Anger over immigration cannot justify intimidation

Let us be clear that The Independent is in favour of a sustainable level of immigration. It adds to the prosperity, dynamism and cultural richness of the nation. Furthermore, we believe that the United Kingdom should offer sanctuary to those fleeing persecution, so we should welcome our fair share of refugees.

Because we are not in favour of open borders, we support fair rules to determine who is and who is not allowed to enter the country, whether temporarily or to settle here.

The arrival of uninvited migrants by dinghy across the Channel offends against that principle, and we share the dismay of those who expect the government to end the dangerous traffic. At the same time, we want to open up safe and legal routes for genuine refugees, including the remaining Afghans who worked with our armed forces and who are at risk of Taliban retribution, who are still stranded in Afghanistan or neighbouring countries.

Demanding that the government "stop the boats", therefore, is legitimate. Even if we disagreed, people would be entitled to demonstrate in support of that demand. What is not acceptable, however, is the gathering of large numbers of masked men on the streets of Dover. That they were briefly obstructing access to the port is also unacceptable.

The protesters, who chanted "England 'til I die", "Whose streets? Our streets!" and "Stop the boats", were wearing black, which was plainly intended to make them look like a paramilitary force. Their protest was intimidatory, ugly and un-British. It was no surprise that it was supported by Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, otherwise known as Tommy Robinson, who wrote on social media: "Simultaneously at different locations across Dover, patriots have mobilised to close down the port."

There is nothing patriotic about intimidation and obstruction. The police had the power to require the protesters to remove their face coverings, but chose not to exercise it. No arrests were made and the mob had dispersed by midday, according to the Kent force.

We cannot gainsay the operational decisions made by police officers in Dover, and should be relieved that the protest passed off without violence, but it should be made clear that any attempt to repeat such threatening behaviour will not be tolerated.

Fortunately, there seems to be a broad consensus against the protest. Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, described it as "disgusting" and said: "Nobody in any political protest, whether they're on the left or the right, should appear in balaclavas. It is wrong."

The Independent holds no torch for Mr Farage. He has stoked xenophobia and anti-immigrant feeling. His policies – including those intended to stop the boats – are mostly simplistic and unworkable. His admiration for Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and crypto billionaires shows how out of touch he is with the British people. His party appears to have attempted to solicit illegal foreign donations, though the extent of his knowledge of the attempt is unclear – today he said "I frankly wasn't even listening" when his aides were discussing it. Reform denies any wrongdoing.

However, even Mr Farage has drawn the line at working with Mr Yaxley-Lennon, and he has condemned the balaclava-wearing protesters unequivocally.

Let the protesters march, if they show their faces and dress in civilian clothes. Let the government tackle the legitimate concerns of the majority of the British people. But let us have no thuggish paramilitaries on our streets. Whose streets? Our streets, indeed.