I'm not 100% sure but I didn't think that previous sexual history and being drunk were considered any more in rape cases.
Ched Evans notwithstanding, I think that is generally correct now, isn't it? The fact that her history WAS allowed in the Evans case (and that she had to go to court rather than be behind a screen or do it via videolink) stinks. That whole case stinks, IMO.
Anyway.
I think she really did see George in the shop. When she mistook the other bloke for him we were shown clearly that it wasn't him; in the shop it was clear it was still him after she saw him.
It might be that George isn't stalking her or sending her things though; that's an interesting idea that it might be X. He could have been in the shop by chance.
I kind of hope he isn't harassing her. I don't really like the notion that a rapist must then also turn out to be a serial rapist, a stalker and a fantasist. It gives an impression that a rapist is a monster, when the frightening truth is that men who rape might be 'just' 'normal' men.
I thought the dinner-party woman was much more 'vile' than her. Her comments were 
and I'd have called her out on them too.
nightsky, I'm working this out as I go along, but: the daughter might have waited to tell them about the pregnancy until she was about three months gone. A few weeks might easily have passed between her telling them and Yvonne's rape. Her bruises could have taken longer than a week to fade (mine do!). Her DH says after the dinner that she hasn't 'been right for weeks', implying quite some time passing.
I was puzzled by the dog in the window when X went to the flat at the end. The camera lingered on it for ages; it must be significant? I don't know how though, other than I do think it's odd that it didn't look as if there was a stranger in its house.