The new rule of 6 does indeed simplify some of the confusing rules that proceeded it. But I am a little confused about the definition of weddings and funerals 

The 30 person rules apply for these events, but does anyone know if:

• The term 'wedding' extends to the reception/wedding breakfast,  even if held in a alternative venue,away from the place where the wedding took place?, or;
• The term funeral extends to the wake even if that occurs in a premises away from a civic or religious place where the funeral was held?

Thanks for that John.

I liked the way the reportage continued:

Government spokesperson Christopher James told press this morning, “Boris Johnson will give further details about the new restrictions later today, and he will be able to clarify any confusion then.

“He’s personally gutted at having to do this, as he was planning to see all his children one day next week, as he always does – he’s a great Dad – but sadly he’s had to postpone this now as there are too many of them.”

What's not clear is what Christopher James' surname might be.

Originally Posted by: Gerry Knowles

Sorry to be a bit of a kill joy.  We appear to arrived in a place where new rules come out and there is suddenly a quest by some people to look for ways to get round them.  Someone said to me today the rules are so complicated.  It seems quite clear to me you can meet or socialise up to six people.  You should maintain social distancing with those you dont live with.  Seems clear enough to me.  There are of course exemptions for large families and bubbles.

I agree people are looking for loopholes when they shouldn't.

I disagree that the rules are clear.

For example, I can go to a concert, as long as I go in a group no bigger than six.  I have to socially distance from the other members of that group not in my houselhold, and when I get to the concert I socially distance from other groups attending to exactly the same degree.  So my family goes to the concert (4 of us), and my next-door neighbours (5 of them) go to the concert.  We get there and sit 2m apart.  All fine.  EXCEPT, if we happened to exchange greetings (remaining 2m apart) on the way there, then we were a group of 9 and breaking the law? That makes no sense whatsoever.  What is the difference between a group of 9 attending and a group of 5 plus a group of 4?  How do you tell the difference? In both cases the different households in the group(s) remain 2 m apart, but a simple 'hello' apparently gets you a £100 fine (and a criminal record?)

If it's so clear and straightforward, how do you, as an observer at the music venue, tell the difference between this group of 5 plus group of 4 and this group of 9?  Remember, in both cases the households are 2m apart.  There is absolutely no actual behaviour difference between the two cases.  Which case gets a fine?

And a wake is an offence, but a game of 'ultimate frisbee' or underwater hockey is perfectly OK?  That makes no sense - especially the frisbee - do you wipe it down with a disinfectant wipe every time you catch the frisbee?

And it's fine for 20 children to mingle at school, but step outside the school gate and if 7 of them chat that's illegal?

Edited by user 17 September 2020 08:12:21(UTC)  | Reason: spill chucking

If you look at S.I. 2020 No. 684 it is plain to comprehend why there is so much confusion given not everyone in the UK is a solicitor, barrister or similar - since its July publication there have been 11 amendments under Citation, Commencement, Application and Interpretation - the latest on 14th September with this rule of six.

What is keeping up to date with ths ONE regulation worth as CPD points for the year?

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky

I think we need to make the distinction between "easy to understand the rules" and "easy to understand the logic of the rules".

1. count number of people in a group

And that's where it breaks down.  You see in the street four people and 2m away five people.  Is that a group of nine, or a group of four and a group of five? How do you tell the difference - apparently it's straightforward, even though no-one has been able to explain it to me. How do the people in the group(s) tell if they are in one group of nine or two different groups?

Once again an assumption - this time that the whole of society is on an equal intellectual and educational par.

As a previous Personnel Manager quipped "you can't educate pork"

Originally Posted by: achrn

And that's where it breaks down.  You see in the street four people and 2m away five people.  Is that a group of nine, or a group of four and a group of five? How do you tell the difference - apparently it's straightforward, even though no-one has been able to explain it to me. How do the people in the group(s) tell if they are in one group of nine or two different groups?

It is not up to us to tell how many people are in a group, it is up to the group in question. Count the number of people you are standing around with, including yourself. Is it more than 6? Go join the other group. There is nothing to say that you can't meet up in a single day with more than 5 other people, just not at any one time.

Yes the logic it stupid, but the rules aren't.

CptBeaky I disagree, the rules are as stupid as the logic.

We are a family of 4, (previously 5), my eldest recently moved in with his partner and they have a 10-month-old baby. This new rule of 6 means they can no longer come and visit us as a “family” …. unless they leave someone behind. Although they can all still come and visit – just not together. Example Situation: Saturday morning they take baby to one set of grandparents while they go do some shopping. After shopping they call in to visit our family as they can’t come if baby is with them (over 6). They then decide they’d like to go out for a meal and ask if we will look after baby while they go. They collect baby from Grandparent house and one of them drops him off at our house (not both), he stays for a couple of hours before being collected again by mum or dad (not both) and taken home.

So, in the space of a few hours, we can have a visit from “mum and dad” as long as they don’t bring their child, we can then look after said child as long as only one parent brings him, then at the end of the day child goes back home… to mum and dad. How does that make sense?  The rule of 6 has stopped them coming as a “family” yet still allows all of them to visit me in my home, on the same day and in the space of just a few hours. Total madness.  Please tell me how this rule is not stupid.

Originally Posted by: Cheeky Me

CptBeaky I disagree, the rules are as stupid as the logic.

At no point have I said they are not stupid. They are almost a parody of a good rule. All I am saying is that they are not complicated. Basically we (as a population) have not been able to do the most simple of distancing during the re-opening. The whole time we have blamed the government, dispite the fact that everyone seemed to spend half their time looking for ways in which the rules did not apply to them. Then we feign anger/surprise when it all goes to pot. So this time the government has made the rules as simple as possible, so that even the morons that I see hanging around the park in packs of 20+ can understand it.

Unfortunatly any rule this simple is also completely illogical. That combined with the usual pleasing of donators to the politcal party ends up making a mockery of any semblance of sense they could have pretended was in there. You can meet up with a load of mates and shoot things, but not just stand together in the same field/woods not shooting things.....