GMB star slams ITV show for 'disgraceful' Prince Harry report

Good Morning Britain star Narinder Kaur has slammed the ITV breakfast show for its "disgraceful" coverage of Prince Harry's row with his charity Sentebale. The Duke of Sussex was accused of "toxic" behaviour by charity chair Dr Sophie Chandauka, but has since been cleared in an extensive investigation into his conduct, which found no evidence of bullying, harassment, misogyny or misogynoir.

However, GMB branded the situation "embarrassing" for Harry, and now Narinder has sided with rival channel GB News for its more balanced coverage. Hitting out in a rant on X, she tweeted: "Disgraceful reporting from @GMB. Harry was cleared of bullying, but they spin it like he's guilty of bad PR?! Meanwhile, real bullying allegations against Charles last week? Silence. Buried. What is this @GMB?"

She followed up: "Must be wacky Wednesday because I'm about to congratulate @GBNews for better and fairer reporting over Prince Harry than @GMB. GMB literally disgraceful reporting over Harry this morning!", tagging broadcasting watchdog Ofcom in her post.

She added the accusation: "Who is taking direct orders from Clarence House at GMB??"

However, some fans disagreed with Narinder in the replies section, with one writing: "Dear Narinder, read the report before commenting!"

Another echoed: "Oh you're just miffed because you will never be Nana Akua."

Correspondent Richard Gaisford was at Kensington Palace to cover the story this morning (August 6), with anchor Ed Balls musing: "Richard, I think Prince Harry, overnight, and his spokesman have hit back at what are pretty embarrassing findings."

Gaisford replied: "Yeah he's not happy, because while the Charity Commission head has found no widespread evidence of bullying, of misogyny, of racism against black women, it is critical of Prince Harry and Prince Seeiso [of Lesotho], who'd both set up this charity together, for allowing this row to develop in public in the first place."

He said: "The Charity Commission says it was not just damaging for that charity in particular but for others because it undermines, as you said, people's perception of charities in general."