Lying about child's age for free admission

[user1489773847]

Costing out a day trip to the zoo, now that DC has turned two have to factor in their ticket cost. DH says that we should just say he isn't yet two so it's free, and that everyone does it. Just wondered what the general consensus is on this? I feel bad lying but see his point that DS is still pretty young and could end up napping through a lot of it so won't necessarily benefit.

Trainspotting1984:

Why isn't it stealing?

Glad if by the age of 14 the children have not been taught that under age drinking and smoking is illegal then that is a failure on the parents part. I doubt its because at age 3 they were told they were 2

Or do you expect 14 yo to think and behave lime 2 yo?

I did it for ages as my DTs were so small.

How IS it stealing? Stealing is: Taking another persons property without permission and intending to keep it

How does your situation fit that?

Oh dear, OP forgot the first rule of Fight Club.

Do NOT talk about Fight Club.

Trainspotting1984:

Take a zoo. You enter with 3 kids, only one of whom is eligible for free entry, but you lie and say they are all eligible. The theft is of their revenue, which they rightfully expect if you use their service.

Thats deceit at best.

Not paying when you should be is one of the reasons the prices are going up!

Rubbish... prices go up because they can get away with it, which is also why when you get inside the price most of them charge for food & drink is way over the top and can not be justified!

The theft is not their revenue. Their revenue never existed

Look, you can't just make up scenarios that fit your idea of stealing. You can't just fashion this into some kind of crime because you're so morally outraged that's all you can do to desperately label it as SOMETHING REALLY BAD.

Bookeatingboy:

Prices for food and drink in a place you don't need to go to (theme park/zoo/soft play) don't need to be justified. They can charge whatever they want. They can also charge whatever they want for a ticket. What can't be justified is obtaining that ticket using deception.

Trainspotting1984:

I'm not morally outraged. But you are wrong. A company offers a service, for which they charge X for entry. You use their service by entering the facility. They have a reasonable expectation of and right to the revenue from charging you accurately. If you lie, you are the one in the wrong. It's so obvious it doesn't even bear debate.

i don't know why people are bothering trying to persuade others that they themselves are right, and they, the others, are wrong. This has never worked in the history of man

I would have done this more throughout DS's childhood it it wasn't for him having aspergers and correcting me every time I said he was a year younger than he was!

They have a reasonable expectation of and right to the revenue from charging you accurately. If you lie, you are the one in the wrong

They don't expect that. It's fully expected and even sometimes encouraged by companies that people will lie about childrens ages.
Your "if you can't afford full price for everyone don't go stance" make me you feel all warm and self-righteous, but it wouldn;t be shared by the companies themselves. '

Think about is, zoo admission for maybe 2 adults and one child, they lie and get another child in for free. Then some food in the concessions, something in the gift shop, maybe use of vending machines, possibly parking costs.
Lie about the kid, the zoo gets maybe 30 to 80 quid revenue from that family. They don't go because paying for a 2 year old pisses them off, zoo gets ZERO.
Which do you think they would rather you do?

Its both expected and welcomed.

They don't expect that. It's fully expected and even sometimes encouraged by companies that people will lie about childrens ages.

Bollocks.

My oh recently took dc to oxygen (trampoline Park) they asked how old ds was and he said 4 thinking he'd get in free, they then told him because he's that age dp would have to pay for an adult ticket to accompany him. He then said "I'll ring his mum to double check" and I obviously I said he's 7, dp told them but they were a bit skeptical, 8 yo Dd1 was stood next to him at the time and even though there's less than a year between them she's huge compared to him, they pointed out the size different but carried on anyway.

My parents lied about my age to save money (I looked really, really young). I hated it. It was embarrassing and felt so wrong that it was hard to enjoy the activities they were saving money on. For your child's sake, please don't get into the habit of lying. She might not realize it now, but they are aware of quite a lot even at age 2. Either they'll be bothered by it (especially when at the age where rules are black and white), or they'll take it as an excuse to lie when it benefits them (buying movies, games, alcohol underage for instance). It's just not a good habit to get into.

Lying to get a cheaper ticket or free entry is fraud, plain and simple. You can try to justify it however you like and it is a matter for your conscience but it's interesting how many people think it is ok because entrance charges (or whatever else) are too big to begin with. This way of thinking is one of the reasons charges are so high in the first place. We pay more in a shop because paying customers have to pay for shoplifters, security guards and alarms. We pay more for public transport because paying customers have to pay for fare-dodgers. We pay more for car insurance because of fraudulent claimants.

I'm sure someone who lied about their child's age to get cheaper entry into a zoo would be livid and distraught if they came back to find their home had been robbed because they forgot to lock the door. "A world of difference" you might say, and you'd be right. But... if the line is drawn somewhere between these two events, at what point exactly does theft begin to matter? It can't purely be based on value, because theft of a low-value item can be just as hurtful as larger scale robbery. Or do you think it is ok to steal from a company, but not an individual, in which case I assume you think there's nothing wrong with the odd bank robbery?

Not bollocks. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it isn't true, and if you're having trouble understanding the concept that businesses prefer to make money than not make money, I'd stop trying if I were you.

Trifle you are wrong: it is not stealing. It is not possible to steal something that never existed. I don't understand what you don't get about that.

Wont anyone think of the children!

ImFuckingSpartacus:

Businesses would prefer that people paid for what they use/access. They may tolerate a certain amount of fraud because it protects other revenue, but that isn't 'welcoming' it. Either way, it's deception and it's wrong. You're scrabbling round for excuses but it's not convincing.

Trainspotting1984:

Legally it is probably not theft, fair enough. It is probably obtaining services by deception or similar. Big legal it isn't, because morally it is stealing.

It's not excuses, its fact. A very well known one in the businesses we are discussing. You may be unfamiliar with how it all works, but don't let that get in the way of your entrenched opinions, will you?

Companies are not stupid. They are fully aware that people might not correct the person charging for the entrance tickets, if they assume the child is under the age for free entrance.

If they were so bothered, they would ask for ID from the children in question. But they won't ever ask for proof, because that would piss off families, and they are in the business for making money and not pissing off parents. It is only short term anyhow. We aren't talking a long time. A few short months. Not teaching 6 year olds to say they are 3.

But being called pathetic, immoral, and a scumbag has been enlightening. I am now genuinely worried about my slippery slope into the world of stealing and criminal activity.