Why were Camden Market traders not insured?

AM I the only properly and correctly insured businessman who simply cannot understand the financial rescue packages being offered by way of charity concerts, etc, to the many uninsured shops and stallholders in Camden whose businesses were wiped out throu

AM I the only properly and correctly insured businessman who simply cannot understand the financial rescue packages being offered by way of charity concerts, etc, to the many uninsured shops and stallholders in Camden whose businesses were wiped out through being uninsured?

For my part, the "do-gooders" who are raising money to help those affected are sincerely sending out all of the wrong signals to small businesses in general.

How many times do we have to read the same old excuses that owners of uninsured businesses always seem to proclaim, that "I thought many times about being insured but it was too expensive."

Yes, insurance can be expensive but nowhere near as expensive as being wiped out as the consequence of a fire, flood or burglary.

I read one report in the Ham&High at the time of the fire that one of the traders had £600,000 of stock - all uninsured. He was also 'thinking about getting insurance'!

I find it hard to fathom that a business with £600,000 worth of stock can't afford insurance!

I only hope that the money being raised is not going to be given to the affected traders 'willy-nilly' but only to those that can be determined as exceptional cases.

It's nothing more than the old story that if you haven't bought your lottery ticket then you ain't going to win the lottery.

If the traders have not had the common sense to insure their goods (for reasons of their own choosing) then why on earth should do-gooders run to their rescue?

(Name & address supplied)