2001 September 11 attacks – Lloyd’s – The world’s specialist insurance market. Also known as Lloyd’s of London; is a market where members join together as syndicates to insure risks.

2001 September 11 attacks Share
The 9/11 attacks were a series of four co-ordinated terrorist attacks, launched by the Islamic group al-Qaeda, on the US, in New York City and the Washington DC area.
Four passenger airlines were hijacked by al-Qaeda terrorists and flown into buildings in suicide attacks. Two of these planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and Flight 175, were crashed into the North and South towers, respectively, of New York’s World Trade Center complex. Within two hours, both towers had collapsed, with resulting fires causing partial or complete collapse of the other buildings in the complex. Nearly 3,000 people died in the four attacks.

The events changed the world’s perception of risk. In its 320-year history, the Lloyd’s market had seen many disasters – but nothing could prepare the industry for September 11, when the world watched in horror as the Twin Towers burst into flames, a plane flew into the Pentagon and the last, diverted by passengers, exploded in a field in Pennsylvania.

A personal and professional tragedy
9/11 was a personal and professional tragedy for many in the industry who lost colleagues and loved ones. Brokers Marsh and Aon had offices in the tower, and both companies felt the pain of the attacks acutely.

Through an online memorial, Marsh remembers the 295 colleagues and 63 consultants it lost on 9/11, while through a legacy website and the Aon Memorial Education Fund, Aon remembers the 176 colleagues it lost. The fund was established in 2002 to provide post-secondary educational financial assistance to the dependent children of Aon employees killed.

‘There was a tremendous amount of unsettled feeling across the whole global financial system, underpinned by the high emotion caused by the tragic loss of so many people,’ says Julian James, CEO of Lockton International, who was Lloyd’s Director of Worldwide Markets at the time of the attacks. ‘The insurance industry had never had to cope with an event that touched it so personally.’

The lessons of 9/11
As the market got to work to process a steady stream of claims, it became clear how significant an insurance loss the market was dealing with. 9/11 was Lloyd’s largest-ever single loss and it impacted many different classes of business.

Before 9/11, it had not been envisaged that classes of insurance such as aviation and fine art could suffer major claims at the same time as property and casualty lines. These once unthinkable correlations were among the lessons learned from the attacks.

Another major lesson was the necessity of contract certainty in the industry. It became clear that a dispute over whether the destruction of the Twin Towers had been one or two separate terrorism events would not have occurred had final policies been in place ahead of the attacks.

‘To any outsider, it must seem highly unusual that this single agreement should not be in place,’ said Lloyd’s Chairman Lord Levene, speaking in 2005. ‘The insurance industry owes it to its customers as well as to itself to ensure that cover is fully agreed and clearly documented right from the start.’

The Lloyd’s and wider London market tackled the culture of ‘deal now, detail later’ head on in the years after 9/11 and reached an important milestone in January 2007 when it was reported that 90% of contracts in the subscription market and 88% of contracts in the non-subscription market had achieved certainty.

New York rises again
In the wake of the attacks, Lloyd’s syndicates paid out billions of dollars, settling scores of multimillion-pound claims from affected businesses, including airlines, airports and security companies, as well as from injured individuals and relatives of those killed.

Months after the attack, as America began to try to rebuild itself and heal its physical and emotional wounds, US Treasury Secretary John Snow spoke movingly about the way Lloyd’s had supported the USA, declaring, ‘We are indebted to you.’

Lloyd’s of London to set up shop in Brussels

Lloyd’s of London to set up shop in Brussels
The Australian12:00AM March 31, 2017
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on email
Share more…
1 Comment
Lloyd’s of London will open a Brussels office in early 2019 due to Brexit, the insurance market said yesterday, a day after the UK government triggered the nation’s EU divorce.

“Lloyd’s, the specialist insurance and reinsurance market, has announced it will be setting up a new European insurance company to be located in Brussels,” it said in a statement, after British Prime Minister Theresa May activated the two-year countdown to EU departure.

“The intention is for the company to be ready to write business for the 1st January, 2019, renewal season, subject to approval.”

Lloyd’s, which gave no indication of potential London job losses, had repeatedly warned before last year’s referendum that it could move some operations to elsewhere within the EU in the event of Brexit.

The group added that its new Brussels subsidiary would allow it to underwrite insurance risks across the 27 EU nations that will remain following Britain’s exit.

“The company will be able to write risks from all 27 European Union and three European Economic Area states after the United Kingdom has left the EU, providing our customers and partners continued access to the innovative solutions of the Lloyd’s market,” it said.

Lloyd’s chief executive Inga Beale also added that Brussels met its “critical” requirements of a “robust regulatory framework in a central European location”.

Nine months after the shock British vote to quit the EU, Mrs May on Wednesday formally activated Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, meaning Britain is set to leave the bloc in 2019.

Insurer Lloyd’s threatens to quit London

Insurer Lloyd’s threatens to quit London

Fears are growing that London’s status as a financial centre will be undermined by uncertainty following the Brexit vote.
The Times10:35AM September 6, 2016
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on email
Share more…
Three and a bit centuries after Edward Lloyd’s coffee house became a hub for maritime information in the City of London, insurance brokers may have to pack up and go elsewhere.

Speaking last night about the impact of Britain’s decision to leave the European Union, John Nelson, chairman of Lloyd’s, proclaimed that “we are not simply Lloyd’s of London, we are Lloyd’s. We are local to the territories and cities we now operate in.”

His warning further stoked the debate about passporting rights, which give banks and insurers the opportunity to do business anywhere in the EU without having to meet local regulations or hold capital or incorporate locally. Mr Nelson said unless a clear direction of travel was established towards passporting, that “would mean business leaving London more quickly than the renegotiation timetable”.

His comments, in his last speech as chairman of the insurance market, are the strongest sign yet that London’s status as a financial centre will be undermined by uncertainty over financial passports after the Brexit vote.

“If we are not able to access the single market, either through passporting rights or other means, the inevitable consequences for Lloyd’s and indeed other insurance organisations will be that we will transact the business onshore in the EU, and that obviously will have an impact on London,” he said at the Lloyd’s City dinner.

Many companies, including those from outside the EU, such as Swiss Re, use London subsidiaries to gain access to the EU through Lloyds because they do not enjoy the benefits of passporting. The insurance industry fears that such transactions could move to cities such as Dublin or Paris.

Charles Portsmouth, an insurance specialist at Moore Stephens, the accountancy firm, said: “It possibly means capital and jobs moving to a different location in Europe.”

Mr Nelson told BBC Radio 4’s Today program that Lloyd’s would feel no impact itself. “The loser will not be Lloyd’s or the industry; sadly, it will be London. There will be bits of business where it will be better for us and more efficient for us, if we don’t get single market access, if we write it in the EU. Insurance business is quite mobile. If there is uncertainty for a prolonged period of time, then the industry will vote with its feet and we will be in that.

“If we do not see a clear direction of travel, we will have to invoke our contingency plans and that would mean business leaving London more quickly than the renegotiation timetable. ”

Prime Minister Theresa May signalled last week that she would place control on immigration above participation in the single market. Philipp Hildebrand, a former head of the Swiss central bank, warned the government against using Switzerland’s relationship with the EU as a template. “We have not been able in any way to regain any sovereignty on immigration. And we have no financial services agreement, despite the fact that we’ve negotiated for ten years,” he told the FT Weekend Live Festival. “Don’t believe you’ll get anything else.”

Philip Hammond will hold formal talks with City bosses tomorrow amid the intensifying debate about passporting. The chancellor will meet chairmen including Douglas Flint, of HSBC, Sir Gerry Grimstone, of Standard Life, and Baroness Vadera, of Santander UK, according to Sky News.


Grenfell Tower insurance bill could be Europe’s biggest ever – reports
Terry Gangcuangco21 Jun 2017
Grenfell Tower insurance bill could be Europe’s biggest ever – reports Norwegian insurer Protector Forsikring initially revealed that last week’s Grenfell Tower fire could lead to an insurance bill of more than £25 million – but now the total payout is estimated to be as high as £1 billion.

This could be Europe’s single biggest building insurance payout, according to a report by Sputnik.

It said The Times estimated the total bill, with eventual cost depending on the number of fatalities, the price of demolishing and rebuilding the property, and the litigation.

Protector Forsikring’s chief executive Sverre Bjerkeli previously said the firm expects its Munich Re-handled reinsurance program to pick up “almost the entire cost” from the blaze.

According to a Reuters report, the Norwegian insurer, which has a presence in Manchester, wrote the policy for the Grenfell Tower for about £20 million.

Kensington and Chelsea Council, which owns the freehold of the tower, reportedly switched insurance providers about three months before the fire that the Metropolitan Police said has left 79 people missing as of June 19.

Swiss company Zurich was named as the original insurer of Grenfell Tower, with Kensington and other boroughs picking Protector Forsikring supposedly to save money.

The Norwegian firm was said to be charging a much lower annual premium, according to Sputnik.

Meanwhile, the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO) is being blamed for having used cladding with a polyethylene core – a factor cited in the spread of flames.

KCTMO, which managed the Grenfell Tower on behalf of the local government, allegedly ignored fire safety concerns raised by residents and experts as early as 2004.

The City of London and the British Imperial/Zionist Empire | Arcanum Deep Secrets

The City of London and the British Imperial/Zionist Empire

(Condensed from “Descent Into Slavery” by Des Griffin, Chapter six)

When people think of England such terms as ‘Great Britain,’ ‘The Queen,’ ‘The Crown,’ ‘Crown Colonies,’ ‘London,’ ‘The City of London,’ and ‘British Empire’ come to mind and blend together into an indistinguishable blur.

They are generally looked upon as synonymous, as being representative of the same basic system.

During the 1950s and 1960s the author lived in England (London for five years) without even beginning to realize the vast difference that exists in the meaning of some of the above terms.

When people hear of ‘The Crown’ they automatically think of the King or Queen; when they hear of ‘London’ or the ‘The City’ they instantly think of the capital of England in which the monarch has his or her official residence.

To fully understand the unique and generally unknown subject we must define our terms:

When we speak of ‘The City’ we are in fact referring to a privately owned Corporation – or Sovereign State – occupying an irregular rectangle of 677 acres and located right in the heart of the 610 square mile ‘Greater London’ area. The population of ‘The City’ is listed at just over four thousand, whereas the population of ‘Greater London’ (32 boroughs) is approximately seven and a half million.

The ‘Crown’ is a committee of twelve to fourteen men who rule the independent sovereign state known as London or ‘The City.’

‘The City’ is not part of England. It is not subject to the Sovereign.

It is not under the rule of the British parliament.

Like the Vatican in Rome, it is a separate, independent state. It is the Vatican of the commercial world.

The City, which is often called “the wealthiest square mile on earth,” is ruled over by a Lord Mayor. Here are grouped together Britain’s great financial and commercial institutions:

– Wealthy banks, dominated by the privately-owned (Rothschild controlled) Bank of England, Lloyd’s of London,

– The London Stock Exchange, and the offices of most of the leading international trading concerns. [Such as the British Invisibles, I kid you not].

Here, also, is located Fleet Street, the heart and core of the newspaper and publishing worlds.


The Lord Mayor, who is elected for a one year stint, is the monarch in the City.

As Aubrey Menen says in “London”, Time-Life, 1976, p. 16: “The relation of this monarch of the City to the monarch of the realm [Queen] is curious and tells much.”

It certainly is and certainly does !

When the Queen of England goes to visit the City she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple Bar, the symbolic gate of the City.

She bows and asks for permission to enter his private, sovereign State.

During such State visits “the Lord Mayor in his robes and chain, and his entourage in medieval
costume, outshines the royal party, which can dress up no further than service uniforms.”

The Lord Mayor leads the queen into his city.

The reason should be clear.

The Lord Mayor is the monarch.

The Queen is his subject !

The monarch always leads the way.

The subject always stays a pace or two behind !

The small clique who rule the City dictate to the British Parliament.

It tells them what to do, and when. In theory Britain is ruled by a Prime Minister and a Cabinet of close advisers.

These ‘fronts’ go to great lengths to create the impression that they are running the show but, in reality, they are mere puppets whose strings are pulled by the shadowy characters who dominate behind the scenes.

As the former British Prime Minister of England during the late 1800s Benjamin Disraeli wrote:

“So you see… the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes” (Coningsby, The Century Co., N.Y., 1907, p. 233).

This fact is further demonstrated by another passage from Menen’s book:

“The Prime Minister, a busy politician, is not expected to understand the mysteries of high finance, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer [Budget Director] is only expected to understand them when he introduces the budget.

Both are advised by the permanent officials of the Treasury, and these listen to the City.

If they suspect that some policy of the government will [back-fire]… it is no use their calling up British ambassadors to ask if it is so; they can find out more quickly from the City.

As one ambassador complained to me, diplomats are nowadays no more than office boys, and slow ones at that.

“The City will know.

They will tell the Treasury and the Treasury will tell the Prime Minister. Woe betide him if he does not listen.

The most striking instance of this happened in recent history. In 1956 the then Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden… launched a war to regain the Suez Canal.

It had scarcely begun when the City let it be known that in a few days he would have no more money to fight it; the Pound would collapse.

He stopped the war and was turned out of office by his party.

When the Prime Minister rises to address the Lord Mayor’s banquet, he hopes that the City will put more behind him than the gold plate lavishly displayed on the sideboard” (p.18).

History clearly reveals that the British government is the bond slave of the “invisible and inaudible” force centered in the City.

The City calls the tune. The “visible and audible leaders” are mere puppets who dance to that tune on command.

They have no power.

They have no authority.

In spite of all the outward show they are mere pawns in the game being played by the financial elite.


From the time of William the Conqueror until the middle of the seventeenth century the British Monarchs ruled supreme – their word was law.

They truly were Sovereign in every sense of the word.

(This is not exactly accurate, as the monarchs were the subjects of the Papacy, of the Roman Catholic Church, precisely as the bankers of London, who have always, and are always under the same subjugation.)

As British strength and influence grew around the world toward the end of the 1600s the wealth, strength and influence of the elite merchants in the City also grew – only at a faster pace.

In 1694 the privately owned Bank of England (a central bank) was established to finance the profligate ways of William III.

The bank was financed by a group of City merchants who used William Paterson as a ‘front.’

The names of the founders have never been made public. (The knights templar, Jesuits, founded the Bank of England.)

It was at that juncture that the Bank of England and the City began to dominate and control the affairs of Britain.

Their influence and wealth grew in leaps and bounds in the century that followed.

“The Illustrated Universal History,” 1878, records that “Great Britain emerged from her long contest with France with increased power and national glory.

Her Empire was greatly expanded in all parts of the world; her supremacy on the sea was
undisputed; her wealth and commerce were increased…

But with all this national prosperity, the lower classes of the English people were sunk in
extreme wretchedness and poverty, having been bled dry during the struggle of the previous twenty years.

It was at this juncture (1815) that the House of Rothschild seized control of the British economy, the Bank of England and the City – and, through their other branches, control of the other European nations.

(The Rothschild’s are employed, in partnership, as the bankers for the Roman Catholic Church, along with the shareholder, the English Monarchy.)

Prior to this period Britain had developed colonies and outposts in the far-flung reaches of the globe. Having been thrown out of the Western Hemisphere, Britain now concentrated on acquiring and developing additional possessions elsewhere.

During its heyday in the nineteenth century approximately 90% of all international trade was carried in British ships. Other shippers had to pay the Crown royalties or commissions for the ‘privilege’ of doing business on the high seas.

During these years ‘Britannia Ruled the Waves’ through the domination of the most modern and powerful navy known up to that time.


To avoid misunderstanding, it is important that the reader recognize the fact that two separate empires were operating under the guise of the British Empire.

One was the Crown Empire and the other was the British Empire.

All the colonial possessions that were white were under the Sovereign – i.e. under the authority of the British government. Such nations as the Union of South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Canada were governed under British law.

These only represented thirteen percent of the people who made up the inhabitants of the British Empire.

All the other parts of the British Empire – nations like India, Egypt, Bermuda, Malta, Cyprus and colonies in Central Africa, Singapore, Hong Kong and Gibraltar (those areas inhabited by the browns, yellows and blacks) were all Crown Colonies.

These were not under British rule. The British parliament had no authority over them.

They were privately owned and ruled by a private club in London, England known as the Crown.

The Crown’s representative in such areas held the absolute power of life and death over all the people under his jurisdiction.

There were no courts and no method of appeal or retribution against a decision rendered by the representatives of the Crown.

Even a British citizen who committed a crime in a Crown colony was subject to the Crown law.

He couldn’t appeal to British law as it didn’t apply.

As the Crown owned the committee known as the British government there was no problem getting the British taxpayer to pay for naval and military forces to maintain the Crown’s supremacy in these areas.

Any revolts were met with terrible retribution by the British navy at no cost to the Crown.

The City reaped fantastic profits from its operations conducted under the protection of the British armed forces.

This wasn’t British commerce and
British wealth.

The international bankers, prosperous merchants and the British aristocracy who were part of the ‘City’ machine accumulated vast
fortunes which they lavishly squandered in their pursuit of prestige and standing in British Society.

Had the wealth been spread out among all the
people in the British Isles prosperity would have abounded. (I am not suggesting that this should have been done, the thefts from the exploited
should never have occurred to begin with – Ralph.)

In spite of the wealth of the world flowing into the City the majority of the British people were barely making ends meet.

Many were impoverished to the point of despair. The elite lived in regal splendour.

The poor British peasants were never given a chance to get a cut of the action.

Simon Haxey in “England’s Money Lords Tory M.P.,” drew his readers’ attention to the “total disregard or open contempt displayed by the
aristocracy” towards the British people.

He also asked, “What part do the colonial people play in the battle for democracy when they themselves have no democratic rights and the British governing class refuses to grant such rights” (pp. 114,115) (we all know the difference between democracy and
republics I hope – Ralph)

David Lloyd George, a future prime minister, emphasized the power of the City and its total contempt for the “wretches” who were not part of the ‘club.’ In a 1910 speech he stated: “We do most of the business of the world.

We carry more international trade – probably ten times more – than Germany. Germany carries her own trade largely.

The international trade is ours. Well, we do not do it for nothing.

As a matter of fact, our shipping brings us over a hundred millions (pounds) a year, mostly paid by that wretched foreigner.

I’m taxing the foreigner for all I know…

You’ve heard a good deal of talk here, probably, about the exportation of capital abroad.

There is no way in which we can make the foreigner pay more… We get the foreigner in four ways by that.

The first way we leave to Lord Rothschild…” (“Better Times”, published 1910).

About seventy years ago Vincent Cartwright Vickers stated that:

“…financiers in reality took upon themselves, perhaps not the responsibility, but certainly the power of controlling the markets of the
world and therefore the numerous relationships between one nation and another, involving international friendship and mistrusts… Loans to
foreign countries are organized and arranged by the City of London with no thought whatsoever of the nation’s welfare but solely in order to increase indebtedness upon which the City thrives and grows rich…

This national and mainly international dictatorship of money which plays off one country against another and which, through ownership of a large portion of the press, converts the advertisement of its own private opinion into a semblance of general public opinion, cannot for much longer be permitted to render Democratic Government a mere nickname.

Today, we see through a glass darkly; for there is so much which ‘it would not be in the public interest to divulge’…” (E.C. Knuth, “Empire of ‘The City’”, p. 65).

All of the above points were stressed by Roland G. Usher on pages 80, 83 and 84 of “Pan Germanism,” written in 1913:

“The London and Paris bankers [the international bankers] control the available resources of the world at any one moment, and can therefore practically permit or prevent the undertaking of any enterprise requiring the use of more than a hundred million dollars actual value…”

The international bankers “own probably the major part of the bonded indebtedness of the world. Russia, Turkey, Egypt, India, China, Japan, and South America are probably owned, so far as any nation can be owned, in London or Paris.

Payment of interest on these vast sums is secured by the pledging of the public revenues of these countries, and, in the case of the weaker nations, by the actual delivery of the perception into the hands of the agents of the English and French bankers.

In addition, a very large share, if not the major part, of the stocks and industrial securities of the world are owned by those two nations and the policies of many of the world’s enterprises dictated by their financial heads.

The world itself, in fact, pays them tribute; it actually rises in the morning to earn its living by utilizing their capital, and occupies its days in making them still wealthier.”

In 1946 E.C. Knuth wrote: “The bulwark of the British financial oligarchy lies in its ageless and self-perpetuating nature, its long-range planning and prescience, its facility to outwait and break the patience of its opponents.

The transient and temporal statesmen of Europe and particularly of Britain itself, who have attempted to curb this monstrosity, have all been defeated by their limited tenure of confidence.

Obligated to show action and results in a too short span of years, they have been outwitted and out waited, deluged with irritants and difficulties; eventually obliged to temporize and retreat.

There are few who have opposed them in Britain and America, without coming to a disgraceful end, but many, who served them well, have also profited well” (“Empire of ‘The City,’” p. 65).

One of the sickest examples of vaccine industry corruption – Wyeth internal memo. | The Refurbished Rogue’s Blog

January 17 , 2014

One of the sickest examples of vaccine industry corruption – Wyeth internal memo.
*see bottom for all links.
“In 1978-79, eleven babies (all in Tennessee) were found to have died within eight days of a DPT vaccination. Nine of the eleven had been vaccinated with the same lot of pertussis vaccine, Wyeth #64201 and five (four from the same lot) had died within twenty-four hours of vaccination.”
*Now will you please take another look at the memo..
“read closely — a series of SIDS deaths in Tennessee is …prompting Wyeth officials to make sure that vials from a single lot don’t get distributed to a single state, county or health department.”
*SICK. Spread the death out so no one will know.
“The statistical evidence in favor of a connection between the deaths and the DPT shot was strong. Would the medical authorities bite the bullet and admit the vaccine was related to the deaths? Absolutely not.
It’s a long and unpleasant tale, but when all was said and done, “the tombstone was placed on what happened in Tennessee three years later, in the September 1982 issue of the Journal of Pediatrics, when Bernier and his colleagues at the CDC wrote their epitaph on the infant deaths. They made this amazing statement: ‘Whether or not this temporal association reflects a causal relationship remains undetermined; we found no evidence to support such a causal association.’”
*this honestly makes me sicker than I can explain. Yes, I will agree that this is old. Who cares about 1979 anyways? I do. Any parent should care if they knew what happened here. No, we no longer use the DPT now DTaP) but that doesn’t matter here. What matters is that this happened and there was never a resolution. There was never justice or an apology. Those precious babies meant nothing. Just like everything else, it was all pushed under the rug. (I cannot explain how angry it makes me that people who question these things are just called “crazy” and that’s it. No journalism. No Truth!)
**What has changed?! How are lots distributed now?
“Do the drug companies, the HMOs, the AAP and the CDC really have a track record of tracking down every report of side effects, encouraging the public to make use of the VAERS (vaccine adverse event reporting system) system and vigilantly monitoring the VSD database? Are they the ones we want to trust to tell us whether there is any “causal association” between vaccines and SIDS, or autism, or asthma, or ADD?”
See this link for the full story:
and for the link to the PDF file of this memo see this:

Share this:

my list of peer reviewed vaccine research
In “vaccination”
my response to a friend who fears vaccination and is unsure what to do.
In “thinking free”
Hard evidence that vaccines have been used to purposely make women sterile. What has changed?
In “thinking free”