telling

LEWIS Capaldi was forced to halt one of his performances in the US, exclaiming he didn’t know “what the f*** just happened.”

The popular singer, 29, is currently on his Survive Tour after taking some time away from the spotlight to prioritise his mental and physical health.

But during his gig at Red Rocks Park and Amphitheatre he encountered a major technical issue, leaving him unable to sing.

Lewis giggled next to the mic, sharing with the crowd: “Something has happened. Usually I’d be singing by now.

“Something technological has gone wrong. I’m not sure what the f***s happened.”

He then joked: “This feels like… erectile dysfunction in a way,” before checking in with his team to see if the error had been fixed.

COOL NAME

Pupils rename gritter after Lewis Capaldi – can you guess what they called it?

BIFF RIFF

Inside Rolling Stone awards with Lewis Capaldi cameo & Biffy Clyro’s shock move

After learning it hadn’t, Lewis continued to entertain the crowd, saying: “Right, we’re not back. Hi.”

Fans of the musician found the moment hilarious and loved the way he chose to handle it – both with humour and then by deciding to go ahead with an acoustic performance while the tech issue was fixed.

One user on Instagram said: “Who needs all the technology with a voice like that?!?”

A second shared: “It was a once in a lifetime experience and we were very excited to be part of the “technical issue”.

A third added: “Well no one can claim he can’t sing live.”

Lewis’ tour shares the same name as his latest EP release which came out last year.

The new music followed him taking a two-year hiatus from the industry, after his anxiety and Tourette’s syndrome symptoms increased.

After Lewis finishes up his shows in America, he’s due to perform in Vancouver before heading over to the UK.

His first UK tour date is on June 19, taking place at the Isle Of Wight Festival.

Coronation Street couple David and Shona Platt could be about to split up after some worrying scenes aired during Friday night’s episode of the world’s longest-running TV soap

Coronation Street’s David and Shona Platt could be about to split up after worrying scenes aired on Friday night. The couple have been together since 2016 and met after it emerged that Shona was the mother of Clayton Hibbs, who murdered David’s first wife Kylie in broad daylight.

David (Jack P Shepherd) and Shona (Julia Goulding) tied the knot in 2019 and whilst the marriage has so far survived numerous ups and downs but their troubles really seem to have started since the mysterious and calculating Jodie Ramsey (Olivia Frances Brown) turned up earlier this year.

Having arrived in the soap’s crossover with Emmerdale, Shona immediately recognised Jodie as her long-lost sister, whom she had never mentioned before, and after moving into number eight, Jodie has insisted on meddling in their lives whilst posing as some sort of saint who takes care of household duties. This suited David and Shona nicely they went back and forth to the hospital to see their daughter Harper, who is currently in the neonatal intensive care unit after being born prematurely.

READ MORE: Suranne Jones dumbfounded as fan asks if she ‘quit acting’ after Coronation Street

OPINION

Over the last few months, Jodie has made a habit out of stealing various items that belong to other Weatherfield residents, and, earlier this week, she stole a tablet from a little girl by claiming she was a police officer. On Friday’s instalment of the world’s longest-running TV soap, Jodie decided to hand the stolen tablet over to her niece Lily and pass it off as a gift, much to Shona’s dismay.

Shona told her stepdaughter that she was not to accept the tablet, and the schoolgirl stormed off upstairs in the huff. Later that day, the conflict was clearly not resolved as David reasoned: “Look, I don’t want the hassle, babe. Can we not just let her keep it?”

Shona shot back: “We agreed not before her birthday. And if we decided not to get her one, no-one should be giving her one.” A row broke out as David said: “Can we not just let her keep the thing and save the headache?”

Shona raged: “Oh, a headache, am I?” as she stormed off. All this time, Jodie had pretended to be flicking through a magazine as she sat on the sofa in the living room but was listening in and rolling her eyes every time her long-lost sister spoke.

When Jodie apologised to David, he said: “To be honest, I don’t… I don’t care any more. I mean, when you’ve been at the hospital all day, there’s bigger things to be worrying about than flipping tablets. It’s not your fault. It’s just Shona. She’s only ever happy if everyone else is miserable.”

Jodie said: “Hey, come on, that’s a bit harsh, isn’t it?” But, with a concerning reply, David said: “Harsh? Just you wait. You’ll see.” Fans have previously suggested that the storyline could follow a similar path Single White Female, the 1992 thriller that starred Jennifer Jason Leigh and Bridget Fonda and followed a woman whose roommate decides to steal her identity.

One said: “I am getting some single white female vibes, I won’t lie,” and another said: “Shona and Jodie. Remember the movie ‘Single White Female’? Jodie has copied Shonas hair.”

Another said: “I’m convinced Jodie is gonna try and steal Shona’s life, first her clothes, then her kids, then her fella!” There is definitely some mystery surrounding Jodie, as she was previously seen suffering from a panic attack after being harassed by an intrusive caller.

Coronation Street airs Monday to Friday at 8:30pm on ITV1 and is available to stream from 7am on ITV X.

* Follow Mirror Celebs and TV on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads

United States President Donald Trump is insistent that “productive” negotiations have taken place with Iran to end the war he launched with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu almost a month ago. The major problem with that narrative is that Iran’s top officials have repeatedly denied it.

Amid the fog of war and the propaganda being pushed by all sides, it is hard to know who to believe. But an analysis of what each side has to gain from any negotiations – and a potential end to the conflict – could bring more clarity.

Trump’s comments that there were “major points of agreement” after “very good” talks with an unnamed “top” Iranian figure came as stock markets opened in the US for the start of the trading week. The five-day deadline he gave for a positive response from Iran also happens to coincide with the end of the trading week.

Many have cynically noted that timing, especially as it comes after a two-week period in which oil prices have fluctuated in line with events in the Middle East, leading to a high of about $120 a barrel last week.

Trump’s talk of negotiations may also give time for more US troops to arrive in the Middle East, if Washington decides to conduct some form of ground invasion of Iranian territory.

Among those questioning Trump’s motives was the man believed by some to be the senior Iranian official Trump was referencing: the Iranian parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.

“No negotiations have been held with the US, and fakenews is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped,” Ghalibaf wrote on social media.

The impact on stock markets and oil prices is not just relevant to the US and Trump, but also to Iran. However, for Tehran, the benefit comes in the damage the war is doing to the US and global economies.

The Iranian state wants the US to feel economic pain from the war, as a means of deterrence for any future Israeli or US attack on Iran.

Therefore, as much as it is in the US interest to play up talk of negotiations in order to calm the markets, it is also in Iran’s interest to downplay any talk to do the exact opposite, and not give the Trump administration any breathing space.

US benefits?

Consequently, both sides have their own narratives on negotiations, and public comments will do little to inform us as to whether those negotiations are really taking place, or in what form they may be.

That instead leads us into what each side has to gain from negotiations, and an actual end to the war at the current stage.

Trump appears to have underestimated the consequences of the conflict that he launched with Netanyahu on February 28, and the ability of the Iranian state to withstand the attacks against it without collapsing.

“They weren’t supposed to go after all these other countries in the Middle East … Nobody expected that,” he said last week, adding that even “the greatest experts” didn’t believe that.

Leaving aside that experts – including US intelligence officials – had repeatedly made those warnings, reality has now made Trump aware of the consequences he had previously ignored.

While some allies and supporters may continue to push him to plough on with the conflict, Trump has previously shown himself amenable to cutting deals to extricate himself from difficult situations, and it is not far-fetched to see the benefits of doing so in this instance.

The US president has already ordered his government to issue temporary sanctions waivers on some Iranian oil, in an effort to calm oil prices. This is the first time Iran has lifted sanctions on any Iranian oil since 2019, and it will not be lost on Iran that the waivers have come as a result of their policy to expand the conflict to the wider Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway through which a fifth of the world’s oil and liquified natural gas transits.

The war was already unpopular in the US – and now even more so, as consumers see the impact on petrol prices and potentially other areas of the economy, all in the run-up to congressional elections later this year, in which Trump’s Republicans are likely to do poorly.

Trump, therefore, has the options of extending this war – and suffering the economic and political cost, or ending it – and facing the criticism that he was unable to finish what he termed as a “short-term excursion”.

The Iranian perspective

But whatever Trump wants to do, the decision is not totally in his hands. Iran, attacked for the second time in less than a year, now appears to have less of an incentive to end the war without the establishment of an effective deterrent to another in the future.

Gone are the days of the telegraphed attacks on US assets and the slow climb up the escalation ladder. From the outset of the current war, it was clear that Iran had changed its tactics and was not as interested in restraint.

It is now arguably in the Iranian state’s benefit to drag out the conflict and inflict more suffering on the region, if it wants to ensure its survival.

There may also be a belief that interceptor stocks in Israel are running low, allowing Iran to strike targets more effectively. The thinking – particularly among the hardliners who now appear to be in the ascendancy in Iran – will be that now is not the time to stop, and allow those interceptor stocks to replenish.

And yet, Iran is suffering. More than 1,500 people have been killed across the country, according to the government. Infrastructure has been heavily damaged, and the power grid could be next. Relations with Gulf neighbours have nosedived, and, after repeated Iranian attacks, are unlikely to return to their previous levels after the conflict.

More moderate voices in Iran will look at that and think that things could easily get worse. They can argue that some form of deterrence has been achieved, and that the time is now ripe to talk. And if they can get some concessions – such as a promise of no future attacks, or greater authority in the Strait of Hormuz – they may decide that the time is right to make a deal.