new covid guidelines: is everyone in a non-live-in relationship still not seeing their partner?

[SenselessUbiquity]

Given that there has been no mention at all of social interaction beyond:
1 - meeting one other person outdoors at a distance of 2m
2- in the relatively far off future, being possibly able to socialise in "bubbles" with one other household thus facilitating childcare etc

basically if you are in a relationship with someone whose household or day to day life you do not share, there is no mention at all of when that will resume.

What does that realistically mean in terms of what people are actually doing?

• following the rules to the letter? for as long as it takes?
• saying "fuck it" and meeting indoors and being physically close anyway, in secret?
• somewhere in between?

Please tell me the truth. I won't tell a soul!

My partner visited my house yesterday for the first time since lockdown. Neither of us have high risk jobs. We both WFH. We both have teenage kids who are not at risk. We decided the risks were so low but the risks to our relationship of not surviving this pandemic are high. We had a lovely afternoon.

I had to break no contact a few weeks ago. It was a hard thing for me to ask him if it would be possible. Don’t know when it will be again but to have a hug was worth it and would have happily paid any fine. Yea honestly we hugged and normally we would be jumping on each other.

We tried the whole meet outside thing beforehand. It was too hard and lasted moments before we had to walk away. Wish we hadn’t done it and just went straight for a private meet.

We self isolated just in case. Before and now out for a walk, and everything delivered.

The biggest concern was me passing it to him. I’d had the virus, out of the isolation stage but there was still that worry.

We have to make our own risk assessments to try and have some life during this.

Where does it say it is illegal?!

It’s just so they can break up house parties etc

Nobody cares if you see your partner !!!!!!

I'm finding it strange that only the Mirror seems to be reporting on this... has anyone seen it elsewhere?

I've just found it in the Sun, as I thought the same thing. None of the 'better'papers seem to be reporting it. I always thought it was illegal anyway!!!!!

I think it's because there is now an explicit, exhaustive list of what are 'reasonable' excuses to be in someone else's house. But also, from what I can tell, there is also a provision about not sleeping somewhere overnight which is not the place where you live. So technically if you've moved in with your partner for lockdown, you're not 'where you live'.

It's basically, as far as I can tell, about it being explicit now where before there was room for manoeuvre in terms of the list of reasons being 'examples' rather than an exhaustive list. Adam Wagner had some posts about it on twitter last night, which may be more informative than the Mirror/Sun (and indeed may be where they got their info from.

@firebrand yes it's in my local press, but it was just worded as illegal to have someone from another household in your house. I have had about as much of this as I'm prepared to tolerate now it's ridiculous. Every death is a tragedy, I understand that, but we've not lost enough lives to fill a decent football stadium yet out of a population of 66.5 million. I've lurked on this thread as I'm worried my particulars would be too outing I live 150 miles away from my partner and while he has his own house his family live next door as they're farmers. When the first easing came in, I snuck over expecting to stay a week and ended up being banished as a health risk by his mother. Omg it was proper pitch forks and torches and damn nearly broke us anyway we've obviously not risked it since and he can't sneak over to me as I won't fit his dairy herd in my yard I love him so much but we've not been together long enough to think about moving in together and we've 5 kids under 13 between us to think about.

This is killing me. Literally. It's like groundhog day, I wake up, we face time several times a day, I wait for someone to say I can see him, it never happens, I go to bed. Repeat the next day...... I can't do this much longer. This is just the final straw and bloody cruel

Oh, just to add to that - of course, there was nothing about private indoor gatherings before, because the previous regs were framed in terms of restrictions on travel. Now they've had to address the issue of private gatherings, because those are allowed, but outside.

I'm still planning to see my partner in 12 days. We're both isolating...I think we're doing more to limit the risk of transmission to wider numbers of people than if we were following the rules and also not seeing each other shrug

It's in the new Legislation, effective today.
www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/558/pdfs/uksi_20200558_en.pdf

During the emergency period, unless paragraph (2) applies, no person may
participate in a gathering which takes place in a public or private place—
(a) outdoors, and consists of more than six persons, or
(b) indoors, and consists of two or more persons.

For the purposes of this regulation—
(a) 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

Totalitarian state.

Surely this is breach of human rights ?

This is awful. The only way you'll get caught is if someone snitches. Makes me feel like we've gone back to post WWII East Germany....

I can't believe for one second that having your partner in your house, when you're both taking all precautions but just don't live permanently in the same house, is riskier than going to Primark!! FFS, they're restarting football and horse racing but we can't be with one person....

Surely this is breach of human rights ?.

Right to a family life

“What is meant by family life?
You have the right to enjoy family relationships without interference from government. This includes the right to live with your family and, where this is not possible, the right to regular contact.

‘Family life’ can include the relationship between an unmarried couple, an adopted child and the adoptive parent, and a foster parent and fostered child.”

Qualified human right though isn’t it

They also amended the period of review from 21 days to 28 days, so they don't need to change this until July.

I would say the breach of human rights should be proportionate to the risk.

What does qualified mean in that context Sunny?

Can't wait for Boris to bluster announcing this.

Have sex if you can but not with someone from outside your household, stay alert, have sex but save lives by not having sex!

Just say the other adult is the cleaner Or the repairman

It makes no sense. Every workplace now opened technically breaks the law. I know in my dd’s work place today, private property, has 14 staff in. Never mind the schools 🤣

Yesterday shielding suddenly scrapped and can now meet people. Not that all of us followed that one to the letter either.

I’m asking locals from other countries what’s happening there along with proper evidence and basing our lives on that. I couldn’t keep my teen locked up indefinitely.

Loool cherry. Although you forget to mention the face mask

@MarkRuffaloCrumble as opposed to absolute (as in it can be breached in certain circs)

I have been following rules. Quarantined my family when dd has a temperature, exercising in the garden, having expensive food deliveries so that supermarkets could focus on vulnerable people and this just feels like a kick in the teeth. I am FaceTiming my boyfriend every day but this move just seems unfair when I see local parks are full, beaches are full, people with symptoms are going out. I would love to break the rules but my stbexh could use it against me and my lovely boyfriend who lives on his own in a small flat will be isolated even longer. I am so fucking angry and upset.

Can he move in with you ?

Most human rights are qualified - especially the cluster in the middle of the ECHR (privacy, free speech, assembly, religion etc).

Most of the qualified rights have a phrase about need for accordance with the law, and legitimacy in a democratic society - so para. 2 of art 8 is as follows:

"There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

You'll notice that towards the end, it explicitly says 'for the protection of health', so restrictions on private life for the reasons of public health are permitted. That said, I think there could be some good unpicking here of the restrictions for couples, in light of the other changes that are being made elsewhere. It would be possible to argue that private life is not be limited for the sake of the protection of public health, but in order to enable the 'public' life of the economy to continue.

I'm not an expert in the art 8 case law, but I think you could construct an argument.