The problems noted earlier in relation to Stott and evangelicals may have seemed minor details or differences in subjective interpretation but they are in fact signs of one of the book\u2019s most fundamental weaknesses: regular basic inaccuracies. This is perhaps not surprising given the original print run had to be recalled because it contained at least one error so serious that it had to be removed to prevent a libel action. Nevertheless, the number and range of errors is astonishing. We are told that the Blair government (elected in 1997) passed legislation \u201cin the early 1990s\u201d\u009d (110), that a bishop saw events in 2007 as \u201cGod\u2019s commentary on same-sex marriage\u201d\u009d (128, although same-sex marriage was not introduced to Parliament until 2013) and that David Hope was Archbishop of York (149) when he described his sexuality as a \u201cgrey area\u201d\u009d (although it was several months before that appointment when he was Bishop of London). In one place there is even the appearance of careful research when it is claimed that \u201cthe electors of the diocese of New Hampshire came to choose a new bishop in the summer of 2003 \u201d\u201c five years to the day after resolution I.10 was carried at Lambeth\u201d\u009d (170) but the claim is false. The authors seem to have confused his election by the diocese \u201d\u201c which was in July, although they explicitly date it to August \u201d\u201c with its confirmation by the General Convention. In the short space of two pages (200-201) we find a crude caricature of the Anglican Covenant, a claim that FOCA later became GAFCON (when it was GAFCON that launched the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans) and a description of the decision in 1992 not to secure women bishops at the same time as women priests as an \u201codd half-measure\u201d\u00a6dreamt up as a way to respect the \u201d\u02dcintegrity\u2019 of the different sides in the battle\u201d\u009d when it was much more a matter of realpolitik \u201d\u201c given how hard it proved to secure a 2\/3 majority even for women priests (as described in chpt 5, p. 86) to have included women bishops in the legislation as well would have been to ensure its defeat. Given such recurrent lapses of memory or poor research on matters of public record, the many often entertaining and scurrilous but unverifiable vignettes of personal experience frequently used to illustrate and support their picture of the CofE need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt.<\/p>\n