Tag Archives: False Claims

SOFII – HAPPY TO SHARE THE LIES

The Showcase of Fundraising Innovation and Inspiration (or SOFII for short) make the claim, “We are here to help you be the best fundrais­er you can be, by shar­ing the inno­va­tion and inspi­ra­tion that dri­ves and invig­o­rates our sector.”

It’s a laudable aim. Unfortunately, they do not let the truth get in the way of a good story.

In August 2023 Jim Cowan, the man who actually created the Race for Life, was made aware of an article on the SOFII website which featured Paul de Gregorio (the founder of Rally) giving a talk at SOFII’s ‘I Wish I’d Thought of That’ conference.

The idea de Gregorio wished he had thought of was the Race for Life. However, the background and history of the event he then presented was completely wrong. Given Cancer Research UK’s lies and various different tales they have told about the Race for Life’s history, not knowing the truth was not de Gregorio’s fault. How was he to know that he was simply relaying one version of the numerous fictions CRUK have shared over the years? And we should make clear, de Gregorio is not the one in the wrong here. Like many others, he simply believed a lie also believed by many others, one which CRUK’s leadership know not to be true but refuse to correct.

The version de Gregorio (and SOFII) shared was the one where the Race for Life was a copy of an American event brought to the UK by Imperial Cancer Research UK (CRUK’s previous name) employee Lisa Holland. Along with Jill MacRae and Jane Arnell, Holland is one of a trio of former ICRF employees whose names keep cropping up from that time when the original theft of the idea took place, claiming to have either created it or to have been the inspiration behind it. None have chosen to correct the record, instead happy to accept credit undeserved.

Having been made aware of what he thought was an honest error on SOFII’s part, Jim contacted them on 7th August 2023, making the reasonable request that the page be corrected. On 10th August he also posted a comment on the article expressing his disappointment and providing links to both the Wikipedia page on the event and to our own Race 4 Truth website.

On 14th August SOFII’s Tony Banks promised to look into the matter. Having not heard further, on 31st August Jim emailed a copy of Runner’s World’s ‘top 30 game changers’ article in which he was rightly credited with the Race for Life’s creation. 

By 14th September Jim had yet to receive the courtesy of a reply so he followed up seeking both a response and querying why his comment on the article on SOFII’s website had been blocked from display? This email invoked a reply from Banks in which he repeated the usual lines CRUK cite when denying Jim’s involvement, as per usual without offering any evidence to counter Jim’s claim.

On 18th September Jim replied, this time providing the full and true background and history of the Race for Life including links to evidence supporting his claim, evidence CRUK has never been able to counter. Jim again requested that the page be amended to reflect the facts, the truth.

By 3rd October Jim had not received a reply so again he emailed Banks only to receive an auto-reply that Banks had now left SOFII and giving Carolina Herrera as the person to contact in his place. Jim therefore emailed Herrera in order to chase the matter up and to seek a response.

On 18th October Jim was still awaiting the courtesy of a reply and so emailed Herrera again, also copying in her SOFII colleague Joanna Culling.

No reply was received and the incorrect story and video remain on SOFII’s website.

A screen grab of the comment Jim Cowan posted on the SOFII article on 10th August. At the time of publishing this article, SOFII had still not approved it for sharing.

Jim has not chased SOFII again. Having given them more than ample time and opportunity to respond he has now shared the information with Race 4 Truth.

It has become abundantly clear that SOFII have no interest in reporting facts and no interest in the truth or the accuracy of articles shared on their pages. Indeed, by leaving de Gregorio’s misinformed talk (along with supporting but incorrect details of the Race for Life) SOFII are effectively endorsing the stealing of ideas on their website.

How much credibility does this give to this ‘showcase’ of fundraising and ‘innovation’? What does it say of SOFII’s raison d’être, “we are here to help you be the best fundrais­er you can be, by shar­ing the inno­va­tion and inspi­ra­tion that dri­ves and invig­o­rates our sector” when they know that at least some of what they share is fiction?

How much credibility does this mean SOFII have? They are not interested in facts, in truth. They block comments on their site which seek to correct falsehoods, they don’t reply to emails raising legitimate questions, and they ignore evidence instead believing unsubstantiated CRUK lies.

The concept behind SOFII is a good one, it should be a driver for the sharing of best practice and for genuine innovation. Unfortunately, by sharing one of CRUK’s numerous fake versions of the Race for Life story the motivation behind the organisation and even the truth in their other content must be questioned where no supporting evidence is also presented. Especially when they have been presented with the truth along with supporting evidence of that truth by the man who actually did create the Race for Life, Jim Cowan.

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

A CAREER BUILT ON A BAREFACED LIE

In 1993 when serial fundraiser Jim Cowan’s father was diagnosed with terminal cancer, he came up with the idea for the Race for Life and he took the idea to Cancer Research UK (then called Imperial Cancer Research Fund – ICRF) and their Head of Events, Jill MacRae (nee Baker).

The proposal was simple; Jim would organise the event at a growing number of venues every year beginning with a central London run in the summer of 1994. 

What followed saw Jim written from the event’s history by MacRae, her successors at Cancer Research UK (CRUK), and by the charity itself; while MacRae built a career in the sector on the back of falsely claiming the idea as her own.

Jim did organise the 1994 Race for Life, staged in Battersea Park, and then began work on expanding to six venues in 1995 and twelve in 1996. However, before he could proceed he received a phone call from MacRae informing him that his services were no longer required. 

Jim sought legal advice to be told that an idea could not be copyrighted and that therefore there was nothing he could do. Frustrated and angry but seeing no alternative, Jim turned his mind to other ideas and projects; ideas and projects that have raised many millions for a range of other charities.

The Race for Life went from strength to strength growing into the event Jim forecast his idea would become. Unfortunately, his name was whitewashed from its history with CRUK choosing to tell a range of different, false stories about the event’s origins.

Meanwhile, MacRae had started claiming that she was the creator of the Race for Life. On the back of that barefaced lie, she went on to build a successful career in the charity sector.

But then something happened, something that could not have been predicted in 1994. Social media arrived and exploded. Suddenly, MacRae’s friends were asking her who Jim Cowan was? Why was he appearing on Linked In, Facebook, and elsewhere claiming to have created the Race for Life when MacRae had (or so they thought)?

Boxed into a corner MacRae gambled that, over twenty years later, Jim would have none of the original paperwork. She wrote to Jim brazenly accusing him of falsely claiming what she described as her idea, insisting he stop doing so. She claimed she did not even know who Jim was, that she had never heard of him. She copied in former colleagues from CRUK, effectively making her accusations libellous by sharing them in print. She also edited the Wikipedia page for the Race for Life, amending it to give her and former colleague Jane Arnell as the originators of the event.

Jim responded in robust fashion, reminding MacRae that she had actually written to him acknowledging the event was his creation, stating how excited she was at the prospect of meeting and working with him. He added, “It also appears that at some stage you made a conscious decision to claim the idea as your own, whether by misleading your colleagues at the ICRF or with their collusion is unclear.” He then made it clear that Macrae, “should be advised that should you continue to make false accusations against or about me and which may lead to personal and/or professional damage I will defend myself and my reputation vigorously.”

Jim also contacted Wikipedia, providing evidence as to his truth (and therefore MacRae’s lie) and they promptly corrected the page to reflect facts.

Jim has not heard from MacRae (or her colleagues) since and, following Jim’s robust response any claims to her being the creator of the Race for Life disappeared from her social media profiles. Unfortunately for her, it is the nature of the internet that a lie once told cannot be taken back and stories continue to emerge of her making her false claim.

However, the damage was done. Cancer Research UK continue to refuse to recognise, let alone thank, Jim for his incredible creation. Their current position is that they credit no one, a somewhat ridiculous position given that for the previous 25 years they have credited a range of different (incorrect) origins for the event. Given they have admitted that they have no records from the event’s beginnings, suspicious in itself, how they could make these various claims is anyone’s guess.

It is also worth noting the hypocrisy of an organisation always happy to accept recognition from others but who refuse to give the recognition due to Jim.

And what of MacRae? 

Her lie certainly enhanced her CV and has not held her back in her career since. After leaving CRUK in 1996, according to her Linked In profile she has worked in a range of high profile roles:
British Lung Foundation (Fundraising Manager)
National Autistic Society (Fundraising Manager)
PZA Consulting (Associate Consultant)
Blether Media (Director)
AmbITion Scotland (Specialist Advisor)
Scottish Women In Business (Committee Member)
Visibility (Fundraising & Business Development Manager)
Barnardo’s (Business Development Manager and, currently, as Acting Assistant Director Business Development)

And, while MacRae’s suspect CV has done her no harm (if she has lied about the Race for Life, could she have other fictional episodes recorded?), Jim’s honest CV has been brought into question when Cancer Research UK told a prospective employer fact checking his CV that they had “never heard of him.”

It is a tale of a man whitewashed from the history of the hugely successful event he created and who has then subsequently been lied about and ignored; and a tale of a woman who stole that idea and who has built a successful career on the back of that barefaced lie.

In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK (and Jill MacRae) are lagging behind.

FURTHER READING:
How The Race For Life Came About
Cancer Research UK Refusing To Correct Twenty Five Years Of Lying About Race For Life
Were False Claims About Who Created The Race For Life Fraud?
Race For Life on Wikipedia
More Evidence Emerges Of The Potentially Fraudulent Claim As To Who Created Race For Life
Hypocrisy Is Deeply Embedded Within The Culture Of Cancer Research UK
New Cancer Research UK CEO Will Continue The Hypocrisy Of Her Predecessor
Jill MacRae’s Linked In Profile
How Cancer Research UK Lie Cost Race For Life Creator A Job Offer

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.

YOU CAN NOW CREATE YOUR VERY OWN RACE FOR LIFE “BACK SIGN”

The Race for Life are offering anyone who completed the event in 2018 the opportunity to create their very own ‘back sign’.

They say it is as a “thank you” to everyone who took part. However, where people should wear it once they have attached it to their back they don’t suggest.

To the supermarket? To sporting events? Doing the gardening? To dinner? We don’t know.

We find it a little bizarre. But not nearly as bizarre as the fact they continue to deny any recognition to the man who actually created the Race for Life, a man they unethically and hypocritically continue to ignore while making up a range of tales about the Race for Life’s origins, none of which are true.

You can read the true story here.

In the meantime, we used their ‘back sign’ to create a little reminder for them. Feel free to share it, only not on your back (unless you really want to). We feel on your social media and on their social media might be more appropriate and a little less bizarre.

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

CANCER PLAYS DIRTY AND “SO DO WE” ADMIT CANCER RESEARCH UK

During the summer, Cancer Research UK used a new strap line for its events; “Cancer Plays Dirty, So Do We” – a case of never a truer word spoken, demonstrated by their support for fraud, lies, hypocrisy and more over recent months.

Where to start? It’s not as if it is only one or two instances of Cancer Research UK “playing dirty”. No, “playing dirty” is deeply ingrained in the culture, the very fabric of the organisation.

Cancer Research UK “play dirty” when they refuse to recognise the man who created the Race for Life. Worse, not only have they consistently refused to give him the recognition due, they have made up a whole series of tales inventing different stories for the origins for the event. Misrepresentation at best.

Cancer Research UK “play dirty” when they mislead those considering entering the Race for Life and other events by telling them “this is beating cancer” but not telling them that not a single penny of their entry fee funds any research at all. Worse, they exclude all income from those events, from merchandise, from high street stores, from the figure they cite for percentage of income funding research. Misleading at best. (See Race for Life’s Triple Whammy).

Cancer Research UK “play dirty” when they pay themselves huge salaries, all of which need to be paid before a single penny of funds raised go to research. Their top five earners being paid over £1 million between them and 219 earning over £60,000 a year. More corporate greed that charitable act.

Cancer Research UK “play dirty” when they support the CV of former Head of Events Jill MacRae, who falsely claimed to be the creator of the Race for Life, probably supporting fraud in doing so given that a CV is used in order to make financial gain.

Cancer Research UK “play dirty” when they hypocritically accept awards and recognition for themselves, when they give recognition and awards to their own yet hypocritically deny recognition to the man who created their biggest fundraising event.

Cancer Research UK “play dirty” when they claim never to have heard of the man who created the Race for Life when a different charity asks about him to verify his CV, thus costing him a job offer.

Yes, Cancer Research UK, when you claim you ‘play dirty’ it may be the most (only?) honest claim you have made in months, if not years.

Unethical. hypocritical, dishonest, lacking transparency or integrity. Yes, Cancer Research UK definitely ‘play dirty’ – just not in the way they want you to think.

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

WILL NEW CEO ADDRESS INSTITUTIONAL HYPOCRISY AT CANCER RESEARCH UK?

The Race 4 Truth was established in order to bring public attention to the way Cancer Research UK have denied recognition for Jim Cowan who created the Race for Life.

Over the last quarter of a century, Cancer Research UK has told a range of tales about the origins of the event, all excluding its actual creator. There is evidence that, initially, this might have been because they were misled by former employee Jill MacRae who falsely (possibly fraudulently) laid claim to being the event’s originator.

More recently, perhaps realising they have believed (and promoted) fiction rather than fact, instead showing the sort of integrity you might expect from a charity and acknowledging their mistake, they have taken up a policy of refusing to recognise anyone for the Race for Life’s creation.

In doing so, they have left the door open to accusations of hypocrisy, accusations which reflect reality. How?

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.

Their previous Chief Executive, Sir Harpal Kumar, was happy to accept a knighthood in recognition of his own work. Yet refused to recognise Jim Cowan as creator of the Race for Life. Hypocrisy?

They Tweeted using Father’s Day as a marketing tool and calling on people to honour fathers affected by cancer while (still) ignoring Jim Cowan and denying him recognition for creating the event and 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. Hypocrisy?

Cancer Research UK have annual Flame of Hope awards in recognition of their volunteers achievements, something we applaud. But every time they Tweet or otherwise share details Flame of Hope Award winners without also recognising the man who created the Race for Life, isn’t it hypocrisy?

Nicholas McGranahan, group leader at the CRUK-UCL Lung Cancer Centre of Excellence, recently won the MD Anderson Wilson Stone Memorial Award and 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. Hypocrisy?

And what of their Chairman, Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, who was knighted in 2001 in recognition of his work. Where does he stand on recognising Jim Cowan for the creation of an event his charity has gained so much through? He refuses to recognise Jim at all. No, it is fine for others to recognise him but not for him to recognise Jim. Hypocrisy?

The above are examples of the dictionary definition hypocrisy which now runs through the fabric, the very culture, of Cancer Research UK. What is good for the charity, its people, its leadership, is not good for Jim Cowan. Hypocrisy? Without a shadow of a doubt.

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 fundraising event deserve recognition too?

The charity’s new Chief Executive Officer took up her new position last week. Michelle Mitchell already has an OBE so we know she is willing to accept recognition for her own achievements. We can only hope that, unlike those who preceded her, she is not a hypocrite and will be keen to ensure recognition to all who merit it both within the organisation and without.

Recognition for Jim Cowan is long, long overdue. Will change at the top at Cancer Research UK finally bring it or will hypocrisy continue to reign supreme? Time will tell.

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

NEW CANCER RESEARCH UK CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER FACING BIG CHALLENGES

Cancer Research UK’s new Chief Executive, Michelle Mitchell, has now taken up her post following her appointment earlier this year. In her new role, she will face many of the same challenges facing all CEO’s, whether in the corporate or charity sector. Where is the organisation going? How will it maintain or increase growth? What will the broader economy mean to fundraising? And more, including understanding and improving public perceptions of the charity.

For over and above the recognised and accepted challenges, Michelle Mitchell faces some that should have no place in any organisation but especially not one in the charity sector, challenges which have festered for too long and which will continue to undermine confidence in the charity if left unaddressed.

They lie within the culture at Cancer Research UK, a culture whereby low integrity and dishonesty are acceptable, hypocrisy is the norm, and fraud by former employees is ignored.

Since launching the Race 4 Truth in May, we have reported on all of the above, citing examples and providing evidence where necessary. The deafening silence from Cancer Research UK speaks to integrity so low that the exposing of this sordid history is not deemed worthy of any comment whatsoever. But then, how do you defend the indefensible?

Our campaign started when Cancer Research UK lied about Jim Cowan having created the Race for Life, costing him a job.

It has traced the many and varied false claims from Cancer Research UK as to the origins of the event and provided evidence, including correspondence from a former employee crediting Jim with taking the original idea to them.

That same employee went on to falsely claim the idea as her own, a claim we queried as potentially fraudulent given it will undoubtedly have appeared on that individual’s CV thereby enhancing her career and gaining her monetary reward. And yet, Cancer Research UK have remained silent over the issue, other former employees even supporting the potentially fraudulent claims. And one can only ponder on whether those false claims were supported with references from Cancer Research UK which helped to embed the lie?

When it became apparent to the charity that the lie was exposed and that they could no longer deny that Jim Cowan created their most successful fundraising event, the policy shifted to one of not crediting anyone (barring one slip by an employee who credited yet another different source).

One can only wonder at the hypocrisy of an organisation, and individuals therein, who refuse to recognise the person who created their largest fundraising event, one which has raised over £1/2 Billion for the charity.

Hypocrisy? Absolutely. For although the charity and its leadership refuse to recognise Jim Cowan, they have been more than happy over the years to accept recognition for themselves; both the outgoing CEO (Harpal Kumar) and current Chairman (Leszek Borysiewicz) have accepted knighthoods in recognition of their own work. The charity and its staff have accepted awards for its work and they also hand out awards to others in recognition of their support.

All of the above in contrast to their refusal to recognise one man, a man who created an enormously successful event, one that changed the fundraising landscape in the UK forever. But who Cancer Research refuse to recognise, let alone thank.

Along the way we have uncovered other issues bringing the charity’s integrity into question. The (deliberate?) omission of any mention of the fact that not a single penny of the entry fee for the Race for Life supports research into cancer. Even asking a straight question as to how much of the funds raised via sponsorship funds research failed to elicit a straight answer, a straight answer we are still waiting for.

Low integrity, misleading supporters, dishonesty, support for fraudsters, hypocrisy. We can only imagine the depths to which these issues go when considered against the breadth of Cancer Research UK’s activities as oppose the recognition of one man’s brilliant creation.

The challenge of bringing about the cultural change needed to reverse the above wrongs cannot be underestimated. We wish Michelle Mitchell well as she takes up her new role and hope she will lead from the front and restore the integrity to Cancer Research UK, integrity which has been absent for far too long.

Not to do so, will only undermine public confidence further, in turn undermining the chances of success in those other challenges we mention at the beginning of this piece.

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

CANCER RESEARCH UK’S SILENCE SERVES ONLY TO INCRIMINATE THEM

In the relatively short space of time since we set up the Race 4 Truth we have uncovered and shared numerous instances of Cancer Research UK lying, being hypocritical, supporting fraud, demonstrating poor ethics and low integrity, misleading supporters, and more. All of this in addition to their continued refusal to recognise the man who created the Race for Life.

In response, the silence from Cancer Research UK has been deafening. But 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 big in-house legal department. Yet they have offered no explanation and defence to any of the many issues we have uncovered. No defence to the lies (both blatant and by omission), the hypocrisy, the possible 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.

RACE FOR LIFE’S TRIPLE WHAMMY

Cancer Research UK and the Race for Life are keen to tell anyone entering the event that “this is beating cancer.” What they don’t share is the triple whammy of where the funds really go or don’t go, but then that might slow the gravy train and spoil the narrative.

Whammy number one is when you enter the Race for Life. You think ‘this is beating cancer’ because that is what Cancer Research UK have told you. What they don’t tell you, unless pressed, is that not a single penny of that entry fee supports research into cancer. It is all absorbed by sky high event costs. It is a lie by omission.

Whammy number two is when you purchase some Race for Life merchandise. You again think ‘this is beating cancer’ because that is the story Cancer Research UK are telling. And yet, CRUK’s own Annual Report tells us that no income from merchandising goes to research. Another lie by omission.

Whammy number three comes if and when you raise sponsorship for your Race for Life. You think ‘this is beating cancer’ because, again, that is what they tell you. But read that small print carefully; sponsorship does not go to research into cancer, it goes to Cancer Research UK, a subtle but important difference. Why? Because this means salaries, office costs, marketing, PR, and other costs come out of your fundraising before any finds it way to actual research.

How much finds it way to research? It is impossible to say. Entry fees and merchandise sales (along with other income streams) are not even included in the figures they use to calculate the percentage of their income which actually does go to research, artificially increasing the percentage they use.

We have asked on numerous occasions for clarification but, to date, have not received a reply.

So, when Cancer Research UK and the Race for Life tell you, ‘this is beating cancer’ take the statement with a large pinch of salt. None of the entry fee, none of the merchandising, and only an unclear percentage of sponsorship funds raised go to actual research into cancer. The rest? The gravy train has to be funded from somewhere. But they won’t tell you that.

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

YET AGAIN CRUK ARE BEING DISINGENUOUS WITH THEIR FOLLOWERS

As we have regularly reported, Cancer Research UK and the Race for Life already have form for using the truth liberally, being disingenuous with followers and with omitting key details to mislead supporters. Now they are at it again.

We have exposed Cancer Research UK and the Race for Life over their use of deliberately misleading communications before.

Sometimes it has been lying by omission, for example by not letting people know that none of their Race for Life entry fee goes to support research.

Or when they cleverly tell people that all the funds raised go to Cancer Research UK; as we pointed out not the same thing as going to research into cancer.

Then there was the discovery that when they calculate how much of their income does go to research, they fiddle the figures by deliberately omitting numerous income streams including Race for Life entry fees, merchandising, high street stores, and more, thus significantly inflating the percentage figure they claim.

Now, yesterday (24th September), the CRUK Events East Twitter feed (@CRUKEventsEast) posted a series of tweets stating; “The money you raised from completing Race for Life events….this summer will go directly into life-saving research” (our italics).

Only it won’t. It will go to directly to Cancer Research UK from where a percentage will find its way towards funding research. But not before 3964 members of staff have been paid (219 of whom earn over £60,000 with the top five earners receiving over £1 million between them each year). Not before expensive offices are paid for. Not before glossy marketing and advertising campaigns are paid for, such as the ‘donate £2 a month’ TV campaign which requires 18000 annual subscribers just to pay their CEO.

“Directly into life-saving research.” Their words.

Dishonest or disingenuous? You decide.

Misleading and clearly incorrect? Definitely.

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