RAIR's Amy Mek Responds to Sky News' Targeted and Libelous Inquiry by Reporter Tom Cheshire

This past Friday, on the sacred Jewish holiday Yom Kippur, Amy Mek, founder of RAIR Foundation USA, was contacted via Twitter by UK Sky News reporter Tom Cheshire (@Chesh).

His message suggested a forthcoming defamatory piece about her and her coverage of a vigil in Southport following the brutal, unprovoked stabbing and murder of six-year-old Bebe King, seven-year-old Elsie Dot Stancombe, nine-year-old Alice Dasilva Aguiar, and the serious wounding of multiple other victims.

(picture above by Daily Mail)

These three innocent children were brutally stabbed to death during a Taylor Swift-themed class by 17-year-old Axel Rudakubana, who was born to Rwandan parents in Cardiff before moving to the village of Banks in Lancashire in 2013.

(Drawing by Helen Tipper)

Amy’s public response to Tom Cheshire’s message aims to ensure transparency, allowing the public to see her statement and the facts of the situation. RAIR Foundation USA will update this post once Sky News publishes its article.

For context, Sky News is owned by Sky Group, which is a subsidiary of Comcast Corporation, a major American telecommunications company.

Below is the message Amy Mek received from Tom Cheshire:

Sky News has been working on a story about the UK riots. The focus of the story is how international social media accounts, notably hard-right, far-right, and conspiracist accounts, played an influential role in the discourse around the riots, especially in terms of peddling false information and theories.

We have found that one of your posts on X gathered enormous attention, with 5.5 million views, and was very influential –

Oh look—take a hard look.

Thousands of people turned out in Southport for a vigil after yesterday’s slaughter of three innocent children.

But do you notice anything?

Where is the Islamic migrant community, who swarm the streets every week to demand respect, halal foods,… pic.twitter.com/4EYnrjmQBq

— Amy Mek (@AmyMek) July 30, 2024

in terms of the narrative around the murders and subsequent riots. In it, you appear to have used a freelance journalist’s video of the Southport vigil, adding commentary including about the “Islamic migrant community, who swarm the streets every week” and who “dominate every aspect of British public life.”

The journalist who originally took this footage has told us that she was shocked to find it repurposed in this way, with what they call “inflammatory” language.

We would like to offer you the right to respond to this.

Is it correct that you ripped this video from another X user?

Why did you you take the video and repurpose it with views about the Muslim community? Do you agree with the person who originally posted the video that the language was “inflammatory”?

Sky News has seen research that suggests a network of international hard-right, far-right and conspiracist accounts sought to capitalise on the murder of three girls in Southport, and contributed to the subsequent riots – do you agree with that characterisation?

Please could you respond to these questions by 5pm UK time on Monday 14th October. We intend to broadcast on Tuesday 15th October. We would also be very happy to interview a senior member of Telegram or to receive a statement.

Kind regards, Tom

Amy Mek’s response to Sky News reporter Tom Cheshire:

Dear Tom,

First, I want to acknowledge the timing of your message. You reached out to me to “respond to your questions” on one of the most sacred Jewish holidays, a time of reflection and prayer, which makes your message feel both threatening and uncomfortable. It strikes me as insensitive and not something I could imagine you doing to a Muslim during Eid al-Adha or a Christian on Easter. With that said, I am fortunate to have stumbled across your message, as I receive hundreds at RAIR Foundation and Twitter daily.

If your intention was truly to reach me, you would have found that my contact information is publicly available on my Twitter profile and on the website of RAIR Foundation USA, where I am the founder. This might have been a more direct and professional way to communicate, given the gravity of your concerns.

Next, I would like to address your mention of “notably hard-right, far-right, and conspiracist accounts.” By using these labels, you seem to have already formed an opinion about me, one based on biased generalizations. I am a Jewish animal rights activist, feminist, vegan, and human rights advocate. I’m strongly pro-Israel, and I oppose Communism, authoritarianism—including figures like Putin—and any form of oppressive government. I hold two master’s degrees from New York University—one in social work and the other in communications—and I work as an investigative journalist. So, if you are attempting to classify me as “far-right” or “hard-right,” I suggest reconsidering your assumptions.

As for the “conspiracist” label, I would appreciate it if you could provide specific examples of content you deem conspiratorial. I would be more than happy to address each point individually and clear up any misunderstandings.

Now, regarding the video in question, I want to express my gratitude for bringing it to my attention. I was upset to hear that it originated from a freelance journalist. The video was sent to RAIR as a tip, and we must have wrongly assumed that the person who provided the tip was the one who took the footage. Typically, professionals watermark their content, and since there was no watermark, we took the individual at face value. Attribution is incredibly important to me and is a cornerstone of my journalistic standards. I would be grateful if you could inform me of the original videographer, and I will ensure they receive proper credit, along with a public statement.

There’s an unfair notion being pushed here that I am somehow responsible for how other people use my material; in the same way, you’re making me responsible for the tipster’s material. Just as I had no control over how the tipster’s video came to me without proper attribution, I also had no control over how others used or interpreted my content. Trying to blame me for how others engage with or share my work is irrational.

To continue, I want to directly address your implication. Are you suggesting that my tweet caused a riot? Are you implying that my commentary somehow peddled false information or theories? If so, I’d like you to clarify: What false information?

As for your concern about my use of the term “Islamic migrant community,” according to the 2021 Census, a notable proportion of the Islamic community in the UK are first- or second-generation immigrants, tracing their roots to countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India, as well as the Middle East and Africa. So yes, I referred to those Muslims marching as part of the “Islamic immigrant” community.

Regarding the claim that Muslims dominate aspects of British public life, this is a factual observation. From political representation, like Sadiq Khan, to the growing number of Islamic schools and widespread availability of halal food, Islam’s influence is apparent. Police forces, military institutions, and public agencies offer prayer spaces and accommodate Islamic holidays. The establishment of Sharia councils and the prominence of Islamic banking also demonstrate how Islam’s practices have become deeply embedded in societal, legal, and economic structures across the UK.

According to a report from the Gatestone Institute, the demographic shift in major British cities is profound. Here was the situation in 2022 in major British cities and boroughs:

• Birmingham, population 1,149,000: 29.9% Muslim
• Leeds, 792,000: 7.8%
• Sheffield, 584,000: 10.3%
• Bradford, 536,000: 30.5%
• Manchester, 553,000: 22.3%
• Bristol, 467,000: 6.7%
• Cardiff, 357,000: 9.3%
• Leicester, 357,000: 23.5%
• Nottingham, 331,000: 12.2%
• Newcastle, 315,000: 10.3%
• Blackburn with Darwen, 148,000: 35%
• Fenland, 101,000: 12.2%
• Luton, 218,000: 32.9%
• Slough, 164,000: 29.4%
• Watford, 96,000: 13%
• Pendle, 91,000: 26%
• Oldham, 237,000: 24.3%
• Rochdale, 211,000: 18.8%
• Kirklees, 438,000: 19%
• Barking and Dagenham, 211,000: 24.4%
• Brent, 331,000: 21.4%
• Newham, 352,000: 34.8%
• Redbridge, 303,000: 31.3%
• Tower Hamlets, 319,000: 39.9%
• Westminster, 261,000: 20%

The Muslim population in Britain is estimated to reach 13 million by 2050. As Ed Husain, a prominent Muslim intellectual, stated: “With almost five million Muslims, there are thousands of new buildings with domes and minarets, and in the decades ahead, mosques are predicted to mushroom across the whole land.”

This demographic trend highlights the growing presence and influence of Islam in British life, with increasing representation in public spaces, politics, and culture.

It seems like you are falsely linking my observations and reporting to violence. Let me be very clear: I unequivocally reject any form of violence that took place during the riots.

Am I incorrect that Muslims and left-wing radicals have not been marching in the streets weekly in support of Hamas/Palestine/Against Israel/and or in support of all aid being stopped to the Jewish state? Along with most of the demonstrations, have they not been calling for the elimination of the Jewish state and Jews or the removal of Netanyahu? Have these same groups not been harassing Jews and threatening them publicly? I’ve also seen them march to end any government support for Israel. They’ve held marches for their own holidays and seized control of public spaces for prayers, as seen during events like the National March for Palestine or demonstrations by Hizb ut-Tahrir. Are these not facts? We have also seen protests demanding Halal food in schools, the implementation of Sharia practices, special Islamic accommodations, opposition to LGBTQ education, and outrage over perceived disrespect toward the Qur’an.

Since the tragic jihad massacre of Israelis on October 7th, we’ve witnessed pro-Hamas and terror-affiliated groups holding public marches across the UK. Jews have been intimidated and terrorized in the streets by these groups. But here’s the important point: despite these inflammatory and threatening displays, they haven’t driven me—or any Jews into the streets to riot. Based on your logic, it seems you’re suggesting that my tweet did exactly that.

Now, take this particular community. When there was a vigil for British children, the Islamic community, which has been extremely vocal—was notably absent. My tweet was a factual observation of that absence. And here’s why I said what I said in my tweet. In this particular community, the local British community has gone above and beyond to embrace the Islamic community (see the following two tweets under my original message.) They have welcomed them into their churches, visited their mosque, embraced the imam to teach non-Muslim high schoolers, and even provided them with a dedicated prayer room at the local hospital. Yet, despite this, the Islamic community did not show up to this vigil for the brutally murdered children.

[For context, these are the two tweets under Amy’s original mentioned above]

I pointed out this fact, which was reported to RAIR by local people who attended the vigil. Why does this fact seem to cause you such discomfort? Why do you feel compelled to attack me for reporting a reality?

What’s more concerning to me is that you, as a journalist, haven’t done any investigation into what the Southport mosque is actually preaching. Did you look into it at all? I directed my comments at this specific mosque for a reason, as is clear in the following videos:

• Surah Qaaf Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2FC1mq8yT0
  This video highlights parts of Surah Qaaf (verses 24-30), which vividly describe the fate of disbelievers in the afterlife, including being thrown into Hell. Verses 12-14 further list nations destroyed for rejecting prophets, reinforcing the idea that disbelief leads to divine punishment.
• Surah Ar-Rahman Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKwW4yzQsI8
  Surah Ar-Rahman (55:35–36) and Surah Al-Waqi’ah (56:41–44) in this video describe the severe punishments awaiting disbelievers (non-Muslims), including Hellfire and divine retribution. Surah Al-Waqi’ah divides people into believers and disbelievers, with disbelievers facing severe punishment in the afterlife.
• Video on Misogyny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWX4yi1iMVE
  This video covers Surah At-Tahreem, a deeply misogynistic and authoritarian scripture. The surah emerges from a domestic dispute between Muhammad and his wives, where he threatens them with divine punishment for challenging him. Verse 5 dehumanizes women, suggesting they can be replaced with “better” ones, reducing women’s worth to their obedience to male authority. This teaching is at the core of the mosque’s sermons, reducing women to objects whose value lies solely in their submission.
• Surah Al-Jumu’ah and Al-Munafiqoon Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iloj856aIdo
  In this video, Surah Al-Jumu’ah manipulates spiritual devotion into a means of control, condemning those who prioritize personal responsibilities over ritualistic practices. Surah Al-Munafiqoon goes further, labeling dissenters as “hypocrites” and threatening them with Hellfire, fostering a culture of fear and suppressing independent thought.
• Surah Al-Ahzaab Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aiabb5izmXQ
  This video exposes the deeply patriarchal nature of Surah Al-Ahzaab, where Muhammad manipulated divine revelation to justify his own indulgences. While Muslim men are limited to four wives, Muhammad granted himself a special exemption to marry as many women as he wished, abusing power under the guise of religion. Verse 59 also enforces the oppressive hijab on women, placing the burden of preventing harassment on them, absolving men of accountability.
• Surah Al-Ankabut Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsW4V7v9-_k
  Surah Al-Ankabut glorifies blind obedience and discourages questioning of religious authority. It portrays non-believers as misguided, deserving of divine punishment, creating a worldview of division and intolerance. It prioritizes religious allegiance over family, demanding that believers reject even their parents if they don’t adhere to Islamic beliefs.
• Surah Al-An’aam Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43JSl8rMo_g
  This video covers Surah Al-An’aam, which condemns any belief outside Islam as misguided and worthy of eternal punishment. It reinforces a rigid, intolerant worldview, fostering fear and submission through constant threats of divine retribution.

The teachings at this mosque preach hatred toward disbelievers and women, promoting fear, submission, polygamy, and division. It would come as no surprise that no one from the mosque’s community attended the vigil, given what they were taught. If you are truly interested in journalism, I’d be happy to provide more of my research on the mosque’s sermons and teachings.

Additionally, your line of questioning reveals a clear bias. You seem more concerned with my commentary than with the violence, harassment, and intimidation Jews face daily in the UK. Why is it that when I point out a community’s absence at a vigil for British children, you treat it as inflammatory? Yet, there is silence about actual antisemitic violence?

If your concern is truly about inflammatory rhetoric leading to violence, why is there no equal concern about the public marches calling for the elimination of Jews? Are you suggesting that my factual observation holds more weight in inciting violence than actual death threats against Jews in the streets?

To be clear, the threats I refer to aren’t speculative—they are real and ongoing. Jews in the UK have faced chants like “burn the Jews,” had their businesses vandalized, their synagogues targeted, and students harassed with Nazi salutes. These threats are not just rhetorical but are inciting real violence and fear. Yet, your focus is on my tweet rather than addressing these open calls for harm against my community.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that your outreach is less about genuine dialogue and more about ticking a box to say you asked for my comment. However, what am I really commenting on? You’ve provided me with loaded questions but no actual context or specifics to support your claims. If your goal was to engage in a meaningful conversation, you would be presenting facts, asking balanced questions, and genuinely trying to understand my perspective as a Jewish investigative journalist. Instead, this feels like a one-sided attack.

Further evidence of this can be seen in the impersonal, cut-and-paste nature of your message. It’s quite telling that you didn’t even realize you were sending me a statement also intended for “Telegram.” Are you targeting them as well? Your intent seems less about seeking truth and more about producing a predetermined hit piece.

If balance were truly important to you, you’d be asking for specific clarifications, engaging with my work, and contacting me in a professional manner. It’s even more suspect that, despite my contact information being clearly available on both my social media profile and through RAIR Foundation USA, you chose not to reach out there. This further suggests that your article isn’t about fair reporting but rather about smearing a Jewish human rights activist and discrediting my investigative reporting as “dangerous” simply because it challenges a narrative you’re comfortable with.

Your approach feels like a coordinated effort to silence voices like mine instead of fostering the open dialogue that real journalism is supposed to promote. If your intent was honest, I’d expect more thoughtful engagement and less reliance on labels and assumptions.

Best, 

Amy Mek 

Amy Mek’s response highlights her stance on transparency, journalistic accountability, and the challenges faced by those who make factual observations that other news organizations seem uncomfortable addressing. Once Sky News releases its report, RAIR Foundation USA will update this post to provide further context and clarity on the situation.

Stay tuned for updates as this story develops.