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.

'Nuanced' and 'subtle' lying doesn't half sound like 'alternative facts.'

I've already said that I don't really care too much what other people do, but the pseudo-intellectual posturing over saving a few quid by lying about your kids ages is a bit hard to take.

gluteus, you might as well go mug an old lady on pension day, haven't you seen the light that its exactly the same thing?

It is obtaining services by deception, which is fraud, under the Fraud Act 2009.

To paraphrase section 2, according to my reading of the act, the actual offence is making a false representation (lying about the child's age), knowing that the representation is or might be untrue, with intent to make gain for yourself (not having to pay the right admission price).

So no, it is not theft. But it is still illegal.

Definitely lie. And I'm usually honest to a fault, but everyone does this. It's extortionate otherwise. DD is really small for her age and I'm so gonna do this as long as I can get away with it. Mum was saying I was 11 up until I was 14!

'Nuanced' and 'subtle' lying doesn't half sound like 'alternative facts

Only to people with the subtlety of a sledgehammer.

gluteustothemaximus:

That someone knows you are cheating them doesn't make it okay.

ImFuckingSpartacus:

It is excuses. What you are talking about is against the law and dishonest. Pretending people who don't agree just lack your obvious 'intellect' is not going to win you this argument.

Roll on pension day

Trifle, I don't care what you think about it, that is how it works. It really couldn't matter less what your opinion is.

I have done this, probably 3/4 times when my child. Not every time we went out on a family outing, but a few times. I don't feel bad about it or guilty, neither do I consider myself to be fundamentally dishonest. It doesn't mean I am dishonest or fraudulent in every situation with which I'm faced.
I don't care if other people do or don't do it. Sometimes I don't pay 5p for a plastic bag at the supermarket, so I guess I'm a thief too.

So it's not stealing it's something else now?

Can you see why it's hard for anyone to take these hysterical labels seriously?

Actually Sukie, I'm the** only one in my family who hasn't cut anyone out. I see things quite clearly, rather than the way it suits me.

Accessing a service which you are supposed to pay for, but not paying for it, is fraud. Saying your child is a different age than they are is lying.

If you want to do it, fine.

People who run businesses tend to prefer people to pay for the service they use. People who pay to use services don't like to think someone else is getting it for free.

I don't think this is a situation that calls for subtlety.

It's like inflating an insurance claim, not declaring all your income, etc. Just because you think everyone does it, doesn't mean it's right.

Trainspotting1984:

No. It is clearly illegal.

STG you have no idea whether it's obtaining services by deception. That's not for you to decide.

ImFuckingSpartacus:

I understand that you know you are wrong and your only recourse is "I don't care". That's fine.

I think your the hysterical one Trifle

Oops sorry forgot you are not talking to me.......

I find this quite fascinating. Do you not realise that morality isn't absolute? The whole point of it is that everyone has different morals and ethics. You very much come across as though you don't understand that?

That's to trifle and popcorn btw

I'm surprised how many people on this thread (1) lie, (2) think it's OK and (3) try to justify it

Suppose a venue has running costs of £1,000 per day. 100 visitors arrive. If they all pay £10, then this covers the running costs. However, if 90 visitors pay and 10 sneak in without paying, then the cost is split between 90 people = £11.11 per person. I don't see how you can think it's fair to expect the remaining visitors to subsidise you

Aw, you got it arseways yet again Trifle! Never mind pet, better luck next time you throw out a logic dart with your eyes closed.

Yes, that fact that people don't realise that morality isn't absolute is worrying, isn't it?

If everything wasn't so overpriced people wouldn't feel the need to lie. It is extortionate what Zoos, sea life centres, theme parks etc all charge. It's beyond ridiculous.

So yes, I do lie about my child's age, and will continue to do so until it's too obvious

Trainspotting1984:

'Morality isn't absolute' - true.

But if you accept that most moral systems include notions of both property and theft, and you endorse those notions by owning things yourself: 'Deceiving people to obtain things you don't need is wrong' - also true.

They dont count children young enough not to pay welove so those that fib about it are changing nothing as those children must still be young enough to pass otherwise they would be questioned and charged admission. We are not talking about adults sneaking in.
If a venue cannot run due to not enough paying visitors then they wont let anyone in for free but thats not what happens.

ImFuckingSpartacus:

Being rude won't help you either. You're wrong and a sore loser. But you have what you want, if what you want is for me to disengage with you.

But if you accept that most moral systems include notions of both property and theft, and you endorse those notions by owning things yourself: 'Deceiving people to obtain things you don't need is wrong' - also true

No.
We can accept notions of property and theft, and not agree on what constitutes stealing.
Again, individualistic morality.

Makes no sense trifle im afraid.

Welovepancakes you're missing the vital point -that most days they will
Have 500 visitors.