Tag Archives: CRUK

WHERE IS CANCER RESEARCH UK’S EVIDENCE?

(Clue: They don’t have any).

When two parties disagree about something, how do you decide which one to believe?

Is it the one who makes claims but has no evidence to support those claims, or is it the one who has evidence and is happy to share it?

Is it the one whose story constantly changes and is unsupported by anything other than hearsay, or is it the one whose story has remained unchanged from the start, who is consistent, and who is able to provide both documentary evidence and witnesses?

Establishing the truth about the creation of the Race for Life is as simple as deciding who is telling the truth in these examples. 

Is it Cancer Research UK (CRUK)?

Their current stance is that the origins of the Race for Life are unclear. This stance came about following an inquiry they claim to have had into the event’s creation. An inquiry they do not want to make public. An inquiry in which they cannot say what evidence was considered. An inquiry in which they did not contact Jim Cowan to ask him to provide evidence or contacts for witnesses. An inquiry which doesn’t appear to have been interested in gathering facts or learning the truth.

Prior to their ‘inquiry’ CRUK admitted that they have no records from the time the Race for Life was created. So what records were considered, what evidence was looked at?  

Prior to their ‘inquiry’ and their ‘origins are unclear’ line, CRUK’s version of the creation of the Race for Life changed frequently (more here). Hardly the position of an organisation which knows the truth, which has facts, which has evidence to support its many and varied statements.

And then there were the possibly fraudulent claims of their former employee Jill MacRae (more here). MacRae claimed to be the person who created the Race for Life, even challenging Jim Cowan’s claim before going quiet when he produced evidence to the contrary, including a letter signed by MacRae herself.

CRUK have plenty of claims, of stories, of unsubstantiated statements to feed their ‘origins are unclear’ line. But evidence? They have none. They have been unable to provide a single piece of evidence to counter Jim Cowan’s claim to be the event’s creator.

So, what of Jim Cowan? What evidence can he provide to support his claim to be the man who created the event?

Certainly he can provide more than CRUK. Granted, not difficult given CRUK have provided none at all.

First of all, while CRUK have no records from 1993 and 1994 when the event was created, Jim does. He has a copy of his original letter to the Imperial Cancer Research Fund (CRUK’s previous name) proposing the event, explaining why and how he had come up with the idea. Unlike today, 5km charity runs were non-existent at that time so this was a ground-breaking, sector changing idea (more here).

He also has a copy of a reply from Jill MacRae (under her maiden name of Baker) in which she thanks him for his interest in organising an event to benefit the charity and confirming details of their meeting to discuss the idea.

After the first Race for Life took place in 1994, MacRae again wrote, “Mr Cowan came to us with the original idea.” Jim Cowan has a copy of this letter too (read it here).

Other evidence includes the original South of England Athletics Association permit (which incorporated the Public Liability Insurance for the 1994 event), faxes between himself and Runner’s World magazine in which he outlines the event and arranges their support for it, faxes between himself and shoe company ASICS in which he arranges more support for the event, and faxes containing further correspondence between himself and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund.

It is a significant body of evidence and when compared to CRUK’s complete lack of any evidence, Jim Cowan’s case is clearly overwhelming. But it doesn’t end there.

In addition he can provide witnesses from the time the Race for Life was created by him. These witnesses include the person who was working as a temp at the Imperial Cancer Research Fund with whom Jim had discussed his idea and who found MacRae’s contact details for him. They include representatives of clubs who supported the first running of the event by helping to marshal it, they include sponsors of the event and others. Sadly, others who could have provided testimony have since passed away, including the Olympian John Bicourt from whom Jim had much support. Still available though is correspondence between John and Jim.

On top of this, the leading running magazine Runner’s World (who supported the very first Race for Life and continued that support for many years) listed Jim at number two on the list of Running Game Changers it produced to celebrate its thirtieth anniversary in the UK. Why? Because, in their own words, he is the ‘creator of the Race for Life’ (more here).

Then there is Wikipedia who also list Jim as the person who had ‘the original idea for the Race for Life’ (link here).

Who created the Race for Life? The evidence is overwhelming. It is the party who can support his claim with evidence both documentary and provided by witnesses. The origins of the event are far from ‘unclear’ as Cancer Research UK, the party which can provide no evidence at all, claims.

It is time Cancer research UK did the right thing and gave Jim Cowan the recognition he so thoroughly deserves.

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

CANCER RESEARCH UK; CAN YOU BELIEVE A WORD THEY SAY?

Cancer Research UK are not shy when it comes to posting lots of stories, claims and other reports across their numerous social media profiles. But, why isn’t anyone questioning how much of what they say is true? After all, an organisation which is quite happy to consistently lie about one thing is highly unlikely to be honest with you about everything else.

And this shouldn’t be news to anyone. They have been lying to you for over a quarter of a century, both in their current format and in their previous incarnation as the Imperial Cancer Research Fund. 

Cancer Research UK, its CEO Michelle Mitchell, and many others within the organisation (including its Trustees), are fully aware of that lie. Thy are fully aware that at least one key part of the charity’s history is, literally, made up. And that must cast doubt on any other claims they make, tales they tell. For where there is one big lie, there are likely to be others.

Cancer Research UK, and its predecessor the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, have rewritten the history of the Race For Life to exclude Jim Cowan, the person who actually created it, and then spent the next 27 years spreading different fictional versions (i.e. lies). 

We must therefore pose the question; how can anyone know for sure that they haven’t rewritten other parts of their story, made up other tales they tell?

Mitchell might claim that she knows nothing of this rewriting of history, although as CEO she should avail herself of the facts. And, of course, she has had that opportunity but declined it. 

In the past the very weak defence was that they had no documentation from the event’s creation. 

But that doesn’t hold water. Firstly, without documentation, without evidence, what are the numerous fictional versions they have relayed over the years based on? Secondly, because we have offered (on more than one occasion) to sit down and share documents and witness contacts with Mitchell but she was not interested. Evidence that clearly proves Jim Cowan created the Race For Life and that Cancer Research UK have peddled nothing more than a series of lies over the intervening years.

In short, they know they are not telling the truth but prefer not to correct the lies; they prefer fiction to truth. Otherwise, why not sue us? Why not sue Jim Cowan? The answer is simple; you cannot sue someone for telling the truth. And they know that truth would be crystal clear in a court. The evidence supports it.

How can they then talk about Cancer Research UK’s history when, clearly, they don’t even care whether parts of it are even accurate? Worse, they know it is a lie but look the other way, pretend not to know. And if one part of the story is told while known to be false, what else among their posts, press releases, claims, and other tales require (politely) closer examination?

Cancer Research UK and its CEO Michelle Mitchell have declined the opportunity to see documentation and to speak to witnesses who can confirm the correct story of the creation of the Race for Life.

They prefer a heads in the sand approach, an ignore any facts we don’t like mentality.  

Surely, therefore, as well as the truth of anything CRUK tell us, another big question that has implications for the 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 (all evidenced), 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 and her predecessor as CEO (Harpal Kumar) to share documents, correspondence and witness contacts on more than one occasion. Both Mitchell and Kumar declined or ignored those numerous offers. It appears that accuracy, honesty, and truth; and with them trust, are not high up Cancer Research UK’s list of priorities.

IF CANCER RESEARCH UK ARE HAPPY TO TELL YOU ONE LIE, WHAT ELSE ARE THEY LYING TO YOU ABOUT?

Cancer Research UK are not shy when it comes to posting lots of stories, claims and other reports across their numerous social media profiles. But, why isn’t anyone questioning how much of what they say is true? After all, an organisation which is quite happy to consistently lie about one thing is highly unlikely to be honest with you about everything else.

And this shouldn’t be news to anyone. They have been lying to you for over a quarter of a century, both in their current format and in their previous incarnation as the Imperial Cancer Research Fund. 

Cancer Research UK, its CEO Michelle Mitchell, and many others within the organisation (including its Trustees), are fully aware of that lie. Thy are fully aware that at least one key part of the charity’s history is, literally, made up. And that must cast doubt on any other claims they make, tales they tell. For where there is one big lie, there are likely to be others.

Cancer Research UK, and its predecessor the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, have rewritten the history of the Race For Life to exclude Jim Cowan, the person who actually created it, and then spent the next 27 years spreading different fictional versions (i.e. lies). 

We must therefore pose the question; how can anyone know for sure that they haven’t rewritten other parts of their story, made up other tales they tell?

Mitchell might claim that she knows nothing of this rewriting of history, although as CEO she should avail herself of the facts. And, of course, she has had that opportunity but declined it. 

In the past the very weak defence was that they had no documentation from the event’s creation. 

But that doesn’t hold water. Firstly because of the numerous fictional versions they have relayed over the years. On what were they based if CRUK has no documentation on which to base them? Secondly, because we have offered (on more than one occasion) to sit down and share documents and witness contacts with Mitchell but she was not interested. Evidence that clearly proves Jim Cowan created the Race For Life and that Cancer Research UK have peddled nothing more than a series of lies over the intervening years.

In short, they know they are not telling the truth but prefer not to correct the lies; they prefer fiction to truth. 

How can they then talk about Cancer Research UK’s history when, clearly, they don’t even care whether parts of it are even accurate? Worse, they know it is a lie but look the other way, pretend not to know. And if one part of the story is told while known to be false, what else among their posts, press releases, claims, and other tales require (politely) closer examination?

Cancer Research UK and its CEO Michelle Mitchell have declined the opportunity to see documentation and to speak to witnesses who can confirm the correct story of the creation of the Race for Life.

They prefer a heads in the sand approach, an ignore any facts we don’t like mentality.  

Surely, therefore, as well as the truth of anything CRUK tell us, another big question that has implications for the 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 (all evidenced), 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, her predecessor (Harpal Kumar) and CRUK’s Chairman (Leszek Borysiewicz) to share documents, correspondence and witness contacts on more than one occasion. All three declined those offers too. It appears that accuracy, honesty, and truth; and with them trust, are not high up Cancer Research UK’s list of priorities.

WILL RACE FOR LIFE SPONSORS DO THE MORAL AND ETHICAL THING?

In May we reported how Race for Life creator Jim Cowan had written to Cancer Research UK’s Chief Executive, Michelle Mitchell, asking her to make the organisation’s in-house inquiry into the origins of the Race for Life public.

Why? Because it was a flawed, some may say dishonest, inquiry with no purpose other than to avoid facing up to facts. To continue the cover up of the truth.

The ‘inquiry’ avoided evidence and ducked talking to witnesses before reaching the (predictable) conclusion that, “the origins of the Race for Life are not clear.”

As regular visitors to the Race 4 Truth will know, the evidence clearly shows the opposite, it clearly shows that the creator of the Race for Life was Jim Cowan. And with the testimony of witnesses who were involved at the time, that evidence only becomes stronger.

We support Jim Cowan in asking that the ‘inquiry’ be made public. We ask Michelle Mitchell a very simple question; if the inquiry was thorough and conducted with integrity, what have you got to hide? What is it you fear from public scrutiny?

Unfortunately (predictably) since Jim’s letter and our article and social media posts reporting it, the silence has been deafening. No reply, no comment, and certainly no signs that Mitchell will do the decent thing and open the ‘inquiry’ to the public eye. It is clear, as we know, that there is something amiss here, something less than honest about the so-called inquiry.

Now, following over two months of silence, Jim Cowan has written three new open letters (*transcript below). This time he has written to the bosses of the Race for Life’s corporate partners Tesco, Scottish Power and Global (who own Heart).

In his letters he asks them a simple question:

“I am asking you to consider what asking Cancer Research UK to open their inquiry to public scrutiny would say about your corporate and brand values? And, I would ask you to consider what not doing so would infer about those same values?”

He goes on:

“You could play a part in righting this wrong of over a quarter of a century. Or you could turn a blind eye and let it continue.
There are many reasons to open this inquiry to public scrutiny, none of them bad. I can only think of one reason not to, and that is to keep the truth buried.
I hope I can put faith in your values to do the right thing.”

The responses from Ken Murphy (Tesco), Keith Anderson (Scottish Power) and Ashley Tabor-King (Global) will be telling. Will they lean on Mitchell, Cancer Research UK, and Race for Life to do the right thing? Or will they open up questions about the morals, ethics and values of their own brands by staying silent?

To date, the silence from Cancer Research UK has been deafening. Will the corporate supporters of the Race for Life do the right thing or allow the silence to continue?

#TheSilenceIsDeafening

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

*The full transcript of Jim Cowan’s open letter to the bosses of Tesco, Scottish Power and Heart:

On 17th May I emailed you with regard an open letter I had sent to Michelle Mitchell, the Chief Executive of Cancer Research UK, on 10th May. A copy of that letter was attached to my email.

The letter concerned Cancer Research UK’s claim that they had held an inquiry into the origins of the Race for Life, an inquiry which concluded, “the origins of the Race for Life are not clear.”

I had written to Ms Mitchell in the hope that she would open the findings of this inquiry to public scrutiny. As the person who created the Race for Life, and I can provide evidence to support this fact. I can also provide witnesses including one who was employed by Imperial Cancer Research Fund (Cancer Research UK’s predecessor) at the time. Despite being aware of this, the inquiry staged by Cancer Research UK did not speak to me or the witnesses.

There is a history of over 25 years of Cancer Research UK and, before them, the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, burying the truth. Indeed, as I discovered years later, it was an Imperial Cancer Research Fund employee who originally stole the idea from me and went on to fraudulently claim it as her own. Cancer Research UK have never addressed this matter.

The truth does not waver, it does not change its story. It has no need to, it is the truth.

Since creating the Race for Life in 1993 and launching it in 1994 my story has not wavered. It has had no need to; it is the truth.

Conversely, Cancer Research UK have peddled a number of different stories. Possibly, at the time, they believed each one to be true. And yet, their story has kept changing, citing a number of different origins until now, without even considering all of the available evidence, they claim the event’s origins are not clear.

I suggest to you that they know this not to be true, that they are deliberately erasing me from the history of the event. What their reason may be, I do not know. Possibly to avoid having to admit they have had it wrong for so many years? Possibly to cover up their employees lies? The reason is not important, what is important is that they are doing it.

In the past they have stated that they have no documents from the creation of the event. I do have documents. I also have witnesses. What kind of inquiry does not seek to speak to key witnesses before coming to a conclusion? Might I suggest, the kind of inquiry which has no interest in the truth?

I therefore write to you to ask you to use your influence with Cancer Research UK, as one of the partners to the Race for Life, to ask that they open up their so-called inquiry to public scrutiny, to ultimately recognise me as the person who created the Race for Life.

I am asking you to consider what asking Cancer Research UK to open their inquiry to public scrutiny would say about your corporate and brand values? And, I would ask you to consider what not doing so would infer about those same values?

You could play a part in righting this wrong of over a quarter of a century. Or you could turn a blind eye and let it continue. 

There are many reasons to open this inquiry to public scrutiny, none of them bad. I can only think of one reason not to, and that is to keep the truth buried.

I hope I can put faith in your values to do the right thing.

Yours sincerely,

Jim Cowan.

Creator of the Race for Life.

CANCER RESEARCH UK SHOULD MAKE INQUIRY PUBLIC IF THEY HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE

On 23rd December last year, we told you about Cancer Research UK’s (CRUK) astonishing new claim that they had held an inquiry into the origins of the Race for Life and, having “explored all reasonable lines of enquiry” they had been “unable to find any solid evidence which supports his (Jim Cowan’s) claim to be the sole originator of Race for Life.”

At the time we described it as a ridiculous claim. Why?
– Because CRUK had failed to contact Jim Cowan to ascertain what evidence he might hold.
– Because CRUK had failed to consult numerous witnesses who would tell them the origins of the event.
– Because they had excluded numerous external parties. 
– Because CRUK had previously admitted to having no documentation from the early years of Race for Life.

Given the above ‘oversights’ it is difficult to see how the inquiry, if it even happened, could have been anything other than lip-service aimed at continuing the charity’s long-term denial of the facts aimed at justifying their continued refusal to give Jim Cowan the recognition he rightly deserves.

Despite the experience of over 25 years telling him it would probably be a waste of time, Jim Cowan decided to contact CRUK. Either, by some miracle, they would finally accept the facts so evident to everyone else who has seen them or, more likely, the claimed enquiry would be exposed as yet another work of fiction among so many others. Fiction created with the sole aim of covering up the truth.

On 23rd December Jim emailed CRUK sharing links to numerous documents via Google Drive. These documents are all in the public domain, free to view on this site and included:
– His 1993 letter to the charity proposing and outlining the event.
– A letter on the charity’s letterhead, signed by their then Head of Events which clearly stated that he had “come up with the original idea.”
– A letter from their own Jill Baker following on from Jim’s proposal and confirming their initial meeting.
– Evidence of the many various incorrect claims as to the origins of the event made by CRUK and their staff over the years.
– Evidence exposing Jill MacRae’s (Jill Baker’s married name) fraudulent claims to being the creator of the event.
– He also informed CRUK that he could produce witnesses who were present in 1993 and 1994 whose evidence would support the facts he was presenting.

The first reply, dated 18th January, was simply to say that CRUK could not access the files on the Google Drive.

Jim replied to this email providing further links adding that he was cynical about the inquiry as it had never been mentioned in any previous correspondence. He wondered:
– If it had taken place prior to that correspondence, why was the inquiry not reopened in light of Jim’s offer to meet and share documentary evidence (in 2017 and 2019), evidence any inquiry could not have seen?
– If after that correspondence, why was Jim excluded?

On 8th February, CRUK eventually replied, ignoring these questions and simply stating that having reviewed the documents Jim had provided they had not changed their view that the origins of the Race for Life were “not clear.” 

On 9th February Jim replied thanking CRUK for their “not unexpected” reply. He stated that it was; “disappointing, but not surprising, that CRUK shows no interest in talking to any of the witnesses who will support my position; something which only strengthens the belief that the aim of the charity’s investigation was not to uncover the truth but to continue denying it.”

He went on; “Beyond speaking to witnesses, might I suggest that if the charity is not acting dishonestly and without integrity, one of the ways to evidence this would be by sharing your investigation, including all of the ‘evidence’ considered? Indeed, any enquiry worth its salt would seek to have full transparency so as not to undermine its findings.”

He then added; “I would be very interested to discover what ‘evidence’ might exist that trumps a clear statement from your own Head of Events stating that the original idea was mine. And if anyone is accusing me of being dishonest in my claim, it is a cornerstone of any worthwhile justice system that I be allowed to defend myself against my accuser.”

He then finished saying; “I look forward, albeit without much hope, to receiving a copy of your investigation.”

Over three weeks later, the silence from CRUK is deafening.

In the absence of a response the only conclusion that can be drawn is that if an inquiry really did take place, it only served one purpose; to continue the cover up and to continue denying Jim the rightful and deserved recognition for being the person who created the Race for Life.

Here at Race 4 Truth we call on Cancer Research UK to open up their so-called ‘inquiry’ to public scrutiny. If it was genuine, what could they possibly have to hide? What could they possibly stand to lose? All without asking why any genuine inquiry wouldn’t seek independence from interested parties, CRUK included?

The truth, as we know, is consistent. And ever since 1993 when he first came up with the idea, Jim Cowan’s version of events has not altered. It has remained consistent, backed by evidence.

Lies, on the other hand, are rarely consistent. They alter to fit need. And, over the last 25+ years, CRUK and their employees have told a range of different tales, none of which are supported by any evidence. They have lacked any consistency and, conveniently, have no records of the early years of Race for Life.

Consistency supported by evidence versus inconsistency supported by lies, hypocrisy, and a refusal to face public scrutiny. Which do you believe?

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

CANCER RESEARCH UK DONATIONS SUPPORTING FAT CAT SALARIES

We have exposed the lack of transparency Cancer Research UK has when it comes to where your donations go on numerous occasions. We have exposed the creative exclusion  of certain income streams which give the impression that a higher percentage of funds raised support research than actually do. We exposed possible fraud, misinformation, hypocrisy, and more. Now, we turn our attention to how much of the money the public give to CRUK funds not research, but fat cat salaries. You may be surprised.

The Chief Executive’s salary alone (£240,000 + benefits) requires 18,000 people supporting CRUK’s “donate just £2 a month appeal” for twelve months each after ‘on-costs’ are applied.

Using that same calculation, how many people donating “just £2 per month” does it take to pay CRUK’s top earners? 

Starting at the very top, CRUK’s top five earners receive over £1 million between them each year. Yes, you read that correctly. Over £1 million.

According to the 10 Percent Campaign, a further 219 CRUK employees earn over £60,000 per annum. This is up from 160 in 2013 and second only to Save The Children, and three times more than the next highest.

Let’s be kind to CRUK and assume that those 219 earn £60,000 and not, as is likely, more, meaning our calculation will be on the low side. That is still a whopping £13,140,000 every year, without on costs.

Let’s add the top five earners £1 million and then calculate on costs to understand how much CRUK needs to raise just to fund these positions BEFORE it funds any other jobs, offices, marketing……..oh yes, and research.

The figure is a mind boggling £24,745,000. Yes, you read that correctly, nearly £25 million, and remember our calculation is on the LOW side. Paying that amount would require over 1 million people to donate “just £2 a month’ for the full year. One million. Just to pay their top salary earners.

And these 224 employees make up less than 6% of CRUK’s total workforce of 3964. Again, yes, you read that correctly. Nearly 4000 people need paying, 224 at mind boggling rates, before a single penny funds the research you thought you were supporting. 

And then, the cost of making that “just £2 a month” commercial, CRK’s other slick marketing, office costs, a legal team the size of which would make many corporates blush, and more, and more, also come before any research is funded.

When you donate your hard earned money, it is worth considering what you are supporting. Is it research into cancer or a large, slick machine, which misleads, misrepresents, and which acts both hypocritically and unethically, lying about the origins of its own largest fundraising event (the Race for Life).

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

Notes:

Article first published on 6th September 2018.

Using 2016 salaries.

On-costs calculated using www.icalculator.info 

CANCER RESEARCH UK ANNOUNCE CUTS AND REDUNDANCIES

After a disastrous drop in fundraising due to Covid-19, a drop forecast to hit £300m over 3 years, Cancer Research UK has announced cuts to its workforce including 500 redundancies.

While Race 4 Truth has issue with the organisation’s leadership, we feel for those members of staff affected by these cuts and send our best wishes to them all, together with our hopes that they all find new roles at organisations (hopefully with more integrity) very soon.

Of course, CRUK’s leadership are well know for their hypocrisy and we note that Chief Executive Michelle Mitchell has not announced that she will be taking any cut to her £1/4 million a year salary, nor that the numerous other expensive roles within her organisation will be doing the same.

And we can only imagine how bad the forecast might be without the Race for Life in their portfolio, the same Race for Life stolen from Jim Cowan, the event’s creator, by then CRUK employee Jill MacRae; and the same Race for Life Mitchell’s organisation then spent 25 years spinning numerous lies about its origins. Despite now knowing the facts, Mitchell has avoided correcting the lies choosing instead to look the other way.

And wouldn’t now be a good time to have someone like Jim Cowan, someone with the ability to create such a new, groundbreaking, fundraising event on your side instead of having deliberately lied about, ignored and alienated him over so many years?

In the Race For 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!

WHEN IS A REPLY NOT A REPLY?

WHEN IT IS MICHELLE MITCHELL’S REPLY TO OUR LETTER OF 7TH JANUARY 2019

Following our letter to Cancer Research UK’s new CEO, Michelle Mitchell, initially we received a reply (dated 18th January) from her Executive Assistant Theresa Lawler which stated:

“As I am sure you are aware, Michelle is our newly appointed Chief Executive, and as such our office has been receiving a large amount of correspondence of late so it is taking slightly longer to reply to each individual letter.

We will respond to your letter once Michelle has had the opportunity to review background information.”

Mitchell’s reply (dated 30th January), for what it was worth, said little but told us a lot.

Firstly there was the repetition of the line which has become Cancer Research UK’s standard response when asked about recognising Jim Cowan as the creator of the Race for Life; “we do not credit anyone with originating any of our events.”

It would appear that the new CEO is to continue the hypocrisy of the old CEO. She is someone who happily accepted an OBE in recognition of her own work and achievements but refuses to recognise Jim Cowan’s work and achievement in creating such a significant event.

And, after a quarter of a century of lies about the event’s origins, it appears neither the charity nor its new CEO have the integrity required to put the record straight.

Mitchell goes on to duck all of the points raised in our letter by stating; “As your letter directly concerns Mr Cowan, you will understand that I am unable to enter into any communication regarding a third party and as such, I am unable to comment further on the specific issues you have raised.”

So, despite her assistant informing us that prior to replying Mitchell would be reviewing the background information, she has found none of that information worthy of comment.

The lies and possible fraud of CRUK staff? Not worthy of comment. Not worthy of investigation. No further details sought. We have to question the integrity of any organisation, let alone a charity, seemingly so willing to brush this kind of thing under the carpet.

We shared Mitchell’s response with Jim Cowan. He wasn’t surprised. Hypocrisy, dishonesty and poor integrity seem embedded in the culture of CRUK, why should he be surprised? But, given she won’t discuss the issues raised with us because they relate to him, he did decide to write a letter of his own to Mitchell. 

More of which in our next article.

IN THE RACE 4 TRUTH, CANCER RESEARCH UK ARE LAGGING BEHIND.

CONTINUED SILENCE FROM CANCER RESEARCH UK SERVES ONLY TO INCRIMINATE THEM FURTHER

Since launching the Race 4 Truth in May 2018, we have uncovered and shared a whole host of instances exposing Cancer Research UK’s dishonesty, hypocrisy, support for fraud, poor ethics and low integrity, misleading of supporters, and more, much more. All of this in addition to their continued refusal to recognise the man who created the Race for Life.

The response from Cancer Research UK? A deafening silence. And that silence speaks volumes.

Some might suggest that silence is golden but in this instance, we would suggest it is far from that, instead incriminating Cancer Research UK by their failure to offer any explanation of their actions or any defence to the many issues we have raised.

They are one of the UK’s largest charities with their own large in-house legal department. Yet they have offered neither explanation nor defence to any of the many issues we have uncovered. No defence to the dishonesty (both blatant lies and lies by omission), the hypocrisy, the fraud, and more. Surely an innocent party would react, would respond?

But no, they haven’t.

But then, when you are not innocent, what can you say? What possible evidence can you offer? Maybe Cancer Research UK think silence is the best option? Maybe they think eventually we will give up and go away?

We won’t. Not until Cancer Research UK do the right thing and recognise Jim Cowan for creating the Race for Life instead of lying about it, making up fiction about it, hypocritically accepting recognition for themselves, and supporting fraudulent claims about it.

The continued silence from Cancer Research UK speaks volumes and serves only to incriminate them.

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