By Dr George Whale Elections Officer - Saturday's day of action in Bradford began well.
Just after 11am our team of activists gathered in Kirkgate, a busy pedestrian street in the city, and began to hand out literature and answer questions from the public.
As on previous days of action, the great British public eagerly snapped up our leaflets, and many gave words of encouragement:
‘Keep up the good work, lads!’, ‘I agree with everything you say", ‘Thank goodness for Britain First, nobody else is doing anything!’
Many expressed amusement or consternation at the swarms of police buzzing around Kirkgate and the city centre.
You'd think they'd have higher priorities in West Yorkshire (grooming gangs, terror suspects etc.)
Many of them departed over the next two hours, but the remaining officers began muttering darkly about 'anti-social behaviour' - which was news to me, as I was only yards from the other activists and hadn't seen or heard anything that could be construed as 'anti-social'.
In fact, we were all careful to present a positive, courteous face to the public, and to disregard any insults thrown at us (we won't rise to provocation).
Sure enough, 'anti-social behaviour' became the pretext for termination of our activities.
At around 1.30 pm the atmosphere in Kirkgate (which had been pretty relaxed ) became tense, as police in high-vis vests streamed in from side streets and the sergeant in charge served us with a 'Section 34' dispersal notice.
What followed was like something from the Keystone Cops, as they chaotically herded us out of the centre, gave us exactly three minutes to pack all equipment and activists into our minibus, then chased us bumper-to-bumper for a good eight miles around and out of the city!
They wanted us out of Bradford, and fast.
But surely they wouldn't send a platoon of coppers just to sort out an anti-social behaviour incident (especially an imaginary one).
So what was the real reason?
A junior officer gave the game away:
He told us they were worried about the potential for ‘trouble’ if we stayed.
And since our activists conducted themselves well, we could only surmise that they were expecting trouble from socialist and/or Muslim agitators (not noted for their peaceful disposition).
To put it simply - given the choice between (a) defending our fundamental freedoms (of speech and assembly), and (b) suspending those freedoms for the sake of a quiet life, West Yorkshire Police chose (b).
The Crown Prosecution Service states on its website that:
‘In authorising the dispersal power the inspector (or above) must have regard to Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights that provide for the right for lawful freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.’
The problem is that the rules around dispersal orders are - like ‘hate speech' laws - vague and subjective.
To serve a Section 34 dispersal notice, police need only ‘suspect’ that behaviour ‘is likely to contribute to’ causing ‘harassment, alarm, distress or disorder’.
Unsurprisingly perhaps, they often apply it rather arbitrarily to people who have done absolutely nothing wrong.
Josie Appleton of civil liberties group the Manifesto Club said of dispersal orders:
‘What is entirely absent is the notion - the basis of criminal law for centuries - that powers should only be used against those who have actually committed an offence. No punishment without crime, no crime without a law. This was the basis of common law from the Magna Carta onwards.’
The writer Michel Houellebecq describes, in his novel Submission, successive stages in the future Islamisation of his native France.
The first stage is mass immigration from Islamic countries combined with sky-high birthrates among the new Muslim population.
The next stage is accommodation and appeasement by the ruling establishment.
Then seizure of political power and public institutions by an Islamic party tactically allied to the main socialist group.
Finally, abject surrender, with the French former ruling class collaborating with the new Islamic regime in order to secure status, careers and pensions.
The scenario is chillingly plausible even for Britain - because we've witnessed already the willingness of our own Traitor Class to lionise Islam and criminalise those who criticise it.
We are now at the accommodation and appeasement stage, where urban Muslim populations are sufficiently large to begin bending and shaping laws, practices and institutions to their will, and where the mere possibility of Muslim disapproval is enough to make governments and police forces jump - as our experience in Bradford would seem to confirm.
The erosion of fundamental freedoms (without which true democracy can't exist) is for me the most worrying by-product of a multiculturalism that puts incompatible cultures cheek by jowl.
Politicians, church leaders, police leaders, judges, professors, opinion formers in the media and other members of the ruling elite offer different justifications for bending to Islamic imperatives and facilitating Sharia.
But I believe ultimately it comes down to fear: Fear of Muslim offence-taking and the explosive (pun intended) reactions it can engender.
I like to believe that we British have more fight and backbone than the French, and that Houellebecq's dismal scenario could never play out here.
However, effective resistance will require British men and women to cooperate in great numbers, to stand up and say as one: ‘Enough!’
We invite you to join the British Resistance - join Britain First!
(Britain First HQ will be making an official complaint to the Independent Office for Police Conduct)