Is this allowed under “group of 6”?

[Peasbewithyou]

Can I have 4 friends over one evening (socially distanced - we have open plan downstairs so space isn’t an issue), while DH & 3 kids are upstairs? The kids would be sleeping and DH either watching TV or working. So in the house would be a total of 9 people but on totally different floors and there are toilets on both floors so is it several “groups” so no reason for anyone to come into contact with anyone else.

It seems a bit ridiculous when if we went to a pub there could be another who knows how many people there sitting in groups just a metre or so away!

So would this be legal or illegal?

I still think you would need separate bathrooms and separate front doors to get away with this.

@flowerycurtain

Whether it's illegal or not why would you do it?

Have a read of the NHS staff worrying about the 2nd wave.

Meet one friend. Maybe 2 if you really need to.

But why on earth so many?

5 friends is hardly a huge gathering. FFS

If it's not against the rules then it shows (again) that the rules have been written in a stupid way.

If you can have 6 people in the lounge and 3 people upstairs then does that mean in a three level townhouse you can have 6 downstairs, 6 in the middle and 6 upstairs?

Scotland's max of 6 from 2 households makes things much clearer

DC's potty in the garden is what is needed to make this legal clearly. Enjoy OP

We have separate bathrooms. Actually, ahem, (and rather ridiculously since it’s not actually a big house) we have 4 toilets in our house so no need at all for DH or the kids to come down to use the loo (now THAT’S a stealth boast @cologne4711 )

In a thread where people are referring multiple times to the actual legislation, it would help if people could say why they believe it to be legal or illegal.

So far we have:
Illegal because they are all in the same 'place' (house and garden) vs
Legal because the legislation refers to gathering and they are not all of the same gathering.

Any other reasons people think it may be illegal/legal?

So we need to ask:
If you think it is illegal then how do you read the legislation definitely saying gathering = everyone on the private property?
If you think it is legal why do you think that everyone on the private property should not be considered part of the gathering?

If you think it is illegal then how do you read the legislation definitely saying gathering = everyone on the private property?

I think it’s illegal as the courts will not want to let people make a mockery of the law. You could otherwise say that someone asleep on the sofa is not engaging in any activity with the others or that you could have 6 people per room in a house if they didn’t mix. The courts look at parliaments intention and not just a literal interpretation of an Act. Babies are also not engaged in any activity with a group of adults but the courts will not allow 6 adults and six babies in prams in my view.

They will look at the specifics of the case. You can imagine a large property with self contained wings with different entrances, kitchens and bathrooms. There the case is more arguable.

DH & the children are not part of the gathering, so I think you're fine.

I wouldn't do it, but only because I wouldn't enjoy a night with 5 people from different households socialising inside, but that's legal.

If the kids are asleep & DH is in a different room then he could join you (if you'd let him) but technically he couldn't if he was playing with the kids as that would be 'mingling'

If your numbers aren't high where you are, enjoy your night before the rules change again! Just be as sensible as you've said you would be & don't let the vino allow you to forget about social distancing.

Not allowed i would say as too mqny in house ,otherwise iI cpuld have 5in my garden plus me , dh could have 5 in frontroom and both dc could have 5 plus them in bedrooms
The rule is 6 and that would mean anywhere in house or garden

I think that's a good question @Whydoyouthinkthatthen

Definition of gathering "there is a gathering when two or more people are present together in the same place in order to engage in any form of social interaction with each other, or to undertake any other activity with each other"..

So there are 2 ways that gathering is defined
(i) "in the same place in order to engage in any form of social interaction with each other " - sleeping children clearly not included, as no intention for social interaction (ie 'in order to') by either the people downstairs or the children.

(ii) "or to undertake any other activity with each other". I don't know, maybe that's more debatable? I think a literal / plain reading interpretation would mean sleeping children not included, as they are not undertaking an activity with the downstairs group. However, maybe (I think its a stretch), one could argue that they are undertaking the activity of being in the house? Or the activity of 'living in the house' with their parents? So the parents may by default form a group with their children as they are already undertaking the activity of living in the house with their kids, so by adding 4 guests they breach the rules?

I personally dont think that being present, or living with someone. would constitute an activity. Maybe others disagree!

notevenat20 very good point. However, I think the courts will also want to uphold the basic freedoms of people have and not criminalise anyone without a very good reason.

And here, let us suppose, the OP does not want to make a mockery of the law. She wants to abide by it, and let us suppose she takes every precaution she says she will (separate bathrooms, no actual mixing).

I absolutely agree that it is ridiculous that the legislation counts babies in prams (mind you, they may well get picked up and passed around, so maybe not so ridiculous). However it definitely does count them. It could easily have not counted them. It could also easily have defined all the people on one private property as participating in the gathering. And it didn't.

I would find it a struggle to say (under the definition) that someone who did not see and was not seen by any of the relevant people, and who it was made very clear before the gathering would not be participating in it or in the same room as anyone in it, was participating in the gathering. But I can see there are other interpretations and good reasons for them.

yes its illegal but it makes no sense anyway

and why do scottish children not count do they not get the virus maybe we should send all the kids up there

I agree that I would interpret the wording to mean that there can be other people on the premises as long as no more than 6 are involved in the "gathering" or "activity".

These rules are odd because the real risk is that the 4 friends are from 4 different households. I agree that the other poster who said that it would have made more sense to limit the number of households you can have together at one time, but they have not, so I think this is allowed. One of the problems with only allowing 2 households to mix is that if you have 2 children at different universities, they would not both be allowed back for Christmas!

If OP lived alone she could have them all over. In her current situation she could go to the pub with them. I agree that if you can see your friends in a socially distant way which you feel is safe, you should go ahead.

For those of you who think the law is no more than six people in the house (except for households/bubbles of more than six) please explain why you think the legislation doesn't simply say that (-would have been easy enough to draft) and instead is phrased in terms of gatherings (complete with a definition of what a "gathering" is)?

The issue is the definition of 'in the same place', and whether that means the same house or the same room within the house.

I suspect they intended the former, but because the legislation was rushed nobody thought to clarify it. One of those situations where they knew what they meant so never thought that anyone else might interpret it differently.

Parliament's intention is not relevant here as this hasn't been legislated by Parliament - one of many reasons it's so outrageous!

For those who think it is legal, if you had two teenage children could they have 6 in each of their rooms while you have 5 friends round downstairs, making 18 in the house? The groups are not mixing socially with each other.

But then you could just as well met 5 friends at 9am then10am and so and see 100 people in a day. It should be amount of close contacts in a week and the risks where you met. Not some number that applies to a bedsit or Kensington palace.

Monkey2001, I read that the 2 household rule was the CMO's preference but ministers preferred the rule of six as apparently it's easier to understand

@Feedingthebirds1

The issue is the definition of 'in the same place', and whether that means the same house or the same room within the house.

I suspect they intended the former, but because the legislation was rushed nobody thought to clarify it. One of those situations where they knew what they meant so never thought that anyone else might interpret it differently.

You suspecting this doesn't mean it's true

They are, or have at their disposal, lawyers. It it isn't clarified it isn't legal.

(Not totally relevant but if Cummings can manipulate the law to his benefit - etc etc - then, where what we choose to do is not detrimental to the spread of Covid and is indeed safer than a legal alternative than driving for an hour to test eyesight then ...)

noteven in that instance it's reasonable to assume there will be crossover of groups, social interaction between them, crowding round the fridge to get drinks, bathroom sharing, meeting in the corridor... Plus sharing the entrance hall on the way in and out.

There may be separate social interactions in theory, but in practice unless the house is seriously huge then there will likely be quite a bit of crossover.

I'd say this was against the spirit of the rules as there is a good chance there will be mixing of air and aerosol spreading of the virus.

In OP's situation it is completely different, and both within the spirit and the letter of the law IMO. Sleeping children won't overlap with the interaction. If a child woke and needed mummy cuddles with mum traipsing up and down the stairs repeatedly then it begins to cross the boundary IMO

And I've watched all 6 series of Good Wife so I'm definitely qualified to have a legal opinion.

For those who think it is legal, if you had two teenage children could they have 6 in each of their rooms while you have 5 friends round downstairs, making 18 in the house? The groups are not mixing socially with each other.
Provided it there was zero interaction between the groups then yes. (Not that I would condone it. ) However, unless you had a very large house, I think the zero interaction would be difficult to achieve in practice. For example, if you ended up with a queue for the toilet and members of different groups chatting to each other, at that point you have got social interaction between groups. You would also need to take care that the groups did not socially interact in the hall on arrival or departure. In practice, it would be very difficult to avoid breaching the rules with this many people in a normal house (particularly ensuring zero interaction between the two groups of teenagers!)

And I've watched all 6 series of Good Wife so I'm definitely qualified to have a legal opinion.

But so have I!

But are you Diane or Alicia?