Tag Archives: Simon Ledsham

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Simon Ledsham presenting a Flame of Hope Award in 2023

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

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

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

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

CRUK by name, crooks by nature.

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

CANCER RESEARCH UK SHOULD MAKE INQUIRY PUBLIC IF THEY HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE

On 23rd December last year, we told you about Cancer Research UK’s (CRUK) astonishing new claim that they had held an inquiry into the origins of the Race for Life and, having “explored all reasonable lines of enquiry” they had been “unable to find any solid evidence which supports his (Jim Cowan’s) claim to be the sole originator of Race for Life.”

At the time we described it as a ridiculous claim. Why?
– Because CRUK had failed to contact Jim Cowan to ascertain what evidence he might hold.
– Because CRUK had failed to consult numerous witnesses who would tell them the origins of the event.
– Because they had excluded numerous external parties. 
– Because CRUK had previously admitted to having no documentation from the early years of Race for Life.

Given the above ‘oversights’ it is difficult to see how the inquiry, if it even happened, could have been anything other than lip-service aimed at continuing the charity’s long-term denial of the facts aimed at justifying their continued refusal to give Jim Cowan the recognition he rightly deserves.

Despite the experience of over 25 years telling him it would probably be a waste of time, Jim Cowan decided to contact CRUK. Either, by some miracle, they would finally accept the facts so evident to everyone else who has seen them or, more likely, the claimed enquiry would be exposed as yet another work of fiction among so many others. Fiction created with the sole aim of covering up the truth.

On 23rd December Jim emailed CRUK sharing links to numerous documents via Google Drive. These documents are all in the public domain, free to view on this site and included:
– His 1993 letter to the charity proposing and outlining the event.
– A letter on the charity’s letterhead, signed by their then Head of Events which clearly stated that he had “come up with the original idea.”
– A letter from their own Jill Baker following on from Jim’s proposal and confirming their initial meeting.
– Evidence of the many various incorrect claims as to the origins of the event made by CRUK and their staff over the years.
– Evidence exposing Jill MacRae’s (Jill Baker’s married name) fraudulent claims to being the creator of the event.
– He also informed CRUK that he could produce witnesses who were present in 1993 and 1994 whose evidence would support the facts he was presenting.

The first reply, dated 18th January, was simply to say that CRUK could not access the files on the Google Drive.

Jim replied to this email providing further links adding that he was cynical about the inquiry as it had never been mentioned in any previous correspondence. He wondered:
– If it had taken place prior to that correspondence, why was the inquiry not reopened in light of Jim’s offer to meet and share documentary evidence (in 2017 and 2019), evidence any inquiry could not have seen?
– If after that correspondence, why was Jim excluded?

On 8th February, CRUK eventually replied, ignoring these questions and simply stating that having reviewed the documents Jim had provided they had not changed their view that the origins of the Race for Life were “not clear.” 

On 9th February Jim replied thanking CRUK for their “not unexpected” reply. He stated that it was; “disappointing, but not surprising, that CRUK shows no interest in talking to any of the witnesses who will support my position; something which only strengthens the belief that the aim of the charity’s investigation was not to uncover the truth but to continue denying it.”

He went on; “Beyond speaking to witnesses, might I suggest that if the charity is not acting dishonestly and without integrity, one of the ways to evidence this would be by sharing your investigation, including all of the ‘evidence’ considered? Indeed, any enquiry worth its salt would seek to have full transparency so as not to undermine its findings.”

He then added; “I would be very interested to discover what ‘evidence’ might exist that trumps a clear statement from your own Head of Events stating that the original idea was mine. And if anyone is accusing me of being dishonest in my claim, it is a cornerstone of any worthwhile justice system that I be allowed to defend myself against my accuser.”

He then finished saying; “I look forward, albeit without much hope, to receiving a copy of your investigation.”

Over three weeks later, the silence from CRUK is deafening.

In the absence of a response the only conclusion that can be drawn is that if an inquiry really did take place, it only served one purpose; to continue the cover up and to continue denying Jim the rightful and deserved recognition for being the person who created the Race for Life.

Here at Race 4 Truth we call on Cancer Research UK to open up their so-called ‘inquiry’ to public scrutiny. If it was genuine, what could they possibly have to hide? What could they possibly stand to lose? All without asking why any genuine inquiry wouldn’t seek independence from interested parties, CRUK included?

The truth, as we know, is consistent. And ever since 1993 when he first came up with the idea, Jim Cowan’s version of events has not altered. It has remained consistent, backed by evidence.

Lies, on the other hand, are rarely consistent. They alter to fit need. And, over the last 25+ years, CRUK and their employees have told a range of different tales, none of which are supported by any evidence. They have lacked any consistency and, conveniently, have no records of the early years of Race for Life.

Consistency supported by evidence versus inconsistency supported by lies, hypocrisy, and a refusal to face public scrutiny. Which do you believe?

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

CANCER RESEARCH UK’S RIDICULOUS NEW RACE FOR LIFE CLAIM

After over a quarter of a century of false claims, lies, hypocrisy, and covering for fraud, Cancer Research UK (CRUK) are now peddling a ridiculous new claim in order to prevent giving Jim Cowan the recognition due for creating the Race for Life.

In an email CRUK’s Director of Fundraising, Simon Ledsham, has made the claim that they had, “explored all reasonable lines of enquiry” and had been “unable to find any solid evidence which supports his Jim Cowan’s claim to be the sole originator of Race for Life.” The claim was repeated a couple of weeks later by CRUK’s Senior Press Officer Thea MacLeod-Hall in another email.

It is a ridiculous claim.

CRUK have previously stated that they have no documentation from the early years of the Race for Life. It is therefore unclear how their investigation was carried out or who was included.

If an internal enquiry, then it was flawed by having no documentation to refer to, and by excluding those, such as Jim, who could provide valuable evidence.

If an enquiry that included external parties, why was Jim not included? After all, they are aware that he does have copies of original documentation, including his own proposal letter and correspondence from their own staff. In addition, they are also aware that Jim could put them in touch with a number of witnesses who could verify the origins of the event. They should also be aware that Jim had even offered to sit down with Michelle Mitchell, CRUK’s CEO, with this evidence as recently as 2017; an offer which was ignored.

Therefore, the only conclusion possible is that their ‘enquiry’ had no intention of uncovering the truth. Their investigation was merely a smoke screen designed to give the impression of having tried to establish the facts while keeping heads firmly stuck in the sand and deliberately missing an opportunity to correct over 25 years of lies. And a crude tool with which to deliberately mislead anyone making enquires.

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