FitFinder founder Rich Martell has pulled the plug on his website, after facing disciplinary action from UCL, who have accused him of “bringing the university into disrepute”.

Since its launch on 24 April 2010, FitFinder has received over five million hits from students across 50 different universities. But now Martell, the 21 year old creator of the site, has come under pressure from University authorities to take the site down for good.

Martell revealed that UCL had summoned him multiple times for meetings with “very senior members of the University”. Martell was fined £300, the maximum allowed under UCL rules. University bosses told him that “we want you to take the fine now” and that the university would “take disciplinary action” if he did not cooperate with the university discipline.

“My degree could be put in doubt if the site remains up” said the worried computer scientist. “This could be taken to a disciplinary hearing – if it is, then my degree is withheld until the result of that hearing. A punishment such has expulsion would not be out of the question”

When Cherwell asked Martell which UCL don was threatening him he answered “I really don’t want to wind them up further by them knowing I’ve given their name.”

Cherwell has seen a letter sent to Mr Martell by Ruth Siddall, UCL’s Dean for Students.

It reads “A potential charge UCL can bring against you is ‘bringing the College into disrepute’ by setting up this website…it could be taken as inciting internet stalking and sexual harrassment…There is very strong feeling from senior colleagues here at UCL and also in the complaint from LSE that we should take action against you… Richard – do you have a lawyer? If not I suggest that you get one!”

Martell said that he has been left penniless by the fine and unable to afford legal advice of his own, forcing him to take the site down.

UCL’s disciplinary code states “Misconduct which may be the subject of disciplinary procedures under this Code is defined as…behaviour which brings UCL into disrepute.”

Martell wrote on theFitfinder.co.uk about the “increasing pressure to take the website offline by Universities”. Speaking to Cherwell, he said “I think the main reason UCL were taking action was because they received complaints from other universities such as LSE.”

Last week the London School of Economics told The Times: “We’re against the site and we’ve asked people not to use it. First of all we had some complaints from students who found it insulting and secondly if you’re in the library you’re there to study.”

UCL’s Press Office said in a statement that “UCL does not approve of or condone this site” and admitted that the Dean of Students took “disciplinary action against the student for bringing the college into disrepute”. UCL said, “We gave him a fine and that was the end of the matter.”

A UCL spokesman said that an academic hearing was discussed internally but it was concluded that this would be “heavy handed” and decided not to take it further. He added that there was “no question” that Mr Martell’s degree would be withheld.

Martell assured Cherwell readers that “When I’m sure my degree is safe in my hand, then what we’re going to do is improve the site…we will be coming back with a more developed website as soon as possible. We are also looking to bring FitFinder to people via apps on mobile devices and across music festivals over the summer.”

Protest against the loss of Fitfinder has been coordinated online, where one petition gained over 3000 signatures in the first 24 hours.

A Facebook group set up by Scott Bryan of York University defended the site, saying that the “great majority of messages are friendly jokes and compliments…if it does look a little bit crude sometimes it because we are young and us young people are sexually frustrated.”

Oxford students’ reactions to the loss of the website were mixed. Some were outraged, seeing UCL’s approach as draconian, and condemned what they saw as the university’s vendetta against one of its own students. History student Greg Manuel said that UCL were “unreasonable to ask [Martell] to close the site as it just opens the way for [other companies] to do the same thing.”

But not all comments have been so supportive. One poster on Fitfinder’s Facebook page condemned Mr Martell’s decision as cowardly. Oliver Warren said “YOU have caved in to their pressure. Getting people to waste their time filling out surveys is ridiculous and unnecessary…just re-open the site…get some balls – try looking to the pirate bay for inspiration if you really lack a spine.”

Oxford Women in Politics president Krisztina Csortea thought the site should stay. She said “I haven’t noticed any increase in misogyny since the appearance of Fitfinder. As far as I am aware, it mentioned both men and women, and I don’t think it had significantly more adverse consequences than gossip columns or ‘fit’ contests.”

Other students were concerned about how they would while away long library hours without the site. One Exeter lawyer concluded that “Not only is FitFinder a laugh and a light hearted way to break up revision, practically speaking it’s also effectively a sat-nav for clunge.”

FitFinder courted controversy from its opening. One week after launching, the Joint Academic network, the UK’s education and research network, blocked FitFinder from UK university networks over the perceived level of distraction offered by the site. However, the ban was lifted within 24 hours following floods of complaints from students.

Hertford students were left outraged on Thursday as they learned that the SCR had voted to put the JCR bar under college management.

The bar was managed and financed by the JCR. Housed in a cellar of the college, it was renowned throughout Oxford and won awards for ‘Best College Bar’.

The status of the bar had been the subject of an emergency JCR meeting earlier in the week, in which members voted unanimously to oppose any effort to privatise the bar. A report compiled by the JCR also found that 96% of JCR members and 94% of MCR members oppose any replacement of student management with professional management.

The decision of the SCR, which sources say was a unanimous one, was made at a council meeting on Tuesday afternoon. Hertford JCR President, Mak Bavcic, was allowed to attend the meeting on behalf of the students, and presented members of the SCR with the report’s findings. Bavcic was told the SCR’s decision at a meeting yesterday afternoon.

As well as being under the management of the college, the bar will now be moved to the room occupied by the JCR, which is above ground in the Holywell quad. The new bar will house a coffee shop for use during the day. The cellar which housed the bar, described by one Hertford second year as “a brightly painted cellar with dry rot and one subterranean window”, will be converted to a JCR. Work is expected to take place over the Long Vacation.

There is uncertainty as to why college authorities have taken the decision, and students have as yet received no official communication from the SCR regarding either a decision or reasons for it.

However, there are suspicions among some Hertford students that last term’s Penguin fiasco – where several members of a drinking soceity were rusticated – may have played a part in the SCR passing the motion.

The decision making process has received harsh criticism from many members of the JCR.
JCR Treasurer, Alex Whitehead, expressed anger at the lack of JCR involvement in the decision-making process. The motion to privatise the bar was put in a section of the meeting named “Reserved Business”, a space normally used for sensitive issues, and one from which students are barred from taking part.

Whitehead said “It has been clear for some time that members of the SCR are militantly against the bar existing in its current form and what might be perceived as the ‘drinking culture’ of Hertford.
“They perceive a negative link between the social side of the college and academic results. Yet this is clearly wrong. Hertford is in the top half of the Norrington table; it manages to balance the academic and social sides very well.”

Over the past few terms Hertford has seen a rise in rent costs, and a scaling back of annual Freshers’ Week activities.

Others are angry about the way senior authorities have conducted themselves. Anaar Patel, the JCR Secretary, said that “by putting the motion in the Reserved Business section of the meeting, the JCR was actively excluded from a debate that affects all of its members.”

The Hertford bar is well-loved at the college. Whitehead commented that students “did not want bar to be privatised for ideological reasons. The bar and its student-run aspect personify Hertford – it is friendly and welcoming, open and cheap.”

Now that the motion has passed, some students are even considering leaving the college in protest.

“The bar was the reason I chose to go to Hertford” said Second Year PPEist Celia Carr. “Now there is nothing keeping me here.

“I am going to apply to move to Balliol where there is a better bar. At least ten people are also planning to do so,” she said.

Yet some are not so dismissive of the proposals. Hannah Pollard, a Second Year commented, “We shouldn’t dismiss it without considering the plans, though I’m not happy with the way the decision process was carried out without the consultation of the JCR. It was all done on the quiet.”

When contacted by a Cherwell reporter, the Dean of Hertford hung up the phone. The Principal was also not available for comment.

A report leaked to Cherwell this week revealed doubts over claims for travel expenses made by Brasenose Principal Professor Roger Cashmore and his wife.

A college finance committee addressed travel expenses incurred over the past five years by the Principal, his wife, and the previous Director of Development, Mrs Robin Sharp.

The report is a summary of a dossier where much of the correspondence is marked “Confidential” or “Strictly confidential”.

The Sub-Committee include details of several travel expenses claimed by the Principal which were thought to warrant closer scrutiny.

Of a trip to Pakistan in November 2005, which was “funded mainly by the college”, the report raises “serious doubts” as to whether this trip was in fact made on College business.

The Principal attended three Brasenose receptions in Pakistan, and the report states that “circumstances point in the direction” that the main purpose of the trip was conference attendance.

But costs had already been reimbursed by the conference organisers. The report claims that the Principal “tagged on some college business” in order to use enhanced rates, at a cost of nearly £1700 to the college.

The report also notes “the high cost of the ticket” for the Principal’s journey to the North American Reunion in April 2004 and a lack of clarity over “who authorised [the] expenses” for his travel.

It states that “no authorisation seems to have been given” for a trip to North America in 2007 and a “Visit to Greece” in 2008, where in both cases the Principal flew business class and costs were met by the college.
According to the report, the College paid for transport by taxi to and from Heathrow airport on at least two occasions, despite the fact that the University rules state that this may only be done in exceptional circumstances. The report says, “No justification for the existence of such circumstances has been given”.

In addition to these allegations against the Principal, the report also claims misuse of travel expenses on the part of the Principal’s wife.

College policy of reimbursement of travel expenses explicitly refers to “members of College” or “college employees obliged to travel during their duties”.
However, the report reveals that prior to July 2008, the College “routinely met the travel expenses of the Principal’s wife” even though “such expenditure had never been expressly authorised”.

In one case, authorisation was expressly denied but the trip in question still went ahead.

The Committee did not authorise reimbursement for a trip to the United States in September 2009, on the basis that it was contrary to College guidelines. Despite this ruling, the report reveals that the Principal’s wife travelled to the United States in September 2009, and the college paid for this.

The Principal justified the reimbursement of his wife’s travel expenses on the grounds that his wife is a “very active member of the College” as she provides a “focal point for the women students” and arranges “receptions, dinner and drinks” for students, fellows and alumni.
The report understands that the Bursar “tacitly agreed” with the College meeting the Principal’s wife’s travel expenses.

The report concluded that it was “impossible” to be confident that University rules regarding travel expenses were adhered to. However, the Principal said that “[a]ll of the travel that I and my wife have been involved in has always conformed to [the University’s] rules”.
Both the Bursar and the Principal of Brasenose were approached by Cherwell but were unavailable for comment. The Principal was away.