Yes, they should respect you for your honesty. It is probable that they would rather you change the topic than end up quitting (especially if you are funded but regardless I should think).

Hasn't NHS funding for nursing just been cut by the government?

It's a miscommunication that's all. You have apologised and so now she just has to get over it!

Definitely apply - you may get a place. But why not get your driving license if that is a major barrier to you getting work now?

Also you don't prove the hypothesis as such (the starting chapters of any research methods book will explain). You can only reject the null hypothesis (that brand trust has no positive impact on brand loyalty).

I was having an issue with my supervisor that really came to a head at the end of the first year. I went and saw my academic advisor, who seemed to understand and support me, and said that it would not be swept under the carpet etc. Then after the meeting, she emailed me a summary of our meeting that was completely different to what we had verbally discussed! Basically - putting the blame and onus on me! And of course if my issue had escalated, that email would have been used as evidence against me! So I see where you are coming from being wary about the politics.

By some miracle, I was able to somehow mentally/emotionally distance myself from my supervisor and let go of any expectations I had about them. From then on, I saw myself as by myself. Me and my research. Of course this might not be possible in your case - I don't know how much you need to rely on your supervisor for access to data, contacts, etc. Also - the issues with my supervisor were not half as serious as yours. So it may not be an appropriate course of action for you to take. Just wanted to suggest it.

A final thought - make sure that you keep an accurate of your research progress and your dealings with your supervisor. Send meeting summaries that accurately record the meeting from your perspective etc etc. I say this because I was recently on an appeal panel for a PhD student who was appealing against the decision that had been made by the school for them to have to stop their PhD. The student had failed key milestones but was appealing on the grounds of several things such as the supervisor not providing adequate support. This isn't at all like your case, but what I learnt from being on the panel was that if you don't have evidence you don't have a leg to stand on. If the supervisor/school doesn't have evidence - what they say is accepted anyway.

You need to get a basic research methods book. Make a question (e.g., Does X impact on Y), and a hypothesis (e.g., I believe X will result in more Y), and operationalize it - which means makes the variables measurable. So for example, you need to say what you mean by brand trust, and what you mean by brand loyalty, and how you're measuring these things. That will allow you to test your hypothesis.

A research methods book should tell you about how to deal with the questionnaire data.

This is unacceptable. Do you have an academic advisor or other support person you can talk to confidentially about switching supervisors?

I agree - the point is it will get you the data you need. Also I think the fact that it is a well known name could even increase its perceived credibility. I don't know about you, but when I am clicking on a link to potentially share some information about myself, buy something, etc, I feel happier if I recognize the name.

Urgh I've spent hours replaying and cringing over gone wrong interviews over and over in my head... and when they asked that, I said THAT... oh my goodness... !

Sometimes to help me get closure and take something positive from such things, I reflect in a few bullet points about what went well (I try to think of at least two or three positives), and what I could have done better (that was actually within my power to have done better), and what was challenging but not necessarily within my power to change. Then I can move on.

Re your threes and fours - at least you know you always get there in the end - and in the face of set backs!

I'll have to reply more fully later as I'm up to my eyeballs in data analysis (and it's going on 2am argh...) but yeh, give it some time and you'll stop feeling so disappointed. I don't even think you have to cross it off your potential uni list. You didn't get that job, but I know several circumstances where first meetings have been negative to say the least, and then the person has ended up being employed there. It happened to me in my previous job (a couple of years between the two interviews - but it was the same main interviewer!).

You WILL get the job you want in the end. It's a battle - but don't give up!!!

Congrats for getting invited for interview! Was a PhD one of the requirements? If so - even more well done! Obviously your CV and statement writing skills are up to scratch!

First of all... are you sure your interview technique is terrible...? It sounds from reading between the lines like maybe you just weren't prepared enough / or had what they wanted for this particular post. It sounds like they wanted research experience (even though it was a teaching post?) and you don't have it. Probably because of this they came across as they did, and you started being conscious of your accent and background, when perhaps normally they wouldn't feature...

Anyway, I'd say don't be too discouraged! We all have a crap interview now and then! (I sure have anyway!)

It does get better! If deep down you don't want to quit then I suspect this is just a phase and you will end up enjoying it later in the journey. I hated much of my first year but then things improved.

Don't worry about it! No one can expect much at this stage! It seems unnecessary to have to give a talk at this stage... although I suppose it COULD be helpful if the audience are from your lab and will be able to give some useful pointers/advice.

Do you have an original proposal that you wrote to get you on the PhD program? If so, I'd say talk about that and what directions you might go in now (if it has changed). If you don't have one then perhaps just give a brief review of the literature (what you know so far) - say these are some directions your project might go in.

Will they know you're only 2 months in? If you're presenting to an audience that doesn't know this then yes, I would say I started my PhD 2 months ago - this is just going to be a brief talk about the my project so far.

Of course it is fine to email them. How else will you ask the questions? You could acknowledge that it has been a while since your initial email if that seems polite. Good luck!