I suspect a lot will depend on what her references are like as a drop in marks like that will be noticeable and a bit of a warning signal to a selector. I think they prefer 2:1 undergrad and a distinction at MA as it suggests an upwards trajectory and someone who is cut out for research work rather than the other way round. It might be a good move, if she hasn't already, to have a candid chat with her MA supervisor about her plans and see whether that person would be prepared to write a reference suggesting strongly that her ability is higher than her MA marks imply (especially research skills as the MA dissertation mark will be a bit problematic). The really bad news is that if she's arts or social sciences there won't be much chance of any research council funding.

Pam - I don't know whether it's the same where you are but at my university the purpose of our annual review panels are twofold - first, an opportunity to raise supervision problems without the supervisor being there and second, to act as a kind of mini viva to force you to defend what you're doing and show that it's progressing at PhD standard. In that sense, I'd expect criticism is the norm, so you may be over-reacting here. I was told that it was quite important because sometimes students and supervisors get so caught up in the topic that they both lose the critical edge, and if the work is never challenged, then it can go horribly wrong when it comes to the viva. Your examiners are unlikely to agree with every word you write (and neither are journal reviewers if you publish etc) so you could look on this as useful practice for the real thing. I'd also take her criticism seriously - she may well be raising issues that your future examiner will - you clearly want to ignore her suggestions, fair enough, but I'd make sure I'd thought it through enough to have included a section in an appropriate chapter about why you're not doing it that way.
I would also doubt that this woman is jealous of you - she has been considered good enough to get an academic job without a PhD, and personally if I was that lucky then I'd be so glad I'd not had to go through the hell of getting one, that the last thing I'd be was jealous of a PhD student. She might dislike your work without disliking you so I'd be careful about e-mailing people claiming she was hostile unless you really can raise specific instances of personal criticism rather than critique of your work. You also say you were aggressive towards her when she criticised your work - if so I'd be hoping the other panel members forgot what happened, rather than raising it again in an e-mail, particularly as I can't honestly imagine how you'd phrase it without coming across as paranoid. I think this is one to let lie.

I'd agree that undergraduates are unrealistic in their expectations. Unfortunately being able to resit exams over and over again at A-level without consequences, teachers all but rewriting coursework in the name of 'feedback' and that they are used to mark schemes that reward conformity rather than originality, means that they are not well-prepared for university. Unless the government is prepared to spend a hell of a lot more on universities, we don't have the staff-student ratio to replicate a school environment nor would there be much enthusiasm for lowering standards in that way, even though it's what students want. Basically a good university experience for many of the students I've taught, would involve having model exam answers dictated to them to learn by heart and the complete redrafting of all their essays so that they could all get firsts in exactly the same way that they got As at A-level. It isn't though what a university education is meant to be about.

Have you talked about this to someone at KCL? They know your work and will be able to give you the best advice about whether you have the skill set to get through a PhD. Many clever people just aren't good at research and writing and if you're one of those, then don't do a PhD. If KCL advise against it, I'd really have second thoughts. A PhD can be an extremely miserable, costly and time-consuming experience (that may end in failure) if you aren't cut out for it.
You really do have to be extremely good to have a chance of an academic job in your field, it's so crowded and there are so few jobs and it's not like science, where there's lots of research jobs in both industry and universities, if you don't get a lectureship, so the other thing you need to think about is career perspectives and whether this is a good way forward for you.

Secondly, why do you want to do a PhD? You need to be aware that there are very few academic and research jobs in your field each year so competition is immense. If not academia, then wouldn't you be best just applying for whatever job you want? A PhD may depending on the field actually be a qualification too far and you'd be better looking with an MA.

Do you mean you're on course for a pass rather than a merit or distinction? if so that might be a problem as I know my university insists on at least merit at MA in the humanities and social sciences. I'd expect your dissertation mark to be the key factor in any decision. But should you really try to get onto a PhD or is it going to be in your interest? I'd say there are two things to consider here. Firstly, with those marks there's next to no chance of any funding - harsh but sadly true with the AHRC/ESRC even if you're graded as pretty much prefect on all aspects of your application, there's still people not getting funded. Do you have enough money to self-fund a PhD?

Your supervisor might well insist on / or advise you to take certain of the research training courses anyway. That's certainly what happens to people without a research training MA at my university anyway. I'm sure you could ask even if it wasn't their policy.

But maybe it's a good thing that there are less PhD students because there are precious few research jobs available in the social sciences or humanities. And universities know this and are extremely exploitative employers whether it's the 9 month temporary lectureship jobs, the 1 year postdocs or worst of all the 'hourly paid' teaching posts, which however many seminars you lead ends up as poverty rate pay. Then just imagine you've survived all that for five, six, seven years (and made the personal sacrifices of moving frequently, never being able to buy a home, have kids etc) you get a permanent lectureship. (In my subject it's not uncommon that there'll be 100 applications for each post from all over the world). You earn just about the salary of a bus driver for a 50-60 hour working week. It's rather hard to sell this as a sensible career path to bright undergraduates...You have to really have a vocation to go into it.

The changes to doctoral funding from the ESRC and to a lesser extent the AHRC have been appalling. It's no longer merit-based and instead makes candidates desperately try to find anyone able to supervise their topic at somewhere with quota (quota places tend to go to people already at the institution as they're regarded as safe bets), however inappropriate it might be or hoping against hope that they might be allowed to be the one person entered by their institution into the competition (where standards vary completely between subjects and even within subjects). This means a lot of people can't even consider pursuing PhD research.

Thinking about this, I remember a friend doing a three week crash course with alliance francaise. They will probably be the best people to contact to ask whether anywhere can teach you the sort of french reading knowledge you need quickly. I know loads of Canadian and US universities offer these courses for people who need to fulfil a language requirement for their PhD but I don't know whether you could pay to take just that course.

given their rules on photocopies are so strict, I can't see them allowing a scanner. Depending on what documents you need to consult, you might be able to get copies of microfilms - I think they've done quite a lot of the important bound volumes but I don't know what the price is like. Translators are very expensive (I've charged 0.1€ a word and I'm no professional) so I think it would be cheaper and more feasible to pay for crash courses in reading French to improve your own French! Surely you're going to have to read secondary sources in French as well so wouldn't it be worth the time investing in language learning?

There's usually a choice of 'white other', which I would write in if you are bothered by it. The rationale behoind White British / White Irish is that people like me who are white Irish, now count as ethnic minorities and so have to be separated out to allow for equal opportunities monitoring. It seemed to start at the 2001 census. I agree it's problematic in many ways. Cynically, I'd love to know how much of the claimed improvement in employing ethnic minorities by universities and others has come through this classification of white Irish as an ethnic minority...

If it's humanities / social sciences I imagine that those people who got departmental funding will also have been put in for ESRC / AHRC funding. If they get that then departmental money can be reallocated to the next best candidates. ESRC results were only out yesterday and the AHRC ones aren't out yet, so that could be why they haven't said a definitive no yet. Although if that's the case, then a letter saying that wouldn't have hurt.

Hi - depending on your immigration status and a whole host of complicated rules on residence, you might actually be eligible for PhD funding by now. However if you're in the humanities or social sciences (economics is a bit of an exception) it's still a very long shot that you will actually get any (the competition is ridiculous and you need a perfect academic record to have much chance!). It's very different in the sciences where there's a lot more money around. Are you confident that you could walk straight into a PhD or do you think you need the confidence boost and refresher an Masters would give you? It would help in one sense for future funding as you'd then have up-to-date UK references.

http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/ Here are the last research ratings - unfortunately the next ones are due in December but it'll give you a idea. It's only worth worrying about if there's a huge gap and for example, you want to go into academic research. The other thing, reading your posts, it sounds as if you are starting out at least by self-funding. Can you afford to do this for 3-4 years? If not, you might want to check whether both departments are recognised for research council studentship funding so that that would be an option. For criminology it would be the ESRC lists you need to check but criminal pyschology I'm unsure about.