I thank all those who identify and condemn fakes written in my name and remain perplexed as to why anyone would think of doing such a thing. The MP for Guildford used my name instead of her own for two terms. I do not know why when she has a perfectly good name of her own to go by. But imitation is the highest form of flattery and I must settle for that. But having a wig made up to match my hair is seriously spooky.
I am not the fake Sue Doughty, I am a real one. But the name I not that rare and I know of several others with the same - none of whom ever drew the salary and perks as the MP for Guildford with it - teh records show that was drawn from the Parliament in the name of Susan Orchard.
It is legal to stand for and sit in the British parliament under any name you can persuade ten people to declare to be the name you are usually known by - even Micky Mouse if you like. That is what Susan Orchard did. I do not know what name she was born under - searches of the Public Records Office have not yet revealed that.
Most odd. Highest form of flattery it maybe but I suspect it to be lunacy.

Dr Van Helsing,

You write:

" The fake 'Sue Doughty' owes all her so-called fame to her more illustrious namesake"

I can vouch for Sue Doughty's integrity. I knew her a student nearly 40 years ago at Reading University. I also knew her then, future husband, also a fellow student, who was indeed called Doughty.

Her present name which she acquired on marriage over thirty years ago is therefore legitimate, according to standard custom and practice, and I would like to suggest that you owe Ms Doughty an apology.

Incidentally, I write this as someone who is not of the same political persuasion as Ms Doughty. Nonetheless, like any other fair minded person, I do fully support her unconditional right to use her own legitimate married name.

A quick Google search, of the name in question, will also reveal the names Sue Powell and Sue Doughty-Orchard. I would just ask who was the first Sue Doughty?

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

Do European members of parliament want internet users' support?
On the 5th May the EU parliament will be voting what seems to me and to others as a camouflaged control of citizens' freedom on the net, with the false argument of protection, copyright and preventing harm.
European citizens are people with brains, I believe many are aware of this as I am and do not agree.
Taking away the internet, restricting it, limiting access will inevitably do more harm than good to all but essentially for business in a time of crises and cannot be defined as democratic.
One of my observations due to ideas like this one of the net is: Isn't Europe today distancing itself from democracy and reverting in the direction of 'Faciscm'?
I feel there are ulterior motives and a wish to dominate that might well be driven by the 'Bildenberg Club'.
Are politicians feeling intimidated by the the internet and citizens not being kept in the dark as many probably wish?
The internet service providers being able to limit citizens access to the net and only giving people access to those they wish, want or merely feel like doing is empowering monopolies, I believe friends and buddies of the politicians, and what I define as discrimination.
Internet the way it is today is about life and freedom, the freedom that seems, in my point of view, to generate discomfort in those that long to bring back fascism.
So the service providers will choose for us where we can date, chat, read jokes etc, and we pay for what the others want to feed us. This doesn't seem as evolution, it seems as regression.

What have Europeans achieved? Nothing it seems if these are the approaches.
This proposal places our future at risk.
As long as the service providers inform us they can do as they please and give us as little as they wish. I see this as an abuse of power and crushing democracy.
The internet is as much the citizens as anybody elses.

I see this as no one having the right to take away the sun from other people's lives.
If the EU members of parliament are representing citizens, their rights and wishes they cannot vote for these new measures and restrictive and prohibitive ideas.
We count on you for the good of all of us and for the evolution of Europe in the direction of rights for all and democracy not once again, benefiting monopolies and the chums. Ignorance to dominate is that the idea? The media seems to be too passive nowadays! Owned by the monopolies, what can we expect?

This post comes from somebody masquerading as the well-known Sue Doughty, former MP for Guildford. The fake "Sue Doughty" owes all her so-called fame to her more illustrious namesake. Do not believe anything she says - it is toxic. Or, if you are a "stakeholder", sharpen your stakes and be prepared to hammer them home at daybreak.

In spite of the cold hard fact that 80% of our law is now made in
Brussels the European elections in June are regularly seen as irrelevant and not worth turning out for. Far from it. A low turnout would reinforce Brown's hold on power.
He would think we don't care to pay attention to what is happening to our country. He would think our decision not to bother to stroll down to the polling station and cast a vote as reassurance that we will remain apathetic to him.
Their account have not been passed by auditors for 14 years and they lose £7bn per annum without trace. That money would have built many schools and hospitals and paid for the staff to run them. That is your money, there is no other money than your money, the government having none of its own, so how can anyone think the EU is irrelevant?
Mark the date, Thursday 4 June 2009, in your diary and cast a vote - it
matters.

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained .