Episode 2.1, "A Scandal In Belgravia"

[Pseudonym]

I think the beauty of Sherlock is that he can be rude in places that the rest of us (OK, maybe just me?) want to be rude, but our social filters won't let us. 

 

Last time I said something like that I was accused of lacking a sense of common decency or something similar, but yea of course I agree. 

 

For the headmistress, he just wanted to get to the point of what she had to say so he could get on with what he was there for. If he'd done it the acceptable way he would to reassure here and nod sympathetically as she cried and have to slowly tease out what she had to say. Here, bam, he's got the answer, on with the show. 

[gerry]

Upon further reflection, however, I realized that by confronting her with an accusation of dereliction of duty, he might have startled her into defending her failure (e.g., "Well, if you think it's easy to keep all those doors and windows closed in a house full of children....!"). If there actually had been an unlocked door or open window during the night, he would have wanted to take a different tack in the rest of his investigation, so he had to know upfront.

For a boarding school, there must be a specific security protocol in place to ensure the children are protected. I'd imagine that would included security cameras, security systems, security guards, etc. The first thing the police would have done when they got there was assess if there were any violations to the security protocol including dereliction of duty by the headmistress. The police should have been able to see if there was forced entry for example. Before Sherlock got there he would have been provided all the information known by Lestrade. All clearly didn't believe she was a suspect of any kind.

 

Also, just like TGG and given he had just had a meeting with Moriarty where Moriarty said he would burn Sherlock, I'd suspect that Sherlock actually thought that Moriarty was involved rather than an evil headmistress.

[Pseudonym]

I don't think he thought the headmistress was evil, he just didn't have patience for her faffing. 

[Boton]

 

I think the beauty of Sherlock is that he can be rude in places that the rest of us (OK, maybe just me?) want to be rude, but our social filters won't let us. 

 

Last time I said something like that I was accused of lacking a sense of common decency or something similar, but yea of course I agree. 

 

For the headmistress, he just wanted to get to the point of what she had to say so he could get on with what he was there for. If he'd done it the acceptable way he would to reassure here and nod sympathetically as she cried and have to slowly tease out what she had to say. Here, bam, he's got the answer, on with the show. 

 

 

 

I don't think he thought the headmistress was evil, he just didn't have patience for her faffing. 

 

Yeah, both of these. I mean, kudos to the actress for getting on my nerves from the first glimpse, but there she was, wrapped in a blanket, no doubt being comforted by everyone as if this is her tragedy.  I mean, it is in a way, but there isn't time to sit there and hold her hand and gently get her story out of her in a way that will make her feel cared for.  She needs to spit the story out so that Sherlock has the information and can proceed before the trail gets any colder, and he came up with a way to scare her into talking quickly.  The fact that she did, and that he then did a 180 and got someone with actual social skills (presumably) to come calm her down and probably hold her hand and pat her on the shoulder and everything while he got down to business just makes it funny to me. 

[Arcadia]

 

Upon further reflection, however, I realized that by confronting her with an accusation of dereliction of duty, he might have startled her into defending her failure (e.g., "Well, if you think it's easy to keep all those doors and windows closed in a house full of children....!"). If there actually had been an unlocked door or open window during the night, he would have wanted to take a different tack in the rest of his investigation, so he had to know upfront.

For a boarding school, there must be a specific security protocol in place to ensure the children are protected. I'd imagine that would included security cameras, security systems, security guards, etc. The first thing the police would have done when they got there was assess if there were any violations to the security protocol including dereliction of duty by the headmistress. The police should have been able to see if there was forced entry for example. Before Sherlock got there he would have been provided all the information known by Lestrade. All clearly didn't believe she was a suspect of any .

 

In the real world, I would agree with you. In Sherlock-world, however, it's a given that the police are basically incompetent. If they weren't, there wouldn't be a show.  

 

I wonder if any police persons enjoy watching this show, given how it portrays them? Only if they have a sense of humor and the distinct ability to suspend disbelief, I suspect. :d

[gerry]

I don't think he thought the headmistress was evil, he just didn't have patience for her faffing.

Considering he spent no time at all dealing with her faffing, he really didn't have to use any patience.

 

I wonder if any police persons enjoy watching this show, given how it portrays them? Only if they have a sense of humor and the distinct ability to suspend disbelief, I suspect. :d

Not only police are asked to suspend belief. I'm not stupid and I have common sense. I will not suspend either just to give Sherlock an excuse for being insensitive because sometimes he's actually insensitive and there really is no excuse for it.

[Pseudonym]

But when he walked up he could see her crying and the cops needing to comfort her that immediately equals a faff, I'd want to do the same thing.

[Van Buren Supernova]

 

I wonder if any police persons enjoy watching this show, given how it portrays them? Only if they have a sense of humor and the distinct ability to suspend disbelief, I suspect. :D

Not only police are asked to suspend belief. I'm not stupid and I have common sense. I will not suspend either just to give Sherlock an excuse for being insensitive because sometimes he's actually insensitive and there really is no excuse for it.

I don't think anyone ever close to indicate that you are stupid or don't have common sense. To me, you just have different view that I believe also shared by many others.

There is no general concrete or 'correct' interpretation, everyone have their own, with their own reasoning and POV. Some happen to agree, others disagree. Just like everything else in life.

 

Actually, another way to look at it, I believe you'd disagree with me, fair enough, but can you consider that you insisting there is no way to 'excuse' Sherlock's insensitivity is insensitive as well?

 

There are people who relate to Sherlock, I don't want to wrongly speak for other, so myself, as one of them, well, I'm thick skinned and don't bother being called names (if I get where you are coming from). It used to, I don't say hurt, but very unpleasant to be accused as someone who don't have right manner. Again, please differentiate this with people who have all intention to hurt just for the sake of hurting. Those are different.

 

I'd say they are a lot of people who are not naturally equipped to be sensitive, in your definition, ALL the time.

No, it's not automatically turned on, and as said, some people focus more on priority and forget the rest. Normally it's categorized as flaws, maybe, or negative or weird personal trait. That's how we are almost always viewed. It doesn't sound good, at all, but again, the priority is not to care what others think that make it okay enough.

 

Don't you think there is a tiny bit of insensitivity too that you don't give it a little bit of room to see that those can be unintentional, that we have to think twice to be 'nice' in your dictionary?

 

 

Eta: sometimes even when I already put in efforts to be proper and nice, it's still not up to standard.

So yeah, there are a lot of time I'd say F that, I don't bother anymore.

(And it'a difficult also for me to reason why exterior nice is that important)

[Pseudonym]

Ditto. Me too. 

[Artemis]

Me threeeee.

 

 

[J.P.]

 

I wonder if any police persons enjoy watching this show, given how it portrays them? Only if they have a sense of humor and the distinct ability to suspend disbelief, I suspect. :D

 

When I was in DC, I took a tour through the FBI building. There was a short Q&A but the officers asked not to ask questions about X-Files.

 

Make a deduction.

[Pseudonym]

At least Sherlock isn't a cop, so maybe it's not so bad.

[gerry]

 

 

I wonder if any police persons enjoy watching this show, given how it portrays them? Only if they have a sense of humor and the distinct ability to suspend disbelief, I suspect. :D

Not only police are asked to suspend belief. I'm not stupid and I have common sense. I will not suspend either just to give Sherlock an excuse for being insensitive because sometimes he's actually insensitive and there really is no excuse for it.

I don't think anyone ever close to indicate that you are stupid or don't have common sense. To me, you just have different view that I believe also shared by many others.

My response to Arcadia was in response to the idea that yes the police would have done all those things, just not in Sherlock verse, so my reply was to the idea that the writing expects me to suspend belief to that degree. Because I won't suspend my belief that much, I find no excuse for Sherlock's attitude in that scene. I wasn't talking for anyone else but myself.

 

Again, please differentiate this with people who have all intention to hurt just for the sake of hurting. Those are different.

Sherlock's attitude in that scene was purposeful, not accidental. He felt that his case was more important than trying to be kind to someone who was upset about the missing children. He made no attempt to try to do both. If he had tried to do both even for 30 secs, maybe I could believe he didn't have the intention. In fact, he knew the affect of his yelling would have since he told the officers that she would need to breathe into a bag. So how wasn't it intentional? He just didn't care.

 

I'd say they are a lot of people who are not naturally equipped to be sensitive, in your definition, ALL the time.

When did I say all the time? No one's perfect. Most try to be sensitive and don't always achieve it but when you don't achieve it I don't expect an excuse to say it's ok to be insensitive. Generally you just say sorry.

 

Don't you think there is a tiny bit of insensitivity too that you don't give it a little bit of room to see that those can be unintentional, that we have to think twice to be 'nice' in your dictionary?

Yes people can be unintentionally insensitive, myself included, but that scene wasn't representive of such a moment.

 

(And it'a difficult also for me to reason why exterior nice is that important)

The old adage treat others as you would like to be treated. If you were a headmistress and children were missing, would you want to be yelled at like that and would you deserve to be yelled at like that?

[Boton]

 

Again, please differentiate this with people who have all intention to hurt just for the sake of hurting. Those are different.

Sherlock's attitude in that scene was purposeful, not accidental. He felt that his case was more important than trying to be kind to someone who was upset about the missing children. He made no attempt to try to do both. If he had tried to do both even for 30 secs, maybe I could believe he didn't have the intention. In fact, he knew the affect of his yelling would have since he told the officers that she would need to breathe into a bag. So how wasn't it intentional? He just didn't care.

 

(And it'a difficult also for me to reason why exterior nice is that important)

The old adage treat others as you would like to be treated. If you were a headmistress and children were missing, would you want to be yelled at like that and would you deserve to be yelled at like that?

 

 

I don't see any reason for Sherlock to try to do both for even a second.  Yes, I agree his behavior was intentional.  He was brought in as a consultant, not a counselor.  His job is to solve the case if the police are coming up against a dead end.  If that means being insensitive to the headmistress, so be it.

 

In fact, if I were in her place and taking up police time getting a blanket and likely being comforted and having my feelings attended to in the midst of an emergency, I'd hope someone would come along and shock me out of my nonsense.  Times like that are times to get out your policy manual, your bed check log, the roster of your parent phone numbers and the sign-offs for the staff who checked the doors that night, and be helpful.  She should be standing there providing information, demonstrating procedure, and keeping parents out of the police's way, not taking up police time.  There is a time and a place for emotion in an emergency like that, and that time and place is later, and in your own apartment.  Otherwise, Pseud put it, it's faffing, and Sherlock needed to put a halt to it.

 

Just IMO, of course.  As I said, you have a valid alternate opinion, and just because I like the debate doesn't mean I think you don't have a point.

[gerry]

In fact, if I were in her place and taking up police time getting a blanket and likely being comforted and having my feelings attended to in the midst of an emergency, I'd hope someone would come along and shock me out of my nonsense. Times like that are times to get out your policy manual, your bed check log, the roster of your parent phone numbers and the sign-offs for the staff who checked the doors that night, and be helpful. She should be standing there providing information, demonstrating procedure, and keeping parents out of the police's way, not taking up police time. There is a time and a place for emotion in an emergency like that, and that time and place is later, and in your own apartment.

How do you know that she didn't do those things with the police before Sherlock got there? There was quite a bit of time between the kidnapping being discovered and Sherlock getting to the scene. Before Sherlock got there Anderson was already doing forensic work.

[Boton]

I don't know that, of course, except for my feeling that any time there is an emergency at work and you are responsible, there is something to be done until the emergency is resolved.  If these things were already done, then her job is to be with the parents doing damage control for the school and providing information to the families.There is never any excuse for sitting and crying and needing consolation while you are at work, unless you can manage to cry while you are still working and trying to help with the resolution of the problem.  

[Pseudonym]

Also it would be weird if she calmly got all the information needed, helped the police with everything she could, and then had her breakdown. You think the breakdown would either be immediate or later when she was alone. 

[gerry]

I don't know that, of course, except for my feeling that any time there is an emergency at work and you are responsible, there is something to be done until the emergency is resolved. If these things were already done, then her job is to be with the parents doing damage control for the school and providing information to the families.There is never any excuse for sitting and crying and needing consolation while you are at work, unless you can manage to cry while you are still working and trying to help with the resolution of the problem.

I actually think in the states with a child abduction, the police handle the parent notifications, sometimes even the FBI is called in, depending on the circumstances. Don't know how it works in England. I guess it would depend on the security protocol in place at the school.

 

I got the sense from that scene that now that the police was there examining the scene, there wasn't much left for her to do except wait for more information. There's no damage control to do with the parents unless she was derelict in her duties. Even Sherlock couldn't find any evidence of that.

 

But as you say, we got opposite impressions of that scene.

 

Also it would be weird if she calmly got all the information needed, helped the police with everything she could, and then had her breakdown. You think the breakdown would either be immediate or later when she was alone.

This isn't unusual for me. This is exactly how it happened for me when my father was taken to the hospital. I was his POA for medical matters. Was able to give the doctors all of his information and then had real issues when the doctors took over and intubated him. In times of crisis you can do your duties, but when it moves from point A to B, sometimes the air is let out of the balloon.

[T.o.b.y]

Goodness, when I am back on my laptop, I have quite a chunk of posts to move from there to the Reichenbach Fall thread...

 

As for Sherlock being an insensitive arse for most of series 1 and 2, of course he is and I love it, I find it hilarious and I miss his old sociopath self.

 

I think we sometimes forget that even though we can find some lovely depth in it, the show was written for entertainment. Either you find Sherlock being an insensitive arse entertaining or you don't. I happen to do so. What that says about me as a person, dunno, but there are plenty of people who feel entertained by the brutal killings on Game of Thrones or Hannibal or Dexter and some of them are perfectly lovely human beings so I guess it's all fine.

[Van Buren Supernova]

Well, of course in that scene Sherlock was purposeful or intentional, not accidental.
What I meant with intentional is doing so for the sole reason of hurting someone's feeling, without purpose.

Heaven knows there how many times I actually did something like that, those I categorize as 'unintentional'. Of course not in Sherlock's kind of field, where murder and kidnapping are involved, although there are urgency of situation as well. When faced some incident, and someone was distracted, crying or panicking, I always tried to get information from them to assess what to do, especially when the situation is unknown to me. Unless they were in urgency need of help, I'd move along doing what I think should be done, there were other people for consoling,  but yes, sometimes I only remember what I didn't do (console, say nice words etc) after everything is settled. I wouldn't snatch their blanket away but pretty sure I wasn't paying too much attention to their condition except making sure they were answering my questions.

 

 

There were also times when I was talking about work, planning, schedule, execution etc and they told me news about member of their working team was sick or down with something serious, I found that mostly I would ask about it for a bit, but got back to talking about how it affected the schedule etc, perhaps way too soon.
Sometimes I wasn't really sure what to say, but my mind was running about the impacts of that, and the other person then ensured me they would have back up to get the work done. Well, they do know me and know that was all in my mind.
Sometimes I think back, eh.. that's a bit cold, but it's my automatic gear.
When things are well, later on, sometimes in the future, if ever, and I am in relaxed mode I would then ask the person about how they are doing.

 

 

I also have no qualm of questioning, criticizing and blatantly point out incapability at work, but normally I have good reasons and had given them enough chances and benefit of doubts, and to parties who are supposed to have and deliver that standard. Mostly I snap because they are trying to make excuses instead of solutions. In my line, there are way too many of those. Around the bush beaters. Yet, most people don't have the heart to say it, for the sake of being polite, then let the problem goes on and on and on because the incompetent party don't feel the need to rectify the situation. Mostly, until I stepped in and whacked them out cold without sparing their 'feelings'. Rank. Reputation. Position. Don't care. Yah, no regret. Not sorry. Most time I'm dragged into something just to help fixing those, and more often than not, my name is used to 'scare' them. The older I get, the more efficient it is. :P
 
Regarding fiction, entertainment and real life, I do agree I enjoy villains in fictions, and I make that distinction.
However, about certain behaviors, like to some extend, Sherlock's, as said, I do that in real life.
But anyway, I would never ever ever consider myself to be in category of lovely person, that is the standard I'd never able to reach, and that's fine. Since child, I'm known as rebel in term of manner as I was the only one who dared to stand up to my grandma.

It's not like I don't know manner, I know those too well, just thought that it's not applicable all the time, especially when adults are making glaring mistakes and doing injustices. Just because they are adults, doesn't mean they are always right. That is what I had in my mind, not for the sake of being impolite or rude. In my mind, it's just necessary. Just like many other things that is categorized as 'insensitive'.
 
I have long understand that it's no good in many people's eyes. So it's okay. Shrug. My mistake is sometimes I thought I can make people understand. But nah.

Unpleasant, rude, insensitive, well, that's is daily take. Avoid if necessary for own happiness. The warning label is: Not lovely. Not for everyone.
 
As someone said, Sherlock is a detective. It's probably should be celebrated that he didn't opt to be a teacher, doctor or therapist, yes?

 

 

 

 

Other stuff that probably fits here.

Do you guys remember that John actually have a blog entry around SIB time, titled 'The Six Thatcher'? It's practically the same thing, only that it's murder weapon that is hidden inside the bust. I thought that is weird.. and lazy.

How could you have carbon copy case and there is no reference to that?

 

 

[Arcadia]

I think things like that, they just shrug and say "Arthur Continuity Doyle did it too."

[Boton]

I think things like that, they just shrug and say "Arthur Continuity Doyle did it too."

 

I think I'm just going to make this my motto to excuse any time I do something random.

[Pseudonym]

Get it on the front of a t-shirt. But the real question is, what's on the back?

[Boton]

Oh, I like that.  Might wind up in my Red Bubble store in some fashion!   ;)

[J.P.]

Redbubble has no front AND back prints :P