Yes people do go into other jobs after doing a postdoc (have to really, there's not many lectureships going in any subject) so it wouldn't be a life choice that you'd have to stick with. I found the resources collected by Sara Shinton on post PhD life really helpful to think things over. http://www.shintonconsulting.com/postgrad/index.html

Is there a massive difference in academic reputation / research ratings between the two? And might that have an effect on what you plan to do career-wise? If not, I'd stay where you are.

I rather suspect every student thinks the system they've got their degrees in is superior / tougher to everywhere else! My own view is that it's the student rather than the system that matters most in terms of outcomes. I've seen great and awful US, UK and German PhD theses - all passed the degree in very different systems but no system seems to give an absolute guarantee of quality.

You might want to ask your department's erasmus coordinator whether they have any suitable links that cover PhD students - some agreements do and it would mean you'd pay no fees at the host university in britain. You could also look at London universities and see if any offer chances to be visiting or occasional students BUT this is normally dependent on you paying fees - I have no idea whether this would be hard for you or not. A joint PhD normally needs your supervisor to know an appropriate person in britain whose university would allow them to co-supervise (again generally fees will be charged) - it is hard to arrange unless your own supervisor is very well-connected.

Maybe I'm being dense here but I don't see what the problem about starting again is anyway. If you're part-time and had so much trouble in your first year as you've said then you've probably not got that much done beyond a lit review, which you can obviously reuse and presumably if your new supervisor is happy with the way it was done any data you collected. So why are you trying to get a 1st year p/t elsewhere recognised - I just can't see you saving any time or money really because a PhD is done when it's done (normally a bit beyond the ideal time limit) - is it to avoid training courses or what? It's just that I think this might be a major faff administratively that wouldn't really bring you any benefits.

can't post the link but if you go to postgrad funding on the ESRC page and click on 1+3 studentship competition, it takes you to the lists.

Here are the lists of recognised places by subject and institution until 2010. This has nothing to do with the RAE (although some depts that aren't entered for the RAE, because they're less research active may decide it's then not worth their while building up a postgrad programme) but it's where the ESRC runs checks on the quality of training, supervision offered and then sets targets on PhD completion that the recognised dept has to meet. It's a lot of paperwork but if your dept has gone through it, it's a good sign that there are proper procedures in place that you can appeal to when things go wrong.

With the ubercompetitive one I'd get some advice from either HR or student disciplinary office on what procedures to follow. They should know and if nothing else if you do what they say then you've also covered your own back. Also are you in UCU? If so, it might be worth getting some advice from them as it sounds like your boss and your HoD are treating you extremely unfairly in not handing the problem over to someone higher up - might be good to call in some support and information from the union.

Or b) they lost recognition, which means almost inevitably that there's large numbers of embittered PhD students who are way beyond the usual registration time, (some of whom should have been helped after year 1 to write up for an MPhil because the PhD wasn't for them but were allowed to continue), because the dept is rubbish at monitoring progress and sorting out supervision probs. This tends to lead to an institutionalised climate of PhD misery and low standards all round.

This is why I do think people do need to investigate departments a bit before starting. In the social sciences if your department isn't fully accredited with the ESRC then it tends to mean a) the dept decided not to make the extensive efforts needed into creating an ESRC acceptable PhD programme including methods training etc. Nothing wrong with this - it might be a fantastic undergrad teaching place but it suggests that PhD students are not viewed as central to what they want to do.

This is one to keep your HoD fully informed on - it's his/her problem ultimately and he/she needs to jump on the idiot sending threatening e-mails like a ton of bricks. I'd pass the buck along with the documents firmly upwards - the university will have a lawyer and that's what they're for. One fairly obvious point though that might save you some time: has she exhausted the university's internal complaints process? If so all this stuff should be on file with the REgistrar's student disciplinary team. If she hasn't then I think that the ombudsman will throw it straight out if you tell them this. they're meant to be last not first step of a complaint.

Check your degree regulations - many universities will not allow the submission of the same work for two different degrees. You may have to rewrite completely. But surely you've moved on a lot intellectually from your MREs so you'd want to make it more sophisticated anyway.

I think that bit means that you could be registered directly for a PhD rather than having an initial MPhil registration and going through upgrade. It doesn't mean the overall length of the PhD would shorten and TBH 5 years is very optimistic for a part-time PhD - most people take longer.

I don't want to sound mean as it's never pleasant to get this sort of criticism, but you are going to need to get used to this, if you are really trying to buck the trend. It will (I suspect) be like this when you try to publish too. You will have to engage with the people you disagree with on their terms, if their terms are those currently shaping your field. Smilodon's right - talk to your supervisor and see what he/she says - you might be able to address some of it via well-crafted footnotes showing you are aware of the potential objections to your model.

Just one caution - try and find out what the career destination of recent PhDs from your department was and the % who completed. Not having research council recognition means usually that it's a weak dept. in research terms or has such a bad record at supervising PhDs to completion that recognition has been withdrawn. I don't know what the academic job market is like in pyschology - it may be better than in other subjects but you need to be aware before starting, as many people aren't, that it's not a given outcome that you will be able to get a full-time permanent lectureship (the extent of casualisation particularly in the newer universities is shocking). Where you did the PhD is a factor in getting academic employment in my subject area so a weaker dept in research terms may need thinking twice about.

Pineapple - is there another PhD student around who you trust and who's perhaps a bit further on than you are? I wonder whether sitting down with someone neutral but sympathetic and talking through your draft and the comments might help you to focus a bit more on the praise and figure out how to move forward with the outstanding issues? I wonder from what you say, if the problem with the report as it stands, is that you can't see the wood for the trees: i.e. because you've tried to explain every aspect, the actual project is getting lost and that's what your supervisor is getting at asking for such large cuts. If so a fresh pair of eyes might be invaluable as it's really hard to cut your own work. Oh and save anything you do cut out now - it may be useful elsewhere in the thesis.