Stonehenge altar stone from Scotland

Vinny must also be pissed off the neolithic people who began the building of Stonehenge were of Middle Eastern appearance , and had links with what is modern turkey , before they were replaced by the beaker people from the European Union in 2500 bc .

If you think this is even remotely true you have a truly shocking lack of understanding of the basic facts of Pre-Modern British History.

Ancient Britain arguably started with the ending of the Devensian Glaciation "Ice Age" that ended approximately 125,000 years ago; though Human habitation of Britain goes much further back to about 800,000 years.

There was also the Last Glacial Maximum, that started receding 27,000 years ago and and had completely disappeared by 11,300 years ago.

Though it might be argued that in accordance with academic convention this should be called Pre-Historic Britain. The convention being that Pre-Historic refers to that period before writing had developed, and Ancient refers to the period after writing was developed; but this causes an anomaly with Britain, because the Druids forbade writing British the Pre-Historic period coincides with Continental Ancient period. To get around this we can class Pre-History as the "Lithic periods" (Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic) and the Ancient period as starting with the Bronze Age and on into the Iron Age.  However, there's also a discrepancy here with the Bronze Age and Iron Age emerging earlier the closer you get to the Eastern Mediterranean and Levant areas, and later as head North and West through Europe.

The Bronze age in Britain was approximately 2500 BC to 700 BC, with the Iron Age following on until the Roman Invasion of AD43 - which, with the Romans bringing writing with them, might realistically be the first time that Britain could be said to have been in the Ancient History period.

I also take issue with your "the geographical location has not changed".
If you mean the shape of the British landmass you are incorrect; Britain was physically connected to "mainland Europe" as recently as 8,200 years ago; when Mesolithic Hunter Gatherers lived on and traversed the area known as Doggerland, there is some evidence of long distance trade from the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods with Baltic Amber being traded for Greenstone Axeheads from Polstrong Cornwall.

So I have to ask: what do you mean by "Ancient Britain"?

What time period are we looking at here?

Britain did not form a "collective unit" until the reign of King Athelstan (924-939); the United Kingdom did not form a single socio-political entity until the Acts Of Union in 1707.

All The Best

You might also want to look at this National Geographic article from 2009; and perhaps take a look at the other available information on Lindow II, though much of it predates the breakthroughs of the 2009 analysis by Miranda Aldhouse-Green referenced in the NG article.

I do not disagree the point is we have arrived where we are in the post WW2 world with a generally homogenous population that grew from all sorts of things as you intimate above. 

As I said Ancient Britain WAS Ancient Britain from Boxgrove man, and earlier, to the pre Roman world. How we arrived at a broadly homogenous society, and where they came from is interesting but largely irrelevant in terms of what we were in the latter part of teh 20th century. It is at that point that the British people have been traduced, mainly by their own and those who were supposed to have their best interests at heart. That is where the tragedy lies.  

What were the 'significant influxes of immigrants' you refer to?
The rest is my point that British is being dished out to all and sundry to the point where those who truly are British find that they are not considered in any way unique so revert to the old ethnicities/nationalisms. Identity for many is important and allowed to be important for most people except white people who are only allowed white as an identity and then that is denigrated as of no importance and a pure social construct. However that social construct is allowed to exist when it is used to batter them into submission. The importance of realigning British history so that 'others' (however you describe them) play an important and often central role is a very important part of that process.

So 50,000 French Huegenots over say ten years is about 1% of the existing population. Thousands of others seem to indicate less than this possibly even 0.1% of the existing population over many years. You used significant Romani again but did not quantify and it seemed to be over 100 years so if one is generous 1.0% over 100 years. In the 18th and 19 th centuries we have 50,000 Germans or about 0.5% of the existing population over a few decades and the Irish about 1.0% over many many decades, Jewish influx about 0.3% over several decades. The American war of independence and piecemeal immigration you seem to have no numbers just a 'belief' that it must be so. I can help small numbers mainly in ports and other groups Italians, Eastern Europeans to work in the mines but generally approx 1% of existing population over many decades as an ongoing thing. In recent years and probably over no more than three decades we have had over 10 million with an existing population of approx 55 million which is getting on for 20%. So you can see where the battering is occurring and it is the existing population that is being battered. 
You provided facts I just put them into context and gave a little perspective.

And you are English as an identity. Do you believe that your identity is exactly the same as David Lammy who calls himself English?