I think I posted a few pages back (or maybe it was in a private discussion with someone?) it appears that the law is on the books for use by politicians to prevent journalists reporting on them. Most of the very few times it's used are suspended sentences or fines, i.e. it's to get people to back off from their reporting. There's apparently a campaign to get it struck off for that reason, but that relies on ... the politicians who might use it.
Now back in the real world, I see there is a WAG libel case going on in the UK right now. One case is going to cost someone $2m. The only way a lawyer is going to take that on is if:
1. They know you are good for that kind of money if you lose
2. They think you have a clear-cut case and the other person has that kind of money if you win
3. They are a clueless schmuck who doesn't know what they are doing and you and them both lose
4. They think you are a clueless schmuck and want to take whatever money you are willing to spend
That's one case. You don't get to do libel as a two-fer, let alone a seven-fer. Each. Case.
The idea that Lloyd is going to launch SEVEN expensive, multi-national cases is just so far past the point of stupid I wonder if even his dumbest patreons are still fooled by his pantomime performance. And yes, at this point, anyone still giving him money has to be friggin' dumb. My favourite question to ask JWs about the WTS also applies to patreons and Lloyd:
What exactly would they need to do for you to NOT support them anymore? If nothing, if you'd support them no matter what they do, then you are just brainwashed.