Tag Archives: Charity Sector

THE QUEEN OF HYPOCRISY

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.”

It’s not the first time, and it definitely will not be the last. Cancer Research UK’s CEO, Michelle Mitchell has, once again, demonstrated the incredible hypocrisy of both her own, and the organisation she lead’s, hypocrisy.

According to her recent post of X/Twitter, she is, “proud to be part of the @MT_editorial* Women In Leadership Power List for 2025.” 

She went on to say, “It’s an honour to be recognised alongside such inspirational women who are doing incredible work.”

This from the same woman who refuses to recognise Jim Cowan for creating the Race For Life.

Accepting recognition for your own incredible (sic) work while denying recognition to others for their incredible work sounds like a dictionary definition of ‘hypocrisy’ to us.

In Cancer Research UK, Mitchell heads an organisation which has repeatedly and consistently lied about the creation of their most significant fundraising event, which has sought to cover up the truth, which has turned a blind eye to the fraud of its own employee, and which has shown zero integrity. 

Yes Michelle, “incredible work” indeed. And incredible hypocrisy.

CRUK by name. Crooks by nature.

*Note: @MT_editorial is the X handle for Management Today.

More on Michelle Mitchell and Cancer Research UK’s world class hypocrisy:
NEW CANCER RESEARCH UK CEO WILL CONTINUE THE HYPOCRISY OF HER PREDECESSOR
CANCER RESEARCH UK HYPOCRITE IN CHIEF AT IT AGAIN
NOW CRUK CEO SHOWS HYPOCRISY OVER MENTAL HEALTH
HYPOCRISY IS DEEPLY EMBEDDED WITHIN THE CULTURE OF CANCER RESEARCH UK
CANCER RESEARCH UK REACH NEW LOW AS WE UNCOVER MORE HYPOCRISY
IS CANCER RESEARCH UK CEO MICHELLE MITCHELL THE UK CHARITY SECTOR’S BIGGEST HYPOCRITE?
NEW CANCER RESEARCH UK CHAIR SNUBS RACE FOR LIFE CREATOR
CANCER RESEARCH UK’s £250,000 PA ‘VOLUNTEER’
CHARITY SECTOR’S FAVOURITE HYPOCRITE STRIKES AGAIN
MITCHELL’S LAUGHABLE TALK OF ‘COLLABORATION’

Screenshot

A FATHER’S CANCER, A SON’S TRIBUTE, AND A CHARITY’S LIES

Early in 1993, John Cowan was diagnosed with the Prostate Cancer which would eventually take his life. The diagnosis motivated John’s son, Jim, to create a fundraising event to support the fight against cancer.

Through the summer of 1993, he researched what events already existed and searched for a ‘gap in the market’ – a gap big enough that it could be fully exploited to raise significant funds and increase awareness.

Although his starting point was his father’s Prostate Cancer, he ended up creating an event which raised funds for, and raised awareness of, women’s cancers. That event was to be called ‘The Race For Life.’

Jim had already organised a number of different fundraising events for good causes and also organised some road running events.

Using the road running events as a starting point, he identified that women were seriously underrepresented in running events, often with fewer than 15% of fields. It occurred to him that, surely, more women must want to run these events but, for some reason, weren’t, So, he decided to discover why not?

He found three key things were preventing women from taking part in road running:
1. The distances were generally considered too long. At the time most events were 5 miles and further. 5km road events were few and far between, 5000m being seen more as a track athlete’s event.

2. The events that were available were not viewed as ‘female friendly.’ The general atmosphere was very male dominated and, it was felt, unwelcoming for women.

3. Existing races were overly competitive, very serious and, put simply, just not fun.

Jim realised that, providing a solution to these issues would combine very well with his desire to create a new fundraising event to support the fight against cancer. That solution was to create a series of 5km runs, originally open only to women, which focused on fun not on competition. He called his idea, ‘The Race For Life.’

Initially, Jim took his idea to a breast cancer charity which, following consideration, declined the idea having decided it would not work. Then a conversation with a friend at his local athletic club opened the door to making an approach to the Imperial Cancer Research Fund (ICRF – Cancer Research UK’s former name). That friend was about to start working at the charity and promised to find a contact name for Jim to approach.

This she did, and on 5th October 1993 Jim wrote to ICRF’s Events Manager, Jill MacRae (nee Baker), outlining his idea*. A meeting was arranged, which then led to Jim organising the very first Race for Life in Battersea Park in 1994.

Sadly, John Cowan passed away in November 1993 and never saw the event he inspired come to fruition. 

That Jim Cowan created the Race for Life and that it was his father’s cancer diagnosis that inspired him should be a matter of historical record. However, following the successful launch in 1994 Jill MacRae decided to falsely claim the idea as her own and ICRF, and later CRUK, have denied the idea was Jim’s, coming up with a range of different stories and whitewashing him from any mention in association with the event, thus also denying John Cowan of his legacy.

It is time for Cancer Research UK to do the right thing, stop the lies, and recognise Jim for his amazing creation and his father for inspiring him. It is a creation which has benefitted the charity by over £1 Billion, opened up running to women, and which changed the fundraising landscape in the UK forever. And, but for Cancer Research UK’s deception, one which should be a fitting tribute from a son to his deceased father.

Remembering John Francis Cowan. 

16th July 1932 – 18th November 1993.

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

*Below, a copy of Jim’s original letter proposing the Race for Life to ICRF/CRUK.

POLITICS VERSUS THE CHARITY SECTOR – SPOT THE DIFFERENCE?

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.

HOW THE RACE FOR LIFE CREATOR CONTINUED RAISING MILLIONS FOR CHARITIES DESPITE APPALLING TREATMENT BY CANCER RESEARCH UK

Having created the Race for Life only to see a member of staff at Cancer Research UK steal the idea and for the charity’s leadership to support a campaign of lies about the event’s origins (despite being offered evidence as to their claims being fiction), you could be forgiven for thinking that person would want nothing more to do with the charity sector.

Fortunately for a number of other charities that was not the case and Jim Cowan, the man who created the Race for Life, has successfully helped to raise £millions for other causes over the intervening years.

The sheer volume of fundraising events that Jim has been behind is too large to list them all here, the following being just a sample.

For example Jim turned the Poppy Run into a national series of events taking place in all four home countries as well as being the only fun run to be officially staged in Camp Bastion in Afghanistan. And armed forces charities further benefited through the creation of the People’s Run 2 Remember, another national series, organised nationally by Jim through a dedicated network of local organisers.

Indeed, if you have taken part in any event which included the term ‘People’s Run’ in its title, you have taken part in an event organised by Jim for the many good causes associated.

Beyond running, he organised the Rio Three Peaks Challenge events, modelled on the UK Three Peaks but using the mountains surrounding Rio de Janeiro and supporting street kids around the world.

Jim Cowan on top of Corcovado during the Rio Three Peaks Challenge in 2016.

From pub nights to dinners, from fun runs to challenge events, from local to national and international charities, Jim has created and managed hundreds of events.

And he has also tackled a number of challenge events himself to raise further funds. From completing the Three Peaks inside 24 hours to taking on Hadrian’s Wall non-stop in 31 hours, and  completing the Fan Dance in just outside 4 hours to his current project, Challenge 72.

Challenge 72 will involve Jim and a friend, Aide Myatt, walking 72 miles, in under 72 hours, while each carrying 72lbs on their back, supported by four other friends. It takes place between 27th and 29th August and raises funds for the Grenfell Foundation supporting a community still struggling over three years on from the tragic fire.

If you would like to find out more about Challenge 72, which Jim describes as his toughest challenge yet, full details can be found at www.challenge72.co.uk along with a link to the Just Giving page.

After Challenge 72, what will come next for Jim? He doesn’t know yet. But you can be assured that despite the negative experience provided by Cancer Research UK’s theft of the Race for Life, he is far from finished supporting other important causes.

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

CHARITY SECTOR’S FAVOURITE HYPOCRITE STRIKES AGAIN

She’s at it again.

The charity sector’s favourite hypocrite is, once again, accepting recognition while continuing to deny any recognition to Jim Cowan, the man who created Race for Life, her charity’s biggest fundraiser.

Yesterday, Cancer Research UK (CRUK) were recognised by the World Health Organisation (WHO) for their “outstanding contribution to tobacco control.” And CRUK’s CEO, Michelle Mitchell wasted no time in telling the world via Twitter.

We are not saying the recognition Mitchell and CRUK received from WHO is not merited, we are highlighting how hypocritical it is to accept recognition for yourself while knowingly denying it to someone else; someone whose creation has raised hundreds of millions of pounds for your charity.

The Cambridge English Dictionary defines hypocrisy 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 in refusing to give the recognition rightly due to Jim Cowan, every time they accept recognition (individually or as an organisation), or bestow recognition on others, they are acting hypocritically.

Back in January we catalogued Mitchell and her charity’s shocking record of hypocrisy asking whether she is the UK charity sector’s biggest hypocrite?

It appears it is a crown she is proud to wear. But then, she does love a bit of recognition!

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

CANCER RESEARCH UK CEO ONCE AGAIN DISPLAYS HYPOCRISY WITH ‘COLLABORATION’ COMMENT

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.

OUTGOING CRUK DIRECTOR HIGHLIGHTS CHARITY’S HYPOCRISY

Cancer Research UK’s Director of Fundraising, Ed Aspel, has announced plans to retire at the end of the year. Third Sector interviewed Aspel about leaving the organisation and he revealed his regrets and discussed the changing face of fundraising making comments which highlight both the hypocrisy and the lack of will to tackle ethics and integrity issues at CRUK.

In the interview (which can be read here), Aspel revealed that he would love to have come up with “that one, radical, transformational change that is different from the traditional model…”

Had he done so, it is fair to assume that, given he is in their employ, CRUK would have, rightly, lauded him and made sure he was recognised for the achievement. And, in doing so, they would again reveal the culture of hypocrisy that riddles the charity.

How?

Twenty six years ago, Jim Cowan came up with just such a game changer, just such a transformational change. Jim’s idea was the Race for Life. Twenty six years later, it is easy to forget just what a game changer the creation of the Race for Life was.

In 1993, charity runners entered running events, such as the London Marathon or Great North Run, and asked for sponsorship but there was no such thing as the numerous ‘charity runs’ we have now in 2019. Whereas now almost every charity has its own fun run of one variety or another, 26 years ago none did. Jim creating the Race for Life in 1993 and launching it in1994 changed all that and, with it, the fundraising landscape in the UK changed for good.

You would think that CRUK would have thanked Jim, that they would heap praise and recognition on him. 

But no.

Instead, one of their employees stole Jim’s idea and CRUK spent 25 years telling a range of different tales about the events origins before two years ago, in the face of undeniable evidence, they changed tack and declared that they don’t recognise anyone with the event’s creation (but have never corrected the numerous untrue stories they had previously shared).

Hypocrisy? Absolutely.

This same charity happily acknowledge others for fundraising exploits, events, and other enterprises which support their fundraising. But not Jim.

This same charity happily accept recognition for their own executives, employees, and organisation as a whole, but hypocritically refuse to give Jim similar, or even any, recognition for the amazing event he created.

And what of ethics and integrity?

Later in the interview Aspel goes on to talk about how donations to CRUK are falling. He blamed changing attitudes and evolving consumer behaviour, and he may be correct. But isn’t a contributing factor in changing attitudes towards CRUK that they are trusted less?

People are seeing through the glossy adverts and beginning to ask why they are being lied to? Lies such as the frequent lies by omission about entry fees to their events not supporting any research; such as the misleading statements which suggest merchandise sales support research; or the exclusion of their high street shop, event, and merchandising income from how they calculate the percentage of income funding research.

They will happily talk about funds going to Cancer Research UK but challenge them as to how much of those funds actually fund research and the question is greeted with silence.

The charity is an ethics and integrity vacuum which shows no desire to amend its ways and restore faith and trust. Aspel may well be unaware of all of this but as a Director of the organisation, he should not be.

And, given the hypocrisy of CRUK towards recognising Jim Cowan, we can only wonder what Aspel’s stance might be should he be nominated for any form of award or recognition himself for his service to the charity? Recognition still denied to Jim Cowan, a man whose incredible creation played no small part in supporting Aspel’s success as Director of Fundraising.

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

CRUK TV APPEAL NEEDS 18000 DONORS JUST TO FUND HIGHLY PAID CEO

We have probably all seen those television advertisements pleading with you to “donate just £2 a month to cancer research.”

The glossy productions tug at the heartstrings and surely only the hardest of hearts would not be moved to being at least tempted to sign up?

But what the glossy advertisements don’t tell you is that Cancer Research UK need over 18,000 to sign up to donate “just £2 a month” for a year solely to cover the cost of Michelle Mitchell, their Chief Executive, one of, if not the, most expensive in the sector.

And that is without including the cost of making the commercial and of buying the prime time advertising slots!

A charity headed by someone on a basic (yes, without add ons) of £250,000 per annum, is asking hard working people on minimum wages and average salaries who are struggling to get by, to find extra to help fund corporate style excesses, cleverly disguised by playing on their emotions for a reaction.

Please, make sure that when you donate your hard earned money, it is more likely to be used for research into cancer than to pay the grossly inflated salaries at a charity which lies about the origins of its own largest fundraising event (the Race for Life) and refuses to to recognise the creator of that event while hypocritically giving and accepting all sorts of recognition to and from others.

How? Choose a different charity which funds and supports research into cancer as a priority over self serving salary packages, lying to its followers, and mind boggling hypocrisy.

*On-costs calculated using https://goodcalculators.com/true-cost-of-an-employee-calculator/

CANCER RESEARCH UK’S THANKS SOUND VERY HOLLOW AS LONG AS THEY IGNORE RACE FOR LIFE CREATOR

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.

ONE YEAR AFTER WE CAUGHT THEM OUT CANCER RESEARCH UK STILL MISLEADING THE PUBLIC

On 31st May last year we called out the Race for Life after they tweeted deliberately misleading information.

They tweeted, as they continue to do so almost daily, that simply entering the Race for Life supports research into cancer. We challenged them on this knowing that not a single penny of the entry fees supports research, something they don’t even admit in the small print on the event website.

It is deliberately misleading at best, an outright lie at worst. And, given they have at least 25 years of form for lying, we know which we believe it is.

Following our challenge, via Twitter, they replied acknowledging that the entry fee does not support cancer but covers the cost of staging the event. 

They went on to state; “This enables all the sponsorship money, raised by our amazing supporters, to go directly to Cancer Research UK’s ground-breaking and life saving research.”

But does it? We challenged them to confirm that ALL of the sponsorship raised goes directly to research (as their tweet claimed). Going to Cancer Research UK does not mean funding research. It can mean funding the CEO’s £1/4 million per annum salary, or the 219+ employees earning over £60,000p.a., or the expensive central London and regional offices, or the glossy TV ads, or, or, or….. it all comes out of funds raised by an unsuspecting and (deliberately) misled public.

Their reply? There hasn’t been one. One year later and despite several prompts from us, Cancer Research UK have failed to confirm or comment on something we know not to be true.

And, as with all messages from this integrity lacking charity, read that tweet carefully. It refers to sponsorship raised by followers, very deliberately excluding corporate sponsorship. No, we can’t trace where that ends up either.

Rather than admit a second time to misleading the public, the Race for Life has opted for silence, for ducking the issue. For not admitting to a lie.

The absence of any confirmation does not surprise us though. Cancer Research UK have form for not saying things, phrasing things cleverly, and using false stories, in order to create a misleading impression of their events and where money raised through those events goes.

It is a fact that they have spent a quarter of a century spinning a range of different yarns as to who  actually created the Race for Life and, in doing so, denying any recognition to the person who actually did.

Having been called out on these tales, rather than accept they got it wrong, they now take an official line of “not recognising anyone.” And why tell the truth when simply missing it out, covers up the lies and fits your agenda better?

For example, why tell people that none of their Race for Life entry fee funds research into cancer? Far better not to mention it at all and leave people with the impression it does through statements such as, “this is beating cancer.” How the entry fee “is beating cancer’ is anyone’s guess when none of it goes to any research. But let’s not tell anyone.

And then, rather than the (deliberate?) omissions, look out also for the cleverly phrased statements, such as the one we sought clarification on. Contradicting the tweet we quote above, the Race for Life website states that sponsorship raised goes to Cancer Research UK (not to research) raising questions as to what percentage actually finds its way to funding any research? 

But don’t ask, they won’t reply. They never admit to their lies, even when caught out. Indeed, on the entry fee lie, they continue to spin it out on a regular basis. Cancer Research UK ; less an integrity gap, more an integrity free zone.

What percentage of the sponsorship, raised and donated in good faith, actually funds research? 

In the absence of any reply, and in the face of the same deliberate lies/misleading statements still being repeated, study Cancer Research UK’s form and draw your own conclusions.

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