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?

@knittingaddict

As far as I can see the government bought in this legislation to, in part, make it easier to spot activity which may increase risk of spread and tackle it. It's imperfect legislation created in a hurry.

However it seems clear that if there are 9 people in a house then 9 people are gathering. What's to stop 3 people moving to a different part of the house and claiming that they've been following the law? Nothing.

I highly doubt that the police are going to come knocking on your front door, but if they did, it would be clearly illegal for you to have that many people in your home.

Either obey the law or own that you are doing something which is now illegal. The constant threads looking for loopholes are getting so tired now.

I'm finding the constant claims that people are looking for loopholes when they are looking for clarification much more tedious.

@TeeBee

It is clear; it is very clear. You just don't want to be inconvenienced. Six. Just six. Just have separate nights and keep to six. It's a pandemic, our movements need to be limited. It really isn't hard to understand at all.

It's not very clear otherwise these discussions wouldn't be happening

Illegal. However if you were extremely distant and actually kept to the rules, probably a lot safer than going to the pub.

The issue is making sure you really are very distant. As if you're not, then you are spreading to everyone.

A lot of people think things are "clear" and prohibited but don't seem to be justifying by reference to the actual words of the rules or guidance.

Of course sleeping children upstairs aren't part of a gathering; it's nonsensical to say they are. The whole point is to prevent mixing.

The point has been made over and over, if you weren't allowed to have more than six in a dwelling (unless they all live there anyway) it would be very easy to draft!

Not allowed.

If you are looking for exceptions and loophole then i can think of a bloody better one than the children being asleep upstairs!

I wont be posting here though because it would be irresponsible to.

I really don't think people are looking for reasons to get around the law. I think they are trying to work out how to live their lives whilst minimising the risk. The op could go to the pub and do the same thing in a way which carries more risk to those in the party and to anyone else in the pub. She doesn't want to.

The ban on meeting at home is about stopping hugs and kisses and lapses in adherence to social distancing.

Op certainly doesn't sound in that camp and doesn't sound like she wants to break the law either. She sounds like she just wants to do the best thing for everyone concerned in terms of health.

Which i think is fair enough.

Its not like threads asking if she should still go to a wedding reception in a backgarden with 30 people or ones about should i still go ahead with child's birthday party for the class at soft play.

Of course sleeping children upstairs aren't part of a gathering; it's nonsensical to say they are.

Yes, entirely this! The idea that a "gathering" includes people who are not seen, heard or otherwise interacted with by other members of the supposed gathering is bonkers. That's much less of a "gathering" than a zoom meeting, for instance, and obviously no one is claiming that would be included in the regulations....

I quite accept that the regulations are illogical, unclear and unfair, though, and don't in themselves do anything to minimise spread of the virus. It's entirely permitted for each family member to go off and see five other people, and then another five other people, and then come back home... Or to sit in a pub with hundreds of others... Or to go to school or uni... Not even trying to find loopholes, but following both the letter and spirit of the regulations and guidance. In Scotland its "illegal" for DC to play tig with 2 others in a play park at the weekend, but not when they're at school, when they can play it with 25 other households. Though given children under 12 don't have to socially distance, I'm not sure at what point "tig" becomes a social gathering rather than a group of individuals running around and maybe interacting with one other child at a time... (this may be a loophole, granted..).

I thought I had posted this, but maybe not. Presumably my 2 cleaners can come to my household of 5 as they are coming to work?

I think that would be OK Cookerhood on the grounds that it is either 'reasonably necessary for work purposes' (theirs) or that it is not a 'gathering' as they are not meeting you socially and you are not joining in their activity.

But assuming you have school age children maybe they could come while the children are at school?

It is illegal to do that as it would count as 8 people. It's ridiculous that that would be illegal but it still would!

Thanks all for the comments. It’s been really interesting and informative! Thanks particularly to @RedToothBrush you are exactly right in terms of what I was / am trying to do.

Interestingly just read this on BBC news article:

The guidelines for England refer to times when "mingling" could break the rules. It says "there can be multiple groups of six people in a place, provided that those groups do not mingle"

Which would mean that this scenario would be fine. Definitely no mingling occurring!

It also feels like the legislation refers to pubs just as much as to private homes so you could have separate groups / gatherings. Although I totally agree with @Whydoyouthinkthatthen that it’s about what would be likely / proven to be actual separate groups rather than people trying to find loopholes and just having a party with people split arbitrarily between rooms in random groups of 6!

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51506729

I think I’m being persuaded that children who are unconscious on an entirely different floor and who will have absolutely no contact or even see the main “gathering” people could not logically be claimed to be part of the gathering when you look at the legislation and guidance. Although it is ambiguous.

However, for those who are no doubt on the edge of their seats about whether I will do this or go to the pub, I can now reveal: I am now just meeting 2 friends, socially distanced, outside in the cold and dark, with plenty of hand sanitiser and warm clothing. And some wine. Let’s hope that is both legal and safe!

I hope you have a nice evening anyway. Might be the last time for meeting friends for a while the way things are going.

Of course sleeping children upstairs aren't part of a gathering; it's nonsensical to say they are. The whole point is to prevent mixing.

What if the kids wake up and come downstairs?

Now is probably not a good time to be pushing the limits of social distancing rules.

Glad you’ve changed your plans. You can relax knowing that you don’t need to worry if you have or haven’t broken the law!

I would do it
I'm doing the same kind of thing next week. Me and my children are meeting a friend and her children which will make 6. They will be at our house downstairs.

My husband, which will make 7 will be upstairs two floors away working. And won't come down while they are here.

If my husband was out, then it would be fine, so I can't see any difference if he's 2 floors upstairs. Yes if he came down half way through for a drink and a chat and then we were 7 then that wouldn't be ok. But he won't. So it makes no difference whether he is upstairs or out

It's legal.

The new Regs provide "no person may participate in a gathering which consists of more than six people"subject to certain exceptions.

There's a definition of a "gathering" for the No. 2 Regs as follows:
"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".

The husband and children are not participating in the social interaction with the visitors, so cannot be part of the gathering. The answer is as simple as that.

The mingling provisions relate to the exceptions, and aren't relevant here.

Sorry that should say *There's a definition of a "gathering" in the No. 2 Regs

The new Regs provide "no person may participate in a gathering which consists of more than six people"subject to certain exceptions.

This has been covered in this thread. My view is that it is illegal. This is mainly because otherwise you can make a mockery of the law by having 6 people in each room in your house. Courts don't approve of that sort of mockery of the law.

But more importantly, now is really not the time to be pushing the limits of social distancing. It's all about to go wrong unless we really restrict our socialising.

This has been covered in this thread. My view is that it is illegal. This is mainly because otherwise you can make a mockery of the law by having 6 people in each room in your house. Courts don't approve of that sort of mockery of the law.

Well I'm a lawyer and know that the courts can't just go making up what they think the law should say, especially considering this is criminal law and factoring in ECHR, art 6. On the current wording of the Regs, it's not possible IMO for a court to interpret what the OP is proposing as illegal.

You'd obviously be in a different position if the police suspected and could show that OP really did all intend to socialise together, and that the OP is just falsely claiming that the DH/children were staying apart.

Well I'm a lawyer and know that the courts can't just go making up what they think the law should say, especially considering this is criminal law and factoring in ECHR, art 6. On the current wording of the Regs, it's not possible IMO for a court to interpret what the OP is proposing as illegal.

Can you explain how the courts would then draw the distinction for 6 people in each room of a house having separate gatherings? If you want to take it further, you could have 12 people in one room, one group of 6 at the bridge club on one side and one group of 6 at an alcoholics anonymous club and not interacting. I can't see the courts buying it. And what about the "mischief rule"?

I think they would look at the facts of the case and the intention of the regulations. Do they share any facilities (e.g. bathroom) , do they have a common entrance and exit route etc

Didn't Jimi Hendrix have a song about 6 being 9? Seems appropriate..

Didn't Jimi Hendrix have a song about 6 being 9? Seems appropriate.. ;)

Arguably it does ban multiple groups gathering separately at the same property if there are more than six people socialising in total, but that's different from OP's situation where, as I understand it, she'll have 2 sleeping kids upstairs, DH watching telly or whatever on his own, so less than 6 socialising/"gathering".

I could write a long essay on statutory interpretation but the important point is there are limits to it, especially when dealing with criminal law.