23RD JULY 2010: When I received my invitation to attend a Buckingham Palace garden party I kept the matter to myself and a small circle of colleagues and family members.

In these interviews I emphasised that I had been invited by the Palace; I had not asked the Palace to invite me. It was for the Queen to decide whom she wished to invite to such events and it was not for other politicians to criticise the fact that I had been invited, anymore than it would be appropriate for me to criticise the invitations extended to others.

When asked by one questioner about ‘the BNP’ being invited to the Palace, I emphasised that I was invited as an elected politician and not as a representative of a political party. I was asked by one questioner what I thought I would get out of the visit. I replied that I would get some cucumber sandwiches and a cup of tea – possibly two! However, I added that I thought that our political system would gain a lot from these visits by politicians from all parties (as well as the many non-political people who attend). By accepting these invitations, people are committing themselves to the two pillars of our political system: Parliamentary democracy and our constitutional monarchy, which must be a worthwhile achievement.

I was asked what I thought about the withdrawal of Nick Griffin’s invitation. I said that I had been told that it had been withdrawn on the ground that he had broken ‘protocol’ (apparently involving statements on his web-site and interviews that he had given). I said that we had received a piece of paper instructing people what they should wear and where they should park. We were also told not to take photographs or use mobile telephones. There was nothing in the instructions about giving interviews or refraining from giving interviews.

Nick was apparently ‘punished’ for breaking a rule that had not been announced until he had broken it! In one interview, after the garden party, I compared it to Jeremy Bentham’s  description of case law as ‘dogs’ law’ – if you want to prevent a dog from misbehaving, you do not tell the dog, in advance, what it must do or refrain from doing; you wait until he does it and then you reprimand him! Bentham said that it was, “the law following the event”.

In another interview, I compared the decision with the words of the Red Queen* in Alice Through The Looking Glass: “He’s in prison now being punished: and the trial doesn’t even begin till next Wednesday and of course the crime comes last of all”. During the morning, Nick was told by the BBC (not the Palace) that his invitation had been rescinded. He was later told that this was because of interviews and his web-site. It was only much later in the day that he was told (several different versions of) the precise nature of his transgressions.

I said that the manner in which the decision to rescind the invitation was taken was completely inappropriate. If the content of his web-site had contravened some (unwritten and unannounced) rule, he should have been approached quietly and told the consequences of his failure to take down the offending content on his web-site. Instead, the decision was communicated to him by means of megaphone diplomacy through the BBC. I believe that the real decision was taken in 10 Downing Street. It must be remembered that the ‘organisation’ that has been lobbying for the withdrawal of the invitations is the U.A.F., an organisation devoted to violent attacks on BNP members, including a claw hammer attack on our members, Tony Ward in Leigh, Lancashire. The UAF is an organisation that is ‘sponsored’ by only one Conservative M.P. – David Cameron** – our current Prime Minister. The decision, ‘by the Palace’ to withdraw Nick’s invitation had the grubby finger marks of David Cameron all over it.

I have been asked by several interviewers about what I think of people who feel that  the invitations to us were completely inappropriate because of our policies. I replied that the Labour Party (with Conservative support) had waged illegal wars that had resulted in the deaths of hundreds of our service personnel and hundreds of thousands of Muslims. This might lead me to think that invitations to Labour members would be inappropriate. However, it would be impertinent for me to tell the Queen not to invite people on this or any other ground. One interviewer sprang to the defence of the Labour Party by saying that at least it (the Labour Party) was inclusive. I replied that killing people did not seem to me to very ‘inclusive’ He said that at least it did not ‘discriminate’. I responded by saying,  “Oh, so it’s all right to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, just so long as it does not discriminate!

Were people wincing and hiding at my presence at this event? No but nor were they applauding and seeking my autograph. Only a handful of people gave any indication that they had recognised me. They included two smiles and a couple of scrutinising examinations. The people immediately in front of us in the queue knew who were, simply by the presence of gaggle of photographers who took hundreds if not thousands of photographs. They were quick to point out that they did not share our political opinions but spoke politely nevertheless. The day showed that I neither enjoyed fame nor suffered notoriety. To the vast majority I was simply another anonymous person there.

What did we make of the event itself? It was in some ways rather low-key and unorganised though not disorganised! People were free to eat refreshments, catch glimpses of elusive royals or simply wander around the grounds. The visible security in the garden party itself was minimal, despite the presence of eight thousand guests. Why?  People who are invited to events of this kind (including the only person on record to have his invitation  withdrawn) are civilised people who  know how to behave, so a few ageing Yeomen of the Guard and the same number of top-hatted ‘organisers’ are all that are necessary to keep order. I am sure that there were plenty of well-armed and trained personnel in reserve (or perhaps in plain clothes). However, the atmosphere was very relaxed and very English (or should I say British?).

I am pleased that I attended. Whilst I am not a fawning admirer of everything that the royal family does, I believe that a constitutional monarchy is preferable to a presidency held by a corrupt retired politician. I have now seen our Head of State, in person, which I feel is important, though I am not quite sure why.

The garden parties will continue to be important. However, the decision to exclude an invited guest for an offence that was not an offence when it was committed,  have caused small but visible and irreparable damage to these otherwise splendid events and to the institution of constitutional monarchy.

*In these interviews, I attributed these words to the Red Queen when they should have been attributed to the White Queen (Chapter Five of Alice Through The Looking Glass).

** Cameron was a sponsor of the UAF when the attack on Tony Ward took place in 2009. He has been challenged several times to withdraw his sponsorship and has failed to reply.