Firstly let me say how much I loved the seance both live and on stage, that inspired to me start to learn magic. It seems very much in the tradition of Houdini, Randi, P&T etc. Will using your techniques to debunk flim flamry be developed or was the seance a one off in that regard?

I think the closing sequence of the seance pretty much said it all

I feel that out-and-out debunking is a witless stand and a losing battle.
When you tell someone something as a fact, he will hear it, interpret it, apply it to his own thoughts and beliefs, and necessarily move AWAY from it a little. The more you insist on it as fact, the more potential scepticism you provoke. It's utterly natural. It's much more effective, I think, to use presumption and leave clues. That way, when people do their interpretative work, they move TOWARDS where you want them to.
So, the ending of the Seance, to me, was a more effective debunking tool than a dull 'exposure' of charlatanism. I didn't disprove anything, and neither did I attack spiritualists. The most I said was that 'personally I found it quite ugly', and then explained that the show was to see whether techniques used by Victorian charlatans would work on a modern, sceptical audience. That was all. I was careful not to make the show an attack. Interestingly (as you may know, it's now the most complained about show in UK TV history), it was anticipated as an attack, seen as one by many, and taken by others as 'proof' that spritualism is nonsense. Of course it was none of those things.
So I think that a subtle touch is all that is needed. A scepticism of the new-age agenda and religion of course underpins much of what I do, but I don't intend to make that an explicit agenda. Besides, I don't consider my sceptical beliefs to be any more real than the daft excesses of modern new-ageism. It's all nonsense. I've thought a lot about this issue, and I think the most that can be said on the subject is that if you believe something which sounds stupid to the outside world, it's best to shut up about it.

Great question, thank you,
db