Yes, London is not representative of Britain, however, London and a few other major cities are where the majority of immigrants have settled. If I was presenting data about Dorset or Wales you would quite rightly say that it was not relevant. London has been a cosmopolitan city since at least 1500 if not earlier.

Films of crowds in the 1940s are not imperial data, it’s just an anecdotal observation of no real value. I am sure that you are aware of this and to be frank, I am surprised that you think this is worth mentioning.

Most people in Britain have rather diverse genetic profiles, this shows us how much our ancestors moved around in the past.

I am not obsessed with Huguenots, but let’s face it they as a case study fascinating. If we are going to discuss immigration the Huguenots represent one of the largest groups to have come to Britain in the past few hundred years. We can, however, if you wish discuss Jews, Irish, Jamaicans, Ugandan Asians, Chinese or Italians.

Sometimes you want to look at the ‘bigger picture’ which I take to mean immigration to Britain over a long period and then you want to go back to just the post war period.

The arrival of Beaker culture did indeed bring advanced technology and whist I am sure some locals failed to see the benefits others embraced it. Not wishing, in particular, to return to the Romans, the technology that they introduced was not valued much by the ‘locals’ once they had left.

So what you are suggesting is that population replacement is a figment of someone's imagination.

[Link]

So what you see with your own eyes in a film is not good evidence? That was real life, not questionable data.
Most White British people have British genes going back hundreds, if not thousands of years. Genes from abroad come from various migrations that occurred 1000 or more years ago. Viking, Jute, Friesian, Norman etc as you would expect, and those genes are in single figure percentages because of their distance in time.

You twist the truth to suit your agenda and we have heard it all before. It was misleading then and it still is now.

Indeed the film evidence that you present is very weak. When and where were the films made and what was the intention behind the making of the films. If you presented this as a research methodology in an academic context you would be laughed out of the room.

What are British genes? It's a constantly shifting profile that was different in 500, 1000, 1300, 1600, 1945, etc

As this fascinating study shows there is no such thing as British genes.
[Link]

White people in Britain will likely have all the genetic variants that you posted, but also there will be more recent genes, for instance from Jewish or Irish heritage.

You will need to demonstrate what truth has been twisted if your statement is to have any validity. You say that you have heard these arguments before. Please can you outline exactly what you have heard before and why you choose to characterise it as misleading?

i have heard that paid trolls contribute nothing to an argument. Only contradiction, negativity and insults.

that is what i heard.

And in other news, Henry viii was black.