However, one thing wasn’t so good, and it’s really starting to bother me.

Children. Badly behaved, noisy children, running round and round, repeatedly ringing the bell at the bar. On other visits, they’ve been running up and down the seating too.

Now, a quick reality check. I don’t have children, which is a little bit unusual at my age, so there’s the possibility of me having a distorted view through being famously intolerant, and not used to it, but not *all* kids annoy me. Hell, some of them can even be nice.

I don’t mind the presence of children or teenagers, and I have nieces and nephews. Am I that far out of whack when I think that a pub (with the notable exeception of Wacky Warehouse type establishments) should primarily be an adult space, so if kids are they they should behave? Is it unreasonable of me to expect parents to keep their children entertained and under control (let’s face it, pubs are probably quite boring for kids) ?

At what point did it become acceptable to let your kids annoy all and sundry just so you can have a drink or do whatever else you like? Is this just another aspect of the increasingly greedy, selfish, screw you society we live in? Should we all love all of the little darlings?

Am I being overly grumpy about this, or are my complaints justified? Talking to friends and family that do have children suggests I’m not that far off the mark

It’s about time for a non-whinging post, so here goes.

As Bob has commented, you can find some lovely countryside so close to home, here in the West Midlands conurbation, especially on the canals. Excuse the slightly duff cameraphone photos.

Today we walked around 8 miles, and by far the majority was in country lanes, woodland, or canal towpath, in the sunshine, just when, like the Bumpkin, I was feeling summer had gone.

The Cannock Extension makes a nice walk- sadly it now terminates at the A5, after it was abandoned further up.

Cannock Extension Canal, 2/9/2010

Grove Colliery Basin, 2/9/2010

Apparently, this is, according to council leader Mike Bird:

Positive news for Walsall because that site has been an eyesore for a long time now

That the site has been an eyesore cannot be denied. What also cannot be denied is that the building has deliberately been allowed to deteriorate, though the mysterious fire was of course, the action of mindless vandals. Just like it was with Shannon’s Mill. I know I’m repeating myself here, but why is it that Walsall MBC never seem to use their powers to prevent the decay of buildings, instead preferring to ignore the problem to the point where is all becomes moot and the

Walsall Businessmen

that own the property get to avoid that troublesome listing stuff, and throw up whatever they want instead?

One can’t help but wonder if the same will happen to the Jabez Cliff works once it sells?

This is in a conservation area (PDF, 462k), and is locally listed (PDF, 180k), but Adrian Andrew is already preparing the ground for a mysterious fire followed by demolition. In tonight E&S, he’s quoted as saying:

That is a prime development site sitting at the gateway to the town so we want something of high quality there whether it is a refurbishment or a new building.

If it is a new building it would have to be an iconic building. It is a fantastic opportunity for someone to come in and do something special in Walsall.

Whilst waffling on about the saviour of Walsall, the 10base2 Gigaport. Apparently, fibre optic cables have been laid underground. All hail the future. I first installed fibre in about 1992, and even then, didn’t claim to be able to regenerate a town with it.

Apparently, the Gigaport area

represents the future of Walsall

Well, I’m sure we’re all safe in their hands. After all, it’s not like they ever screw up, is it?

We managed a beer festival, food, and a band on Friday evening, which was all very nice, a visit to Beaulieu on Saturday, and a drive around the forest and lunch today, before an even easier journey home (not stopping once between Totton and the M6 Toll exit barrier)…

I’m very keen on this. I like open source. I use open source, and some of the open source I use is just a damed sight better than the more commonly used alternative. Hell, given my experiences recently with a certain application (no names, no pack drill) fixed firmly in the MS world, and the crappy support, it seems there’s a good reason to go open.

Not that easy though: Both Microsoft and [quiet voice] Apple [/quiet voice] have some polished, established products (I’m looking at you, Win 7 and OSX), though my personal favourite OS Ubuntu can pretty much compete on a level field these days, rather than being a niche product for Linux geeks.

The article just touches the real issue, but smokescreens it by saying that the Government must mandate the use of ODF. That’s crap. OpenOffice can already open MS Office, and indeed save back in MS Office format.

The real issues:

Vendor lock-in and application lock-in. MS are so established and pretty much all third party commercial apps are written for the Windows world. Exchange dominates corporate email. I use Win 7 on my work laptop mostly because getting the VPN to work outside of Windows is a bitch.

Then implementation and support: there’s often more work involved in gluing together an open-source solution, but the savings are there to be made, and the software often better. For a small business especially, it’s the way to go, especially if there’s not much existing infrastructure.

Blatant plug: Black Country Open Source Society.

It did provide some entertainment for a while, but my lack of cut and shut skills, and lack of time have meant this has gone the way of many people’s project cars: off on a flatbed lorry…, while Mom gets her garage back.

Oddly enough, the car was the reason for me first having any web presence the last time I lost enthusiasm.

On an unrelated matter, isn’t this a fine letter from an all-round good egg? I’ll bet a good google search would find some more fine writings.

If anyone should disagree and wish this post removed, stymaster at piglet hyphen net dot net should reach me.

consider speeding as acceptable and change their minds only if they lose a child in a road accident.

There’s some sense in the article, but I’m really starting to take exception to the link these days that the only possible problem with the way someone might drive is related to the posted speed limit at any point.

Driving without care or consideration for other road users is probably among the worst kind of anti-social behaviour in its truest sense, because serious offenders can, and do, kill.

This is, of course, true. But contextually in the article it’s linked only with speed. The only road safety campaigns we see are about speed- following the posted speed limit, so, as long as you”re doing below 30mph you must be safe. You don’t need to pay attention, maintain your car, take note of the weather and road conditions, take note of other road users- so long as you’re below the limit. That’s the real hipocrisy.

This takes no account of the fact that the limits are woefully wrong. take this:

View Larger Map

From the camera position, there’s a roundabout behind you, a few houses, then a garden centre, then a clear, straight road for some distance, then at the far end, a school, and dense housing.

The relatively clear, hazard-free section was once National Speed Limit (a concept that many drivers seem unable to apply), but has dropped to 40, then 30- the same as the more hazardous part at the end. Needless to say, a good many drivers ignore the 30 limit, slowing for the hazards at either end.

To put that 30 limit into context, take this road:

View Larger Map

It’s subject to that same limit, but it’s narrow- barely wide enough for 2 cars to pass. There’s wildlife, horses in the field, horseriders, cyclists, pets, joggers, pedestrians, blind bends and overgrown hedges. You’d have to be a loon to do more than 20 mph down much of it, and the same comment would apply to many residential streets.

I’m not suggesting the removal of speed limits, or the removal of speed cameras- they’re bright yellow, after all, but the focus of road safety on speed and speed alone gives the wrong message, leaving us with texting drivers killing people while going through a red light (and speeding, as it happens, but I’d suggest that texting and going through on red is probably the bigger issue here…).

Speed doesn’t kill- inappropriate speed very well might. 90mph or more in good conditions on a motorway may well be safe, a legal 30 mph with barely legal tyres in the wet in a very dense housing estate may kill. Driving at 30 mph on a NSL country road may frustrate someone into making a dangerous overtake. We’re in danger of creating a nation of drivers who can’t or won’t use judgement and evaluate the hazards, adjusting their driving accordingly.