The timing was less than optimal. This week, Channel 4’s annual report publicly hailed their most-streamed show; a series, which insiders tell me, has always been viewed internally as a fine example of ‘progressive’ programming – not to mention being seen as the broadcaster’s golden goose.

There’s one problem however.

Just two days before the release of that report, Married At First Sight (MAFS) had been the subject of a Panorama documentary in which two female contestants claimed they’d been raped by their co-star ‘husbands’. One said she informed both Channel 4 and the production company of the alleged assault only for the episodes to be aired anyway.

The other described being left with bruises and said her partner also threatened to have acid thrown at her.

Both say the programme’s welfare protocols were not up to standard.

That the channel was still praising the show after the allegations became public reveals not only the chaos at its London HQ but a reluctance of bosses to acknowledge that their golden goose is now irredeemably tarnished.

After all, Channel 4’s new chief executive Priya Dogra has insisted the show will go on, despite the allegations. She confirmed that the forthcoming series will continue to be made – although it won’t be aired until after an external review is complete.

Some Channel 4 employees tell me her decision to continue making MAFS has ‘caused a huge divide’ at the network. Some believe the programme should be axed with immediate effect. First aired in 2015, the show follows strangers starting a marriage-like relationship with each other, meeting only minutes before they take ‘vows’ which, while not legally binding, require participants to go on honeymoon and be together as husband and wife in every sense of the word.

However, not everyone at Channel 4 is certain the show should be axed. Indeed, others, I’m told, have questions galore about the Panorama documentary.

They are not convinced by some of the explosive claims made. This, I can reveal, is a view shared by other contestants who appeared on the same series as one of the women at the centre of the scandal. Just one contestant is said to be backing her version of events. The others, I’m told, have doubts.

Many question why she didn’t call the police if she had been raped. Others insist she had agreed to sleep with her new ‘husband’. Surprisingly, others say it was he who halted their intimacy halfway through – something they say the woman told them herself.

‘The woman agreed to sleep with the groom,’ says my source. ‘But it was him who stopped it, he found it all very weird and he freaked out.’

If this version of events is accurate, one can’t help but wonder why a woman who didn’t want to have a full sexual encounter would volunteer for a dating show where the expectation was that you would have to have sex with a man you’d just met.

One contestant who was on at the same time, said: ‘The overall view was that the woman was weird. She didn’t get on with anyone and didn’t really want to have sex. Everyone thought it was weird given she was on a dating show.

‘This really does beg the question of why she went in there.’ It’s fair to say that her co-stars are ‘cross’ at her allegations. They say they are further inflamed by the fact she contacted her fellow brides and grooms before the Panorama documentary was screened to ask them to back her up. Only one came forward, a man with whom she was friendly on the show.

The contestant added: ‘There are some very strong feelings amongst the brides and grooms who appeared alongside her. It isn’t what they saw. Many are happy to speak to those conducting the review about it.’ Indeed, on Tuesday Channel 4 confirmed it had launched an investigation into the woman’s claims. An external review, they said, would be conducted by law firm Clyde & Co, who are examining the welfare protocols at the time claims were raised, as well as the handling by Channel 4 and the production company CPL of the claims.

They will also investigate the claims of a third woman, Shona Manderson, who waived her anonymity and said she got an abortion after her on-screen husband, Bradley Skelly, took things ‘too far’ during sex when she appeared on the show in 2023.

She claims ‘a boundary was crossed’ – he has said he understood she was consenting and denies sexual misconduct. Initially, Channel 4 chief executive Dogra refused to apologise in response to the allegations. But on Wednesday, as the channel’s report was unveiled, she said she was ‘deeply sorry’ to the women, adding: ‘I have heard the women’s accounts, which are very troubling.’

However, outgoing chief content officer, Ian Katz appeared less contrite. He said of the allegations: ‘I was aware of some of them and I was involved in decision-making about some of them,’ he said. ‘Some I know and the information we had, I think we made the right calls.’ Katz, a former Guardian journalist, also said the channel had ‘ensured that women involved were kept safe when any issues were raised to us’ and provided ‘appropriate support’ to the claimants.

Some Channel 4 employees, though, say Katz’s response was brazenly cynical. On one hand, they say, Channel 4 is keen to emphasise its ‘progressive’ ethos – but at the same time are all too happy to make money from a show which degrades women and uses programmes dominated by sexual content to make money.

One furious employee told me the broadcaster was a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’ and said bosses were ‘so self-obsessed’ they couldn’t see anything outside the ‘shiny tower’ that is their HQ.

‘All the bosses are concerned with is keeping their jobs. Ian Katz is a disgrace. He is the type to sneer at the kind of people who volunteer for the shows which keep him in work.

‘Channel 4 has been a horrible place to be for the last six or seven years – yet they pretend they are the perfect employers and the perfect media company that supports independent production companies.’

Another insider says that there has been chatter within Channel 4’s HQ this week about whether the idea of privatising the broadcaster should be revisited. At the moment, the network is funded through advertising but is owned by the state. In 2022, the then Conservative Government suggested full privatisation – only for the channel’s former chief executive Alex Mahon managing to avoid the takeover after claiming to find £200million of investment.

Mahon, who was paid an eye-watering £991,000 despite the channel’s financial struggles, was at the helm for the period when the alleged rapes took place.

‘Whatever the truth, there are claims that two rapes took place on a programme commissioned by Channel 4,’ says my insider.

‘The type of programmes they air are pretty low rent. You must now wonder whether the Government should intervene.’

This is a feeling shared by the station’s own staff. ‘There has been so much drama around our programmes over the years,’ says the insider. ‘You’d think that they would be more careful.’