UK BASED TV STREAMING SERVICE TAKEN TO COURT

http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-itv-c4-five-jointly-file-in-court-against-tvcatchup-whos-next/

Having read the evidence there it seems one of the founders of TVCatchup is a particularly unsavoury character!

Mr Nicholas Parr aka Nick Parr aka Nick Parker aka Pyrogenica aka Salazar aka SlyckNick

He ran an illegal unlicensed residential care home and defrauded elderly people out of thousands of pounds and when he was caught out delayed and delayed making outrageous claims and finally tried to attempt to say the evidence was destroyed by fire. This could have been anyone’s grandmother this scumbag Nicholas Parr was ripping off, Nick Parr has no morals.

Margaret Rutherford QC said:

“The Appellants are not fit persons and their registration should be cancelled. Both Appellants have failed to maintain personal integrity, have failed to act in an honourable and truthful manner and have exploited the vulnerability of residents and their relatives/representatives.”

I noticed that Crossways, Manor Road, Seer Green, Buckinghamshire is the address used in the Care Tribunal report into Nick Parr for running unregistered residential care where the tribunal found he is not a fit person to be concerned in carrying on a residential care home
http://www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/Public/View.aspx?ID=758

Nicholas Parr
TV Catchup, Crossways, Manor Road, Seer Green, Beaconsfield, Bucks, HP9 2QU is also the address used on his attempt to register TVCatchup as a trademark
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/domestic?domesticnum=2467742

Without a doubt the same deplorable scumbag!

Actually if I were to guess, SlyckNick is the same person who posted on the Napster forum in 2000 and 2001 under the name of “napgirl” (”Sue”), who was an RIAA propagandist. I see a similarity in writing style.

That makes me wonder if for the last six years the same person has been working for the RIAA as a propagandist, and that would be pathetic. Or maybe the RIAA has hired the same propaganda firm with the same employees to get their message out on high traffic sites, and that explains the similarity in writing style.

It’s good that “Nick” has left the Slyck staff. “Nick” is a good candidate for post-partum abortion.

LOL Staff writer for “The Sun” UK.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006140654,00.html

Maybe he will advance to “The National Enquirer” or,
“Weekly World News” .

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006140654,00.html

Staff writer for a MOST reputable paper

Credibility won’t be much of an issue then.

Now that i’ve read this

“The operational difference referred to was an offer to join the staff of a large publisher, a paid position.”

I know for A FACT that Nick must be a lawyer because no-one else would be able to tell such a lie with such confidence without receiving proper legal training. Thanks for this link Nick:

http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=21321

I note that SlyckRay has no idea what you are doing in the future

“we have no idea what Nick’s future plans are, but we wish him the best in whatever they are. ”

SlyckRay is obviously a gentleman and you are a liar.

You’ve

/disengaged

from so many forum threads only to come back 2 minutes later, I doubt you really have

/disengaged

but if I was you, i’d

/disengage from the internet before you have nothing left to lie about

I think you`ll find the only reputation that`s been damaged here is yours, Nicholas.

Nobody has that much money.

What about sending a dollar for every time he uses words which he hopes no-one but him understands in a feeble attempt to elevate himself above what he perceives to be his intellectual inferiors?

If we can get Gates on the $1 bandwaggon – we can bankrupt him too, killing two birds with one stone

I will try not to abuse that priviledge, but answer those who responded.

1. The media giant for whom I am now employed is a conventional publication, nothing to do with the entertainment industry.

2. Not all posts here attributed to me were actually made by me.

I have said many times on record that there is nothing better I would like than to have my concerns proved wrong, and see Patti win this case. But at best, it would establish the right of a defendant to refuse to name those who were implicated in a civil wrong (filesharing). It would not amount to any filesharing precedent.

If, as I fear, she loses, then it simply establishes that a person cannot refuse to name others implicated through use of her computer and ISP.

There were almost $25k of costs before the withdrawal of her former lawyer, plus whatever Jordan Glass is charging. And then there are damages and the other side’s costs to pay. And, to top it all off, there will be a huge amount of anti-P2P publicity. You can be sure the RIAA will capitalise on that.

Thank you for the opportunity to put my view across. I will not be returning to this thread unless asked by yourself.

How can Slyck be responsible for someone who is no longer allowed to be part of the team there? Nick may still have the name SlyckNick but reading between the lines, he’s as welcome there as syphillis. I want to know why he got fired. But granted – he’s an annoying man and the internet will be better off without him

he now trolls slyck under various aliases in an attempt to push his agendas!! most ppl can see right through his sad attempts at drawing attemtion

theres also good evidence to support hes not actually a lawyer if you look hard enough!!

good luck jon

\\ Paul

“Ahh, yes. Nearly forgot that everyone who doesn’t stand on a soapbox and shout “f… the RIAA” must be working for them. ”

Almost always true.
Directly, or indirectly.

Thanks for the proof.

Translation ….

By feeding the corporate lie openly, I have been hired for a large
amount of pay by a company owned by one of the same corporate parents that control the balls I lick.

You’re welcome.

It has become a tendancy amongst some of your regulars to dismiss anyone who has the audacity to criticise this Santangelo issue as being a stooge of the RIAA.

Let me assure you right here and now that I have never drawn a penny in profit from P2P, filesharing, the RIAA/MPAA/BPI – or for that matter any other copyright enforcers. Not a penny in professional fees for representing people against them (which I have done), not a penny in fees from advertising, not a single bean for over a year of contributing to Slyck. I have no financial interests in doing what I do, whereas you have the incentive of drawing readers in and promoting your site, thus attracting advertising revenue (”tell your girl you love her: rent this space $15 a day”!). So who are you to accuse anyone of self interest?

Before you rubbish my contribution to P2P again, let me remind you that you have been happy enough in the past to reproduce more than a few of my articles on your site. And, to tell the truth, I have been perfectly happy for you to do so.

My “15 minutes of fame” have seen me catapaulted to writing for a prestigious and highly respected media giant. Now I am being paid for my spare time endeavours, albeit that they are far broader than the issue of P2P. The only cost to me of such a progression is that I dissociate myself from any official capacity in running forums such as these.

But that doesn’t mean that I will tolerate your personal hostility, any more than I tolerated Beckermans, as he recently found out to his cost.

I do not for one second believe that Mrs Santangelo’s predicament is particularly relevant to P2P. I believe it is more a matter of her stubborn and wilful refusal to identify people whom she admits were using her PC (and ISP) to share copyrighted files. I’m not saying that she is right or wrong in adopting this stance, merely that I can think of far more worthy causes to donate money to.

And just as you have the right to your opinion, then I surely have equal right to express my own.

This does not mean that I wish Patti Santangelo any ill, for I would be delighted if she were to win. I just don’t think that is a realistic expectation.

By all means carry on with your campaign, but at least present it honestly. It is not a battle for the rights of filesharers, it sets no precedents relevant to filesharing, it is merely to help pay someones legal bills. And by exploiting this as some huge filesharing issue, and given the probability of failure, it is you who are risking the bad publicity for filesharing that will result in the international media.

And the resultant public relations damage could be terminal for the issue of filesharing. Is that a price worth paying?

I won’t wish you to hell, as you have done to me, as I think you are already well on the road to that destination.

SlyckNick

Yes, you are, of course, correct.
It is pretty obvious that the vast majority of us DO see right
through the comments, to the smallness of the person behind them.

” As for me, I’ll continue supporting Patti Santangelo and others like her in every way I can ’till the cows come home. And people like Slyck Nick Parker can go to hell. ”

Amen.

Heh,
Send 1 dollar to the Santangelo fund for every nasty post.
If all the regulars do this, it will quickly negate a paid shills
effectiveness, AND send a message

Thank you for standing up against this RIAA bully.

Keep up your important work.

Best regards,

Ray