Tag Archives: Recognition


The public have long been cynical about the honesty of politicians, and recent events in Westminster and in Downing Street have done nothing to change that cynicism, likely only embedding it deeper.

It is a sad fact that with cynicism comes almost an acceptance of dishonesty in politics. While some are moved to anger, many sit idly by and simply shrug their shoulders and continue about their lives.

But what has this to do with the charity sector? 

The public have a right to expect honesty and integrity from charities. Many, blindly, believe that the sector is an honest one, one driven by integrity and managed by good people, people with morals.

And, for most of the sector, that may well be true. But how many dishonest charities would it take to undermine confidence in the rest?

If one of the nation’s largest charities has displayed dishonesty, hypocrisy, poor morals, low integrity and turned a blind eye to fraud, is that an alarm bell for the whole sector? And, if so, what would the sector do to protect itself?

It is not a theoretical question. For over a quarter of a century Cancer Research UK has told a range of untruths about the origins of the Race for Life. For 25 years successive CEOs, Chairmen, and others have hypocritically accepted recognition for their own work, including knighthoods and other honours, while denying any recognition (let alone thanks) for the man who created the Race for Life.

What does this say about the integrity and morals of that charity and those running it?

And when it emerged that it was, initially, a Cancer Research UK employee who stole the idea for the Race for Life from Jim Cowan (its actual creator), and who covered up her tracks before fraudulently claiming to be the event’s originator on her CV, what did Cancer Research UK do? They looked the other way. No comment. Nothing to see here.

That same individual is now in the employ of two other charities, one well known (Barnardos), the other less so (Cultivating Mindfulness). Both are aware of her dishonest and fraudulent past. Both choose to look the other way.

There are serious questions to be asked of those tasked with running these charities. However, their lack of action to date suggests that they may be lost causes; too far gone down a dishonest and immoral pathway.

But those serious questions can be asked of other charities, aware of some (if not all) of the above. What does their silence say about them? About their integrity?

They might point to those responsible for ensuring the honesty and integrity of the charity sector in the UK and ask why they fail to act? But looking the other way while expecting others to act is not an indicator of moral fortitude, of integrity.

And, from those who do have ultimate responsibility for the sound running of the sector? Silence.

The Charity Commission? Silence.

The Fundraising Regulator? Silence.

The NCVO? Silence.

They choose to look the other way. They all state the importance of integrity. But none are prepared to act with integrity and properly investigate Cancer Research UK’s quarter of a century of lies and deceit, of covering up the origins of their largest, most successful fundraising event.

The event’s creator, Jim Cowan, deserves better than that. The British public deserve better than that.

Or are we to sit idly by, shrugging our shoulders and continuing with our lives while the reputation of this vital sector gets tarnished by the dishonesty of a few? 

Those responsible need to act now. For once the confidence of the British public is lost, once the general view becomes one of ‘if one is at it, they’re all at it’ then the battle is lost.

There are too many good, moral, important charities run with integrity by decent people to allow that to happen. But looking the other way won’t solve the issue for any of them.

In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK are lagging behind.


October 10th saw an important conference for the charity sector take place when NPC, the think tank and consultancy for the sector, hosted its NPC Ignites Conference on 10th October.

Many charities gain valuable information and ideas from the conference and the value of one of the topics discussed, collaboration, should not be understated.

One of the topics for discussion was the uncertainty faced by the sector during the uncertainty surrounding Brexit. And, with a straight face, Cancer Research UK’s Chief Executive Michelle Mitchell suggested that, for her, collaboration is key.

A good idea but here at Race 4 Truth we must question Mitchell’s own belief in what she espouses? We question how she could make such a statement with a straight face?

After all, this is the woman who runs the charity that Jim Cowan took the original idea of the Race for Life to in 1993; seeking to collaborate with them on building it into a significant fundraising event.

It is the charity which then stole that idea, ditched Jim, and then spent 25 years falsely citing a range of different sources for the event. Yes, the same charity which, when the lies were exposed, instead of correcting them and recognising (let alone thanking) Jim took a stance of, “we don’t recognise anyone.” That same charity which regularly recognises and thanks others. The one which happily accepts thanks and recognition from others. Indeed, Mitchell was happy to accept an OBE in recognition for her own work. And let’s not forget, Mitchell leads the same charity which has turned a blind eye to the fraud of their own employee who they now know stole the idea. Collaboration? 

The charity has a long record of hypocrisy and Mitchell’s belief that “collaboration is key” holds little or no water when examined.

Why would anyone consider seeking to collaborate with CRUK when that organisation’s own history clearly displays they do not collaborate on ideas from outside sources, they steal them and then claim then as their own.

And, should anyone having a similar big, creative, fundraising idea to Jim’s be seeking collaboration with a charity, why would they trust CRUK not to take their idea too?

The danger to the rest of the charity sector, one worthy of consideration by all those sector leaders attending NPC Ignites, is that Mitchell and CRUK’s actions and ensuing deceit and hypocrisy risk undermining ideas people like Jim’s trust in the entire sector.

In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK are lagging behind.


Yesterday (16th September), in a Tweet Cancer Research UK Chief Executive, Michelle Mitchell, mentioned talking about, “the charity’s history, its impact & the big questions that will shape our future.”

We find it surprising that Mitchell, in the full knowledge that parts of the charity’s history are made up, could post such a Tweet with a straight face. 

We replied to her Tweet with the direct question, “how accurate is the history you talked about?” We then reminded her; “you have rewritten the history of @raceforlife to exclude the person who created it and then spent 25 years spreading different fictional versions.” We then posed the question, “how can anyone know for sure that you haven’t rewritten other bits?”

Mitchell might, for the uninformed claim that she knows nothing of this rewriting of history, although as CEO she should avail herself of the facts. Of course, she has had that opportunity but declined it. We posted another Tweet reminding her of this; “it is no good claiming, as you have, that you have no documentation from the event’s creation, we have offered to sit down and share documents/evidence with you but you were not interested.” We then asked, “how can you talk about @CR_UK history when you don’t even care that it is accurate?”

To date, predictably, Mitchell has maintained her organisation’s hypocritical and unethical ‘heads in the sand’ approach and offered neither explanation nor reply to our Tweets.

So, to go back to her Tweet, surely one of the big questions that will shape her organisation’s future is that of whether it can be trusted? 

With a track record of rewriting history, lies, hypocrisy, turning a blind eye to fraud, low integrity, poor ethics, and absent morals, we certainly would not trust them. But they could very quickly make a start on repairing the damage by recognising Jim Cowan, putting the record straight on their employee fraud, and acknowledging the many wrongs done in the last quarter of a century.

In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK are lagging behind.

NOTE: We should add that we also know that the Race for Life’s creator, Jim Cowan, has offered to sit down with Mitchell, but she declined that offer too. It appears that historical accuracy, and with it trust, is not high up her list of priorities.


Cancer Research UK might continue to deny Jim Cowan had anything to do with the Race for Life but, in doing so, they ignore correspondence which clearly shows that he came to them with the ‘original idea’ (their words).

One such example is the letter below from the Imperial Cancer Research Fund’s (Cancer Research UK’s then name) National Events Manager Jill MacRae in which she states; “Mr Cowan came to us with the original idea..…”

Interestingly, as we have evidenced in a recent article, Jill MacRae is one of the people who has fraudulently since claimed to have created the event herself, it appears with the full endorsement of Cancer Research UK, just one of many ‘stories’ used by that organisation to deny Jim the recognition he so rightly deserves.

It is time for Cancer Research UK to stop lying and to put right the wrongs done to Jim and give him the credit he deserves.

In the Race For Truth, Cancer Research UK are lagging behind!


The hypocrisy of Cancer Research UK (CRUK) and those who run the ‘charity’ are on record but this summer’s Race for Life series has set a new low in hypocrisy, even by the appallingly low standards CRUK set for themselves.

Both the current (Michelle Mitchell) and the former (Harpal Kumar) CEOs of the organisation have demonstrated textbook hypocrisy by happily accepting awards and recognition for their own work while steadfastly refusing to recognise Race for Life creator Jim Cowan for his own contribution.

A number of members of CRUK’s Board of Trustees likewise have accepted awards and recognition for their work but, led by Chairman, Leszek Borysiewicz, they endorse the CEO’s stance on denying any recognition to Jim Cowan.

The position is particularly hypocritical given that although they now take a stance of stating that they don’t credit anyone with the creation of the event, for the 25 years previously they have spun a range of fictional stories about the event’s origins; fiction they have never corrected.

More widely and beyond its executives, they regularly accepts awards and recognition for its work both as an organisation and for individuals in their employ and who volunteer for them. CRUK applauds the contribution of supporters, of participants in events, of event organisers. In recent months they have even run an online campaign for people to nominate their ‘Race for Life Hero’ responding to all nominations, sharing many on social media, while steadfastly ignoring the many nominations for Jim Cowan from members of the public.

CRUK’s hypocrisy is well recorded. It is also shameless.

Now, even by the very low standards they set themselves, they have reached an all time low. 

After warning the public of the dangers of eating bacon and other processed meats, warning of the carcinogens such products contain, they have happily taken income from businesses which profit from selling these products. Worse, they have accommodated them and allowed them to sell at Race for Life events.

It is a bit like saying; “hey, we know this product is damaging to your health but so what. They are willing to pay us to be here and we’ll happily take that money so tuck in!”

Now, you might excuse them by suggesting the extra income supports more research into cancer but you’d be wrong. CRUK’s own annual report makes it clear that event income does not fund research. No, it funds the gravy train.

“Bacon is carcinogenic. It causes cancer. Here, have a bacon roll while we pop to the bank!”

Examples of carcinogens on sale at Race for Life events in Brentwood and Epsom

Hypocrisy? You tell us!

In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK are lagging behind.

Further reading:
Cancer Research UK CEO Provides A Textbook Demonstration Of Hypocrisy
Is Cancer Research UK The Home Of Charity Sector Hypocrisy?
New Cancer Research UK CEO Will Continue Hypocrisy Of Her Predecessor
Cancer Research UK Hypocrite In Chief At It Again
The Hypocrisy Of Cancer Research UK Committees And Trustee Membership
Amazing! Cancer Research UK’s Hypocrisy Continues Unabated
Hypocrisy Is Deeply Embedded Within The Culture Of Cancer Research UK
Race For Life Hero Nominations Once Again Highlight The Hypocrisy And Low Integrity Of Cancer Research UK
Bacon, Salami And Sausages: How Does Processed Meat Cause Cancer And How Much Matters?
Cancer Research UK Refusing To Correct Twenty Five Years Of Lying About Race For Life
Percentage Of Cancer Research UK Income Going To Research Is Lower Than They Claim


Two days ago we posted an article which, once again, highlighted the hypocrisy of Cancer Research UK. The article pointed out their hypocrisy in asking people to nominate their Race for Life hero while, for  the last 25 years, they have refused to give the event’s creator, Jim Cowan, any recognition at all.

We suggested that without Jim the near £1 Billion raised through the event would never have been possible. We highlighted the organisation’s hypocrisy and how they have refused to distance themselves from the fraudulent activities of Jill MacRae, the employee who faked creating the event herself. We pointed out their campaign to whitewash Jim’s name from the event’s history.

We then asked you to speak against the hypocrisy, the lack of integrity, and nominate Jim Cowan as your Race for Life hero. To nominate the person without whom none of it would have happened.

And, lots of you did. Thank you.

And, guess what? Cancer Research UK and the Race for Life have again highlighted their hypocrisy and their lacking integrity. On both Twitter and on Facebook, those nominating anyone other than Jim have been asked to email their nomination in while those nominating Jim have been ignored (see screen grab examples below).

It is an incredible demonstration of low integrity, even of ballot rigging. It is a classic example of hypocrisy. 

They would like a Race for Life hero. Just not one they are trying to ignore and remove from the history of the event he created.

And, if we can’t trust Cancer Research UK’s integrity on this issue, why should we trust them on any other; such as with our money?

Don’t take our word for it. You can check on their Twitter post and responses here: https://twitter.com/raceforlife/status/1138041357308694528

And you can check on their Facebook thread here: www.facebook.com/raceforlife/photos/a.10150132516578689/10157672661123689

Please continue to help us in ensuring Jim Cowan is not whitewashed from the history of the Race for Life and that he finally gets the recognition he so richly deserves. Please continue to let Race for Life and Cancer Research UK know how you fell. Please follow Race 4 Truth on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and through this website.

Thank you for your support. We’re not going away until Jim gets the recognition he deserves.

In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK are lagging behind.

Please note, we are not in any way suggesting those other people nominated are not worthy. Quite the opposite. We believe anyone who goes above and beyond deserves recognition. Especially the man who created an event which has raised nearly £1 Billion and has been copied by so many other charities since.


Cancer Research UK have long maintained a highly hypocritical stance when it comes to giving recognition where it is due. And their new CEO appears keen to continue the tradition.

We have previously reported how she refuses to any recognition to Jim Cowan for creating the Race for Life while happily accepts recognition for herself, not least in the form of an OBE.

And with the announcement of the Queen’s Birthday Honours list, she is at it again. Her and her integrity free, hypocritical charity are happy to accept recognition, and tell the world about it. But the silence over Jim Cowan continues, the airbrushing of his name from the Race for Life’s history continues.

We are not suggesting that any of the awards and recognition Mitchell refers to in her tweets are not deserved. We believe in due recognition being given wherever it is merited. It is the hypocrisy displayed by Mitchell and the organisation she heads we find mind-boggling.

It is dictionary definition, classic hypocrisy.

In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK are lagging behind.


This week is Volunteers Week and Cancer Research UK and Race for Life have been busy using social media to thank some who have been giving their time and supporting them in one way or another.

This is how it should be. Those who support them, or any other cause, should be given due recognition and thanks for their contribution no matter how small or large.

However, conspicuous by its absence is the long awaited recognition of, and thanks to, Jim Cowan, the man who created the Race for Life, an event which has been incredibly successful and raised hundreds of millions over the last quarter of a century.

Cherry picking those you thank and those you give recognition to undermines the sincerity of your message. By being selective, it gives the impression that it is hollow words driven by PR, and not a genuine appreciation of support given.

Meanwhile, worse than neither recognising nor thanking Jim, Cancer Research UK are instead trying to whitewash his name from the event’s history. After lying about the its origins for 25 years before being exposed, after supporting the fraudulent claims of their former employee Jill MacRae (who falsely claimed to be the event’s originator to bolster her CV), rather than set the record straight they choose to pretend the lies never happened, not correct them, and pursue a policy of not giving anyone credit for creating the event.

The hypocrisy is mind-boggling when you consider both Cancer Research UK’s Chair, Leszek Borysiewicz, and its CEO, Michelle Mitchell, have both been happy to accept recognition and thanks for themselves, not least a knighthood for Borysiewicz and an OBE for Mitchell.

Volunteers Week presents an opportunity for Cancer Research UK to set the record straight. Instead, they continue to show little integrity, poor ethics, low morals and act hypocritically. Calling their selective thank yous double standards, would be a huge understatement.

In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK are lagging behind.


What is hypocrisy?

The Cambridge English Dictionary defines it thus:

Hypocrisy (hɪˈpɒk.rɪ.si); a situation in which someone pretends to believe something that they do not really believe, or that is the opposite of what they do or say at another time:

There’s one rule for her and another rule for everyone else and it’s sheer hypocrisy.

And this definition fits perfectly in describing the culture within Cancer Research UK and its policy of accepting recognition both individually and collectively while refusing to offer recognition to Jim Cowan, the person who created their most popular and significant fundraising event; the Race for Life.

This culture of hypocrisy comes from the very top of the organisation with the new CEO, Michelle Mitchell, leading the way in continuing the practice embedded by her predecessor, Harpal Kumar. Both have refused to recognise Jim Cowan for his incredible contribution to the charity’s fundraising and yet both are happy to accept recognition for their own work, including a knighthood by Kumar and an OBE by Mitchell.

The organisation’s Chairman, Leszek Borysiewicz, is no better. He endorses the refusal to recognise Cowan but has also accepted recognition for himself in the form of his knighthood.

What about Cancer Research UK’s committees and trustee membership? On page 45 of their 2017/18 Annual Report we can see that the thirteen strong list includes three knights and one dame. Yes, the hypocrisy runs deep within the very fabric of the charity and is clearly endorsed from the top down.

What of other examples? There are many and anyone following the organisation’s social media will see regular tweets and posts offering recognition and thanks to those who help the charity, and thanking those who recognise them. But recognition for Jim Cowan, not a peep.

Examples include using Father’s Day as a marketing tool and calling on people to honour fathers affected by cancer while ignoring Jim Cowan and denying him recognition for creating the event, in full knowledge of the fact that the inspiration behind Jim’s creating of the Race for Life was his own father’s cancer diagnosis in 1993.

How about Cancer Research UK’s own annual Flame of Hope awards in recognition of their volunteers achievements, something we applaud. But every time they Tweet or otherwise share details of Flame of Hope Award winners without also recognising the man who created the Race for Life they again demonstrate that deeply embedded cultural hypocrisy.

Then there was Nicholas McGranahan, group leader at the CRUK-UCL Lung Cancer Centre of Excellence, who last year won the MD Anderson Wilson Stone Memorial Award. Cancer Research UK were quick to applaud the award, to promote the achievements of one of their own. But what of Jim Cowan? Still nothing. 

The examples are many, of which these are but a few, led by the people at the very top of the charity every one of them providing a dictionary definition example of the hypocrisy which is not only embedded within the organisation but actively encouraged by Cancer Research UK’s leadership.

We do not criticise the recognition of any of the above, we take that recognition at face value and assume it to be deserved. But we ask Cancer Research UK, doesn’t Jim Cowan deserve recognition too? Doesn’t the person who created your biggest and most popular fundraising event deserve recognition (if not thanks) too?

Recognition for Jim Cowan is long, long overdue, a quarter of a century overdue. We had hoped that change at the top at Cancer Research UK would finally bring that change. Unfortunately, hypocrisy continues to reign supreme.

In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK are lagging behind.


In our most recent articles we have shared correspondence from both Race 4 Truth and from Jim Cowan to Michelle Mitchell, Cancer Research UK’s new Chief Executive, asking her to reconsider the organisation’s refusal to recognise Jim for creating the Race for Life.

For your reference, you can read our letter to Mitchell here, and her non-response here, followed by Jim Cowan’s follow up to her here.

After a wait of four weeks, Jim did eventually receive a reply although not from Mitchell, instead from her organisation’s Complaints Manager, Graeme McCluskey. We share that letter here with analysis of its content below.

It is perhaps telling that Mitchell does not extend the courtesy of replying herself, perhaps choosing to create distance between herself and the charity’s continuing and deliberate ignoring of the facts?

We had hoped when Mitchell was appointed that a new broom might see the dawn of a new culture at CRUK however, the reference to CRUK Chairman Sir Leszek Borysiewicz’s September 2017 correspondence tells us that under the new CEO’s guidance it will be ‘old broom, old culture’ – a culture lacking integrity and of questionable ethics, not to mention hugely hypocritical.

McCluskey, on behalf of Mitchell, repeats the mantra of “we do not credit anyone with originating any of our events”, stating that CRUK’s position has not changed. It sounds reasonable but is far from it.

  1. Cancer Research UK lied about the origins of the Race for Life for nearly a quarter of a century (outlined here). The ‘we do not credit anyone’ line was introduced in 2017 solely to avoid having to face up to and admit those lies. Many of those lies remain in the public domain, uncorrected. Any organisation with integrity would address this as a matter of urgency.
  2. The Race for Life is the only CRUK event which was not developed in-house or by hired contractor. Therefore any rule applying to it being developed internally and individuals responsible not being recognised should not apply.
  3. The event was entirely conceived independently of CRUK by Jim Cowan (see article here) and with the intention he organise and develop it. After he took it to Cancer Research UK (then known as Imperial Cancer Research Fund) proposing it could be a huge event raising funds for them, it was their staff who effectively stole the event by trademarking it behind Jim’s back before informing him he was no longer needed.
  4. They regularly credit, recognise, and thank individuals and organisations external to CRUK for organising fundraising events and challenges for them. Hypocrisy at its best.
  5. They happily accept recognition both for individuals and collectively as an organisation from external bodies. More hypocrisy.
  6. And even more hypocritically, their Chairman (a knighthood), their previous CEO (a knighthood – see article here), and Mitchell herself (an OBE) have happily accepted honours in recognition of their own achievements while refusing to recognise Jim Cowan.

McCluskey’s letter continues by claiming the charity has no record of the communication regarding the job opportunity lost to Jim when CRUK stated they had never heard of him (article here). Apart from being very convenient, it seems to support a view that record keeping within the organisation is somewhat lax and a long way short of what should be expected.

Cancer Research UK, the letter states, has neither employee nor contractor records going back to 1994. What the relevance of this is we do not know, other than to deliberately evade the fact that Jim Cowan was neither an employee nor a contractor in 1993 when he proposed the event to them, nor in 1994 when he organised the very first Race for Life.

McCluskey then reports that his organisation has no internal records of Jim’s involvement either,  suggesting they know he was neither employee nor contractor.

  1. Apart from being very convenient for CRUK it is also not unsurprising given it is highly likely that their then employee Jill MacRae would have covered her tracks and removed evidence to the contrary when falsely and fraudulently claiming to be the event’s originator in 1994/5 (details here and here).
  2. Regardless of (1), Jim offered to meet and share documentary evidence with Mitchell. Given the admission that CRUK has no documentary evidence of their own concerning the origins of the event, some might consider it strange that they have no interest (indeed, make no mention of) this offer. This is the ostrich approach, keeping their heads buried in the sand to avoid hearing facts that support a truth they know but won’t acknowledge. Yet again, this brings the organisation’s integrity into question.
  3. They know the lies they told over 25 years do not hold water. Indeed their lies contradict each other so frequently did they change their story prior to assuming their present ‘we don’t credit anyone’ position. They know they backed a fake and a fraudster in MacRae and rather than do the right thing and show some integrity they choose to keep the truth buried, thereby continuing to support the lie through their silence and their ‘credit no one’ stance.
  4. Indeed, it is about much more than giving credit where credit is due; it is about doing the right thing. What is it that they are so scared of that they do not even want to meet Jim to see and discuss his evidence which includes original documentation?
  5. The only logical conclusion is that they lack the collective moral compass, moral leadership and integrity to do the right thing and admit that they got it wrong.
  6. CRUK’s stance stems back to MacRae’s theft of the event from Jim. Everything since has been to protect that lie. Maybe initially CRUK were unaware but integrity would demand that once exposed, the lie be corrected, apologies made, and due recognition given.

Without correcting the lies of the last 25 years, many of their own staff are in ignorance of the event’s origins having been sold those same lies by their employer; a situation damning of the organisation’s leadership over that time. This is demonstrated by their National Events Manager, Annette Quarry’s (a CRUK employee of over ten years) misinformed insistence that the event originated with the American Cancer Society. This, in 2018 after the ‘credit no one’ policy was supposedly in place. One can only wonder at which version of CRUK’s fake history others in their current and former employ subscribe to. We do know it won’t be the factual version.

In addition to highlighting a disturbing absence in integrity within such a large charity, the ‘credit no one’ stance is extremely hypocritical.

  1. As mentioned above, Borysiewicz (Chairman), Harpal Kumar (previous CEO), and Mitchell have all accepted recognition for themselves while denying recognition for Jim Cowan.
  2. CRUK and Race for Life’s social media are littered with recognition and thanks for their own staff and volunteers while continuing to deny any recognition to Jim Cowan.
  3. CRUK are happy to accept recognition and thanks from others while continuing to deny any recognition and thanks to Jim Cowan.
  4. CRUK regularly thank and recognise a range of external fundraisers, volunteers, and events while (you guessed it) continuing to deny any recognition and thanks to Jim Cowan.

Given all of the above, is it any wonder that Mitchell has chosen not to meet with Jim? Is it any wonder that she delegated even replying to his letter? Perhaps, she is fully aware of the facts around the creation of the Race for Life, she is aware that the charity she now leads has lied about that creation for a quarter of a century? Whether she is aware or not, she should be. It is part of her role as CEO to be informed on such matters. The integrity and moral compass of the charity are being brought into question under her watch. That she chooses to distance herself is incriminating even without considering any/all of the above.

The correspondence between Race 4 Truth, Michelle Mitchell, and Jim Cowan started in January and concluded in April. During that correspondence Race 4 Truth and Jim raised several key points to Mitchell, points which needed addressing or, at a minimum, acknowledging:

  1. That the original motivation behind Jim creating the Race for Life was his own father’s eventually fatal cancer diagnosis. IGNORED BY CANCER RESEARCH UK
  2. That there was documentary evidence available to support the facts and to prove that Jim was the creator of the Race for Life. IGNORED BY CANCER RESEARCH UK
  3. That, in addition to documentary evidence, witnesses were available to support the fact that Jim created the Race for Life. IGNORED BY CANCER RESEARCH UK
  4. That one of their own employees falsely and fraudulently claimed to be the originator of the Race for Life. IGNORED BY CANCER RESEARCH UK
  5. The question of the integrity of the charity were its current stance on the creation of the Race for Life to continue. IGNORED BY CANCER RESEARCH UK
  6. The question of hypocrisy of the charity and, individually, of its leadership were its current stance on the creation of the Race for Life to continue. IGNORED BY CANCER RESEARCH UK
  7. The offer to meet, discuss and share evidence proving who was responsible for the creation of the Race for Life was also IGNORED BY CANCER RESEARCH UK

In the interests of balance, the following are those items raised during our correspondence not ignored by Cancer Research UK:

  1. None. None at all.

Cancer Research UK’s stance can only be described as ostrich like. They know the facts are out there, they know they have been wrong for 25 years, but so long as they keep their head buried in the sand, they can continue to ignore the truth.