Good Morning Britain viewers 'wince' as Kate Garraway makes 'disrespectful and insensitive' joke at worst possible time - gasping 'I had to rewind to make sure I'd heard that right!'
Good Morning Britain viewers were left 'wincing' as Kate Garraway made a 'disrespectful and insensitive' joke at the worst possible time.
Thursday's episode of the ITV breakfast news show saw the presenter, 58, with co-host Adil Ray, 51, report a particularly sad story to viewers.
It was about British grandmother Yvonne Ford, 59, from Barnsley, South Yorkshire, who sadly died from rabies this week.
Kate explained: 'Did you see this extraordinary story about a woman, she was scratched very slightly by a stray dog whilst on holiday in February, that long ago, in Morocco.
'It wasn't even a particularly bad one at the time. It didn't seem to be infected. Then two weeks ago, she started to feel very unwell, has now passed away.'
She added, 'It's made people very conscious because rabies is something we don't think about very much. It is astonishing' - before making an ill-timed quip.
It came as she mentioned TV doctor Hilary Jones (pictured on Lorraine in May last year), 71, who often appears on the show for health and wellbeing segments
It came as she mentioned TV doctor Hilary Jones, 71, who often appears on the show for health and wellbeing segments.
She said: 'I mean, what the doctors say, if I can do my Dr Hilary at the moment for a bit, is make sure you get an inoculation.
'But also, if you have any kind of scratch from any kind of wild animal or animal abroad, get treatments right away, because then it can be stopped.'
Rabies - which is passed on through injuries such as bites and scratches from an infected animal - is nearly always fatal.
It typically takes between three and 12 weeks for symptoms to show but can also take longer in some cases.
Viewers picked up on Kate's jokey reference to pretending to be Dr Hilary and felt the tone was not tasteful given the tragic nature of the story.
One wrote on X: 'Classy Kate cracking a rabies joke just after reporting on a rabies death.'
Someone replied: 'Noticed that too - made me wince. So insensitive.'
Viewers picked up on Kate's jokey reference to pretending to be Dr Hilary and felt the tone was not tasteful given the tragic nature of the story
'Did Kate Garraway just make an attempted joke about rabies after talking about the sad death of the lady from Barnsley?', one user questioned in disbelief.
Another commenter responded to them: 'Yes! I actually rewound it to make sure I'd heard right!'
Someone else weighed in: 'Is this a new trend for your presenters to be disrespectful to people that have just died?
'Lorraine Kelly about Kim Woodburn yesterday then Kate Garraway this morning just before 7am about the poor lady that's just died after contracting rabies!'
They were referring to ITV viewers being left fuming earlier this week at the 'disgraceful' way Lorraine Kelly announced Kim Woodburn's death.
The presenter, 65, appeared unmoved as she reported on Lorraine earlier this week that the beloved cleaning star, 83, had died on Monday.
As her ITV chat show came back after an ad break, Lorraine said to viewers, as a picture of Kim appeared on-screen: 'Welcome back!
'Some news just breaking in the last few minutes. Kim Woodburn, who I'm sure you know, well, she's died at the age of 83.
'Famous, of course, for [Channel 4 hit series] How Clean Is Your House and her controversial time on Celebrity Big Brother [in 2017].
'A representative for Kim said, "It is with immense sadness that we let you know our beloved Kim Woodburn passed away yesterday following a short illness". Right, it is ten past nine.'
Viewers felt the hurried, casual announcement, with Lorraine showing little emotion, was incredibly insensitive.
One wrote on X: 'Lorraine, you are a disgrace, announcing the death of Kim Woodburn without a sorrow in your face!'
Meanwhile, another weighed in: 'I'm actually shocked at the lack of empathy Lorraine showed announcing the death of Kim Woodburn.'
Someone else blasted her for showing 'no feelings whatsoever' about the so-called Queen of Clean's passing.
One user also said: 'That pathetic "tribute" from Lorraine Kelly to our Kim was an insult. She didn't sound the least bit bothered... how disrespectful.'
It comes after Kate revealed this week she has been frozen out of her bank accounts after changing her phone handset.
The presenter reached out to Barclays bank on social media on Tuesday in a desperate plea for help.
Kate said she has been unable to access either her current or savings account since Friday and has not been able to speak to anyone in customer service.
She wrote on X: '@Barclays please please get in touch with me - I have not been able to access any of my Barclays accounts current or savings since Friday due to changing my phone handset and can't get through to anyone on customer service - please DM me.'
Kate's message did not go unanswered this time and a customer service rep responded to her through the Barclays X account.
They wrote: 'Could you please pop into our DMs with your full name, postcode, contact number and we can take it from there together.
'I've popped a link on this message that will take you through to us in DM.
'If you do have any other questions then please do let me know as we are here 24/7 for you. Thank you!'
It is the latest financial blow for Kate who has been dealing with debt following her husband Derek Draper's death.
The presenter has openly discussed how she has been left with debts between £500,000 and £800,000 after caring for her late husband.
Political lobbyist Derek died at the age of 56 in January 2024 following a four-year battle with long Covid, with Kate paying £16,000 a month on his care.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Peter Krykant obituary
The drugs policy campaigner Peter Krykant, who has died suddenly aged 48, advanced the cause of the harm reduction movement through a transformative act of civil disobedience. Fitting out a van as a mobile safer drug consumption space and making it available to Glasgow's most vulnerable homeless addicts broke the law. And it also – eventually – broke the stalemate around UK drugs policy, propelled Scotland's drug deaths crisis further up the political agenda and, most importantly, saved lives. Krykant's law-breaking plan coalesced in February 2020 after he attended what he saw as another talking shop – a Scottish government conference focused on drug deaths, which took place 24 hours before a UK government summit on the same subject, at the same Glasgow venue. It seemed to him a ludicrous show of escalating tensions between the two administrations. 'The conferences were the final straw, and the fact that [a drug consumption room pilot] is being used as a political football,' he told the Guardian a week later. 'As a person who went through my own trauma – drug use and street homelessness issues many years ago – I cannot stand back.' Within days of announcing his plan to purchase a vehicle and customise it as a mobile safer-injecting suite, Krykant had raised more than £2,000. He was immediately sacked from his job as an HIV outreach worker at the charity Waverley Care. Undeterred by the looming global Covid pandemic, Krykant recognised that, as services contracted, the homeless drug users who congregated around Trongate in Glasgow were even more in need. So he struck out in the midst of lockdown, first in a minibus nicknamed 'the Tank' and later in a converted ambulance, providing clean water, needles and swabs, as well as supplies of naloxone, the potentially life-saving drug that reverses the effects of opioid overdose. Rules included using your own drugs, and agreeing to an overdose intervention if needed. Writing in the Guardian, Krykant later explained: 'Overdose prevention services are an internationally recognised way of reducing drug-related harms. It benefits everyone by supporting the most vulnerable and saving taxpayers' money on ambulance callouts, hospital admissions and council clean-up teams.' The local police largely tolerated his activity, although he was charged in October 2020 for obstructing officers attempting to search his van – the charges were later dropped. He continued operating until May 2021. More than 1,000 injections were supervised, and nine overdoses reversed. 'It was the trust people had in Peter, the cup of tea and the Mars bar, that really helped them and is hard to quantify,' said the MSP Paul Sweeney, who became a close friend when the pair volunteered together at the van. 'He proved all the naysayers and the procrastinators wrong. He never said it was a silver bullet but Peter knew firsthand the particular risks for people who inject on the street and saw that this intervention could directly save lives.' Krykant was always insistent that addiction should be understood in the wider context of poverty and inequality, a message he took around the doorsteps of his local Holyrood constituency of Falkirk East when he stood for the Scottish parliament elections in May 2021. A Guardian film, which followed his campaign, captures his younger son, aglow with pride, explaining to the producers: 'I've got three reasons you should vote for my dad: because he's honest, reliable and he listens to people's suggestions.' But the responsibility he evidently carried for every individual he helped, the memories they stirred of his own trauma as well as escalating public scrutiny, took their toll and Krykant relapsed. He had talked openly about darker currents in his childhood in the village of Maddiston, near Falkirk; trauma and sexual abuse that would lead him to start taking drugs when he was 11. He left school with no formal qualifications, and by his late teens he was sleeping rough and injecting heroin. But eventually he found support to live drug-free, and worked successfully in sales for over a decade, first in Brighton, and later returning north of the border, where he subsequently trained as an addiction support worker. During this time he married and started a family, taking market research work to fit around caring for his two young sons. Krykant had continued his advocacy work in recent years, passing the van on to the Transform Drug Policy Foundation and embarking on a tour across the UK. Lately he worked at the harm reduction charity Cranstoun, where he developed an overdose response app called BuddyUp and represented the organisation at events around the world. When the UK's first legal drug consumption room, the Thistle, opened its doors in Glasgow this January, there were many who drew a direct line from his minibus to its airy vestibule. Others felt his contribution had been sidelined to make way for more mainstream voices, or that his vulnerabilities had been exploited by those who desired the frisson of his lived experience for their campaigns. This winter, say friends, Krykant found himself at his lowest ebb. His marriage had collapsed, he had lost his job and he was struggling to support himself, worrying about the impact this had on his sons. Martin Powell, who drove the van on its UK tour, said: 'He was the catalyst and without him we might still be waiting. Without question there are people alive today who would not be without Peter Krykant. It's an absolute tragedy that he isn't one of them.' Krykant is survived by his sons. Peter Krykant, campaigner, born 13 November 1976; died 9 June 2025
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Assisted dying Bill not now or never moment, says Cleverly ahead of crucial vote
Legalising assisted dying would 'correct the profound injustices of the status quo', parliament has heard, but opposition MPs insisted this is not a 'now or never' moment. The House of Commons is debating a Bill to change the law in England and Wales, ahead of a crunch afternoon vote. The outcome would lead to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill either clearing the House of Commons and moving to the Lords, or falling completely – with a warning the latter could mean the issue might not return to Westminster for a decade. The relatively narrow majority of 55 from the historic yes vote in November means every vote will count on Friday. Some MPs have already confirmed they will switch sides to oppose a Bill they describe as 'drastically weakened', after a High Court judge safeguard was scrapped and replaced with expert panels. As it stands, the proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales with fewer than six months to live to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and the three-member panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. Bill sponsor Kim Leadbeater has insisted the multidisciplinary panels represent a strengthening of the legislation, incorporating wider expert knowledge to assess assisted dying applications. Opening her debate, Ms Leadbeater said her Bill is 'cogent' and 'workable', with 'one simple thread running through it – the need to correct the profound injustices of the status quo and to offer a compassionate and safe choice to terminally ill people who want to make it'. She pushed back on concerns raised about the Bill by some doctors and medical bodies, including the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych), noting: 'We have different views in this House and different people in different professions have different views.' She noted that all the royal colleges have a neutral position on assisted dying. Some members of RCPsych also wrote recently to distance themselves from the college's criticism of the Bill and pledge their support for it. MPs have a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decide according to their conscience rather than along party lines – although voting is not mandatory and others present on Friday could formally abstain. Ms Leadbeater warned that choosing not to support the assisted dying Bill is 'not a neutral act', but rather 'a vote for the status quo'. Repeating her warning that the issue is unlikely to be broached again for a decade if her Bill fails, she told the Commons: 'It fills me with despair to think MPs could be here in another 10 years' time hearing the same stories.' But, leading opposition to the Bill, Conservative former minister Sir James said while this is 'an important moment', there will be 'plenty of opportunities' in future for the issue to be discussed. Sir James said: 'I disagree with her (Ms Leadbeater's) assessment that it is now or never, and it is this Bill or no Bill, and that to vote against this at third reading is a vote to maintain the status quo. 'None of those things are true. There will be plenty of opportunities.' The Bill would fall if 28 MPs switched directly from voting yes to no, but only if all other MPs voted the same way as in November, including those who abstained. Ms Leadbeater this week appeared to remain confident her Bill will pass, acknowledging that while she expected 'some small movement in the middle', she did not 'anticipate that that majority would be heavily eroded'. All eyes will be on whether Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and senior colleagues continue their support for the Bill. Sir Keir indicated earlier this week that he had not changed his mind since voting yes last year, saying his 'position is long-standing and well-known'. Health Secretary Wes Streeting described Ms Leadbeater's work on the proposed legislation as 'extremely helpful', but confirmed in April that he still intended to vote against it. Ahead of the debate, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch urged her MPs to vote against the legislation, describing it as 'a bad Bill' despite being 'previously supportive of assisted suicide'. A vote must be called before 2.30pm, as per parliamentary procedure. Friday's session began with considerations of outstanding amendments to the Bill, including one to prevent a person meeting the requirements for an assisted death 'solely as a result of voluntarily stopping eating or drinking'. The amendment – accepted without the need for a vote – combined with existing safeguards in the Bill, would rule out people with eating disorders falling into its scope, Ms Leadbeater has said. Another amendment, requiring ministers to report within a year of the Bill passing on how assisted dying could affect palliative care, was also approved by MPs. Marie Curie welcomed the amendment, but warned that 'this will not on its own make the improvements needed to guarantee everyone is able to access the palliative care they need' and urged a palliative care strategy for England 'supported by a sustainable funding settlement – which puts palliative and end of life care at the heart of NHS priorities for the coming years'. Supporters and opponents of a change in the law gathered at Westminster early on Friday, holding placards saying 'Let us choose' and 'Don't make doctors killers'. Among the high-profile supporters were Dame Prue Leith, who said she is 'quietly confident' about the outcome of the vote, and Dame Esther Rantzen's daughter Rebecca Wilcox. Opposition campaigner and disability advocate George Fielding turned out to urge parliamentarians to vote no, saying: 'What MPs are deciding on is whether they want to give people assistance to die before they have assistance to live.' A YouGov poll of 2,003 adults in Great Britain, surveyed last month and published on Thursday, suggested public support for the Bill remains at 73% – unchanged from November. The proportion of people who feel assisted dying should be legal in principle has risen slightly, to 75% from 73% in November.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Sunscreens RANKED - from best buys to those to avoid at all costs... as consumer watchdog reveals one 'ineffective' £28 cream could pose safety risk
A £28 sunscreen, marketed as 'perfect for the whole family', has failed a safety test carried out by Which?—despite claiming to be 'especially suitable' for children. The revelation may have left consumers asking which sun creams they can actually trust. Consumer watchdog Which? tested 15 popular SPF50 and SPF30 products from high-street names and supermarkets, using strict international safety standards. Each was assessed for ultraviolet (UV) protection and SPF protection, and rated for ease of use by a panel of volunteers. Two were labelled 'Don't Buys' after failing key tests, while seven earned a 'Best Buy' status, scoring highest overall. Another two were also labelled 'great value' options, for offering people a cost-effective option to protect against the sun's UV rays. To trial the creams, scientists applied a small amount on volunteers' backs, before shining a lamp on the patch to simulate the sun's rays. The time it takes for the skin to become red was then measured. In another test, scientists took a sample of the cream and spread it onto a glass plate to measure the absorption of UV radiation directly. To pass, the sunscreen needed to provide at least one third of the claimed SPF. For example, a sunscreen with an SPF of 30 will take 30 times longer to damage your skin compared to no protection at all. Here we reveal the full list of 2025 test results, ranked from most to least effective. Lidl Cien Sun Protect Spray SPF30 The bargain product was given the 'great value' seal of approval by the watchdog, after the panel found it passed both key tests, was easy to apply and 'smelled great'. They did, however, note it felt 'a bit greasy on skin' after application. £3.49 Shop Boots Soltan Protect & Moisturise Lotion SPF30 Which? said the product offered 'excellent UVA and UVB protection'. UVA and UVB protection are both crucial in sunscreen because they address different types of harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun, which can raise the risk of skin damage and cancer. UVB rays are primarily responsible for sunburn, while UVA rays penetrate deeper, causing premature aging and wrinkles. £5.50 Shop Nivea Sun Protect & Moisture Lotion SPF30 The product passed both SPF and UVA tests. It's only downside, Which? said, was the cost. £8.65 Shop Sainsbury's SPF30 Moisturising Lotion The consumer watchdog had no major concerns with the product it said and provides exactly the level of sun protection that it claims. £5.75 Shop Superdrug Solait Sun Spray SPF30 Which? said the product 'delivers on SPF and UVA claims' and 'no major issues' at all. £5.50 Shop The factor 30's to avoid Morrisons Moisturising Sun Spray SPF30 Price: £3.75/200ml After testing the product twice, Morrisons sun spray failed to provide the 'claimed level of protection from UVB rays', Which? said. After informing Morrisons of its results, the supermarket giant told Which? it was looking closely at the data and working with its supplier to carry out additional independent testing. Ultrasun Family SPF30 Price: £28/150ml Ultrasun's product passed the SPF test but didn't meet the minimum required UVA level for an SPF30 product in either the initial or repeat test. Responding to the findings, the company said: 'Ultrasun is fully confident in our testing protocols. 'As an independent brand delivering very high UVB and UVA protection options for over 30 years, our detailed testing processes continue to not only meet but surpass industry standards. 'Our chosen testing protocol is one of the strictest available, and our UVB and UVA filters are tested both in-vitro and in-vivo. 'We conclusively support the results of our independent tests which found the Ultrasun Family SPF30 reached a UVB-SPF in vivo of 31.4 and a UVA-PF in vitro of 13.1, which equates to a 92% UVA absorbance.' Garnier Ambre Solaire Sensitive Advanced Sun Spray SPF50+ Garnier's SPF50 spray passed both tests and was 'easy to apply', the watchdog said. But it noted, the product—which is sold at the likes of Asda, Boots, Morrisons and Sainsbury's—was an expensive option. £8.00 Shop Nivea Sun Protect & Moisture Spray SPF50+ One of the most recognisable products on the market, Nivea's SPF50+ spray passed both SPF and UVA tests. It's only downside, Which? said, was the cost. £7.00 Shop Sainsbury's SPF50+ Moisturising Spray Lotion The watchdog said Sainsbury's spray provides the level of sun protection it claimed it does and there were no major downsides to the product at all. £5.75 Shop SPF50+ Children's Recommendations Childs Farm SPF50+ Sun Cream Fragrance-Free Which? said the product offers 'excellent sun protection' and passed both key tests. The sunscreen, sold online on Amazon as well as in Boots, does 'feel a bit greasy', it noted. £12 Shop
