Extracting the Michael

Obviously in a 'taking the piss with boaters moment' some wag at the Canal and River Trust decided that as it was 'Friday the 13th' of February, it would be a good day for a bad news announcement.

A Convenient Reinterpretation.
It was time to announce that anyone who does not - in the Canal and River Trust's opinion - comply with the Trust’s guidelines for continuous cruising. Will not have their licences renewed, unless they agree to take a home mooring. We all know that boats on the canals are much more than just pleasure craft. They are in many instances peoples homes and in some cases their place of work. I have said this before and I repeat it again - call me old and cynical - but the guidelines are much more than CaRT's own clarification it is a convenient re-interpretation of the Legislation. 

Is Your Boat A Shed
What the trust is doing is like a landlord coming along to a tenant on a year-by-year tenancy agreement and saying. 'You must rent a garden shed.' The tenant says 'I don't want or even have a use for a garden shed.' The landlord then says 'I don't care if you use the shed or not, I say you must get one. If you don't rent a garden shed you have got to vacate my property.' The tenant says 'In my tenancy agreement there is nothing about a requirement to have a garden shed.' The landlord says 'I have now updated the tenancy agreement, sign here or remove you home.' 'But I need time to sort things out.' says the tenant. 'OK you can have a three month tenancy agreement, sign here. Now go and get a shed.' says the landlord.

Draconian Interpretation

How the Trust Trustees (ultimate responsibility lies with the trustees) can accept and agree with such a convoluted, draconian interpretation and subsequent application is beyond me. However, as someone who writes on various forums it has always amazed me how people read and then come up with what they think I actually wrote. It could be that the trust sees something that everyone else fails to see. Some people would see this reinterpretation of the waterways acts as a form of arm twisting by a bully. Applied by a monopoly to force people to spend money that they do not necessarily have or do not necessarily wish to spend. Being required to spend on something they don't necessarily want or necessarily need. Spending on something that the legislation recognises as constant cruisers they are not required to have. The guidelines are circumventing peoples rights to have a boat licence without the need or requirement to pay for a home mooring. 

Appropriate and Proportional

Setting aside the moot point about legality which I am sure will be decided elsewhere. setting aside whether is it is an 'appropriate and proportional response' for all boaters renewing a licence to have to sign up to such a document. The trust is using public donations for a purpose I am sure the friend would never have been told about when signing up. However, I am worried about the prospect of another round of canal evictions. Which will hit the national press, radio and television. The surrounding bad publicity will just go to reinforce the public perception about the charitable status of some trusts. Legal the subsequent evictions may be. But the question of morality will be decided by the giving public. I think that once again the 'charitable' trust will be seen to hang by its own petard.

Rhetorical Question

But asking myself the rhetorical question: Why would CaRT want to impose such a drastic course of action? CaRT is of course in a monopoly position and the recipient of much money from their own directly managed moorings. It has a number of moorings operated by a wholly owned subsidiary (BWML) CaRT also has a cut from various private marinas for each berth that is occupied. It also wants to make a charge for people who over stay on visitor moorings. Many of which have been pre-emptively reduced in the length of time that boats can stay. It begs the question is the 'dash for cash' because the trust is in a dire position.

Motives Questioned
I have said this before and I repeat it again - call me old and cynical - but the guidelines are much more than CaRT's own clarification of the law. It is much more a very convenient  reinterpretation of the prevailing Waterways Legislation. Many times I have questioned the motives of the trust - but I have at the same time recognised the need to support the trust in its broad aims for the future. My position is changing and I am now beginning to ask myself is the Charitable Trust fit for purpose.

 

Facebook pick-n-mix.

Twitter, does not do it for me, It's not a good place for someone interested in writing. Its enforced brevity, which might be good in one way, stifles creativity in so many other ways. By way of a comparison I enjoy reading many of the various writing, photographic and boating forums on Facebook. These topics are amongst my favourite interests in life. Facebook also provides insight into the micro cosmopolitan life played out each day along the canals. 

Over time as you read the various forums you slowly begin to recognise the various regular contributors. At the same time it's something of a pick-n-mix arena. One where even the most innocuous of comment can suddenly inflame even those who are usually more genteel amongst the throng. There are some I would call life-long protagonists for a variety of reasons. I say protagonists because for some there is this air of automatic nay-saying about individuals. Its seldom based upon the subject under discussion. 

 

There is the common bond of the canal life that draws them together in the first place. Each in their own way actually wants the world along the canal to flourish. The unfortunate bit is that the measure of success for many, does not have a common reason.  The only common point is the boat and from then on its division. Plastic and steel, narrow and wide, CCer and marina based, sadly even young and old. I remember those history lessons from school. The ones where much of the success was based upon divide and conquer. To a point its the same along the canal the deep divisions it seems will never heal. In fact it looks like they are about to get much worse. 

 

We have the police on our streets to uphold the rule of law. If a group of people decide to take the law into their own hands we call them vigilantes.  We certainly don't describe them 'street rangers.' On the canal we have CaRT who should be managing the canal system, and any miscreants are in their remit to manage. Though CaRT prefers to use the word enforcement, which itself carries certain connotations.

Now the IWA have published that they are going to be the vigilantes of the cut but with a dressed up name of moorings rangers.  Stating that in 2015 it will be 'Resolving the issues caused by congestion especially in urban areas where large numbers of boats remain in the area in contravention of the requirements of their licence'. The IWA openly admits that being vigilantes will make them unpopular. 

Its true, you look along an idyllic length of river or canal and you think of it as a serene and peaceful place.  But underneath it all, is a sub culture of distrust, NIMBYism and spite. The future in 2015 does not look to rosy at all. 

National Trust for the Inland Waterways

There used to be a series on television called 'The likely lads' which gave a light hearted look at life of two lads living in the north east. I suppose it was the male equivalent of the Liver-birds, where two young ladies presented a light hearted look at life in the north west. A few years after the Likely Lads series finished. The same couple 'Bob and Terry' were resurrected in a new series called 'Whatever happened to the likely lads.'

There are some parallels that can be drawn with the Canal and River Trust. Top billing was given to the creation of the 'National Trust for the Inland Waterways.' Now I suppose its time to ask whatever happened to the 'National Trust for the Inland Waterways.' The promised land, a bright new shiny future. Which was predicted and promoted as the future. However, there are not many parallels that can be drawn for CaRT when compared with the National Trust, which is a successful organisation led and promoted by the enthusiasm of its members.

The first major problem was that CaRT was created as a trust. Which unlike almost every other large charitable organisations. Was deliberately created without a membership. So rather than recruit the thousands of boaters, the trust went on a tangent to recruit people with little interest in the canals, to be found walking up and down the high street. The graffiti so to speak was on the wall. The Trust in its current guise as a non member organisation has proved to be, not fit for purpose. One which is long past its best before - sell by date.

So whatever did happen to the National Trust for the Inland Waterways?

The first wonderful idea (banana skin) was the transfer 'lock stock and barrel' of the old British Waterways management team. Under the guise of a supposed 'transitional team'. In place until the recruitment of a new team of talented individuals with experience of the charitable sector could be recruited. Now, unexpectedly who was it that was recruited. Well gosh, it was the old BW team, which was recruited. With a collective experience of the third sector that totalled a mind boggling zero, nada, zilch! The tarnish started to take hold of the family silver.

Then as the chuggers (Charitable Muggers) that had been employed by other charitable organisations, earned themselves a repugnant reputation with the public on the high street. CaRT bought into the wonderful idea (banana skin) and the much vaunted chuggers chugged the high streets on behalf of CaRT. The chugsters achieved the distinction of going bust! The trust was almost friendless and the family silver started to look more like pewter than silver.

Not to worry the Waterways Partnerships another wonderful idea (banana skin) would be the saviour of the fund raising activities. The Partnerships would take up the challenge and the role of fund raisers extraordinaire. Not only that, but they would start to raise up to £800,000 a year each, to replenish the trusts dwindling coffers. The first problem was that someone forgot to tell the partnerships what their role was. The running total after running costs is a magnificent and mind boggling zero, nada, zilch! Even the pewter started to tarnish faster than ever.

I could go on about the stunning way that the maintenance backlog has been cleared or the long list of investment success is coining dosh, like its growing on banana trees. Unfortunately there are zero, nada, zilch of note! I would love to wax lyrical about the remarkable about turn from the bad old days under British Waterways. Unfortunately whatever shine remained has long gone.

Under the chairmanship of Tony Hales the much vaunted and promised bright new world for the inland waterways. The National Treasure, of a 2200 mile linear waterpark has been a lack lustre flop of epic proportions. The family silver, what family silver?

So Tony, its on your watch, whatever did happen to the 'National Trust for the Inland Waterways'?

Barging Around

Are you like me, do you remember the old TV program - which was to become the prophetically named Locks and Quays series for television with a story line based upon the Inland Waterways. A series which embraced the heritage, history and something of the ethos of the canals. Unfortunately the series presenter was Fred Talbot an ex weather presenter on television. Fred Talbot has recently joined the prison service but not as a staff member but as an inmate.

Then there is the latest in the inland waterways genre which I am quite enjoying. Like the previous series it is named after a play on words. The latest one is named 'Barging Around'  With John Sargent as the presenter. As usual following the general tenure of facebook forums. The comments being passed are in the main negative. Some people simply don't like the presenter, yet he was seen as a consummate professional in his political reporting days. He then went on to become something of a national treasure - who despite his best efforts - the public kept voting to bring him back on celebrity toe stamping. I met him some years ago (he was reporting on a bye election) I discovered that he is quite a charming and humorous sort. 

Some people think that the program should be about boaters for boaters. Which is a niche market that would not carry the numbers of viewers for being broadcast on mainstream TV. But the series just might be a candidate for perpetual reruns on Dave. It's a bland bit of programming intended for the mass market - pitched with just enough variation which is also into a few loosely linked items. Just enough content to hold the attention span of a disinterested in boating onlooker. Put simply, experienced boaters are not going to find the program informative but it will provide them with a snigger or two for the odd faux par. Yet, interestingly its provided quite a bit of angst and comment amongst the nay sayers on Facebook!

Democracy and the Inland Waterways

I have been wondering to myself, how well has the Trust been performing since its inception. Three years in or 20% of the period of time allocated by the government for funding. The plan is that the Canal and River Trust (CaRT) will be self funding by the end of the period. Has the plan worked and has there been in the intervening time period, any successes to provide any reassurance of a positive future?

A Brief History in Time

The creation of the Trust came as a result of government policy for cutting costs. Which became better known as the 'Bonfire of the Quangos'. The old British Waterways was highlighted as being one of the Quangos at risk. In all likelihood the BW management would have gone to the conflagration and the assets would have transferred into the Environment Agency. There was a stay of execution as the old BW management cast around for a salary and pension saving alternative. Expediency drove the Government into publishing a consultation document on the future of the inland waterways titled 'A New Era for the Waterways' way back in March 2011.

There were grandiose claims for the required funding, which proved to be just that. People with experience and knowledge of the funding gap highlighted that the level of funding accepted was insufficient. The trust had to go back cap in hand to ask for more.

The All Party Parliamentary Group on Waterways (APPWG) added its weight to finding a future for the waterways. The APPWG gave a recommendation to the government for an increase in the funding. The APPWG also issued an invitation for both written and oral evidence from interested parties. The APPWG held two hearings where it took direct evidence from witnesses. Some of the witnesses brought with them a wealth of relevant expertise and experience. These hearings took place in May and June or 2011.

The APPWG then issued a Memorandum where it reported back on its findings. The memorandum was published July 2011. The APPWG memorandum was titled 'The Future of The Waterways.' The document highlighted the discussions and deliberations that had taken place. It also set out some of its key findings for the running and financing of the new Trust.

The Future of The Waterways

The memorandum now provides a good document with which to asses the Trusts performance so far. First it will be interesting to evaluate how well the Trust has taken on board the wishes of APPWG and accepted the knowledge and opinion from the highly regarded expert witnesses.

In the introduction to the Memorandum the key issues were highlighted as being a fundamental concern of government. There was an expectation and a principal that the Trust should become the 'National Trust for the Waterways'. This was not just in name, this was in ethos which would obviously include the business model.

There has been a great deal of interest in the proposition that our canals should be moved from being, in effect, 'owned' by a Government Department to being a sort of “national trust for the waterways” which is independent and structured as a charity or trust or mutual organisation. Many questions have been asked: would such a new body release public energy or face significant and difficult challenges?

The All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Waterways decided that the best way to make a constructive contribution was to undertake hearings on the two most significant topics of the changeover in order to help to answer these questions, those being governance and the financial arrangements of the new charity. Rt Hon Alun Michael MP, Chair All-Party Parliamentary Waterways Group

In clear concise and unequivocal language the expectations of the APPWG were set out. When it reported upon the findings of the evidence taken from expert witnesses. The memorandum reflected the thoughts of the APPWG after all the evidence had been weighed and given due consideration.

The memorandum stated 'We accept the practicality that the New Waterways Charity should begin life with fair representation of stakeholders but we believe that a membership model of democratic stakeholder representation to Council should be developed.'

National Trust for the Waterways

So the APPWG had set the agenda for the future. One in which there was a guiding principal of building upon a democratic membership. Which in turn it said would lead to stakeholder representation. The APPWG was abundantly clear on this guiding principal. There it was, a wonderful prospect of a national charity, built around the waterways. Working on the same ethos as the National Trust. Which with few exceptions everyone thought was a perfect exemplar.

However, the thought of the Trust being built upon democratic membership did not sit well with some. Subsequent events have proven that the democratic membership was to become biggest glaring and deliberate omission in the make up of the Charitable Trust and it continues to this day.

Democratic Membership

At the time there had been some significant opposition voiced to the whole idea of a democratic membership model. In an effort to spell out in simple terms. The APPWG laboured the point when it said 'We believe that membership has so much to offer the new organisation in terms of engaging the public and developing a sense of ownership that there should be a clear timetable for moving to a full membership model.'

There it is, in plain and simple language. 'A clear timetable should be put in place for moving to a full membership model.' There were no ifs or buts, just a direct statement. I wonder if anyone has seen this mythical timetable?

The Trust still stands opposed to the democratic model of a membership. A membership that could easily number in the hundreds of thousands. Made up of boaters, birdwatcher, walkers, cyclist, conservationist and fishermen. A whole myriad of people and organisations that could contribute and at long last feel ownership. This however can only come about if all interested parties have the option of becoming a paying member. Which would also bring with it a significant funding stream. Many like me were confused why there was this opposition in some corners for democracy. Opposition to what the APPWG and all the evidence of the experts pointed to. The common thought was being accountable to the membership and that the membership would be able to vote on the make-up of the governing council and trustees.

So the evidence gained from years of experience from experts in the National Trust and other charitable institutions was weighed. The memorandum highlighted the importance it placed upon the National Trust experts evidence. The APPWG actually stated it wanted to create the equivalent of the 'National Trust for the Waterways.' Here was a once in a lifetime opportunity. There was a distinct prospect of fulfilling the hopes and aspirations of the early pioneers of restoration such as Aickman, Rolt and many others.

Dame Fiona Reynolds (Director General of the National Trust) and Paul Boniface (Secretary of the National Trust) informed the APPWG that the structure and organisation of the New Waterways Charity as proposed in the consultation document suggested over complication and a lack of clarity. It needed to be simpler in terms of governance and in identifying accountability within the organisation. There seemed to be imprecision about the roles of the Council and the Board of Trustees and confusion over the role of Local Partnerships.

If ever there was some advice to listen to it came from the National Trust. Dame Fiona is obviously very astute and she and her colleague identified almost from the start. That the Local Partnerships would be confused. That situation has not changed, if it has changed in any way, its certainly not for the better. The promised £800,000 a year contribution by each partnership looks to be an extremely unlikely prospect. The promised self sufficiency of funding by the partnerships by the end of 2014 has not happened. The partnerships have failed completely to even partially fulfil even the minimal expectations. The theme of a democratic membership, certainly does not stretch to the make up of the Waterways Partnerships either.

The Evidence Builds.

Other people offered their considered opinion which built upon years of expertise. Cliff Mills a Practitioner in the law and governance of co-operative, mutual and membership based organisations. Principal Associate with Mutuo. Consultant with Capsticks Solicitors LLP and Cobbetts LLP added to mounting evidence for a democratic membership.

Cliff Mills told the APPWG about his experience in setting up mutuals and membership-based organisations. He said that he was also struck by the potential for engagement with the wider community. He believed that the statement of intentions in the consultation document – with membership as an option for the new body to consider later on – was wrong. The new body needed to start as a membership based organisation to generate engagement – membership was the point at which the public could become engaged leading to a sense of ownership. Unless membership was built in from the start of an organisation it could be very hard to move to membership later on.

But then I suppose the Trustees under the chairmanship of Tony Hales must think that Mr Mills is only an expert in setting up and advising charitable organisations. After all, what would he know when compared to the experience in the third sector of the trustees. I bet Mr Mills if asked, would now be saying – I told you so!

Michael Stephenson (General Secretary of the Co-operative Party) questioned the detail of the governance proposals. He told the APPWG that the proposals as they stood were 'a missed opportunity' and could be more ambitious. The previous administration had favoured the creation of a mutual rather than a trust. The mutual model would allow for a greater involvement of ‘membership‘, and allow members a more direct say over appointments and representation.

In a Pickle

The grand plan for the Trustees is based upon – recruiting friends. The problem is that the Trust seems to be unable to find friends in sufficient numbers. Not only that but it has thrown a huge amount of our money into the discredited chugging on the high street to recruit the elusive friends. The chuggers however soon went bust and so the Trust now forlornly chuggs along the towpath. If chugging stopped people from entering town centres – think what it must be doing for towpath visitor numbers.

Cliff Mills continued 'If the design of the organisation was right from the outset it need not be incompatible with a charity but accountability would be undoubtedly improved through membership. Under the currently proposed constitution arrangements, it seemed that preservation was fundamental to the purposes. But the opportunity to challenge, change and evolve would be lost with this model and there was a danger of preserving something in aspic. Membership would allow more freedom to direct evolution of the waterways in a positive manner.'

I think that the above is a pretty positive statement of how things would fail to progress, from his considerable experience. I quite enjoyed his metaphor of the Trust ending up like a specimen in a jar and pickled in Aspic.

Mr Mills continued that in his opinion there was a danger that failing to adopt a membership structure - at least in the sense of identifying clear stakeholder representative constituencies that could generate elected representatives to Council - could result in bad publicity and be seen as a device to cling on to power. In effect it would hold at arm’s-length those who might benefit the new organisation most through their enthusiasm and potential financial contributions.

In a short and succinct statement, Cliff Mills had highlighted everything that could go wrong and which prophetically has gone wrong.

But Mr Mills is only an expert with considerable experience in the third sector. The trustees however, have been providing at best a lack lustre leadership. Predicated upon the flawed supposition that they know best.

Adopting a democratic membership has envisaged by the APPWG would have most likely led to the removal of poorly performing trustees. What was it again that Mr Mills said 'could result in bad publicity and be seen as a device to cling on to power. In effect it would hold at arm’s-length those who might benefit the new organisation mostly through their enthusiasm and potential financial contributions.'

The Minister Weighs In.

The APPWG memorandum also went on to say that 'In the light of the evidence we conclude that following the route outlined in the consultation document (setting up a governance structure which initially does not allow for membership) is likely to foster a perception of a lack of democracy and public engagement and to engender a concern amongst stakeholders that the new organisation is British Waterways under another name.

This is a concern [the lack of democratic membership and a British Waterways continuation] that we note that the Waterways Minister is on the public record as being keen to wish to avoid:

The Waterways Minister said in answer to a question from an MP. 'It is vital that we are extremely careful to ensure that we receive the best advice and get the correct model. I can assure her that officials in my Department are working hard on the issue and are committed to it, although we shall have a difficult time ahead with the comprehensive spending review, which I shall talk about in a moment.

We would have to have a completely new board or council that would shape its own future. It would not be British Waterways by another name, but a new structure, in different hands altogether. We do not aim to impose a particular model for a new civil society body, so we will work up different options in partnership with stakeholders. Citation: HC Deb, 7 July 2010, c501

The memorandum also went on to say Once an organisation is set up it can be very difficult for that organisation to then move towards a membership model at a later date, however good the original intention.

We recommend that the Charity should begin life with a Council that comprises members that are elected by the relevant organisations where that is possible, and with representatives of other interest groups provided for through nomination in the first instance; and that the process and timetable for achieving a fully elected Council, and moving the Charity to a full membership organisation, should be incorporated into the articles for the New Waterways Charity and be a required milestone in the Government contract with the Charity.

The section on governance finished with the following. We recommend that the Charity should begin life with a Council that comprises members that are elected by the relevant organisations where that is possible, and with representatives of other interest groups provided for through nomination in the first instance; and that the process and timetable for achieving a fully elected Council, and moving the Charity to a full membership organisation, should be incorporated into the articles for the New Waterways.

The Story Continues

There are many thousands of charities in the UK. England and Wales. The Charities Commission role is to regulate and monitor their charitable activities. The Commission have conducted their own regular research into the performance of Charitable Trusts and Mutuals. In particular to their structures and make-up. The research from the Commission was available long before the trust came into being. The scope of the research was not limited to the performance of the exemplar National Trust. The Commissions research was - independently conducted by Mori – Furthermore it was conducted across the whole spectrum of third sector charities.

So you might conclude that the Charity Commission would know a bit about the best way to run a charity. Many charities are run as a business and in some cases could legitimately be described as being - a very big business. The Canal and River Trust with its assets is a multi Billion pound, third sector, business operation, enjoying what many other charities would love to have and that is a monopoly position.

Speaking at the Ascension Trust Practitioners Conference in Manchester, Sam Younger urged charities to respond to public expectations by being transparent and accountable:

'In all areas of life, the public expects access to more, and more accessible, data. Trustees need to respond to that. Trustees should ask themselves: 'what do our donors, our beneficiaries; our partners expect to know about our work?' Organisations - and charities are no exception here - sometimes fear that revealing too much exposes them to risk, for example to the risk that the information may be misinterpreted or misused. My experience is that the occasions where this is indeed the greatest risk are relatively rare.

Failing to be transparent, allowing speculation to build, is often the greater risk, especially in the long term. My view is that so long as trustees have followed our guidance in making their decisions, they should, in most cases, feel able to be open and transparent about those decisions. And better still - share the information before they are asked in the first place."

This is obviously an ethos that is not shared by the Canal and River Trust board of trustees. Time and again information is published late if at all. The on line information is quietly removed at the first opportunity from public scrutiny. The latest trend seems to be wholesale redacting of information. The drawbridge is up and firmly in position at Ivory Towers and the suspicion of the public is at Defcon One.

80,000 Charities Have a Membership.

Membership is a common governance model in the sector and its popularity looks likely to continue. The Charity Commission estimates that approximately 80,000 charities have a membership structure. Their research indicated that charities with members overwhelmingly saw the role of their membership as a positive one, with 84% of charities with individual members and 81% with corporate members stating that their members made a useful contribution to the running of the charity. Their findings also highlighted that membership charities also receive significant wide-ranging benefits from their members.

Charity Commission experience indicates that those few charities that do run into problems with their membership are likely to have one or more of the following features: The trustee body puts up barriers to membership involvement, either deliberately or inadvertently. The charity's membership lacks diversity so the trustee board is self perpetuating or change-resistant and unrepresentative of its potential beneficiaries. Members or trustees deliberately abuse voting procedures and rights.

There is very little I can add to what the expert witnesses provided and the Charity Commission have published from conducting research into charities in the third sector. I constantly have feelings of 'deja vu' about the APPWG warnings and what the Charity Commission have published as being areas of deep conern for the wellbeing and governance of charitable trusts.

The Epilogue

So here we are in 2015 with the benefit of 20:20 vision. Three years forward and a whole generation backwards. The public face of the Trust tainted forever. Through the richly deserved bad publicity, gained as a result of towpath evictions of vulnerable boaters. The black hole in the maintenance budget grows to a gaping chasm. Where in access of £130 million a year is needed just to halt the deterioration. And about £500 million more is needed to put things right. Boaters increasingly disenchanted despite the best effort of the new CEO to meet and greet. The promised openness and accountability proving to be little more than a fig of the imagination. Meeting minutes filled with redaction after redaction. The electorate who would form the core of a democratic membership not allowed to know what their representatives who they elected are doing.

Each time I read about the Trust, I'm reminded of J M Barrie's book about Peter Pan and the shenanigans that took place in Never-never Land. The book was a personal favourite of mine as a child. Because it is full of villainous characters, fanciful flights of the principal character and the twists and turns of the unravelling plot. Which as a story line, can found in all good fairy stories. The nautical flavoured plot came complete with a bumbling ships crew and a certain accident prone, prosthetic wearing Cap't Hook.

Pirate Hook was to be found blindly issuing commands and edicts to an ever bewildered crew. While he stood resolutely, but completely out of touch, at the helm of the fast deteriorating and leak filled Jolly Roger. While at the same time, being in command of a sinking ship. The Cap't, with furtive backward glances over his shoulder, was being relentlessly pursued by a crocodile. One which came with an inbuilt alarm clock.

If you listen carefully, you can just hear the feint Tick Tick Tick. However, that's not the crocodile that's catching up with Hook. That's the sound of time running out for the Trust. Maybe its time for another bumbling fairy tale character to walk the plank!