Tag Archives: CRUK

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 more (as is likely), 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, CRUK’s other slick marketing, office costs, a legal team the size of which would make many corporates blush, and more, and much 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).

Is there an alternative? Yes. Choose a different charity which funds and supports research into cancer such as The Institute of Cancer Research, Worldwide Cancer Research, or World Cancer Research Fund

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

Notes:

Figures are for 2016 salaries.

On-costs calculated using www.icalculator.info

IF TAX AVOIDERS SHOULDN’T GET KNIGHTHOODS WHY NOT HYPOCRITES TOO?

Yesterday (1st September), The Times revealed* that the reason some celebrities may have missed out on knighthoods and other awards from the Queen could be to do with their tax affairs. But if tax avoidance is legal, so is hypocrisy. Why limit the awarding, or otherwise, to one type of questionable ethics and not any other?

Here at the Race 4 Truth, we have highlighted the hypocrisy of Cancer Research UK (CRUK), the Race for Life and those responsible for running them on numerous occasions.

One of those instances was highlighting the hypocrisy of their most recent CEO, Sir Harpal Kumar, in accepting a knighthood and recognition for himself while denying any recognition at all to the person who created the charity’s most successful fundraising event, the Race for Life.

We highlighted that CRUK regularly, and hypocritically, accept and bestow recognition for and to their own, while continuing their campaign of lies and misrepresentation about the creation of the event.

We then questioned that the Board of Trustees at CRUK has among its number three Knights and one Dame  while the hypocrisy towards recognition of Jim Cowan, the creator of the Race for Life, continues.

Of course, both tax avoidance and hypocrisy are legal so should either bar anyone from receiving an honour? We leave answering that question to others but ask why, if one form of legal but unethical behaviour leads to a bar, why not any other?

We can only hope that when CRUK’s new CEO, Michelle Mitchell (herself an OBE), starts work that the deeply embedded culture of hypocrisy in the charity will be ended and that Jim Cowan will, at last, receive the recognition he is long overdue to receive.

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

*Because reading The Times article requires a subscription, for those of our readers who do not have one the story can be read in full on Sky News here.

CANCER RESEARCH UK KNOW THERE ARE ISSUES WITH THEIR FUNDRAISING PRACTICES

Here at the Race 4 Truth we have highlighted a number of concerns over the way Cancer Research UK deliberately misleads supporters, misrepresents facts, displays serious hypocrisy, and potentially supports fraud. We have gone as far as to question the culture of the organisation and its poor ethics and low integrity.

But, are all of the these issues something the organisation is not only fully aware of but is deliberate, planned policy?

We have been examining Cancer Research UK’s 2017-18 Annual Report and, in among many other concerns it raises, we have found a rather damning statement on page 42.

At the top of the page, Cancer Research UK cite a reputation risk; “an issue related to our fundraising practices.”

Some might find this a very strange thing to consider a risk to reputation if those fundraising practices were more transparent, honest, and ethical. Of course, conversely, if CRUK are aware that many of their policies sail very close to the wind raising questions of morals, ethics and integrity, then there is a very real risk to reputation.

Given everything we have discovered about how this organisation operates, the incredible thing is that there is still any degree of reputation intact. Yet they continue to pull the wool over the eyes of the British public and get away with it.

We find ourselves once again questioning the culture within Cancer Research UK, the organisation’s integrity, and its ethical and moral compass. For this single line buried deep in their annual report suggests that the many issues Race 4 Truth have already highlighted are embedded, deliberate policy; policy that the senior management know is immoral and unethical but which are deliberate and which they encourage and employ regardless.

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

CANCER RESEARCH UK MAKE RACE FOR LIFE ENTRY FEES INVISIBLE!

Quite reasonably, when most people enter the Race for Life they assume that their entry fee is helping fund research into cancer. After all Cancer Research UK frequently repeat the mantra “this is beating cancer” when promoting the events. But the truth is very different.

When you enter the Race for Life it would be a fair assumption that your entry fee, at least in part, helps fund the fight against cancer. The marketing for the event proudly proclaims, “this is beating cancer,” the event website carries no mention of where the fee does (or does not) go but does carry a link to a ‘where your money goes page’ which claims “you are helping to fund life-saving research.”

This is misleading at best. However, we prefer the word dishonest. Cancer Research UK choose their words carefully, not only the words included but those not. It is lying by omission. Why?

The fact is that, despite what the link suggests, not a single penny of your Race for Life entry fee funds research into cancer. It is entirely absorbed by the sky high costs of staging the event, over and above the corporate sponsorships and local authority support which also support its running. Your entry fee is not beating cancer as they disingenuously claim, it is funding the many jobs, the slick marketing, the wool being pulled over your eyes.

But when you read Cancer Research UK’s claim that over 80% of income funds research, perhaps you forgive them the deception?

Except, when they quote that 80% they are, again, being disingenuous, being economical with the truth. For a quick check on their most recent Annual Report tells us that not only does none of your entry fee fund research, that entry fee is also excluded from the income they use to calculate that 80% figure.

It gets worse. Did you but a T-shirt or other Race for Life merchandise in the hope that “this is beating cancer?” Guess what, income from merchandising isn’t included in the figure either. We can but wonder what else is excluded.

Incredibly, the economically truthful way they massage the figures is not illegal. But, certainly to us, it is disingenuous, deliberately misleading, downright dishonest, lacking in integrity, and wholly unethical. Not descriptions that should apply to any charity, and certainly not to one of the largest income generating vehicles in the sector!

We spoke to Jim Cowan, the man who created the Race for Life, but who Cancer Research UK hypocritically refuse to acknowledge and dishonestly claim not to have heard of.

We were curious as to whether this was the way the event has always been, the model under which he established it. His response was an emphatic “no.”

Jim told us that the original model guaranteed a percentage of the entry fee went to research. He added that 100% of the surplus from merchandise was earmarked for funding research. The event was open and transparent about where the money went.

This was before the fraud, the lies, the hypocrisy, and more kicked in and the Race for Life became more ‘income generator’ than fundraiser, creating invisible income ignored in their headline claims.

It is time Cancer Research UK did the right thing and recognised Jim Cowan for his incredible creation AND restored that creation to the honest, open, transparent event it was when he created it.

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

CRUK SILENCE SPEAKS VOLUMES

The Race 4 Truth has now been up and running for three months and the silence from Cancer Research UK in response has been deafening. But that silence speaks volumes.

Some might suggest that silence is golden but in this instance, we would suggest it speaks volumes, 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 a large charity with their own large legal department. In just three months, we have uncovered and shared lies (both blatant and by omission), hypocrisy, possible fraud, and more. Surely an innocent party would react, would respond?

But when you are not innocent, what can you say? 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.

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

THE HYPOCRISY OF CANCER RESEARCH UK COMMITTEES AND TRUSTEE MEMBERSHIP

The Race 4 Truth has highlighted the level of hypocrisy which runs through Cancer Research UK in previous articles. Their latest Annual Report highlights further just how deep the issue is.

Despite the hypocrite in chief, former CEO Sir Harpal Kumar, having now left Cancer Research UK, we were interested to note the make up up of the organisations committees and trustee membership, as reported in their 2017-18 Annual Report (page 45).

The thirteen strong list includes three knights and one dame.

We don’t doubt those awards were deserved but we continue to wonder at the hypocrisy of an organisation whose leadership are happy to accept recognition for their own achievements and work but continue to refuse to recognise Jim Cowan, who created Cancer Research UK’s biggest fundraising vehicle, the Race for Life.

 

Over the years Cancer Research UK have created a range of different stories as to the creation of Race for Life. A former employee fraudulently claimed the event was her own creation, we assume supported by CRUK. And, when the lies and the misrepresentation of the truth were exposed, rather than doing the right thing and recognising Jim’s amazing creation, they instead opted for a corporate line of ‘not recognising anyone.’

This is still hypocrisy of the highest order. With so many in CRUK’s leadership happy to accept recognition, their refusal to recognise Jim is an indictment not only on the organisation’s leadership, but on the low/no integrity culture embedded throughout.

We call on Cancer Research UK to put right the wrongs of almost a quarter of a century and recognise Jim Cowan for the creation of an event which has raised so much for them, and which changed the fundraising landscape for all UK charities for good.

Further, we call on the new CEO, Michelle Mitchell (herself an OBE), when she starts her new role to begin by eradicating the deeply embedded hypocrisy in the organisation, thus starting to restore the integrity which has been absent for so long.

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

PERCENTAGE OF CANCER RESEARCH UK INCOME GOING TO RESEARCH IS LOWER THAN THEY CLAIM

Cancer Research UK’s 2017-18 Annual Report claims “more than 80p from every £1” goes to funding research. However, a closer look reveals the figure is not an accurate one and omits certain income streams to paint a better picture than the reality.

The British public should, justifiably, be able to trust the charities seeking our support. They should be transparent in their dealings, ethical in their actions, and of the highest integrity in everything they do.

Sadly, as Race 4 Truth has exposed time and time again, Cancer Research UK are far from transparent, clearly unethical, and lack any level of integrity worth measuring.

A look at their most recent Annual Report (2017-18) reveals another way in which what they claim and reality are not necessarily the same thing, and demonstrates how when people think they are supporting a ‘worthy’ cause, far less of what they give goes where they expect it to.

The report claims that “more than 80p from every £1” goes to fund research (‘charitable activities’). And, using the same figures as they do, a quick check reveals this to be the case, 81% to be exact.

But, imagine you had a second job, a second income, one which cost you a bit more in transport and in uniforms. Given that extra cost, would you decide not to include it in any calculation to cover your family’s living costs? Would you not declare it?

Of course not. But that is what Cancer Research UK choose to do with what they call ‘trading income’.

This is the income from their high street shops. Importantly, it is also the income from things like Race for Life entry fees and merchandise sales.

Think about it, when you buy something from one of their high street stores, you assume that over 80% of their income supports ‘the cause.’ Why wouldn’t you? They say that is the case in their Annual Report.

When you enter the Race for Life, you assume that over 80% of the income it helps generate for the charity supports research into cancer. “This is beating cancer”, they proudly boast without telling you that not a penny of your entry fee goes to research and that not a penny of that entry fee is included in how they calculate their “over 80p from every £1” claim.

When this ‘trading income’ is included in the calculation (a not inconsiderable sum of £104m) the figure that goes to their charitable activities drops to below 74% (73.5%). More than a seven percent difference between the claim and the reality.

Although we believe it should be illegal for a charity to act in this way, it is not. We are not suggesting that Cancer Research UK are breaking any rules.

But what of trust? What of transparency? What of integrity? What of ethics?

If we can’t believe what a charity tells us on something as basic, as fundamental as where our money goes, what else are they telling us that we should be doubting?

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

ARE CANCER RESEARCH UK AWARE OF CONCERNS OVER FUNDRAISING PRACTICES?

Here at the Race 4 Truth we have highlighted a number of concerns over the way Cancer Research UK deliberately misleads supporters, misrepresents facts, displays serious hypocrisy, and potentially supports fraud. We have gone as far as to question the culture of the organisation and its poor ethics and low integrity.

Now, we are wondering whether all of the above is something the organisation is not only fully aware of but is deliberate policy?

What could possibly bring us to this conclusion?

We have been examining Cancer Research UK’s 2017-18 Annual Report (more on which soon) and have found a rather ‘interesting’ statement on page 42.

At the top of the page, Cancer Research UK cite a reputation risk; “an issue related to our fundraising practices.”

Some might find this a very strange thing to consider a risk to reputation if those fundraising practices were more transparent, honest, and ethical.

We find ourselves once again questioning the culture within Cancer Research UK, the organisation’s integrity, and its ethical and moral compass. For this single line buried deep in their annual report suggests that the many issues Race 4 Truth have already highlighted are embedded, deliberate policy; policy that the senior management know is immoral and unethical but which are deliberate and which they encourage and employ regardless.

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

HOW MUCH OF THE MONEY RAISED BY RACE FOR LIFE PARTICIPANTS FUNDS RESEARCH INTO CANCER?

There is a subtle but important difference between funding Cancer Research UK and funding research into cancer. The former funds high earning executives, highly paid management, multiple expensive offices, and more. The latter does as it says and funds research into cancer.

And two months after we raised the question of how much of the funds raised via sponsorship of runners taking part in the Race for Life goes directly to fund research in cancer, and despite our prompting them for a reply several times, we still await a response.

The absence of any confirmation does not surprise us though. Cancer Research UK have form for not saying things, phrasing things cleverly, and sometimes simply inaccurate 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 the best part of a quarter of a century spinning a range of different yarns as to who created the Race for Life and denying any recognition to the person who actually did.

Having been called out on these tales, they now take an official, and hypocritical, line of “not recognising anyone.” And why tell the truth when simply missing it out 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 are seeking clarification on (so far, without success). The Race for Life website states that sponsorship raised goes to Cancer Research UK leading to questions as to what percentage actually finds its way to funding any research?

For there is a fundamental difference between going to Cancer Research UK and its high earning executives, its expensive central London and regional offices, etc., and actually funding research.

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

In the absence of any reply, study Cancer Research UK’s form and draw your own conclusions.

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

THE RACE FOR LIFE – HOW IT ALL BEGAN

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, 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 temping 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.

The rest should be a matter of historical record. However, following the successful launch 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.

It is time for Cancer Research UK to do the right thing, stop the lies, and recognise Jim for his amazing creation, one which has benefitted the charity by many hundreds of millions of pounds, opened up running to women, and which changed the fundraising landscape in the UK forever.

And, one which should be a fitting tribute from a son to his deceased father.

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.