To lie about DD's age to get her in free?

[Kasterborous]

I'm prepared to be told I was being unreasonable. We took DD who turned three 24 days ago to our local Wildlife park today. Under three they get in free, over three it's £10.00 which seems a lot so we said she was two. I know it was dishonest and next time we will pay for her.

I wonder how the super rich justify their fiddling too.

Of course the fiddling by the super rock is reprehensible. It doesn't make small scale fraud and theft ok in my opinion. Why should I pay more as an adult because so any people think it's ok to scam their children into places for free? Is it OK for adults who look old for their age to claim to be pensioners to get a reduction? Is it OK to borrow someone's blue badge to save on car parking on a day out as the car park admits blue badge holders free?

Super rich not rock.

I think a lot of people would steal more frequently if they thought they could get away with it. Unfortunately, it's fairly easy to lie about your kids ages.

StayingSamVimesGirl
That was some leap...saying I want to believe everyone is dishonest.

There is the law...then there are the norms and values within society. These are not necessarily the same thing. So...you know you sometimes go over the speed limit so correct it immediately? Doesn't matter - you broke the law; but most would agree that most people sometimes creep over the 30mph and shouldn't be arrested the minute it happens. And I know you will say it isn't premeditated .... but you know you do it so why haven't you taken steps to correct it?

Anyhow...OP...YAstillNBU

I'm sure that's the case Err. Most people will do anything as long as they're not caught.

I am quite intrigued by the number of people ignoring the point that a zoo, specifically, has huge costs associated with it and by not paying you are making it that bit harder to stay afloat. And that what suffers as a result are the animals. And that there are high entrance fees partly because some people find ways around paying so everyone else has to pay more.
Because the costs stay the same regardless so you can't just have less money coming in - the animals won't eat less just to reflect your gate takings that week....

It's exactly the same principle as shop lifting - something has been bought by the place (stock in a shop, food for animals, medication etc in a zoo). You have chosen to buy something. The shop stock, the experience of seeing the animals - it may not be a physical product but it us something you have decided to have, which comes at a cost to the venue. You decide you want it cheaper or for free. The place loses out and has to compensate elsewhere (usually with higher costs imposed on others). Why is it different to shop lifting?

Just because things are commonly done and got away with doesn't make it ok. It's like the people who claim for spurious injuries after a bump in the car. They'll say 'Oh everyone does it, what difference does it make if I do too'. It doesn't matter if everyone else does it, it's still fraud.

But...the economic arguments on this thread are a nonsense. The farms and so on are businesses. Their charges are not based on covering costs but maximising profit. So if people defraud them they make less profit. And if enough people do it they don't make any profit and go out of business.

Farms maximise profit. Zoos don't.

Most zoos now do stash money away if possible – I know of at least one zoo that got badly burnt during the foot and mouth crisis and only kept going because the staff volunteered to keep coming to work without pay – for four weeks – in order to keep the animals cared for.
I also know of at least one zoo that has been living on reserves – ie not making enough at the gate, and paying for things by dipping into money saved during a previous good period. The threat of closure is hanging heavy.
Most zoos I know plough money back into either improving things for their animals, or put it into in-situ conservation. The vast majority are charities and as such don’t ‘maximise profit’ in the same way.

I have been involved in discussions whereby a pricing structure was debated based on how much we needed to keep the place running, at a basic level (that being the minimum we wanted to achieve) and then what else we wanted to do, and the various fundraising strategies to achieve that second set of goals. Then we looked at visitor numbers and worked out how much we would need the visitors to pay in order to cover the basic running costs. And then we thrashed out a compromise based on what was sensible to expect people to fork out. And then we made up the rest from extra fundraising.

So yes, the economic arguments mean that the place might go out of business. Which is a real threat for some places. You are not withholding a few pounds from an already huge bank account.

Babybythesea, you raise excellent points. The scammers on here aren't responding as there is no way to counter your arguments. The zoos need x pounds to treat their animals well. If they don't get x pounds (because of those sneaking in without paying) either the animals lose out or the honest visitors have to pay more. Nothing complicated. I'm sure some of these scammers would however regard themselves as animal lovers .

Bloody hell, there's people on here so sanctimonious and obsessed with doing what they're told, I imagine they'd have grassed up the Maquis: 'rules are rules, you know'.

Thank you for responding to me - I was starting to wonder if I was the only person who could see my posts because no-one was answering any of my points!

I think the one thing it has shown me is just how little people understand of the costs of running a zoo. I can't speak for farms etc. But I do know zoos. And I know how much can be spent just on, for example, insects for the birds during a breeding season, insects that the chicks need to survive. How much it costs to DNA sex a bird, which is often the only way to identify if it's a boy or a girl which is kind of important if you are planning to breed them. How brilliant some of the new vet medications can be, but how damn expensive they can also be.

So the line about maximising profit made me laugh. In a hollow sort of way.

You say "...and ignore the 'holier than thou' crowd. They will say they have never ever broken a rule / the law.....but I wonder if every single one of them has never driven over the speed limit?", Caboodle, but when I am honest about making mistakes, you get nasty.

I am going to hide this thread now. I am sick and tired of people thinking it is OK to steal,or defraud, and equally OK to be vicious to people who don't choose to be dishonest.

There's also an undercurrent of snobbery, as so often on MN: ' I go skiing several times a year, but if the proles can't afford to go to Mr Ripoff's Theme Park, then they shouldn't go.'

Or people who've worked with the impact of not having enough money to do what needs to be done, who would therefore not want to rip others off in the same way.

Random do you really believe that all the people in this thread who say they do this, do it because they genuinely can't afford it?

It's not snobbery to say if you can't afford something don't do it.

I am sick and tired of people thinking it is OK to steal,or defraud, and equally OK to be vicious to people who don't choose to be dishonest

Agreed.

Random - you are so far from the truth it's not funny. We have very little money. As in, I have been in the supermarket and not been able to pay for the food I have in the trolley. And I still don't defraud people because I know the impact it has on the organisation. It's not sanctimonious. Or snobbery. It's fact - it's not a victimless crime. Which impacts the business and also the staff who work there.

And high entrance prices mean I can't afford to go to lots of places I'd like my kids to see. I'm a prole. Who pays, or doesn't go.

Sneaky shabby behaviour. Setting a rubbish example to dc by lying outright to someone's face to save a few quid. So slipping a few items in your bag would be ok while out shopping if you think the stuff is overpriced? Depressing thread.

YANBU if they are that strict about needing the money etc they should have asked your Ds for some ID

As some of the people proudly saying they like to get away with not paying also manage to spend £50 in the giftshop I'd say you were so far off the mark as to be talking rubbish Random.

As so often happens with petty thieves, or those who defraud others 'because they can', poverty rarely comes into it, because generally speaking the people with not much cash to flash are moral enough to know right from wrong, and as others have said, you can't afford to pay for Peppa Pig world? Then don't go. The ethics isn't difficult to grasp.

Babybythesea, I think you took my comment the wrong way, I'm not defending fraud at all. I was thinking more of petting farms than zoos. Charities might be different but I'd depends on their aims. In a lot of cases they try to charge the most they can because they need it to support their work. And if people don't pay then they wont have as much to out towards their objectives.

Apologies if I got defensive. I really can only speak for zoos because it's what I know and you probably have a point about petting farms etc!

The scammers on here aren't responding as there is no way to counter your argument

And there is no point. Because we just get told we're just trying to justify our terrible actions and how awful we are and what a bad example we are setting to our kids blah blah blah.

If Zoo's are that hard up for cash perhaps they should be stricter and ask for ID for children.