Outrage as wife of Andy Burnham’s national security adviser expresses support for banned terror group Palestine Action
Developing story first seen 2 hours ago
The new coverage adds that Sarah Helm’s X post has prompted Campaign Against Antisemitism to call for a police investigation and for her husband, senior government aide Jonathan Powell, to denounce her remarks. The group said the post raised questions about Powell’s position because he advises the Government on Palestine Action and is involved in Middle East diplomacy; the article reports no police response or investigation.
Helm wrote, “God help us authors who support Palestine and Palestine Action,” while responding to a post about novelist Sally Rooney, who has said she will stop selling her books in the UK over her support for the group. Palestine Action was proscribed in Britain last year, and the article says membership or support can carry up to 14 years in prison; more than 3,700 people have been arrested for expressing support since the ban. A Government spokeswoman said Helm’s views were those of an individual and did not represent the Government.
- Campaign Against Antisemitism called for a police investigation into Helm’s post.
- The group urged Jonathan Powell to publicly address his wife’s remarks.
- The article says support for Palestine Action can carry up to 14 years in prison.
New here? Start with this
Palestine Action is a campaign group whose members have targeted businesses linked to Israel’s arms industry. The UK government proscribed it under terrorism law in July 2025, making membership and some forms of support a criminal offence.
Sarah Helm is an author and journalist, and her husband, Jonathan Powell, is a senior government aide involved in national security and Middle East diplomacy. The debate has drawn attention to whether an individual’s public views should affect perceptions of a spouse’s official role.
The law allows a prison sentence of up to 14 years for certain offences involving a proscribed organisation. The case also highlights the impact of the ban on public protest and the distinction between personal opinions and government policy.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of investigating Helm’s statement could argue that the law on proscribed organisations should be applied consistently, whoever is involved, and that public expressions of support may warrant police assessment under that law. Given her husband’s senior role in government, they may also see scrutiny as important to maintaining public confidence that national security responsibilities are handled impartially.
The case against
Critics of calls for an investigation could argue that a public statement of political support should not, by itself, be treated as evidence of criminal conduct, and that the law must be applied carefully to protect freedom of expression. They may also say that Helm’s views are her own, as the Government has stated, and that her husband’s position does not justify implying a conflict or wrongdoing without evidence.