Tag Archives: Fraud

CANCER RESEARCH UK CONTINUING TO BURY THE TRUTH ABOUT THE RACE FOR LIFE

In March we reported how the new Chair at Cancer Research UK, Lord Simon Stevens, had snubbed Race for Life creator Jim Cowan by failing to reply to his letter of 18th October 2023. 

Jim’s letter was in response to Stevens’ appointment as Chair at CRUK and asking that he assist in putting right a wrong of almost thirty years, that of Jim being written from the history of the Race for Life, the event he created.

Incredibly, Stevens has finally replied. Or, more accurately, Simon Ledsham (Cancer Research UK’s Director of Fundraising) has replied on his behalf.

Ledsham’s letter was dated 15th May 2024 meaning it took an incredible seven months for CRUK to reply to Jim Cowan’s letter. Yes, you read that correctly, seven months.

Why the reply took so long in coming is unclear. It certainly said nothing new, stating that CRUK do not credit anyone with originating any of their events.

It is a position riddled with flaws and which only evidences the fact that CRUK will use any excuse to avoid having to face up to the truth. 

The line has been used by CRUK previously when their Head of Legal, Nicki Ford, replied to a 2017 letter from Jim to the former CRUK Chief Executive Harpal Kumar. Ford’s letter, referring specifically to the Race for Life, stated, “we do not publicly credit anyone with originating the event, whether it be a former employee or otherwise.”

Not crediting former employees for events they might have created may be reasonable. After all, it was part of their job. That said, some might consider it more than a little hypocritical given the recognition successive CEOs and Chairs have been happy to accept for simply doing their jobs.

However, that is irrelevant. Jim was never an employee of the organisation. He came up with the idea following his own father’s cancer diagnosis and proposed the event to the Imperial Cancer Research Fund (ICRF; CRUK’s former name) as one that he would organise and deliver, and which ICRF would benefit from. 

He came up with the idea completely independently of ICRF/CRUK and never proposed the Race for Life would become anything other than an event that he would organise in support of them. He never proposed that the event should be taken over and run by them.

It was only after the successful launch of the event in 1994 that ICRF’s Head of Events, Jill MacRae, called Jim up and told him he was no longer required. Yes, they stole the event. And MacRae even went on to falsely claim she had created the event herself.

Surely, given this history, it would be right and proper for a charity, an organisation you would hope has at least some integrity, to put the record straight and recognise Jim (and, in so doing, his father’s memory).

Unfortunately, CRUK are not an organisation of integrity. Instead they prefer to keep the truth buried and continue to lie.

And the evidence exposes CRUK’s ‘credit no one’ stance for the cover up it is.

Previously they have cited a number of different, incorrect, sources as where the Race for Life originated. But they were happy to do so, happy to give credit, even though it was to the wrong people they were crediting. What of the ‘credit no one’ stance then?

They turned a blind eye to Jill MacRae’s lies (and fraud) when she claimed to have created the event; a lie which did nothing to harm MacRae’s career. There was no ‘credit no one stance’ then.

Cancer Research UK also regularly recognise those from outside their organisation (as Jim was) for their fundraising efforts, for the events and other fundraisers they stage. They even have an annual awards ceremony at which these individuals are recognised, the Flame of Hope Awards. Hardly ‘credit no one.’

Their social media regularly applauds the efforts of those both from within and from outside the organisation for their efforts to raise funds. ‘Credit no one’?

They happily accept recognition for themselves, presumably not seeing doing so for the hypocrisy it is. Stevens himself has accepted a peerage and a knighthood in recognition of his own work. CEO Michelle Mitchelle accepted an OBE in recognition of her work. Previous Chairs and CEOs have done the same.

But, when it comes to recognition for Jim Cowan for creating their largest and most successful fundraiser, it is a position of ‘credit no one.’ A dictionary definition of the word hypocrisy.

Why adopt a ‘credit no one’ stance when both their history and their present day are littered with examples of credit being given and achievements being recognised? This, on top of a history of citing incorrect sources for the event for which they now ‘credit no one’.

And then there was their 2020 inquiry into the origins of the Race for Life. A sham inquiry if ever their was one. An inquiry which chose not to speak to witnesses and failed to ask for any documentary evidence before coming up with the finding that the origins of the Race for Life could not be established. And why have that inquiry if the organisation’s position is one of ‘credit no one’ anyway?

And it was the same Simon Ledsham who has now written to Jim, on behalf of CRUK’s Chair, citing their sham ‘credit no one’ stance, who wrote at that time (2020) that they had; “explored all reasonable lines of enquiry” and had been “unable to find any solid evidence which supports his (Jim Cowan’s) claim to be the sole originator of Race for Life.”

Well, which is it Simon? Do you ‘credit no one’ or do you spend time investigating (without seeking evidence or witnesses) before stating you’ve been unable to find the evidence you never looked for?

Simon Ledsham presenting a Flame of Hope Award in 2023

Indeed the evidence, should you bother to look for it, speaks for itself. The correspondence from 1993 (page 1 here here and page 2 here) and 1994 (here) is clear. If there is doubt, witnesses can be asked. If there is still doubt, even Runners World magazine acknowledge the Race for Life as Jim’s creation. And they should know because Jim involved them from the very start.

But CRUK choose to ignore all the evidence opting instead to keep the truth buried, to ignore the lies they have told over the last thirty years, to ‘credit no one’ while hypocritically crediting others and accepting credit for themselves.

Recent years have seen a number of cover ups exposed. From Grenfell to Hillsborough and from contaminated blood to the Post Office, among many others. Perhaps, in their denial, in their lies, and in their covering up of the truth, Cancer Research UK’s senior management are doing little other than attempting to create ‘plausible deniability’ over how much they know just in case media, politicians and the courts ask questions of them in the future?

But the dishonesty, the hypocrisy and the many contradictions are there and clear to see for all who care to look.

CRUK by name, crooks by nature.

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

EVENT SPONSORSHIP CASTS DOUBT ON STANDARD LIFE’S ETHICS

Standard Life’s support for the Race for Life bring the company’s ethics and morals into doubt while bringing into question their stance on fraud. 

In October last year, Cancer Research UK announced that financial services giant Standard Life would be joining the Race for Life as the events new headline partner.

Given the importance of trust and integrity in financial services, and the need to be vigilant to fraud, in December Race for Life creator Jim Cowan wrote to Andy Curran, Standard Life’s Chief Executive Officer, in order to make him aware of the many issues Cancer Research UK has with trust and integrity, and highlighting the blind eye to employee fraud they continue to show.

Over six weeks later, Jim is still awaiting a reply.

Standard Life claim to be serious about fraud. In 2022 they won they were the ‘Fight Against Fraud’ winner in the UK Customer Service Excellence Awards (aka the Insurance CX Awards). And yet, less than a year later, they are partnering with Cancer Research UK, turning a blind eye to that organisation’s history.

Some might suggest this demonstrates double standards. Others that it displays a lack of integrity. It definitely displays gross hypocrisy.

For over a quarter of a century, Cancer Research UK has been trying to write Jim Cowan from the event’s history. They have told numerous lies in an attempt to rewrite that history and have consistently ignored opportunities to look at evidence and talk to witnesses who support Jim’s truth while offering absolutely no evidence to the contrary. On top of that, they have turned a blind eye to the fraud of former employee Jill MacRae who stole the idea from Jim before later claiming the idea to be her own, building a successful career in the charity sector on the back of that fraud.

We don’t doubt that, at the time of agreeing to support the Race for Life, Standard Life were unaware of any of the above. Cancer Research UK will certainly not have been honest with them.

However, now that they have been made aware, now that they have been offered the opportunity to see the evidence and talk to witnesses, they can no longer claim to be unaware.

Their silence in response to Jim’s letter does not paint them in a very good light. We can only hope that  a reply will, eventually, be forthcoming and that Standard Life will do the right thing by either using their position as an event sponsor to put pressure on Cancer Research UK to put right their 29 years of lies, or to withdraw their support for the event on ethical and moral grounds.

For, if a financial services company is happy to look the other way on such matters, what does that say about how much they should be trusted with your savings and investments?

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

JIM COWAN’S LATEST INTERVIEW WITH SONIA POULTON ON BNT RISE

Yesterday morning, 4th July, Race for Life creator Jim Cowan was the guest on Sonia Poulton and Sean Ward on their breakfast show, Rise, on BNT.

Sonia has kindly provided us with a copy of the interview to share with Race 4 Truth supporters.

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

CANCER RESEARCH UK’S DISHONESTY EXPOSED

It is reasonable for the public to expect honesty, transparency, integrity and accountability from charities. Unfortunately, in the case of Cancer Research UK (CRUK) you get none of them.

That CRUK happily turned a blind eye to the fraud of their then employee Jill MacRae has been a matter of record for some time.

MacRae infamously claimed to be the creator of the Race for Life after stealing the event from its real inventor, Jim Cowan. So brazen was she that she even threatened Cowan with legal action if he did not desist from his own, honest, claim. But he stood firm and MacRae, now with Barnardo’s, backed down and removed all such claims from her social media.

However, by including this false claim on her CV, she committed an act of fraud, an act supported by CRUK who happily provided references to that effect. Indeed, historically CRUK recognised MacRae as the event’s creator, a falsehood they have never corrected.

It is over a quarter of a century since Jim Cowan came up with the idea for the Race for Life in 1993 and organised the very first event in 1994. This is evidenced by records from that time, a matter of historical record. However, since 1995 CRUK have consistently lied about the origins of the event, denying due recognition to Cowan.

Initially they supported MacRae’s dishonesty and fraud, then they cited a series of other origins for the event before, eventually, rather than show integrity and admit they had been wrong, they adopted a line of ‘no one person was responsible for creating the event.’ This, despite all evidence clearly showing Cowan did create the event. And, in not correcting the lies, in continuing to deny Cowan any recognition, they display a lack of honesty, a lack of accountability, and a complete absence of integrity.

CRUK’s dishonesty is further evidenced by the numerous deliberately misleading claims they make to draw people into their events. Take for example the claim, ‘this is beating cancer’ used to promote the Race for Life. The reality is that not a single penny from the event entry fees went to research and not a single penny from merchandising went to funding research. Clearly not ‘beating cancer’ but more likely funding the corporate excess CRUK enjoy.

In fairness to CRUK, those entering the Race for Life who decided to also raise sponsorship might well have contributed to ‘beating cancer’ but that is not what the advertising claimed. And, when challenged, CRUK would not clarify what percentage of funds raised through sponsorship went to actual research, went to actually ‘beating cancer.’

It is a very murky picture. It is a picture of deliberately misleading claims, of outright dishonesty, of an absence of integrity, and a complete lack of transparency and accountability. It is certainly not what the public should expect from a charity.

And this is what we know about. How much dishonesty remains uncovered?

For where there is one lie, there are usually more. And when an organisation lies with so much ease and such frequency it is usually because dishonesty is so deeply embedded within its culture.

IN THE RACE FOR TRUTH, CANCER RESEARCH UK ARE LAGGING BEHIND

Further reading:
THE TRUE STORY OF HOW THE RACE FOR LIFE WAS BORN
WHY DON’T CANCER RESEARCH UK SUE?

HOW MUCH OF CANCER RESEARCH UK’S SELf-WRITTEN HISTORY CAN BE BELIEVED?

Last week Cancer Research UK celebrated their 20th Anniversary as a ‘brand’ (following the merger of two older cancer charities). 

Social media and the airwaves were filled with stories of the charity’s history, its impact, and the big questions that will shape its future.

And yet, the questions which should be asked weren’t; how many of these tales can be believed? How much of the charity’s last twenty years (and the years preceding that) are works of fiction? 

Cancer Research UK, its CEO Michelle Mitchell, and many others within the organisation (including its Trustees), are fully aware that at least one key part of the charity’s history is made up. And that must cast doubt on other elements of its reported history. 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?

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? 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 lie; 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? And if one part of that story is told while known to be false, which other parts of the story 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, ignore any facts we don’t like approach.  

Surely, therefore, as well as the accuracy of its history, 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, 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 (Harpal Kumar) on more than one occasion, but she (and he) declined that offer too. It appears that historical accuracy, and with it trust, are not high up Cancer Research UK’s list of priorities.

POLITICS VERSUS THE CHARITY SECTOR – SPOT THE DIFFERENCE?

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

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

But what has this to do with the charity sector? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Charity Commission? Silence.

The Fundraising Regulator? Silence.

The NCVO? Silence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MITCHELL’S LAUGHABLE TALK OF ‘COLLABORATION’

Cancer Research UK Chief Executive Michelle Mitchell has laughably Tweeted about the importance of striking a deal for the UK to remain a member of Horizon Europe, the EU’s Research & Innovation Programme.

Why ‘laughable’?

Well, in her Tweet Mitchell states; “lack of participation would be a significant blow to science and cancer research in the UK and weaken our position to collaborate.”

But the question must be posed; why would anyone trust Mitchell and the organisation she heads enough to collaborate with them? 

Because Cancer Research UK (CRUK) are the organisation Jim Cowan took his amazing idea (the Race for Life) to with the intention of organising it and CRUK benefitting. You know, a collaboration.

However, instead of collaborating with Jim, CRUK employee Jill MacRae stole the idea before fraudulently claiming it as her own. The silence of subsequent Chief Executives Harpal Kumar and Michelle Mitchell, as well as Chairman Leszek Borysiewicz, despite being fully informed on the matter, exposes CRUK as an organisation which will steal ideas from those it is pretending to collaborate with, cover up the theft, support fraud, all without giving it a second thought, and without any sign of integrity or moral compass.

Yes Ms Mitchell, remaining members of Horizon Europe would undoubtedly benefit the UK. But, fully informed, who in their right mind would collaborate with you?

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

JIM COWAN’S INTERVIEW WITH SONIA POULTON ON BNT RISE

Yesterday morning, 12th November, Race for Life creator Jim Cowan was the guest on Sonia Poulton on her breakfast show, Rise, on BNT.

Sonia has kindly provided us with a copy of the interview to share with Race 4 Truth supporters.

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

RACE FOR LIFE SPONSORS FALL SHORT ON INTEGRITY

In July we reported how Race for Life creator Jim Cowan had written open letters* to the sponsors of the Race For Life to highlight Cancer Research UK’s flawed in-house inquiry into the event’s origins and asking them to use their influence as event partners to lean on CRUK to open that inquiry up to public scrutiny. After all, if it was a properly conducted and honest inquiry, what could they possible have to hide by doing so?

In his letters Jim stated; “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?”

Surely, what was being asked of the leaders of each of these companies was a reasonable request. That is, assuming those companies have the integrity and the moral compass to care about right and wrong, to care about the ethics and values of organisations they partner with and promote their brands through.

Sadly, none of them do. Over three months later only one has even bothered to reply. A Tesco ‘Customer Service Specialist’ replied stating that they were unable to hep with the matter. Global Radio (owners of Heart FM) and Scottish Power have not replied at all.

What does this say about the values of these three companies? What does it say about their moral and ethical positions, about their integrity? Obviously they see no issue in partnering with unethical organisations of dubious morals, organisations with a history of dishonesty who have been evidenced to look the other way when employees commit fraud. We know this because that is the history of Cancer Research UK and the Race for Life, catalogued on this website

We decided to look further and to research the stated values given by each company online.

Tesco’s ‘Core Purpose and Values’ statement does not make any reference to ethics, morals, integrity or honesty. None. Given this, given these values hold no relevance to Tesco, maybe their lack of interest in intervening to ask CRUK to display some integrity should not be surprising?

Tesco’s statement does state; “we treat people how they want to be treated.” Clearly not in the case of Jim Cowan. It also states; “every little help makes a big difference.” Maybe it does. If only Tesco could be bothered to offer that help. Especially on a matter of truth and honesty, of integrity.

Scottish Power’s parent company, Iberdrola, has a clear statement of ‘Our Values’ on its website. Under the section titled ‘Sustainable Energy’ they give ‘ethics’ as one of those values along with ‘responsibility’ and ‘transparency.’

And yet, their ethics do not stretch to having questions for a partner (CRUK) who has been evidenced several times over to act without ethics, without either morals or integrity. What does this say of ‘responsibility?’ Obviously only responsible enough to turn a blind-eye to wrong doing but not responsible enough to address it. And how believable is a value of ‘transparency’ in a company willing to look the other way when one of its partners (CRUK) acts without any transparency by keeping a flawed inquiry in-house, avoiding any public scrutiny?

And what of Global Entertainment, the owner of Heart FM? Despite searching, we could not find any Values Statement for the company at all. The closest thing we could find was on the ‘About’ page of their website where they state; “People may forget what you said, people may forget what you did, but they’ll never forget how you made them feel.” They might want to run that statement past Jim Cowan and ask him how their turning a blind eye to Cancer Research UK’s lack of ethics, lack of transparency, lack of integrity, makes him feel?

We also found a report in The Guardian newspaper from March 2010 reporting on Global’s (then) new Mission Statement. It included the line; “here’s to the obsessive ones who don’t walk by anything they can put right themselves.” We can only assume that Global have changed their mind about that one as they walked past this issue without even a sideways glance.

It is clear that Cancer Research UK and the Race for Life have found three partners who mirror their own shady values, who lack the ethics, morals or integrity to stand up and do the right thing.

In the cold light of day the ‘values’ talked about on the websites of Tesco, Global and Iderbrola are little more than empty words, window dressing covering up an absence of integrity they would rather their customers do not see.

And Cancer Research UK’s so-called inquiry remains hidden from any public scrutiny. The silence remains deafening.

In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK, Tesco, Scottish Power, and Heart FM are all lagging behind.

*The open letters from Jim Cowan to the sponsors of the Race for Life were dated 28th July 2021 and all were sent by recorded delivery. They were addressed to:
Ashley Tabor-King, Founder & President, Global Entertainment & Talent Group Limited. 
Keith Anderson, Chief Executive Officer, Scottish Power Renewables & Chief Corporate Officer, Scottish Power.
Ken Murphy, Chief Executive Officer, Tesco.

RACE FOR LIFE LIKE ANOTHER ONE OF OUR TWEETS – BUT WHY?

In July we reported on the Race for Life bizarrely liking one of our tweets. Now, they have done it again.

Then, it was a tweet about the fraud of former Cancer Research UK employee Jill MacRae who had falsely claimed to have created the Race for Life.

This time it was another tweet about MacRae, this one questioning whether someone with her history of unrepentant lying is a suitable person to be working with young people.

Given Cancer Research UK’s 25 years of dishonesty about the creation of Race for Life, it seems bizarre that they ‘like’ either tweet.

If they like the tweets because they find the dishonesty of MacRae as appalling as us, then perhaps they should look in the mirror and question their own long standing issues with facing up to and accepting the truth.

Perhaps they liked the first one because it exposes a fraud? But then, they could put the record straight on that fraud but choose not to.

Did they like the more recent tweet because they agree that unrepentant liars should not be working with and influencing young people? But surely, their own record of avoiding truth is no better than MacRae’s? Some may say worse.

It would seem that the only reason they like the tweets is because they like MacRae and her dishonesty. After all, their own record of avoiding truth is worse than MacRae’s as, through their silence, they turn a blind eye to, and help to cover up, MacRae’s history of fraud and dishonesty. 

Despite the overwhelming evidence proving that Jim Cowan created the Race for Life, they prefer silence. They prefer a public display of low integrity over doing the right thing and admitting they got it wrong, over admitting they were duped by the lies that Jill MacRae told.

We won’t be holding our breath waiting for an answer as to why they now like these tweets. Cancer Research UK have already demonstrated that their sole tactic on addressing the truth about the Race for Life is to ignore facts and continue the cover up. And it doesn’t take a genius to work out why that is; because anything they could say will only incriminate them further, will only further expose the lies that they have supported and repeated.

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