROFT: What place? 
JOHN: Two two one B Baker Street.

 

I like this .  No wonder the words sounded kind of familiar.