[sgentle]

I think you're not getting his key point, or you are but you're being coy about it. He did say skin colour, in the form of "native Brits". How do you know that? Because of the article he linked, defining the terms he was using. The article is called "Ethnic groups in London", not "Cultural groups in London". He quotes statistics about "native Brits" that match the article's demographics for "White British". There is zero ambiguity here.

If I say "I love a [sweet treat](wikipedia.org/wiki/ice_cream)! It's so refreshingly cold on a nice hot day", there's just no intellectually honest way to claim maybe I meant apple pie. Do you understand? He's not talking about Russian immigrants because they're white. He is talking about Pakistani immigrants because they're brown. He's literally telling you what he means and you're choosing to ignore it. Why?

Perhaps there are, in fact, reasons to not say skin colour even when that's what you mean.

[flat_zoo]

He talked about Pakistani immigrants because they were raping girls and British police did nothing. Maybe "native Brits" are doing the same and getting away with it? Again, you are noticing what you want to see. We can discuss if it's because they are from Pakistan and their culture allows it, or maybe criminals have no nationality and that would be a valid discussion, but bringing skin color here is an obvious distraction.

[throwawaypath]

There's nothing wrong with promoting or protecting the interests of native or indigenous people over those of immigrants or foreigners. The only "Brits" native to Great Britain are White Brits.