Emmerdale star Christopher Coghill, who plays villain Kev Barton, was once struck over the head with a handbag by a fan who was horrified at his on-screen behaviour
Emmerdale’s Kev actor Chris Coghill has opened up about his bizarre fan encounters(Image: ITV)
Soap star Christopher Coghill has discussed what happened during a bizarre fan encounter in Selfridges.
The actor, who portrays Kev Barton in ITV soap Emmerdale, describes his character as “a sympathetic psychopath, if you will”, adding he remains unfazed about being typecast as a villain following his stint playing paedophile Tony King in EastEnders in 2008.
He said: “You’ve got to give people a bit of credit. When I started in EastEnders, there were people who were like, ‘You know, there are people out there who really can’t tell the difference between what they see on telly and real life, and because of the character you’re playing, you’re going to get a lot of shit, and you might need police protection’.
“And then you go out, and people go, ‘Oh, you’re brilliant in EastEnders’, and that was kind of it. I did get hit over the head with a handbag in Selfridges, but apart from that..”
His Emmerdale colleague William Ash, who takes on the role of Caleb Miligan, said he’s encountered similar reactions, adding: “People are genuinely generally really nice. You don’t get any grief, really. I did have one woman at the at the petrol station going ‘oh, you’re right horrible to Moira’.”
The duo, who previously shared the screen in the 2003 drama Burn It and portrayed brothers in both the 2006 one-off comedy Magnolia and a 2016 episode of Moving On, find themselves embroiled in an Emmerdale storyline centred on an assault on Billy Fletcher (Jay Kontzle) at the depot.
Kev is responsible for the attack and Caleb possesses CCTV footage of the incident, but has been concealing it so he can pin the blame on his bitter rival, Joe Tate (Ned Porteous).
Coghill said of the footage: “I hold my hands up, it does look bad – I am bent over him with a crowbar and he’s in a pool of blood.”
Yet it might not prove to be the leverage that Caleb believes it to be.
Ash said: “I think [Caleb and wife Ruby, played by Beth Cordingly] just don’t know how to handle him, like most people in the village. It’s like he’s such a loose cannon. You just don’t know what you’re going to get from him.”
Coghill is equally insistent that he wants no further singing scenes for his character, following his on-screen serenade to estranged husband Robert (Ryan Hawley) with If You’re Not The One by Daniel Bedingfield, and his subsequent attempt to convey his emotions to long-lost son Lewis (Bradley Riches) through a rendition of Boyzone’s Father And Son.
Coghill said: “Do you know what, [producer] Laura Shaw did say to me the other week, do you want to do All I Want For Christmas Is You? And I said, if you keep me till Christmas 2029, I’ll do it then. That’s how my contract negotiations are going. But no, it’s excruciating. Horrible.
“If I could sing, I wouldn’t be an actor. If I could sing, I would have been in a band in the 1990s.”
Emmerdale airs weeknights at 8pm on ITV1 and STV, and is available to stream from 7am on ITVX, STV Player and YouTube.
It’s been nearly five years since Spider-Man’s last big-screen adventure, but your friendly neighborhood webslinger is finally back.
Directed by Destin Daniel Cretton, “Spider-Man: Brand New Day,” in theaters now, follows a Peter Parker (Tom Holland) who no longer has much of a life outside of his vigilante crime-fighting and keeping tabs on his loved ones (Zendaya, Jacob Batalon) from afar.
The movie’s biggest reveal involves the identity of the villain played by Sadie Sink — and plenty of questions remain about her future and what her appearance means for a certain fan-favorite mutant superhero team.
“Brand New Day” features just one brief end-credits sequence to tease what’s next for Spidey. Here’s how it connects to upcoming MCU installments “Avengers: Doomsday” and “Secret Wars.”
Ned (Jacob Batalon) created the Spidey Tracker app shown in “Spider-Man: Brand New Day.”
(Jay Maidment / Sony Pictures)
What happens in the ‘Spider-Man: Brand New Day’ post-credits scene?
The bonus footage shown after the full credits of “Spider-Man: Brand New Day” roll is more of a tease than a proper scene. The brief stinger involves the Spider-Man tracking app created by Ned, which allows users to log any sightings of the webslinger. The Spidey Tracker map screen shown in the post-credits tag at first shows the friendly neighborhood hero’s location as being “unknown” at that moment. The map then zooms out of New York and away from Earth before the Spider-Man icon indicates he has been spotted somewhere in outer space.
Does that mean Spider-Man is returning for ‘Doomsday’?
Maybe! The expansive cast list for “Avengers: Doomsday” includes members of the Avengers past and present, the Fantastic Four, the X-Men and many others, but one glaring omission has been Tom Holland as Spider-Man. It’s possible that the secretive Marvel has stayed mum just to keep his appearance a surprise and Spidey will not only appear but also join some of the other heroes — like the Fantastic Four, who have a spaceship — as they venture out to somewhere in space.
It seems unlikely that Marvel would keep Spider-Man’s involvement in “Doomsday” a secret for so long only to spill the beans without fanfare in a brief post-credits stinger, though.
Tom Holland in “Spider-Man: Brand New Day.”
(Sony Pictures)
Will Spider-Man be in ‘Secret Wars’?
Probably? Not much is known about “Doomsday’s” follow-up, “Avengers: Secret Wars,” which is reportedly scheduled to start filming “soon.” Throughout the “Brand New Day” press tour, Holland has maintained that he knows absolutely nothing about the upcoming movie.
But “Secret Wars” gets its name from a couple of Marvel comic book storylines that involve various heroes being pitted against each other. Although MCU works are usually not direct adaptations, Spider-Man was involved in both comic crossovers.
The 2015 “Secret Wars” story featured some plotting by Doctor Doom and saw multiverses collide, be destroyed and merge. During the crossover, the main continuity’s Spider-Man teamed up with another dimension’s Spidey — Miles Morales — who then ended up moving to the main Marvel universe in the event’s aftermath.
Spider-Man also played a part in the very first “Secret Wars” crossover in the 1980s. In this story, various heroes were plucked away from their usual haunts by a mysterious powerful being and pitted against similarly assembled villains (including Doctor Doom). It was during this crossover that Spider-Man first donned the sentient black suit that would become known as Venom.
Both “Secret Wars” series saw characters displaced onto a patchwork planet called Battleworld. The Spidey Tracker info from the “Brand New Day” post-credits scene could be teasing that’s where Spider-Man will eventually land.
What do we know for sure?
“Brand New Day” concludes with the message “Spider-Man will return.” Fans will just have to wait to see when, where and which Spider-Man will be involved.
“Avengers: Doomsday” is slated to hit theaters Dec. 18, while “Secret Wars” is scheduled for a Dec. 17, 2027, release.
Croatia’s World Cup was seconds away from being over and Portugal was seconds away from the round of 16 when Ivan Perisic sent a long, desperate cross into the penalty area. The ball bounced off bodies like a pinball before magically, unbelievably, caroming into the net.
Gooooooallllllll!!!!
Fate had given Croatia a reprieve.
But as pandemonium broke out in the stands and on the pitch, Norwegian referee Espen Eskas stood in the middle of the celebration in Toronto, hand to his ear, listening to a voice half a continent away in Dallas.
So Eskas trotted over to a TV monitor, watched a video replay over and over again, and more than 2½ minutes after the goal was recorded, he took it off the board. Perisic’s cross had brushed the hair of teammate Igor Matanovic, leaving Mario Pasalic in an offside position when the ball reached him near the far post. The contact was imperceptible to the naked eye, but a space-age sensor in the ball had confirmed it.
A VAR review led a referee to overturn a Croatia goal during its 2-1 World Cup loss to Portugal in Toronto, eliminating Croatia from the tournament.
(Dan Mullan / Getty Images)
Croatia’s World Cup was over, another victim of VAR, which has had an outsized influence on this summer’s tournament.
It wasn’t supposed to be this way. When VAR was introduced to soccer nine years ago, its mission was clear: to alert the head referee to potential clear and obvious errors or serious missed incidents. At least that’s what Major League Soccer, one of the first leagues to use the system, wrote in the news release introducing it.
“It was really to stop the headlines,” said Mark Geiger, who helped implement VAR as an MLS referee. “These super-egregious errors in a game that impact the outcome. The mantra for VAR was always minimum interference but maximum benefit.”
Under the VAR system, officials sitting before a bank of monitors in a centralized control room review match footage in real time and advise the on-field referee of potential errors. If the video assistant referees believe a mistake has been made, they communicate that through an earpiece the match referee is wearing. If the match official agrees, they will stop play, signal a review by motioning their hands in the shape of a rectangular TV screen, then watch the play themselves on a pitch-side monitor before either confirming or reversing the original decision.
It is comparable to the Automated Ball-Strike review added this year in Major League Baseball, tennis’ Hawk-Eye line-calling system and long-standing centralized instant replay review in the National Football League and National Basketball Assn., systems that have both corrected errors and stoked debate.
But VAR has morphed into something far greater. In this World Cup, there have been more than 100 VAR interventions, encompassing both confirmed on-field calls and overturned decisions, through the end of the round of 16, according to Antonio Vuksanovic, a publication relations and communications professional at Sofascore, a Croatian technology company and sports statistics website.
“When it comes to actual overturned decisions, we’re looking at roughly 0.5 per match, which is higher than the last World Cup and higher than what we saw across the most recently completed club season,” Vuksanovic said.
Even though the officials have gotten most of those calls right, many of the infractions reviewed have been so imperceptible yet so consequential, it has raised a question: if human error on the part of players and coaches is part of the sport, is allowing a game to be decided by electronic evidence of a touch detectable only through NASA-level technology violating the spirit of the game?
Iran’s Shoja Khalilzadeh shoots past Egypt’s Mostafa Shobeir, but the goal was overturned after VAR review during a World Cup match in Seattle on June 26.
(Maddy Grassy / Associated Press)
Christina Unkel, a former FIFA referee, state referee administrator in Florida and a rules of the game analyst for multiple TV networks, believes it does.
“Football is an art. And that’s why we love it,” she said. “It truly isn’t the referee’s fault. We’re not the ones seeking more advanced technology. We don’t want to look like robots out there. But the stakeholders are like ‘more, more, more.’
“When you do pursue black and white — objectivity is what they’re trying to get to, and I get it; they want to eliminate as much subjectivity as possible — what everyone is hating is this perfection thing.”
FIFA, the major stakeholder in the World Cup, declined multiple requests to answer questions about the officiating, but it has clearly doubled down on the technology for this tournament, introducing the semi-automated offside system which uses player-tracking cameras, computer-generated offside lines and, in some cases, data from a measuring instrument inside the match ball, to identify everyone’s position on the pitch when the ball is played.
“The whole genesis of VAR was not to fix every mistake or to make the referees perfect,” said Geiger, the first American to officiate a World Cup knockout game and now general manager of the Professional Referees Organization (PRO), which oversees referees for MLS and the NWSL. “Is the referee correct? That’s not the right question. They should be asking themselves, ‘is the referee clearly and obviously wrong?’”
Geiger, however, remains a huge proponent of the system and was careful not to criticize how it’s been used in this World Cup.
Belgium’s Youri Tielemans on a penalty kick that sails by Senegal goalkeeper Mory Diaw during a World Cup round of 32 match in Seattle on July 1. The game-deciding penalty kick was awarded after VAR review.
(Manu Fernandez / Associated Press)
Still, the frequent use of VAR and other technologies has clearly robbed the World Cup of much as its drama, with spontaneous celebrations of game-winning goals turning to grief moments later when the referee steps away from the monitor and takes away a score.
Reviews not only ended Croatia’s tournament, but they showed Shoja Khalilzadeh was a toe offside when he scored the goal that would have sent Iran to the knockout stages, one of three goals Iran had disallowed by VAR in the tournament; it gave Belgium a late penalty, based on light contact, that Youri Tielemans converted to end Senegal’s World Cup; and it cost Egypt a goal for a perceived foul that took place nearly 100 yards away from the ball in its 3-2 loss to Argentina.
“What happened to us wasn’t fair,” Egypt coach Hossam Hassan said.
Unkel agreed with that sentiment too.
“Everyone hates it,” she said. “According to VAR, that’s correct to take that goal away. That’s not the spirit of the game. But it’s the correct decision by law.”
What Unkel would prefer — and she believes a majority of officials are on her side — is for referees to have discretion to ignore or even overrule VAR if common sense and their understanding of the game suggest they should, just as judges have discretion to use common sense in applying the law.
“A lot of our game, the majority of it, is very subjective,” she said. “When we’re all sitting there saying, ‘No, that doesn’t gain an unfair advantage,’ then that’s when we have to start reconsidering things back to the spirit of the law. That’s the catchall loophole for saying, ‘Do we want this to be part of our game?’
“And I think everyone’s universally saying there a lot of different kinds of decisions we do not want part of our game. Toenail offsides, hair follicle arguments.”
Without the use of video replays, its unlikely any of those calls would have been made and the World Cup quarterfinals would probably look quite different.
England players react as referee Alireza Faghani shows a red card to England’s Jarell Quansah during a World Cup match against Mexico on July 5.
(Natacha Pisarenko / Ap Photo/natacha Pisarenko)
England coach Thomas Tuchel, upset about a penalty call on captain Harry Kane and a red card given to defender Jarell Quansah, both following video reviews in his team’s round-of-16 win over Mexico, said rulings were being overturned in the tournament “in a very questionable way.”
“The referees can send any team out in any moment,” he added. “It’s just not good enough. It’s just erratic. It’s just unreliable.”
An apparent misuse of the technology also led to the most controversial incident in the tournament. In the second half of an elimination game between the U.S. and Bosnia-Herzegovina, American Folarin Balogun stomped on the ankle of Bosnia’s Tarik Muharemovic, something Brazilian referee Raphael Claus initially decided did not merit even a caution. But after VAR official Juan Soto of Venezuela urged him to watch a replay, Claus flashed a red card at Balogun, expelling him from the game and banning him from the next match in the round of 16.
Claus had watched the replay in slow motion, allowing him to see what wasn’t apparent at game speed. FIFA later intervened by lifting Balogun’s one-game suspension, igniting ever greater controversy because it was just the second time that has happened in a World Cup.
U.S. forward Folarin Balogun steps on Bosnia-Herzegovina defender Tarik Muharemovic’s foot and received a red card after VAR review during the World Cup.
(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)
The heavy use of VAR has also interrupted the flow of games by halting matches that weren’t meant to be halted, leaving everyone standing on the field while the referee goes off to watch TV, sometimes for minutes at a time.
“When calls are reviewed and when goals are reviewed, sometimes it could take away from the momentum,” U.S. defender Chris Richards said. “Look under anything with a microscope, you could probably find something. But ultimately it was meant to be helpful for the game.”
And it has been. Because if officials have become over-reliant on VAR to review decisions that were not, or could not, be seen in real time, at least they’re getting those decisions right.
“I wish we had it in the 2002 World Cup,” said Bruce Arena, who coached the U.S. in that tournament. “We might have made it to the semifinals.”
In the quarterfinals of that tournament, with Germany leading 1-0 in the 40th minute, an obvious handball by Germany’s Torsten Frings kept out a shot from American Gregg Berhalter. If VAR had been available, Scottish referee Hugh Dallas could have corrected the missed call, awarding a penalty and giving Frings a red card, expelling him for the final 40 minutes.
“Look at every sport now in the world,” said Arena, coach of the San José Earthquakes. “They have some version of VAR. Why not make decisions correct?”
“There are still plenty of opportunities for the referees to control the game and make mistakes and not make mistakes,” he continued in reference to the human element. “It’s not like every moment is evaluated. But key moments are.”
As for interrupting the flow of play, Arena says the three-minute hydration breaks FIFA has introduced each half — ostensibly for player welfare, but in practice to give the TV networks additional commercial breaks — have been more disruptive.
“You don’t want VAR to officiate the game completely,” Arena said. “You have to pick your spots. For the most part, I think VAR is good.”
Gray Atkins has made a return to EastEnders as Toby-Alexander Smith reprises his iconic villainous role. He was last seen in the Square back in 2022
Gray Atkins has made a return to EastEnders(Image: CREDIT LINE:BBC/Jack Barnes/Kieron McCarron)
Gray Atkins has made a return to EastEnders as Toby-Alexander Smith reprises his iconic villainous role.
The villain was last seen in Albert Square in 2022 when he was sent to prison for murdering Chantelle Atkins, Kush Kazemi and Tina Carter. The serial killer has not been seen since, with Toby-Alexander Smith now reprising his role for a short stint.
Speaking about his return, he said: “It’s been very surreal returning to EastEnders and stepping back into Gray’s shoes.
“He’s one of the most complex characters I’ve had the opportunity to play and revisiting him after several years has been an exciting challenge to get my teeth into. Exploring who Gray is now has been, fascinating, and I’m excited for the audience to see this version of him and watch the storyline play out.”
Gray is currently serving a life sentence in prison but needs the help of his grandmother Sheila (Sheila Ruskins) to get close to ex-wife Chelsea Fox after Jordan’s harrowing accident.
With motives still unclear, there’s trouble ahead but what does Gray want?
Ben Wadey, EastEnders Executive Producer, added: “We’re delighted to welcome Toby-Alexander Smith back to the role of Gray Atkins. Although his character remains in prison, it will soon become apparent to viewers that Gray’s physical separation from Walford is no match for his levels of manipulation.”
However, some fans have been left puzzled by his return and connection to Sheila.
“It’s weird to me how they made it seem like Sheila was still in contact with gray with the way she was stroking his photo in her wallet like she kept in contact with him even though he murdered 3 people. But then when we actually see gray he says she hasn’t visited him in the 4 years he’s been locked up,” one fan wrote.
A second added: “I was a bit confused by this. I thought they would be building toward a story where she’s a bit obsessed and thinks that he’s done nothing wrong. Maybe under his spell, doing what he wants, and maybe seeing him in Jordan. Instead, it seems more like she just wants her grandkid and is going to use him to help her along.”
A third shared: “This confused me too. The impression I got is that they were always in contact and maybe she was going to try and convince Chelsea to let Gray his child. Sheila trying to get Gray to get Chelsea to let her see the kid is strange.”
