1) My point is not unclear. Note I used the word 'usually', not 'always', because I meant the former and not the latter. As a new(er) member of the graduate recruitment process in my firm, I can attest that university name is, again either unfortunately or fortunately, used as a proxy for a candidate's competency. The system is unfairly weighted towards the top of the educational pyramid, where Nottingham Trent falls far lower than the others mentioned (and indeed Birmingham). I am sorry if this offends you, I too wish it were different. An outstanding candidate from Nottingham Trent will find it hard to get an interview, facts. I used the word 'rarely', to indicate that it was, in fact, 'rare', and that I'd never heard of it happening.
2) I have no idea how or why universities' perceived prestige gets higher or lower. Law is like any other profitable industry - it prefers to target the better universities. Because they're better. And therefore they take less of a hiring risk. Simple, really.
3) On sample size and credibility - 1% of trainees this year in the top 130 UK firms came from Nottingham Trent. I nor anyone I have asked since this question was asked has ever heard of a Nottingham Trent grad getting a MC training contract. Why you are continuing to suggest that it is helpful to go to Nottingham Trent over Birmingham speaks volumes. Love and regards as always.