Claiming Personal Independence Payment


Claiming Personal Independence Payment Once you’ve decided that Personal Independence
Payment (known as PIP) is right for you, you can make a claim by calling the Department
for Work and Pensions. Our freephone number for
PIP new claims is 0800 917 2222. If you can’t hear or speak on the phone
you can claim using the Next Generation Text service a video relay service or you
can claim by post. The call should take around 15 minutes. You can ask a family member, carer, support
worker, friend or someone who helps you to make the call but you’ll just need to be
with them when they do. If you don’t have anyone to help you with
the call, you can still ring us we ask everyone if they need any support during the call. We will need some personal information from
you, like your National Insurance Number, bank details and health or care worker details.
At this point, we won’t ask you for any information about your long-term health condition or disability during the call. After the call, we’ll send you a form called
How your disability affects you, along with an information booklet to help you complete
it. It can take up to 2 weeks for these to get
to you. Use this time to gather information to help
support your claim, which you can send in with your completed form. When you get the form you will need to return
it to us within a month – the exact date will be printed at the top. If you need more time, give us a call or use
the Next Generation Text or video relay service The form asks questions about
your ability to carry out a range of day-to-day activities and getting around. Please give as much detail as you can. Your
answers will really help us understand how your long-term condition or disability affects
you. Most people will be asked to attend a face-to-face
assessment with a health professional. It’s very important that you attend if you’re
asked to. Once you have had your assessment DWP will
usually write to you within a month to let you know whether you have been awarded PIP. You may not need a face-to-face assessment
if your form and supporting information clearly supports your claim. If you are disabled or have a health condition,
you may also be able to get help with employment or financial issues like:
Housing Benefit or Universal Credit, an ‘Access to Work’ grant to help cover
the costs of practical support in the workplace, or help with your Council Tax. There’s also lots of useful information
in the disabled people section on GOV.UK If you are experiencing financial difficulties
and you need urgent advice, you can contact your local Jobcentre Plus office, your local
council or a local support organisation. You can find their contact details on GOV.UK For more information online, go to: gov.uk/pip This video is a guide only. There are special processes for people who
are terminally ill. Some claims may also be more complex and take
longer to process.

Big Pharma Pays Up for Their Part in the Opioid Crisis | The Daily Show


The opioid crisis. Over the course of two decades,
millions of Americans have become addicted
to these painkillers. And after years
of people demanding that someone
be held accountable, the drug companies are
finally starting to pay a price. There is word tonight
of a settlement involving thousands of lawsuits
tied to the opioid crisis. OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma has reached an agreement
with 22 new states and about 2,000
local governments over its role
in the deadly epidemic. The company will pay
up to $12 billion over time, with three billion coming
from the Sackler family. They own Perdue Pharma and will also give up control
of the company. You know,
I’ll be honest with you, I’m torn about this story. You know, yes, I’m happy that the opioid companies
will have to pay, but at the same time,
they misled sick people about how addictive
their drugs were. Right? They also lobbied to lift limits on how many opioids
doctors could prescribe. And then now that they’ve made
billions of dollars off an epidemic
that caused countless deaths, they just get to be like,
“Uh, how about we give you some of that money back
and we call it even?” I think it’s bullshit.
I’ll be honest. Imagine someone
broke into your house, stole a bunch of your stuff,
and then when you busted them, they’re like, “All right,
all right, you got me. “How about
I break you off a hundred and we call it even, yeah?” Yeah, and then you’re like,
“That’s my wallet.” He’s like, “Okay, $120, $120. But I get to keep
the library card, okay?” And even though,
even though this opioid crisis has been in the news
for the past few years, the family who profited most
from a lot of this devastation has managed to remain
fairly anonymous. But now we’re finally meeting
the men behind the curtain. NEWSMAN: For the first time
we’re now seeing and hearing from Dr. Richard Sackler, the former chairman
and president of Perdue Pharma, respond to questions
under oath. Do you know how much
the Sackler family has made -off the sale of OxyContin?
-I don’t know. Do you know if it’s over
ten billion dollars? I don’t think so. Do you know if it’s over
five billion dollars? I don’t know. But fair to say
it’s over a billion dollars? It would be fair
to say that, yes. Really? Really? This guy’s
gonna act like he doesn’t know if he made a billion dollars? Get the (bleep)
out of here, man. You see him acting like
he’s thinking about it? “Uh… did I…? Yeah, I guess you could say…” He’s acting like he has
to count up all his change. “Well, I did get that
ten dollars from grandma. “And I made $150
from the yard sale. “Oh, yeah,
there’s a billion dollars “from killing thousands
of Americans “by lying to them
about their painkillers. “Oh, yeah, I almost forgot
that part. Oh, and I got the library card,
yeah, the library card.” And the Sackler’s, they-they
aren’t the only ones facing consequences
for their role in fueling the opioid epidemic. Right? Everyone’s favorite
baby shampoo company has also been told
it’s time to pay up. Yesterday,
an Oklahoma judge ruled that opioids ravaged the state, and ordered Johnson & Johnson
to pay $572 million. The judge said that the company
intentionally misled the public about the dangers
of its drugs. TV REPORTER: Johnson & Johnson
stock was up as much as five percent
since the company was ordered to pay far less
than many investors expected. Yeah, you heard that right. Johnson & Johnson’s stock
actually went up after they were fined
$572 million because they expected the
punishment to be much worse. They expected the punishment
to be worse. Yeah. And that tells you something. It’s like a guy coming out
of the shower and his girlfriend is like, “Uh, you’ve got
some explaining to do. “I was looking through
your phone “and who is this puppy you met? “It is adorable.
You know I love puppies. Why didn’t you tell me?”
And the guy’s like, “Oh, yeah.
Oh, the puppy… “that I’m totally
not having sex with. Yeah, the puppy.” So, as it stands, these drug companies are gonna
pay a bunch of fines, not even admit responsibility. And no one seems
to be going to jail, which is insane when you think
about it, right? Like, just think about
the levels here. Prosecutors want
Felicity Huffman to go to jail for cheating in
a college admissions scandal. They want her to go
to jail for that. But the people responsible for thousands of American deaths
get to walk away with a slap on the wrist. These people are basically
very formal drug dealers who are now protected just
because they’re a corporation. But if you look at someone
like El Chapo, what’s the major difference? Right? Be like,
oh, it’s more violent. Yes, but fundamentally,
he’s a drug dealer. They’re all drug dealers. The Feds took his money. Yeah, and he’s spending the rest
of his life in prison. So if you think about it, El Chapo really only made
one big mistake: he shouldn’t have been
a drug lord, he should have been
the CEO of El Chapo, Inc.

Defense Contractors Accused Of Paying Off Taliban For Protection In Middle East Countries


Defense contractors working for the US military
had been accused of paying off members of the Taliban to protect them in the Middle
East. But a new lawsuit says that this money has
been used to kill US soldiers. I have Farron Cousins from the trial lawyer
magazine to talk about this and other stories. Farron, first of all, we’ve seen the same
type of, I brought a similar lawsuit against the against banks, US all the banks that were
washing money for terrorists, knowing that they were washing money. Pled guilty, actually nobody was, nobody was
really punished, but they admitted that yes, we were washing money for terrorists. We understood that the money was going to
be used in directly or indirectly to kill Americans and of course our justice department
under Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch prosecuted nobody. So here we have a different scenario of that,
don’t we? We, we do. What we’re finding out, in fact, actually,
let me back that up. What we found out 10 years ago in 2010 the
summer of 2010 this story broke all over in US media. That these contractors that we are paying
to be over there in the Middle East had been paying protection money to the Taliban. They understood, and they even said this in
interviews, if we give them money, they “don’t F with us at all.” So they know that we just give them a little
money. It’s like the mafia. We give them a little money, they do not mess
with our operations. We make tons of profit. The Taliban gets their money and we go on. But this story actually broke in the summer
of 2010. So just as you said, Eric Holder did nothing
about the banks doing this. He did nothing with this information at the
time. We could have gone after and immediately started
prosecuting these people because these kinds of payments are illegal. We’ve seen prosecutions for it in the past
with Chiquita Banana, down in South America. But holder said, no, I’m not going to touch
these guys either. Okay, well here’s what Holder knew. Here’s what Loretta Lynch knew. This is why this is so disgusting to me. This is the most inept department of justice
maybe we’ve had in a long, long time. And that was Loretta Lynch knew in the bank
case that HSBC had been washing money. They had the whole thing laid out for them. It was all the evidence was there. All the moving parts were right in front of
the department of justice, HSBC and other banks even signed off and admitted, yes, we
did these things and not one of them was prosecuted. So given that, the only question is now, so
this has been going on, this was also going on during the, during the Eric Holder years,
but we’re not seeing any, anything different out of the Trump years, are we? Right. And to be honest, this began, this process
began during the Bush administration. Yeah. So we’re talking about three different administrations
and their DOJ’s, you know, Trump’s entering his fourth year now. They knew about this the entire time he has
been in office and we get absolutely nothing, possibly because of part of the revolving
door carousel of administration officials. Okay. So, to distill it, here it is. We’re a corporation. We only care about our shareholders. So yes, we’re willing to give money to people
that we know are killing American soldiers and other American contractors, by the way. Right. But what’s important to us is that we report
to our shareholders that we weren’t closed down by Taliban activity. That’s how ugly the story is. Right. So as the CEO, who makes that decision, obviously
the CEO’s making a decision for himself or herself. I get a bigger bonus. We didn’t close down. Yes, we paid off these, these murderous thugs
who are killing Americans. But it’s okay. It’s all right because they don’t shut us
down. And the department of justice says, looks
at it and they say, yeah, it looks like good business in America. Well, and part of the way they got away with
this for so long is the fact that they were actually using their subcontractors to make
the payments. So it wouldn’t look like these corporations
were directly handing cash, which is what happened in some instances, to members of
the Taliban. So they write it off. We had to pay a subcontractor to come and
do this job, but instead it’s not actually a job. It is go deliver this bag of money to these
warlords over here so that we can keep doing business. Yeah. American capitalism gets really sketchy sometimes. This is a good example of them.

How Former American Presidents Get Rich from Speaking at Corporate Events


You are watching the story. Every Monday we bring you a deep dive into the fascinating lives of incredible people. Welcome to ALUX.com! The place where future billionaires come to get inspired. If you’re not subscribed yet, you’re missing out. Hello Aluxers and welcome back. The president of the United States receives a $400,000 per year salary in office in addition to other benefits like an annual expense account, a $20,000 entertainment stipend, and a travel account. With salary and benefits combined, the total pay comes to about $550,000 every year. But, believe it or not, most former presidents can earn that amount in just a matter of hours giving speeches at corporate events. But exactly how much do former presidents get paid and which president was the first to capitalize on his presidential status after office? Today we’re telling the story of how former American presidents get rich from speaking at corporate events. But first, let’s look at all the benefits a president automatically gets when leaving office. After a president leaves office, the benefits of having held the office certainly don’t end there. In fact, it’s safe to say that former presidents are set for life. They receive a lifetime pension, which is set annually by Congress. As of 2018, that amount was just over $210,000. Presidents who resign also get the pension, but presidents who are removed due to impeachment forfeit all benefits. Former presidents receive seven months of transition payments in addition to the pension to assist with the transition back to private life. This amount is also determined by Congress. They are given staff and office allowances of up to $150,000 a year. They also receive free postage for life. All travel related to the former president representing the United States government is fully paid for. Other benefits include secret service protection, covered medical expenses, and state funerals. Yet, all these benefits add up to just a fraction of what former presidents make by giving speeches. So, let’s see where this practice began. The first president to capitalize on his former presidential status through paid speeches was Gerald Ford, who was president from August 1974 to January 1977. Ford was a strong believer in free enterprise, so when he found that corporations would be willing to pay to hear him speak, he ran with it. Ford started out charging $10,000 a speech, which then escalated to $20,000 and then 40,000. He was highly criticized by many who felt he was exploiting his position as a former president, but his response was that he was now a private citizen and it wasn’t anyone’s business how he made his money. Ford’s net worth upon entering office was $1.4 million. After leaving office his net worth eventually reached 7 million. In 1979, the Washington Speaker’s Bureau was founded, which led to skyrocketing speaker’s fees. The agency represents George W. Bush and his wife Laura today. But, let’s take a look now at the most recent presidents to leave office and how much they earn from paid speeches. The former president who has earned the most money from the paid speech circuit, along with his wife, is Bill Clinton. When Clinton entered office in 1993, his net worth totaled $1.2 million. Since leaving office in 2001, he and his wife have given more than 730 speeches for a combined total of $153 million. That’s an average of over $210,000 per speech. He personally gave about 650 speeches for a total of $132 million. About 40 of these speeches were given to big banks like Goldman Sachs for a total of $7.7 million. When Clinton was recently asked about his earnings from his speeches, he replied, “I gotta pay the bills.” Clinton’s net worth is now about $80 million. When George W. Bush was getting ready to leave office in 2009, he told a reporter that he planned to “replenish the ol’ coffers” by giving paid speeches. He mentioned that he could make ridiculous money and stated that his father, George H.W. Bush, made 50 to $75,000 per speech. When George W. Bush entered office, he wasn’t poor by any means. He entered office with $20 million, primarily earned through his oil business. Now his net worth is more than 40 million, and a good chunk of his post-presidential earning have come from giving paid speeches. In the 10 years since he’s left office, Bush has given more than 200 paid speeches at a cost of $100,000 to $175,000 per appearance. The total he’s earned from this part-time work is likely more than $30 million. When asked about his high-dollar speeches, Bush replied, “Everybody’s got to make a living.” The corporations Bush has spoken in front of vary greatly and include the National Grocers Association, the Bowling Proprietors’ Association of America, global wealth management funds, and universities. When Barack Obama entered office in 2008, his net worth totaled $1.3 million. Obama made about 20 million while he was in office, primarily from book sales. When he left office, his net worth was about $12.2 million. Since then, he has been presented with several opportunities that are majorly boosting his bank account. He signed book deals worth $65 million. He and Michelle signed a multi-year contract with Netflix for an undisclosed amount, but other similar deals have totaled up to $100 million. Obama also stands to make an unprecedented amount on the paid speech circuit. One of his first speeches after leaving office was a $400,000 60-minute speech for the Wall Street investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald. This was followed by another $400,000 speech for the money management firm Northern Trust Corporation. In his first 10 months out of office, he gave at least nine paid speeches, likely earning over 3 million dollars for approximately 9 hours of speaking. In May 2019, it was reported that he earned nearly $600,000 for a speech at a conference in Bogota, Columbia. His current net worth is estimated to be $40 million, but it is expected to continue increasing significantly year after year, largely due to the paid speeches. But why are corporations willing to pay so much for a one-hour speech? Why are corporations eager to spend so much money to bring in a former president to speak at their events? Well, in the vast majority of cases it certainly isn’t because the speeches are so compelling or even inspiring. It’s thought that most of the former presidents recycle the same basic ideas slightly customized according to the target audience. They can get away with this because most of the time their contracts state that their speech is not to be recorded in any way. But there are a couple reasons why former presidents are so in demand. For one, their fees can actually be lower than other celebrities like actors, athletes, and well-known inspirational speakers. Another reason is that former presidents are universally known, and those familiar names can be a big draw for a wide variety of events. There is also the chance that the media will report on the speech and give added exposure to whatever corporation is hosting. Public speaking is an integral part of many professions, particularly if you are running your own business. Whether you’re in front of a large crowd or pitching an idea one-on-one, you have to be able to communicate your thoughts effectively. If you want to brush up on your public speaking skills and learn from some of the most successful speakers in TED talk history, check out the book Talk Like Ted by Carmine Gallo. Even better, you can hear this insightful book on Audible without paying the $21 cost. Just go to alux.com/freebook and sign up so that you can get the audiobook version for free thanks to our partnership with Audible! While researching this story, we’ve come across this incredible quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson we’d like to share with you that goes like this: So never underestimate the power of your words and the importance of being able to effectively communicate your ideas. Now that we’re wrapping up this up, we’d like to know: Considering how wealthy presidents get after leaving office, Let us know what you think in the comments. And, of course, for sticking with us until the end here’s that bonus we owe you: Before the presidential pension was established in 1958, a number of former presidents struggled financially. One example is Thomas Jefferson, who sold over 6,700 books to the government for $23,950, which he used to settle his debts. And it was these books which helped form today’s Library of Congress. Thank you for spending some time with us Aluxers. Make sure to like and subscribe so you never miss another video. We also handpicked these videos which we recommend you watch next. You can talk to us on all social media or ask a question on our website ALUX.com! Thank you for being an Aluxer and we’ll see you back tomorrow.

Why ‘stronger borders’ don’t work


Every year, thousands of people die trying
to cross borders. At times, the stark reality of this
becomes front page news like the picture of three-year-old Alan Kurdi,
lying face down on a Turkish beach, or when 39 people were found dead
in a lorry in Essex. But the same old logic seems to hold: that
stricter border checks and a more hostile asylum and immigration system, would stop
people from making these dangerous journeys. We must not encourage people who want
to become refugees in Britain to come over the oceans. But some say stronger borders are actually
the problem, not the solution. To understand why,
let’s look at how asylum works. When someone flees their home country because
of war or persecution, they’ll likely try to seek asylum in another country. Being given asylum means being able to stay
and live your life in this new country. This is covered by the Refugee Convention,
which defines what a refugee is and is the basis for refugee rights internationally. In most cases, you must be in the destination
country to ask for asylum, which means you have to get there first before you apply. But getting to that country in a safe and
legal way can be near-impossible. Visas and checks make it difficult for people
seeking asylum to move, and globally, countries are building more walls and fences along their
borders. In Europe, governments have closed down legal
routes and made deals with other countries to stop people from getting to the EU. Really strict border controls do literally
stop people from arriving and being able to make an application for asylum. But on the
other hand, it doesn’t make them somehow disappear. The most vulnerable people are seeking for
safety so strengthening the borders makes things much more dangerous People die. They drown in the sea. They die
in their tents in Calais. One network of human rights groups has said
that more than 36,000 deaths can be put down to “border militarisation, asylum
laws, detention policies and deportations.” Tighter borders are making it more difficult
for people to safely claim asylum, forcing them to rely on smugglers and risk their lives. ‘I wish that there was somehow a way
to get to our destinations legally’ So why are governments still arguing stronger
borders are the answer? If we look at the UK, they say it’s about pull factors. “We must be aware of pull factors” “The potential pull factors” “Remove all these pull factors” Pull factors are the supposed things that
attract people to move to a particular country. “You’ve got a swarm of people coming across
the Mediterranean, wanting to come to Britain because Britain has got jobs, it’s a growing
economy, it’s an incredible place to live” Although the UK has a tiny proportion of refugees,
the asylum system has been made stricter to dissuade people from coming. That means as well as making it more difficult
for people to get here, from the 2000s onwards policies have been made harsher for people
when they are here. For instance, since 2002 people waiting on
their asylum claim aren’t allowed to work and for those eligible they are entitled to
only £37.75 per person, per week. And as well as that, there’s often a high
burden of proof to show you’re a refugee. There is a culture of disbelief in the Home
Office which means that if they make a slight error in dates retelling their stories again
and again to so many different agencies then they are penalised and there’s no understanding
of the psychological trauma. One of the women that I spoke
to said, ‘It’s not what happened to me in my home country that broke me,
but what happened to me here’. Politicians claimed stricter rules would deter
people from coming. But this doesn’t add up. While there’s plenty of proof of push factors –
things like war, genocide and human rights violations that force people to leave their
home – there’s little evidence for pull factors. Studies have shown people usually don’t come
here with prior knowledge of the asylum system or to take from the system. One of the weird things about the pull factors is
this idea of people who seek asylum as being people who are in country A and they have
access to perfect information about all possible places they could go and they have the resources
to go to those places. When in reality people have extremely constrained resources, constrained
information, then when they set off, along the way they’ll meet all sorts of people
who will change their journeys in various ways. So it’s not that people are out to get what
they can – their decision to try to get to a particular country can be driven by all
kinds of complex factors, including very basic needs, like having family there
or knowing the language. Yet funding for search and rescue missions
in the Mediterranean was cut because they were seen as a pull factor – encouraging people
to make the dangerous crossing because there was the possibility of being rescued. But getting rid of those patrols hasn’t
stopped everyone from attempting the journey. In 2019 an estimated 1,317 people died
trying to cross the Mediterranean. So the argument that asylum can be understood
through ‘pull factors’ seems weak. I’ve interviewed a lot of civil servants,
in fact, about this, and they know that there is no evidence, but they just say the politicians are very committed to it because it makes
common sense to the public. People decide to take these risks because
there are no formal or safe ways of trying to get to a country. You have people putting you in the back of the lorries
sometimes in the fridges and the freezers. And then people start coughing and
then freezing, this is where you have to knock and knock and knock and be at the mercy of
the smugglers to come and get you out. This isn’t only an issue for people seeking
asylum. People who have to move because of poverty or climate breakdown aren’t covered
by the refugee convention. But they’re also faced with borders, and countries hostile
to them. Solutions could include huge international
resettlement of refugees and making routes of travel safer and easier. It’s often said that countries like the UK aren’t
‘doing enough’ when it comes to people making dangerous crossings. But the reality is, they’re doing a lot
– it’s just that they’re making movement more difficult and so more dangerous. Thank you for watching this video. There’s a lot that
we couldn’t include in what is a complex subject. But one of the things often obscured in the debate
is that it is people who are making these journeys, and their humanity is often lost or forgotten about
when talking about asylum. If you like these videos click subscribe,
and consider supporting The Guardian.