Tag Archives: Hypocrisy

HOW CANCER RESEARCH UK LIE COST RACE FOR LIFE CREATOR A JOB OFFER

Imagine creating a groundbreaking new fundraising event, one which goes on to raise over £1/2 Billion for the charity you shared it with and which changed the fundraising landscape in the UK for good, creating a type of event which has raised many times more than that for hundreds of charities.

Now, imagine you are going for a job and the charity you took your creation to, the one that has raised over £1/2 Billion through it, denied ever having heard of you making your CV look a lie and costing you the job.

How would you feel?

It is 25 years since Jim Cowan came up with the idea for the Race for Life and for 23 of those years Cancer Research UK (and their predecessor the Imperial Cancer Research Fund) have denied Jim had anything to do with the event. They have misrepresented its roots, created false stories, and supported the fraud of someone who lied about having created the event for her own career advancement.

Jim had tolerated the lies, the hypocrisy, the fraud, and the misrepresentations but finally, enough was enough. In may 2018 he vented that frustration on his Facebook timeline.

His post led to an outpouring of support from his friends, and from people he has never met.

Having read the post, we decided the best support we could offer Jim was to run a campaign to uncover the truth and demand Jim receive the recognition he deserves. Jim agreed to our idea and has been (and will be) allowing us to share copies of evidence from the event’s beginnings and from the intervening years.

Jim has also consented to our copying the post he put on Facebook in May, the post which led to such a big outpouring of support and which motivated us to start this campaign. That post read:

“Is there a charity with less integrity than Cancer Research UK?

I thought long and hard before posting this but I am fed up with this charity and their campaign of lies about the origins of the Race for Life. Up to now I have been frustrated by it, annoyed by it, and (of course) missed out of the recognition due for being the creator of the event and, some might say, the change in the UK charity fundraising landscape that came with it.

But now their lie is adversely affecting my next career move.

Yesterday, I received a phone call from the HR department of a large charity at which I had recently been interviewed for a new role. The call was to inform me that, although they felt I was by far the best candidate, they would not be offering me the role.

The reason? They had contacted some of the charities on my CV to check my history and all but one had checked out. The one? Cancer Research UK claimed to have never heard of me and denied I had ever had anything to do with the Race for Life.

Enough is enough. Their continued lying needs exposing.”

AND EXPOSING THE LYING IS WHAT RACE 4 TRUTH SETS OUT TO DO!

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

SILENCE IS GOLDEN. EXCEPT WHEN IT IS INCRIMINATING.

The Race 4 Truth has now been up and running for two months and the silence from Cancer Research UK in response has been deafening.

Some might suggest that silence is golden but in this instance, we would suggest it is incriminating.

They are a large charity with their own large legal department. In just two months, we have uncovered and shared lies (both blatant and by omission), hypocrisy, possible fraud, and more. Surely an innocent party would react; respond?

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

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

Silence from Cancer Research UK is not golden. It is incriminating.

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

NCVO CONSULTATION ON CHARITY SECTOR CODE OF ETHICS WILL LEAVE CRUK WANTING

The National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) has been developing a set of principles that can act as a ‘code of ethics’ for the charity sector and is now consulting on a draft code.

This code aims to support charities, their governing bodies, and those who work and volunteer in and with them in recognising and resolving ethical issues and conflicts. It sets out the key ethical principles and the supporting actions that charities should take to ensure an ethical approach to their work.

Charities and those who work in and with them would agree to uphold the following principles throughout their work:

  • Beneficiaries first
  • Integrity
  • Openness
  • Right to be safe

The NCVO say that by incorporating these principles into strategies, policies and procedures, charities would not only be upholding their fundamental values, but also setting the stage for long term success.

Would Cancer Research UK sign up to such a code? And, given their history of hypocrisy and dishonesty, if they did would they stand by them?

Take the section on Integrity as an example. The draft code states; “Charities and those who volunteer, work in and with them should uphold the highest levels of institutional integrity and personal conduct at all times.”

Given the near quarter of a century history of Cancer Research UK denying recognition to Jim Cowan, the man who created the Race for Life, a denial supported by 24 years of falsehoods about the event’s origins, we must question how such a position would stand up to comparison with the Code of Ethics being proposed?

Given the culture of hypocrisy evident throughout at Cancer Research UK, a culture reflected from the top down, we wonder at where that culture stands when compared with an ethical approach to standards and behaviour?

Given the apparent support for their former Event Manager’s fraudulent claims to have created the Race for Life, claims on which she has built a long and successful career, we must ask what Cancer Research UK consider to be ‘ethical’ about their behaviour and hers?

And, given the bold faced lie which led to our launching the Race 4 Truth, we find it hard to find any claims by Cancer Research UK to be of an organisation adhering to this, or any other, Code of Ethics to be laughable. Or. At least they would be laughable had they not done, and continue to do, so much damage to the man to whom they should be eternally grateful for creating their largest fundraising event and to whom the entire charity sector should be grateful for changing the  face of charity fundraising events when he did.

Here at Race 4 Truth we will be contacting the NCVO and seeking to contribute to their consultation on the proposed Code of Ethics. It is a shame that government are not demanding a more ethical approach from the whole sector under threat of loss of charitable status. For the public must be able to have faith in the sector, faith easily undermined by the likes of Cancer Research UK and their actions, to the detriment of all.

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

More on the NCVO Charity Code of Ethics here.

NEW CANCER RESEARCH UK CHIEF EXECUTIVE WILL FACE BIG CHALLENGES

When Cancer Research UK’s new Chief Executive, Michelle Mitchell, takes up her post later this summer, 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 undermine confidence 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 while in their employ 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, and one which has raised hundreds of thousands for Cancer Research UK (and continues to raise more). But, a man who Cancer Research refuse to recognise, let alone thank.

Not a single penny from the entry fee supports research.

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, starting with giving Jim Cowan the recognition he so rightly deserves..

Not to do so, will only undermine public confidence, 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.

Do your bit to help Jim Cowan gain recognition for his amazing creation and nominate him for a Pride Of Britain Award.

IS CANCER RESEARCH UK THE HOME OF CHARITY SECTOR HYPOCRISY?

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 of 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 outgoing Chief Executive, Sir Harpal Kumar, was happy to accept a knighthood in recognition of his own work, yet refuses 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 of 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 the recognition you accept and bestow on others?

The charity’s new Chief Executive Officer will be starting work soon. Michelle Mitchell already has an OBE so we know she is willing to accept recognition for her 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.

CANCER RESEARCH UK APPOINT NEW CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Cancer Research UK have announced a new Chief Executive to replace Sir Harpal Kumar, who is stepping down this summer.

 

Michelle Mitchell OBE has been CEO of the MS Society since 2013. Under her leadership, there has been a 40% increase in access to effective MS treatments and she has developed a £100m research fundraising appeal.

Before joining the MS Society, Mitchell’s previous leadership roles were as Director General of Age UK and Chair of the Fawcett Society. She is also a non-executive director of NHS England, and has been a trustee of The King’s Fund and the Power to Change Trust.

Mitchell has a BA in Economics, an MA in Politics and Administration and an International Executive Diploma from INSEAD. Michelle is an alumna of the Innovations in Government Programme at Harvard University JFK School and of the Strategic Perspectives in Non-profit Management programme at Harvard Business School.

Here at Race 4 Truth we would like to offer our congratulations to the incoming CEO on assuming what will be a very challenging role.

Not least among the challenges she faces are tackling the the charity’s lack of transparency, low integrity, and the hypocrisy of its leadership over recent years. As an OBE, we know she is willing to accept recognition for her exceptional achievements, we hope she will she be more prepared to also recognise the achievements of others than the outgoing CEO who has been criticised for accepting recognition while not affording it to others.

CANCER RESEARCH UK CEO PROVIDES A TEXT BOOK DEMONSTRATION OF HYPOCRISY

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.

(Cambridge English Dictonary).

In the case of Cancer Research UK’s Chief Executive, Sir Harpal Kumar, it is one rule for himself and another rule for everyone else. And yes, it is sheer hypocrisy.

In Kumar’s case he is more than happy to accept recognition for his achievements, for example a knighthood in 2016 for services to cancer research.

But when it comes to recognising others, even those whose ideas and creations have contributed heavily to the fundraising of Cancer Research UK, he chooses not to.

Take the example of Jim Cowan who created the Race for Life, an event which has raised in excess of £1/2 Billion for Cancer Research UK. You might think that someone willing to accept recognition for himself would also like to recognise others who have made such a huge difference to the cause he heads?

But no, not Kumar. He’ll accept a knighthood for himself but when it comes to recognising Jim Cowan, after years of his charity lying about where the event originated, and despite plenty of evidence, both he and his charity now say that they “do not credit anyone with originating any of their events.”

When it comes to recognition, Sir Harpal Kumar has one rule for himself and another for everyone else.

And the Cambridge English Dictionary is correct, it is sheer hypocrisy.

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

Join the Race 4 Truth in campaigning for Jim Cowan to receive the recognition he deserves.

Nominate Jim Cowan for a Pride of Britain Award.