Cancer Research UK might continue to deny Jim Cowan had anything to do with the Race for Life but, in doing so, they ignore correspondence which clearly shows that he came to them with the ‘original idea’ (their words).
One such example is the letter below from the Imperial Cancer Research Fund’s (Cancer Research UK’s then name) National Events Manager Jill MacRae in which she states; “Mr Cowan came to us with the original idea..…”
Interestingly, as we have evidenced in a recent article, Jill MacRae is one of the people who has fraudulently since claimed to have created the event herself, it appears with the full endorsement of Cancer Research UK, just one of many ‘stories’ used by that organisation to deny Jim the recognition he so rightly deserves.
It is time for Cancer Research UK to stop lying and to put right the wrongs done to Jim and give him the credit he deserves.
In the Race For Truth, Cancer Research UK are lagging behind!
Cancer Research UK’s Director of Fundraising, Ed Aspel, has announced plans to retire at the end of the year. Third Sector interviewed Aspel about leaving the organisation and he revealed his regrets and discussed the changing face of fundraising making comments which highlight both the hypocrisy and the lack of will to tackle ethics and integrity issues at CRUK.
In the interview (which can be read here), Aspel revealed that he would love to have come up with “that one, radical, transformational change that is different from the traditional model…”
Had he done so, it is fair to assume that, given he is in their employ, CRUK would have, rightly, lauded him and made sure he was recognised for the achievement. And, in doing so, they would again reveal the culture of hypocrisy that riddles the charity.
How?
Twenty six years ago, Jim Cowan came up with just such a game changer, just such a transformational change. Jim’s idea was the Race for Life. Twenty six years later, it is easy to forget just what a game changer the creation of the Race for Life was.
In 1993, charity runners entered running events, such as the London Marathon or Great North Run, and asked for sponsorship but there was no such thing as the numerous ‘charity runs’ we have now in 2019. Whereas now almost every charity has its own fun run of one variety or another, 26 years ago none did. Jim creating the Race for Life in 1993 and launching it in1994 changed all that and, with it, the fundraising landscape in the UK changed for good.
You would think that CRUK would have thanked Jim, that they would heap praise and recognition on him.
But no.
Instead, one of their employees stole Jim’s idea and CRUK spent 25 years telling a range of different tales about the events origins before two years ago, in the face of undeniable evidence, they changed tack and declared that they don’t recognise anyone with the event’s creation (but have never corrected the numerous untrue stories they had previously shared).
This same charity happily acknowledge others for fundraising exploits, events, and other enterprises which support their fundraising. But not Jim.
This same charity happily accept recognition for their own executives, employees, and organisation as a whole, but hypocritically refuse to give Jim similar, or even any, recognition for the amazing event he created.
And what of ethics and integrity?
Later in the interview Aspel goes on to talk about how donations to CRUK are falling. He blamed changing attitudes and evolving consumer behaviour, and he may be correct. But isn’t a contributing factor in changing attitudes towards CRUK that they are trusted less?
People are seeing through the glossy adverts and beginning to ask why they are being lied to? Lies such as the frequent lies by omission about entry fees to their events not supporting any research; such as the misleading statements which suggest merchandise sales support research; or the exclusion of their high street shop, event, and merchandising income from how they calculate the percentage of income funding research.
The charity is an ethics and integrity vacuum which shows no desire to amend its ways and restore faith and trust. Aspel may well be unaware of all of this but as a Director of the organisation, he should not be.
And, given the hypocrisy of CRUK towards recognising Jim Cowan, we can only wonder what Aspel’s stance might be should he be nominated for any form of award or recognition himself for his service to the charity? Recognition still denied to Jim Cowan, a man whose incredible creation played no small part in supporting Aspel’s success as Director of Fundraising.
In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK are lagging behind.
The hypocrisy of Cancer Research UK (CRUK) and those who run the ‘charity’ are on record but this summer’s Race for Life series has set a new low in hypocrisy, even by the appallingly low standards CRUK set for themselves.
Both the current (Michelle Mitchell) and the former (Harpal Kumar) CEOs of the organisation have demonstrated textbook hypocrisy by happily accepting awards and recognition for their own work while steadfastly refusing to recognise Race for Life creator Jim Cowan for his own contribution.
A number of members of CRUK’s Board of Trustees likewise have accepted awards and recognition for their work but, led by Chairman, Leszek Borysiewicz, they endorse the CEO’s stance on denying any recognition to Jim Cowan.
The position is particularly hypocritical given that although they now take a stance of stating that they don’t credit anyone with the creation of the event, for the 25 years previously they have spun a range of fictional stories about the event’s origins; fiction they have never corrected.
More widely and beyond its executives, they regularly accepts awards and recognition for its work both as an organisation and for individuals in their employ and who volunteer for them. CRUK applauds the contribution of supporters, of participants in events, of event organisers. In recent months they have even run an online campaign for people to nominate their ‘Race for Life Hero’ responding to all nominations, sharing many on social media, while steadfastly ignoring the many nominations for Jim Cowan from members of the public.
CRUK’s hypocrisy is well recorded. It is also shameless.
Now, even by the very low standards they set themselves, they have reached an all time low.
After warning the public of the dangers of eating bacon and other processed meats, warning of the carcinogens such products contain, they have happily taken income from businesses which profit from selling these products. Worse, they have accommodated them and allowed them to sell at Race for Life events.
It is a bit like saying; “hey, we know this product is damaging to your health but so what. They are willing to pay us to be here and we’ll happily take that money so tuck in!”
Now, you might excuse them by suggesting the extra income supports more research into cancer but you’d be wrong. CRUK’s own annual report makes it clear that event income does not fund research. No, it funds the gravy train.
“Bacon is carcinogenic. It causes cancer. Here, have a bacon roll while we pop to the bank!”
Examples of carcinogens on sale at Race for Life events in Brentwood and Epsom
Hypocrisy? You tell us!
In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK are lagging behind.
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.
The Race 4 Truth has now been up and running for fourteen 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 very large legal department. In just fourteen months, we have uncovered and shared lies (both blatant and by omission), hypocrisy, possible fraud, poor ethics, low integrity, an absence of values, and more.
Surely an innocent party, especially one with the large legal department at their disposal, would react; respond?
But when you are not innocent, what can you say? What would that legal advice be? Maybe Cancer Research UK and their legal eagles 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, supporting fraudulent claims about it, and more.
You have the right to remain silent……
Silence from Cancer Research UK is not golden. It is incriminating.
In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK are lagging behind.
Cancer Research UK and the Race for Life have been keen to tell anyone entering the event that “this is beating cancer.” The home page for the 2019 events proudly boasts; “Cancer Research UK’s Race for Life is a series of events raising money for research into all 200 types of cancer.”
But what they don’t share is the triple deception of where income generated by the event really goes (or doesn’t go). But then, that might slow the gravy train and spoil the narrative.
Deception 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. You might think you are supporting research into cancer, because that is what they have led you to believe. 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. It is a deliberate deception.
Deception 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. You might again think you are supporting research into cancer, because that is what they have led you to believe. And yet, Cancer Research UK’s own Annual Report tells us that no income from merchandising goes to research. Another lie by omission. Another deliberate deception.
Deception 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. And, again, you might think you are supporting research into cancer, because that is what they have led you to believe. 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. The choice of words used is deliberate. The deception is deliberate.
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 (80% but, given the numerous sleights of hand, likely considerably lower).
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. When they tell you, “Cancer Research UK’s Race for Life is a series of events raising money for research into all 200 types of cancer.” Take another large pinch of salt.
None of the event entry fee, none of the income from 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.
Pretty much every organisation across every sector that is worth its salt will have a publicly stated set of values. The importance of ‘Values’ is so high that it has become standard practice that, in well run organisations, they are stated in the Mission Statement alongside the Vision and the Mission.
You know the kind of thing; we will act with integrity, we are customer focused, we source our products ethically, and so on.
Given the many issues with Cancer Research UK (CRUK) and Race for Life that Race 4 Truth has highlighted over the last year, we thought it would be interesting to seek out CRUK’s Values and compare them to reality.
We thought it would be as simple as visiting their website and looking their Values up. It wasn’t. Instead, after a couple of hours searching their site, we were left having to assume that they don’t have any values to share.
But then, they must do. Their website clearly states of its Council of Trustees; “Council’s role is to set the Charity’s strategic direction, monitor the delivery of the Charity’s objects, uphold its values and governance and guide, advise and support the Chief Executive, who leads the Senior Management Team towards achieving the Charity’s vision and purpose.”
So, we searched again. And, buried on page 39 of CRUK’s Annual Report, we found a list of “promises” to the organisation’s supporters. The first of these states; “To be transparent about where your money goes.” That sounded a lot like a Value to us so we searched the website for more information and finally found CRUK’s ‘Fundraising Promise.’
Here, they expand on the line in their Annual Report by stating that they promise “To be transparent about where your money goes.” They go on to say: “For every £1 donated, over 80p is used to beat cancer.”
Except, it isn’t. Their ‘transparency’ doesn’t stretch to telling their supporters that, according to CRUK’s own annual report, nothing from the following goes to funding research, and nothing from the following list is included when calculating that 80p: -Income from event entries and tickets (eg Race for Life) -Income from event merchandising -Income from commercial sponsorship of events -Income from high street ‘charity’ shops
Transparent? More like a broken promise.
The ‘Fundraising Promise’ goes on to state; “We are proud to champion the principles of honesty, accountability and transparency when fundraising.” Perhaps they should add; “as long as we don’t have to tell you that by entering the Race for Life you have given not a single penny to research.” Indeed, when advertising entries for the Race for Life they even use the (misleading) tag line ‘this is beating cancer.’
Honesty? They have lied about the origins of the Race for Life for 25 years and, once provided with evidence, refused to put the lies right by telling truth. They even supported a fraudulent claim by then employee Jill MacRae that she had created the event. They now know she didn’t but have failed to right that wrong.
Accountability? To whom exactly. Handily, they don’t say.
Transparency? Well, when directly asked how much of the sponsorship money raised by Race for Life participants funds research they were (again) very careful with their wording (ie not transparent). “100% of it goes to Cancer Research UK.”
Note, to “Cancer Research UK”, not to cancer research. Far from funding research, a chunk of that money funds sky high salaries, expensive offices, glossy TV commercials, and more.
Transparent?
And their CEO Michelle Mitchell cannot claim to be unaware of the importance of clear values. Under her leadership in her previous role as CEO at the Multiple Sclerosis Society, a clear set of values was put in place. But then, Mitchell is already rewriting the book in her new role, especially when it comes to hypocrisy. And what of the CRUK Council of Trustees responsible for “upholding its values?” Are none of them asking questions?
We were searching for Values, a set of standards to which Cancer Research UK hold themselves responsible. In their place we found empty promises already broken.
They have lied about the Race for Life for 25 years, they deliberately mislead their supporters while claiming transparency, they claim accountability without saying to whom. Why should we believe a single word they say? Cancer Research UK, an integrity free zone, would like you to trust them with your hard earned money. Just don’t ask them where it goes.
If it matters to you, why not ask Michelle Mitchell directly. Her Twitter handle is @Michelle_CRUK – we are sure she would love to hear from you and to explain CRUK’s values and (broken) promises.
In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK are lagging behind.
Followers of the Race for Life’s social media were stunned yesterday when a tweet appeared which was (almost) honest.
After years of deliberately misleading followers by failing to let them know that not a single penny of their entry fee goes to fund research, they tweeted; “remember, your entry fee can’t beat cancer – only you can.”
While still not stating the full facts, it is about as honest as Race for Life have been in years about how much of the income generated by the event actually funds research (and not the gravy train it has become).
For clarity, none of the entry fee funds research, none of the merchandise sales fund research, none of the commercial sponsorship funds research, none of the local authority support funds research, and an unclear amount of income raised via individual fundraising funds research (definitely less than 79% although Cancer Research UK have yet to reply when asked).
In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK are lagging behind.
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/
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?
