MAFS UK bride Shona Manderson accuses on-screen husband of sexual misconduct following BBC report

Warning: This article contains discussion of rape and sexual misconduct which some readers may find distressing.

Married At First Sight UK bride Shona Manderson has accused her on-screen husband, Bradley Skelley, of sexual misconduct following a BBC report.

Manderson was partnered with Skelley on the reality TV programme in 2023, which sees single people get matched by experts to 'marry' strangers, whom they meet for the first time on their wedding day.

While the 'marriages' on MAFS UK are not legally binding, the couples do go on 'honeymoons' and move in together after their weddings.

As detailed in a new BBC Panorama documentary, The Dark Side of Married at First Sight, which aired last night (18 May), Manderson claimed that during consensual sex, Skelley ejaculated inside her without consent after they agreed to use withdrawal as contraception.

The pair were later removed from the show, and Manderson later became pregnant and had an abortion.

Channel 4 says she described all sexual contact as consensual at the time, and CPL - the independent production company which makes the show - said that Skelley told producers he wore a condom, though his lawyers later admitted he had not.

He denies all allegations of sexual misconduct.

A statement said: "Bradley Skelly says he understood Shona had consented that night. He categorically denies any allegations of sexual misconduct or that he was controlling. He says their relationship was based on mutual consent, care and affection".

As part of the new documentary investigation, two other unnamed 'brides' claimed they were raped by their on-screen 'husbands', and none of the women has reported the allegations to the police, it was reported.

All three women claim the TV show did not do enough to protect them.

Channel 4 commissioned an external review of welfare on MAFS UK in April after being made aware of the allegations.

Manderson has since taken to social media to share an update with fans following the documentary's release.

In a statement shared to Instagram earlier today (19 May), Manderson said: "I chose to speak because I hoped that sharing my experience could contribute to a wider conversation around welfare and positive change.

"I also want to say this isn't about individuals. There were people within production who showed me real kindness and support and there were aspects of my welfare experience that felt strong."

She continued: "During my time on the show I completely lost my light in a very short space of time and afterwards I had a lot of healing to do.

"There were moments during filming where I felt emotionally overwhelmed and struggled. I felt I was dealing with a lot of criticism and behaviours that I personally found difficult and challenging to navigate.

"There was one point where I became extremely emotionally distressed because of the way my partner had spoken to me and I was asked to calm down and return to filming by production.

"I think situations like that raise important questions around how people are cared for in high-pressure moments."

Detailing her allegations against Skelley, she stated: "One thing I want to address clearly is that during our time in the experiment we had always agreed to use the pull-out method. He said he didn't want to wear a condom and I was okay with that. I had never agreed to him ejaculating inside me.

"On one occasion that happened without my consent. He later said he did it because he wanted to 'show me how much he loved me' and because he thought I believed he wasn't attracted to me."

She explained that when she was sent home from the show, she realised she was pregnant.

"This was an incredibly distressing and deeply personal part of my experience," Manderson recalled. "I spent a lot of time looking back at dates and trying to make sense of it all, wondering whether the morning after pill hadn't worked, whether I could have become pregnant from pre-cum, or whether my pregnancy resulted from that specific incident.

"We had previously been using the pull-out method and at the time I wasn't tracking or understanding my cycle in the way I do now, so I genuinely couldn't know with certainty exactly when conception happened. But regardless of that, for me, that was never the point. That shouldn't have happened."

Manderson stated that 'what people didn't see' was that her and Skelly's 'differences around intimacy were much bigger than they appeared'.

"I had never come across or experienced that level of intimacy before and had never even met someone with those kinds of preferences," she said. "Looking back, I think major differences around intimacy can shape the entire dynamic of a relationship far more than people realise and I believe compatibility around intimacy deserves much deeper consideration in the matching process."

She continued: "During my time in the experiment production gave my partner serious warnings for 'breaking the rules' but from my knowledge there were never any serious interventions around his behaviour towards me from production.

"When we were told we were leaving due to concerns around our relationship, I remember being told to 'go be together on the outside' and being asked whether we wanted a hotel together that night by production.

"Looking back, I felt confused by some of the messaging around the situation. At times, I felt there was a suggestion that the environment itself may have been contributing to the difficulties we were experiencing and it left me feeling that perhaps things would be different outside the experiment."

Manderson recalled leaving the experiment 'carrying a lot of self-blame'.

"I remember discussions around our relationship including comments that Bradley had 'demons' and that I had low self- esteem," she wrote. "Looking back, I internalised that in a way that made me feel there was a sense of shared responsibility for why the relationship had not worked.

"As someone already emotionally affected by the experience, I think I took that on heavily and it left me questioning myself and blaming myself more than I should have."

Manderson said that when she was sent home, she didn't feel like her 'financial welfare was fully considered'.

"Initially, I was only given two weeks pay, which added significant stress during an already difficult period. I believe this is something that should be reviewed for future participants, particularly as many people may not have work to immediately return to outside the experiment, as was the case for me," she explained.

"I was later offered further financial support after informing production that I was pregnant. I can't say with certainty whether those things were connected, but the timing left me feeling that stronger financial support and clearer safeguards on exit should have been in place regardless, particularly during periods of vulnerability."

She rounded off: "I believe there is room for stronger processes: more in-person casting, deeper checks, clearer support and stronger interventions around concerning behaviour.

"I also believe there is room for deeper matching processes. Things like values, non-negotiables, intentions for being there, relationship expectations and compatibility around intimacy all matter."

Manderson concluded her statement explaining to her 161k followers that she wanted to 'speak honestly' about her experience as, looking back, she doesn't believe she was 'able to advocate' for herself.

"I also carried a lot of self-blame and it took me a long time to make sense of what happened," she noted. "I also want to acknowledge the other women who have shared their experiences. I know how difficult speaking up can feel and I'm proud of every woman who has found the courage to use her voice.

"I believe there is room for accountability and change. And I hope moving forward more women feel empowered to trust themselves, speak up and know that they matter."

Tyla has reached out to Skelley and Channel 4 for further comment on Manderson's claims.

Channel 4's statement in full

A spokesperson said: "MAFS UK is a reality television series which sees single people - matched by experts - ‘marry’ strangers who they meet for the first time on their wedding day. It is produced for Channel 4 by independent production company CPL.

"MAFS UK is produced under some of the most comprehensive and robust welfare protocols in the industry. These include the most thorough background checks available, a Code of Conduct which clearly sets out behavioural standards, daily contributor check-ins with a specialist welfare team and access to additional support before, during and after filming. The physical and psychological wellbeing of all contributors is of paramount importance throughout the process. All duty of care processes are regularly reviewed and, where appropriate, strengthened.

"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. 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.

"Notwithstanding the actions taken at the time, Channel 4’s recently appointed CEO, Priya Dogra instructed an external review of contributor welfare on MAFS UK last month.

"This review is now underway and has two elements. The first, conducted by law firm Clyde & Co, is examining the welfare protocols in place on this programme at the time claims were raised, as well as the handling by Channel 4 and CPL of those claims.

"Alongside the lawyer-led review, Channel 4 has commissioned an external industry expert to examine if any changes should be made to current protocols for MAFS UK to further strengthen contributor welfare. This work is being led by former BBC One Controller Lorraine Heggessey, who is a highly experienced media executive with deep understanding of programme making, as well as being a vocal advocate for rigorous welfare protocols in TV production.

"Channel 4 expects the review to report in the coming months and will share a summary of findings and recommendations at the appropriate time.

"While the review is ongoing and until we receive any conclusions and recommendations – and considering Channel 4’s ongoing duty of care to all contributors, the seriousness of the allegations levelled against a small number of past contributors, and out of an abundance of caution to avoid fuelling speculation or jigsaw identification – all previous seasons of MAFS UK have been removed from Channel 4 streaming and linear services at this time, alongside Channel 4’s MAFS UK social channels."

Chief Executive of Channel 4's statement in full

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.

"Nevertheless, because we aspire to the highest standards of contributor welfare, I felt strongly as Channel 4’s new CEO that it was right that we look again at how we handled issues raised at the time and ask whether changes should be made to further strengthen contributor welfare.

"That’s why last month I commissioned an external review of contributor welfare on MAFS UK. That review will report to me in the coming months.

"We take these issues very seriously and are committed to ensuring that we continue to lead the industry in our duty of care for contributors."

If you have been affected by any of the issues in this article and wish to speak to someone in confidence, contact the Rape Crisis England and Wales helpline on 0808 500 222, available 24/7. If you are currently in danger or need urgent medical attention, you should call 999.