I think it's absolutely shocking!

How dare these busy bodies interfere with a drinkers God given right to stand outside, drinking, smoking, swearing and fornicating.

I fought in two world wars to stop this kind of malarkey, and its about time drinkers were allowed to defend their liberties, by force if necessary.

I am sick of people moaning. You got your smoking ban but you are still not happy, so you try and make everyone outside stand with their fingers on lips. I bet if your local pub closed you would moan that there was nowhere nearby for you to drink when it suited you.

Solution:

Ban smoking outside bars, they've already banned it inside and it's worked a treat...

Hasn't it...? ;)

Its good news that finally the licencing people are seeking to put residents first. Scotland has a seriously anti-social attitude to alcohol and we need to change it - why do most people at the weekend need to drink until they become ill, obnoxious or even violent. Pubs need to be finally forced to stop serving someone who has had too much. As far as I know, legally they should already be taking this stance anyway, but most don't and anyway it's rarely enforced by the Police. Most pubs owners put money before all else - they're quite happy to serve drink to those who obviously can't handle it.
I think even the binge drinkers would be pleasantly suprised about how better things could be if the binge drinking culture was curtailed. I drink in a small bar close to the Grassmarket that does not serve anyone who is too drunk, and I saw them turn away a lot of business on the Scotland/Italy night despite them being pretty empty at the time. If they can do it why not all the others, especially the large pubs who are very definitely rolling in money.

Bars should certainly be responsible for actions of their own creation.

Perhaps the police and the licensing authorities should be looking more to where the problems arise.

Many revellers are getting tanked up on cheap booze before going out for a night.

Supermarkets are currently advertising cases of beer or lager for £10.00 a case, buy two for £20.00 and get a third one free!

This is where the problem lies with binge drinkers, yet those responsible seem unwilling or unable to do anything about it.

Have to rush off now. Just away to the shops.

Tell you what why dont we just ban actually having any fun and social activites altogether - because thats what some dull, boring interfering old busy bodies want.

Will these measures be converted into a bar code.

Ban Pubs. Ban residents.

When did this meeting of the Licensing Board happen? Was it a public meeting? How odd that the admittedly very poor Council website did not mention it at all.

Good to see the seating and opening hours issue resolved in a way that makes common sense. Would be nice to hear Cllr Thomas admit her change of mind though.

I am puzzled at the status of these new proposals. Are they genuinely proposals to be put forward to the same public consultation or have they just been adopted?

What next? We have to go out because of the Scottish Exec - landlords have no say in this. Yet they are being punished for their customers. Ridiculous. Just shut all the pubs down and ban fags then everyone will be happy.

simply get rid of the smoking ban - nobody's ever wanted it and it's damaging to the economy and health of scotland - introduce smoking restrictions and clean air legislation by all means, which is what was originally proposed and should have been done years ago; but, the neo-nazi slimy short arse jack has gone - the outright ban should have gone with him

the smoking ban is wanted by most people - it has been successful, is not damaging to the economy (publicans have seen their takings increase) and has improved health - end of story. Get a grip #14!!

Ban smoking and drinking in any place outside the home, oh think of the kids at home, hey turn all the what will then be empty pubs into creche's and the now defunct barman can look after them, in fact ban people who smoke and drink from having kids, where is it all going to end 8^(

There should have been smoking pubs and non smoking pubs in the first place, problem solved.

Who is going to police this piece nonsense anyway?

#15, takings are up in pubs selling food, alcohol sales are actually down but the executive knew this would happen before introducing the ban. Next step will be a fat tax because everyone is eating too much.
Theres never been so many pubs up for lease.

Why not have the option of smoking pubs give us the choice don't let them dictate.

I'm loving the smoking ban myself. No dirty ashtrays around tables, no smoking odours on my clothes in the morning (even my smoking buddies appreciate that!) and no careful breathing to avoid a coughing fit.

The clear distinction between having a pint and having a fag is that with the first you are not pouring it down somebody elses throat, affecting their liver, etc... whilst with the former the health of everyone around you is affected.

I'm not bothered about more signage in bars warning me off strong lagers as they'll provide an object of derision. I'm adult enough to make my own decisions but if the council do believe that most of us are not I can suggest plenty more opportunities for enterprising sign producers. Perhaps buses should be made to have a sign on their engine warning pedestrians that if they are hit by one it could be bad for their health? I also think they should have their attention drawn to the carelessly large number of plugs around every single one of our abodes which do not have a bright red sign next to them warning us not to stick our tongues in them.

It's all going to end when the low-lifes who think a good night out involves getting sh1tfaced and being more obnoxious than usual realise they don't have the right to have the slightest negative impact on anyone else's quality of life. You still have the right to get sh1tfaced, as long as you can do it without being anti-social as well.

When you think about it, all that's being asked here is that people keep their voices down outside a pub. How can anyone think that is unreasonable.

#15 - what planet are you on - oh sorry new town resident - says it all - you could have all the non smoking pubs around you and let the rest of us get on with ours lives without some jumped up (elected) numpty infringing upon everybodies lives just so they can think they're important

#20 no its not unreasonable neither is wanting a pint and fag and the end of a hard day.
You wanted the smoking ban, live with the consequences.

#20:

"You still have the right to get sh1tfaced, as long as you can do it without being anti-social as well."

Which is what the vast majority are aware of and generaly put into practice (not neccessarily getting sh1tfaced, but behaving themselves).

Why should they be made to suffer as a result of a tiny minority of idiots who are likely as not, breaking existing laws anyway?

#21 Why does my being a New Town resident say it all. That comment says it all about you. What's your problem - are you just stupid or is it a begruding attitude too?. No one is infriging on anyones life with these proposals -they're simply going to stop people (like you no doubt) from infringing on the rights of others.

#22:

Ah, but the majority didn't want the ban in the first place so why should they have to live with the consequences.

Get rid of the ban. Stop listening to the anti-drinking nazis and get pubs back to being enjoyable places to go to.

They went through this same cycle years ago in San Francisco. They solved it by banning smoking within 25 feet of a door.

19.BORING

Hi Petrolhead.

Listen , if you could all just learn to behave yourselves and stop acting like bloody children then there would be no need for this.

Show some respect to yourself and others, didnt you learn that when you were four (not you PH)?

I'm certainly glad our efforts to stop them closing local bars an hour early have succeeded. I'll be downning many pints in celebration later, possibly until 3am!

26.what about if you are walking past a door with a fag in your hand,dont follow the yanks the country already has an american influence

#10 : Hey dieselhead, if the put warnings about strong beer it will just add the spice of danger to drinking it. I was on Ceres beer all last week in Sicily. 7.7% - it's powerful stuff.

Mind, it's the only beer over there that tasted of anything and I needed strong beer to steady my nerves for sharing the roads with Italian drivers.

#20:

"When you think about it, all that's being asked here is that people keep their voices down outside a pub. How can anyone think that is unreasonable."

When you put it like that it doesn't seem unreasonable but let's look a little deeper...

Before the smoking ban, there was a clear distinction between being "in a pub" and being out on the street. When you were in a pub, it didn't really matter how much noise you made (within reason) because everyone else was doing it and in the main, the noise was confined to the pub and not terribly intrusive from outside.

When you were in the street, you generally kept the noise down because any noise you made would be clearly heard. There was also the psychological aspect which effectively made you aware that you were in a different area and therefore your behaviour must change to suit.

Now the dividing line between being in a pub and being on the street is blurred. If you are a smoker, it is inevitable that during the course of a visit to a pub, you will spend some time out on the street, possibly drinking at the same time. During this time, you are mentally still in "in the pub" mode and will as a consequence behave accordingly---ie being loud. Even if you are a non-smoker, the chances are that you will spend some time outside socialising with your smoking mates and therefore the same will apply.

The psychological aspect I mentioned earlier is no longer anything like as strong and as a result, behaviour outside the pubs has gone downhill and because it is no longer behind closed doors and double glazing, it gets noticed. Have you not noticed that since the smoking ban, there has been far more emphasis on behaviour on the street?

27. SNAP.

#12 : There was a public meeting to discuss the Licensing proposals, over in Viewforth. I was the only one there speaking up for the common man's right to go out and get drunk. For some reason the people there thought nobody really wanted to do that, but I soon put them straight.

They wittered a lot about the danger to my health, but I pointed out I could break my neck skiing and asked whether they'd confiscate by skis as well as my tankard.

#14 : The pubs were given five years to voluntarily do something about smoking. Separate rooms and efficient air filters were options. The pubs did absolutely sod all and so the Executive legislated the ban.

Five years is a long time to offer. It's quite clear that the pubs and their customers didn't want air filters or separate rooms.

How did we get to this mess?

Oh yes, smoking in public places got banned, Did the powers-that-be think smokers would be happy to sit (no vertical drinking!) in smoke-free pubs after that?

Didn't they consider that smokers would go outside for a fag, a blether and a laugh? Did they? But they don't like that, do they?

Or maybe they want people to not bother going for a night out in smokeless Edinburgh. Maybe smokers should just buy their booze from supermarkets and sit in their houses drinking and smoking?

Fine ... pubs will close soon, businesses wll be hit hard. The City's economy will go into freefall and soon it'll be bankrupt!

I'm not a smoker. I can't stand the smell of tobacco smoke ... but even I can see that the politicians of parliament and council have gone completely bananas!

If I had a ship, I'd take it out to sea where the council and country's writ does not run ... and set up a smoking den!!!

the smoking ban will not be reversed ! get that out your stupid heads !

Its europe wide by 2012.

#32:

"I needed strong beer to steady my nerves for sharing the roads with Italian drivers."

You want to try driving in Poland if you think the Italians are bad!

3-abreast artics overtaking each other on single carriageway roads at 90+mph. Just when you think you've got that one cracked, a "security" vehicle comes down the middle of the road at well over 120mph regardless of anything else on the road---then you meet up with an unlit horse-drawn cart doing 2mph. Great fun! Makes the Italians look like pussy-cats.

Is it just me or is it the drinkers that make the noise... not the bar!

#35 : I remember that meeting but when did this latest Licensing Board meeting that passed the changes happen? Or wasn't there one?

The trouble is that with them enforcing a smoking ban without a referendum they have opened up the floodgates for anybody with a gripe against anything can shout for a ban. George Orwell was spot on wasnt' he?

#39, we know smoking ban won't be reversed, trams are coming, lap dancers have to wear wooly jumpers, our benefits being sent to other european countries, no parking in bus lanes, 24 hour bus lanes etc etc all won't be reversed we just want the politicians in their ivory towers to listen to the electorate!!!

Oh well, good luck.

Like I say , behave yourself and theres nothing to worry about.

Anyway.. if you read the above you can see that the drinks industry is too large in our country and it seems our local councillors cant do much apart from put up "drinkings bad for you"signs and stop ATMS in pubs.

Nothing much to worry about , unfortunately.

How about other businesses? Post Office depots for example where ned employees turn up at 4 or 5 in the morning on souped up 'ned-cars' with noisy exhausts and motorbikes?

Well I think all moaners should be shot with no referendum.

This was an inevitable consequence of the smoking ban which the council chose not to look at. The pubs may be the location of the problem but they did not create this circumstances which led to it. I dont see the council offering any solutions, they are just trying to shift the responsibility for the problem elsewhere.

#47. I agree. All these ghastly early morning obsessives. What's so great about the hours between 4am and 10am? Why do they feel the need to be driving around delivering things noisily whilst those of us who have been out the night before are trying to catch up on a bit of kip?

49.
smokers annoy everyone,its a no braner.

There`s too many pubs and the sooner some loose their liceses the better.As for the unruly noisy smokers ,I`d ban smoking full stop.It`s a disgrace that people should be inflicted with their polution and now noise.Totally selfish ,the lot of them.

#42: Closing date for comments was 26th October. It'd take a few days to read 'em and formulate amendments so I'm guessing that the Alcohol Licensing Committee met to make and ratify changed to the September 3rd draft sometime within the last fortnight.

Somewhere I assume there's a new draft which has been adopted and will go to the full Council to be ratified as law for the next three years.

Can't see it on the website though.

I love this city, home of The Enlightenment but sadly not the enlightened. Whatever happened to live and let live?

How many of the commentors live outside a public house, there you are quiet night in and the rowdy smell smoking drunks want a loud laugh and joke. Lets just ban smoking outside pubs in groups of more than 5, don't feel sorry for smokers at all after all they will all eventually die of smoking related diseases and cost us a fortune in health care

How about banning the tartan tat shops from blaring their music halfway across the city?

If noisy, thoughtless, smokers or non-smokers can't behave with a modicum of consideration for their neighbours, the latter can always fall back on the time-honoured remedy of gardy-loo. Just don't tell wee stef.

It dont matter a HOOT, the day of the 'Pub' is gone, well and truly finished! Its only time, one by one they WILL shut the doors for good!
No point crying now, when they never fought in THE first place.!

#59, Charles Linskaill, Waiting for DYW.
If Charles is still alive when the very last pub in the U.K. closes, perhaps he'll remind us all and crow "told you!".
I'll keep my eyes peeled for that posting.

#52
gonna no preach aboot spellin and grammer when u canny

Bars can't be held responsible for what goes on in the street outside. If this becomes law I'll be responsible for the neds that drink outside my flats whereas I only really responsible for one (or maybe two) of them

#60. David, I tell you what, it will be sooner than you think,
THE DEATH OF OUR PUB'S, will be nigh!!!!!
..
Who in their 'right-mind' is going to pay £2.75 a pint, to then stand outside to have a 'fag' then to be told to be
'Quiet'
ITS NO SCHOOL YOU KNOW!!!!! although you get treated like children and have to pay for it for,
'All-that'
Geezo you gotta be NUT'S to go to a pup these day's!
Look around Edinburgh, To-day and see how many have shut-down already!!
PUB'S == THE PAST == WELL & TRULY!!

ITS THEIR OWN FAULT!
AND PEOPLE DONT WANT TO RE-ENACT,
'SCHOOL-LIFE'!

You have been warned...

No booze after midnight

No smoking

No lap dancing

And now no talking

#63/4, Charles Linskaill, Edinburgh.
If people can't behave like responsible adults, they shouldn't be too surprised to be treated accordingly.
Quite apart from JDW houses, I don't pay £2.75 a pint, and I feel no need to huddle outside having a nicotine fix.
So, all in all, fug free pubs aren't too bad, really, but I'll keep looking out for Charles' "last pub closes" posting.

#65, Turbo pickle.
I'm pretty relaxed about three of those.

#66. David, 'Fair-Doo's' , but don't come 'bleating' , when the Headmaster tells you what you can and cannot, have to Drink, in Pub!
Cause, 'mark-my-words', that will be next!

I want to ban people from seeking bans. Why don't the complainers get double-glazing?

To think 1984 was meant to be a warning, the Scottish parliament seem to use it as a blueprint.

61.
you keep my grammer and grendad out of this,its papa dont preach,thats for sure.

69.
I think its because the neighbours will still here them sing 500 miles,

First they demonised the hunters, and I did not speak out—I did not hunt;
Then they demonised the motorist, and I did not speak out—I did not drive;
Then they demonised the smokers, and I did not speak out—I did not smoke;
Then they demonised the drinkers, and I did not speak out—I did not drink;
Then they demonised me?

People should be careful what they wish for.

#68, Charles Linskaill, Edinburgh.
Words marked, along with "no pubs left" forecast.
Also looking forward to Colin Gee's list of U.K. pub closures, due about next August, and another doomster's forecast that JDW would fold within two years.
Any more Madame Zola's willing to come forward?
Until then, my bleating will be kept firmly in check.

#73, walter.
Then they mistreated the non-smokers, and I spoke out-I did not smoke.

Listen to all the beer junkies. Its very sad.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE GOOD ALL DAYS OF A GOING OUT ON A FRIDAY AND SATURDAY NIGHT GETTING RAT ARS*D, SMOKING INSIDE AND LETTING IT SPILL ONTO THE STREET. IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE LIVING IN AREAS WHERE THERE ARE PLACES THAT SERVE ALCOHOL FU*K OFF. REAL MEN WILL KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, NOT THESE OTHER POOFS WHO POST ON HERE

When thinking about where you want to live you should be taking in all aspects of the area.

You have small children, you think about schools, daycare, park areas.

You love to shop, you may like to live near the shops or train to the shops.

You love the country, you move to the country.

You love the city life style, you look for a city slicker pad.

You love clubbing and the high life and action, you move to a street in Edinburgh that has pubs, clubs and partying!

If you want to live in a quiet residential street....THEN DON'T CRY ABOUT THE PUBS IN THE CITY CENTRE WHEN WE ARE SUPPOSE TO BE A EUROPEAN CITY WITH LOTS TO OFFER! YOU WANT TO LIVE IN IT, RIGHT SMACK IN THE MIDDLE OF IT WHEN IT SUITS YOU ONLY?? IF YOU WANT THE QUIET COUNTRY LANE THEN MOVE TO A VILLAGE!

You move to the center attractions and want it to change and be overhauled to suit your preference? Move and leave room for those that are looking to live in that atmosphere! If I want to live where all the party goers are, I would move to a street with pubs and clubs. Before I complain that they are there....I would think to move my body and belongings to the place that has none of this.

The businesses struggle more then enough with all of the laws, restrictions and fines! Stop complaining and if you can't take the heat....then get out of the kitchen!

I can understand people wanting a good nights sleep but why would you willing move to one of the highest costs of living areas that are popular to the pub culture and then complain that you did!!!!!!!!!!

When thinking about where you want to live you should be taking in all aspects of the area.

You have small children, you think about schools, daycare, park areas.

You love to shop, you may like to live near the shops or train to the shops.

You love the country, you move to the country.

You love the city life style, you look for a city slicker pad.

You love clubbing and the high life and action, you move to a street in Edinburgh that has pubs, clubs and partying!

If you want to live in a quiet residential street....THEN DON'T CRY ABOUT THE PUBS IN THE CITY CENTRE WHEN WE ARE SUPPOSE TO BE A EUROPEAN CITY WITH LOTS TO OFFER! YOU WANT TO LIVE IN IT, RIGHT SMACK IN THE MIDDLE OF IT WHEN IT SUITS YOU ONLY?? IF YOU WANT THE QUIET COUNTRY LANE THEN MOVE TO A VILLAGE!

You move to the center attractions and want it to change and be overhauled to suit your preference? Move and leave room for those that are looking to live in that atmosphere! If I want to live where all the party goers are, I would move to a street with pubs and clubs. Before I complain that they are there....I would think to move my body and belongings to the place that has none of this.

The businesses struggle more then enough with all of the laws, restrictions and fines! Stop complaining and if you can't take the heat....then get out of the kitchen!

I can understand people wanting a good nights sleep but why would you willing move to one of the highest costs of living areas that are popular to the pub culture and then complain that you did!!!!!!!!!!

If you build that ship......I will be there! I am a nonsmoker too and I hate this controling nanny state we are in!

Telling people not to smoke, where to smoke, when to smoke, forcing businesses to police it for them and then the government fining those struggling owners when they can't do the government's job since the government has a strange sense of "mummy instincts" and the businesses have lack of funds and resources.

No one has said WHAT is being smoked outside??
Is it fags or a joint?

Deareth JFW (author of posts #5, #15, #20, #24),

You are an idiot. You lie passing off spin as fact. You are allergic to fun although sometimes it has been said that you like to eat boiled chicken with plastic chop sticks, but that is not for me to judge.

I like soft cheese and if you ever see a donkey wearing pants, tell Cisco that Gram said hello.

Let's get this party started, yes? Drink, smoke, be loud and lousy. Brilliance through legal chemicals.

Tell me, JFW... where in your conservative plan, if you do not let the populace smoke inside, and you do not let them smoke outside, then where will you get the money in lost nic taxes once everyone has stopped smoking?

Maybe Rhydian can help you out with a loan, er, or at least some style tips.

Cheers darlin'

It's funny how the folks here who claim to espouse the idea of 'live and let live' seem to conveniently forget that it's a concept that goes both ways.

People actually live in central Edinburgh (it's one of its important characteristics) and many have done so long before the relatively recent surge in the binge-drinking, anti-social culture that masquerades as fun for those with single-digit IQs. Many people are now seriously suffering as never before from constant anti-social behaviour (the smoking ban has had little to do with it BTW) and the best some muppets here can do is tell residents near pubs to go live somewhere else as they have the right to behave like complete @rses when they want to. With that being the general attitude, why are these same people suprised that we now have to legislate for every little thing - asking people nicely to behave responsibly no longer works, you've only yourselves to blame.

PS - I should point out that residents in central Edinburgh are not allowed install double-glazing - believe me, we would if we could!!

#83 - "if you do not let the populace smoke inside, and you do not let them smoke outside, then where will you get the money in lost nic taxes once everyone has stopped smoking?". Well said!

The smoking ban didn't stop me smoking but wouldn't it be fun if we all gave up completely for 6 months...just to see them run out of money and chuckle at the new dramas they had to invent in smoking's absence. Ha!

#85, JFW - I agree with you 100%. I don't think the smoking ban's got anything to do with it either - it doesn't seem to be the smokers that cause the trouble. The trouble's not caused by people having a fag and chatting to their mates - it's the total numpties (which includes non-smokers, by the way) who think that they've got some sort of god given right to be a noisy and objectionable as they possibly can, and then punch your lights out if you object!

#85. JFW, New Town

"PS - I should point out that residents in central Edinburgh are not allowed install double-glazing - believe me, we would if we could!!"

Yes, JFW that's one advatage of living in a town with the planning department from hell.

However, you can install secondary glazing (no permission required I believe) which is in fact better than DG and is also a damned sight cheaper.

I live in the Old Town and have secondary glazing throughout, it makes a huge difference both to noise (from traffic and night clubs, etc near to where I am) and to heating costs.

Of course, you will have to pay for it, but it will be well worth it and shouldn't be too much.

#86, Hardworker, Edinburgh.
Bring it on then, starting to-morrow? He might also feel loads better at the end of the six months. A truly double whammy! Ha?

#88, Peter - very disappointed/concerned, Edinburgh.
It's called consideration towards others, or to be more precise, the lack of any.

# 26 - Fernando Poo - how would banning smoking within 25 feet of a door solve anything in relation to this?

How did it solve anything in the first place? Where is your evidence that SHS can impact upon people when cigs are consumed in an outdoor location? Or like most anti-smokers, did you long ago relinquish science in favour of overt spite?

#90.
This was really in response to #87, in case Peter felt puzzled. He just came in too quickly for my blinking eye, but the comment still holds good, I feel.

#33, p.h.
Petrol man said "When you were in the street, you generally kept the noise down because any noise you made would be clearly heard."
Quite so, so what's changed?
He also came out with "you are mentally still in "in the pub" mode and will as a consequence behave accordingly---ie being loud". Why so? Why does he feel being in pub=being loud=need for boorish behavior?
Can't louts hold their liquor?
Also, "since the smoking ban, there has been far more emphasis on behaviour on the street?" Not altogether true, as decent folk are generally becoming increasingly weary of anti-social behaviour, be it by smokers, litter louts, lager louts, or other catalysts for pollution of the streets, in whatever form.
Congratulations p.h.! Not a "nazi" in sight.

# 93 - David.

In my experience, it's mostly the tolerant non-smokers who accompany smokers outside who produce most of the noise. They escape the pub to eschew its overly sanitised atmosphere and the tedious conversations of of anti-smokers dressed in anoraks nursing a bottle of J20 all night. Yet they can't quite handle their drink as well as smokers and consequently make too much noise.

Imposing restrictions on the outdoor provisions for smokers will simply drive licensees to exploit the private dwelling exemptions of the laws both sides of the border. There is no reason why a publican with a license for consumption of alcohol on and off the premises can't officially change the internal structure of their pub, designate a room as part of a private residence, and allow smoking and drinking to occur as it always did. And best of all, they'd be staying fully within the law.

Further restrictions and I can see this becoming widespread.

#94, Tim85, England.
Tim and I must frequent different pubs. I've yet to spot "anti-smokers dressed in anoraks nursing a bottle of J20 all night", indulging in "tedious conversations" or otherwise.
Tim claims "non-smokers who accompany smokers outside.....can't quite handle their drink as well as smokers and consequently make too much noise."
Is there some secret ingredient in tobacco that enables smokers to "handle their drink as well". This is a novel claim for the benefits of smoking. Who'd a thowt it!
Licensees are always free to invite guests (usually) upstairs to their private quarters for a smoke-in or any other practice they wish to indulge in behind closed doors, but attempts to designate parts of the public area as private would require something more substantial than sticking a bed in the vault.
When I next see pub patrons slipping upstairs, I'll realise what's probably taking place.

#93

I think David is showing us just how unfamiliar he is with what goes on in a pub.

He also seems to be trying to convince us that the recent surge in noise related complaints has little to do with the smoking ban. I can only assume he is delusional since the proposed "solution" is to limit the number of people standing outside.
Tell me, prior to the smoking ban were big crowds standing outside pubs a frequent problem?

There also seems to be a consensus is the problem is related to "boorish" behaviour, but I think that's stereotyping. Stick 20 people together all holding different conversations and its going to be loud enough to disturb the neighbours as they all try and talk over each other.

93) When are you going to face up to your phobias and stop them controlling your life and hence causing you to attempt to control everyone elses. This strong tendency manifests itself quite claerly in your denial of normal social behaviour within the confines of a Puiblic House and your dissmissive attitude when responding to quotes, as in 93) "He also came out with " How patronising and dissmissive. No he did not come out with, He said, or I quote would be more neutral and not
be in any way indicitive of your unfortunate charachter trait. Your response to the quote, a feeble and fallacious non arguement is frankly laughable and I quote " Why does he feel being in pub=being loud=need for boorish behavior?" No, no reasonable adult pub goer feels this at all it is those who you rightly identify as louts who behave in this way, and they can be smokers or non smokers.
I can assure you from 30 years of people watching in pubs people do get progressivly louder as time progresses it's in the nature of the beast to want to be heard. This tendency does not mean that everyone is becoming boorish or loutish and it happened both before and after the ban. The difference since the ban is that if you wish to continue the conversation whilst smoking you are forced to take it outside, but the volume level does not fall because as 93) says you are still in pub mode. Now if you can't grasp that simple fact there may also be something wrong with your thought processes. I presume from your final statement that you do not really know the meaning of the word catalyst the behaviours you cite happened before the ban, but I would suggest that the ban is in itself
a catalyst which is accelerating these behaviours.

So there we have it, whilst I was composing my considered dissertation as to the nature of the beast that is this the Miller David, other have detected traits which had got past me it does not paint a rosy picture.
so far he displays tendencies toward the delusional, obsessional, controlling, phobic, dismissive, and priggish, this taken together with convoluted thinking
may lead one to cry the lady doth protest to much, which in turn raises the possibility that the poor soul is in reality a chain smoking, cross dressing, alcoholic,
defrocked vicar.

#96, MRab2.
"I think David is showing us just how unfamiliar he is with what goes on in a pub." David has quite possibly been in more pubs than MRab2 ever has, they're just fug free now.
"He also seems to be trying to convince us that the recent surge in noise related complaints has little to do with the smoking ban." Not so, but if smokers and their non-smoking friends choose to go outside for their fix, they shouldn't make that an excuse to be unreasonably noisy.
I've never advocated a proposed solution of limiting the numbers of people standing outside pubs, but would suggest that this has always been problematical as far as the police are concerned, whether the crowd are smokers, exultant football fans, or any other group blocking the pavement.
I would also suggest that it's quite easy for a group of twenty or so people to be congregated together, in small conversational clusters, without bawling and screaming. It happens in most offices.
Sadly, alcohol has the effect of making people, smokers and non-smokers, lose their inhibitions, and their sense of proportion, particularly regarding the hour and their environs.

the natural extrapolation of 99) by his own reasoning then is simply Ban alcohol.

#98, Ghost Of Scotland Past.
"the lady doth protest to much, which in turn raises the possibility that the poor soul is in reality a chain smoking, cross dressing, alcoholic,
defrocked vicar."
Wrong on all accounts, Gypsy Rose Lee, but thanks for the laugh.
Methinks the Ghost of Christmas Past should carry on practising for his next amateur production of "A Chrismas Carol". Might even manage to indulge in some cross dressing with a bit of luck, perhaps?

#100, Ghost Of Scotland Past.
Or perhaps, as has been recognised for centuries, just keep the side effects in check?

#97, Ghost Of Scotland Past.
Like Dr. Strangelove, I shall endeavour to keep my arm and phobias strictly under control, but GSP presumably recognises that we are all encumbered with our prejudices, which cloud our judgment of, and attitude towards, others.
"being in pub=being loud=need for boorish behavior?" No, no reasonable adult pub goer feels this at all". We both seem to be in agreement that that is the thought process of inconsiderate louts, but I don't think I have said anywhere that this attitude is peculiar to smokers.
"people do get progressivly louder as time progresses it's in the nature of the beast to want to be heard." I realise that pubs aren't churches or libraries, but as at #99, "Sadly, alcohol has the effect of making people, smokers and non-smokers, lose their inhibitions, and their sense of proportion, particularly regarding the hour and their environs."
Catalyst, (inter alia) "a person who causes or promotes change by their presence in a situation or their input into it".
The word "accelerator" is not quite synonomous with "catalyst".
GSP is free to come out with or expound any theories or beliefs, as he sees fit, but must expect me to choose to respond in turn, as I feel apposite.

David # 94 - Evidently we do.

Although, perhaps I was overexaggerating a little. Anti-smokers never went to pubs because they couldn't resist descending into their pathetic little coughing fits. And they don't go now, despite having successfully demanded every venue with a license in the country cater to their whim entirely.

As for the latter, that was from personal experience.

Designating the public area private would require planning permission. And not all private residences employment of the words, "I'll realise what's probably taking place", your piety would be offended by an (inevitable) move in this direction?

private residences adjoining pubs are upstairs. I take it by your employment of the words, ... * ^

The above should read.

#104, Tim85.
Apparently so.
Think Tim85 was greatly exaggerating millionfold a whole lot more than a mega amount.
As a pro-restrictionist, I always visited pubs, and now can continue to do so, but without the fug.
I'll observe smokers more closely in future, and try to judge whether they are coping with the effects of alcohol better than their non-smoking brethren.
Tim's odd punctuation in #104 and cryptic symbolism at #105 leave me puzzled and wondering if this is some kind of masonic insignia, but my alleged piety would certainly not feel distressed by the sight of patrons sloping upstairs for whatever purpose.

In 103) I sense the manipulative aspect of the controlling character as in "but I don't think I have said anywhere that this attitude is peculiar to smokers." I didn't imply anywhere that you did, so kindly avoid puttin words in my mouth to suit your own ends, though we do agree on the loutish element who would be loud
anywhere drunk or sober smoker or not. As to your unscientific definition of a catalyst, reference unstated,
try A substance which accelerates a reaction without
being part of that reaction.
Lastly I am fully aware that we are both entitled to our opinions, why do you seek to imply otherwise.

It was simply a punctuation error, David # 106, nothing more.

As I said, not all pubs have adjoining private residences upstairs. Would people smoking in a back room - a pub's private residence - offend your piety?

#107, Ghost Of Scotland Past
At #97, "you rightly identify as louts who behave in this way, and they can be smokers or non smokers."
Agree totally. Where did I say or imply otherwise?
"Catalyst"-Chambers dictionary, which, interestingly, gives a definition very similar to GSP's for "catalysis", though as I understand that to be the actual process, perhaps his definition would fit "catalyzer" better? Perhaps qualified chemist correspondents would wish to comment.
Also,"Now if you can't grasp that simple fact there may also be something wrong with your thought processes." sounds to me like an attempt to stifle argument, rather than a constructive criticism.

#108, Tim85, England.
Clarification helpful.
My alleged "piety", or perhaps Tim really means "sense of propriety, fairness and equity", would not be too upset by the thought of the licensee and selected patrons disappearing into the latter's parlour, be it upstairs, to the rear of the pub, or in a detached granny flat for a quick puff, as long as it was not part of the public areas.
Sticking a sign "The Boss's Room" on the door of the vault would not suffice.
They could even adjourn to the cellar for a cosy crouch, but it would probably taint the beer, and the E.H.O. might not be too taken with the idea.

David # 110 - No I mean your sanctimoniousness, your platitudinising, your veritable saintliness.

If you have no problem with people retreating to a sequestered room of a pub, why do you support the total smoking ban rather than pubs choosing to set aside a smoking room? The former area is designated, in law, as private, the latter wouldn't be, yet both would equally infringe upon the sanitised 'smoke-free' atmosphere you enjoy these days.

Why the double standard?