青岛38元大虾的那些英语 看BBC如何报道

试图向当地机关求助tried to seek help from local authorities

付巨大一笔钱pay a hefty sum of money

引起全国愤怒cause a national furore (美语:furor)

纠正价格违法行为correct unlawful pricing practices

民愤public outrage

以上海鲜按个计价the seafood listed above is priced per item

在网站显著位置刊登这条新闻carry the story prominently on the website

报警call in the police

定价过高的酒店和餐馆overpriced hotels and restaurants

装点门面window dressing

被宰be overcharged for sth.

新鲜大虾 freshly caught prawns

成为微博热门话题become a trending topic on Weibo

也许是我们想得太简单，但是中国企业违法成本太低却是不争的事实（undeniable/indisputable fact）。窃以为，如果监管能够罚得企业肉疼，比如像美国罚英国石油（BP）208亿美元、大众180亿美元那样，像台湾惩罚康师傅那样，很多事情其实很容易解决，至少会有很大程度的缓解，包括食品卫生。

至于青岛相关政府部门为什么不能积极响应游客诉求，说白了其实就是他们不是这个事件的stakeholder，他们认为这个事情是否及时处理与自身利益关系不大（至少他们在当时应该是这么认为，当然等事后事情闹大了，他们后悔也迟了）——所幸，现在还有社交媒体。

下面为大家摘录一些最新的段子：

自从青岛大虾事件后,做事也比较谨慎了。今天去理发,谨慎地看了一下价格表,确定是18元。然后找来了理发师和店长,再次确认理发一次一共18元而不是每根头发18元吧。录音拍照后开理！这年头搞不好理一次发就会倾家荡产。挣钱不容易,花钱别大意！吃虾须警惕！

被宰的王先生又一次来到青岛,来到这家叫“善德”的海鲜烧烤店,这次王先生长了心眼，只点了一只虾,结账的时候，老板说：这只虾肚子里怀有200只小虾，王先生听后立即不省人事。

那天去青岛街边有炸蜈蚣,招牌上写着美味大补，一条18元。怪我嘴馋买了一条结果结账妈的一条蜈蚣腿18元。

国庆期间，外地的王先生赶到青岛想去吃38元一只的海捕大虾，因饭店爆满，王先生就点了盘8元瓜子边嗑边等。谁知轮到王先生就餐时，店员却要他先交6万，原来该店的瓜子不是8元一盘，而是8元一个！曾夺过全国嗑瓜子速度冠军的王先生非常后悔。后面排队买单的李先生当场休克，手里紧紧握着小票：米饭，3元。

我在青岛要喝青岛啤酒，再点一盘花生米，完了买单，边数瓶子边起身，“老板，几瓶啤酒多少钱？”老板答：“我们青岛人好客，啤酒不要钱白送，我们来数一下花生米。”

以下是BBC的报道：

Authorities in the eastern Chinese city of Qingdao have said they are fining a restaurant 90,000 yuan (£9,300; $14,160) for “misleading consumers” over what’s been termed the “38 yuan large prawn” scandal.

A diner on Sunday ordered a dish of prawns marked as 38 yuan at the Shande Live Seafood and Barbecued Home-cooked Dishes restaurant, but was given a bill for 1,520 yuan (£160; $240) after he was told the price was per prawn.

The diner tried to seek help from local authorities, but in the end still had to pay a hefty sum, causing a national furore.

Qingdao authorities said Shande was not only fined but also ordered to “correct its unlawful pricing practices”. The restaurant was reportedly shut on Tuesday.

‘So much distrust’

News organisations had picked up the story on Monday after the disgruntled customer went on microblogging network Weibo to complain. What followed was public outrage directed not just at the restaurant but also at local authorities for failing to help the diner.

The fine has not stemmed the wave of criticism online over the handling of the case. Many on the Qingdao authorities’ Weibo pages called for local officials to be held responsible, punished, and even sacked.

Chinese sociologist Ding Xueliang said the uproar illustrated how “people, for many years, have accumulated so much distrust of consumer rights in China”.

State media outlets including the People’s Daily have carried the story prominently on their websites

Reports said that the diner, a tourist from Nanjing named Mr Zhu, had called in the police twice. He said the first time officers told him they could not do anything as it was a “price dispute”, and said he needed to consult the local trade and industry bureau – which was shut.

The second time they were called in, Mr Zhu said he was advised to give the money to the restaurant owner.

“The people who deserve the most punishment in this case are the policemen who were dispatched to help the man, what on Earth were you doing?” said Weibo user Fanny_fanxiaoqing.

Said Aleigedai: “What makes this so chilling is not just an unscrupulous shop cheating customers, but also the police’s uncaring behaviour.”

The timing of the row may have contributed to the outrage – it came near the end of China’s “golden week” national public holiday, when many travel elsewher in the country and have to contend with inevitably overpriced hotels and restaurants.

Qingdao is also a popular tourist destination.

The eastern port city of Qingdao is known for its pleasant weather and beaches

‘Football game’

But the case has also tapped into lingering unhappiness over the lack of enforcement of consumer rights, despite moves in recent years to strengthen laws.

Prof Ding, who is with the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, notes that the government has long established a network of consumer rights bureaus in cities and towns.

“But in most places these organisations are just window dressing for local government. Officials are reluctant to enforce the laws because they are afraid of hurting local businesses,” he says.

“In many cases you can complain but nothing can be done. What doesn’t help is there are many layers of government and departments will push the issue to elsewher – it’s like a football game.”

The Qingdao prawn case is unlikely to change the situation, but it does prove that consumers now have one way to get concrete help, he adds.

“Many people now have a smartphone and know how to use social media. The biggest thing is that they can now go online, publicise the matter, and try to get redress this way.”