Edited sentence: " This statement has also been considered misleading by some, since the Moscow Patriarchate did not recognize the validity of the Bishop's situation, but instead instead decried it as explicitly 'illegal'.In the days following 27 March, the Vicariate ran a notice on its website claiming that in Moscow's release of Bishop Basil from its jurisdiction, it 'recognised the validity of the Vicariate', a claim that had no foundation in the decision of the Patriarchate or the comments of Metropolitan Kyrill, neither of which mentioned the Vicariate.Signs of misleading information from the Vicariate (charges of distributing misinformation having been levelled against it since the earliest days of its foundation, particularly with respect to its websites) were, nonetheless, apparent in its initial reporting of the Moscow Patriarchate's decision.That situation was changed by granting him release, and only then did the Patriarchate consider it possible for communion to be restored.The canonical impediment to communion between members of the two patriarchates having found resolution in this manner, hopes rose for a decrease in the tensions between Bishop Basil's Vicariate and other Orthodox jurisdictions in the United Kingdom, particularly the Diocese of Sourozh.The notice was later removed from the Vicariate's website, though not in a regular manner: it remains absent from the site's archive of 'events, documents, press releases etc since April 2006', in which it does not appear, despite having been posted on the news index for much of April 2007.This reporting was seen by some as a deliberate attempt to reframe the decision's criticism of Bishop Basil's illegal move in terms positive to the Vicariate