But legally the groups of six outdoors prior to last week was guidance, not law. The legally enforced number was 30 people. That created considerable confusion, in fact people were surprised that it was originally so high (see this topic's posts when it was announced). Prior to that, there were changes from law to guidance for gatherings when lockdown lifted too.
But I'm not specifically only talking about the rule of six though, I'm talking about the changes as a whole and the way they are communicated in general which creates confusion. Local lockdowns announced on Twitter with nothing from the council for hours as they haven't been briefed, certain journalists being briefed a day or two before. That needs to stop. It creates uncertainty and confuses the public unnecessarily. The more that happens, the more people become annoyed, and the less supportive they are of what is being asked of them.
One piece of legislation alone - The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) has been amended 4 times since it was first laid in mid-July and is now some 2100 words from 800 words. In some cases, these amendments have been laid just minutes before they come into law. That's not acceptable when businesses, councils and the police are relying on the detail within these to help enforce them, or those in the legal world who would like to scrutinise them.
It should be said that I am for rules to be in place to try and reduce the virus spreading, but it needs to be done properly, and so far that hasn't been the case. A prime example that had the potential to affect me directly was the "north east lockdown". Constant rumours flying around for days, and people from across my area being confused because the initial briefings to MPs and later to journalists were not clear enough in specifying the areas affected. Then the changes are announced but the old phrase "the details will come tomorrow/later" is what brings out the annoyance from people.