I'm getting a lot of questions about rules for organising weddings 💒

Obviously a big worry for people as could end up with a £10,000 fixed penalty notice if they don't follow rules (including law and even guidance).

What questions do you have about covid rules and weddings?
OK, so the problem, I think, isn't with people organising weddings - it's that the law is confusing. And I'm afraid I might not be able to make it entirely clear. Because it's not.
The starting point is anyone who "hold[s], or [is] involved in the holding of, a relevant gathering" can get a £10,000 fixed penalty notice

A relevant gathering is a gathering of more than 30 people where no exception applies

legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/364/… Image
There are many potential exceptions but the relevant ones to weddings from 11:55pm on 20 June (don't ask) are these: ImageImage
The new rules mean (in summary) that the strict numbers limits have been removed and you can have a marriage ceremony and wedding reception indoors with however many people the venue considers to be safe - as long as not in a private dwelling.
But here's the difficulty.

The gathering organiser or manager (which could be the people getting married or the wedding planner... etc) need to follow the "required precautions". Image
The "required precautions" are defined here:

legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/364/…

Key is you have to:

take into account—
(a)the risk assessment carried out under paragraph (2), and
(b)any guidance issued by the government which is relevant to the gathering Image
Now here's the rub. If you don't take the "required precautions" your gathering no longer falls within the marriage/wedding reception exception.

Which means if your gathering is more than 30 people, you could get a £10,000 fixed penalty notice.

Ouch! 🎁
And here's the second difficulty - to take the "required precautions" you have to "take into account" "any guidance issued by the government which is relevant to the gathering".
I have often said that the law and guidance are separate, and guidance is what you should follow and law is what you must follow.

But with this aspect of the regulations you actually do need *legally* to take into account the guidance. So it's complicated.
What guidance is "relevant to the gathering"?

Well, obviously it's this

"How to safely plan a wedding or civil partnership, or funeral, wake or commemoration"

gov.uk/guidance/coron…
But also, this!

"Wedding and civil partnership ceremonies, receptions and celebrations"

I don't know why there are two sets of guidance

gov.uk/guidance/coron…
OK, so far so good.

But the second lot of guidance cross refers to other non-wedding guidance

Such as this on social distancing gov.uk/guidance/meeti…

And this gov.uk/marriages-civi…

But it get's more complicated
Because the guidance cross-refers to lots more

including

guidance for hotel and other accommodation providers
guidance on performing arts
guidance on face coverings
guidance on shielding and protecting vulnerable people
guidance for restaurants, pubs, bars and takeaway service Image
This is impossible to figure out for the public. You can keep clicking through guidance and it is tens of thousands of words. What is meant to apply? Of course most relevant guidance has wedding written at the top - but it does specifically tell you to look at the other guidance
To take a practical example - I was told earlier today that some venues are saying that people have to sit at maximum tables of 6. This doesn't come from the wedding guidance but the pub guidance, which is cross referred. What are venues meant to do about this?
Most importantly, how are people meant to know how they are not going to be subject to a £10,000 fixed penalty notice from police who are no more able to figure this out than the public?!
Anyway, I'll sleep on it and try and answer some of the specific questions.

I can say now that I'm pretty confident you can't hold a wedding reception 10 years after your wedding @JuliaHB1!
This is good advice to anyone organising a wedding. Keep a note of what guidance you are taking into account and how. The more detail, the better (annoying, I know)
Me on @TimesRadio this morning pointing out some of the issues with voluminous guidance which can contradict itself

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Adam Wagner

Adam Wagner Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AdamWagner1

16 Jun
This would raise interesting issues if it went to court. A long-standing teacher at an Orthodox Jewish studies college lost her post because she qualified as a female rabbi (still not permitted by most of the Orthodox world).
Sounds like sex discrimination as I assume she wouldn't have lost her post if she was a man who qualified as a rabbi. They would argue, I imagine, that any individual who breached Orthodox 'red lines' would not be able to teach. But if those red lines only exist for women...
I know there are exemptions for religious institutions in the Equality Act 2010. But would they apply in this case?

(equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-…)

@JasonBraier knows more than I ImageImage
Read 4 tweets
15 Jun
Very interesting development. If compulsory vaccination to work in the front line was going to happen anywhere first, it was going to be the care home sector.

Raises difficult, complicated issues - though certainly not clear it would be illegal bbc.co.uk/news/uk-574922…
The first big question is what happens to people who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons - the article suggests some will be redeployed off the front line, I would imagine that this would have to happen (rather than sacking) for that group.
Second big question is whether vaccination is something which can reasonably be a requirement as part of an employment contract. It's a medical procedure, even if it is a relatively benign one (that is, very low risk of side effect and obvious positive impact).
Read 6 tweets
14 Jun
The courts have been reluctant to intervene with Covid restrictions but I do think there will come a time - perhaps it has even come - that there are decent prospects for a legal challenge to a refusal to allow a business such as a nightclub to open to double vaccinated customers
I appreciate there are possible arguments against such as strains getting through vaccines but the risk is significantly reduced that it is arguably below the risk of any other reason for shutting venues and closing businesses.
Article 1 of protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights requires that any interference with the ‘peaceful enjoyment of property’ must be proportionate. Big socioeconomic decisions such as this are hard to challenge as the state is given a wide margin. But…
Read 5 tweets
9 Jun
This reminds me of the 'Jack Bauer fallacy' I sometimes talk about in the context of terrorism. It is correct that the public, in the throes of a crisis, sometimes signal that they want officials to 'throw off the red tape' and 'dispense with niceties to get things DONE'...
... and the most recent example pre COVID was the ticking bomb - you think a suspect has the location... do you torture? The argument for: we will save lives if the torture works. Argument against: we will fall below an essential standard that democratic societies don't torture..
... and you see this argument over public procurement. "Yes of course we broke the rules, wouldn't you have? I had a mate who could provide 200m masks tomorrow, no time for niceties... we saved many lives!" The approach is superficially attractive as how can you argue against...
Read 8 tweets
9 Jun
Another important decision. This is the full judgment: drive.google.com/file/d/1zf_3NX…

The claim succeeded on Ground 3, about real possibility of bias. Probably the most important ground as it isn't an attack on the specific contract but about the principle of fair administration
What I find so impressive about @GoodLawProject is they are taking an attritional approach - claim after claim all focussed on establishing principles of good administration. Very few public lawyers have the resources and strategic approach to achieve this
It's difficult to explain how difficult it is to bring a single public law case against the government - to find the right case, the enormous funds required to protect your clients... taking this kind strategic approach is almost impossible, but it's getting results.
Read 11 tweets
7 Jun
Here's a legal puzzle in three tweets

"26.—(1) The following Regulations are revoked—
...
(b)the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel) (England) Regulations 2020 (“the International Travel Regulations”)"

legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/582/…

1/3
"(4) Nothing in these Regulations applies in relation to a person who arrived in England before 4.00 a.m. on 17th May 2021 (and accordingly, the regulations mentioned in paragraph (1) continue to have effect in relation to such a person)."

2/3
How can regulations both be revoked and continue to have effect?

Or is what is really happening that they have been revoked *except* for people who arrived before 4am on 17 May 2021?

3/3
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(