First point; having studied and written on history for decades I am absolutely sure that all versions suffer from (I won't use whitewashing or blackwashing) a subjective input which reflects the prejudices and beliefs of the historian or the period or the class, group, party, institution or nation. Rewriting history is necessary and goes on all the time. The point I was trying to make is that the impetus in this instance is not new research or even a new interpretation of existing evidence but simply an attempt to make past events conform to a particular worldview. The Edinburgh case I thought was a reasonable example as the council appear to have adopted the viewpoint of a black professor of Life Sciences over the contrary opinions of historians expert on that period of Scottish history. The BBC did the same and presented Palmer's opinion as that of "a professor" knowing (so I believe) that most listener's would assume he was a professor in a field pertinent to the issue being discussed.
Second point: as a Catholic and one time member of OD and well versed in Jesuit casuistry I am honestly not sure of your point here. I was always taught Jesus was a Jew, born in Palestine and speaking a Galilean dialect of Aramaic.
By the way, I regret calling you a disgrace. It was unfair and I should not have said it.