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

engage in any form of social interaction with each other

Haven’t you missed out the rest of the sentence?

The OP's situation really doesn't sound like "a gathering" of more than six, if there are 5 and 2 under the same roof.

Eh? 5 plus 2 was 7 last time I checked. 7 is a gathering of more than 6.

@Bluesheep8

The OP's situation really doesn't sound like "a gathering" of more than six, if there are 5 and 2 under the same roof.

Eh? 5 plus 2 was 7 last time I checked. 7 is a gathering of more than 6.

But they're not gathering

For a regulation to apply, all parts of the clause needs to be applicable (gathering and more than 6).

Anyone not part of the gathering (defined as 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) they do not count towards the 6.

The rules are 6 people, thats it.

No, they aren't.

You would be breaking the rules

No, she wouldn't.

Why don't people read the rules before posting this sort of thing? Or at least the thread.

I apologise if I appear obtuse but 7 people in a house is more than 6. Whether they define themselves as 'gathering' or not.
If a police officer approaches said group and counts 7 people and one of the group says "Yes officer, you're quite right, there are 7 of us but we're not gathering" does the police officer (whose job it is to uphold the law) say "Ah yes, of course you're not, my mistake I'm sorry to have disturbed your evening but I'm glad we cleared that up"?

Limits on the number of people you can see socially have changed. When meeting friends and family you do not live with (or have formed a support bubble with) you must not meet in a group of more than 6, indoors or outdoors.This is against the lawand the police will have the powers to enforce these legal limits, including to issue fines (fixed penalty notices) of £200, doubling for further breaches up to a maximum of £6,400.

This is why I am confused.

But the police officer won't see 6 people together in the scenario outlined in the OP, or the one where there are sleeping children upstairs when their parents have friends round. That's the point.

You can have seven or more people in a house without them being in a group. The definition is based on whether they are socially interacting with each other or undertaking any activity with each other. If they aren't they aren't in a gathering.

They would not be breaking the law. If anyone can point the lawyers on this thread to the part in this which says even if you are not gathering (eg babies asleep upstairs and 2 other couples round for dinner - no gathering but some other section of the regulations says that breaches another provision of never having more than 6 in the house unless you have 6 family members then we lawyers on the thread will be satisfied. Until someone can find that we are right and the others are wrong. These are the rules and it is regulation 5(6) which defines gathering. www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/684/data.pdf - definition is on the top of page 12 of those regulations.

Regulation 5 is the only one I can see that is about the rule of 6 applicable to houses and the definition in 5(6) of gathering applies to regulation 5. I cannot see how the lawyers are wrong but happy to be proved otherwise.

I sincerely doubt anyone on this thread is a lawyer.

So people who are asleep aren't included in the number then?

@Bluesheep8

Most people consider "meeting friends and family" to mean sitting/standing in the same room/general area close enough to talk/interact for at least some of the time (e.g. if you met in a group of six and 3 of you were in the kitchen and 3 in the lounge but you regularly swapped between groups, you'd consider that you were all meeting each other).

If I go to my friend's house and sit in her lounge while she sits in her bedroom, no one would consider that I am meeting her. Or gathering with her. Or that we are in any point a group of 2. And that includes police officers who happen to pop round, providing you can show that you at no point did meet*

*clearly not tested in court as this is new legislation.

But the police officer won't see 6 people together in the scenario outlined in the OP, or the one where there are sleeping children upstairs when their parents have friends round. That's the point.

The law refers to “the same place”. The question is if you think a house is a place, a room, or just the square foot you are standing on.

Normally in law where there is ambiguity and no precedent they ask what a plain English interpretation would be.

I think 3 or 4 of us have said we are lawyers. I would be surprised if we were lying. I am certainly not. The person who referred us to the consolidated version of the regulations with the latest amendments put in is highly likely to be so. I was having to read the latest and piece the bits back into the no. 2 regs.

The same space is not the answer. Even if one whole house is one same place that does not make it illegal. You have to read the whole sentence. In the same space PLUS to engage in social interaction or engage in an activity with each other. This is why in my example going upstairs to view the baby asleep is probably an activity and social interaction never mind they might spit on it, whereas leaving it asleep upstairs whilst the 3 couples have dinner is fine.

"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"

@notevenat20
If you read the thread you will see that the legal definition of "gathering", as used in the legislation has been posted. The interpretation of this by the lawyers on the thread is that it means what I just said.
What the law clearly does not say is that the rule of 6 applies to the total number of people in a house, although this "fact" has been cited many many times on this thread!

I certainly agree it would be useful to have a court ruling on it - including on things like "in the same place"

If we go back to reg 5 . "During the emergency period, no person may participate in a gathering which consists of more than six people unless.." and then link it to 5(6) definition of gathering.. yes I think the issue of what is the same place IS important.

@Tadpolesandfroglets

I sincerely doubt anyone on this thread is a lawyer.

Lol. I made a comment up thread about legal interpretation and sneaked in a reference to Lord Denning. The Denning reference is a good test for whether you are a lawyer or not!

You can probably tell I am a lawyer because I am now wrestling more with what the "same place" means now...... laughing as I type. Anyway hopefully the Tory rebels will succeed soon as they plan in conjunction with Labour to tear up the rule of six and make sure future regs go before the whole house.

If I were going to pretend to be something I would pick something far more exciting to be than a private client solicitor 😁

The mental gymnastics is extraordinary - teenagers are now to be confined to their rooms and not allowed to get water or a snack in the mistaken belief that means mum can get pissed with a few more mates.

The law doesn't need to ask for a plain English interpretation, "private dwelling" is clearly defined in the law itself as the property, any land and any outbuildings. AND. I.e. you can't have 6 inside and 6 outside, never mind different rooms inside. There are specific exemptions to the 6 to allow for bubbles and larger households, but those bubbles do not exempt children sleeping upstairs, on the contrary it states children are included. There is clarity about staying overnight, that the limit is 6 (barring the specific exemptions), do people think there are so many large orgies regularly that this bit had to be written into law? Ultimately a police officer can choose whether or not to issue a fine (more likely when people start the kind of argument displayed here) and people will need to pay or go to court to have the debate in front of a judge. Regarding "ambiguity", this has widely been publicised as being a clear and simple rule of 6, accompanying guidance to limit social interactions - the guidance specifically can be taken as the plain English interpretation. There is only ambiguity for those who choose to tie themselves in knots.

@Tadpolesandfroglets

I sincerely doubt anyone on this thread is a lawyer.

You should sincerely believe that they are. (Some bloody good ones, too).

@Xenia

Yes I didn't meant to suggest I was giving a full interpretation. I was just pointing to one part, the "same place" part.

There are two sorts of examples being given on MN. One is where there are two small children are asleep upstairs and 5 adults are downstairs. The other is where a teenage child has a friend (or boyfriend/girlfriend) in their room and likewise there are 5 adults gathering elsewhere in the house.

In the former case it seems hard to argue you would never and go and care for the small children if they needed you. It also seems you are putting the courts in a difficult position of saying that it is a legal requirement for you not to tend to a crying child.

In the latter case it just seemed far fetched to me that both teenage child and partner would stay locked in their room the entire period. It may also seem far fetched to a court.

@TawnyPippit - damnit, catching up on a Monday morning and I've missed your Denning reference.... gonna have to go back and read all 192 posts that I missed!

So essentially what some people are suggesting is that the rule of 6 in a house can be completely disregarded. It's fine to have say, 30 in a house as long as there are a maximum of 6 'gathering' in a room at any one time. And it's also an option to run into another room and pretend to be asleep if necessary.
Actually, thats the answer then - just don't answer the door to the police...No one heard them knocking because they were all asleep in different rooms.
I'm sticking to the rule of 6 by the way. It's easier.

@TawnyPippit if you mistaking my think only Lawyers would know who Lord Denning is, you are wrong. I’m not a lawyer and I know. My point is believing what someone says on a MN thread because they say they are an expert, means nothing. People quite often profess to be experts in all sorts of things on here and it means diddly squat. If you have to question the rule of 6 then I imagine it’s because you are probably doing something that involves twisting it somehow to suit your needs. If we all did this then nothing will ever improve. I personally would like to be back out of lockdown.