Questões de Concurso

Mr. Law´s invention

    Less than a year ago the judges on the reality programme Dragon´s Den rejected his invention. Now inventor Rob Law is having the last laugh after a product considered “worthless” on the BBC television programme for young entrepreneurs has proved a huge commercial hit.
    Mr. Law, 29, from Bath, spent 11 years – and 17,000 pounds of his own money – refining his design for a wheelie suitcase which doubles up as a child´s ride-on toy. The plastic Trunki case is designed to allow youngsters aged three to six to take their own bag on holiday – and sit on it when they are tired. But when Mr. Law appeared on Dragons´ Den last September, he was given a hard time by the famously unfriendly panel of investors.
    Businessman Theo Paphitis ridiculed the product after managing to pull off one of the straps. His colleague Deborah Meadon, head of a holiday firm, declared bluntly that there was no market for the case. And the notoriously brusque tele-communications tycoon Peter Jones declared: “I meet people like you all the time – you think you have something. I tell you, you don´t”. The panel declined Mr. Law´s offer to give up 10 percent of his new company in return for a 100,000 pounds investment – an offer which valued the firm at 1 million.
    However, it now appears that the experts were wrong. After a succession of positive press reviews, Mr. Law has sold 85,000 of his trunki suitcases. It is marketed in 22 countries via a network of distributors. Retailing at 25 pounds, it has proved a hit at several high street stores. Mr Law said: “When I went on to the programme I was full of confidence that I was going to get the investment I needed. But they were rude and obnoxious and just focused on the strap, which was actually something that was easily fixed. I was terrified that by appearing on the programme I may have ruined my company before it even started. But afterwards we had loads of hits on the website from people who said they thought it was a brilliant idea. Now I am absolutely delighted to have proved the Dragons wrong. It just goes to show you should never give up.
    Mr. Law also revealed that during filming he managed to sell two of the suitcases to Australian panellist Richard Farleigh, who wanted to invest 100,000 pounds in return for half of the company. But Mr. Law rejected the deal. He declined to say exactly how much the company – which is 100% owned by him - is now worth, but said it was more than a million.

(Adapted from New English File Upper, Oxford, 1996)

Mr. Law´s invention

    Less than a year ago the judges on the reality programme Dragon´s Den rejected his invention. Now inventor Rob Law is having the last laugh after a product considered “worthless” on the BBC television programme for young entrepreneurs has proved a huge commercial hit.
    Mr. Law, 29, from Bath, spent 11 years – and 17,000 pounds of his own money – refining his design for a wheelie suitcase which doubles up as a child´s ride-on toy. The plastic Trunki case is designed to allow youngsters aged three to six to take their own bag on holiday – and sit on it when they are tired. But when Mr. Law appeared on Dragons´ Den last September, he was given a hard time by the famously unfriendly panel of investors.
    Businessman Theo Paphitis ridiculed the product after managing to pull off one of the straps. His colleague Deborah Meadon, head of a holiday firm, declared bluntly that there was no market for the case. And the notoriously brusque tele-communications tycoon Peter Jones declared: “I meet people like you all the time – you think you have something. I tell you, you don´t”. The panel declined Mr. Law´s offer to give up 10 percent of his new company in return for a 100,000 pounds investment – an offer which valued the firm at 1 million.
    However, it now appears that the experts were wrong. After a succession of positive press reviews, Mr. Law has sold 85,000 of his trunki suitcases. It is marketed in 22 countries via a network of distributors. Retailing at 25 pounds, it has proved a hit at several high street stores. Mr Law said: “When I went on to the programme I was full of confidence that I was going to get the investment I needed. But they were rude and obnoxious and just focused on the strap, which was actually something that was easily fixed. I was terrified that by appearing on the programme I may have ruined my company before it even started. But afterwards we had loads of hits on the website from people who said they thought it was a brilliant idea. Now I am absolutely delighted to have proved the Dragons wrong. It just goes to show you should never give up.
    Mr. Law also revealed that during filming he managed to sell two of the suitcases to Australian panellist Richard Farleigh, who wanted to invest 100,000 pounds in return for half of the company. But Mr. Law rejected the deal. He declined to say exactly how much the company – which is 100% owned by him - is now worth, but said it was more than a million.

(Adapted from New English File Upper, Oxford, 1996)

Two Meals and Not Always Square

    With budgets tight, states and local governments have been looking at prisons − and prison food − as a place to save money. Three days a week, Georgia now serves inmates only two meals. And across the country, there have been increasing reports of substandard food. This is inhumane. Adequate meals should be a nonnegotiable part of a civilized penal system. It is also bad policy. Researchers have found a connection between poor food quality and discipline problems and violence.
    Georgia has [CONNECTOR] decided to save on staff costs by serving just two meals on Friday, as it already did on Saturday and Sunday. The state says it gives prisoners the same number of calories on days when one meal is skipped. Even if it does − and some prisoners’ advocates are skeptical − it can be oppressive to go so long without eating.
    In Alabama earlier this year, a federal judge ordered the Morgan County sheriff locked up in his own jail for contempt for failing to adequately feed his inmates. Alabama allows sheriffs to keep food money they do not spend, and the sheriff reportedly pocketed more than $200,000 over three years.
    Prisoners’ rights advocates say they are receiving an increasing number of complaints from inmates nationwide who report being served spoiled or inedible food or inadequate portions. Earlier this year, a riot at Reeves County Detention Center in Texas caused heavy damage to a prison building. Inmates said it was prompted in part by poor food.
    Cutbacks in food could violate inmates’ constitutional rights, notes Elizabeth Alexander, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Prison Project, if they create a substantial risk of serious harm − a particular concern for inmates with diabetes and other illnesses.
    If states and localities want to save money on corrections, they should reduce their prison and jail populations. The United States, which has less than 5 percent of the world’s population, has almost one-quarter of its prisoners. Many are in for nonviolent crimes that could be punished in more constructive, and less costly, ways. If governments decide to put inmates behind bars, they have to give them adequate food − which means no less than three healthy meals a day.

(Adapted from The New York Times, June 20, 2009)

Two Meals and Not Always Square

    With budgets tight, states and local governments have been looking at prisons − and prison food − as a place to save money. Three days a week, Georgia now serves inmates only two meals. And across the country, there have been increasing reports of substandard food. This is inhumane. Adequate meals should be a nonnegotiable part of a civilized penal system. It is also bad policy. Researchers have found a connection between poor food quality and discipline problems and violence.
    Georgia has [CONNECTOR] decided to save on staff costs by serving just two meals on Friday, as it already did on Saturday and Sunday. The state says it gives prisoners the same number of calories on days when one meal is skipped. Even if it does − and some prisoners’ advocates are skeptical − it can be oppressive to go so long without eating.
    In Alabama earlier this year, a federal judge ordered the Morgan County sheriff locked up in his own jail for contempt for failing to adequately feed his inmates. Alabama allows sheriffs to keep food money they do not spend, and the sheriff reportedly pocketed more than $200,000 over three years.
    Prisoners’ rights advocates say they are receiving an increasing number of complaints from inmates nationwide who report being served spoiled or inedible food or inadequate portions. Earlier this year, a riot at Reeves County Detention Center in Texas caused heavy damage to a prison building. Inmates said it was prompted in part by poor food.
    Cutbacks in food could violate inmates’ constitutional rights, notes Elizabeth Alexander, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Prison Project, if they create a substantial risk of serious harm − a particular concern for inmates with diabetes and other illnesses.
    If states and localities want to save money on corrections, they should reduce their prison and jail populations. The United States, which has less than 5 percent of the world’s population, has almost one-quarter of its prisoners. Many are in for nonviolent crimes that could be punished in more constructive, and less costly, ways. If governments decide to put inmates behind bars, they have to give them adequate food − which means no less than three healthy meals a day.

(Adapted from The New York Times, June 20, 2009)

Two Meals and Not Always Square

    With budgets tight, states and local governments have been looking at prisons − and prison food − as a place to save money. Three days a week, Georgia now serves inmates only two meals. And across the country, there have been increasing reports of substandard food. This is inhumane. Adequate meals should be a nonnegotiable part of a civilized penal system. It is also bad policy. Researchers have found a connection between poor food quality and discipline problems and violence.
    Georgia has [CONNECTOR] decided to save on staff costs by serving just two meals on Friday, as it already did on Saturday and Sunday. The state says it gives prisoners the same number of calories on days when one meal is skipped. Even if it does − and some prisoners’ advocates are skeptical − it can be oppressive to go so long without eating.
    In Alabama earlier this year, a federal judge ordered the Morgan County sheriff locked up in his own jail for contempt for failing to adequately feed his inmates. Alabama allows sheriffs to keep food money they do not spend, and the sheriff reportedly pocketed more than $200,000 over three years.
    Prisoners’ rights advocates say they are receiving an increasing number of complaints from inmates nationwide who report being served spoiled or inedible food or inadequate portions. Earlier this year, a riot at Reeves County Detention Center in Texas caused heavy damage to a prison building. Inmates said it was prompted in part by poor food.
    Cutbacks in food could violate inmates’ constitutional rights, notes Elizabeth Alexander, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Prison Project, if they create a substantial risk of serious harm − a particular concern for inmates with diabetes and other illnesses.
    If states and localities want to save money on corrections, they should reduce their prison and jail populations. The United States, which has less than 5 percent of the world’s population, has almost one-quarter of its prisoners. Many are in for nonviolent crimes that could be punished in more constructive, and less costly, ways. If governments decide to put inmates behind bars, they have to give them adequate food − which means no less than three healthy meals a day.

(Adapted from The New York Times, June 20, 2009)