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.

I'm not a sore loser, and you aren't right just because you can't understand an opposing viewpoint!

Most places now have only free under age of 2 so then 2 year old sneak in but by 3 they can't do it anymore and so then they get their free under age of 3 policy! Just annoying for all the honest parents of 2 year olds!

Trainspotting1984:

Why does it not make sense?

@Trainspotting1984 - the attraction will be providing a service - you are paying to see the animals, go on the ride, visit the castle, etc - these are the services that the attraction is providing.

If you lie about a child's age - that is deception.

If you lie about the child's age to obtain use of the services (seeing the animals, visiting the castle, going on the rides), you have used deception to obtain those services.

Yup. Individual dickishness.

sookies 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

Lying about a child's age to avoid paying the child admission price is the same principle as adults sneaking in. Either way, someone is coming in without paying & others have to pay extra as a result, to cover the running costs

d0ris 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

The admission price would be lower if everyone paid what they owed. Anyway, nobody "needs" to lie. They choose to.

Yes, admission prices are high, due to high running costs

No welove they dont because the venues have no idea who is lying and who isnt so cannot price hike as a result as they have no evidence. They price hike regardless.
If everyone told the truth and never lied the prices would still be high.

Of course prices aren't hiked up by people lying!

Attractions give 2 for 1 offers all the time. And actually they lose £30 entrance if families don't go instead of lying and probably another tenner in ice creams!

I am incredibly thick I must admit, but how does paying nothing for a sleeping child of just over two instead of paying the "correct" £4.50 entrance fee really affect the running costs of, for example, a zoo?

It's doesn't. Posters don't know the first thing about pricing theory (as well as not understanding they are not qualified to find someone guilty of a crime)

Anyway, unless we have true Socialists on the thread - people who would advocate shared property ownership, requisition of housing, equal wages for all - what we have here is a group of people who are happy to own things, buy things, exclude others from use of those things and presumably make a profit from selling things to people who can afford them, but want to moan about services being too expensive and pretend it's justifiable to obtain those services for free by lying. It is very hypocritical.

Tut Train this is MN. Its full of lawyers/judges and doctors dont ya know

One day you will hurt yourself falling from that hight horse of yours.

My DD was a titch and got into the local farm park free til about 18 months (it was under 1's free). Otherwise it was £8 per child. Bollocks to that, I already paid £7 just for me to go in!

puppymonkey I agree that some of the running costs will be the same regardless of the number of visitors eg cost of animal food. My point is that if all the visitors pay, instead of only the honest ones, then the cost is split between more people. If only the honest ones pay, then the venue has to charge a higher price because the running cost is split between fewer people

welove they let under 3s go free so how do they know how many lie? How do they know how many are honest?
They dont know do they so you cannot say those that fib are the reason the price is high as the venue has no bloomin way if knowingng who is fibbing and who isnt!

God this is wearing.

Oh sookies I know. But what's really is the manage to be the police, cps, judge and jury all in one

Sure why not? We told our children they cannot be prosecuted for crimes until they are 11. It makes shopping so much easier. They know not to ask for things and instead just put them in their pockets.

Trainspotting1984:

You haven't explained why it doesn't make sense? You're criticising those of us saying this is wrong and insisting they are trying to be X, Y, Z, but refusing to explain why your moral code allows this.

I once got my 'twins' in for free in the safari park. My DS was 5 and DD3. They are the same size!!!

No trifle, I'm saying it's not stealing, fraud or diceit. You couldn't possibly know whether it's criminally prosecutable or what the outcome would be. Do you agree?

Secondly. My moral code allows this because it's different to yours. And it doesn't need to be justifiable to you. Does that make sense?

I once lied about ds13 being 12, as he wanted the childrens set menu, and I didn't want to pay for an adult meal as he wasn't yet an adult.

Thanks to this thread, I have now found my moral compass and will be shortly handing myself into the local police station where I will no doubt be charged with fraud and making a false statement with intent to deceive

Trainspotting1984:

None of that makes sense. Of course I can say it is illegal - there is a law against it. Black and white.

And obviously your moral code is different - mine doesn't include obtaining services by deception, yours clearly does. I can only assume, if you're not prepared to explain why, it's because you know there isn't a justification for that difference beyond "I want it".

Where is the law against it?