Tag Archives: Race for Life

CAN WE TRUST THE INTEGRITY OF THE UK’S MEDIA?

Can the integrity of the media be trusted? Is it a given?

A November 2022 survey reported that, in the UK, only 37% of people trust the media. Only the people of Japan and South Korea trust their media less.

At the Race 4 Truth, our experience is that the media have little interest in reporting truth. And, if that is the case, why should people trust what they do report?

Over recent years we have attempted to reach out to hundreds of journalists, reporters, editors, and news outlets with regard the story of Cancer Research UK’s theft of the Race for Life and their rewriting of its history and removing of the event’s actual creator, Jim Cowan, from that history.

We also know that Jim has also tried to raise interest among the media but has had no interest whatsoever, bar three interviews with Sonia Poulton (*links below).

Why is this? Isn’t the story newsworthy? It is story of a major charity stealing an event from its creator and then deleting him from its history. It is a story of fraud, of hypocrisy, of executives looking the other way, of dishonesty, of misinformation, and more.

And yet, the UK’s media do not believe the tale to be even worthy of investigating, let alone reporting. The UK’s media do not want to ask the question of what dishonesty on this level means for other claims, other tales, told by Cancer Research UK? 

Why not? We don’t know. We do wonder whether the not insignificant advertising revenue brought into the various media outlets trump the desire to report the truth? But, how are we supposed to trust the integrity of a media willing to turn such a blind eye?

Consider the Daily Mail. Aware of the history and not interested in reporting it, nor even investigating it. Instead, they have chosen to sponsor the Race for Life. In full knowledge of the event’s history and Cancer Research UK’s rewriting of history, they have chosen that as the side they wish to align their brand with. What other stories are they ignoring? What other injustices go unreported?

Then, there is the Southern Daily Echo. In January 2005 they incorrectly stated that Louise Holland was the founder of the Race for Life. Of course, they may have reported this in innocence, inadvertently taking Holland or Cancer Research UK at their word.

However, when Jim Cowan (the Race for Life’s real founder) was made aware of the report in March this year, he contacted the Daily Echo’s editor, Ben Fishwick, seeking the article either be amended or removed. Unfortunately for Jim, for the Daily Echo’s version of reporting, the truth mattered not and the unamended article remains online for all to read (as of 11th May 2023). 

It is worth also noting that the Daily Echo clearly do not want to ask whether, if the false claim was  Louise Thomas’s (Holland’s married name), it had any impact on her securing a number of senior roles at a range of other charities in the intervening years? (as listed on LinkedIn here and here). Nor asking how she could have been the Race for Life’s founder when she didn’t even join Cancer Research UK until four months after the event was launched and over a year after it had first been proposed by Jim Cowan (as per her own LinkedIn profile)? Even the most rudimentary investigation would expose the 2005 story for the fiction it was, and is.

If we cannot trust the likes of the Daily Mail and the Daily Echo to display integrity, to care about honesty on this matter, what else that they report can be trusted, can be believed?

And, what of the rest of the nation’s media simply turning a blind eye to an historic injustice? Ignoring a tale that involves a major charity displaying or supporting dishonesty, hypocrisy, fraud, and more? Can we trust them, any of them?

The picture it paints is not one of a sector to be trusted to report facts, interested in investigating historical wrongdoing, or which cares about supporting truth over fiction.

In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK and the UK’s media are lagging behind.

*Links to Sonia Poulton’s interviews with Jim Cowan:
October 2019
November 2021
July 2022

CANCER RESEARCH UK CEO CELEBRATES ‘STORY TELLING’

No, it is probably not what she meant, but when Cancer Research UK CEO Michelle Mitchell excitedly tweeted on 19th April (see below) that she was on her way to a day of story telling, we couldn’t help thinking how apt it was.

Cancer Research UK and Michelle Mitchell are not shy when it comes to story telling, making claims and other reports across their numerous social media profiles. But, why isn’t anyone questioning how much of what they say is true? After all, an organisation which is quite happy to consistently lie about one thing is highly unlikely to be honest with you about everything else. 

And this shouldn’t be news to anyone. They have been telling stories (i.e. lying) to you for over a quarter of a century, both in their current format and in their previous incarnation as the Imperial Cancer Research Fund. 

Cancer Research UK, its CEO Michelle Mitchell, and many others within the organisation (including its Trustees), are fully aware of that lie, fully aware of the stories they have made up to cover for the lie. They are fully aware that at least one key part of the charity’s history is, literally, made up. And they have told many a story over the last 28 years in order to cover up what they know to be a lie. And that must cast doubt on any other claims they make, tales they tell. For 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, in other words retold the story, of the Race For Life to exclude Jim Cowan, the person who actually created it, and then spent the next 28 years spreading different fictional versions, story telling about the event’s creation. To be blunt, they have lied. Not once, but repeatedly.

We must therefore pose the question; how can anyone know for sure that they haven’t rewritten other parts of their story, made up other tales they tell? After all, they do like telling stories, Mitchell’s tweet confirms this.

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, without documentation, without evidence, what are the numerous fictional versions they have relayed over the years based on? Secondly, because we have offered (on more than one occasion) to sit down and share documents and witness contacts with Mitchell. Unfortunately, she was not interested. She prefers telling stories to seeing and hearing 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 (sorry, stories) over the intervening years.

In short, they know they are not telling the truth but prefer not to correct the lies; they prefer fiction to truth, they prefer story telling. Otherwise, why not sue us? Why not sue Jim Cowan? The answer is simple; you cannot sue someone for telling the truth. And they know that truth would be crystal clear in a court. The evidence supports it.

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? Worse, they know it is a lie but look the other way, pretend not to know, tell stories. And if one part of the story is told while known to be false, what else among their posts, press releases, claims, and other tales 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 knowingly to tell stories, a series of made up tales which ignore any facts which do not fit their near three decade history of lying. They even claim to have held an inquiry into the origins of the Race for Life but, for some strange reason, don’t want to make it public, to open it to scrutiny. It’s just another story they tell.

Surely, therefore, as well as the truth of any story CRUK tell us, 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 (all evidenced), 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. It would be a vast improvement on the many stories they have told.

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 as CEO (Harpal Kumar) to share documents, correspondence and witness contacts on more than one occasion. Both Mitchell and Kumar declined or ignored those numerous offers. It appears that accuracy, honesty, and truth; and with them trust, are not high up Cancer Research UK’s list of priorities. They prefer to stick to story telling.

Mitchell’s 19th April Tweet

SLIMMING WORLD’S INTEGRITY BROUGHT INTO QUESTION

Slimming World claim their business is founded upon principles of trust, honesty and integrity. However, their sponsorship of the Race for Life and reaction after being advised of Cancer Research UK’s treatment of that event’s creator, must bring their claim into doubt.

Cancer Research UK have announced that Slimming World are to join the sponsors of the Race for Life. 

On 1st February, upon hearing this news, Jim Cowan (the Race for Life’s creator) wrote to the Board and the Majority Shareholder* of Slimming World in order to raise their awareness of Cancer Research UK’s history of lack of honesty, poor integrity, low morals and complete hypocrisy in the way they have presented the event’s history and in how they have refused to even discuss the matter.

On 8th February, John Pusey, Slimming World’s Head of Corporate Responsibility replied. In that reply Mr Pusey recognised that Jim has “strong opinions” but felt it would be “inappropriate for us to make any comment… relating to those allegations.”

He went on to state that Slimming World “is founded upon principles of trust, honesty and integrity” before adding, “we take care to ensure that all our business relationships are with responsible and reputable organisations.”

We would hope that someone tasked with the role of “Head of Corporate Responsibility” would understand that there is a difference between an opinion and a fact. The difference is, of course, that a fact can be supported by evidence. Given that Slimming World were offered evidence by Jim in his letter, evidence including witnesses and documentation, we have to assume that the ignoring of the evidence, and with it the facts, was a deliberate choice by Slimming World, and the use of the word ‘opinion’ one aimed at falsely creating deniability.

Deliberate ignorance of evidence, of facts, to suit its own ends and cover for a flawed position is something no organisation with honesty and integrity would choose to do. Indeed, once aware of these issues, turning a blind eye and ignoring evidence, in this instance in order to protect personal gain, inarguably displays a lack of honesty, a lack of integrity. 

Whether you should trust the integrity of such an organisation is a personal choice. We know that we wouldn’t.

This is the path Slimming World has chosen. Ignore the evidence, pretend facts are just personal opinion, and continue a partnership with an organisation who have repeatedly demonstrated an absence of both honesty and integrity as well as covering up employee fraud and numerous counts of hypocrisy.

Slimming World might claim to have been founded upon principles of trust, honesty and integrity, however the evidence from this exchange of correspondence would suggest that those founding principles no longer apply.

In the Race 4 Truth, Cancer Research UK and Slimming World 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.

CANCER RESEARCH UK; CAN YOU BELIEVE A WORD THEY SAY?

Cancer Research UK are not shy when it comes to posting lots of stories, claims and other reports across their numerous social media profiles. But, why isn’t anyone questioning how much of what they say is true? After all, an organisation which is quite happy to consistently lie about one thing is highly unlikely to be honest with you about everything else.

And this shouldn’t be news to anyone. They have been lying to you for over a quarter of a century, both in their current format and in their previous incarnation as the Imperial Cancer Research Fund. 

Cancer Research UK, its CEO Michelle Mitchell, and many others within the organisation (including its Trustees), are fully aware of that lie. Thy are fully aware that at least one key part of the charity’s history is, literally, made up. And that must cast doubt on any other claims they make, tales they tell. For 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, made up other tales they tell?

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, without documentation, without evidence, what are the numerous fictional versions they have relayed over the years based on? 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 lies; they prefer fiction to truth. Otherwise, why not sue us? Why not sue Jim Cowan? The answer is simple; you cannot sue someone for telling the truth. And they know that truth would be crystal clear in a court. The evidence supports it.

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? Worse, they know it is a lie but look the other way, pretend not to know. And if one part of the story is told while known to be false, what else among their posts, press releases, claims, and other tales 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 approach, an ignore any facts we don’t like mentality.  

Surely, therefore, as well as the truth of anything CRUK tell us, 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 (all evidenced), 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 as CEO (Harpal Kumar) to share documents, correspondence and witness contacts on more than one occasion. Both Mitchell and Kumar declined or ignored those numerous offers. It appears that accuracy, honesty, and truth; and with them trust, are not high up Cancer Research UK’s list of priorities.

IF CANCER RESEARCH UK ARE HAPPY TO TELL YOU ONE LIE, WHAT ELSE ARE THEY LYING TO YOU ABOUT?

Cancer Research UK are not shy when it comes to posting lots of stories, claims and other reports across their numerous social media profiles. But, why isn’t anyone questioning how much of what they say is true? After all, an organisation which is quite happy to consistently lie about one thing is highly unlikely to be honest with you about everything else.

And this shouldn’t be news to anyone. They have been lying to you for over a quarter of a century, both in their current format and in their previous incarnation as the Imperial Cancer Research Fund. 

Cancer Research UK, its CEO Michelle Mitchell, and many others within the organisation (including its Trustees), are fully aware of that lie. Thy are fully aware that at least one key part of the charity’s history is, literally, made up. And that must cast doubt on any other claims they make, tales they tell. For 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, made up other tales they tell?

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 if CRUK has no documentation on which to base them? 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 lies; 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? Worse, they know it is a lie but look the other way, pretend not to know. And if one part of the story is told while known to be false, what else among their posts, press releases, claims, and other tales 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 approach, an ignore any facts we don’t like mentality.  

Surely, therefore, as well as the truth of anything CRUK tell us, 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 (all evidenced), 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, her predecessor (Harpal Kumar) and CRUK’s Chairman (Leszek Borysiewicz) to share documents, correspondence and witness contacts on more than one occasion. All three declined those offers too. It appears that accuracy, honesty, and truth; and with them trust, are not high up Cancer Research UK’s list of priorities.

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.