That’s 87 days of self-abuse and semi-sobriety for me, 87 days of grumpiness for everyone else, but all in a good cause as I’m running the Paris Marathon in April. As previous fundraising has been for overseas causes, I wanted to do something closer to home – so I’ve chosen 2 charities. First MusicSpace, a music therapy charity based in Bristol, and second, Isabel Hospice based in Hertfordshire.

http://www.justgiving.com/musicparis and http://www.justgiving.com/hospiceparis for further information!

When I was a child, I remember a television series called Poldark. I say “remembered” but I don’t recall all that much about it – some period costumes, sombre lighting, a few ships on Cornish waves, and the occasional bit of dialogue is about it.

One bit that stuck in my mind for the past thirty-five years is a court scene. In it, a gentlemanly type (I assume Poldark?) is being accused of having shouted, “Pickings for all!” on the tragic occasion of a ship being wrecked on a nearby shore. The witness is a heavily-accented local man: I think I can remember sideburns and a waistcoat, though I could have added them later.

Quite clearly, the courtroom is baying for Poldark’s blood.

“Did you make the cry of ‘Pickings for all!’?” asks the judge (I can’t remember what he looked like).

“No sir, I did,” says the man. The court case crumbles; Poldark is released without charge and the credits roll. Perhaps the villager gets it later, but I don’t think so.

Humans are no strangers to talking crap. To shouting out when quiet would have been better; to making false accusations, dubious suggestions and unnecessary outbursts. No doubt, we have been doing all these things since the beginning of time. “Get him!” “String her up!” “I’m going to have you!” “Let’s go kick their heads in!” and so on – whether or not there was any intent to actually get, have, kick or string. We’re like that – particularly blokes I think, but maybe that’s due to my lack of experience.

Enter the internet, and however bad our spelling might be, stuff we might have said out loud is now being recorded, broadcast, archived for playback at annoy point in the future. On Facebook I see usually-gentle people saying that they’d give so-and-so a good slap. Or that they believe hanging is too good for someone. Or whatever. Do they mean such things? Perhaps – at the time. Do they seriously expect them to be acted upon? Of course not – and indeed, the fact that sometimes people feel their views are not being heard may itself lead to more vocal, and indeed more dramatic expressions of such views.

People talk crap online just as offline – and other people are watching and listening. So we end up with the case of AA, who ‘threatened‘ to blow Robin Hood airport “sky high”. Did he mean it? No, of course he bloody didn’t. Was anybody else going to say, “Oh, good idea”? Of course not. Did his sentence send out a deterrent? It’s difficult to see about what, unless it’s to deter people from speaking their minds.

The case of the two rather disappointing “rioters” in Northwich is more complex. Let’s “Smash d[o]wn Northwich Town,” they proposed – but nobody went, other than the police. Were they jumping on the bandwagon? Most likely. Did they succeed in increasing the violence or anything else in any way? It doesn’t seem so, not in their areas.

There’s a straightforward scenario, which starts with someone saying, “Let’s do a bad and illegal thing.” Bad and illegal thing is done, people get arrested and punished accordingly. Indeed, the fact that Jordan and Perry turned up will not have helped the case for the defence. But just how much of the sentence was against the act, and how much was it to do with the hopelessly bungled online post?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for criminals being shown the error of their ways, whether they are rich or poor, in positions of authority or on the streets. We all have choices, whatever our circumstances, and we should face up to the consequences. And incitement to crime – where crime clearly taking place, or where its continuation (in the case of hate crime for example) is encouraged as a result, that’s just plain wrong.

On this day of all days however, let’s recognise that not all remarks, whatever the words are, should be interpreted as such an incitement. Yes let’s have a robust legal system, and give our courts the tools they need to separate right from wrong. Let’s recognise our online responsibilities, understand that cyber-bullying and insults to the non-PLU have no place in a civilised society. But let’s not create a world where people can no longer make an online remark for fear of who might come knocking on their door, however stupid it might be.

Before I start, I should say I’m all for justice. Find the bad guys, get the evidence, have a trial before jury, and if they’re found guilty, bang them to rights. Justice isn’t always such a simple, binary thing however – and our ancient legal system has evolved over the centuries to take into account not everything can be as clear cut as people would like.

And so to the case of Gary McKinnon, the erstwhile hacker who has spent the past ten years on extradition row since he dared to break into a number of US military and NASA computers in 2001 and 2002. A few elements of Gary’s case are pretty clear cut: he openly admits that he accessed US military systems and had a good look around.

Where things are less clear are whether he undertook “the biggest military hack of all time” as the US authorities would have it. The whole area is subject to debate – which is why we have courts of law, evidence, juries and all that very important stuff.

So, why not just get Gary on a plane and in front of Judge Judy at the first opportunity? Things aren’t quite as simple in this context either. For a start, Gary has been diagnosed with Asperges Syndrome, a very real condition which could explain both why he didn’t fully appreciate the impact of his actions, and why he would not come through the court process psychologically unscathed.

There’s also the very real potential for mistreatment. Guantanamo and Bradley Manning’s current conditions both illustrate how US incarceration can stoop way below the level that what our own government and people would consider humane. Our historical record may have dark spots as well, but that doesn’t mean we should just go along with others.

The point is not whether or not he did access US computer systems – it’s whether someone with a medical condition should be handed over to a foreign authority with such a reputation. I would say no, and a number of far older, wiser and more legally astute people have said the same – such as Justice Mitting, who granted a Judicial Review into the lawfulness of Gary’s extradition.

Gary should be tried for his actions, but he deserves a fair trial in the UK that takes into account the complexities of computer hacking, and how thinking has evolved over the past ten years since he was spotted. When Gary accessed US systems, he did so by running a simple script that looked for blank passwords – and he found plenty. It is unlikely that such weaknesses would still exist today.

Meanwhile, plenty of examples of far more malicious hacking, for financial or other gain, have emerged which put Gary’s own actions into perspective. From TK-Max to the PlayStation Network, these are cases which deserve weighty sentences should the perpetrators be caught. The fact that Gary has spent the past decade with a dark shadow hanging over his head should also be taken into account.

I met Gary in London in 2006, when we both took part in the Infosec Hackers’ Panel. Now as then, I thought to myself, he’s just a bloke who happened to be caught at a time when computer defences were weak and his curiosity got the better of him. Five years later, with Barack Obama in town we have an opportunity to put a full stop on the extradition and end this lengthy saga.

Along with the large numbers of people who have already voiced their support, I appeal to anybody who has ever opened a drawer to see what was inside to flag Gary’s case over the next 24 hours. It might make all the difference.

Et que faudrait-il faire ?
Chercher un protecteur puissant, prendre un patron,
Et comme un lierre obscur qui circonvient un tronc
Et s’en fait un tuteur en lui léchant l’écorce,
Grimper par ruse au lieu de s’élever par force ?

Non, merci. Dédier, comme tous ils le font,
Des vers aux financiers ? se changer en bouffon
Dans l’espoir vil de voir, aux lèvres d’un ministre,
Naître un sourire, enfin, qui ne soit pas sinistre ?
Non, merci. Déjeuner, chaque jour, d’un crapaud ?
Avoir un ventre usé par la marche ? une peau
Qui plus vite, à l’endroit des genoux, devient sale ?
Exécuter des tours de souplesse dorsale ?…

Non, merci. D’une main flatter la chèvre au cou
Cependant que, de l’autre, on arrose le chou,
Et donneur de séné par désir de rhubarbe,
Avoir son encensoir, toujours, dans quelque barbe ?
Non, merci ! Se pousser de giron en giron,
Devenir un petit grand homme dans un rond,
Et naviguer, avec des madrigaux pour rames,
Et dans ses voiles des soupirs de vieilles dames ?

Non, merci ! Chez le bon éditeur de Sercy
Faire éditer ses vers en payant ? Non, merci !
S’aller faire nommer pape par les conciles
Que dans les cabarets tiennent des imbéciles ?
Non, merci ! Travailler à se construire un nom
Sur un sonnet, au lieu d’en faire d’autres ? Non,
Merci ! Ne découvrir du talent qu’aux mazettes ?
Être terrorisé par de vagues gazettes,
Et se dire sans cesse : « Oh, pourvu que je sois
Dans les petits papiers du Mercure François » ?…

Non, merci ! Calculer, avoir peur, être blême,
Préférer faire une visite qu’un poème,
Rédiger des placets, se faire présenter ?
Non, merci ! non, merci ! non, merci !

Mais… chanter, rêver, rire, passer, être seul, être libre,
Avoir l’oeil qui regarde bien, la voix qui vibre,
Mettre, quand il vous plaît, son feutre de travers,
Pour un oui, pour un non, se battre, – ou faire un vers !
Travailler sans souci de gloire ou de fortune,
À tel voyage, auquel on pense, dans la lune !
N’écrire jamais rien qui de soi ne sortît,
Et modeste d’ailleurs, se dire : mon petit,
Sois satisfait des fleurs, des fruits, même des feuilles,
Si c’est dans ton jardin à toi que tu les cueilles !
Puis, s’il advient d’un peu triompher, par hasard,
Ne pas être obligé d’en rien rendre à César,
Vis-à-vis de soi-même en garder le mérite,
Bref, dédaignant d’être le lierre parasite,
Lors même qu’on n’est pas le chêne ou le tilleul,
Ne pas monter bien haut, peut-être, mais tout seul !

As mentioned previously, I’m delighted to announce that Rush-Chemistry is now available in paperback. This book first came out in hardback in 2005, but is only just becoming available as a soft-cover due to the sad death of my friend and mentor Sean Body, who ran the publishing company Helter Skelter. The book has been re-proofed and all of the typos, inaccuracies etc. (as listed in the addendum) have been fixed.

UPDATE: If anyone wants buy directly from me (signed or otherwise), I have ordered a number of copies from the publisher so let me know by comment below or by emailing/Paypal to jon-at-joncollins-dot-net. I will send the books out as soon as they arrive!

Prices including P&P for are as follows:

• UK – £11
• Western Europe – £15
• US/Rest-of-World – £18

Rush – Chemistry is the complete history of the world’s favourite Canadian rock band. The book follows Geddy Lee, Alex Lifeson and Neil Peart from their schoolboy days right up to the global success of their thirty-year anniversary tour.

Here’s the official text:

Against a background of disinterest from the media and a refusal to compromise their music, Rush’s success was by no means guaranteed. Since the beginning, only the determined efforts and downright stamina of the band members and those around them were sufficient to counter the wall of silence. Sharing a single-minded determination to take on the system and win, Geddy, Alex and Neil have never rested on their laurels. Pushing themselves to achieve technical excellence, never avoiding the challenge of taking on new musical influences, through huge changes of fashion and major personal tragedy, the entity we know as Rush has endured. Thirty years on, the band is still creating new music and packing arenas and stadiums around the globe.

Meticulously researched over three years, Chemistry draws on over 50 new interviews with those closest to the band. As the most detailed biography of Rush ever written, this book pulls together the threads and investigates the reasons that have enabled this band to succeed against the odds.

Well, well. Today I ran a marathon. Who would have thought it – and like so many things in my life, once again I have discovered just how much is possible if you set your mind to it. I’d love to say that it was a breeze, that it was tough but fair, that it was anything other than what it was – possibly the most physical thing I’ve ever done in my life. But that’s the reality. If childbirth is worse, I’m surprised the human race has survived as long as it has.

So many memories…

- the marvellous sticky toffee pudding the night before – thanks Bola and Chris!
- the hack into Hove to pick up Mark at 7AM
- the serendipitous arrival at the train station, to find a taxi siting there like it had been specially laid on
- the chance meeting of one of Mark’s mates Jake, a total gent who gave me my own personal tour of the sights for the first 15 miles
- the genuine pleasure of running on a beautiful day until about mile 17
- the delight at seeing Liz and Mum along the way
- the uneasy feeling that all those small pains were joining into one big pain
- the absolute agony of the final 8 miles, and my gratefulness to all those who called out the name I had printed on my shirt
- the complete inability to climb the steps back up to the front, after the finish
- the taxi, shower, tea and cake

As for times, Mark came in at 4.19, and me at 4.45. It’ll do – while I was hoping for a better time, I had underestimated how much pleasure I would get from just finishing.

Above all, the whole thing raised £3,000 for Water Aid, which is just fantastic. Thanks so much to all who contributed, friends, work colleagues, Marillion fans, you kept me going on more than one occasion. Thanks (really) to Mark for the whole idea, and the biggest thanks to Liz for all her help and support, not to mention driving home two folks who probably should have known better!