Bamforth and Richards on the "New" Natural Lawyers

I have not, I admit, read the new book by Bamforth and Richards, about which Rob posted here.  But, going only on the abstract . . . let's just say I'm not sure I'd want to inflict it on anyone, even a "new natural lawyer."  "Conservative moral views of the papacy", "polemically defends sectarian arguments", "fundamentalist style", "patriarchal style of religious authority", zzzzzz. 

Certainly, one must remain open to the argument (see, e.g., Russ Hittinger) -- though I'm not competent to adjudicate the dispute -- that the so-called "new natural lawyers" don't have St. Thomas exactly right, and also to "alternative [but authentic] forms of Christianity that are not fatally flawed" (who wants a "fatally flawed" Christianity, after all?).  But the "polemical", superficial characterizations -- in the abstract -- of the work, character, and motivations of John Finnis, Robert George, etc. are clearly and well wide of the mark and impossible (for me) to regard as reflecting the conclusions of serious, scholarly engagement.

UPDATE:  A reader suggests that it is hardly surprising that Prof. Richards would be unfriendly to the so-called "new" natural lawyers' project.  According to the reader, Richards, in his book, The Moral Criticism of Law, celebrates adult pornography as "the unique medium of a vision of sexuality, a ‘pornotopia,' a view of sensual delight in the erotic celebration of the body, a concept of easy freedom without consequences, a fantasy of timelessly repetitive indulgence."  This view -- assuming it is Richards's -- is not one, I suppose, that is likely to push one toward, say, the theses proposed and defended in Natural Law and Natural Rights.