‘Big Trouble in Thailand’ Creator Admits J.J. Gun Scene Audio ‘Faked’; Claims Editors Regularly Bending Truth

Six weeks after the first episode of ‒Big Trouble in Thailand” set off a firestorm around Thailand’s jet-ski rental industry, the show’s creator has finally admitted that a scene during the televised scam of British Marines by a jet-ski vendor nicknamed ‒J.J.” was fabricated.

‒In the program that was broadcast, the audio over the scene where J.J. produces a gun is different to the audio on the raw footage from that day,” said Gavin Hill, who produced and directed the eight (now) six (uh, now) seven eight-part mini-series. ‒When it comes to that particular scene the audio was, in my opinion, faked.”

Without his knowledge, Hill said, video editors at Vera Productions, which completed work on the series for the Bravo cable channel in the U.K., replaced the mundane conversation that ensued after J.J., whose real name is Winai Naiman, produced the gun with the sounds of a scuffle between the vendor and one of the marines minutes earlier.
Big Trouble in Thailand creator Gavin Hill

Big Trouble in Thailand creator Gavin Hill

‒The audible reaction of the marines to J.J. with the gun is not genuine,” Hill said.

The audio swap is just one of many liberties with the truth Hill claims Vera has taken with a series that has enraged Thai officials and he’s taken to the Web to make his case that it’s not only not his fault, but that it was not his intent. On Internet message boards, blogs and in e-mail he is complaining far and wide that Vera broke earlier agreements, has froze him out of the editing and now is now threatening a lawsuit to silence him.

‒The gloves are off,” he said in an e-mail earlier this week that eerily echoes the point in a post here last month that ‒video editors are evil.”

‒The edit taking place in London has been described (publicly) as ‘overly creative,’ and that’s by the executive producer,” Hill said. ‒It’s coming down to bashing the shows out as quickly as possible and we’re seeing the result.”

‘Creative Editing’

Among the many ‒creative” changes to the truth were falsely implying a woman who fell off her hotel

balcony was raped, intentionally mislabeling Pattaya’s foreign tourist police assistants are regular officers, showing nude dancing inside a Pattaya go-go bar despite a written agreement not to and ‒racist blurring,” or blurring the faces of foreigners who didn’t sign a release form but not Thais.

‒You’d have thought after the BBC/RDF ‒Queengate” affair that production companies and broadcasters would have cleaned up their act,” Hill said, adding he plans to lodge a complaint with Ofcom, the U.K.’s communications regulatory body. ‒I’m not sure if I will be the first producer to complain about his own TV series.”

With some of what’s been shown in the first five

episodes, Hill may have grounds for his complaint. Ofcom’s rules on ‒Harm and Offense” state that ‒factual programmes or items or portrayal of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience” and that ‒that views and facts must not be misrepresented.”

Hill said even the series’ opening monologue stating that 288 Britons were ‒killed’in Thailand last year break those rules. So does purposefully giving police volunteers the wrong title, as was done in Episode 5 with Pattaya Foreign Tourist Police Assistant Howard Miller.

In an Aug. 18 e-mail to Carrie Fletcher, head of production at Vera, Hill reiterated that Miller and other foreigners were only volunteers, not full police, and urged Vera to label them truthfully. Fletcher’s reply, the same day, vowed the company would.

‒The Thais are being slightly pedantic about misrepresenting the Brits as being actual ‘police,’ but if that is what they want then we are not in a position to argue if it might cause repercussions,” she said.

But with Hill now frozen out of the editing discussion, BTIT Executive Producer Dean Palmer changed it back the way he originally wanted.

Implied Rape

It’s a small point that even Hill admits Ofcom won’t really care much about. But they might be more interested in Episode 5’s story about a drunken Full Moon Party-goer supposedly raped after falling off her balcony when, in fact, she wasn’t.

As the woman is being transported to the hospital, the show cuts to Tourist Police Volunteer Louise Rawlings telling about another drunk woman who was, in fact, raped in her hotel after a Full Moon Party – a year beforehand. The original edit of the show, Hill said, made it impossible to know who Rawlings was talking about.

‒I was asked to sign off on Vera Productions’ attempt to fabricate a storyline. There was no suggestion whatsoever she’d been raped on the raw material (of which I have copies) sent back to Vera for editing,” Hill said. ‒Vera then go further by editing in an interview I conducted with Louise who talks about an Australian who was raped, although the rapist was convicted and sentenced to ten years.”

‒I was horrified and protested,” he added. ‒As a result, they were forced to abort this attempt at falsification but still manage to get the facts wrong about the Australian girl not pressing charges. She did, helped by her father, and the man got ten years.”

For its part, Vera and Virgin Media are withholding comment on Hill’s claims. But even some media professionals who know Hill think he may be blowing the seriousness of what is, in the end, a very minor television show, way out of proportion and that the changes are not really that substantive.

“Yes, he is in dispute with the production company and I don’t think he should have let it get that far to be honest,” one colleage involved in some of the Thailand shooting said in an e-mail this week. “Even though they did screw around with the edit there were no serious breaches which would lead a viewer to the wrong conclusion.”

‒This kind of thing goes on all the time,” former BBC sound editor and Thailand blogger Richard Barrow wrote on his Paknan Web Forum. ‒I agree it is not good to dramatize something that could lead to an arrest. But then, at the same time, the Thai police shouldn’t have jumped the gun to arrest J.J. without checking the evidence.”

For Hill, however, it’s a matter of integrity, particularly when in cases, such as he did with Shane Wheatley, the former owner of New Living Dolls One, he promised that, if he were allowed to film dancers in the Walking Street go-go that no nudity would be televised, as it was in Episode 5. (See the 6:44 mark in the video below.)

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3Omd883rU0

As I speculated earlier, the women shown have found out they were on the Boob Tube and are not pleased.

It’s also why Hill is making well known that someoneuploaded the raw, uncut video of the gun scene involving jet-ski vendor Winai to YouTube. While Vera reportedly is threatening copyright and breach of contract lawsuits, it arguably gives Winai legal grounds for not only exoneration, but a criminal libel and defamation case against Vera.

‒Vera doesn’t like the release of any footage which shows how they doctored sound which contributed to a man’s arrest and imprisonment,” Hill said. ‒Now, whoever uploaded that video to You Tube did so in the public interest because I would imagine who ever did believes in professionalism, balance and fairness; and that factual entertainment shouldn’t be at the expense of factual accuracy. I would imagine they also believe that their credibility and that of the series is compromised by factual inaccuracy, attempts at fabrication, misleading information and the unnecessary dramatization of very real events.”

52 thoughts on “‘Big Trouble in Thailand’ Creator Admits J.J. Gun Scene Audio ‘Faked’; Claims Editors Regularly Bending Truth

  1. So the audio was faked but why was there a gun? Was a crime committed by JJ or not? The show is obviously sensationalized but anyone should be able to recognize that. It’s entertainment with a grain of truth. Calm down everyone.

  2. Lets not stray from the main point.
    Those jet ski operators are corrupt to the core and make deals with corrupt police.
    This is no way to run a tourists industry.
    You think the Thais would be outraged at the scammers but yet again, blame the filmmakers for giving Thailand a bad image.

  3. Congratulations on the 100th post. Yours are always a great read.

    Bravo is a very sensationalist TV station – I’m sure Hill knew who he was getting into bed with. This all sound like a lot of smoke to protect his life here rather than his professional reputation.

  4. Thanks Poodle, I did mean for #100 to be a multi-topic post where I might note this little milestone, but oh well.

    In truth, it’s not the 100th. I wrote 175 for my own blog and here before then, when I moved my old content to this website I deleted about half the old stories, as they didn’t really hold up over time.

  5. I have every sympathy for Gavin Hill. I was the principal investigator in a programme called rather naffly ‘The Sex Slave Trade’ for LWT/ITV a few years ago. We actually managed to infiltrate one of the biggest syndicates. The producers breached promises when they went to edit. They identified under-aged girls who were being trafficked, I believe on the assumption because they were only Thai. A complaint went to the Broadcastin Standards Commission and was upheld. The problem about disputes like this is that by continually hammering on about it Gavin is probably inadvertently discrediting some of the excellent work that he did. As he readily admits the jet-ski situation was a threatening situation.

  6. The scene was not ‘fabricated’ by the way. It was enhanced for extra dramatic affect which clearly they did not need to do. They edited out a scene where a Marine had a go at JJ and they did not translate comments from JJ in southern Thai dialect (according to Steve Cleary’s blog) ‘Motherfuckers are not (going to ) mess with me’ and referring to the Marines as ‘mun’.

  7. “…the audio over the scene where J.J. produces a gun is different to the audio on the raw footage…”
    — Gavin Hill

    So it’s a simulation: they substituted the real for a studio-produced audio track.
    According to Hill, the audio track no longer represent or refer to what actually happened.
    As if any audio signs could be substituted for any other!
    We are left speechless. We can only gape in fascination. It was all a trick, a simulation.
    But… there is maybe another way of hearing it.

    The view held by Hill here is that this is ‘fake’ coze it’s an artificially metamorphosed copy of the original audio track whose relation to what actually happened has become so artificially changed that it can no longer properly be said to be a reliable audio track. It stands on its own as a kind of copy without a model.
    But this conception is inadequate : this ‘fake’ track is less a altered copy than a phenomenon of a different nature altogether. The ‘fake’ audio track bears only an external and deceptive resemblance to a putative scene. The process of its production, its inner dynamism, is entirely different from that of its supposed original scene; its resemblance to it is merely a surface effect, an illusion.

    An ‘authentic’ track is made in order to stand in for the original scene. But what we have here has a different agenda, it enters different circuits: it is a multiplied, stylized audio track with a life of its own. The thrust of the process is not to become an equivalent of the original scene but to turn against it and its world in order to open a new space for the track’s own mad proliferation.

    —> The best weapon against this is not to unmask it as a false copy, but to force it to be a true copy, thereby resubmitting it to representation and the mastery of the “raw footage”: to introduce a new version…

    I mean, the so-called ‘fake’ track does not replace some kind of reality… : it appropriates reality in the operation of despotic editing, it produces reality on the new full track that replaces another one. It is an effective illusion because it is reinjected into the ‘raw footage’ reality and sets to work. Both authentic and fake tracks are in fact the products of the same fabulatory process, the final goal of which is the creation of a cinematic scene.

    The model and the copy, the authentic and the fake tracks, should be treated both as second-order productions–cause the bodies and things that are taken up by this fabulatory process are themselves the result of prior, staged simulation.

  8. There’s a hell of a lot of protesting and complaining over a piece of trash TV, it makes me wonder is something else going on.
    I only watch it to see the places I have already being too; the trailers are better than the show itself, it’s quite a mediocre show and if they had to fake audio, it must have being real crap beforehard.

    I laughed so hard at JJ though, a wannabe hardman-lol

  9. “Nobody involved in the making of Big Trouble In Thailand was out to do Thailand down – we just tried to make the best programmes we could taking into account the genre and the type of viewer who tunes into Bravo in the UK. There were no sinister ulterior motives. Just lots of irresistible content.”

    — I wonder who said that above quote. The best line is..

    “There were no sinister ulterior motives. Just lots of irresistible content.”

    Reword it to:

    “Sure, there was sinister motives. Who really gives a shit. To be honest, we didn’t have a story line or structure going into this documentary in the first place!! We just whipped out some cameras, tripods an’ thought with all this juicy footage will let the editors and (producers back in the office) fabricate a story. While they’re doing that we’ll be hanging out at the Windmill!!”

  10. I can’t think there’s an awful lof of protest coming from the go-go bar while girls are showing so to speak, particular as you have put the film link up on your own site and have named the girls!
    Then of course if it really was the ‘Living Dolls’ this place is no stranger to film makers seeking some gratuitous sex stuff including interviews with the manager at the time, extolling the placs virtues. 🙂
    Sauce for goose here I think

  11. Even if you removed the audio completely from the JJ scene it is obvious from the action what is going on —especially his threat with a rifle —-it is unbelievable to me that falangs on here are taking any kind of position that defends these Thai scum —–so what if the audio was changed slightly for dramatic effect—the facts remain the same —as we all know these jet ski scammers have robbed tens of millions of baht from tourists every year for a long time now and the Thai authorities and police have been complicit with this—anybody going to say i am wrong???—deafening silence i think.

  12. Canadian Boy: The whole thing about ‘reality television’ is that by its nature I cannot have a script (until all the film is in). So the makers have to go with what they get over the period of time they have budgeted for the film. I sort of thought that was obious. They can only plan certain things like interviews with people in jail, authorities etc

  13. On Living Dolls, the owner at the time isn’t upset, as he sold out Aug. 1. But the girls are not pleased. One mentioned to me the other night she got an SMS from a customer in the UK who saw her.

  14. Andrew i hear what your saying… and I understand the BS filmmakers such as dir, writers and the onset producers go through with management back in the offices who like to have ‘creative control’ over the final cut.

    When all is said and done… everything you film with your heart an’ soul gets raped by the suits, who don’t have a clue what they are doing. All they know what to do is get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, crunch the numbers and compute the what the average bloke wants — from there they structure out a story line.

    But was this a reality show… or was it a documentary?? Where is the line?

  15. Andrew, no offense but Hill defended the very scene he is now denouncing:

    http://www.bigmangobar.com/main/2009/09/11/from-the-producerdirector-of-big-trouble-in-thailand/

    He said the scene was not faked nor staged. Now, you and I may differ in opinion here but if he knew the audio was not the real audio wouldn’t that have been the time to say so?

    If the audio edit was so benign as to not warrant mention on Sept 11, why then a month later is the same scene such an egregious deviation from what happened that he now uses the phrase “not genuine”?

    And isn’t “not genuine” just another way of saying fake which is specifically what he said that scene was not back only a month ago?

  16. Well Billy that is exactly the trouble we are talking about and which has dogged this whole episode throughout where internet pundits have been involved. And that is the interpretation of what people are saying and how and when they said it.
    The scene was NOT staged or faked as shot in Thailand. Gavin has repeatedly stated this. And he has repeatedly said, along with Sergeant Tim Wright, that the episode was threatening.
    That is quite obvious to me.
    There were no scripts. There were no actors. Everything happened as recorded on film without any direction.
    (You have to remember that all sorts of people were saying this was scripted and that the gun scene came from somewhere else completely).
    What was manipulated was the sound track (and to a certain extent footage) to dramatise the scene into something different. That is down to the chumps in London.
    As soon as he saw the edit and heard the track Gavin went ape-shit and that was over a month ago the week the episode was broadcast!
    The story here about the edit change is actually quite old and has been on the internet for a long time. Although his complaints may be appearing here for the first time he made them a long time ago and he has been consisent.
    Gavin Hill was all the more furious because they had material which they did not use which would have shown quite genuinely how tense the stand off was.
    Actually moving actuality and sounds from one point to another is very common practice. Everyone does it including the BBC.
    And to be honest this long list of complaints that Gavin has in a programme like this does not at the end of the day add up to much of a scandal in tv terms.
    When shooting with only one camera you actually cannot cut a film unless you move the sound and bring in stuff shot earlier or later without it looking like a very bad home movie. Think about it.
    So I can say with confidence that the scene was not faked or staged and so can Gavin. The end result however was tweaked.
    Just how serious one thinks the tweaking was is a matter of opinion which I guess will be decided by Ofcom

  17. Canadian Boy: I think both Gavin and I would agree with you on this. You pose the very question which Gavin does. Reality TV makers should be reminded of the word ‘integrity’. Its a mucky business. The broadcaster can impose conditions, the production company imposes conditions, the editor may never have been to Thailand, the associate producer is in almost all liklihood a dogsbody, and some of the people making the calls are just out of school and very ambitious.
    This series is primarily entertainment, one day someone will make a bad call and some one will commit suicide or such. Its a little bit scary.

  18. Billy Bangkok – I defended what took place in JJ’s repair yard. I did not stage that scene, as alleged at the time by the Thai authorities and Thai Channel 3. Two different things here easily confused – what actually took place to which I was an eyewitness in person, on the ground, along with Royal Marines policeman Tim Wright, our Thai fixer and others. And what was done/presented in the broadcast programme by Vera productions. To be honest, the audio editing sleight of hand even fooled me to begin with, and I was actually there. But as soon as I discovered the fake sound edit, by comparing tapes of the footage – copies of which I had retained – I started to make known what had happened. I have been alluding to the deception by Vera Productions for weeks now (see Talen’s Thailandlandofsmiles blog), but threatened with being sued for breach of copyright by Vera I had no means of proving the sound was faked. Now, the truth is out. Vera productions moved swiftly yesterday to block a You Tube video of their attempt at fabricating a rape storyline at the Full Moon Party – this has become the video they don’t want you to see. The video was released and shut down within a day – in the name of a copyright claim by Vera Productions. Yet, curiously, they, nor Virgin Media, have done nothing to prevent entire programmes being uploaded to You Tube and available for viewing for some six weeks now. Why is that?
    BTIT-gate!!

  19. Canadian boy: As for the tweaking, Gavin considers it very serious. I guess I would too. But I’m a bit long in the tooth and have seen this time and time again in television which traditionally in the UK at least claimed the moral high ground over newspapers.

  20. Pet peeve: “Queengate” mentioned in the article. “BTIT-gate” by Gavin, above.

    If the Watergate scandal broke today, would it be referred to as “Watergategate”? Seriously…

  21. Gavin,

    First off, your response on this blog was not to Thai officials or Thai Ch 3. You almost exclusively were responding to comments being made here and elsewhere on the internet. At that point only JJ was claiming he was set up.

    And if the edit is so subtle it escaped you and you were actually there then it really doesn’t sound as if it materially changed anything. And how did you confuse mundane conversation with a scuffle? Are Vera’s editors that good that they convinced you that a scuffle broke out even though you were there and witnessed no scuffle?

    It sounds to me like you’ve figured out how big of a hornets nest you’ve stirred up in Thailand and now you’re pointing the finger at Vera for ever minor inaccuracy hoping the Thais will see you as a victim in this too.

    Billy

  22. Andrew says:

    As soon as he saw the edit and heard the track Gavin went ape-shit and that was over a month ago the week the episode was broadcast!

    Gavin says:

    To be honest, the audio editing sleight of hand even fooled me to begin with, and I was actually there. But as soon as I discovered the fake sound edit, by comparing tapes of the footage – copies of which I had retained – I started to make known what had happened.

    @Gavin: It really must be bad when you refer me to a blog where the guy calls you a liar and says you lack credibility.

    You have made inaccurate statements about the scene being a rolling scene with no cuts and I think you are trying to cover your ass and that’s why we won’t see the raw footage. Simply, I don’t think you are credible.

    http://thailandlandofsmiles.com/2009/10/07/gavin-hill-tim-wright-respond-big-trouble/

  23. Hi BB –
    I’m just telling you the sound was faked – that’s all. It’s an indisputable fact. My response on this blog was in response to/prompted by the allegations made by the Thai authorities and Thai Channel 3.
    I was in Thailand at the time and saw the final, fully-edited programme for the first time on You Tube. Yes, I view it like most people – on You Tube. Read into my motives what you may, but threatened by severe legal ramifications I was as vocal as I could possibly be about this from the outset – the trail is there if you look. I’m simply stating a fact you would imagine the creator, producer, director and cameraman of the series might want to hide – that the sound on his ‘baby’ was faked. Again you’re getting confused. There was a scuffle, between JJ and a Marine which I witnessed and filmed, has been made available on You Tube in uncut form for weeks and wasn’t (but should’ve been) edited into the broadcast programme, though that was someone else’s prerogative – not mine.
    I don’t think I’ve stirred up any hornets nest – unless you know different? I haven’t heard any complaints from the Thai authorities for weeks. If anything it’s the ex-pat community which I’ve exercised, but only moderately. And Vera Productions’ falsifying of sound which may have contributed to a man’s arrest and jailing is not a minor inaccuracy, as well as breaching UK broadcasting rules. I could’ve have stayed silent about this but I haven’t.
    And also because (Andrew :-)) I’ve nothing better to do while getting my next blockbusting TV series about Thailand off the ground 🙂
    Thank you for your continuing interest BB.

  24. Billy I suggest you read all the posts on thailandlandofsmiles first then get back to Gavin if you still have a problem.
    Or of course you can go to Talen’s comments at the end of my blog. Otherwise this is going to be endless repetition.
    🙂

  25. Andrew,

    Reading through the Ofcom PDF in Section Five:
    “Due Impartiality and Due Accuracy and
    Undue Prominence of Views and Opinions”

    It states:

    5.7 Views and facts must not be misrepresented. Views must also be presented with due weight over appropriate timeframes.

    Are you not able in your contract to now hold Vera or the boneheads back in the U.K liable for misleading/ tweaking your footage since your names are being splashed every where? I know where I’m from there is protection for the filmmakers if lets say, ‘shit hits the fan.’

    “Appropriate timeframes”… Shouldn’t have the situation with JJ been investigated with (don’t laugh. I know this is Thailand) due process before everything went to air?

    Section Seven

    This section and the following section on privacy are different from other sections of the Code. They apply to how broadcasters treat the individuals or organisations directly affected by programmes, rather than to what the general public sees and/or
    hears as viewers and listeners. As well as containing a principle and a rule this section contains “practices to be
    followed” by broadcasters when dealing with individuals or organisations participating in or otherwise directly affected by programmes as broadcast. Following these practices will not necessarily avoid a breach of this section of the code (Rule 7.1).

    However, failure to follow these practises will only constitute a breach where it results in unfairness to an individual or organisation in the programme. Importantly, the Code does not and cannot seek to set out all the “practices to be followed” in order to avoid unfair treatment.

    The last paragraph is a great loophole if i must say. Its even placed in italics in the PDF. lol

    • the meaning of surreptitious filming or recording that appears under “practices to be followed” 8.13 in Section Eight: Privacy.

    Taking these measures is likely to result in the consent that is given being ‘informed consent’ (referred to in this section and the rest of the Code as “consent”). It may be fair to withhold all or some of this information where it is justified in the public interest or under other provisions of this section of the Code.

    C’mon are you serious… Its not in the ‘public interest’ to tell them that there was a wee’ bit of manipulation.

    Lets be honest… the whole Ofcom thing really is a joke. Just reading through it made me chuckle. If PG went through this he’d have a laugh or anyone else.

    aside from that I was reading the Thailandlandofsmiles blog.

    And the quote Gavin made:

    “The biggest problem I had was the missing raw footage of JJ holding the British Royal Marines at Gunpoint. I have asked for the release of this footage 6 times. Gavin Hill stated twice he would release this footage but failed to do so leading me to believe that the gun incident was spliced in for dramatic effect and didn’t happen as portrayed.”

    — didn’t you guys keep a master/ of the dailies for yourselves? I mean Zapruder kept a copy for himself. Just joking…

    Also, when shooting on location didn’t you also record sound to camera as a backup?

    Sorry, for the ramblin’ i just find this shit interesting since I’m in the same field.

    What is GH’s new show on Thailand going to be about?

  26. Stephen – Give Vera Productions a break. If you’d faked the sound on a programme viewed by hundreds of thousands of people worldwide and which led to the arrest and imprisonment of a man, and the inevitable conclusion that your supposedly upstanding and respected company is given to making stuff up, what would you do – leave it up there for all to see or cover it up? Begs the question why Vera Productions didn’t move quite so smartly to block the entire BTIT episodes which have been available on You Tube for some six weeks now. The Thai saying Som Nam Naa comes to mind. Vera Productions has dished it out to corporations like Coca Cola, see here – http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/dispatches/mark+thomas+on+cocacola/1068847 – and the UK government http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ptzml1qQvZE but doesn’t seem to like it when the boot’s on the other foot.

  27. @Gavin / @Andrew:

    Guys, what you’re saying and the facts don’t match. On 9/11 Gavin made a post in which the ONLY reference to backlash from the Thai gov was in mentioning he hoped JJ had not been arrested solely based on the program. Today he now says “My response on this blog was in response to/prompted by the allegations made by the Thai authorities and Thai Channel 3.”

    I’m not even aware of allegations being publicly aired by that date. Nor did the post even mention these allegations nor does “Thai Channel 3” even appear.

    http://www.bigmangobar.com/main/2009/09/11/from-the-producerdirector-of-big-trouble-in-thailand/

    Then you made a “tactical withdrawal” from Thailand when the story erupted in the Thai press but came on this site on 9/22 and claimed that you were very optimistic after seeing all six episodes that you would be allowed to film a season 2.

    This is supposedly while you are outraged at Vera for their editing and audio fakery.

    Unlike Talen I really don’t care where the cuts where or who felt threatened. I just know that there are way too many inconsistencies in your version of the story as it has developed.

    The bottom line is either:

    A) The Vera edit of the JJ scene was rather trivial and ordinary for rolling footage edits as one of your own colleagues suggests which means you’re simply making out of a molehill presumably for your own interests.

    or

    B) Materially misrepresented what actually happened which means your post on 9/11 was not honest because you defended the footage without disclosing it was inaccurate.

  28. Actually I was the one who first put to Gavin allegations being made by Channel 3 and JJ – and that what was what he was defending at the time – not the sound bite. Gavin has never changed his view on the sound bit since discovering it.

    And (2) As I have stated the sum total of Gavin’s complaints may well be justified but also is in many people’s views ‘a mountain out of a molehill.

    I am behind Gavin because, no matter the content, sharp edits, style, awful voice-over, bad pronunciations etc, he successfully got on film, two of the nastiest and most profitable scams being operated against tourists in Thailand and when all is said and done these people were exposed for what they really are.

    The ongoing row is one for Vera Productions and Gavin to sort out.

    As a programme in the genre that it was ie ‘chav TV’ it was not that bad and has provided us expats with some enertainment.

    I waited for the stuff to appear on Youtube every week and so did a lot of people judging by local forums even though we all cringed at times.

  29. CB – re: technical stuff … yes – we retained copies of all the raw footage. The series was shot on Sony Z5 and Z7 cameras/single cam op (as seen in my pic above) – so pictures/sound were recorded together on the same tape – either using the top mic of the camera or radio mics. We didn’t shoot any wildtracks. All sound and picture was recorded to Sony DVCAM camera tape. Next project? Not sure … got any ideas? 🙂

  30. Your’e an absolute tart Gavin. 🙂 You say yes to everything without checking them out. Chances are these guys will get nicked before you do:-) I think you have to write one of those trip report thingy’s first.

  31. PS: But Jerry likes the place and AC and I have been there! Its got the air of being the first five steps to Nana Plaza.
    By 6th the step your pissed, but the girls are desperate by that time anyway. You should have done Soi 4 for Brits but they may not have been in the 18-34 demographic 🙂

  32. Andrew – appears BB misled me 🙂 … I thought it was some black tie affair. I’m really confused now – but the do must be high falutin’ if, as Billy seems to suggest, the Thai authorities are working the door.

  33. The video was as truth to real life in Thailand except I didn’t know the police were in the JJ scene so they did over dramatize but nevertheless entertained and put the crook in jail a few days. Andrew made many fine points at the end I would agree also that too much a big deal made and sounds like Vera deserves a break but that’s up to Gavin.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *