Are we allowed 7 people in our house in different rooms?

[Firefliess]

DSD and her BF have come to stay this weekend. We also have DD and DSS and me and DH at home, so that makes 6 of us. DD wants her BF to stay over tomorrow night. I can't figure out whether that's allowed or not. It would mean 7 people in the house, but in no sense would we be "gathering" DD and her BF would get in late and go straight to her room. Rest of us probably we wouldn't even see him. Is that allowed? Or are people considered to be "gathering" simply by being in the same house? We're in England by the way and not in an area with any local lockdown

My early teen dds would go to some lengths to avoid my cackling book club meet ups!

Wow people are so rude. We have a solicitor saying it's not clear and hasn't been tested.

You don't have to socially distance from being you are in an established relationship with.

In England there was never a law on one hours exercise a day.

I think the situation since March has been really horrible for all kinds of people in many ways we do not even realise so people tend to get a bit cross on line and that is much better than they turn around and slap their child or husband!

The laws in the 4 jurisdictions have chopped and changed and it is hard to keep up with them. Even the complication of the "gather" definition has not exactly been centre stage in Government press releases. Couple that with people in a free democracy thankfully having all kinds of different views about what laws we ought to have and how they want the state to react and it is a situation of much conflict. I hope new new normal next year can be more peaceful and much less restrictive relying on common sense, freedom and not the law.

And if someone comes in your home with covid the virus spores may well be left behind for the children to breathe in when they get out of bed the next morning.\

But that applies even with only three or four people in the house. The law isn't designed to eliminate that risk.

My early teen dds would go to some lengths to avoid my cackling book club meet ups!

Who are these magical children who've never once come down the stairs at night needing something?

Perhaps I am an unusually strict parent, but my DC have never come down the stairs needing something once they got past the point of understanding that you stayed in bed until the morning (which was age 3 for DS and age 1 for DD). Yes, they've sometimes got up because they feel ill/had a nose bleed/been sick, but IME that tends to happen in the small hours, not when visitors are in the house.

I'm more surprised to realise that there are parents who expect their children to routinely get up past bedtime tbh. But having understood that there clearly are I totally accept that they shouldn't have evening visitors on the basis that their DC are quite likely to get up and join in. However, these parents should also accept that there are other parents who can categorically say that their children won't get up, and there's nothing "magic" about it.

"Routinely" isn't the point @RedskyAtnight, you're parenting when"they feel ill/had a nose bleed/been sick"' as you admit happens. If you are looking after your children, then they are part of the social group you are in at that time, even if they are in a different room. If you have other adults who may be coming to the kitchen for a drink, using the same staircase or bathroom - again, there is interaction. Stop tying yourself in knots to justify what you think is a loophole, look at the intent - reduce interactions to slow the spread of the virus.

MRex My son is 16. I can only think of one occasion in the evening that he's ever come down since going to bed in all that time. There is more likelihood that a neighbour/friend would pop round, but I'm not going to make plans based on the possibility that might happen either.
Doesn't matter if children are part of a "social group" - if they are not physically there, they are not "gathering" in the legal sense.

For the record, I've had precisely one (non-household) person in my house since March, and that was a tradesperson for about 20 minutes. I am not intending to do any of the things suggested on this thread; I am merely pointing out that they are actually legal and those who are categorically saying they are not are factually incorrect. Whether they are a good idea or not is a whole different discussion.

@MRex

The issue is that it is not a loophole according to the lawyers here. I am with you though, the legality of it is a moot point for me. The intent is to reduce unnecessary contact and slow the spread. I think 6 separate households is unnecessary.

I'm not convinced that you know who is or is not a lawyer on an anonymous message board @EarlGreyJenny. Anyone planning to rely on highly specific interpretations should seek independent legal advice from someone who is qualified in criminal law before placing reliance on those interpretations. They will also find that they are told that the application of it in this circumstance has not yet been tested in court, as I've already told you.

@MRex

I'm not convinced that you know who is or is not a lawyer on an anonymous message board *@EarlGreyJenny*. Anyone planning to rely on highly specific interpretations should seek independent legal advice from someone who is qualified in criminal law before placing reliance on those interpretations. They will also find that they are told that the application of it in this circumstance has not yet been tested in court, as I've already told you.

For sure... but if I was a betting man I'd guess that any legislation allowed for leeway for the government, their buddies and people with big houses so it rings true to me.

The intent is to reduce unnecessary contact and slow the spread

The trouble is that we have

Scenario 1 (OP's scenario): I'm in a household of 6. DD wants to invite her bf over to stay the night. He won't come into contact with anyone else or use shared facilities

Scenario 2: I'm in a household of 1. I want to invite 5 friends over from 5 different households and we will all sit in the lounge and share kitchen and bathroom

Nobody could argue that scenario 2 is illegal. However, it is much more risky in terms of infection spread than scenario 1 (which is either legal or a loophole, depending on your pov).

The law doesn't have a point of view until it gets to court with a specific trial. It's somewhat concerning that people seem to think anonymous messages carry the weight of actual legal advice, even if the risk is only a small fine initially.

You don't have to invite anyone over at all, that much is up to you.

@EarlGreyJenny - given that the definition of a private dwelling includes the land and outbuildings, that's unlikely in this particular case.

Thank you @Xenia It's not easy for many at this time, and our own individual decisions on managing risk do ultimately affect the risk that others face. There's no getting away from that.

I started this thread to ask views on the legal situation on a house Vs a gathering, not to invite judgement about whether I was doing enough for the cumulative effect to reduce the spread. It's been really tough in a blended household with semi-independent young adults to navigate all the risks, their own conflicting views, and ever changing laws. I've prioritised allowing the relationships that really matter to the well-being of my kids and stepkids - long term relationships with BF/GFs (not a "teen sleepover" as suggested above) DH and I have consequently have not had any of our own friends in the house since March, nor been out to pubs (something I'd previously have done about twice a week). There are a lot of things I could legally do - sending all the youngsters out down the pub for an evening whilst hosting a dinner party for 6 - for instance, that we don't do because as a large household we realise our contacts are unavoidably extensive already.

But I think everyone needs to allow others to make their own call on risks that are within the law, balancing other factors that they know also matter and not try to impose simpler rules onto households that the government itself has recognised aren't always simple.

@MRex

No one is surely daft enough to take what is said on a Mumsnet board as legal advice but surely the point of a discussion board is to share opinions and sometimes see things from a different point of view. Your point about outbuildings etc does nothing to dissuade me from my point of view.

Echoing other posters, I don't understand why so many on here are determined to interpret the law more stringently than it's intended.

The reason that we should all try to restrict social mixing is that the country is plunging headlong into another health crisis and potential lockdown.

As discussed elsewhere, it's possible the NHS won't recover for years. This means a country without a fully functioning healthcare system. It is worth making an effort to avoid this disaster.

@RedskyAtnight

I don't think this is the right way to think about it.

Sure there are some legal things that are worse under various criteria than illegal things. For example, if I shag DH's newly married brother and tell him all about it, that's worse than stealing an apple. But this doesn't persuade me to jump on the brother the next time I see him or that it would be the right thing to do.

...or that I should start stealing apples

@notevenat20

I like your thinking. Who cares if it's legal or not, you're a bit of a twat if you think it's ok to have so many people round.

Notevenat20 - I genuinely don't think that the example given by the OP is going to make the slightest difference to a potential overwhelm of the NHS, given the many other much riskier scenarios that are explicitly within the law.

On the other hand, I work in mental health, and am dealing with the crisis that's happening right now (not potential or hypothetical, but extremely real and present) due to the disruption in people's social networks/ support.

Apparently not, I saw an interview on the news where they said if a couple had 3 kids who were upstairs asleep in bed, they still couldn't have another couple round for drinks as there would be 7 people in the house and that would be breaking the law even though there were only 4 in the room meeting.

@MRex

Who are these magical children who've never once come down the stairs at night needing something? A drink, a snack, they feel ill, they lost a book, they heard voices and want to say hi etc. Never met them myself. I wouldn't fancy testing the principle in court either, that could get expensive. Carry on though ladies, it's not as though there's a pandemic or anything like that.

Erm, I have a 16 yr old and an 18 yr old. They are not particularly magical but plenty able to spend say 3 hours 2 floors above us with their own bedrooms, bathroom and access to the WiFi. Happy even to lob them a can of beer each and a packet of wotsits - they are quite well trained.

@MRex

The law doesn't have a point of view until it gets to court with a specific trial. It's somewhat concerning that people seem to think anonymous messages carry the weight of actual legal advice, even if the risk is only a small fine initially.

You don't have to invite anyone over at all, that much is up to you.

No, the law is the law. You simply can't act as if it doesn't exist until it has been tested in court. The wording of this Act in terms of the definition of gathering is really pretty clear: no court is going to interpret "engage in any form of social interaction with each other" as covering a situation where there is no social interaction whatsoever.

The rules are 6 people, thats it. You would be breaking the rules