1. I did not ignore the hard data. I just merely said it has less weight than reputation when it comes to employment. Historical reputation is heavily subjective and varies. But in my subjective view, KCL has a stronger historical reputation than Durham which is reflective in its alumni and in their positions in the heavily reputation-dependent league table, QS. Obviously we all know Strand Polytechnique has not been that strong in research of recent but somehow it still pulls a weight in reputational tables like QS and Mckinsey & Bain lists it as one of the universities they visit. If your view is that Durham has a stronger historical reputation, that is fine. It is your subjective view. It might just not be as widely concurred as mine.
I never based quality of academics on reputation as you wrongly concluded, I based quality employment opportunities on reputation. Yes, that is not the only reason to choose a university but I suspect that is why a majority of student attend university (to get great high paying jobs).
A different league table for law also shows that KCL is 5th, Warwick 9th and Durham 22nd, and far higher satisfaction figures by KCL students than Durham students.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2010/jun/04/university-guide-lawTo be frank, I am less into league tables, but if that is your thing, that is fine.
2. Please just retract a lie and never use one again to try and make your arguments stronger, and I will respect you more.
3. No Sir, you presented no data.
Refer back to post #25. You only made an assertion that "65 percent of the MC is from a top 10 uni", which I judged sounded fair enough and accepted. That is not hard data Sir.
5. It is the norm to credit both in my experience. Both are credited for Nobel Prize by STJU league table, so I am surprised you feel it should be left out. Also you did lie that over 50% did not matriculate KCL. That is not the way to have a constructive debate, Sir.
6. I think wikipedia only accepts CEOs from my observation, except the business executive is controversial. I am yet to see General Councel listed for any university. So I am sorry, your point does not stand. You need to provide similar top successful lawyers (be it public, top private firm partners, blue chip general counsels etc) for Durham/Warwick to make alumni matchable, as you claimed, with Strand Polytechnique. It is obvious Strand Poly lawyers have been more notable than Warwick and Durham.
7. I don't think we should judge individual people graduating in law based on that. I was just highlighting that KCL has a better historical reputation of producing top people in Law. If the other 2 did, they will have some or a lot on their wiki page, or you would have been able to find some through Google to rebut my list. I am sure you know that, you just refuse to accept.
If you can bring dozens of CEOs of top firms that attended Kingston, I would have no option but to admit it is a top University. Naming one and trying to use it to make my point irrelevant makes me lose more respect for your objectivity, Sir.
8 & 12. That would be sad if that is the way you live life. It might be best not to engage in a debate with you again if objectivity is not your foundation in that case.