A controversial reality show called Go Back To Where You Came From by will not come back for a second series.

The programme featured five Brits who have strong opinions on asylum seekers. In it, they were exposed to the horrors that migrants face in war torn countries before deciding to try and cross the Channel.

Sadly, viewing figures were not strong enough for Channel 4 to comission a second season. It comes after several viewers and even one cast member complained that the show was insensitive.

After news broke that there would not be a second season, an insider told : "Of course, Channel 4 will maintain they only made this as a stand alone show but the scope to continue the show with another batch of Brits was obvious.

"If the ratings were higher then it might well have had a sequel, but it didn't seem to capture the viewers' imaginations, even if some of the contestants' views did inspire a fiery response."

During the show participants Dave, Bushra, Chloe, Nathan, Mathilda, and Jess were taken to locations such as Mogadishu in Somalia and Raqqa in Syria, before experiencing a simulated asylum seeker's Channel crossing.

Despite being pitched as a "thoughtful and impactful" programme, Go Back To Where You Came From faced backlash almost immediately. Viewers took to social media to slam the show for being "exploitative".

One viewer on X (formerly Twitter) wrote: "I've had to switch off Go Back To Where You Came From. The levels of ignorance, lack of education and the complete lack of empathy for other human beings never fails to astound me."

Another added: "Programme is a set up! Bye."

A third viewer shared: "I was considering watching Go Back To Where You Came From but decided against it as I'm sure the ignorance on display would only annoy and depress me."

The controversy extended beyond viewers. One contestant, who later pulled out of the show, claimed there were "red flags" in the production process. Speaking to The Sun, he alleged that producers specifically sought out participants with extreme views from particular backgrounds.

He initially believed he was signing up for a serious documentary about the refugee experience but later discovered the true nature of the reality series. He said: "They were approaching people in a really targeted way, casting 'woke' people like me and immigration specialists, while also going to areas with riots and civil unrest to find people. That was a red flag for me."

He also voiced concerns about the lack of psychological support for contestants, as well as the programme's name, which he was not informed of until mid-January.

Charities also criticised the show, accusing Channel 4 of sensationalising a serious humanitarian issue.

Steve Smith, CEO of Care4Calais, said: "This A Place In The Sun meets Benefits Street-style show will do little to convey the true reality of what refugees have had to endure before fleeing to safety. You can't mimic the experience of war, torture, persecution, and modern slavery through the sanitised lens of reality TV."

Amnesty International also condemned the show's title, with refugee and migrant rights director Steve Valdez-Symonds arguing that it lacked sensitivity.

Steve explained: "The miserable title, along with the prospect of seeing a handful of Britons sampling experiences they can never really share with the people who truly endure them, may be sensational enough to attract viewers.

"But serious subjects like the plight-and all too frequent death-of people seeking asylum deserve more sensitivity, more attention to real experience, and more education about their circumstances and rights than this show seems designed or capable of offering."

Despite the criticism, Channel 4 defended the programme. Show bosses have insisted that it was always intended as a one-off series.

A spokesperson told Express.co.uk: "Go Back to Where You Came From was commissioned as a single series of event television, and we are immensely proud of what it achieved in creating national conversation about a hugely important issue. Any allusions to this programme being 'cancelled' are entirely false."

They also addressed concerns about participant welfare, stating: "Duty of care and the safety of our contributors is of paramount importance and full psychological support was offered to all who took part, before, during, and after filming. Contributors and potential contributors were provided with a fair, accurate, and appropriate programme description with sufficient detail to enable them to decide if they wanted to participate."