We have probably all seen those television advertisements pleading with you to “donate just £2 a month to cancer research.”
The glossy productions tug at the heartstrings and surely only the hardest of hearts would not be moved to being at least tempted to sign up?
But what the glossy advertisements don’t tell you is that Cancer Research UK need over 18,000 to sign up to donate “just £2 a month” for a year solely to cover the cost of Michelle Mitchell, their Chief Executive, one of, if not the, most expensive in the sector.
And that is without including the cost of making the commercial and of buying the prime time advertising slots!
A charity headed by someone on a basic (yes, without add ons) of £250,000 per annum, is asking hard working people on minimum wages and average salaries who are struggling to get by, to find extra to help fund corporate style excesses, cleverly disguised by playing on their emotions for a reaction.
Please, make sure that when you donate your hard earned money, it is more likely to be used for research into cancer than to pay the grossly inflated salaries at a charity which lies about the origins of its own largest fundraising event (the Race for Life) and refuses to to recognise the creator of that event while hypocritically giving and accepting all sorts of recognition to and from others.
How? Choose a different charity which funds and supports research into cancer as a priority over self serving salary packages, lying to its followers, and mind boggling hypocrisy.
*On-costs calculated using https://goodcalculators.com/true-cost-of-an-employee-calculator/
Two days ago we posted an article which, once again, highlighted the hypocrisy of Cancer Research UK. The article pointed out their hypocrisy in asking people to nominate their Race for Life hero while, for the last 25 years, they have refused to give the event’s creator, Jim Cowan, any recognition at all.
We suggested that without Jim the near £1 Billion raised through the event would never have been possible. We highlighted the organisation’s hypocrisy and how they have refused to distance themselves from the fraudulent activities of Jill MacRae, the employee who faked creating the event herself. We pointed out their campaign to whitewash Jim’s name from the event’s history.
We then asked you to speak against the hypocrisy, the lack of integrity, and nominate Jim Cowan as your Race for Life hero. To nominate the person without whom none of it would have happened.
And, lots of you did. Thank you.
And, guess what? Cancer Research UK and the Race for Life have again highlighted their hypocrisy and their lacking integrity. On both Twitter and on Facebook, those nominating anyone other than Jim have been asked to email their nomination in while those nominating Jim have been ignored (see screen grab examples below).
It is an incredible demonstration of low integrity, even of ballot rigging. It is a classic example of hypocrisy.
They would like a Race for Life hero. Just not one they are trying to ignore and remove from the history of the event he created.
And, if we can’t trust Cancer Research UK’s integrity on this issue, why should we trust them on any other; such as with our money?
Please continue to help us in ensuring Jim Cowan is not whitewashed from the history of the Race for Life and that he finally gets the recognition he so richly deserves. Please continue to let Race for Life and Cancer Research UK know how you fell. Please follow Race 4 Truth on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and through this website.
Thank you for your support. We’re not going away until Jim gets the recognition he deserves.
In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK are lagging behind.
Please note, we are not in any way suggesting those other people nominated are not worthy. Quite the opposite. We believe anyone who goes above and beyond deserves recognition. Especially the man who created an event which has raised nearly £1 Billion and has been copied by so many other charities since.
In yet another bout of hypocrisy, Cancer Research UK are asking people to nominate their Race for Life hero (or heroes).
This is the same organisation which refuses to recognise, let alone thank, the man who created the Race for Life; the man without whom none of the near £1billion it has raised would have been possible. Instead, they are trying to airbrush that man, Jim Cowan, from the event’s history while taking no steps to distance themselves from the fraudulent activities of Jill MacRae, the employee who faked creating the event herself.
Why not help us to speak against this hypocrisy, this lack of integrity; why not nominate Jim Cowan as your Race for Life hero; why not nominate the person without whom none of it would have happened?
For 25 years, Cancer Research UK have lied about Jim Cowan and the creation of the Race for Life. Their lies have cost him the recognition and thanks he so thoroughly deserves and have even cost him a job offer.
Sadly, even though they know the facts, rather than correct 25 years of lies, they have chosen to simply pretend the lies never happened and have assumed a stance which continues to exclude Jim from his rightful place in the event’s history.
The problem with falsehoods, with lies, is that eventually you forget what you claimed and claim something else entirely, catching yourself out. And, of course, you have no evidence to support your fiction because it is just that, fiction. No records of discussions, of meetings, of correspondence. Because they don’t exist.
Indeed, in recent correspondence, Cancer Research UK acknowledged that they have kept no records from the creation and launch of the landmark fundraising event. But, ever keeping their heads in the sand when confronted by facts, they declined Jim Cowan’s offer to meet with them and share copies of documents from 1993 and 1994 which clearly evidence the idea was his and his alone.
But how many lies have been told in that quarter of a century? We have no way of knowing! So, interested in checking out Cancer Research UK’s false claims, Race 4 Truth carried out a little research which has exposed a story which, as such fictions do, keeps changing. There may be more and different claims, but in less than one day’s digging, this is what we uncovered:
1994
In a letter from Jill MacRae, its then National Events Manager, what was then the Imperial Cancer Research Fund (ICRF) credited Jim Cowan with coming to them with the original idea for the Race for Life. This was the last time they were honest about who created the event.
1995
After severing all ties to Jim Cowan, Jill MacRae started to claim she came up with the Race for Life herself. It would appear that ICRF/CRUK believed her. She went on to build a career on the false, probably fraudulent, claim and is currently the Business Development Manager at Barnardo’s.
2000
In an article in the 19th July issue of Athletics Weekly, an ICRF spokesperson claimed that the Race for Life was based on, “a concept from America called Walk for a Cure.” In the same issue of Athletics Weekly, a letter from Louise Holland, ICRF’s Race for Life Director, stated, “the concept was taken from the Susan Komen Foundation.” They couldn’t even keep their lies consistent for a week
2013
In November of 2013, Jill MacRae contacted Jim Cowan via Linked In and email threatening legal action if he did not stop claiming to have created the Race for Life. Supported by Jane Arnell, Tony Elischer, and Sarah Guthrie (former colleagues of hers at ICRF/CRUK), she claimed they were all “shocked” by Jim’s “misleading claims.” MacRae claimed to have never heard of Jim Cowan and asserted that her colleagues had not either. The 1994 letter from Jill MacRae to Jim Cowan puts the lie to that lie. Over the past year, we have shared more evidence that includes correspondence to and from Jill Macrae to support Jim’s position and which debunks MacRae’s lies.
Also in November of 2013, Jill MacRae amended the Race for Life entry on Wikipedia to state; “Race for Life was created by fundraisers Jill MacRae (nee Baker) and Jane Arnell at what was then the Imperial CancerResearch Fund.” At Jim’s request, supported by evidence, Wikipedia amended the page to show the truth, that the creator of the Race for Life was him.
On 12th December, Jim Cowan responded to Jill MacRae’s threats stating; “To say that I am surprised at both your claims and you accusation would be an understatement. Your cynical duplicity in laying claim to the original idea is preposterous and your accusation that my own claims are untrue is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.”
Jim has not heard from MacRae, or her colleagues, since. Why not, we wonder? Interestingly, MacRae has since removed the false claim from all of her online profiles. We wonder whether she still uses the lie on her CV? That, of course, would be fraud.
2016
Jim Cowan was advised that the website ‘Informed Edinburgh’ had carried an article titled ‘Spotlight on Jill MacRae’ in which she stated; “I created the Race for Life and organised the very first 5K event way back in 1993 (sic), when I was National Events Manager at what is now Cancer Research UK. The article was removed after Jim contacted the website advising them that, “Ms MacRae knows this not to be the case” providing evidence debunking her lie.
2017
In May 2017 , Nicki Ford from Cancer Research UK stated, “We do not publicly credit anyone with originating the event.”
In September 2017, Cancer Research UK’s Chairman, Prof. Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, stated, “We do not credit anyone with originating the event.”
It would appear that, unable to prove any of the previous claims Cancer Research UK and, primarily, Jill MacRae had made about the creation of the event (how could they?), the policy was now to simply shut up and claim nothing.
2018
Maybe she didn’t get the memo shared by Ford and Borysiewicz, or maybe it was just time to change the claim again, but in May 2018, Cancer Research UK’s current National Events Manager, Annette Quarry, stated that the original pilot was from yet another different source, this time the American Cancer Society.
2019
We had hoped that Cancer Research UK’s new Chief Executive, Michelle Mitchell, might take the opportunity to put the record straight and restore some of the charity’s missing integrity. Unfortunately not. Despite Jim’s offer to meet her and provide her with documentary evidence, she ducked responding herself, delegating the task to her Complaints Manager, Graeme McCluskey. He used the excuse that the organisation do not have any internal records of Jim’s involvement with the Race for Life. In place of taking the opportunity to view and discuss evidence, Cancer Research UK have kept their collective heads buried deep in the sand. An opportunity to correct 25 years of lies was passed up; no corrections, no apologies, just very deliberate ignorance of the facts displaying a complete absence of integrity
We now wait with baited breath for the next claim as to the creation of the Race for Life. There are two things we know for sure though:
While CRUK’s story has kept changing, Jim Cowan’s has remained consistent throughout.
While CRUK and their various employees (current and former) have offered no supporting evidence for any of their claims, Jim Cowan has. Race 4 Truth will continue sharing that evidence over the coming weeks, months, and years.
Here is another fact for Cancer Research UK; the truth is consistent, it has no need to vary its story in the way that Cancer Research UK’s fiction has. Jim’s truth can be proven. Their lies cannot.
Ask yourself, who do you believe? Jim Cowan or Cancer Research UK?
In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK are lagging behind!
2019 marks 25 years since the very first Race for Life was staged in 1994 in London’s Battersea Park.
Most organisations might choose such a landmark as an opportunity to thank the person who created such a successful event, but not Cancer Research UK.
Jim Cowan came up with the idea for the event in 1993 following his father’s terminal cancer diagnosis. He took the idea to what was then the Imperial Cancer Research Fund (ICRF) and organised the first Race for Life a year later.
Unfortunately for Jim, the ICRF’s the Events Manager, Jill MacRae, decided to claim the idea as her own and went on to build a successful career in the charity sector on the back of her deception while Jim was told he was surplus to requirements.
Over the intervening years ICRF became Cancer Research UK (CRUK), MacRae moved on, and CRUK lost track of how the enormously successful event had begun, crediting a range of incorrect sources but ignoring Jim.
Nowadays, the people at the top of the charity know the facts but choose to ignore them, not even correcting the incorrect credits of the past. Jim continues to be ignored and, far from being recognised, thanked, or involved in the 25th birthday celebration of his creation, finds himself written out of its history by the charity it has done so much for.
We leave it to others to judge the level of integrity displayed by CRUK in their actions, instead choosing to thank Jim for his incredible, amazing creation; one which has undoubtedly saved many lives and changed tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of others for the better.
CRUK won’t say it, but we will. Thank you Jim!
In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK are lagging behind.
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 this definition fits perfectly in describing the culture within Cancer Research UK and its policy of accepting recognition both individually and collectively while refusing to offer recognition to Jim Cowan, the person who created their most popular and significant fundraising event; the Race for Life.
This culture of hypocrisy comes from the very top of the organisation with the new CEO, Michelle Mitchell, leading the way in continuing the practice embedded by her predecessor, Harpal Kumar. Both have refused to recognise Jim Cowan for his incredible contribution to the charity’s fundraising and yet both are happy to accept recognition for their own work, including a knighthood by Kumar and an OBE by Mitchell.
The organisation’s Chairman, Leszek Borysiewicz, is no better. He endorses the refusal to recognise Cowan but has also accepted recognition for himself in the form of his knighthood.
What about Cancer Research UK’s committees and trustee membership? On page 45 of their 2017/18 Annual Report we can see that the thirteen strong list includes three knights and one dame. Yes, the hypocrisy runs deep within the very fabric of the charity and is clearly endorsed from the top down.
What of other examples? There are many and anyone following the organisation’s social media will see regular tweets and posts offering recognition and thanks to those who help the charity, and thanking those who recognise them. But recognition for Jim Cowan, not a peep.
Examples include using Father’s Day as a marketing tool and calling on people to honour fathers affected by cancer while ignoring Jim Cowan and denying him recognition for creating the event, 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.
How about Cancer Research UK’s own annual Flame of Hope awards in recognition of their volunteers achievements, something we applaud. But every time they Tweet or otherwise share details of Flame of Hope Award winners without also recognising the man who created the Race for Life they again demonstrate that deeply embedded cultural hypocrisy.
Then there was Nicholas McGranahan, group leader at the CRUK-UCL Lung Cancer Centre of Excellence, who last year won the MD Anderson Wilson Stone Memorial Award. 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.
The examples are many, of which these are but a few, led by the people at the very top of the charity every one of them providing a dictionary definition example of the hypocrisy which is not only embedded within the organisation but actively encouraged by Cancer Research UK’s leadership.
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 and most popular fundraising event deserve recognition (if not thanks) too?
Recognition for Jim Cowan is long, long overdue, a quarter of a century overdue. We had hoped that change at the top at Cancer Research UK would finally bring that change. Unfortunately, hypocrisy continues to reign supreme.
In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK are lagging behind.
The officially backed ‘Inside Government’ organisation are to host an event in July to examine how charities can start regaining public trust.
It appears that it is not only Cancer Research UK that the public are losing trust in, the need for the event suggesting sector wide issues.
The event, ‘Raising Levels of Trust Across the Voluntary Sector’ was tweeted by Inside Government and retweeted by (among others) the Fundraising Regulator Gerald Oppenheim, suggesting he too is aware of issues within the sector he regulates.
Unfortunately, every single speaker at the event is an ‘insider’ being from either a charity or an official body. Further, the event seems priced to deter those with an interest or a view to share from attending; the cheapest fee for booking a place being £325 (yes, you read that right).
Concerned that the event might miss valuable insights and information from someone affected by the decline in integrity and morals in the sector, someone who has been lied about and seen those leading a charity display mind-boggling levels of hypocrisy, we shared the details with Race for Life creator Jim Cowan.
Jim informs us that he got in touch with the organisers through their online enquiry form and offered to speak of his experiences at the event free of charge. The response? Silence. Jim’s offer was not considered worthy of acknowledgement, let alone a response.
Might we suggest that if levels of trust across the sector are to be improved, ignoring genuine offers to provide input and support is not a great way to start? Further, by excluding the very external knowledge the event agenda is lacking, the event appears to be little more than lip service to a problem which is only going to get worse if not addressed properly.
On the positive side; at least staging the event means that the issue is being recognised.
In our most recent articles we have shared correspondence from both Race 4 Truth and from Jim Cowan to Michelle Mitchell, Cancer Research UK’s new Chief Executive, asking her to reconsider the organisation’s refusal to recognise Jim for creating the Race for Life.
For your reference, you can read our letter to Mitchell here, and her non-response here, followed by Jim Cowan’s follow up to her here.
After a wait of four weeks, Jim did eventually receive a reply although not from Mitchell, instead from her organisation’s Complaints Manager, Graeme McCluskey. We share that letter here with analysis of its content below.
It is perhaps telling that Mitchell does not extend the courtesy of replying herself, perhaps choosing to create distance between herself and the charity’s continuing and deliberate ignoring of the facts?
We had hoped when Mitchell was appointed that a new broom might see the dawn of a new culture at CRUK however, the reference to CRUK Chairman Sir Leszek Borysiewicz’s September 2017 correspondence tells us that under the new CEO’s guidance it will be ‘old broom, old culture’ – a culture lacking integrity and of questionable ethics, not to mention hugely hypocritical.
McCluskey, on behalf of Mitchell, repeats the mantra of “we do not credit anyone with originating any of our events”, stating that CRUK’s position has not changed. It sounds reasonable but is far from it.
Cancer Research UK lied about the origins of the Race for Life for nearly a quarter of a century (outlined here). The ‘we do not credit anyone’ line was introduced in 2017 solely to avoid having to face up to and admit those lies. Many of those lies remain in the public domain, uncorrected. Any organisation with integrity would address this as a matter of urgency.
The Race for Life is the only CRUK event which was not developed in-house or by hired contractor. Therefore any rule applying to it being developed internally and individuals responsible not being recognised should not apply.
The event was entirely conceived independently of CRUK by Jim Cowan (see article here) and with the intention he organise and develop it. After he took it to Cancer Research UK (then known as Imperial Cancer Research Fund) proposing it could be a huge event raising funds for them, it was their staff who effectively stole the event by trademarking it behind Jim’s back before informing him he was no longer needed.
They regularly credit, recognise, and thank individuals and organisations external to CRUK for organising fundraising events and challenges for them. Hypocrisy at its best.
They happily accept recognition both for individuals and collectively as an organisation from external bodies. More hypocrisy.
And even more hypocritically, their Chairman (a knighthood), their previous CEO (a knighthood – see article here), and Mitchell herself (an OBE) have happily accepted honours in recognition of their own achievements while refusing to recognise Jim Cowan.
McCluskey’s letter continues by claiming the charity has no record of the communication regarding the job opportunity lost to Jim when CRUK stated they had never heard of him (article here). Apart from being very convenient, it seems to support a view that record keeping within the organisation is somewhat lax and a long way short of what should be expected.
Cancer Research UK, the letter states, has neither employee nor contractor records going back to 1994. What the relevance of this is we do not know, other than to deliberately evade the fact that Jim Cowan was neither an employee nor a contractor in 1993 when he proposed the event to them, nor in 1994 when he organised the very first Race for Life.
McCluskey then reports that his organisation has no internal records of Jim’s involvement either, suggesting they know he was neither employee nor contractor.
Apart from being very convenient for CRUK it is also not unsurprising given it is highly likely that their then employee Jill MacRae would have covered her tracks and removed evidence to the contrary when falsely and fraudulently claiming to be the event’s originator in 1994/5 (details here and here).
Regardless of (1), Jim offered to meet and share documentary evidence with Mitchell. Given the admission that CRUK has no documentary evidence of their own concerning the origins of the event, some might consider it strange that they have no interest (indeed, make no mention of) this offer. This is the ostrich approach, keeping their heads buried in the sand to avoid hearing facts that support a truth they know but won’t acknowledge. Yet again, this brings the organisation’s integrity into question.
They know the lies they told over 25 years do not hold water. Indeed their lies contradict each other so frequently did they change their story prior to assuming their present ‘we don’t credit anyone’ position. They know they backed a fake and a fraudster in MacRae and rather than do the right thing and show some integrity they choose to keep the truth buried, thereby continuing to support the lie through their silence and their ‘credit no one’ stance.
Indeed, it is about much more than giving credit where credit is due; it is about doing the right thing. What is it that they are so scared of that they do not even want to meet Jim to see and discuss his evidence which includes original documentation?
The only logical conclusion is that they lack the collective moral compass, moral leadership and integrity to do the right thing and admit that they got it wrong.
CRUK’s stance stems back to MacRae’s theft of the event from Jim. Everything since has been to protect that lie. Maybe initially CRUK were unaware but integrity would demand that once exposed, the lie be corrected, apologies made, and due recognition given.
Without correcting the lies of the last 25 years, many of their own staff are in ignorance of the event’s origins having been sold those same lies by their employer; a situation damning of the organisation’s leadership over that time. This is demonstrated by their National Events Manager, Annette Quarry’s (a CRUK employee of over ten years) misinformed insistence that the event originated with the American Cancer Society. This, in 2018 after the ‘credit no one’ policy was supposedly in place. One can only wonder at which version of CRUK’s fake history others in their current and former employ subscribe to. We do know it won’t be the factual version.
In addition to highlighting a disturbing absence in integrity within such a large charity, the ‘credit no one’ stance is extremely hypocritical.
As mentioned above, Borysiewicz (Chairman), Harpal Kumar (previous CEO), and Mitchell have all accepted recognition for themselves while denying recognition for Jim Cowan.
CRUK and Race for Life’s social media are littered with recognition and thanks for their own staff and volunteers while continuing to deny any recognition to Jim Cowan.
CRUK are happy to accept recognition and thanks from others while continuing to deny any recognition and thanks to Jim Cowan.
CRUK regularly thank and recognise a range of external fundraisers, volunteers, and events while (you guessed it) continuing to deny any recognition and thanks to Jim Cowan.
Given all of the above, is it any wonder that Mitchell has chosen not to meet with Jim? Is it any wonder that she delegated even replying to his letter? Perhaps, she is fully aware of the facts around the creation of the Race for Life, she is aware that the charity she now leads has lied about that creation for a quarter of a century? Whether she is aware or not, she should be. It is part of her role as CEO to be informed on such matters. The integrity and moral compass of the charity are being brought into question under her watch. That she chooses to distance herself is incriminating even without considering any/all of the above.
The correspondence between Race 4 Truth, Michelle Mitchell, and Jim Cowan started in January and concluded in April. During that correspondence Race 4 Truth and Jim raised several key points to Mitchell, points which needed addressing or, at a minimum, acknowledging:
That the original motivation behind Jim creating the Race for Life was his own father’s eventually fatal cancer diagnosis. IGNORED BY CANCER RESEARCH UK
That there was documentary evidence available to support the facts and to prove that Jim was the creator of the Race for Life. IGNORED BY CANCER RESEARCH UK
That, in addition to documentary evidence, witnesses were available to support the fact that Jim created the Race for Life. IGNORED BY CANCER RESEARCH UK
That one of their own employees falsely and fraudulently claimed to be the originator of the Race for Life. IGNORED BY CANCER RESEARCH UK
The question of the integrity of the charity were its current stance on the creation of the Race for Life to continue. IGNORED BY CANCER RESEARCH UK
The question of hypocrisy of the charity and, individually, of its leadership were its current stance on the creation of the Race for Life to continue. IGNORED BY CANCER RESEARCH UK
The offer to meet, discuss and share evidence proving who was responsible for the creation of the Race for Life was also IGNORED BY CANCER RESEARCH UK
In the interests of balance, the following are those items raised during our correspondence not ignored by Cancer Research UK:
None. None at all.
Cancer Research UK’s stance can only be described as ostrich like. They know the facts are out there, they know they have been wrong for 25 years, but so long as they keep their head buried in the sand, they can continue to ignore the truth.
IN THE RACE 4 TRUTH, CANCER RESEARCH UK ARE LAGGING BEHIND.
On 18th April we shared details of our letter to Michelle Mitchell, Cancer Research UK’s new Chief Executive, regarding that charity’s disgraceful and continued refusal to recognise Jim Cowan for creating the Race for Life.
On 23rd April, we shared Mitchell’s non-reply which stated their hypocritical most recent position that they do not recognise anyone with originating any of their events. Other than that statement, her reply ducked all the points raised, stating that as they related to Mr Cowan she would be unable to enter into communication.
We shared our original letter and Mitchell’s reply with Jim and he decided to write his own letter to the CEO of CRUK in the hope that, as her reply had suggested, she might be willing to enter into communication with him.
With Jim’s consent, we share his letter here. We feel it speaks for itself. We will share and analyse Mitchell’s response in the coming days.
More to follow…
IN THE RACE 4 TRUTH, CANCER RESEARCH UK ARE LAGGING BEHIND.
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.
