[NovemberWhiskey]

>The US extradition which was categorically denied for years? Ah, I see.

Should we assume from the sudden change in topic that you now agree that the trial for an offense under the UK's Bail Act was, in fact, fair (or at the very least that there doesn't seem to be any evidence to the contrary)?

FYI UNGWAD is not a judicial body; its opinions (not decisions) have no binding force whatsoever.

[nicehat]

Why on earth would I assume that one trial was fair, when the other was extraordinarily suspect?

Why would I assume it's fair when he's already been tortured for years by solitary confinement, and often refused access to counsel? Not to mention, had spurious cases taken against him; and multiple, provably false, coordinated and widespread media smears in the UK and US?

FYI, I never claimed anything about binding force - but if the UN's top torture opinion guy says Assange is being tortured, and his dad says he's being tortured, and he looks like a man slowly dying every time he's allowed out to speak, which is basically never - I'm more than a little suspicious.

[foldr]

It was a public trial, so you don't have to "assume" anything about how fair it was. In any case, it would be absurd to suggest that he wasn't guilty of skipping bail, so it's difficult to see how there could have been anything significantly unfair about the trial.