How Panorama exposed rape allegations on Married at First Sight UK

On Wednesday morning, I walked into Channel 4's offices successful cardinal London and took a spot successful a country eyeball to eyeball with its boss.

The broadcaster was holding a property lawsuit to unveil its yearly report, but it was wholly overshadowed by the situation surrounding 1 of its biggest shows.

Over the past 5 weeks, Panorama had been successful correspondence with Channel 4 detailing allegations of intersexual misconduct connected Married astatine First Sight UK, and the broadcaster's replies had travel backmost successful what felt similar dismissive and heavy-handed language.

Now, finally, the communicative was out, and it was clip to get immoderate answers connected the record. And the dozens of journalists gathered successful the country didn't clasp back.

The effect from main enforcement Priya Dogra was a stark opposition to the code Channel 4 had adopted successful correspondence with the BBC previously.

Up until past week, Channel 4 was calling the allegations the BBC had presented to them "wholly uncorroborated and disputed".

In the Panorama investigation, 2 women said they were raped by their on-screen husbands during filming, portion a 3rd described a non-consensual enactment act.

The interaction has been swift, and sizeable. Channel 4 launched an outer review, each the episodes person been taken down from its streaming service, and a large sponsor has pulled out.

What doesn't get talked astir arsenic much, is what happens successful the run-up to a large investigation, and wherefore it tin often instrumentality truthful long.

In our case, it took 18 months.

It each began with a gathering successful the BBC's London headquarters. A pistillate who had been a bridesmaid connected MAFS UK came successful to rise concerns astir alleged intersexual misconduct and payment standards connected the production.

What we heard was profoundly troubling. We wanted to cognize more, and we started investigating.

Over much than a year, we met the 3 women who would go the main contributors successful our documentary.

All 3 gave elaborate and traumatic accounts of their clip connected MAFS UK. It was shocking that allegations of specified seriousness could beryllium made astir what was going connected down the scenes of specified a large TV show.

The parallels betwixt the accounts started piling up. The feeling of being fto down. The disappointment with the payment team. The consciousness that women were being enactment astatine hazard for entertainment.

Their on-screen partners person denied each the allegations against them and accidental each intersexual interaction was consensual. Channel 4 has said that based connected the cognition it had astatine the time, it had made "the close decisions". CPL Productions, which makes the series, gave america elaborate descriptions of its payment strategy which it said is "gold standard".

As the probe progressed, we did everything we could to corroborate the women's accounts - including scouring mobile telephone histories, speaking to different formed members, arsenic good arsenic friends and family.

As we deed April, the BBC archetypal sent the allegations to Channel 4 and CPL. These are letters intended to question responses from those against whom allegations are being made.

Immediately, determination was beardown pushback. We were told CPL were capable to supply contemporaneous notes of the "utmost accuracy" which proved due decisions had been made.

CPL shared selected notes with Panorama but successful galore instances, these records confirmed that the women had successful information made reports of immoderate of the allegations they aboriginal told america about, to the payment squad astatine the time.

We went backmost to our sources, checking and cross-referencing.

By this point, 1 ineligible steadfast representing 1 of the men against whom allegations were being made, told america its fees were being paid for by CPL. A motion that enactment was being offered to the men, portion the women felt unsupported.

Despite each the lengthy letters, what nary 1 was challenging was the cardinal allegations successful each of the 3 women's cases, that they had been subjected to superior intersexual misconduct.

We kept our nerve, and kept pushing back.

On Monday morning, hours earlier the Panorama variation that would marque the allegations public, CPL went into what 1 erstwhile MAFS UK idiosyncratic has described to america arsenic "damage control" mode, firing disconnected an email to erstwhile formed and unit and giving them proposal astir talking to the press.

It besides correctly advised against speculating connected the identities of the anonymous contributors making rape allegations, due to the fact that they are entitled to anonymity by law.

Fifteen minutes aft we broke the story, an email dropped into our inbox. It was Channel 4, announcing it had launched a reappraisal divided into 2 parts. One led by a ineligible steadfast into however Channel 4 handled the allegations, and a 2nd 1 into payment protocols connected MAFS UK.

As the Panorama was broadcast, societal media lit up.

An hr later, Channel 4's main enforcement emerged into the evening, clipboard successful hand, extracurricular their offices successful Horseferry Road, London.

She expressed "sympathy" for the women, but declined to apologise erstwhile asked by a reporter, turning alternatively to locomotion backmost into the office.

Over the adjacent fewer days, questions mounted for Channel 4 implicit its handling of the crisis.

On Wednesday, we got a accidental to inquire immoderate of those questions astatine that Channel 4 yearly study media briefing.

BBC News asked wherefore Channel 4 has present commissioned a two-part review, erstwhile it had said arsenic precocious arsenic past week that the allegations were "wholly uncorroborated".

"It is for different radical to look into allegations that the women person made, our occupation is to look astatine allegations of a work of attraction failure. That's the favoritism betwixt the two," Dogra responded.

She added that Channel 4 "is a broadcaster not an adjudicator" but arsenic galore person commented pursuing the work of our investigation, that connection alternatively misses the point.

If a TV format results successful immoderate allegations of intersexual misconduct, fto unsocial rape, past superior questions should beryllium asked astir the format itself, and whether immoderate payment procedures are genuinely susceptible of keeping contributors safe.

The BBC, similar Channel 4, is simply a nationalist work broadcaster - and it excessively is nary alien to controversy. In the past 12 months, hardly a period has gone by erstwhile TV crews haven't been huddled extracurricular Broadcasting House due to the fact that of assorted crises, from Scott Mills' sacking to the Panorama Trump edit. It's besides faced disapproval astir the handling of its ain controversies.

"I deliberation immoderate organisation needs to commencement with the payment of those who person travel forward," said John Shield, erstwhile manager of communications astatine the BBC.

"The astir important happening is to amusement humility and amusement you're taking concerns seriously. You ne'er privation the communicative to go your handling of the issue, and that happens precise rapidly if you're not focused connected the radical who've raised the concerns."

As the week draws to a close, determination are inactive a batch of unanswered questions. We inactive don't cognize who, wrong Channel 4, decided it was due to proceed filming and broadcasting MAFS UK arsenic allegations were being reported to it. No determination has been made connected whether to aerial the caller series, which has already been filmed.

Channel 4 has besides said it lone intends to people "a summary of findings" from its review, alternatively than the afloat report.

Since broadcast, we person been contacted straight by a fig of different erstwhile MAFS UK formed members, raising concerns. We proceed to investigate.