The UK did look at the evidence to the level of scrutiny as agreed in the extradition treaty and decided he should be extradited. This isn't some hypothetical, Assange got a fair hearing at every court in the land up to the supreme court, and the judges came to the conclusion that he should be extradited. This isn't some hypothetical, it is a matter of law that his extradition is legal.
And just to put a real fine point on this: The UK judges all the way up to the Supreme court did look at the evidence, and decided against him. Which I would say is a much more reasonable approach than your argument that he shouldn't be extradited based on not having looked at the evidence for a while. It's not even like it's incomprehensible, they published their judgements at every single stage. Here, it's page 27 of this document: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-As...
"Assange got a fair hearing at every court in the land up to the supreme court"
This is debatable, especically for anyone who followed Murray's reporting. Here are a few random links that I had bookmarked that give a different opinion. I could possibly find more but I really do not want to spend the rest of the day on this.
I also think that you misunderstood what the parent said, I took it to mean that the court could deny it because they could hypothetically decide that it wasn’t a crime according to UK law
I think this really lays it out clearly now where you're coming from. I point to a whole series of judgements that lay out in clear legal text why and how they came to the decision to extradite Assange and you reply with essentially a claim that one of the most respected judges in the country is biased because he's friends with a government minister. Guess what? That is literally not evidence.
It's literally a case of: On the one hand we have the expert legal opinions of a series of the top judges in the country, on the other hand we have some amateur internet slueths.
And just to put a real fine point on this: The UK judges all the way up to the Supreme court did look at the evidence, and decided against him. Which I would say is a much more reasonable approach than your argument that he shouldn't be extradited based on not having looked at the evidence for a while. It's not even like it's incomprehensible, they published their judgements at every single stage. Here, it's page 27 of this document: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-As...