I'm away next week but when I get back I'm going to have a go at composing a letter to my local MP regarding race for life if any one wants a copy of the letter to send to their mp I'll put a rtf file for downloading.

Cancer doesn't discriminate, but Cancer Research UK does.

It's interesting the Scouting Association is listed in the examples. I wonder if they will be allowed to return to being a boys only organisation? Somehow I doubt it now that the 'equality' genie is out of the bottle.

Let there be a male only anything and you'll hear the screeching trouts a mile away with pitch forks.

Given that the Equality Act had to attempt to legalise Race for Life in 2010, the flip side of this is that for the 14 or so years prior to this it was almost certainly operating illegally.

In many other countries such an event is definitely illegal. E.g. in the US it's acceptable to launch female "pink" themed runs but they cannot bar a man from taking part (and winning).


Personally I'd like to hear CRUK's response to all other sexist aside from Race for Life. here's nine questions I'd encourage people to email to them at supporter.services@cancer.org.uk



CRUK claims to be concerned about "The excess burden of cancer in men in the UK" and readily acknowledges how men are 40% more likely to die from cancer, yet so many CRUK activities seem to either ignore this gender gap or actively make it worse. please can you answer the following questions:

1. If CRUK isn't' biased toward females, then why do they give such undue prominence to cervical cancer on all information pages and on the home page? According to your own stats cancer of the cervix is the 19th most common cancer, yet you effectively class it in the top five and top six by giving it such a high profile. CRUK is shoving 13 other far more prevalent cancers out the way and making information harder to access for more patients than is necessary, not to mention giving a false impression about the prevalence of different cancers.

2. Why does CRUK fail to offer large print publications for prostate cancer even though these are available for far, far rarer cancers and most female specific cancers? Prostate cancer patients tend to be older and therefore likely to appreciate larger print, and they number 40,000+ anyway so there are bound to be plenty with impaired vision.

3. Why does CRUK spend twice ask much for every breast cancer patient than each prostate cancer patients and more than three times as much per ovarian cancer patient? Surely such blatant inequalities are at the root of cancer gender gaps and the reason for the lack of understanding of prostate cancer?

4. Why does CRUK have a dedicated breast cancer campaign, with its own slogan, publicity, fund raising activities, merchandise and comprehensive website but nothing for prostate cancer despite a very similar number of cases and deaths? (with the gap closing rapidly). Even if you aren't willing to fund prostate cancer fairly you should surely at least be putting the same amount of attention into raising awareness or at least be doing something, anything really!

5. In your defence against sexism you point to your publication pages, yet there isn't a single prostate cancer poster anywhere on the site. Every CRUK activity seems to neglect and ignore prostate cancer. Why is this?

6. Your cancer chat forums are run by an entirely female staff, many with seemingly gender feminist views. An examination of social media show they only really have an interest in female associated cancers, organisations dealing with such cancers and female cancer patients. Similarly, an examination of the "tags" associated with their posts show no mention of men or male cancers in anything they write. Why do you have so few male or male-friendly staff when cancer is significantly more of a male condition than a female one? Is this pattern of female dominance and sexism repeated throughout the organisation's workforce?

7. If CRUK is so committed to ending cancer equalities impacting me, why doesn't it have any strategies or plans for doing so, as it does with lesser inequalities affecting other smaller groups such as LGBT people, ethnic minorities and rural dwellers? How can CRUK justify attempting to lecture the government on the gender inequalities in cancer when it does so much itself to perpetuate them?

8. Why do you information pages have a link to women's cancers but no one for men's cancers? There are actually more cases of cancers unique to men than to women each year (43050 compared to 19343).

9. Why do so many CRUK adverts either objectify men sexually or encourage violence against men. Again surely this cannot help any gender gaps?

this forum in itself is a testament we guys are surviving in a gynocracy and totalitarian systems only get more constrictive until they consume selected members entirely!

ask any Boa

my advice to young men is to avoid accepting any sort of a contract with a wimyn - who typically honour contracts with men in the breach;

basically wimyn have no honour they just dissemble it whilst it benefits them to do so

I think people may enjoy viewing the following link

Your photos - Your stories and photos - Running for Cancer Research UK

Quote from johnkimble1

I think people may enjoy viewing the following link

Your photos - Your stories and photos - Running for Cancer Research UK

Brilliant! CRUK do not seem to have noticed yet...and they only have themselves to blame when people start to take more radical action against their misandry.

I expect they will modify the group so photos require approval, but if not we can always add some more if the existing ones get deleted.

Quote from Les Bowring

anyone on here have any formal legal training and do you think this breaks article 14 of the human rights act Article 14 No discrimination | What the rights mean | Liberty - protecting civil liberties, promoting human rights

I've said previously how acts, statutes and orders are just legislated rules of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed.

Such legislation (the colour of law) is discretionary upon the presiding politics and parliament accepting European 'directives.' It is similar to contract law (the legal fiction) which differs greatly from the law of the land (Common law).

In other words, 'powers' do exist for men to get a fair shake, but like the idea of humanitarianism, the Equality Act 2010 essentially means = white heterosexual men need not apply! Being christian also helps to compound the blind discrimination.

Quote from Bigger Brother

Cancer doesn't discriminate, but Cancer Research UK does.

I like it, it has a catchy ring to it.

Quote from haute macabre

Let there be a male only anything and you'll hear the screeching trouts a mile away with pitch forks.

That had me laughing aloud.

Quote from johnkimble1

I think people may enjoy viewing the following link

Your photos - Your stories and photos - Running for Cancer Research UK

John demonstrates how 'activism' takes many forms. It's still there and I say bloody good show mate. Encore!

Quote from Celtic Druid

I say bloody good show mate. Encore!

I can promise an encore though other people are encouraged to take action too. Many of these types of organisations are very careless in their work because they think are above criticism and above the law itself.

Find an organisation that hates men, take a look at their use of social media etc, and use it to expose their gender hatred.

Images still in place! I noticed that in total 3 CRUK webpages display the slideshow of them

Update - images removed from the slideshow list yesterday. I then spent all of 60 seconds restoring them!

Quote from johnkimble1

Update - images removed from the slideshow list yesterday. I then spent all of 60 seconds restoring them!

As John has demonstrated, being more technologically able than the enemy is equivalent to arriving with a massive army to effect a desired outcome while the enemy is still reading the instructions of war.

nice one on the hijack absolutely brilliant