Couples are matched by experts and meet at a mock wedding on 'MAFS UK' Pixabay Channel 4 has been hit with a raft of recommendations to its Married at First Sight UK welfare procedures after two contestants claimed they had been raped during the filming of the show. In response, the U.K. broadcaster has canceled the show entirely.
That decision was unveiled despite an external review giving the green light to produce future installments with improvements to the welfare framework. The suggestions for Channel 4 and production company CPL included installing CCTV, putting locks in shared bedrooms, and giving contestants access to a panic button.
Related Stories
Movies 'Fruitcakes: Dawn of Drag' Goes Back to 'Happy Gays,' "Reclaiming History" Through a Timely Film (Exclusive Trailer and Chat)
TV Sophie Stone Has Been Writing a Play and a Sitcom and Says, "There's So Much to Gain" From Our Differences
“Whilst the review praised the welfare protocols in place and made no findings that Channel 4 breached the Ofcom Code or that the format is inherently unsafe, I have to consider when is the right time for Channel 4 to move on from a format,” said the broadcaster’s CEO Priya Dogra. “The recommendations are eminently sensible and feasible, but considering their wholesale implementation provoked fundamental questions about the editorial proposition of a show that, I believe, has now run its course over ten years.”
Earlier this year, a group of ex-participants came forward in a BBC Panorama investigation, where it came to light that two women on MAFS UK — where singletons are matched, by experts, with a stranger and meet for the first time at a mock wedding — alleged violent attacks.
The first said her husband had raped her and later threatened her with an acid attack, while a second woman told Channel 4 and CPL before broadcast about being allegedly raped by her husband. Her episodes, according to the BBC program, were still aired. A third woman, Shona Manderson, the only one to have revealed her identity, accused her onscreen husband of a non-consensual sex act. The men involved deny the claims, challenging the details of each woman’s account.
All of the former participants who spoke to the BBC said Channel 4 did not do enough to protect them. The BBC reported at the time that Channel 4 was aware of some allegations before broadcast, but had previously told Panorama that all of the claims were “wholly uncorroborated and disputed.” The broadcaster did, however, pull all episodes of the program from its streaming and linear services.
On Thursday, Channel 4 released the findings of an external review into the show, split into two parts: A review by law firm Clyde & Co, and a future-facing review by former Controller of BBC One, Lorraine Heggessey. Channel 4 stated at the top of the document that it is “not in a position to investigate or adjudicate on the […] allegations as those would be for the police and the courts to investigate and determine.”
But the reviews could examine the welfare protocols in place on the relevant series of MAFS UK, the welfare concerns referenced in the Panorama program, and the handling of Channel 4 and production company CPL of those concerns when raised — and whether all of that fulfilled Channel 4’s duty of care obligations under Britain’s Ofcom Broadcasting Code.
The Clyde & Co findings essentially found that the welfare framework on MAFS UK was in place at the relevant times and was compliant with Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code. There were no findings of a breach of the code, but Clyde & Co did uncover areas where it considered that the contributor welfare framework “although compliant, could be further strengthened.” For example, they found that some contestants were discovered with prohibited substances but were “given a first and final warning rather than being removed from the programme.”
Heggessey’s findings were much more substantial. It concluded that, with “enhancements” to the existing welfare framework, it would “be reasonable to produce future series of MAFS UK.” And while it observed that Channel 4 and CPL take contributor welfare “extremely seriously,” there is room for improvement.
Heggessey called into question a number of the procedures, including that the premise of the show — to match contributors with long-term partners — heightens tension and conflict, with intimacy being a key focus. “Although some of this is necessary from a welfare perspective, for example during welfare checks, some elements of the show could implicitly put pressure on contributors to be intimate,” the review said. Because contact with the outside world is limited during filming, contributors can become dependent on production and “lose touch with reality,” which can affect their decision-making, the report claimed.
Contestant background checks and contributors’ “motivations” for participating on the show were also raised in the findings. “While the close involvement and influence of Channel 4 has some benefit, it has at times led to a lack of objective scrutiny over some production decisions,” said the Heggessey review.
Her recommendations included putting the couples in separate bedrooms on the wedding night and honeymoon and turning the honeymoon into a “getting to know you” phase, with the couples subsequently having to “opt in” to share a room. She also said Channel 4 and CPL should review the frequency with which couples are asked about the physical side of their relationship and remove Intimacy Week and Partner Swap Week.
MAFS is Love Island-esque in its global popularity, with localized versions in over 35 countries. The U.K. series has been running for 10 seasons now and often boasts viewership of over three million, making it one of Britain’s most prized reality shows.
THR Newsletters
Sign up for THR news straight to your inbox every day
Subscribe Sign Up
