The new series of Married at First Sight has been 'axed' by Channel 4 bosses after two former participants alleged they had been raped by their on-screen husbands.

The dating show was set to return to screens for its eleventh series in September, but plans to air the episodes, which wrapped last month, have now reportedly been scrapped. 

Earlier all ten series of Married at First Sight UK, known as MAFS UK, were removed from the channel's streaming service and an external review into contributor welfare commissioned.

It comes after three women made allegations of rape and sexual misconduct against their partners on the show to the BBC's Panorama in a documentary which aired last night.

Among them was Shona Manderson, who says she got an abortion after her on-screen husband, Brad Skelly, took things 'too far' during sex and 'a boundary was crossed' when he ejaculated inside her without permission.

Waiving her anonymity, she described how she 'completely lost her light' during filming, which saw experts raise concerns about Mr Skelly's alleged 'controlling' manner towards her that saw them ultimately be asked to leave the show.

Two other female contestants reported being raped by their on-screen husbands, with one informing both Channel 4 and the production company only for the episodes to still be aired anyway.

The other described being left with bruises from the attack and said her partner also threatened to throw acid over her.

All the men are understood to deny the allegations against them. 

The women say the show, produced by independent firm CPL, did not do enough to protect them and that welfare protocols were not sufficient.

And it's been warned the series could even face a police probe. Security Minister Dan Jarvis has said he is 'extremely concerned', adding: 'I think it's highly likely that there will be a referral to the police and it will be a police matter for them to investigate.' 

Ms Manderson, the only woman of the three who is identified, alleged her partner, Mr Skelly, ejaculated inside her without her permission leaving her 'shocked' and 'confused' as 'we said we weren't doing that'.

Ms Manderson later went to get the morning after pill and was accompanied by a welfare producer. But soon after she discovered she was pregnant and made the difficult decision to have an abortion.

She says she does not know for sure whether the pregnancy was a result of the incident. Ms Manderson later informed production company CPL about it, but lawyers for the firm say she told them she did not have a problem with it. 

Around the same time, Mr Skelly was being called out on air by the show's experts for speaking to his partner in a controlling manner. The couple were later removed from the show due to concerns that their relationship was unhealthy.

In a statement to the BBC, Mr Skelly said he categorically denies 'any allegations of sexual misconduct, or that he was controlling'.

A second woman, referred to by the pseudonym Lizzie, told Panorama her on-screen husband raped her and subjected her to violent sex that often left her with bruises, despite her telling him to stop.

She described how one night: 'He tried to have sex with me. And I kept saying no, that I didn't want to do it.

'But he kept saying, "You can't say no, you're my wife". And he just did it anyway.'

Lizzie added that she was too scared to tell anyone about what was happening as: 'He said that if I told anybody what had happened, that he would get someone to throw acid at me.'

Lawyers for CPL told Panorama that Lizzie did not mention the 'can't say no' comment to its team and the 'acid' remark was mentioned as a 'passing comment', not a threat. CPL took action as soon as Lizzie said she felt unsafe, the lawyers added.

A third woman, Chloe, also described being raped by her MAFS husband, with her allegations being raised both with CPL and Channel 4 prior to them being shown to the public - but the episodes in which she featured were aired anyway.

She told the programme: 'He smirked and climbed on top of me, moved my leg… By that time, I'd really given up and I just didn't want him to be angry at me when the cameras came.

'I just lay there, and I stared out the window.'

Chloe - also a pseudonym - added that once her partner noticed she was not participating, he told her: 'You're making me feel like a rapist'. 

It is understood that both men implicated in the allegations deny the accounts. 

Experts have warned the allegations could end the show - which sees singletons matched before meeting each other for the first time at a non-legally binding wedding ceremony - for good in the UK.

But even if it does disappear from British screens, its fate elsewhere - MAFS currently has series in almost 30 countries - is less certain. 

Government figures, womens' charities and television executives have all raised concerns about the allegations.

Culture, Media and Sport Committee chairwoman Dame Caroline Dinenage said the premise of the dating show, which sees single people 'marry' strangers who they meet for the first time on their wedding day, was 'horrifying' and that she was 'unsurprised' by the sexual assault allegations.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4 Today on Tuesday, Dame Caroline said: 'Clearly, the programme was deeply shocking.

'I guess what surprised me most was how unsurprised I was by what it revealed, given I suppose, as you say, that these are couples that get married without having met each other before, and then immediately have to assume a life as a married couple.

'They go on honeymoon, they share a bed, and in this kind of bubble of intimacy under the glare of a TV camera.

'In the cold light of day, it really is quite horrifying, isn't it?'

And former chief executive at Channel 4 Alex Mahon said current protocols around welfare for reality show participants should be reviewed.

Ms Mahon was asked about the documentary while appearing before MPs at the Culture, Media and Sport Committee (CMS) on Tuesday.

She told the committee: 'Obviously, I'm no longer at Channel 4 but I watched the programme last night.

'There are some very serious and concerning allegations in it. I think the right thing for them to do is to launch an investigation.

'I think, in fact, they've announced two investigations, a legal one and a duty of care protocols one, and then we should see what those investigations come up with and act on any findings.'

Lawyers for CPL told the BBC its welfare system is 'gold standard' and it acted appropriately.

Shortly before the Panorama episode aired, Channel 4 announced it had commissioned an external review into contributor welfare last month.

'In April, Channel 4 was presented with serious allegations of wrongdoing against a small number of past contributors, allegations that we understand those contributors have denied,' a statement from the broadcaster said.

'The channel is mindful of the privacy and continuing duty of care towards all contributors, and cannot comment on or disclose details of those allegations.

'Related to those allegations, Channel 4 was asked to respond to claims of failures in welfare protocols.

'Channel 4 believes that when concerns related to contributor welfare were raised through existing welfare and production protocols, prompt and appropriate action was taken, based on the information available at the time.

'Channel 4 strongly refutes any claim to the contrary.'

Priya Dogra, chief executive of Channel 4, said: 'I want to express my sympathy to contributors who have clearly been distressed after taking part in Married At First Sight UK. The wellbeing of our contributors is always of paramount importance.

'It would be wholly inappropriate for me to comment on what are very serious allegations made against some MAFS UK contributors.

'Those allegations – which I understand are disputed by the contributors accused – are not something that Channel 4 is in a position to adjudicate on.

'We are also mindful of our ongoing duty of care to all contributors, and the need to preserve the anonymity and privacy of all involved.

'On the claims that Channel 4 may have failed in its duty of care, I believe that when concerns about contributor welfare were raised, and based on the information available at the time, Channel 4 acted quickly, appropriately, sensitively and with wellbeing front and centre.'